Journalists who write a radio column are of two kinds. The first kind write about what they've listened to, what they've liked, what they've disliked, what has surprised, fascinated, irritated or appalled them; they are, in short, radio listeners like us. They may have just rubbished our favourite programme or praised the presenter we can't stand, but that's listeners for you: we have different tastes.

The second kind are critics: they hobnob socially with the media people, they know what is good and reasonable, what is bad and unreasonable. If the listeners disagree with them, it's not surprising as listeners are always wrong; they howl in outrage, they splutter and go purple in the face at the slightest changes. But, says the critic, that's listeners for you.

The curious thing about these critics is that when they write about Radio 3 it's often difficult to find much evidence that they listen to the station with any regularity, not like listeners do. They are knowledgeable in the way people are when they've thoroughly digested the latest BBC press release. Ivan Hewett's piece in the Daily Telegraph is of the critical kind.

Mr Hewett listened to R4's Feedback last week when listeners, true to form, 'howled with outrage' [sic] at Controller Wright's recent gubernatorial adjustments. One topic was… presenters. An 'outraged' [sic] listener suggested that the new 'Breakfast Show' was beginning to sound like Classic FM ('you could feel those words being held at arm's length,' says Mr Hewett, equally disdainfully, 'like something plucked out of the drain'). Another 'misguided' [sic] contributor suggested that presenters should take a bit of a back seat and let the music speak for itself ('a recipe for aridity', says Mr Hewett, brusquely). In any case, as Controller Wright pointed out, there had always been 'personalities' behind the microphone at R3. Quite right, murmurs Mr Hewett, approvingly.

But no, that is not right at all: anyone with Mr Hewett's level of competence should have spotted the Wright smokescreen and noted the difference between 'personality' and 'personalities' in the media sense. Announcers did indeed have 'personality' (which is why so many are still fondly remembered), but – and this is emphatically not aimed at any current presenter as an individual – they were not 'personalities' of the kind who become a 'brand' presenting regular daily 'shows', week in, week out, maybe for several years, perhaps with an 'eponymous' programme built round them, who have trails devoted to them, who are encouraged to refer regularly to 'my show' and say 'today I'll be playing for you' – so that we wait expectantly for them to take their seat at the piano stool and raise their hands to the keyboard. In short, announcers weren't used to sell the product as they are now, and it does all seem a bit… Classic FM.

By all means disagree with that, Mr Hewett; it would at least give the impression that you understand what the listeners are talking about and that you do listen to something on Radio 3 other than The Breakfast Show. But Mr Hewett decides that, although no one mentioned it, this is all about… class. Exactly what this has to do with class is unclear, since most R3 presenters come in for a regrettable degree of flak, even those who have the perfect diction of the old announcers. However, familiarity breeds contempt and there is plenty of opportunity for the frontline presenters to become familar.

Ironically, the most memorable bit in an otherwise poorly supported piece is Mr Hewett's memory of one of the legendary old-timers: 'John Holmstrom, who could affect a fruity world-weariness that nobody would dare today. I remember one evening he introduced a complete opera performance with the words: "No expense has been spared. The records cost several pounds."'

As Mr Hewett remarks, class is not just about accent; and personality, one might add, is not just about selling.

For an alternative view on the new 'tone' of Radio 3, read Robert Hanks, The Independent, 7 March 2007.

Following the restrictions introduced on the BBC Radio 3 messageboards which have resulted in the removal of messages deemed 'off-topic', we have launched our own forum for debate. It is open to everyone who registers to initiate discussions or join in existing ones. In the coming weeks we shall be introducing new features but at the moment it is still relatively simple in scope. Registering for the forum does not amount to support for FoR3.

When the last Campaign Update was written (February 21st: No comment) the final paragraph was altered at the last minute. It had included a strong protest against the Radio 3 policy of stopping debate on its messageboards about subjects that 'weren't allowed'. Two weeks ago, briefly, it looked as if the strict rules were being loosened. Since then the moderators and hosts have made it clear that they mean business and have been closing down discussions and deleting messages judged off-topic.

The new messageboards are tied to four specific programmes: 'Breakfast' [sic], CD Review, Music Matters and Iain Burnside. Only the output of those programmes, or subjects within their 'compass', may be discussed.

The Controller has said that this is part of a 'wider BBC strategy' across BBC Radio 'to relate the boards more closely to station output'. This is inaccurate on three grounds:

1. no other radio station links its messageboards to individual programmes
2. most stations have boards which allow – in fact, encourage – general discussion and social chat, and
3. efforts to discuss station output is being prevented if the programme (Drama on 3, for example, or World Routes) is attempted on 'the wrong board'.

The discussion entitled 'Censorship on Radio 3' – regarding an item about censorship in Istanbul on World Routes last Saturday – has been closed (the Reply button has been removed). Perhaps when the irony sinks in it will be reopened.

An attempt to start a discussion about the all-pervading power of pop music was also closed with a curt comment.

A comment on Discovering Music, criticising the factual accuracy of one remark which developed into a discussion on cello music – closed.

The time is now 6pm. How long will it take the hosts to decide whether a thread complaining about programme trails can be restored? Or is this the 'repetitiousness' of the boards that the Controller commented on? 'Please do not keep complaining about programme trails: it is boring and repetitious. And people welcome them.'

First close all the boards where station output could be widely discussed, narrow the range of topics, and stop other discussion from taking place. Interactivity Radio 3 style.

The newly launched Radio 3 schedules (memorably described by Norman Lebrecht as 'Wright's tweaks') represent arguably the biggest single shake-up in the station's history, at least since the start of generic broadcasting in 1967, more uncomfortable and more uncertain than Roger Wright's earlier 'revolution' which saw the gradual inching in of new musical content.



Many of the programmes which Wright himself had introduced have gone at a stroke, some after little more than three years in place: Making Tracks, Stage & Screen, Voices, Brian Kay's Light Programme, Jazz Legends, Mixing It, 3 for All, The Cowan Collection, several of them brave in their intention if imperfectly realised. CD Masters will go in a few weeks' time.

Other surviving programmes have changed their time: today, Ash Wednesday, saw the final live mid-week edition of Choral Evensong, which is now shunted off to Sunday at 4pm (a much better slot, according to the BBC, though many listeners and participants think otherwise); the 4pm jazz programme re-emerges later on a Friday, at 10.30pm, as Jazz Library, Music Matters returns to lunchtime and Discovering Music resumes its place on Sundays late afternoon, the repeat of Composer of the Week is brought forward from midnight to 8.45pm, The Verb moves from Saturday night to Friday night, vacated by the axed Friday edition of Night Waves.

In terms of policy, the most significant change is that the late night music shows move an hour closer to the graveyard slot, an edition of Late Junction has also been dropped, along with Mixing It. Not very diplomatic. Potential Late Junction fans would have been delighted with three, two or even one programme back in 1999. To offer four, to extend them in length and then to begin cutting back again, was bound to create unhappiness. Kershaw fans would have been grateful for a midnight slot rather than have nothing at all. To put the programme on at 10.15pm, extend it and move it to Sundays, and finally move it into a later slot, again leaves fans indignant.

The fact that these programmes are now on later, the fact that the hours have been cut, is not something that we would protest about in principle and it would be hypocritical to say otherwise. The experiment was too extensive (think Sounds Interesting in the 1970s and Mixing It itself, both on once a week for 45 minutes, delighting many and troubling none), the schedule was unbalanced. And the 'Wright approach' has been too concerned with making an impact, with adjusting the demographic profile: this kind of programme here will attract this kind of audience, this presenter will be effective in this slot. But it's content and context that matter, the overlap and relationships between music, drama, poetry. Now, too, there is the abandoning of live evening concerts. So much for listeners to bemoan, to question, to protest about. Thank goodness for the Radio 3 messageboards which now allow listeners to have their say publicly and discuss the issues with others…

But, as the new weekday schedule slipped into place, those very messageboards were abruptly closed down, most notably the classical music board which had attracted more than 75% of all messages. Classical listeners were directed to boards covering specific programmes and specific topics; speech and drama listeners had nowhere to discuss their listening; nor had new music enthusiasts; nor had world music fans, particularly the Late Junction, Andy Kershaw and World Routes listeners. Only the jazz board escaped, but then, the single change to the jazz schedule – lose one programme, gain another – was less controversial.

In the meantime we draw attention to Paul Donovan's view in the Sunday Times last Sunday. No comment, thank you, especially not on the Radio 3 messageboards.

In several ways 2006 has been the most encouraging year yet for FoR3, especially over the last six months when Radio 3 had an unusual share of publicity. In July there was the reported dismay over the poor sound quality as a result of the reduction in the DAB bitrate, in September the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Third Programme, in December the leaks to the press about the forthcoming changes to the schedule, particularly the end of regular live concert broadcasts.

Over the past few years we have attracted opprobrium from some sections of the press, mainly those which show no obvious interest in classical music, drama or the arts. A Radio 3 story would include a gratuitous mention of FoR3 for no apparent reason other than as an opportunity for a jibe or a smear. We recognised certain writers who were conduits for the BBC point of view but who had never taken the trouble to contact us for our comments. There are still one or two retailers of misinformation, who tell their readers that FoR3 wants to 'rid the station of jazz and new music', but they have become a rarer breed.

Instead, journalists have contacted us regularly when a story has broken and asked for our opinion, have accurately reported what we have said on this website and have written their stories without biased comment against us. The BBC news website now publishes a 'related internet link' to our website whenever there is a story about Radio 3.

On the DAB bitrate issue, we made a representation to the Director of Radio and Music, Jenny Abramsky, enclosing a print-out of many of the protests voiced on the Radio 3 messageboards. It took a regrettably long time for them to realise that there was a genuine problem (by which time the Proms season had come and gone), but they did acknowledge it and FoR3, it seems, was among the first to be told that the decision would be reversed. That was very close to being a model of what the relationship between listeners and management should be.

