The thing about Radio 3’s listening figures is that they are usually win-win as far as the BBC is concerned. If they’re up, it’s thanks to the work done by gifted BBC staff – particularly the managers who wisely guide the strategy of the station.

If the figures are down it demonstrates that the BBC is serious about culture and with its adventurous, distinctive programming clearly isn’t chasing ratings.

Either way, the critics are skewered.

So, what were we expecting of today’s figures? This was Proms quarter and the season had been an outstanding success. Over the past year listening has been very buoyant, a total recovery after the worrying collapse in listening of a few years back. Furthermore, the controversial Breakfast programme, introduced in February 2007, had been coming good with record figures in recent quarters.

Based on these facts, there was the possibility that Radio 3’s reach might have nudged up to an all-time record, listening hours high as the Proms fans tuned in night after night and Breakfast continuing its triumphant rise and rise.

But it was no, no and no. Reach has suddenly dropped from very good to average, listening hours from very good/good to below average, breakfast listening from excellent to below average. At least the indicators all seem to be indicating the same thing and all will have been a disappointment to the managers.

It will be the next two quarters, however, that will begin to show what effect the September schedule changes are having. From Radio 3’s point of view they must go up, and go up significantly on today’s figures. If they stay the same it will mean that they have alienated as many existing listeners as they’ve attracted new ones. In that case, the question would be asked: what has been gained - and lost? If they go down it will be very bad news for the popularisers at Radio 3.

Facts and figures, weekly averages compared:

Q3, 2011: Reach 2.052m, listening hours 11.951m, Breakfast reach 749,000

Q2, 2011: Reach 2.174m, listening hours 13.362m, Breakfast reach 897,000

Q1, 2011: Reach 2.258m, listening hours 13.791m, Breakfast reach 903,000

Q4, 2010: Reach 2.216m, listening hours 12.206m, Breakfast reach 818,000

Q3, 2010: Reach 2.145m, listening hours 12.776m, Breakfast reach 819,000

The eagerly announced Feedback programme with controller Roger Wright has now been broadcast, prompting one vital question: was it the work of an unkind editor, excising the razor-sharp responses that demolished the opposition and leaving to the mercy of the air waves a limp succession of non-sequiturs, hesitancy and querulous objections? We shall never know, but this was judged not a confident performance.

It may be that all BBC senior managers think Feedback is a bit of a joke, but for a one of them to blurt out that the programme’s job is seen as trying to make something out of nothing in terms of listener complaints would seem to be one cat that the BBC would have preferred not to have let out of the bag. Who needs to take such non-issues seriously? they seem to be saying.

Once again, we are told, the words of appreciation have come flooding in to Radio 3 and the dissidents are so few as to be near invisible.

Only – that’s not how it seems in the world beyond Radio 3: the situation is completely reversed, whether it’s the comments in The Guardian , The Telegraph here and here and here, or the Radio 3 blog.

In these and other places the overwhelming view is of dissatisfaction. These are public sites: where are all the glowing praises, all the supporters voicing their indignation at the injustice of the criticisms?

And did Mr Wright answer the questions put to him?

Q. … there’s a relatively small number of people in this country who like serious music why alienate a lot of existing perhaps rather conservative listeners, why not just make them happy and be happy with that relatively small number?

RW. We’ve never said that the number listening to Radio 3 is a small number.

Q. But what you said in terms of the Proms is what the figures demonstrate is that your strategy has been successful, you’ve never had as many people listening, the attendance figures are up higher than ever. So obviously that strategy is justified. If you apply the same however criteria to looking at the figures for Radio 3 there isn’t that increase. So on the one hand you’re justifying what you’re doing by an increase in audience and on the other you’re justifying what you’re doing even though there hasn’t been an increase in audience.

RW. How many emails have you received?

Q. “All my life I’ve worked while listening to Radio 3. The music was new, it stretched me, I learned things, the talk was knowledgeable. Now I find myself switching off in despair.” She may be wrong but she has that impression is genuinely held and it’s reflected in a number of the emails we’ve got. Why, why have they got that impression if you say there is no evidence to support it?

RW. “What a perfect line-up of presenters for the morning sessions. The alarm goes off at 6.30, we’re greeted by Petroc Trelawny’s wonderful vocal tones. Bliss! Not only that but his brilliant choice of music has made getting up in the morning so much more pleasurable.”

Q. On interactivity: "Where did the demand come from?” “Do you not understand that you’re alienating what used to be Radio 3’s core audience? ‘Kevin has texted to say how much he enjoyed the last piece...’” Why is that important? What does it add?

RW. Well, you know, I hear all of those comments, but it’s also, of course, true to say, that the listeners themselves are wanting to have some level of interactivity although obviously we’ve got to select quite carefully.

Q. Some people do think that there is much more news on Radio 3 … So any plans to reduce the amount of news?

RW. Well, we have actually, and all we’ve done is exactly what we have been doing which is to give a 15-second look at the news either from the papers or a quick news headline. We share a lot of our listeners with Radio 4. What’s very important is just to give them when they come to Radio 3, to give them a sense if there something they would actually want to develop further on Radio 4 on 5Live on a BBC local radio service, then they can go elsewhere and get that news.

Now here we have an answer:

RW. … there’s a balance to be struck which the Trust recognised which is about the station doing what it can to appeal to new and lighter listeners and at the same time maintaining its distinctive, some would say unique, output.

To which the Question is: so much for appealing to the ‘new and lighter’ listeners – how about engaging with longer-standing, more serious listeners who are clearly unhappy instead of pretending they don’t exist?

… came the deluge of letters to the Times and Sunday Times, a couple of articles in the Telegraph and a taster on Radio 4's Feedback programme for a future edition in which listeners will call the station controller to account for his changes to Radio 3. Coming soon.

There is a sense that the most recent Radio 3 innovations - or 'refreshing' of the schedules - are finally proving too much for long-suffering listeners. What advantages there may be in attracting a larger number of listeners and getting them all to listen for longer is an issue on its own, a complex balancing act which needs skill and intelligence to achieve in an appropriate way.

The main issue now is that the crass, transparent attempts to achieve these goals impinge upon everything that Radio 3 does. A trail of hype, cajoling, trivialisation and cult of celebrity continues through the daytime schedule: Follow me, don't switch off. The message is unmissable and cheapens the underlying content.

With stubborn determination every gimmick familiar to popular radio is pursued so that listeners new to the station will feel 'welcome'. It's been said privately: keep the presentation light, 'without in-depth musicological or complicated biographical detail', the ambitious aim 'to hold on to as much of the breakfast audience as possible whilst drawing in new listeners from the post-Today Radio 4 switch over'. The BBC quotes are exact.

It's not that Radio 3 isn't informative, but that isn't the same as educational. Whoever would have thought that musical debate on Radio 3 would sink to the discussion of what emotions and memories a particular work evokes in a celebrity TV gardener or chef? To find that information interesting you have to be interested in the celebrity (or unknown listener in the case of the morning phone-in). Where are the programmes for people who are interested in the music?

The Controller of Radio 3 will be appearing on Radio 4's Feedback in a few weeks' time. Let him know now what you think.

Finally, after hints and threats, with one bound Radio 3 leaps into 1973 with a brand new phone-in 'feature', announced yesterday on 'The Breakfast Show'.

"Now, coming up at the end of the Proms on Breakfast we’ve got a new feature. It’s called Your Call and I wanted just to tell you a little bit about it now.

"It’s basically your chance to talk about a particular piece of music that means a great deal to you and to let us know why. It could evoke strong memories of childhood or be associated with particular people who were close to you, or maybe you associate this piece with a particular time in your life, like a holiday.

"Well, whatever the piece is and whatever it means to you, whether it’s good or bad, we want to know about it. And you’ll also have your chance in Your Call to appear on the phone on The Breakfast Show and also hear your piece played.

"So, if you want to tell us about a piece of music, then email us &c.&c.&c. Very much looking forward to hearing from you."

So, what happened in 1973, you ask? The Radio 3 Controller, Stephen Hearst, decided to introduce a phone-in. The verdict behind the scenes at Radio 3: 'The programme concentrated on packaging at the expense of the product [music]'. It was 'too trivial'. Of the listeners, ‘most correspondents complained of trivial pieces, banal chat, boring homely patter.' One Radio 3 presenter considered that 'the callers had nothing to say - "I remember that piece so well, it was on our honeymoon and we were walking over the Downs ..." This time listeners are being positively encouraged to tell us all about their memories, their honeymoons and their walks over the Downs. (Please keep the pieces of music short or we won't have time for your memories.)

This comes hard on the heels of the news that at the same time the long-running programme of musical analysis, the intellectual jewel in Radio 3's crown, Discovering Music, is being axed. Or rather, it's not being axed, not exactly. It won't be on at the same time (in fact it won't have a fixed slot), it won't have the same format and, at 20 minutes, it will be less than half the length of the original Discovering Music. Like my grandfather's axe, the component parts have been replaced, but, says Radio 3, it will still be Discovering Music. Until it's axed, presumably.

Back to 1973: the editorial in an evening paper declared, "Once Mozart's music could speak for itself. Now apparently it needs the prop of a flabby phone-in chat. What is the BBC up to?" Sadly, we know what the BBC is up to: it's replacing its educational remit with a populist feel-good factor because that's what ‘people’ like. And if that's not the way that people with as yet little knowledge of classical music want to learn about it, then this won’t be for them.

The only glimmer of hope is that the original phone-in only lasted seven months and was then quietly buried. Not long after, Hearst was asked at a Radio 3 committee meeting what was the place of a cultural network in the intellectual life of a country. His reply was that, 'It should not just reflect that life but initiate new life.'

The Breakfast Show and Your Call are no reflection of any form of life: they are simply the latest manifestation of Radio 3's intellectual slide. Today's BBC will probably consider that a compliment.

Back in about 2000 as part of the 'New, alive and different' publicity Radio 3 hauled the late-night jazz down to the civilised realms of tea time listening.

The new Jazz Legends slipped into the 4pm slot on Fridays, and Saturdays launched The Jazz Zone - Jazz Line-Up at 4pm, Jazz Record Requests at 5pm, and Jazz File at 6pm. And Jazz on 3 was still around late for those night hawks. There wasn't actually much more jazz but the fans weren't expected to stay up half the night to hear it. It felt part of what Radio 3 did.

And it was a great success - according to the publicity: everyone was very positive and the station's jazz audience increased. Apparently.

Then, bit by bit, the plan was disassembled. The Friday Jazz Legends ended (all the jazz legends had been done, the station explained), and the new Jazz Library was its Saturday afternoon replacement, sending Jazz Line-Up to a late-night slot, although increased by 30 minutes to make up for the axing of Jazz File.

So, only four jazz programmes now instead of five. No Friday afternoon jazz. The Jazz Zone reduced to two hours, and here is the beginning of the return to late-night listening. Furthermore Jazz on 3 moved to the less listener-friendly Mondays instead of Friday's 'weekend-starts-here' slot.

Finally, we come to the latest change: Jazz Library moves to midnight in September. So The Jazz Zone is only one-hour long, and is called Jazz Record Requests. Like back in 2000 (though at that time it was followed by another 30-minute 'Jazz File'-type programme, and now it isn’t).

