Congratulations Falling Tree!

[aeolium]

But the hourly cost of producing such programmes, compared with sticking a staff presenter in a studio playing CD tracks on a play-out system, doesn't bear thinking about.

But how was it that many more such programmes (I mean for the arts) used to be provided in the 1980s R3 than now? I realise that we are in a time of cutbacks, especially to R3 expenditure, but at least up to 2008 the BBC was well-off compared with the 1980s. I'm not sure it is a matter of money so much as of will, which wasn't there even in the good times.

[french frank]

But how was it that many more such programmes (I mean for the arts) used to be provided in the 1980s R3 than now? I realise that we are in a time of cutbacks, especially to R3 expenditure, but at least up to 2008 the BBC was well-off compared with the 1980s. I'm not sure it is a matter of money so much as of will, which wasn't there even in the good times.

Partly, I think it's that as the BBC expanded, money was diverted elsewhere. Now it's priorities, and a 'high cost'-low audience station doesn't make sense to an increasingly commercially-minded BBC. The money goes where it's seen as giving, by their criteria, 'the best public value'. In terms of the radio arts programming that means to Radio 4, and for music programmes to Radio 1 and Radio 2.

I think Drummond's schedules had better speech/arts programming. I must look up some examples.

[Russ]

I'm not convinced the reported theme of R4's 'refocus on arts and culture' is much more than a news-bite wrapper for a few new commissions for next year. The R4 schedule is very inflexible, and there is a danger of of overestimating what is being proposed: notwithstanding the Ulysses-thon, if you look at the BBC blog, most of it is simply an emphasis being placed on existing programmes, not radical changes. It's not as though You and Yours is being swept away in favour of a mid-day philosophical discussion programme. The R3 schedule is probably a bit more flexible, and I agree with aeolium that it is more a matter of will than money if R3 wanted to put a bigger stake in the area of arts coverage, whatever yardstick of 'the best public value' is used. (I'm still struggling with the conundrum of R3 spending an average of £120k per listener hour, which is an order of magnitude greater than any good arts speech programme will demand.) As for radio critics not being 'listeners to a particular station', well yes, that is of course true, but as a blatant cherry-picker myself, I have never felt myself to be so aligned. All I'm saying is that it's good to see R3's arts coverage, which rarely features in the mainstream press, getting a positive mention.

Russ

[aeolium]

All I'm saying is that it's good to see R3's arts coverage, which rarely features in the mainstream press, getting a positive mention.

I agree, for the productions that deserve it. The problem is that the occasional plaudit from journalists who, as ff suggests, are no more than infrequent listeners to the station, provides a reassuring pat on the back which R3's patchy and limited arts coverage really doesn't deserve. It needs someone with a serious interest in radio arts broadcasting to bang the drum for better and more extensive coverage.

[french frank]

(I'm still struggling with the conundrum of R3 spending an average of £120k per listener hour, which is an order of magnitude greater than any good arts speech programme will demand.)

That comes back once again to the size of the audience.

An hour of excellent broadcasting will cost the same to produce, whether one person is listening to it (one listener hour) or 1 million (one million listener hours).

[Russ]

Hmmm: I'm tempted to change Voltaire's famous phrase into "The best is the friend of the good" in this exchange. If R3 sees the best of its arts coverage get a positive mainstream press mention, what is the more likely scenario:

- merely lie back and bask in the adulation of a particular programme, and not try to improve the profile or extent of the rest?;

- acknowledge the recognition of an area that needs extending/improving or a higher profile?

It needs someone with a serious interest in radio arts broadcasting to bang the drum for better and more extensive coverage.

So who 'yer gonna call, ghostbusters?

Russ

[aeolium]

If R3 sees the best of its arts coverage get a positive mainstream press mention, what is the more likely scenario:

- merely lie back and bask in the adulation of a particular programme, and not try to improve the profile or extent of the rest?;

- acknowledge the recognition of an area that needs extending/improving or a higher profile?

Actually, I don't think the answer to that question is as obvious as you think it is

The point is, that such journalists are just as likely to praise the rotten parts of R3's output, like the composerthons. As Mahoney said, in the article you quoted, "inevitably, Radio 3 garners most plaudits for its music. But other strands on the network are just as strong...Night Waves is always good and often excellent...The Sunday Feature is another reliably fascinating slot." That sounds like pretty blanket praise to me, not just singling out the Falling Tree production. Isn't an R3 executive, reading an article like that, more likely to think complacently that everything is rosy in the garden (not generally the response of many posters on these boards)?