The new schedule for this year shows some very worrying developments which we shall monitor and, if necessary, we shall press for a rethink. Other changes seem to be the result of management listening, though until the full schedule is known we can't be completely sure of the final balance. The BBC Trust has now published Radio 3's new Service Licence and we shall participate in the public consultation when it is announced later this month.

We go into 2007 stronger, and confident that our arguments have stood up to such opposition as has been expressed. As a result of the publicity during the past year we have seen a surge in declared support, including a number of very influential people in the arts. We want to see the 'high arts' – in all the various forms – raised in the consciousness of the BBC policy-makers, and to persuade them that a serious, dedicated arts radio station is not 'elitist' but democratic. And we do so in the knowledge that the BBC's audience research shows that the general public puts as great a value on Radio 3 as do R3's own listeners.

Full details of the New Year's programme changes so far announced – and in some cases, confessed – can be read here. Should we be cheering or groaning?

Scheduling

One of our key complaints has been the lack of classical music after 9.30pm, and the Controller says he has addressed this. A wave of the magic wand and the repeat of Composer of the Week moves down from midnight to the 8.45pm-9.45pm slot, thus extending the 'classical' listening by 15 minutes. At the other end of the evening Performance on 3 will begin half an hour earlier, at 7pm. Sorted.

We would hazard a guess that these are not the solutions to the problem that the majority would have hoped for. Composer of the Week is the only programme in the schedule which has a repeat. To place that repeat in the middle of the prime evening listening slot when many people will already have heard the first airing and will not want to hear it again seems… odd. It may please some who until now have found it difficult to listen either at midday or at midnight. But the programme is not music but a music documentary with a single subject that stretches over five weekdays, so there will be a short measure of music and a lack of variety through the week.

Then we have the changes to Performance on 3 itself. This is the highlight of the evening listening which attracts the biggest audience. But surely, the best time for an evening concert is 7.30pm or 8pm? That is when Radio 3's evening audience peaks. For many people 7pm is too early, and with the concert slot now ending at 8.45pm instead of 9.30pm (when it often had some chamber music as a bonus) the music is actually ending earlier than before.

Also, the Performance on 3 concerts will no longer be broadcast live (there were still regular live concerts even if they were fewer than previously): they will be prerecorded and, the final straw for many people, every night the regular studio presenter will introduce the individual works which will have been edited as separate items. We all love the music, but many people greatly appreciate sharing the atmosphere of the concert hall with its audience, and this will now be sadly absent. Having the same presenter for each programme and the format of link-music-link-music will replicate virtually every other classical music programme. The reason given for this is that live concerts are of varying lengths and (Heaven forbid!) this upsets the timing of other programmes. So Radio 3's schedule finally turns from 'No fixed points' to 'All fixed points'. How will they cope when the Proms season comes round?

Prediction? That this most popular portion of the schedule will lose some of its appeal. It's hard to see how it will attract more listeners.

The speech programmes (Night Waves and The Verb) will still occupy a not-too-late evening slot and for classical music listeners the new Artist Focus programme will follow at 10.30pm. It looks a little isolated here but it may attract listeners if the content is interesting and well produced.

Arts programmes

We have expressed dissatisfaction with the amount and quality of the spoken arts/speech programmes and if this has been with some caution it has been because we feared that, on the give-and-take principle, the 'giving' would mean more arts, and the 'taking' be the removal of some well-liked classical music programmes.

On the arts front what we are seeing is a reduction in Night Waves from five to four editions per week. As there is other arts programming replacing it we feel this is a probable improvement. The concert interval talk Twenty Minutes which was often extremely good and sometimes awful is moved to its own dedicated slot at 11pm, Monday to Thursday. Some of the announced topics look very good, though fifteen minutes is rather short: two longer slots rather than four short ones would be more serious, but we shall suspend judgement until we see what is made of them.

A new programme Music and Words is announced for 10.30pm on Sundays, length unknown. 'Unpresented', it will apparently be a sequence of poetry, music and readings. Well-known names are promised, but if 'unpresented' means we will not be told what we are listening to (until, perhaps, a playlist appears the following week), it threatens to be the same uncritical mix as Late Junction, all right amid a haze of – take your pick – late-night joss sticks or soporific wine fumes, superficial entertainment but with little intellectual appeal. Again, we reserve judgement.

The Essay, though only 15 minutes long, may be better quality than Twenty Minutes; Music and Words replaces an edition of Night Waves so, if longer than 45 minutes, there would appear to be some gain for the arts.

'Light' music

We have never targeted particular programmes while expressing unhappiness at the general increase in non-classical 'light' music. Some we felt to be covered by Radio 2's remit and the new Service Licence for Radio 2 actually specifies a minimum number of hours to be devoted to music theatre and film music. In theory the dropping of Stage and Screen could be compensated for by programming on Radio 2. We know many people did enjoy this programme but on balance we welcome its disappearance, and similarly we regarded Brian Kay's Light Programme as the encroachment of Radio 2 material on Radio 3. Mixing It we were ambivalent about, feeling that its stated remit was not inappropriate but in practice the content had become too 'pop' oriented. It was redeemable but has now gone to make way for the new Friday night jazz programme Jazz Library which we assume will precede Jazz on 3.

We can hardly regret the reduction of Late Junction to three editions since we have said that we thought it had been given too much time. It will now also be an hour later and we welcome that. But the combination of the fewer editions and later hour will result in an automatic drop in audience. Andy Kershaw takes the Monday Late Junction slot; there is some overlap in audience but one would have thought a radio show which began life on Radio 1 and has coasted along largely unchanged for 20 years might have been a more likely candidate for the chop than Late Junction.

Summing up

The last seven years have been marked by a lot of change apparently on a Trial and Error basis, changes reversed, new programmes regularly scrapped. The unswerving policy has been towards making the schedule as rigid and time-bound as possible, uniformity of formats, lengthening programmes (so that there is less variety) and promoting personalities. We would be quite happy to see all these policies reversed.

Most regrettable is the new sanitised and shortened version of Performance on 3, the only explanation offered being that it enables the rigid schedule to be adhered to, that itself being questionably desirable. It appears that lunchtime concerts may follow the same course. Almost doubling the length of Afternoon Performance – soon to become Afternoon on 3 – threatens to turn it into a further aimless block of background listening, albeit of a superior kind and not without rare treats. The inclusion of full-length operas will be a welcome innovation and relief from the normal house-presenter linked orchestral pieces. While approving of the Composer of the Week repeat for the benefit of those who miss the daytime broadcast, we feel the new daily slot is too prominent for a music documentary repeat.

The arts programmes have had a little more variety, but why not try The Essay in the afternoons, leaving a little more time for some chamber music in the evenings? Why ghettoise all the speech programmes to the evenings?

The jazz is apparently now restricted to two blocks on Friday evenings and Saturday afternoons, each lasting two and a half hours. Is this what the jazz fans prefer?

The decision to axe all the 4pm programmes necessitated the removal of Choral Evensong to Sundays. We hope people will complain if they find the change inconvenient or generally less desirable.

Overall the programme changes give the impression of rather indecisive tinkering. Perhaps we should be grateful for that: it's better than bad decisions – of which, we repeat, we think the new 'concert' format is certainly one.

Following the press leaks that Radio 3 was to discontinue live concert broadcasts, two MPs, Mark Fisher and Michael Fallon, tabled an Early Day Motion deploring the decision. Parliament was prorogued on November 8th and the motion was automatically dropped with only one signature added.

However, on November 22nd it was reintroduced, with slight amendments, by six other MPs and was quickly signed by 12 more. The latest news is that there are now 39 signatories.. The full text reads:

BBC RADIO THREE LIVE CONCERTS

"That this House deplores the proposal to end the broadcasting of live concerts on Radio Three outside the Prom season; believes that live concerts are an essential part of the BBC's musical remit; is concerned that ending the broadcasting of live music will reduce the choice of classical music available to listeners and could reduce the number of such concerts, especially in the regions; believes that it might also reduce the BBC's commissioning of new music and jeopardise the future of its orchestras and singers; considers that the BBC's role as a training ground for talent will be threatened, undermining one of the justifications for the licence fee; reminds the BBC that its broadcasting policy should not be the plaything of particular controllers; insists that its management undertake a proper consultation with its listeners and the classical music community before any final decisions are taken; maintains that cutting live performances will be a betrayal of the historic role of the BBC; and calls upon the BBC's governors to take this final opportunity before they disappear to make a stand against yet another example of the dumbing down of the BBC's cultural programming."

The text seems to have been based on information in a press report which may not have been fully accurate, but the sentiments behind it are very encouraging since they express a real concern about the BBC's cultural remit and how it fulfils it.

We are urging all supporters to write to their MPs to ask them to sign, mentioning Motion 232, of 22 November 2006

An article in the Guardian reports the Controller's response to the emerging rumours. Briefly:

• he does not plan to 'significantly' increase the number of programmes relying on concert excerpts. 'We're doing full concerts." (So, will Petroc Trelawney travel to all the concerts to introduce them?)
• there will be more music specially recorded for Radio 3, especially in the afternoons from 2pm – 5pm (so these will not be EBU recordings as the Sunday Telegraph reported, but probably by the BBC performing groups)
• Performance on 3 will move forward to 7pm 'for much of the time' giving an extra half hour of classical music for recently recorded concerts
• there will be 'a bit less live as live' music (this was the main point of the original leak – that live broadcasts would be cut)
• Late Junction will be reduced to three editions per week (so with Mixing It axed too there will be an added three hours per week for something)
• there will be a 'raft of new evening programmes', including a regular talks series at 11pm and a 'poetry and music' programme.
• the changes will be formally announced in December.

Further rumours suggest that other programmes will be axed, no details available.

Rumours and leaks have been everywhere and gradually the details are emerging. There seems little doubt that next February will see the biggest shake-up in Radio 3's history.