If there is anything that epitomises management strategy for Radio 3 over the past 12 years it's the policy on jazz. Trumpet the fact that you're doing something new and wonderful. Do it for a few years. Stop doing it altogether without explanation. A bit like the cunning plan on 'live concerts'. Drop them entirely (claiming that listeners didn't care whether concerts were live or not; or even whether they were concerts). Four years later: TA-DAH! Roll up! roll up! never been done before: live concerts five nights a week! Then there was the cunning plan to move the live Choral Evensong from Wednesdays to Sundays (with the explanation that this was a ‘prime slot’). And then move it back to Wednesdays again 18 months later. Oh, and the cunning plan to move Composer of the Week from midday back to 9am, dropping the late night repeat - remember that, August 1999? And the other cunning plan to move it back to midday and restore the midnight repeat. Oh, and the cunning plan to drop the Sunday night choral programme (with the explanation that limiting it to just choral music made the schedule a bit inflexible); and the other cunning plan two years later to introduce a new choral music programme on Sunday nights.

It makes it worse that the explanations for the original changes always turn out to be phoney. It looks very suspicious even if we have no idea what to suspect.

At least, it matters to BBC managers, so that it even seems at times that scheduling matters are more important than the content of the programmes.

It has been announced in certain quarters that the live broadcast of Choral Evensong is on the move again. Apparently, then, at 4pm on a Wednesday afternoon it gets in the way of Radio 3's drivetime show which was recently brought forward to 4.30pm to accommodate the new live evening concerts. Except on Wednesdays, when it had to wait until 5pm and the end of Choral Evensong.

Perhaps we're speculating and getting it wrong. Perhaps the Controller has been inundated with complaints from listeners saying, 'Look, if In Tune is to begin at 4.30pm, let it be at 4.30pm every day. Stop messing it up with that singing programme on Wednesdays.'

There does, though, seem to be a question about priorities if the choral foundations are going to have to start their broadcast preparations and rehearsals even earlier in the day (most seem normally to have their service of Choral Evensong at 5pm or 5.30pm) so that In Tune can begin at its new time.

Was there any consultation with the foundations? Or was this considered unnecessary since no concerns would take precedence over Radio 3's 'scheduling needs'?

In this case, we mean editorial cuts.

FoR3 is due to make its first appearance on radio tomorrow on the Radio 4 Feedback programme. The feature focuses on Radio 3's Live in Concert series, the new evening concert, broadcast from venues in the UK and abroad, and launched with great fanfare at the beginning of last month.

We are very happy to add our voice to those applauding the achievement; just about every aspect of the programmes is such an enormous improvement on the old Performance on 3:

• the excitement of live music-making, the sense of occasion
• the variety made up of orchestral concerts, chamber recitals, choral events - and perhaps other possibilities later
• the quality and interest, thus far, of the music itself

And we don't forget the 'proper' concert start time, usually of 7.30pm, which gives listeners enough time, jobs done, to settle down comfortably for the evening.

All this, five nights a week. Splendid.

But we were also encouraged to bring up our queries and concerns. So we gathered together a few points mentioned by forum members, apprehensions, suggestions. How long could Radio 3 afford to continue with five-a-week live concerts? Would they be abandoned as unexpectedly as they had been announced? Will they be able to keep up the interesting programming? We said that many radio listeners preferred the presenter to speak directly to them, rather than being up on the stage addressing the audience in the hall and chatting to performers. We now wait in trepidation to discover how much of our fulsome appreciation will be aired and how much will focus on our mean-spirited suspicions and churlish nit-picking ...

So just in case there's any doubt: we think this is the best thing Radio 3 has done in years!

We were promised changes up ahead, and a few of them - like the live evening concerts - have already become part of the regular schedule. We've now learned of a significant change for the autumn season, when the Proms finish in mid-September. The morning programme Classical Collection is to be dropped and a new 'strand' is to take its place, starting at 9am instead of 10am, and lasting three hours.

Judging from the commissioning brief it could be one of the dullest programmes currently on offer, incorporating a number of the most tiresome clichés of Radio 3 broadcasting. Too many incidentals being given precedence over the content. The guidelines are almost entirely non-musical, non-artistic and non-educational. So what ambitious plans will the programme have?

• to hang on to as many Breakfast listeners as possible
• to attract new listeners over from Radio 4 when the Today programme ends
• a presenter who is 'key' in appealing to these listeners
• a guest who will request a piece of music of personal or topical relevance
• listener interaction (is that us sending in emails and text messages?) around requests or recommendations

So far, then, it's sounding like a bit of tired old tat. What about the substance of the programme - the music? Well, it'll be CDs of 'mainstream classical' (working title appears to be Essential Classics), which sounds like a continuation of Breakfast with everyone's favourites played at regular intervals - although we are assured that the longer programme will 'allow' [sic] the playing of complete works, and some longer pieces. However, the brief specifies that the programme should be 'without in-depth musicological or complicated biographical detail'. What! Not even complicated biographical detail! Certainly not - that is best dealt with on Composer of the Week. It says.

It all reminds us of Paul Gambaccini's short-lived morning programme, back in 1995: "I had a specific mission," he said, "to invite Today listeners to stay with the BBC rather than go to Classic FM." Ah, Classic FM. Is that the Classic FM which last year also changed to a 9am start, with a high profile presenter who is key to appealing to listeners, playing Classic FM's unmistakably essential classics from the Hall of Fame? So, all Radio 3 will be missing is the Classic FM presenter, then. (A case for Classic FM of 'Lock up your stars', perhaps?)

But why not let the audience for Classic FM's music switch over and listen to it? Why not do something completely different on Radio 3, cater for a different audience, one that might know a little about classical music and cope with the odd bit of in-depth musicological or complicated biographical detail?

Broadly translated, this should mean that the Sony Radio Awards are held one night and dismissed by the next morning. In most cases, quite rightly.

This year Radio 3 had a mere two nominations, though both were recognised: a Gold for Jazz on 3 and a Silver for the Between the Ears feature 'The Haunted Moustache'. As for Radio 3's attempt to emulate its success of 2009 in winning the UK Station of the Year, the less said the better: the title was awarded, unanimously, to talkSport.

Why was a station which only managed two nominations considered for UK Station of the Year anyway? Perhaps Radio 3's gallantry citation yields a clue:

What the Judges said:

"Radio 3's entry impressed with its range and quality of programmes. The Judges noted how Radio 3 continues to evolve and has the genuine ability to surprise the audience with thought provoking and stimulating programmes. The momentum of the previous year has been maintained and improved on and shows a station with ever growing confidence."

So who were these judges? Crumbs. There seem to have been 134 of them. And they 'unanimously' voted for talkSport? There must be some Byzantine procedures here which we aren't privy to: most of these judges won't have heard of Radio 3, still less have had a clue about what it does. Still even less found it personally appealing. Is this why Radio 3 received not a single nomination for its drama output (whereas Radio 4 had a total of four nominations), in spite of a string of productions of modern and classic works from Webster, Goethe, Beaumarchais, Chekhov, Wilde, Shaw, Lorca and Friel? Where do these nominations come from? And, if it comes to that, why do the classical music programmes seldom get a look in, whereas jazz, world and sundry features keep the Radio 3 flag flying? Does the BBC pick the programmes that won't make the judges' heads ache?

Right. Now to RAJAR listening figures, published today for Quarter 1, 2011. Smashing for Radio 3, sensational. But pretty much everyone else's seem to be as well. Breaking all records. The only thing we can spot at first sight is that Breakfast hit an all time high - up by 85,000 quarter on quarter - whereas Classic FM's breakfast show lost 111,000. Could it be the weird similarity now between the two shows: the bleeding chunks, the snippets, the familiar tunes, the emails, the chat…?

But let's finish on a positive note: the evening concerts have returned to their live format at 7.30pm. Hooray! The BBC Trust appeared to disregard most of what we said in our submission to their review on Radio 3. Perhaps they felt it incumbent to respond to at least one of our requests. If so, thanks to them. If not, thanks to someone else.

Last month the BBC published its new television (or Vision, as it's now called) 'cross-platform ratings metric', dubbed "Live + 7". This combines the ratings for live television broadcasts plus their repeats, iPlayer views and recorded viewings for seven days after transmission.

Unless we have misunderstood it, the press office figures (now to be released each month) present the ratings in terms of the increase the top programmes have over their overnight live viewing figures. It sounds like good PR because all programmes will show an increase and the highest increases (mainly digital channel programmes) provide the highlights of the report. Junior Doctors (BBC Three 29.03.11) up 235% to 3.6m, Agony & Ecstasy: A Year With The National Ballet (BBC Four 22.03.11) up 172% to 1m. And so on.

Later in the year, we learn, the audience appreciation figures are also to be released. At least, that may not be quite true: what the press release actually says is that the BBC 'has confirmed plans to publish audience appreciation information later this year'. This could, of course, just mean that they will publish figures about the most popular programmes, the ones that get the highest approval scores. Again, excellent PR.

So why all the coyness about releasing listening data about radio programmes when requested?

'Coyness' is a euphemism: we mean, downright refusal, even of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. We asked for two pieces of information about Radio 3 listening figures and the reply was that to disclose this tiny portion - minuscule to the point of near invisibility - from the vast sea of data published quarterly by RAJAR could threaten the commercial survival of RAJAR. For two years we battled through the Information Commissioner's Office who finally persuaded the BBC to give us the information informally, outside the Freedom of Information Act (thus setting no precedent). But without telling us (or, apparently, the ICO) the BBC 'changed their mind'. They discovered 'editorial concerns', even about information that by now was three to four years out of date.

Three years later we have 'no need to know', other than out of curiosity, since both the editorial decisions which we were querying have been reversed. The live broadcast of Choral Evensong which was moved from a Wednesday afternoon to a Sunday was moved back to Wednesday after 18 months. And in just under a week's time the evening concert will return to 7.30pm, and the recorded chunks with their dull studio-based presentation will be replaced by real live broadcasts. We had wondered whether these two bad decisions had lost listeners for the programmes. The answer, presumably, was Yes.

For some reason Radio 3 has gone overboard for comedy. A Christmas quiz show with five comedians - with a laugh track, a Radio 3 presenter trying his hand at being a stand-up comic - with a laugh track, a Total Immersion day devoted to Comic Relief (well, it was a relief when it ended, ho-ho-ho!) and, coming up now on Breakfast, a brand new feature as from next week, 'well-known personalities from the world of… comedy' appear as guests to select their musical choices. There's a fair dollop of posh, Oxbridge educated people, though, and hopefully it won't be too funny. First up, Rory Bremner (who lists opera among his recreations). Alexander Armstrong is a fine singer. Less promisingly, Miriam Margolyes lists 'reading, talking, eating, Italy', and John Sessions 'dinner parties'. But what's the point?

Well, it certainly makes Radio 3 distinctive from Classic FM - a comedy classical music station, for people who like comedy and classical music. 'If it's laughter you're after…' And when they run out of comedians, 'well-known personalities from the world of soap opera', 'well-known personalities from the world of pop music', 'well-known personalities from the world of sport', perhaps.