The BBC has already confirmed that there will be a cutback in the broadcasting of live concerts. In future most concerts (except the Proms) will be prerecorded and broadcast 'a few days later', concert excerpts – much as Afternoon Performance is now – presented 'live' by a presenter in the studio, with all the atmosphere of the live performance edited out.

According to Paul Donovan Afternoon Performance will now run through until 5pm with, it seems, most of the 4pm programmes being axed. Choral Evensong, it has already been confirmed, will move to Sundays at 4pm, but Stage and Screen, Voices and Brian Kay's Light Programme are to go. This implies that Making Tracks will be dropped too; in fact this may already have happened since it has not reappeared after the summer holiday and is still missing from the online schedule for the week after next (week beginning November 13th). The website says it is 'off air at the moment'.

Brian Kay's 3 for All is to go, and so is Mixing It. A rumour has it that Late Junction will be reduced to three nights a week and will start later. And a further rumour suggests there are more axeings.

Will there be more room for the spoken arts – for poetry and drama? For literary discussion? For the 'philosophic and aesthetic discourse' of which Gillian Reynolds regretted the absence? Will there be any coverage of the classical music traditions of China, India, or the Middle East? Where will be the creative imagination? There will be fewer programmes, mostly fixed format, just like the pop stations.

The Sunday Telegraph concentrates on the cutback in live concert broadcasts with a piece by Arts Editor Chris Hastings who confirms that the number of 'late edition' programmes will be reduced – Mixing It, that is, and possibly Late Junction. A companion article by David Self, 'A bullet through the heart of Radio 3', concentrates on the loss of 'live' music and how this might hit the in-house orchestras (Donovan, on the other hand, speculates that this might mean more work for them).

There is still a lot to learn: programmes have been axed but we don't know what will replace them in the evenings and at weekends. Many will throw their hats in the air at seeing the back of Stage & Screen and Brian Kay's Light Programme, regulars in spite of the fact that their content was nowhere mentioned in Radio 3's remit. Reducing Late Junction to free up some of the late evening listening is what we have wanted.

But what we shall have is a near 24-hour wall-to-wall sequence of studio presenters, one giving way to the next, playing isolated pieces, some on CDs, some 'live recordings'. Programmes will be differentiated from each other by the style of the presenter. It does sound very much like Classic FM without the ads.

'So to hell with the Third!' – Etienne Amyot, one of the first planners at the Third, summed up the view of the Minister of Fuel and Power, Emmanuel Shinwell. In February 1947, five months after the station had been launched, Shinwell abruptly took it off the air to conserve power during the hard winter. Ridiculous to have the Third broadcasting Beethoven and Bernard Shaw when people couldn't cook a bit of haddock. It was one setback that was quickly reversed and the Third, now Radio 3, has continued along a sometimes bumpy road to emerge, finally, sixty years young.

How is it in health? The commentators have been busy this week. Paul Donovan in the Sunday Times has no criticisms. 'Roger Wright has to square a different sort of circle and find room for Schubert and salsa, vespers and electronica,' says Donovan. 'He has managed it with skill.' And that perhaps is the one obviously debatable point, a point which would carry more weight if Mr Wright had managed to keep his audience with him. There have been rumblings from a core of unhappy listeners for the past five years, and last quarter, as we have reported, the ratings tumbled to their lowest yet. A time, perhaps, for a rethink on policy?

In Gramophone, Stephen Pettitt expresses doubts. Should Radio 3 make room for any music which has a niche on radio stations which 'would never dream of broadening their own scope by airing a note of Bach, Beethoven or Boulez? Why should we be ashamed of, and try to hide, the boundaries spiritual, aesthetic and technical that exist between classical, pop and jazz just because, alas, most people don't get classical music?' With an international audience via the internet, Radio 3 has all the more reason to remember that it was invented to champion and disseminate 'high culture'. The success of the Beethoven and Bach seasons proved that there was still a demand for the significant and the aspiring. 'I hope, during the next decade,' concludes Pettitt, 'that those with power will remember that this demand deserves to be satisfied as much as any other.'

Donovan, while voicing no criticism for the changes, reserves his praises for the output about which there is no dispute: Bach, Beethoven, Webern, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky. Pettitt argues for a narrower focus than perhaps is practical, though one which many listeners would sigh longingly for.

And Radio 3's view? Of course the BBC is duly marking the milestone. But who, who for goodness' sake, was responsible for the Radio Times coverage? Who decided that the most effective way to promote the glories of classical music, drama and jazz was to focus on a gaggle of presenters? A mix of showbiz glamour and trendy toffs ready to hit London's (yes, it's clearly London) nightlife. The new brand image that creeps over the airwaves: how many of Radio 3's audience fail to identify with it? Perhaps this explains the steady loss of listeners. And who is now catering for them?

In the meantime: here's to the memory of the Third, and to the future of Radio 3. May it still be around in sixty years' time, 'championing and disseminating high culture'.

We have had a reply today from the Director of Radio and Music confirming that, having carried out further tests on their new encoding equipment, the BBC has decided to return to the previous arrangements: Radio 3's bit rate will be increased to 192 kbps as before though, also as before, it will be reduced to 160 kbps whenever Radio Five Live Sports Extra is broadcasting coverage of sporting events.

Ms Abramsky has offered her apologies to listeners whose enjoyment of Radio 3 broadcasts has been affected over the summer by the poor audio quality.

This is a satisfactory conclusion; the question remaining is whether Sports Extra's broadcasting hours will be substantially increased in the near future. Last year, 2005/2006, the station was on air for 1,209 hours (out of a total of 8,760 hours), but that was an increase of just over 200 hours on the previous year – over 20%. If the plan is to continue this – and there has been an increase over the summer – there will be rather less to celebrate, especially if there is more sports coverage in the evenings which will then regularly affect Performance on 3.

The text of Ms Abramsky's letter and our reply can be read here.

The RAJAR listening figures, published today, make unhappy reading. This time last year Radio 3's reach hit an all-time low – and this year it has plunged even lower, to 1.834 million or 3.682% of the population. This calls into question, urgently, the policies introduced to make R3 more 'accessible', more 'inclusive', more listener-friendly.

We have criticised these policies right from the start, believing that there is still an audience for serious, reflective and intellectually engaging programmes, introduced by highly qualified presenters. It should be a matter of principle that such programmes are there, available to anyone who seeks them out.

The BBC had received feedback, apparently, to the effect that Radio 3 was thought to be 'intimidating', 'elitist' and 'stuffy'. That problem needs to be confronted; but if they were courageous, they would respond that Radio 3 should be intimidating, that elitism is the pursuit of the very best, that one person's stuffiness is another's seriousness (and, by the way, Dead Ringers peddle the same joke that the Third Programme aired on its very first day of broadcasting back in 1946. In 1946 it was fresh and funny).

Radio 3 shouldn't be 'for all' any more than Radio 1 or 1Xtra are 'for all'. The RAJAR evidence is that Radio 3 is falling between two stools: it may be attracting new listeners with its lighter programmes and casual listening style, but it's turning away the long-standing listeners who want something more rigorous. Its raison d'être has become compromised and its purpose incoherent. It should be more focused, not more wide-ranging, it should demand more from its listeners, not less. It does need new listeners, and young listeners, but it shouldn't be afraid to say that Radio 3 is like a club with rules: anyone can join but no one is obliged to join if they don't like the rules. How you get them to join is a challenge, but changing the rules was the soft option. It doesn't seem to have worked.

Meanwhile, what exactly has happened to Radio 3's audience? We have asked the Controller if we can study the detailed listening figures, not normally published, to get a better understanding.

We wrote to the Director-General voicing the complaints over the deterioration in DAB sound quality following the decision to remove bandwidth from Radio 3 and transfer it to Five Live Sports Extra to enable it to broadcast a five-minute continuously repeating station trail. Our letter was forwarded to the Radio and Music Division which is responsible for handling the matter. Most of the reply from the Divisional Manager, Radio and Music, has already been included in other official responses to individuals, though this was an addition:

"As we have received a number of complaints about the quality of Radio 3 at 160, we have embarked upon a series of exhaustive tests of the equipment throughout the broadcast chain. It is an extremely complex process as we are trying out various combinations to identify the optimum configuration of the multiplex. We hope that, on completion of these tests, we will be able to to provide the best service to all our listeners, including those to Radio 3."

We shall reply to this, expressing some misgivings, but in the meantime we have written to Jenny Abramsky asking if the Sports Extra trail could be suspended until a satisfactory solution has been found, stressing that this is Proms season when Radio 3 gets some of its biggest audiences.

Jenny Abramsky read out a statement on the last Radio 4 Feedback programme giving the impression that the situation was 'due to the large number of sports events we were covering', though she made no reference at all to the root of the problem – the Sports Extra trail – which could hardly be described as a 'sports event'.

The Governors launched a public consultation on their proposals for new complaints procedures. Twenty-two individual members of the public and one organisation (Friends of Radio 3) responded. We had a letter from the Governors thanking us for our contribution which they said they found helpful.

The original BBC document, a summary of the Governors' views and the individual responses from the public are now posted on the Governors' website.

We are pleased to see that the Governors have accepted that where there is a dispute between managers or programme makers and members of the public, both sides should see all the evidence submitted to the Complaints Committee. In the past our arguments have been available to management but we were given no information about what had passed between Governors and management, and therefore were unable to lodge objections. Licence fee payers will now have the opportunity to comment on advice or evidence presented to the Governors. That is excellent news.

We are more doubtful about the new finding of "already resolved", especially if this has retrospective force.

There is at the moment no clarification as to whether licence fee payers' 'freedom to challenge' can in any circumstances include freedom to challenge specific policy or the way that policy is being implemented. The main concerns of the GPCC are complaints from individuals who feel they have personally suffered in some way from BBC activity and complaints about specific programmes. Neither of these cover our field of concern.

We also sought clarification as to how the BBC viewed the activity of organised groups: does a group of 100 listeners carry the same weight as 100 individual listeners or is it simply viewed as an unrepresentative pressure group?

On the whole we have some hope that there is a sincere determination on the part of the Governors to make the BBC more accountable and transparent. We shall have to see whether this proves to be the reality.

The matter of Radio 3's degraded sound quality on DAB which began just over a fortnight ago has been outlined on our BBC & R3 News page. We have drawn this to the attention of several senior members of the BBC, of whom the only one who has yet responded is Roger Wright, the Controller of Radio 3. He confirmed what we fully expected: that he has no responsibility for decisions regarding DAB. We look forward to hearing the explanations from those who do have that responsibility in due course.

Someone decreed that a repeating 5-minute trail for Radio Five Live is a better use of bit rate than producing adequate sound quality on DAB for Radio 3. One of the troubling aspects of that is that we cannot be sure that those who took the decision ever listen to Radio 3 at all, still less on a good quality DAB stereo tuner. Do they ever listen to classical music and appreciate the quality of live music broadcasts and CDs? Do they understand what people are complaining about?

The chances are that the decision has been taken by people who don't understand. But one senior person at the BBC certainly does, and that's Roger Wright. He's a musician, he's spent his entire working life with orchestras and music. We have absolutely no doubt that he has the same enthusiasm and sensitivity for classical music as we have.

This is an appeal to him: Roger, you may not have had any involvement in this decision, but as one who understands its importance, you have a moral responsibility to put these complaints forward on behalf of your listeners. This may only affect a minority of a minority, but they do deserve a proper explanation – and an apology if this situation is going to continue.

This (Windows Media) or This (Real Player) is the current output on Radio Five Live Sports Extra. Towards the end of the week the Five Live station trail will be interrupted for coverage of the Test Match. However, unless the BBC has a change of heart, the trail should be available again from 6.30pm

We now have the texts of our last letter in this round of discussions with the Controller and his reply. We ended with three short points, as below, inviting his comments:

1. FoR3: 'on the fact that last year's average weekly reach was (to preempt any objection on detail) 'stable', albeit at a five-year low, even though you say 'many new listeners' have been attracted to Radio 3.'

RW: 'we can agree that the Radio 3 audience has been broadly stable during the past years.'

2. FoR3: 'on our concern that the changes to Radio 3 will continue in the same direction and gradually turn away more and more of the existing listeners who feel their requirements are no longer being catered for, and with an indifferent majority given a higher status than a discerning minority.'

RW: 'As for your concerns about the future direction of Radio 3, you probably know that each BBC channel is in the process of agreeing a service licence with the Board of Governors – soon to be the BBC Trust. Once the text of that is available, you will be able to see the framework which will determine our course for the coming years.'

3. FoR3: 'Trails (the initial subject of the current discussion): we have made suggestions for alternative ways of giving on-air programme information (continuity announcements between programmes and short, regularly scheduled slots devoted to forthcoming programmes), replacing the advertising-style trails now being used, increasingly, in the middle of programmes. Could you say why these would not fulfil the BBC's desire to tell people about what is on offer?'

RW: 'Naturally, we hope the trails will have a positive effect in the longer term, although as you may perhaps also agree, Radio 3's success cannot be judged solely by its audience figures.'

These were the full responses to the points we put. There is no denial of the fact that listeners have deserted the station, though the implication is that as long as they have been replaced by others, attracted by the non-classical material, the BBC is not concerned about the ones who now feel excluded.

We shall be told what we are allowed to know about the future direction of Radio 3 once it has been agreed and published. (We shall have an opportunity to comment on it, and will do so, though it's unlikely that our views will carry any weight at all if we dissent from what the BBC is determined to do. The Controller says 'you will be able to see the framework which will determine our course' which has the sound of a fait accompli.)

On alternatives to trails there is clearly no room for debate at all.

We have no option but to 'agree to disagree', as suggested by the Controller, at least as far as these current exchanges are concerned. We shall point out to him that he has not answered any question or allayed our fears in any way, and make it clear what the inferences are. No answers, no explanations, no discussion. So much for transparency and accountability.

FoR3 wrote to the Controller to ask for futher information about the research quoted as indicating that many listeners welcomed the information gained from on-air programme trails. We pressed the point that it was not the programme information itself that was the source of complaint but the style, frequency and placing of the 'built' trails.

From an exchange of letters which can be read in the Timeline we gather that in the New Year programme trails were increased by 20% in comparison with 2005 (with an extra two per day). The Controller assured us that listeners express no concern about any aspect of the trails but he said he will be interested to see whether listening figures are affected by the trailing policy.

We have since written pointing out that last year's listening figures (reach) were the second lowest since RAJAR introduced its new methodology in 1999 (the lowest was in 2000-2001), and that the percentage of the population listening was at its lowest. We asked the Controller to comment on this and will publish our letter and his reply when we receive it.

The whole matter of BBC 'audience research' is interesting: sometimes one feels that the obvious questions are not asked. It depends, presumably, on whether the aim is genuinely to find out what the audience's preferences are or whether it is to find out how much they can get away with. When the majority is indifferent they can get away with quite a lot.

Programme trails are one of those things about which every now and again there is an outburst of listener resentment. General complaints about trails have been going on for years; they were renewed when Morning on 3 started playing them between pieces of music. Now, in spite of the opposition, the trailing policy has been extended.

Since last week, the trails have become even more intrusive with CD Masters also starting to play them in the middle of the programme.

The BBC's response to complaints is that, now fewer people rely on listings magazines such as Radio Times, people welcome on-air programme information. We agree. What we cannot get the BBC to acknowledge is that the complaints are not about the information, but about the pre-recorded 'built' trails. Listeners do not like 'amusing' silly voices, they do not like the persuasive commercial ad-style, selling the programmes with hype rather than giving the facts; they do not like the inclusion of musical snippets with voice-overs; they do not like the constant repetition of trails; and they certainly do not like all this being force-fed to them between pieces of music.

Complaints by FoR3 supporters about the CD Masters ads (and ads is what they are, with the BBC deciding which programmes it wants to push) were met with the usual evasion: 'Research shows that many audience members welcome trails with information about forthcoming programmes…'

Research shows? The government's Green Paper on Charter renewal stated, under Key Reforms: 'The BBC needs to change to meet the public's concerns… People question… the amount of on-air trailing for BBC programmes…' This was based on audience research. A Radio 4 Feedback programme focused on just this complaint last year.

The BBC assumption appears to be that most Radio 3 listeners are only listening with half an ear (presumably those who are listening attentively don't matter) so trails must grab the attention (for which read 'be intrusive'). Consequently, the more people complain about them, so one producer said, the more it shows the trails are doing their job - being noticed.

We repeat the plea that has been made before: let the announcers give out details of the programmes between programmes. Where pre-recorded trails are needed, let them be used sparingly, and without the commercial hype and adspeak of which listeners are rightly contemptuous. On Classic FM, it's the advertisers who pay for the programmes and they say where they want their ads to appear; on the BBC, licence fee payers pay, which is why the BBC should listen.

The BBC Board of Governors is due to be replaced by a new 'BBC Trust' (working title) when the new Charter period begins in 2007. Part of the future reforms are to be the introduction of Service Licences – one for each service, TV channel, radio station – setting out in detail what it is required to do. The latest public consultation which closed on December 16th was on the Governors' proposals for the general framework of the licences and on a system of measuring the 'public value' of the services.

Friends of Radio 3 submitted comments on this document and these should appear on the Governors' website in due course. We made it clear that our experience of dealing with the BBC suggested to us that the two aims of 'accountability' and 'transparency' had not been much in evidence where licence-payers were concerned. We suggested that if the BBC Trust is to oversee the interests of licence-payers there should be a direct channel of communication between the two, perhaps a member of the Trust to be appointed to liaise in some way. We also suggested that where a significant number of licence-payers communicated their opinion to the Trust for a response, the licence-payers' views should be posted on the Trust's website and a full response given, also on the website, within a certain length of time. This is similar to a number of shareholders being able to request the convening of a general meeting. It would mean that the BBC would have to publicly acknowledge the views and their response would be subject to public scrutiny.

Later this year the proposals for the individual Service Licences will be published. As the Governors are at pains point out, no binding decisions can be taken, but it is hoped that the results of the consultation exercises will be helpful to the new Trust. Given that the Chairman of the Governors, Mr Grade, is also Chairman designate of the new Trust, we may imagine that his knowledge and experience in drawing up the Governors' recommendations will be influential in his new role.

Private Eye picked up on the RAJAR listening figures with a short item in its current issue (No 1140). It alleges that morale at Radio 3 ("once proud to call itself a classical music station") is now at an all-time low. One reason suggested was a recent circular to production staff inviting them to apply for redundancy, another being the latest RAJAR figures, also at an all-time low.

It's likely that all stations, not just Radio 3, have circulated similar letters as part of Mark Thompson's call for 15% across-the-board cuts to services. But Radio 3 has the added misery of being the BBC's one currently underperforming radio station. Relatively expensive and for minority audiences, it's been kicked around now for five years, seemingly for no other reason than that 'some people' thought it was a bit boring and needed brightening up.

Or, to quote a BBC spokesman: 'Radio brands work both ways – they probably turn as many people off as they attract …A lot of people still think that Radio 3 is wall-to-wall classical music, for example.' Oh, yes, BBC. Very off-putting. We must change all that, mustn't we? We must re-brand Radio 3, make sure people know it isn't just classical music. So, yesterday we had 'The Teddy Bears' Picnic' and Ivor Novello, tomorrow it's Kit and the Widow's 'rowdy studio gathering'. On Sunday it's hip hop and rap, and Monday we're back to the post-Proms 'smoky, laid-back mind-enhancing' lean-back radio.

We quote Jenny Abramsky's request to FoR3: 'We would ask you to share your radio network with others whose tastes are different from yours.' That deserves some sort of prize for the most complacent, bland, self-serving response yet.