This seems to be the first sign of the all-out attempt to attract a 'wider audience', to be more accessible and welcoming. This is Radio 3 with a human face, albeit twisted into the gruesome rictus of a grin. The quid pro quo for serious music enthusiasts is the return of live evening concerts. But should Radio 3 really enter the world of 'personalities' (aka celebrities) in order to lure people in to classical music? Or is this an exercise in audience management - not just who you attract to the station but who you can persuade to go away?

Never mind the Mozartfest which undoubtedly had a bigger impact on the media world and the public at large, today's announcement from Radio 3 that, as from early May, most evening concerts will be broadcast live is a bigger story for Radio 3 listeners.

We've all been looking for the weasel words, the words that sound like one thing but turn out to mean something else. But, no: from May 3 there will be a live concert broadcast five nights a week, replacing the current studio-introduced recordings. The evening concert was once the jewel of Radio 3's schedule and, for the coming year at least, it will be again.

Perhaps we ought to just accept this piece of good news for what it is and not bother to puzzle over the timing, the unexpectedness, the motive.

But last August we said in our submission to the Trust's review:

"The evening concert: In 2007, the start time of the evening concert was brought forward to 7pm from 7.30pm (or later). This is too early for many radio listeners, who are either not home from work or involved with their evening meal, and too early for the concert-goers themselves. Live concert broadcasts are now mainly limited to those by the BBC orchestras where Radio 3 can dictate the start time. There is evidence that the concerts themselves have been less well attended. This is certainly so in the case of the BBC Philharmonic concerts in Manchester, where the orchestra management has publicly confirmed that concert-goers prefer the later start.

Ten years ago it was acknowledged that Radio 3’s evening concert (live or recorded) was the most popular programme of the evening. It distinguished the pattern of daily listening on Radio 3 compared with other stations where listening drops off as people turn to television for their evening entertainment. It also had one of the largest audiences of the whole day. The negative effect on listeners of the changes to the evening concert (both the earlier start time and the ending of on-site presentation) has, in our view, been seriously underestimated by management. We have tried to discover whether these changes have had an effect on listening figures but the BBC steadfastly refuses to disclose the information.

The concert has been the most valued programme in the schedule. We urge a return to the 7.30pm (or later) start, and to on-site presentation for deferred transmission concerts."

We repeated this point when we met the Trust shortly afterwards. We hope that the new live concerts will begin no earlier than 7.30pm, but this point is not yet clear. If it is the case we shall have obtained what we asked for, and more. And will be duly grateful.

However, can we make one more plea? Classic FM has an evening programme, The Full Works Concert, from 8pm to 10pm. It can't hope to compete with the massive resources which Radio 3 will put into its evening concert programme. Can Radio 3 not make this the first step in a return to what it once was: an incomparable broadcaster of classical music and the arts with highly knowledgeable presentation throughout its schedule? Give up the competition with Classic FM: allow them to cultivate the 'wider audience' which you're trying so hard to capture with your morning programmes.

We hope that the evening concerts will convince the BBC that there is a strong audience for such high quality classical music and it's the one which should be targeted with straightforward, expert presentation: no hype, no gimmicks, no trivialisation. Radio 3 - it doesn't suit you.

The BBC Trust published its review of Radio 3 four days ago. It has taken us a while to decide how to respond: sorrow? anger? insults? Briefly, it was our view that Radio 3 had been trying to attract new listeners, especially newcomers to classical music, at the expense of its special interest audiences, and to the detriment of their listening. The Trust, on the other hand, after an extended public consultation, has pronounced that there are further opportunities for Radio 3 to widen its audience and that it should do so.

We have read the ‘supporting evidence' which presumably informed the Trust's conclusions – or why solicit it? – and note:

1. That the public responses, especially from Audience Councils, include views from people ‘who do not listen to Radio 3 at all' (while no evidence is supplied that they wish to do so); and from new listeners ‘to whom classical music didn't appeal'. Unsurprisingly such listeners find the station itself ‘inaccessible' but are impressed by the level of presenters' knowledge. This evidence weights the argument in favour of the BBC's existing view.
2. A high proportion of Radio 3 respondents (40%) had negative comments but the review paid scant attention to what they were saying, and then only to dismiss it. Instead they highlighted approval scores; but a high approval score can nevertheless hide important failures in a service.
3. There are innumerable listener references to Classic FM and the fact that listeners do not want Radio 3 to follow the route of popularisation or for the station to change; there is evidence from RadioCentre, the commercial broadcasters' organisation, from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer and from Friends of Radio 3, citing examples of Radio 3's imitation of Classic FM. The Trust brusquely rejected this saying that there was ‘no compelling evidence' of loss of quality or distinctiveness. (Nelson, of course, famously could ‘see no ships' …)
4. The suggestions offered by organisations, including possible changes to the schedule and service licence, appeared to find no favour with the Trust at all.
5. The entire review repeats the term ‘(high-)quality' 119 times and ‘distinctive(ness)' 54 times. No attempt is made to assess them or relate them to the content of Radio 3. They are vague assertions, constantly recurring because they figured in the survey questions and consultation guidelines, and hovering between truth and meaninglessness.
6. The most important piece of evidence, the formal submission from BBC management, has not been published and the Trust says there are ‘no plans' to do so. A suspicion that the Trust has simply rubber-stamped management's proposals while selectively highlighting the supposed approval levels must remain that … only a suspicion. FoR3 has requested a copy of the submission under the Freedom of Information Act but, going on past experience, it will be refused.

Both Radio 3 and Radio 4 have been told to pursue a strategy of ‘extending their appeal to audiences that are currently being underserved'. Underserved? They aren't being served by Radio 2 or Radio 5 live, Radio 1/1Xtra or 6 Music, or BBC local radio?

There is one grain of hope in this review (it may even derive from our submission): the Trust recognises that ‘there are limits to broadening the appeal of the station without compromising its quality and distinctiveness. So we have asked the BBC Executive to consider how Radio 3 can work alongside other BBC services and events to better deliver classical, jazz and world music to all licence fee payers.' This isn't quite as clear-cut as our submission – that there should be proper, regular coverage on mainstream broadcast services, regardless of what Radio 3 is doing.

Radio 3, and to some extent Radio 4, suffer from the fact that the BBC has long been run by business-oriented philistines. This is now aggravated by the statistical probability that their younger back-up staff will listen to 6 Music and Radio 5 live. But there are people more closely connected with programming who ought to know better. For some reason they don't seem willing to make a stand when it comes to treating culture and the arts seriously.

Isn't it time someone at the BBC realised that some things aren't supposed to be ‘accessible', that we all have to work at them – and that this enhances their value to us?

The RAJAR listening figures released today showed that Radio 3 had maintained its reach, even improving on last quarter's very good figures - the Proms quarter. This was the third highest reach, at 2.216 million, since comparable records began in 1999.

The Breakfast programme also maintained its reach, only negligibly short of the previous quarter's all time high. However, this would indicate that it did not profit from the station's quarter on quarter increase in the most recent figures: i.e. it did not show a similar increase, so reach increased in some parts of the schedule but not at breakfast time. The programme still has some way to go before it achieves the highest reach attained by its predecessor, Morning on 3, axed in 2007.

The more problematic figure remains the listening hours, where the average weekly hours per listener is about as low as it's ever been at 5.5 hours. There is a tendency for a higher reach to depress the average listening hours, but compared with similar figures for reach, this quarter's figures are certainly low:

Dec 2003:
Population 48,384,000 Reach 2.192m
Average hours per listener 6.7 Total listening hours 14,635,000 Share 1.40%

Mar 2004:
Population 48,384,000 Reach 2.290m
Average hours per listener 5.9 Total listening hours 13,502,000 Share 1.20%

Dec 2010:
Population 51,618,000 Reach 2.216m
Average hours per listener 5.5 Total listening hours 12,206,000 Share 1.20%

Given that one of the key aims of management over some ten years has been to increase the amount of time listeners 'spend with the station', this aspect must give pause for thought in spite of the good figures for reach.

The change to the Radio 3 schedules back in 2007 triggered some of the worst listening figures ever. There have been no further significant changes so the reason why the figures have begun to improve is rather obscure. However, it can't be doubted that the BBC learned a lesson over its proposal to shut down 6 Music. The explosion of publicity brought about an almost 60% increase in the station's ratings virtually overnight, an increase which has now been maintained for four quarters. From the audience's point of view, Radio 3 now seems to lurch from one publicity promotion to the next, 'getting the station talked about'. Has this attracted the casual listener who tunes in for half an hour in the morning and evening?

And in all this euphoria, let's not lose sight of the fact that there has been no perceptible increase overall in Radio 3's reach: it has simply recovered from its slump.

We understand today that the BBC Trust is aiming to publish its review of Radio 3 around the beginning or middle of February.

The same review covers Radio 3, Radio 4 and Radio 7 and there were over 18,000 responses to the public consultation – a great deal to be considered.

It’s clear that there has been a significant quantity of response from Radio 3 listeners and others – such as RadioCentre and Classic FM – which has been gently pressing the view that Radio 3 has been going downmarket and populist. In some cases, we understand, the responses have been not quite so gentle.

How will the Trust respond? What is certain is that there will be strenuous arguments from BBC radio management, reproducing all the compliments and omitting the harsher criticism. Any suggestion that Radio 3 is moving towards the style and content of Classic FM will be rejected indignantly, with examples – look at the Mozartfest: would Classic FM do anything like that? And yet, only last week The Independent produced a thoughtfully damning article by Nicholas de Jongh, Radio 3 - Low-brow, lightweight and losing its way? Is it really as bad as that? Well, the only answer must be: yes, sometimes it is. Is it enough regularly to produce some high quality programmes, when others sink so abysmally low? What are they trying to do?

Experience suggests that BBC management usually gets what it wants. It puts forward arguments that the rest of us never see and are therefore in no position to refute. There will be evidence of ‘success’, of overwhelming approval for this, that and the other from listeners, of the crusade to bring classical music to a wider audience, to cast off the image of ‘elitism’. And the questions posed by the critics will be fobbed off.

If all concerns are ignored, it will be a sad day for those who want a quality arts station which eschews lollipops and late-night dedications programmes for the demanding, the controversial and the strange. And the least we would want is a very full explanation as to what the Trust’s – and the BBC’s – priorities are.

It's a quid pro quo: we spend a lot of time signalling the best of Radio 3 so we should be allowed to flag up the worst, and this programme was so bad we feel it would be neglect of duty to let it pass without comment.

The Right Notes in the Wrong Order was intended, one supposes, as a bit of seasonal jollity for Christmas Day. The idea was to assemble five comedians: a chairman who put questions about the eminently Radio 3 topics of culture, the arts and opera to four panellists. The joke was that none of them knew anything about any of it but offered woefully unfunny answers. Every time they opened their mouths a studio audience (real or imaginary) burst into loud laughter in anticipation of a witty reply. Even after several rounds it hadn't dawned on them that there wouldn't be any witty replies, but they laughed anyway to oblige.

Who were these comedians? The listeners at home didn't seem to have heard of them. And where on earth did they dredge up the mirthful audience? BBC One's staff Christmas party?