In the first place it is not 'our' network; it is a network traditionally centred on classical music with a wide range of speech and spoken arts programmes, not all of which have ever been to the taste of all listeners. In the second place, an arts station is not about 'taste' at all; it's about providing a serious, intellectually stimulating service based preponderantly on work of lasting worth. In the third place, where personal taste is involved, listeners are perfectly willing to switch off programmes which they happen not to want to listen to, be it a particular concert, a play or a discussion programme; they are not willing to see the station's airtime given over to infinitely expandable programming designed principally to liven up Radio 3's image and attract new listeners to the Radio 3 frequency, if not to its characteristic programmes. Nor are they willing to tolerate blatant marketing gimmicks to 'sell' the station and its programmes to listeners who are assumed to have absorbed and accepted the crass advertising culture prevalent elsewhere.

That is presumably why the Radio 3 make-over has been such a out-and-out failure. It's time the BBC admitted it got it wrong.

The eagle-eyed radio correspondent of Guardian Online, Julia Day, spotted something adrift with last week's RAJAR quarterly listening figures and did a bit of poking about.

A spokeswoman for Radio 3 admitted that 'the station is disappointed with today's new ratings figures'. Apart from that comment it was an exercise in damage control and obfuscation. She pointed out that 'the station's share of audience has remained stable over the year at 1.1% and that people are tuning in for longer – at 6 hours 20 minutes a listener'. Stable, possibly, but stable at a very low level. Back in 1999 R3 had a share of 1.3% – 1.4%. As for listeners tuning in for longer, as the BBC told us there's a tendency for average listening hours to go down when there's a high reach and up, like this time, when there's a lower reach. With a smaller number of listeners to divide into the total hours you end up with a higher number of hours. The people who are listening least switch off, leaving the hard core who listen longer to bump up the average, though they aren't individually listening for any longer.

The spokeswoman also disputed claims made by some Radio 3 listeners that the station is playing too much jazz and world music, responding: "Radio 3 has always had world, jazz and speech. The group complaining is tiny and I don't think that would make a difference overall." The tiny group is presumably FoR3, though it seems to imply that we are complaining about the presence of speech and jazz on R3, which, of course, we're not.

She is plain wrong over 'world music' though. It hasn't always been on R3. It's common knowledge that it was invented on 29 June 1987 as part of an industry marketing campaign, mainly to promote contemporary African, Asian and Latin American popular music and sell records. R3 had played some traditional global music before that. Now the heart of 'world music' is the popular music, not the classical or folk traditions. It sounds as if the tiny group is being dismissed out of hand – as if no one else is complaining but them. But others are complaining; and in any case only a small minority ever complains: the vast majority (73%) – as OFCOM research shows - either switch off or turn to another station.

Next, the spokeswoman speculates that 'some listeners may have switched over to Radio 4 recently to keep up-to-date with news'. Well, yes, about 72% of R3 listeners also listen to R4. They can keep up-to-date with the news on R4 but they don't need to desert R3 utterly, unless they don't want to listen to it anymore.

And finally: she says she doesn't believe listeners are switching to Classic FM. But they don't need to switch to CFM: approximately half of them already do listen, especially to the evening concerts when there's no classical music on R3; again, they can also listen to R3 if they want to, but it seems that many do not. Why?

Why were the listening figures so low this time? Is it that R3 has alienated too many of its loyal listeners and found that many of the newcomers have now flown? It's a question the BBC knows the answer to – if anyone felt like asking.

You wouldn't guess it from today's BBC press release, but the latest RAJAR audience figures marked something of a landmark. Never ones to hide the Beeb light under a bushel, the BBC Press Office is always more than willing to sweep the bad news under the carpet. So, not a whisper.

Radio 3's listening figures last quarter – 1.913 million or 3.87% of the population – were the lowest they've been under RAJAR's current system of data collection, introduced in January 1999. We can't make any precisely quantifiable comparison with the figures before that date, but we can say it's unlikely that reach has ever been lower than this in the station's history.

So, what's it all about? The New Something-for-Everyone Radio 3 aims at being 'accessible', unintimidating, catering for new tastes and new relaxed listening habits, moulded to the style of the modern age. Not, we are assured, with the aim of increasing the listenership, but to draw in a wider range of listeners and thus give better value to the licence-payers. On this showing, they don't seem to like it much. Or else the desertion by the classical listeners has been of undreamt of proportions. Either way, it's hard to see this as progress.

A word of caution, as ever: each quarter's figures are a snapshot, and snapshots can change quite dramatically from quarter to quarter. But nothing will change the fact that this quarter's listening has been dire. We await with trepidation news of the new autumn schedules. Will the determination to pull in new audiences at all costs bring an increase in easy listening, laid-back presenters loosening up even more, the noisy razzmatazz of marketing hype reaching new heights of inartistic achievement and new strand of Classical Music for Pop Fans? Well, it's now all decided and under wraps, so it's wait-and-see.

To London, capital of the South East, to take up the Governors' general invitation to meet them and air concerns, and with a carefully crafted question to put on behalf of FoR3. In the foyer at the BBC TV Centre, which we finally reached after all sorts of security procedures, there were plates of sandwiches, coffee, fruit juice and, on each table, a generous supply of mineral water. Hospitable, while not ostentatiously squandering licence-payers' money.

After milling about for 45 minutes, we were colour-code regimented into a TV studio probably familiar to many viewers. Walking along my row, as directed, I was on the point of sitting down when greeted by the Controller, R3, from his seat just in front of me. I hastily consulted my question card to see if any last-minute adjustments were called for. But no, it was fine – subtle wording and pared down to incomprehensibility by the 30-word maximum.

In the event, it didn't matter as I wasn't called on to ask my question.

Nevertheless, the proceedings were moderately interesting. There were some strong words over the Hutton debacle, with the BBC being accused of 'bottling'. Michael Grade dealt with this diplomatically (given that many of the present Governors were on the Board at the time), apparently to the satisfaction of the audience who appeared to be pro-BBC and anti-government (what a surprise).

On the matter of Jerry Springer – the Opera, having initially been slightly inclined (about 0.05% from horizontal) to be on one side of the argument, I had read an article by the D-G and was now quite happy to be on the other side. But – the point was pressed – what about the sheer quantity of complaints? How could the BBC ignore 55,000 protests before the screening and 8,000 complaints afterwards? Surely that volume of complaints had to be considered? No. Michael Grade was vehement. The instant you allow yourself to be influenced by the number of complaints, you devalue the complaint of the individual: the one person who may have been genuinely harmed by the BBC. One single complaint? Not worth bothering about. Neither, it was added, was the status of the complainant considered – one 'ordinary' licence-payer or a lobby group, it doesn't matter: the complaint will be judged on its merits. Ha! Good point. What if there are 25 million complaints?

But complaints are one thing, accountability is not quite the same. My question was to have been: "Accountability is a duty to explain or justify. If licence-payers – individuals or minorities – wish to question specific policies, what support do they get from the BBC to do so?" (30 words). The fine distinction here is that licence-payers should not, and cannot, expect automatic support for their case, but the BBC should ensure that they are not obstructed or fobbed off in their attempts to gain information or answers to their questions.

After the show…

…we adjourned to the sandwiches and mineral water again. This was probably the most useful part of the proceedings because the Governors and BBC staff mingled and made themselves available. I spoke to Ranjit Sondhi and explained our point: we were questioning policy – calling the BBC to account – but had no support at all in doing so and it was an uphill struggle. There were two separate considerations: a) that the BBC may or may not accept our arguments and b) that if they don't accept them, there is nevertheless an onus on them to answer the case. Confidential internal procedures followed by a Greek oracular pronouncement of NO is not enough.

I accepted an invitation from Roger to meet Deborah Bull. On the question of whether we had or had not been given answers, Roger and I rehearsed our heated 'Did-didn't, did-didn't,' to put the Governor in the picture. A crowd gathered. Roger said, hadn't Jenny [Abramsky] answered our question about 'peak time'? Sort of, but, as we'd explained to her, we hadn't asked about peak time or 'prime time' but about 'prime listening time' or quality listening time – the time (in the evening) when people are free to listen attentively without distractions (research carried out for R3 in 2003 showed that R3 listeners still do this, even if the rest of the world doesn't). Having explained this misunderstanding, we heard no more. That, we feel, is typical of the 'accountability'.

Deborah Bull said in the future the RadioPlayer, or that kind of thing, would be the answer to all such scheduling problems, when people would be selecting their own programmes, but she conceded that we weren't there yet (no: two-thirds of R3 listeners never visit a radio station website and half of those don't use the internet at all). So – give us back some of our late night listening time.

Finally, given the choice between meeting Mark Thompson and Nicholas Kroll, I chose Nicholas Kroll. He's the Director of the Governance Unit, the Governors' new 'civil service'. Mr Kroll is a very serious listener. He said we had set out our arguments very clearly. Would that R3 had set out its arguments as clearly, then. In a curious way, one gets the feeling that the 'decisions' of the Governance Unit are made lower down, by the 'advisers'. Who exactly gets the job of advising here? Could we have a look at their memos, please, like we're allowed to see our medical records?

We get the impression that an R3 audience which doesn't conform to general audience behaviour is an inconvenience. So much that relates to the broadcasting of the arts and classical/serious music simply doesn't fit the norms of listener expectations; and there is an audience which feels it's being bludgeoned into following BBC agendas on lifestyle, culture and the arts.

Not perhaps so strange that when Radio 3 makes the headlines it should be with a number-crunching, smash-hit story of runaway success: it's the kind of thing the press understands. Rather more strange that Radio 3 should have had such a story to tell; but it did.

The Beethoven Experience itself rippled the surface of a few of the more remote press ponds while being typically Radio 3; it attracted grudging awe for doing the plain daft – effectively devoting six days and nights to a single radio programme. The concept was amusing in the way that the broadcasting of Cage's 4'33" of silence was amusing; but, in the end, no one's business but its own. It harmed no one in the real world.