We offer one explanation: Radio 2 commissioned the programme and decided it was so boring and unfunny they couldn't use it. Radio 3 snapped it up because it was free. Another Ross-Brand debacle where no one bothered to listen beforehand? It couldn't have been intentional, could it? Could it?

The programme's title was a clear reference to the legendary Morecambe and Wise show with Mr Preview. The first attempt at accessing the ‘show' on Listen Again urged this listener to try again later as ‘This content doesn't seem to be working'. As Eric would have said: ‘There's no answer to that.'

Online forums are indeed strange beasts. A community of strangers are attracted together for one reason or another. The members have strange names to protect themselves from identification. They make virtual friendships and virtual enemies – the irony being that in ‘real life’ they might get on with the enemies better than with the friends. On their messageboards they can express themselves without inhibitions. And there develops a real community of interest. The forums become an important part of life.

In the case of the BBC’s Radio 3 messageboards, it wasn’t just a question of discussing the radio programmes which were on offer: it was an opportunity for informal discussion on all sorts of topics, musical and non musical, with fellow enthusiasts. Back in the real world such opportunities didn’t always present themselves.

Last week the BBC announced that it was closing down all its Radio 3 messageboards. The timing was unexpected but the axe had been feared. Unfortunately only seven days’ notice was given and the dismay of this sparky, rebellious, wise, foolish, witty, unpleasant, lovable community was palpable. Goodbye, friends, goodbye, social interaction. The reason given, of course, was money – financial cuts after a savage government spending review.

Friends of Radio 3 have been pleased to be able to give a new home to the Radio 3 community and we are pleased that the launch of the new forum has met with such instant success; all interests covered by Radio 3 are catered for – from jazz and world music through to drama and Choral Evensong, and, of course, classical music of every stripe – and it has the unofficial blessing of Radio 3.

There will be praise for Radio 3, there will be criticisms (just like on the BBC boards); aficionados and novices will meet together, a vast amount of knowledge and expertise will be exchanged. It is a pity that the BBC no longer feels able to run these messageboards, but here’s to the success of the Radio 3 Forum. And here’s to Radio 3.

RAJAR day again – but ignore everything that’s being said elsewhere and remember one thing only, which applies invariably, every quarter:

in order to understand the significance of the latest figures, wait for the following quarter’s figures to be published.

The figures published today show that Radio 3 achieved a highly respectable average weekly reach of 2.145 million last quarter. The BBC Press Office emphasised that “BBC Radio 3 attracted nearly 300,000 additional listeners ...” They rightly mentioned that this had been during the very successful Proms season but did not point out that the amount of the increase was mainly accounted for by the abysmal figures the quarter before. What goes quietly down one quarter has a habit of rising triumphantly the next (and vice versa). We look to next quarter to see whether the improvement will be maintained.

This is a bit of a repeat of last year’s performance: in 2009, the Proms boosted weekly reach to 2.192 million. The only reason the rise was not so dramatic last year (171,000) was that the pre-Proms quarter was not so bad as this year.

So, Radio 3 was in spitting distance of last year’s Proms figure, but a little bit short of it. Listening hours, which have been taking a bit of a tumble recently, improved along with reach, but fell short by a rather larger margin on last year.

One other similarity this year compared with last was the resuscitation of the ‘Step into Our World’ marketing campaign on television over the summer, marked by the arrival on the messageboards of newcomers enquiring what music was being played. How big a part does publicity play? Well, it depends. Look at the example of 6 Music. A huge campaign to save a station which most people didn’t know existed. Result? The next quarter reach rose from the weekly average of just under 700,000 to over a million. They came, they listened – and they liked, presumably, since reach has now been maintained at over a million for the third quarter in a row. That was without making any changes to the 6 Music schedules.

Now look at the Radio 3 ‘Sound Spot’ campaign: it was all over television and radio last year, leading up to the Proms. Reach shot up. But when the circus left town, so did the listeners, with a ‘loss’ of more than 300,000. (You may be reading that here first.) Reach down by 317,000 compared with, this quarter, reach up by 287,000. How do their minds work on this? ‘They came, they listened – they went away again. What do we have to do to keep them listening?’

How about sifting through the Classic FM playlists? Pinching some of their ideas, like listener polls, charts, A-Zs of. Keeping the tracks short. Oh, you have been? Well, perhaps the new arrivals were too sophisticated to be taken in by that?

Oh, but you haven’t been doing that? Well, in response to the BBC Trust’s consultation on Radio 3, three organisations (RadioCentre, Voice of the Listener and Viewer and Friends of Radio 3) rather felt that you had.

It lasts about four minutes - the average length of a pop song - but how many of us could stand up and conduct it from memory? The title of the video clip is, correctly, 'Jonathan conducting to the 4th movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony' (any thoughts on the real conductor?).

Jonathan, aged 3, is obviously a very musical child, but how much of that is to do with his early training and introduction to music through the Suzuki method? He has a good musical memory - knows exactly where the work is going and what will come next. But most glorious is his total involvement with the music and obvious enjoyment of the loud and the soft, the wild and the gentle, and the strongly marked rhythms.

We have Suzuki schools in this country, but very few have the opportunity to learn music this way, and they are likely to be the children of middle-class parents who themselves appreciate classical music. But if Suzuki tends to mean privilege, El Sistema means the opposite. The Venezuelans of the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra and its younger version, the Teresa Carreño Youth Orchestra (heard on Radio 3 this month), have the same exuberant enjoyment of their music as little Jonathan.

Experiments like In Harmony are taking place in the UK and the results are, cautiously, very promising. Possibly miraculously so. Behind these experiments is the wish to do something to enhance these young lives and, ironically, in coming from deprived areas they are the lucky ones.

Encouragingly, there appears to be wide acceptance in these circles that introducing children to classical music through a symphony orchestra is especially good. With the spending cuts and the end in sight for the initial 3-year In Harmony project, will the social and educational benefits be enough to guarantee the continuance of the schemes in Liverpool, Norwich and Lambeth, and, better still, to extend the project to other areas?

What has this to do with Radio 3? These children will be the audiences of the future that aren't immediately put off by the sound of an orchestra or a string quartet. And how much better a way to educate a new audience than 'charts', chat and uninformed enthusiasm which Radio 3 feels is appropriate to initiate newcomers.

[Today's article by Tom Service makes the same point about the importance of music in schools: "Of course, promoters need to be alive to fresh ways of presenting events and attracting new audiences, but it isn't going to be the odd experiment with informality that changes classical music culture – it'll be education..". I wonder if he also agrees that Radio 3's efforts at informality are similarly not the answer?]

The first part of Radio 2's new 10-part series, Jazz Junctions, has been getting praise from Radio 3's jazz fans. A series such as this has obviously been quite a while in the making, but it gives us some satisfaction that BBC thinking was apparently on the same lines as ours.

In our response to the Director-General's strategy review proposals earlier in the year we said:

[W]e believe that Radio 2 should provide jazz programmes which complement Radio 3’s serious and avant garde jazz offering. We feel the high quality of R3’s specialist provision may otherwise be jeopardised if Radio 3 seeks to cater for the audience which Radio 2 is failing.

In our response more recently to the Radio 3 service licence review, we said in the résumé:

Jazz listeners are underserved by BBC radio in general: wider coverage on the network stations would allow Radio 3 to concentrate on its specialist jazz programming.

And in the main response, where we were asked how well Radio 3 served its various audiences, we said:

Jazz enthusiasts look to Radio 3 to provide the best quality programming on BBC radio (especially since the loss of Humphrey Lyttelton’s Best of Jazz on Radio 2). In the earlier years of the decade an effort was made to promote jazz. Two hours of jazz were removed from the late night schedules and new programmes introduced to the daytime instead. In 2007 the general policy of raising the profile of non-classical music was abandoned and most of the new jazz programming returned to late night slots. Jazz was moved from the more favoured Friday night (start of the weekend) to a Monday night. One valued programme – Jazz File – was discontinued, this assumed to be the result of budget cuts. The 30 minutes of Jazz File was tacked on to an existing programme so that broadcasting hours were roughly the same, but variety and depth of coverage were lost. Jazz also suffers when there are schedule clashes with opera or special events and this causes regular complaints.

We consider that BBC radio as a whole underserves jazz listeners and there have also been complaints of some superficiality in the Radio 3 coverage. Both situations could be improved if a reliably good service for general listening was provided on Radio 2. This would compensate the Radio 3 jazz listeners who suffer from the vagaries of the Radio 3 schedules. It would also allow Radio 3 to focus on specialist jazz programming.

It should be clear from what we said that urging the BBC to improve its jazz coverage on, particularly, Radio 2 is not an attempt to get jazz cut on Radio 3. Our view on this has been unchanged from the start: jazz is an essential part of what Radio 3 does and we do not want to see it cut. But a jazz programme will get a much smaller audience on Radio 3 than on Radio 2, so Radio 3 can safely concentrate on high quality specialist programmes. There are ways in which Radio 3 jazz enthusiasts get a raw deal, for instance in the way that the schedules will favour classical music on certain occasions, such as an early start for the Saturday night opera. We consider this unavoidable, part of being on Radio 3.

So, to scheduling. RadioCentre, the organisation representing the commercial radio industry, felt that the jazz programming was a distinctive aspect (i.e. compared with Classic FM) of Radio 3's output and should feature during the 'peak periods' , meaning the daytime. They say in their response, "Although Radio 3 points extensively to its non-classical music broadcasting when discussing its output, it is worth noting that all of its jazz, speech and world music output is programmed at off-peak times of the schedule. These are periods where Radio 3 only attracts relatively small audiences [...] We believe that this is another example of the 'ratings by day, reputation by night' strategy, as practised by other BBC radio stations - most obviously Radio 1 and Radio 2." RadioCentre, of course, has a vested interest: when Radio 3 is not broadcasting classical music, hopefully its listeners will switch over to Classic FM and with a bit of luck will stay there.

One mention of jazz in the response from Voice of the Listener and Viewer: "We note that each genre is relegated to a specific slot so the listener will not chance upon and hear the unexpected genre. The two weekday drive time programmes and especially Late Junction often achieve an interesting mix." It also points out, however, that there is more jazz and world music than new music broadcast at 'popular times' (e.g. Saturday afternoons). True ...

It should be pointed out, however, that many listeners do not want to 'chance upon the unexpected' (Wagner opera at 5pm on a Saturday night?): they switch on to hear a chosen style of music and resent it when that is not what is served up. But regular slots in the daytime schedule for genres other than classical music are rather different and are not unprecedented. A quid pro quo of a couple of daytime slots for jazz, world or speech might be some late night chamber music for a change. A subject which, though controversial with some listeners, might be worth revisiting.

The BBC Trust’s public consultation on Radio 3, Radio 4 and Radio 7 closed at the end of August with more than 18,000 responses having been received. Given the relative audience sizes, Radio 4 probably attracted most attention and it is unlikely that any submissions - other than the one from Friends of Radio 3 - lingered very long over Radio 3.