But the symphony downloads – that was something else, bang up to date with current technology and practice in the wider music world. On the one hand, we have Live8, pressing all the right buttons: a mammoth charity event standing on the coat-tails of the international G8 conference, a stellar (current favourite word on R3) line-up of some of the pop world's finest. On the other hand, we have Beethoven. And Beethoven wins hands-down.

The symphony downloads – of a new cycle performed specially by the BBC Philharmonic under Gianandrea Noseda (now 'an icon of iPod culture', according to the Telegraph – were, it's true, entirely free. But 79p, the price of Macca's new version of Sgt Pepper, was hardly going to put off anyone who wanted it. And again, the symphonies – which on dial-up were taking a couple of hours to download – were each available for only seven days, and there were many disappointed people who wanted them but missed their chance.

Now, is this just a heart-warming story of unusual success or are there other lessons? The download figures for the nine individual symphonies are being interpreted at R3 as a sign that many new-to-classical listeners were attracted. It's hard to say what the figures alone reveal (No 6 the clear winner, No 3 at the bottom, and the 5th – a fizzing performance in many people's estimation – only managing 7th place); there were some download glitches at various times. What it has shown is that an event of this kind can attract new listeners to classical music, perhaps make 'converts' of them, while, most importantly, making no concessions: this treatment was able to satisfy newbies and old hands alike.

Some regular R3 listeners thought the whole thing misconceived – a thoroughly bad idea – and it could be pointed out that the current inflexible weekly schedules wouldn't allow for Beethoven's complete works to be broadcast other than as a one-off, an Assyrian raid on R3 output. But the positive publicity is welcome. There is, potentially, a larger audience for classical music. Popularising techniques may attract a wider audience, but they don't necessarily hold the less committed; they do, most certainly, alienate established listeners.

Providing a balance between the avant-garde/contemporary and a no-frills approach to the canon of music, the literary arts and the broadly intellectual seems a perfectly valid role for R3, and one for which there is a demand. Meanwhile, the BBC has made waves with an uncompromising promotion of 'high culture'. No patronising. Way to go, BBC…

Symphony download figures:

No. 1 – 164,662
No. 2 – 154,496
No. 3 – 89,318
No. 4 – 108,958
No. 5 – 139,905
No. 6 – 220,461
No. 7 – 185,718
No. 8 – 148,553
No. 9 – 157,822
Total – 1,369,893

The following reply to Jenny Abramsky was copied to Roger Wright:

Thank you for your letter of 27 April. Mr Grade notified us that a copy of the submission had been sent to you.

We are, as you say, all very appreciative of Radio 3 which for many people with an interest in classical music and the arts has been a unique lifeline in a media environment which now caters amply for 'youth culture' and popular entertainment.

You say you are sorry that we have not been able to reach agreement. Our submission included many detailed comments, so it is not clear whether you disagreed with all our points, or just some of them. Many were statements of fact which do not easily suffer disagreement. Some were questions, for example:

• we are given no explanation as to why almost the entire output of non-classical music is broadcast in the evenings and at weekends, condemning many classical listeners, nearly every night, to their computer rooms and the inferior audio quality of Listen Again;
• no response to our objection that, while the BBC has increased its radio broadcasting hours substantially with the new digital popular music and speech services, it devotes more time on Radio 3 than before to light and popular music and to general cultural topics;
• no response to our comment that the 'arts' output now consists predominantly of off-the-cuff discussions (serious, possibly, but not profound, and frequently lasting no more than 10 minutes per subject) rather than artistic performance and critical examination;
• no response to our query about listening figures – why, if Radio 3 has attracted 'many' new listeners, has the audience not increased by the amount of those new listeners? Even if one accepts that reach is 'stable' we should still like to know which listeners have been switching off, and, more crucially, why. Last year's percentage reach (the measurement used by the Governors in last year's Annual Report) was the second lowest under current RAJAR methodology. Recorded reach was below average for that same period.

Two minor points to finish:

1) In your letter you express disagreement on only two matters, neither of which corresponds with what we said. Firstly, you say: 'Roger Wright and I do not agree with you that Radio 3 has "dumbed down".' That was not an accusation that FoR3 made (though many others have); instead we highlighted precise points for criticism: the impact of 'presenter culture', the use of celebrities and the 'fun factor' to sell classical music, repetitive and intrusive programme advertising between pieces of music, the triviality of 'interactivity', sloganising and catchphrases, presenter gaffes, deficiencies in general cultural knowledge and a frequently displayed inability to pronounce names and titles in languages other than English, and so on. That said, 'dumbing down', if it means anything at all (and we avoid its use), means setting lower cultural or intellectual standards than the audience expects and wants; and the judges of this must be the listeners, not the BBC.

2) You say: 'I suggest that world music is not "derivative of Western pop" as you describe it'. That is not what we said. We said that too much of the world music which is featured on Radio 3 is strongly influenced by and derivative of Western pop.You say also that it represents 'not more than a small percentage of the output of Radio 3' which again avoids a major point: that it features within almost 10 hours of weekly programming, all of which is broadcast in the evenings and at weekends.

If you could pass these queries on to someone who is able, and has the time, to answer them, we should be grateful.

Having prepared a second detailed submission for the BBC Governors (who are overseers of the Radio 3 remit) about our complaints, we attempted a final discussion with Roger Wright to check whether any common ground had materialised. A meeting took place on February 8th: the Controller acknowledged our dissatisfaction but rejected our views en bloc without giving any explanations or referring to any of them specifically. The FoR3 submission was therefore completed and forwarded to the Board of Governors on March 25th. It can be read here.

We received a 14-line reply from Michael Grade, the BBC Chairman, of which eight lines consisted of an assurance that Radio 3 had indeed achieved a 'record' audience last year (this a very minor point mentioned in our covering letter). The only content of substance was the following paragraph:

On April 27th we received a letter from Jenny Abramsky which read as follows:

We shall acknowledge this and post a copy of our reply to Ms Abramsky here shortly: there is very little which we can disagree with because the letter does not refer to our specific points; on the other hand it does give a false impression of what we were saying. FoR3 did not say Radio 3 had 'dumbed down'; we do not use that expression because it does not get to the root of the problem and is not helpful in advancing any exchange of views. Instead we outlined specific aspects of output which we consider to be sub-standard, lacking in rigour and imagination or needlessly intrusive, and we stated, factually, that many listeners regarded this as a further sign that the BBC had 'dumbed down'; we did not dismiss world music as 'derivative of Western pop': we said that too much of the world music played on Radio 3 is strongly influenced by and derivative of Western pop; we expressly regretted that Radio 3 has no in-depth coverage of classical and traditional world music.

Some background information is given in the section below to put these figures in context.

The audience figures for the year before last, that is, for 2003-2004, provided R3's most solid performance since RAJAR introduced its new system of data collection in January 1999.

The final quarter (Q1, 2004) was hailed by the BBC as 'a record' (meaning 'the highest audience recorded under the new RAJAR system'). There was no immediately obvious reason for this, so it was not unexpected when the first quarter of 2004-2005 (Q2, 2004) showed a fall, though the size of the drop, from 2.290 million to 2.021 million, was considerable. The BBC press release reported: 'From its record 2.29 million last quarter the network dropped back slightly to 2.02 million'. Anyone who took the trouble to get out a calculator would have been surprised to see a slump of 11.75% described as 'slight', and the wording of the press release suggested that, after the 'record' figure of the previous quarter, listening had held up well. An email to the Press Office about the inaccuracy of the statement received no reply. So, not a regrettable mistake then: just spin.

The second quarter (Q3, 2004), Proms quarter, showed a slight rally to 2.072 million, and the third quarter (Q4, 2004) saw the figure rise to 2.100 million. But by the final quarter of the year (Q1, 2005) there was a further slump, down to 1.988 million, 302,000 (13.19%) down on the 'record'. This was the first time reach had fallen below 2 million since December 2001. The press release reported non-committally: 'BBC Radio 3's audience has dipped just below 2 million (1.99m) compared with last year's record 2.29m and last quarter's 2.1m.'

The BBC's last Annual Report included a reference to R3's 'record' audience figures. The radio listening figures were given (on page 35) in our preferred form – as a percentage of the population (rather than the number of listeners, as is used for press releases): 4.5% of the 15+ population for R3. Using that same indicator, R3's reach in the year just ended was its second lowest, at 4.19%, of the six-year period: only the year 2000-2001, the first complete year following the major schedule changes, has been worse, at 4.08%.

The important point is not that the fall has been dramatic. It is that the Controller has on several occasions pointed out that his programme innovations have brought 'many new listeners' to R3. If that it so (and common sense tells us this must be correct, even if the 'many' are unquantified), then how does he explain that the overall audience is – to use the BBC's preferred terminology – 'stable'? What other explanation can there be than the one which listeners are telling us, over and over again – that they dislike the changes? That they miss the quality, variety and challenge which R3 once offered? That they now listen to R3 much less than they used to and in many cases no longer listen at all? The listening figures support those claims.

We want to hear from the BBC how they justify increasing the popular entertainment content to the point where disillusioned listeners are deserting the UK's only serious cultural station. How can you say you're 'widening the audience' if you extend it at one end only to cut it off at the other?

We await with interest the Annual Report on this year's performance, due out in July, and hope the Governors will make a connection between the enigmatic listening figures and the comments which we made in our recent submission to them and which media commentators have been making for several years.

The radio listening figures are produced by RAJAR (Radio Joint Audience Research), an independently run organisation jointly financed by the BBC and its competitors, the UK commercial radio stations. The quarterly summary, which is publicly available, consists of two significant figures for each station: the calculated 'reach' (the average number of people aged 15 or over who had listened to the station each week throughout the quarter) and the total number of hours that each station was listened to by all its listeners, again, the weekly average. From this figure the station's 'share' is calculated, the percentage of the total hours of all UK radio listening.