However, two influential organisations expressed similar views on certain points. Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV), the consumer group, was broadly approving of what Radio 3 does but, in addition to a general plea for fewer trails, had this to say about presentation and presenters:

Our members have mixed views on the linked subjective areas of presentation style and presenters. Some welcome the informal approach, especially during the drive time programmes, in the hope it will attract a larger and younger audience. Others see no place on Radio 3 for invitations to send in text messages on often trivial subjects or votes for favourite arias [...]

If the RAJAR figures show that the change in style has resulted in an increase in listeners then the changes might be justified otherwise the more populist approach should be reconsidered. We consider that Radio 3 needs to be highly distinctive in comparison with Classic FM. At present the morning drive time is often indistinguishable from the commercial station. The BBC should originate not copy.

On this we would comment that there is no evidence that the change in style has resulted in an increase in listeners.

The second organisation is RadioCentre, the industry group which represents the commercial radio stations, including Classic FM. They had this to say:

[W]e are concerned that elements of the Radio 3 schedule point towards an increasing popularisation of the service. Programming elements, such as the A-Z of Opera, a classical music chart and the Nation’s Favourite Aria, borrow significantly from the commercial sector (the Classic FM Chart has been running since 1992; the Classic FM Hall of Fame listener poll since 1996 and the A to Z of Classic FM Music since 2008) […]

We are concerned that this marks a dilution of Radio 3’s core public service output. Perhaps more worryingly, this seems to be driven by an attempt to increase audience.

RadioCentre seems more concerned than VLV about the apparent aim to increase audience; but, then, it is Classic FM’s audience which is the most obvious target.

FoR3’s submission replied to a specific set of questions aimed at organisations and looked in much more detail at the schedule (we will post our full submission on the website soon). At a recent meeting with the Trust we were able put our views personally. Our response contained both approval and criticism: we hope that management will not bask in the praise that has come from several quarters and ignore the concerns. It will now be up to the Trust to decide where next for Radio 3.

A thought triggered by a random dip into a Radio 3 programme (not actually, on this occasion, Breakfast).

An email was being read out by the presenter. Someone unknown was divulging a piece of personal information of - surely? - nil interest to 99% of the audience, though it did evoke the incredulous fascination of one half of a mobile conversation on a bus. The presenter had a fair shot at trying to make it sound interesting.

FoR3 carried out a survey in 2008. We tried to frame neutral questions on 'interactivity'.

'Do you enjoy this element?' No, 80%. Yes, 2%. No opinion 18%.

'Would you like more or less?' Less, 82% (38% specified 'None at all'). Depends how it's used, 2%. It's fine as it is, 3%. Neutral, no opinion, 12%.

Let's be honest: it's tedious to have to listen to people confiding, without elaboration, what they like or don't like or used to like and now don't or didn't like but now do, before being allowed to listen to the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth. This is frankly sub-Classic FM - it's local radio standard. (The foregoing, of course, at the risk of being dismissed as 'fatuous snobbery' ...)

HL Mencken wrote: "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." Radio 3 has been going down and down trying to attract the lowest common denominator and raise its ratings, and the more it fails the lower it goes. Please stop.

The Romans had SPQR - Senatus populusque romanus. The BBC has RQIV - Reach, Quality, Impact, Value for money.

Impact is ... perhaps ... 'how much people notice, remember and talk about it'. According to the BBC Annual Reports, Impact includes such tangibles as Sony radio awards (are they tangible, or do you just get the tangibility of a pat on the back and a nice dinner?). In May every year, the Radio Academy announces the winners of the enviable Golds, personalities, programmes and, topping them off, the UK Station of the Year award. Now that's Impact.

Last year, in May, according to our prediction though to the apparent surprise and disappointment of the media, Radio 3 won its first ever UK Station of the Year. It must surely have been the only major network station to have been going since before the awards began 28 years ago not to have won the title.

The BBC online news gave its usual coverage of the awards, its headline trumpeting, not Radio 3 scoops Station of the Year, but Evans in double radio awards win. Scroll down to the bottom of the story and the final sentence reads: 'For the first time, BBC Radio 3 was named the UK Station of the Year, winning over BBC Radio 1 and Classic FM.' Well, at least they bothered to mention it, even if there was no picture of Station of the Year presenter, Stephen Johnson, winner of a gold award for his feature on Vaughan Williams.

Yet Radio 3's defeated rival of 2009, Classic FM, made the impact in 2007: Classic FM tops Sony Radio Awards, with bold intro starting the story with the top news and a picture of Classic FM's Katie Derham. Chris Evans' double win that year wasn't mentioned until paragraph three.

True, in 2008, Radio 4's win didn't make the headline, where the honours went to Ross and Brand (photos of Ross, with Joan Collins, and Brand), but it did make the bold intro.

In 2010, Radio 5 live's win was eclipsed by 6 Music (photo of Jarvis Cocker) and the Asian Network, the subjects of recent big news stories, as Ross and Brand had been in 2008. But Radio 5 live did get its mention up-story in paragraph six.

We rest our case: the Sony Radio Awards love the high profile personalities. The whole thing is about publicity which boosts the radio industry. The winners are a combination of who's making the news, Buggins' turn and Who Hasn’t Been Given a Prize Yet?

But publicity isn't quite everything: there is also ... RQIV. Impact is one of the key measures of a station's performance. In the newly published BBC Annual Report 2010/20100, Radio 5 live gets its due credit (p2-16): Impact: BBC Radio won 54 Sony Radio Academy Awards including the UK Station of the Year for BBC Radio 5 live.

So, a quick flip back to the previous year, 2008/2009, Part 2 p 047 to see what the BBC said about Radio 3. What's this? Impact: Simon Mayo was the Broadcasting Press guild award’s Radio Broadcaster of the year, while Sony’s UK Station of the Year went to Radio 4. Uh, is that a typo, or did they intend the 2008 winner, rather than the 2009?

There you are, then, winning the top award didn't even make any impact on the BBC, still less the rest of the publicity-hungry media. And, to be honest, it probably made little impact on the Radio 3 audience, other than irritation at constant reminders of BBC Radio 3, UK Station of the Year, on air and on everything else.

Prescience, coincidence - or marketing?

Commentators expressed surprise that Radio 3 listeners, ever a law unto themselves, declined to back World Cup favourite 'Nessun dorma' in the great poll for the Nation's Favourite Aria. Not for them the mundane but, apparently as part of the patriotic campaign to boost the morale of our boys in South Africa they snubbed the Italian masters and the Germans to give England a resounding win. An outside chance, the Englishman Henry Purcell, sole representative of his country to make it to the final, came from nowhere to win the accolade with the little known aria 'When I am laid in earth'. Yes, Dido's Lament stormed through to beat Mozart's effort 'Dove sono' and Wagner, in third place with 'Liebestod' from Tristan und Isolde.

Curiously - and perhaps this explains the surprise - no one seems to have noticed that 'When I am laid in earth' was also the aria chosen to feature in the Sony award-winning year-long promo campaign for Radio 3's Four Composers of the Year. 'Step into our world' played across Radio 2 and Radio 4 (as well as on television). When life at work was getting too much there was ... escape: the rich floaty voice of Janet Baker was there to soothe. Wrenched from its tragic context the words must have seemed very restful to our stressed-out businessman - 'No trou-ouble, no trou-ouble i-in my breast ...'. But, no, stay your hand, your wife and children need you!

But back to marketing: how many times did 'When I am laid in earth' get played on Radio 2 and Radio 4, along with the message to come and visit Radio 3 for the Purcell programmes? And then there was the publicity, pointing new listeners over to the Radio 3 website, to vote for the Nation's Favourite Aria, among which that wonderful restful suicide note 'When I am laid in earth'. Prescience, coincidence - or was the result a case of 'It pays to advertise'?

The arrival on Radio 3 of the 'Specialist' Classical Charts is training the early morning listeners to the excitement of new entries, re-entries, in at number 17, up from number 9, still topping the charts and down this week to ... Those familiar with the pop charts won't turn a hair, though others find the repetitive brain-washing tiresome to the point of distraction. John Humphrys and the Today programme can seem almost alluring by comparison.

But, never mind the packaging of the charts, what about the music? The number one disc, guaranteed a spin on In Tune, has each week been André Rieu's Forever Vienna, a feast of sugary viennoiseries which stretches a couple of points to include 'Bolero' and Shostakovich's 'Second Waltz'. As Amazon informs us, 'Customers who bought this item also bought' - five other CDs of André Rieu. And 169 reviewers gave it an average of five stars and a swift rebuke to the handful of dissenters. 'What can I say?' asked one rhetorically, 'Number 1 on Classic FM for weeks.' Rieu is a long-haired showman whose concerts play to audiences of 20,000 and who has sold more than 25 million albums; for all that, many Radio 3 listeners would have been asking, 'Rieu? Who he?'

The charts are extending the Classic FM tier of performance to contemporary composition too. This week, in at number 16 came the piano concerto (2007) by Nigel Hess (the first movement only, of course: at 24 minutes the work is too long for Breakfast these days). 'Unashamedly post-Romantic,' said the presenter affably. Well, perhaps, but also conservative and easy enough on the ear to be played on Radio 2's Melodies for You and never out of the Classic FM playlist. Easy on the ear too are the recordings of Howard Goodall's Enchanted Voices, two of which are currently in the Top 20 (one of them for 58 weeks) and therefore now incorporated into the Radio 3 repertoire. Goodall, incidentally, pipped Hess to win the Classical Brit Composer of the Year award in 2009. But Classical Charts, Classical Brits, Classic FM - is this the same musical universe inhabited by Radio 3's New Generation Artists or Hear and Now?

If André Rieu's orchestra is worthy of a weekly slot on Radio 3, listen out for Katherine Jenkins singing 'Una voce poco fa'. Is it really elitist to point out that there's nothing remotely wrong with mass audience entertainment, but it isn't what Radio 3 is supposed to do? Why can't AlanTitchmarsh have the Top 20 on Melodies for You? If the idea is to increase CDs sales, that would be a far more effective platform.

With the publication of this year's Statements of Programme Policy, 2010/2011, some matters which had seemed baffling over the years become clearer. Imagine, Radio 3's online home page now features the Classical Charts ('Highest entries this week', 'See the full Top 20'), just as Radio 1's features the Official UK Singles Charts ('See the Top 40'). In an echo of Radio 1's Big Weekend, Radio 3's Big Concert looms in a couple of weeks. As Classic FM featured its 'Aria from an Opera' poll last year, Radio 3 is now running a poll on 'The Nation's Favourite Aria'.

Breakfast is at the centre of the Charts feature and the Favourite Aria, with In Tune now featuring a run-down of the Top 10 every week.

The programme policy statement for Radio 3, year beginning April 2010, tells us that:

"Radio 3 will develop its breakfast and drivetime programmes as primary entry points for new listeners, with an engaging combination of music, topical information and audience interaction."