RAJAR's figures are not exact measurements: they are calculations gained from representative population samples. There will be fluctuations from week to week and quarter to quarter which are of no long-term significance. Press releases which give the impression that individual figures are significant are not necessarily untrue, but they are usually spin, designed to give the press, which is largely uninterested in dry facts and figures, a good story.

The release of the quarterly listening figures is a publicity opportunity, each broadcaster wanting to be seen to have done well, particularly against its main competitors. For the BBC, which has many different stations, the news will almost always be, on balance, 'good': the press releases can concentrate on the good news and either gloss over or not mention the bad news. In the competitive arena, this is understandable; but it is neverthless a fact to be borne in mind. Just occasionally a 'disappointment' has to be acknowledged, as it was 18 months ago when Radio 1's reach had fallen over successive quarters and then slid to its lowest ever under RAJAR's current system of data collection, and amounting to a loss of over 2 million listeners weekly.

RAJAR introduced a new system in January 1999 (two months after Roger Wright became Controller of Radio 3) and figures recorded after that date cannot be directly compared with those before. Since that time, Radio 3's reach has fluctuated: for the Charter review, Radio 3's 'good year' of 2003-2004 came at just the right time. For all BBC stations, comparisons were made between 1999-2000, a relatively poor year for Radio 3, and 2003-2004, its best year overall under the current RAJAR methodology. The Radio 3 bar charts suggested solid achievement in most (but not all) areas; Radio 3, in short, was 'doing well'.

Radio 3 key statistics since March 1999:

Highest reach: 2.290 million (March 2004); 'a record' (i.e. 'the best since March 1999')

Lowest reach: 1.920 million (March 2001, eighteen months after the introduction of Late Junction)

Highest percentage reach: 4.778% (March 1999, the first quarter using the new methodology)

Lowest percentage reach: 3.989% (March 2001)

Highest total hours: 14.635 million (December 2003)

Lowest total hours: 11.393 million (March 2001)

Highest share: 1.385% (March 1999, the first quarter using the new methodology)

Lowest share: 1.094% (June 2003)

We have now forwarded to the BBC's Board of Governors our submission regarding the direction which Radio 3 has taken over recent years. The FoR3 document was signed by most of those named on the Supporters List. We queried in particular the changes to Radio 3's remit which have been introduced in the past few years and which have shifted the focus from classical music, specifically, and towards 'a broad spectrum' of music, including jazz and world music; a move away from the spoken arts towards arts discussion and general cultural topics; and the disappearance of almost all programmes which make intellectual demands on listeners.

The approval of station remits is, specifically, a responsibility of the Governors. We drew attention to the comment in the Government's newly published Green Paper which said [8.24]: 'The BBC should not be able to make significant changes to the character of any of its radio services without regulatory supervision', and we maintained that listeners – licence-payers – have a legitimate interest in any proposals to change station remits, just as the BBC's commercial rivals do. Our objection was not to the broadcasting of non-classical music on Radio 3, but to the change of remit which made it a duty to provide such output and which, in turn, has resulted in world music and jazz being particularly strongly promoted. The commitment to such output appears to be open-ended, making further increases an option.

We also detailed the unbalanced scheduling of non-classical music (which discriminates against certain categories of listener); the reduction in programme variety; a presentational style now geared towards the casual rather than the dedicated listener; intrusive 'marketing' techniques; the regular inclusion of popular and 'pop' music; and a general lack of artistic and intellectual ambition in some areas.

The Governors acknowledged our submission to the Review of Services, sent to them fifteen months ago, in their Annual Report in these words: "We are aware some listeners are unhappy with the share of output given to non-classical music on Radio 3 and will remain mindful of this in continuing to assess the network's performance."

We have made it clear that 'the share of output given to non-classical music' is only one factor, and await an official response.

Last quarter, Radio 3's Rajar audience ratings were hailed by the BBC press office as 'record' figures. The Controller was quoted in The Independent as referring to them as "our best ever". The fact was that last quarter (January – March) R3's share of listening hours was unremarkable, average listening hours per listener were unremarkable, the percentage reach was good – but not a record (the best, under Rajar's current methodology, had been back in March 1999, before Late Junction etc had been heard of). Yes, the 'raw' reach – 2.29m was the best, just topping, for the first time, the March 1999 figure, by 13,000.

But the 'listening population' had grown since then by just over 1.5%, whereas R3's reach had only increased by 0.6%. When adjusted, the reach was the equivalent of some 20,000 less than that of March 1999. So not much of a record, considering the celebrations.

The Governor's Annual Report also stated (p 34) that 'the network achieved a record reach in the first quarter of 2004', a 'fact' which management, no doubt, had an interest in persuading the Governors of.

The second quarter's figures were released today. It should have been back to reality with a bump, but, no, the press release reported: 'From its record 2.29 million last quarter the network dropped back slightly to 2.02 million…' Slightly? A loss of nearly 270,000 from a total listenership of 2.29m is surely well over 10%? And the share is languishing too; of 22 quarterly figures since Roger Wright took over, only four have been lower than this latest figure – two of them within the past eighteen months.

We have always been scrupulous in commenting on Rajar figures. Where we saw encouraging news, we highlighted it; and where we saw problems we pointed them out. The official view is that Radio 3's listening figures are 'stable'. Overall that may be, broadly speaking, give or take, true, but that disguises one aspect which we have mentioned many times, and which management never addresses.

We'll repeat it here. Radio 3 has no more listeners now than it had five years ago, nor are listeners tuning in for longer. Marginally, the figures are depressed compared with March 1999. So, what of all the 'many new listeners' who, according to management, have been attracted to the station in the last five years? Clearly, they've been cancelled out by all the old listeners who have switched off. And those who have stayed are listening less.

And it bears repeating, too, that classical listeners are not just complaining about the increase in non-classical music programmes in the evenings; they're complaining about the generally irritating presentation, the banal commentary, the over excited trailers, the determination to 'sell' classical music, the feeling that Radio 3 is no longer being targeted at us and what we want. Of course there are still wonderful programmes, but many aren't broadcast at times when people can listen, nor are they available On Demand. For a station which still keeps classical music 'at the heart of the schedule' it doesn't seem to look after its core audience very well.

Last Sunday, Clive Davis (the attribution to Paul Donovan is incorrect) wrote in the Sunday Times: 'Late Junction' may be immensely popular, but 105 minutes, four nights a week, still seems excessive. The slab of jazz and world music on Saturday afternoons is also an ordeal … I hate to sound so critical. It is, after all, much easier to write a pithy music review than it is to fill an hour of dead air. Still, I am sure Wright's pursuit of the trendies who turn out to munch canapés at the Radio 3 Awards for World Music is doomed.'

Coming from a respected jazz and world music critic, surely notice should be taken?

Meanwhile, as far as the (diminishing) arts programming goes, Lebrecht Live, Between the Ears, and The Verb, don't get universally good write-ups; Night Waves is variable; and devotees of the classic radio play feel hard done by. She Stoops To Conquer might be R3's policy at the moment, and it isn't very successful. Other people, unkindly, call it 'dumbing down'.

The latest media blast at Radio 3 has come from The Stage (18 June 2004). Susan Elkin, freelance writer on the arts, has pitched in with her criticism of the station's new style. Like others, she puts this down to an attempt to compete with Classic FM in the battle for new listeners.

"Not so long ago Radio 3 was essentially a club-like classical music station with excellent drama, some rather good talks and a few jazz programmes thrown in. Not everybody's cup of tea perhaps but it suited a million or two very well. And listeners were listeners, they were not expected to participate," says Elkin

She points out just what we've pointed out: so, we now get our interactive chance to vote for Radio 3 Artiste of the Year. Why can't they understand that we think it an imbecility to be asked to choose which is the best as between the world's greatest performers? And why should we want to vote for short snippets from new CDs? Or write in with our opinions and our stories? Or listen to them when they're read out over the air waves? Elkin remarks: "Intellectual it ain't… Dumbing down is cliché but the cap certainly fits where Radio 3 is concerned."

Now, after the hi-jacking of the evening schedules by the 'dreary' (Elkin's view) Late Junction and by Andy Kershaw, it appears that Morning on 3 is to become 'more topical and interactive'. This was revealed in a casual email reply to an enquiry from a listener about playlists.

We're two weeks away from the summer season and the only news of the programming has been a throwaway remark on In Tune which suggested that last year's much criticised Summer with the Stars series (aka Summer Selection) is back again this year, and possibly for four hours at a stretch instead of three. It will start, presumably, the weekend after next; by this time last year we'd already become fed up with the trailers advertising it. It's July, and still nothing at all about the new autumn schedules, even though last year the first press release was published back in February. So what do we have in store – other than more interactivity and more celebrities? And why the secrecy this year?

The presenters' voices swoop up and down to keep us interested, the invitations to join in come thick and fast, the show tunes are slipped in here and there, the celebrities choose their favourite pop – and these are just the classical music programmes.

We're getting to understand what it's like to be excluded from the BBC's services as even the classical programmes are becoming progressively more banal in the pursuit of ratings and at the expense of seriousness.

When the BBC submitted proposals for their new digital services, including the radio stations, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport set certain conditions. They are now reviewing these services, and comments were invited from public bodies and from individuals. Friends of Radio 3 submitted views relating in particular to the music stations 1Xtra and 6 Music, which are 'sister stations' to Radio 1 and Radio 2 respectively. In essence we maintained that at a time when the airtime for popular music had just been doubled, there was no justification for using Radio 3 for popular music (particularly since there were no plans to introduce a digital station for classical music/arts). We therefore maintained that the remits for 1Xtra and 6 Music were too narrow if there was no place, either on the digital or the analogue stations, for the popular music now being broadcast on Radio 3.