Well, that explains the Charts and the Favourite Aria poll, purloining ideas from popular music stations like Radio 1 and Classic FM. Spread the word about classical music - that's really great! But, hang on a moment: if the two programmes which have been attracting the biggest audiences are to be developed to cater for new listeners, what about the old listeners? What about the current listeners, average age 59 - isn't the Charts idea bit ... well ... young? What about those who have been listening to Radio 3 for twenty, thirty, forty or more years, and who have gradually picked up a useful bit of knowledge about classical music - isn't the idea of voting for a Favourite Aria a bit banal? What about the increasingly frequent practice of playing short extracts like Classic FM? Soliciting emails about this and that and then reading them out on air, like Simon Bates on Classic FM? Linking online playlist items to wiki articles is hardly providing reliable information, and new listeners are least equipped to spot the mistakes. And presenters who grab internet material, both free and copyright, for their programmes are offering a second rate service. Not that new listeners are in a position to notice.

We know - because it's on record as a response to a Parliamentary report - that back in 1999 the BBC decided to 'redefine' Radio 3's target audience. The two million listeners to the station were presumably not the right sort of listener. Eleven years later we're seeing another stage in the journey to push aside the section of the audience which the BBC appears to dismiss as 'elitist' - the core audience which has been most appreciative of the station in the past, many of whom have had no privileged musical education but have learned over the years from the expert, reliable output of Radio 3.

Is it really necessary to use the techniques of popular music stations in order attract people to classical music? Classical Star and Maestro may well fit the mass audience of BBC Two, but when the same trivialising popular style reaches Radio 3, where are serious listeners supposed to go?

The gamut of reactions, from raised eyebrows to the hurling of bricks, has greeted the announcement of Radio 3's special contribution to the BBC's mega Operafest. As from May 17, [Advertisement here] Radio 3 listeners are invited to text or email the Breakfast programme with suggestions for 'The Nation's Favourite Aria'.

Is the purpose of this exercise:

• to turn the spotlight on opera and encourage new audiences to enjoy it (a good thing)
• to get more people and new audiences listening to Radio 3 and Breakfast as a result of BBC-wide publicity (it worked with last year's TV ads)
• something else?

One answer is in the latest Controller's Monthly Note where the announcement appears under the heading 'INTERACTIVITY', in other words, it fulfils an obligation of the station's service licence by establishing a My Radio 3, My Breakfast cosiness, with listeners and presenters eagerly sharing their enthusiasms.

If we make a criticism, we like to buttress it with reasons. So, do we like the idea? Not really, because:

• the idea of voting for 'The Nation's Favourite' has been done to death and gains no freshness by belatedly turning up on Radio 3 (Classic FM did it last May, so, as with the 'Children's Favourites' on Breakfast, Radio 3 is copying the competition's ideas: 'We do the same things but we do them better.').
• the discovery that the favourite is 'Nessun dorma' or 'Waft her, Angels, through the skies' is a matter of only mild, fleeting interest
• nothing against a BBC-wide celebration of opera but this looks a bit like the exploitation of opera, the usual BBC marketing overkill. Miss it if you can.

A twin feature is announced for In Tune from May 19: Radio 3's A-Z of Opera, 'from aria to zarzuela', short daily features on various aspects of opera. Another overused format: Classic FM, for instance, has just won a Sony Silver award for its continuing 'A-Z of Classic FM Music', but in 100 parts, 200 hours, compared with In Tune's 26 parts of perhaps 20 minutes each. An A-Z is fine if it's a way of arranging a comprehensive collection in alphabetical order; but on the In Tune scale, topics will have to be omitted or included on the basis of an initial letter or names manipulated, rendering the A-Z idea pointless.

The continuation of Radio 3's Thursday afternoon opera slot will please the opera-lovers and is a serious contribution to the coverage of the genre (next week Catalani's La Wally, May 27, Rossini's Zelmira).

Perhaps it's only the marketing of the Nation's Favourite Aria and the A-Z that's unpromising, but they sound as if they should be on BBC Two or Radio 2. It has been our view that in order to attract new audiences to classical music the best strategy is, if possible, to take the content to the audience (as the ENO and the National Youth Orchestra went to Glastonbury) not try to drag people away from their familiar channels by creating special 'comfort zones' on BBC Four or Radio 3. To complement Radio 3's opera broadcasts opera-lovers could do with programming which is more critically-based than a letter of the alphabet or 'What I like'.

this year's Sony Radio Awards. Last year was the glory year for Radio 3, carrying off the Sony UK Station of the Year award for the first time ever. So what does one make of the fact that this year it managed one Gold for Drama (The Wire production 'People Snogging in Public Places'); and one Bronze for the live coverage of the London Jazz Festival. Three other programmes were nominated but unplaced. And that was it.

There was a Bronze for the Composers of the Year promotional campaign on Radio 2 and Radio 4, but nothing for the broadcasts themselves, Radio 3's contribution. Never mind the programmes, admire the publicity ads.

So let's not imagine that these awards have any meaning in terms of achievement or relative excellence, just as long the awards get plenty of press coverage and everyone has a bit of encouragement now and again. If only the BBC wouldn't try to pretend otherwise when it wins.

With the electoral ash still very far from settling, the politicians' plans (if any) for the BBC are unlikely to be clear for some while. Meanwhile, the consultation period for the Strategy Review proposals runs until May 25.

The general thrust of the review seemed constructive and welcome in many of its key themes. We have submitted our own response expressing our approval in those areas, while adding other points of our own.

The main points that we made were:

• a welcome for the recognition that the BBC, in pursuing younger audiences, has increasingly neglected older audiences (especially the 55+ age group); in particular, we supported the aim to maintain, or even raise, the average age of Radio 2 listeners
• a welcome for the proposal to 'change and improve' BBC Two by increasing the knowledge/education, arts and culture content; and for BBC Four to reduce the amount of entertainment and comedy in favour of archive material which we hope would include performance as well as documentary/factual programmes
• we queried the fact that the description of 'ambitious new drama' on television still seemed to hold out little hope for productions of any long-form classic plays, and quoted the artistic director of the Old Vic, Kevin Spacey, who told the BBC two years ago that it was 'time to start building the next generation of theatregoers'
• we welcomed the expression of confidence in the future of radio, and the intention to provide the resources to maintain the quality of services; we felt there should be more cross-service collaboration with, for example, Radio 2 providing jazz programming which complemented the serious and avant-garde jazz coverage on Radio 3
• we welcomed the BBC's intention to be independent of commercial pressures and influences, and criticised certain commercial behaviour such as over-enthusiastic trailing and the tactics which have the apparent intention of maximising viewing and listening rather than informing audiences of what is available
• we welcomed the intention to make the BBC 'the most open and responsive public institution in the UK', but were very sceptical given that the BBC appeared to think that over the past five years 'it has sought to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Information Act'; this is not our experience at all
• on the matter of public consultation, we expressed some concern that responding to the widest range of popular opinion could jeopardise specialist and minority services which can offer quality in their authoritativeness and expertise rather than general public satisfaction
• on BBC Three, the television service for the 15-34 age group, we expressed concern at the apparent lack of regular arts programming with an appropriate angle for younger audiences; documentaries were good but comedy and other entertainment seemed to leave no place for introducing a new, young audience to the arts - including classical music
• we gave our argument urging the BBC Trust to reject the proposal to close the radio service 6 Music, and hoping that it would develop it as a serious, specialist music station, comparable in aim with Radio 3

Today's Observer carries a letter from a number of well-known people (some of whom appear to have signed up two or three times here - vote early, vote often?) in defence of the BBC. And a few of them seem to have done pretty well out of the BBC in recent years.

Friends of Radio 3, on the other hand, has no interests other than in a BBC which takes its public, cultural responsibilities seriously and earns its right to public funding, whether by means of a licence fee or out of public taxation. On the BBC, we express our 100% support for its continuance as a public service broadcaster, publicly funded and independent of government and commercial influences and interests, and will press our views on its output as 'the most important cultural organisation in Britain and an indispensable part of our society, admired and envied throughout the world'. This is what it should be. On such matters, we leave it to intelligent voters to decide whether or not this affects the way they will vote, or what questions they will put to the major parties in order to find out their intentions.

On the ideals which the BBC should aim for we are clear: that does leave it the freedom to make mistakes - awful mistakes - from time to time. But it is the mistakes which should be targeted, not the BBC.

Last night FoR3 sent off the response to the BBC's Strategy Review. One point among the many we made was that the BBC's 'youth provision', such as BBC Three, seemed to exclude anything to do with the arts. There were some good documentaries but most of the rest seemed to be light entertainment. Why should it be assumed that a younger audience had - and could have - no interest in the arts?

We pointed out that the Glastonbury Festival organisers had booked both English National Opera (to play Wagner) and the National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain, taking them to the audiences rather than expecting the audiences to seek them out. It was on a take-it-or-leave-it basis: if audiences weren't interested, they could move on to another stage. Television channels are much the same: if you don't like what's on, you zap through until you find something you do like.

On this basis, we thought BBC Three (and CBBC and CBeebies) could do more to introduce younger audiences to the arts. Well, the Proms 2010 programme was published today along with a press release which revealed:

"BBC Three joins the Proms for the first time to host the return of the spectacular Doctor Who Prom featuring new Doctor, Matt Smith."

We sent off an email complimenting the BBC on their ultra speedy response and the Director of the Proms replied, expressing his admiration at our influence and their prescience in having guessed our suggestion before we had made it.

Self-congratulation aside, we are pleased about what we hope will be a regular feature: the integrating of arts programming into the channels for children and younger adults.

Friends of Radio 3 met in Manchester on 20 March to discuss, among other issues, the BBC Strategy Review and how to reply to it. There was agreement in favour of a broadly positive response, especially towards the general themes proposed which suggested a return to the emphasis on more serious content, especially on BBC Two. There seems to be a greater commitment - lip service at least - to 'knowledge, the arts and culture' and a move back from aggressive competition with commercial rivals.

It was noted that FoR3 had previously expressed the view that in recent years services for younger audiences had been expanded at the expense of new or existing services for older audiences. There was approval for proposals which would see any necessary cuts helping to redress that situation. Nevertheless, it was also felt that a general strategy needs to be formulated for interesting younger audiences in the arts, for instance such areas as theatre and classical music.

Another issue raised was the absence of any mention of long-form classic drama on television, in spite of a new commitment to 'ambitious drama': this appeared to be limited to contemporary work seen to be 'relevant' to the lives of audiences. No Shakespeare, Chekhov, Ibsen, Shaw (unless rewritten to make them 'relevant') ...?

The FoR3 response is now being drafted and supporters will be asked to suggest any additions or amendments. The BBC Strategy Review can be read here. Individuals can complete the shorter Online Survey.

It was agreed that points relating directly to Radio 3 would be better included in the response to the forthcoming Radio 3 review, at which time the BBC chairman has indicated that we will be contacted to arrange a meeting with the representatives of the Trust Unit. It will be important for us to have as much feedback at that time as possible, so supporters will be contacted in a news mailing once the Radio 3 review is announced.

The recently published BBC Strategy Review is an important document. It doesn’t matter – much – to us who leaked the details, or what pressures the BBC was under to produce it. It matters what the review is saying, or appears to be saying. It matters what they see as being the BBC’s role in the life of the nation, and Radio 3’s role in the cultural life.

We urge people to take the opportunity to participate in the current consultation, either by filling in the online survey or by posting or emailing an independent response, as Friends of Radio 3 will be doing. The closing date is 25 May 2010.

The BBC promises … what? It is promising to return BBC TWO to something more serious, closer to what it was originally, as a channel distinguished from the light entertainment remit of BBC ONE. If there are not more Proms concerts on TWO, perhaps at least they will be presented by someone with genuine musical credentials, rather than a TV celebrity. Perhaps The Culture Show will change its name and become less entertainment and more culture. More money, we know, is being pledged for drama: it is not clear whether long-form classic drama is still to be excluded from television. The commitment seems to be for contemporary ‘relevant’ drama, which in BBC-speak may well apply to Casualty and EastEnders. Why not treat viewers to at least one play by Shakespeare every year? And Chekhov? Plus European and American classics? The only place where you will have a fairly regular opportunity to hear these on BBC is on Radio 3’s Drama on 3, which only a small minority of people discover.

The proposed changes to BBC TWO will, it is envisaged, have an impact on BBC FOUR, which is described as ‘reaffirming its original commitment to support the arts, music, culture and knowledge’ (p 54).

And what plans for Radio 3? The proposed closure of the digital stations 6 Music and the Asian Network might result in an increase in the bit rate of the remaining stations offered on DAB, perhaps improving Radio 3’s audio quality and making it comparable to the best that European stations offer. The review is silent on this.

There is, however, a hint, just a hint, that the closure of 6 Music might result in a change in Radio 3’s coverage. The proposal seems to be that any programmes being retained will switch to Radio 1 or Radio 2, as the main sources of popular music, though the Director of Audio and Music, Tim Davie, said in a blog:

“…we will consider how the range of music played on Radio 1, Radio 2 and Radio 3 should adjust to ensure we continue to offer a diverse spectrum of new and UK music as part of our stronger focus on originality and distinctiveness.”

The position of Friends of Radio 3 has been that we regard Radio 2 as the most appropriate home for the various kinds of ‘popular music’ – which includes not only much contemporary ‘world music’ but also the less specialised programming of jazz. In the case of jazz we feel this most strongly because its presence on Radio 3 reduces the amount of airtime available for more specialised jazz coverage.

However, as long as Radio 2 was pursuing a younger ‘pop’ audience and a determination to keep its ratings above 13 million, we felt it unfair to press strongly for the removal of musics which would as a result find no other place on BBC radio.

With a rethinking of Radio 2’s coverage and the BBC’s stated willingness to see its average listener age rise, we hope this might be an opportunity to see Radio 3 able to expand its horizons in the direction of its own brand of musical distinctiveness, with less well-known and experimental works and a wider range of global ‘classical’ music rather than ‘music which isn’t being aired anywhere else’.

As for 6 Music, given the choice between keeping it or BBC THREE (that’s the television channel, by the way) we’d support the music station, several times over.

The publication of the quarterly radio listening figures always provides plenty of copy and excitement for the media - especially the BBC which can be relied on to find a big success story somewhere ('Sir Terry Wogan leaves Radio 2 breakfast on a high' or 'Record figures for Radio 4' or 'Radio 3 adds audiences to accolades'). The print media may delve a little deeper than the BBC press releases and focus on inconvenient truths but these will usually be forgotten inside a week, if they are noticed at all. In any case, the press, like the public, only has access to headline figures since the BBC guards the interesting information very jealously; secretively, in fact, self importantly calling it 'commercially sensitive' or 'confidential', without a hint of shame.

Since the RAJARs have lately come to interest even the general public for various reasons, two points are worth noting:

1. the RAJAR figures are neither as accurate nor as inaccurate as people think, and
2. a set of quarterly figures is, in isolation, of limited significance. What does matter is the trend over at least one or two years, and the reasons - insofar as they can be guessed - why sometimes that trend is up and sometimes down.

The latest figures, published yesterday, were for Quarter 4 of 2009. For Radio 3 they were poor, especially following Quarter 3 - Proms quarter - which was spectacularly good (we dare say that even the BBC was surprised at how good they were!). The result crowned a gradually rising trend discernible over six quarters in a row, though starting from a very low level. The actual 'reach' in September was 2.192 million, only the second time since 2006 that it had exceeded the benchmark 2 million. Not only was it over 2 million, it was well over and among some of the best figures recorded in eleven years, up over the previous quarter by 166,000 and up over the two-year low by over 400,000.

Between 2006 and 2008, Radio 3 had hit some dangerously low figures, twice going under 1.8 million and once under 1.9 million.

We are always in the middle of a trend, which can go up or down. And in the December quarter it was down, with a bump. As ever, we wait to see what next quarter's figures will be before feeling able to pronounce. But we can ask questions:

Why did the very weak figures manage to peak at over 2 million over the summer? We would suggest that going back to last spring, BBC television started running the sound spot 'Step into our World' trails (how many times did newcomers to the Radio 3 messageboards come asking the name of the pieces of music being played?), featuring the four Composers of the Year. Then Radio 3 received a lot of publicity by winning the Sony UK Station of the Year award. Come Proms season the online Guardian, for one, carried a banner advert for the Proms, and the Proms themselves had enough stories (Goldie, the Darwin children's Prom, an evening of MGM film musicals) which pleased the press. Every Proms programme invited people to join Radio 3 for Breakfast, 7am-10am. And indeed in Proms quarter Breakfast had its highest reach - 816,000.

The December quarter saw a tumble to 1.874 million. Will Radio 3's reach settle back into a very modest 1.9 million now? Certainly the triumph of Breakfast was shortlived, dropping from 816,000 to 728,000, from highest to one of the lowest.

What axes are to be ground here? Certainly, those listeners who appreciate the new style Breakfast and the accessible Radio 3 will feel their own tastes are vindicated when the figures go up. Those who have deserted Radio 3 for its 'populist' programming will feel that poor listening figures are a sign that Radio 3 has abandoned its core audience and failed to find a new one. We don't have enough data to say how much truth there is in either claim.

But a rule of thumb might be: RAJAR figures going significantly down - bad news; RAJAR figures going significantly up - also bad news. Remember the axiom of Michael Grade that 'if Radio 3's ratings suddenly shot up then something would clearly very seriously have gone wrong'. Out in the wide world there are millions of potential Radio 3 listeners to be won over; but you can't please a wide range of them and focus on the programming that makes Radio 3 distinctive. If depth and seriousness aren't for them, then leave them to all the vast range of light entertainment which the BBC and the commercials already offer.

Are the erstwhile friends of world music deserting it, or are they just becoming more critical?

Several years ago the jazz and world music critic, Clive Davis, predicted the demise of the more fashionable element of world music (the headline is a mistake: the regular radio critic Paul Donovan was away). 'I am sure' wrote Davis in 2004, 'that [Roger] Wright's pursuit of the trendies who turn out to munch canapés at the Radio 3 Awards for World Music is doomed.'

The Radio 3 Awards for World Music are certainly more than doomed, axed a couple of years ago.

Another world music specialist, Michael Church, criticised both Womad and Radio 3's world output in 2005: 'With very few exceptions, the groups favoured by Radio 3 offer street-smart fusions - local styles with an internationalised electronic top-dressing, reflecting a universal aspiration to make it big in the West. We're talking, by and large, about global pop.' Church's own field recordings of the music of Georgia (Songs of Survival) and Chechnya (Songs of Defiance) have, on the other hand, been covered by World Routes. In fact, World Routes has made numerous notable programmes and short series on traditional global musics, as well as contemporary world music performers and releases.

Now, is another leading figure in the world music industry becoming disenchanted? Ian Anderson, editor of fRoots magazine, has ruffled some world music enthusiasts with his December editorial. Anderson writes: '[…] the World Music area of fRoots' musical enthusiasms seems, sadly, to be in a trough: [World Music] has been trying too hard to ape the mainstream music business.'

Anderson is more specific on what is right about the current folk/roots scene than what is wrong on the world stage. His fire is turned generally on the industry and its sell-out to the commercial model. But wasn't this always what world music was, necessarily if not intentionally, about: creating a high profile genre which would have its own corner of the record store shelves? It was a 'marketing concept', 'all geared to record shops, that was the only thing we were thinking about' as Charlie Gillett put it So, wouldn't the record industry, certainly the big labels, not want its products to be in the mainstream, musically, where the money is?

This won't – we hope – herald 'world's end' on Radio 3. It has become an integral part of 'what Radio 3 does'. But the station has a potentially substantial audience for world music – beyond those single interest world enthusiasts who seldom listen to Radio 3's wider programming. For that larger audience, who may know little about the global traditions, classical, folk or popular, there needs to be a balanced output. We have argued for more systematic coverage, more specialism, more criticism, and a limit on the 'street-smart fusions'.

Back in August 2007, Radio 3’s RAJAR ratings for the previous quarter were the lowest they’d ever been (1.783m). We asked the BBC for listening figures for certain programmes which had been affected by what we knew were unpopular changes. Performance on 3 had seen the live concert broadcasts axed, the start time brought forward to 7pm and the presentation changed from concert hall introductions to studio presentation of recorded sections, with applause faded in and out, changes which had not found favour with audiences. The live broadcast of Choral Evensong was moved from Wednesday afternoons to Sunday afternoons. We wanted to know whether listening figures had fallen as a result of the changes.

We were told that ‘the BBC does have a working practice of disclosing current audience figures … when it is considered appropriate’ but in this case it was not considered appropriate; and here our two-and-a-half year effort to persuade them to change their minds began. It culminated with a letter from the Information Commissioner’s office in August telling us that the BBC had agreed to supply the figures ‘in the coming weeks’, informally and outside the Freedom of Information Act.

Except that the figures never arrived. On further enquiry it appeared that the BBC had written to the ICO to say they had ‘changed their view’. In the intervening weeks the High Court judgement had ruled that information relating to programmes was exempt and the BBC was not obliged to disclose it. Not obliged to, and therefore won't.

We can now count five different reasons given by the BBC to justify not revealing what they said they had a ‘working practice’ of disclosing:
• the BBC’s contract with RAJAR limits what can be disclosed (RAJAR says there is no such contract and the BBC can do what it likes with its figures)
• the information is ‘commercially sensitive’ (we would dispute this since the information is ‘commonly known’ among broadcasters who also subscribe to RAJAR)
• it would be commercially prejudicial to RAJAR as there would be little interest in it continuing to collect the data if the BBC was giving it away freely, and indeed RAJAR’s very existence would be threatened (shameful that such an answer should be given in response to a FOIA request: the reason RAJAR exists is to collect the data for its broadcaster subscribers, all of whom, including the BBC, would continue to subscribe in order to obtain their own listening figures)
• under the BBC’s derogation on ‘journalism, art and literature’ it is not obliged to disclose information used to ‘inform programme-making activities’. Here the High Court ruling supports them, though what listening figures have to do with journalism, art or literature is obscure; however, a blanket of concealment lies over the type of information, regardless of whether the specific information requested relates to any of the exempt categories
• after agreeing, before the High Court ruling, to supply the information ‘informally and outside the Freedom of Information Act’ the BBC suddenly discovered that there were ‘editorial concerns’

So, they win. Or do they? We long ago lost interest in the listening figures which were out of date, superseded by two years’ figures and of little value; and Choral Evensong had been moved back to Wednesdays over a year ago.

The main purpose of continuing was to test the BBC’s real commitment to transparency and accountability, much vaunted by the BBC Trust. Result: they have produced a succession of excuses for maintaining secrecy and they have succeeded in getting the backing of the law to prevent the public challenging their decisions. There probably isn’t anything much to uncover in this case: one presumes the BBC just wants to be sure that when there is, they don’t have to own up. But it’s not much of a victory for an organisation that prides itself on being honest and trustworthy.

'Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.'

One thing about engaging with the BBC and pointing to things in need of improvement is that you never know whether any subsequent improvements are because of, in spite of or totally unconnected with your representations. A new example has just emerged.

For several years we attempted to point out that Radio 3's budget was, judging by the Annual Reports, being steadily chipped away each year, and that inflation over the period amounted to at least 10%. Together these would have been expected to adversely affect the station's ability to provide a reasonable service.

To no avail: we were sent a specially produced graph (people were taken from their regular duties to prepare it, we were told) to show that the budget had been stable. Close inspection revealed that the amounts used in the graph were not comparable with each other; and that for one year there were two, alternative, amounts, both of which were included in the graph, the higher of the two apparently indicating a budget increase. No, no, no, Radio 3's budget had not been cut.

Had it or hadn't it? Regular changes in the reporting practice made it hard to work out what was happening from year to year, but each annual report for seven years running showed that expenditure for the year just ended was lower than it had been for the previous year. And Radio 2 eventually overtook Radio 3 to become the third most expensive of the radio networks. Failing any convincing evidence to the contrary we have continued to insist that Radio 3's budget was being cut back. And if the report doesn't mean that it doesn't mean anything.

Perhaps they hadn't noticed what they were doing and it came as a surprise to them to be told? At any rate, even with another change in the reporting practice to cope with it seemed as if last year's annual accounts (2007/08) were indeed reporting a slight increase. This year's accounts, published today show what looks like a quite large increase on the Radio 3 content spend. Some of this seems to have been found not by new money but, in common with BBC radio in general, by shaving a significant amount off the distribution and infrastructure/support costs, with what wider impact we cannot guess.

Without presuming to take any credit, we are pleased to report that a situation which we have raised with the BBC has been improved.

The Orchestras and Performing Groups have also had a big increase, total expenditure up from £19.3 million last year to £25.1 million. Apparently.

The Annual Report is, on the whole, notable these days for getting both glossier and less informative, but this is what the BBC Trust had to say about Radio 3:

"BBC Radio 3: ended the year with its highest audience figures since the end of 2006, at just below two million adults. Listeners are highly appreciative of the quality of the station's programming."

To put the listening figures in perspective, the last three years have seen the three lowest figures ever, but last year's was the highest of the three. Over the ten years for which comparable figures are available, the first five years showed a weekly average reach of 2.062 million; the second five had a weekly average reach of 1.966 million. Last year's average was 1.958 million, just below the average of an already low period. The phrase 'ended the year' means just that: that the third and fourth quarters were almost respectable, but the first two were still pretty low.

The audience appreciation figures are, we believe, achieved by asking listeners (who?) to rate stations and programmes on something like a 1 to 10 scale. Anything that scores something like 75% would be considered very satisfactory. Such a system can quantify but not qualify so will not reveal whether certain areas of dissatisfaction are common to a wide range of listeners. Radio 3 scores very highly on the appreciation index and it is certainly true that its best is still very good. On the other hand, it is asking people about the programmes they have chosen to listen to which goes some way to explain why the figures always tend to be quite high.

There has been good news for Radio 3 over the past month which for 'technical' reasons (that is to say, holidays) have not been promptly mentioned here. Most important, Radio 3 has been named Sony UK Radio Station of the Year for its overall performance in 2008. The Sony Radio Academy Awards have seemed in the past very remote from a station like Radio 3. The two major achievements which appear to bring success in the Sonys have been healthy ratings and regular publicity in the tabloids, neither of which are fundamental to Radio 3's real success or its remit.

For only the second time in the history of the awards Radio 3 was nominated for the Station of the Year Award, and for the first time it won the Gold. In the words of the judges. "Radio 3 has sustained a particularly strong schedule of appealing breadth, with a subtle combination of challenging and accessible material that is presented in a thoroughly entertaining manner."

This result is a turnaround from last year when it was indecently pointed out in the press that Radio 3 'went home completely empty-handed'. This was not in fact accurate, since the station won a silver and four bronzes, but in the media there's no praise for coming second or third.

Does this present success matter? Not in any fundamental sense since Radio 3 can go about its business quietly and creatively without winning awards, and in that respect this year has been very little different from any other in recent years. But for the Controller and all the R3 staff it's a public pat on the back which they deserve just as much as anyone else in radio broadcasting. However, public perceptions matter and the journalists' angle has been that Radio 3 is not merely deserving of the award but, more importantly, that its programming matters.

The result has been been well received in the press, with Paul Donovan in the Sunday Times predicting, on the eve of the announcement (and only four weeks after our own published prediction, below), that Radio 3 would win. Donovan also hinted, as we had done earlier, that one reason why it was important for Radio 3 to win was that focusing on higher things would polish the Beeb's image, tarnished by recent sleaze and deceit. Dan Sabbagh said much the same thing in The Times, declaring that Controller Roger Wright 'could be considered the public service conscience of the BBC'.

This then could be a time for self-congratulation, for sitting back on the laurels. But no one really believes this is what the awards are about. They are about publicity. With the press making the right noises about Radio 3 – praising it for its core content rather than for the novelties – this could be the time to affirm even more strongly that Radio 3, in Sabbagh's words 'the ultimate justification for the licence fee', is culturally and intellectually ambitious. The Sony seal of approval means that Radio 3 can be ambitious. It can be quirky. It can take risks. It can be confident in its own direction. What we ask is that it should focus on its content rather than on who it's trying to satisfy.

Above all, it should be intelligent.

Full details of Gold Award programmes:

Words and Music

Commissioning Editor: Abigail Appleton
Editors: Matthew Dodd & Tony Cheevers
Senior Producers: Fiona McLean & Jessica Isaacs
Producers and BAs: Radio Arts and Radio 3 production teams

'A joy to listen to, a radio programme playing to the essential strengths of the medium, giving the listener the means to embark on a magical journey. Unique, stimulating and very special.' BBC Radio Arts and Radio 3 for BBC Radio 3.

Vaughan Williams: Valiant for Truth

Producer: Jeremy Evans
Presenter: Stephen Johnson
Researcher: Georgia Mann
Studio Manager: Chris Muir
Editor: Tony Cheevers

'This was a beautifully crafted and profound programme, which the judges felt engaged the listener through the presenters personal journey and discovery of the man, Vaughan Williams. A good cast, with an overarching sensitivity throughout.' BBC Radio 3

Between The Ears: Staring At The Wall

Presenter: Alan Dein
Producer: Sara Jane Hall
Executive Producer: Simon Elmes
Editor: Rob Ketteridge

'Described by one of the judges as a perfect feature. An original idea a radio meditation about both sides of the wall at Pentonville Prison, London beautifully constructed and seamlessly told, so that speech became music and music speech. You were there! said another judge.' BBC Radio Documentaries for BBC Radio 3

When was the last time that Radio 3 was nominated for the award of Sony Station of the Year? Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 4 and Classic FM have been regular winners, but Radio 3 has not even been nominated. But in 2009 that has changed. It will be a contest between Radio 1, Radio 3 and Classic FM, and this year could just be Radio 3's year. The results will be announced on May 11th.

Last year one of the main sub-stories in the press was that, 'in spite of all the money it costs and its small audience', Radio 3 was notable in not having won a single Sony Gold Award. The fact that Radio 3 seldom wins any gold awards was not allowed to spoil the story. In recent years most, if not all, of Radio 3's small bag (mainly silvers and bronzes) has been for its specialist jazz, world and features output, or for drama. Most of the high-profile Sony categories are based on the idea that success = high ratings, the be-all and end-all for the commercial stations. Radio 3 isn't in that game. Meanwhile, in a category which might be thought to be a level playing field – drama – Radio 4 has four nominations this year while Radio 3 has none, in spite of such high class productions as Annie Caulfield's Your Only Man, based on the writings and life of Flann O'Brien, Racine's Bajazet and Milton's Samson Agonistes.

So what does this year's nomination mean? How do the judges decide between Radio 1 and Radio 3? Or between Radio 3 and Classic FM? What does it mean to win the top award?

Some years ago Michael Grade expressed the view that if Radio 3 started increasing its ratings significantly, it would show that it had got something wrong. The same might be said about winning Sonys. It isn't clear to us exactly how the nominations and judging work, but it seems that the BBC puts forward its nominees. Assuming they didn't nominate every station for the Station of the Year, they chose Radio 3. Or does some other body choose the final nominees? If so, why Radio 3? What has been notable this year?

Well, sometimes when a station has had a poor year with its ratings, a recovery the following year merits a nomination. Radio 3 hit disaster in 2007/08 and has recovered somewhat in 2008/09. No need to point out how awful the ratings were the previous year and how easy it was to improve on them, Radio 3 is 'on the up'. That could be one reason.

High profile projects may count and last year there was the Chopin Experience (which has a nomination) and the Vaughan Williams 'Valiant for Truth' feature (also nominated).

Then there is the series of BBC 'scandals' – the phone-in deceptions, the Blue Peter cat, Ross and Brand. Perhaps this is the BBC trying to recover some vestige of its lost dignity and prestige, pushing Radio 3 as its serious side, quality, excellence? Isn't that what the current 'Handel on 3' TV trails are for? And there is a series of four trails. This is professional advertising stuff, and it costs.

Look carefully at those trails because they have been created by Red Bee Media, 'the global leader in transforming media brands'. So what is the brand that the ads are portraying? They are aimed at 'people aged 35+ who enjoy culture and the arts [but] haven't explored classical music in the same way as other arts such as films, books and art galleries – the campaign aims to encourage more people to do this'. Well, that sounds all right. As long as they accept that people who go to art galleries, read books, go to the theatre and cinema could be intelligent human beings, curious to discover more about a wide range of arts, typical Radio 3 listeners, in fact. They don't need to be treated like 12-year-olds just because they don't as yet know a lot about classical music.

As for the Sonys, well, it just might be Buggins' turn this year. If Radio 3 wins – and we think it might – the BBC will be delighted. But the whole thing is part of the commercial media hype. If it means nothing when Radio 3 fails to win anything, it means nothing if it does win. If it does win, how will the BBC Press Office play it? Recognition of the BBC's unique contribution to culture? Or the success of Radio 3's policy to encourage a cultural '3 for All'? We shall see.

Radio 3 Sony nominations:

The Music Programme Award:
Words and Music – BBC Radio Arts and Radio 3 for Radio 3

The Music Special Award:
Vaughan Williams: Valiant for Truth – BBC Radio 3

The Feature Award:
Between The Ears: Staring At The Wall – BBC Radio Documentaries for Radio 3

The Themed Programming Award:
The Chopin Experience – BBC Radio 3

UK Station of the Year, from:
BBC Radio 1
BBC Radio 3
Classic FM