This is the text of our submission:

Department for Culture, Media & Sport: BBC Digital Services Review Digital radio services (Tim Gardam)

Response from Friends of Radio 3 (FoR3) on the digital radio music services

Friends of Radio 3 (FoR3) is concerned that, despite the fact that new digital radio music services have been introduced (in particular, the 'sister' stations to Radio 1 and Radio 2, 1Xtra and 6 Music), Radio 3's serious classical output has been progressively reduced to make way for a range of light, popular and specialist musics, all either removed from, duplicating or of a similar type to those on Radios 1 and 2.

We consider the remits adopted for the new digital music networks are pertinent in two respects:

1. they are centred on contemporary popular music at a time when – as BBC management has pointed out to us - an interest in developing genres (e.g. world, roots, film music, crossover) is expanding:
   
   [It appears that 6 Music's remit in particular (designed, so we have been told by the BBC Director, Music and Radio, Jenny Abramsky, to cater for 'fans of the popular music of the 70s, 80s and 90s'), is very restricted, especially considering that Radio 2 is, if anything, overloaded with the range of its popular, 'adult pop' and specialist coverage. We observe that 6 Music's listening figures have, to date, been poor, the reach last quarter less than half that of the Asian Network, and also significantly less than 1Xtra's.]
   
   
2. that the BBC appears to be wilfully disregarding the fact that the UK population is an ageing one: with Radio 1 already targeted on the under 25s, both 1Xtra and 6 Music aim to cater for the musical tastes of the younger end of the age spectrum (1Xtra similar to that of Radio 1, 6 Music, seemingly, up to the mid 40s or so):
   
   [The Radio 2 audience for specialist musics such as jazz, country, folk, roots, blues, as well as that for light classics, tends to be, like the Radio 3 audience for classical music, of an older age group than that for pop.]
   
   Friends of Radio 3 questions the necessity for a Public Service Broadcaster to provide round-the-clock popular music on three separate stations (Radio 1, 1Xtra and 6 Music), as well as filling much of a fourth (Radio 2) when a number of serious musical tastes are now competing for airtime (thus affecting the output of Radio 3 which must, so we are told, 'reflect current trends').
   
   Since there are no plans for a cultural digital radio service to mirror that of Radio 3, it seems not unreasonable to expect the BBC to devote its single 'high culture' station to seriously treated classical and associated musics and to high quality arts programming; and to contain its coverage of popular/lighter/alternative music on Radio 1 – 1Xtra – Radio 2 – 6 Music, where, with the new digital services, there is now double the airtime compared with five years ago. Instead, anything rated remotely 'serious' is now covered on Radio 3 while all the new digital airtime plays pop music.
   

FoR3

10 June 2004

Letters of complaint about Radio 3 have been sent to the present Controller for at least four years. At the beginning, at least, it appeared that listeners were sent an individually hand-crafted brush-off.

We have just received a copy of a reply sent to a listener a couple of weeks ago. Approximately 80% of this is what was said to FoR3 last year by Jenny Abramsky, Director, Radio and Music. Word for word. At the time we queried the assertions in considerable detail (you can read this here on Timeline) but received no response. None whatsoever.

Yet, nearly a year later these platitudinous irrelevancies are still being trotted out to people who complain. Word for word. No matter what they're complaining about. Copied and pasted, so that the Controller doesn't have to trouble with dictating letters and personally answering specific complaints. So, after what now amounts to years of trying, we still have no proper explanation of what the changes are all about, no attempt to answer straight questions. Explaining and justifying, we must remind BBC management, is what accountability is all about.

Removing the great chunk of Ms Abramsky's words (which presumably she also copied and pasted from somewhere else), Mr Wright's reply amounts to just this:

"I am sorry that so much of our output displeases you. We will have to disagree as to what should be heard on Radio 3. Late Junction, World Routes and Making Tracks have attracted many new listeners to Radio 3 who will, I hope, stay with us for many years to come."

Many new listeners? But Mr Wright, you have no more listeners now than when you took over five years ago. What about the many old listeners who have deserted, to say nothing of the many loyal ones who are hanging on unhappily? On second thoughts, don't answer that. Not in front of the vicar anyway.

Every so often one is heartened to hear about inspirational business people who are dedicated to classical music (Ted Perry, founder of Hyperion, was one such). The success story of their businesses is, after all, a success story for the music too. Some while back Perry was interviewed on CD Review and one couldn't help but feel tremendously grateful to him, as well as admiring his care for the music and the integrity that went into his business philosophy. Today, Andrew McGregor interviewed Bernard Coutaz, founder of the French label Harmonia Mundi, and the same feeling of gratitude was aroused again.

Coutaz set up his business, not in a busy urban centre but in the idyllic setting of Haute Provence (more congenial for the staff, you see, and therefore conducive to work: any jobs going, I wonder…?). He told a marvellous story about how having gone to hear Alfred Deller for the first time, at a recital in Avignon, they 'kidnapped' him and drove him back to Harmonia's business HQ – an old farmhouse a good hour's drive away. There, with typical French style, they magicked up a meal of omelettes and wine and talked well into the night: Deller's consequent recording contract was a handshake, which both sides held to for the rest of his career.

Coutaz has a quiet confidence in his 'product': attendance at concerts and recitals in France and elsewhere is, he says, increasing; and his strategy of opening 43 boutiques – retail outlets – is interesting too. He points out that many big retailers are cutting back or withdrawing their classical stock, with the obvious result that those who want to buy can't. Common sense, then, to step into the gap. The shops are a success, accounting for 26% of domestic sales. Just imagine Harmonia, Hyperion, Naxos and a few others who have other goals, besides financial profit, getting together and opening a string of boutiques…

Business? Retail outlets? Sales? PRODUCT!!?? Well, yes, but fair enough – where would we be without them? And surely, having utter confidence in classical music – the product – is what we, at least on this side of the Radio 3 speakers, have in common with Bernard Coutaz and classical music lovers the world over. So the message to the BBC and R3 is – what else? – courage, mes braves! Stick to what you do best. And leave the stars, superstars and would-be stars of popular music to fend for themselves.

The show rolls on. After the instant response of the newspapers to our (rare) press circular a couple of weeks back, Private Eye had the chance to do a bit of research. In fact, a lot of research. The 'Music and Musicians' column in this latest issue (No. 1107, 28 May – 10 June, and well worth £1.30, if we may say so!) is devoted to FoR3's campaign, and the content of our website.

This is not the first time that an article has been devoted to us. But it is the first time that our message has been conveyed with anything approaching accuracy. In the past it's first been travestied and then the travesty demolished. If we make ourselves clear, we have the right to expect to be quoted accurately. That is the point at which people should be free to take issue with us. Then we can have a debate, put argument against argument. And perhaps modify our own views in the light of that debate.

Without the usual 'balancing' arguments from BBC representatives this was the equivalent of our own soapbox – and that is a first. The results so far have been near dramatic. We've had probably the busiest two days in our history. And now seems the moment to move on.

Next month there will be a meeting of a core group to set up a properly constituted organisation for the longer term. So far, we have been 99% online. We have to be able to reach those who don't have computers, or who use them very little. And we have to start looking in a more detached way at the issues, not merely as listeners reacting to what we hear – and don't like.

Last week was a very busy one which had time-consuming repercussions, hence the late appearance of this update.

At the beginning of the week FoR3 sent out a press circular, only the second in our 12 months of existence (the first crept forth last September to universal uninterest). Our latest briefly stated our view on Radio 3's newly released Statements of Programme Policy (SOPPs) 2004/2005. We expressed our concern that classical music seemed to have no greater emphasis than that placed on world music – and this looked like a further downgrading of classical music. What was now to be 'at the heart of the schedule', if not classical music? In that respect it appeared that FoR3's submission to the Governors, sent in January, had had little effect on policy.

We were contacted on Tuesday by the Daily Telegraph and the Independent, and articles duly appeared on Wednesday. The Telegraph piece was short, broadly accurate and concentrated on our 'concern' at 'worrying' aspects of the SOPPs. The Independent, gave it a full page (tabloid edition) spread (you need a BT Click & Buy account to read it here). Like many pieces, it had a tendency towards self-contradiction – we were 'disconcerted' and wanted 'to clarify' the position (true), yet this amounted to a 'chorus of disapproval', with FoR3 'demanding an explanation'. But strong emotion, of course, is what justifies giving an entire page over to the story.

The Indie's third leader that same day was sour, reviving the old canard (this originally was an Indie 'exclusive' so cannot lightly be abandoned) that we were once 'up in arms' about a jazz programme (a complete myth that anyone – as far as we know – was 'horrified' at Frank Zappa being the subject of Jazz File last year). The leader was belligerent: 'Sorry but world music deserves a place in BBC schedules.' Yet we'd just been correctly reported as saying that if Radio 3 was going to offer a wider range of music, it should address the question of what it would have to cut down as a result. We were depicted as fearing 'wall-to-wall rock music'. A letter from FoR3 was published – no doubt a feather in the wind of misinformation.

The Guardian followed up on Thursday, again with a somewhat overheated article, a tabloid full-page. And again it offered a form of truth. FoR3 quotes were broadly accurate ("We're not saying we don't want any jazz or world music.") Yet there is the Controller as usual 'countering' (sic) that jazz has been on R3 for 40 years. The most remarkable aspect of this article was an intemperate outburst by an unnamed 'BBC insider'. We won't repeat what was said since you can read the whole article here. We are still considering whether to register with the BBC our mild displeasure at this piece of patent silliness. A letter to the Guardian from FoR3, correcting claims made by the Controller, was not, as far as we know, printed.

On Thursday also, Janet Street-Porter's editorial in the Indie ('The BBC should dare to be different') was a swingeing attack on the new SOPPs for BBC network radio. Yes! yes! and yes again! to just about everything she says here. And how! No mention of FoR3, but plenty about R3, 'the premier classical music station'. Her personal view on what R3 should be departs from FoR3's, and is factually inaccurate when she speaks of 'the increasing amount of drama and arts programming'. If anything it has decreased. And the prospect of Measure for Measure being produced as a four-part serial on R4 hardly bears thinking about (R4's drama slots being of 45 and 60 minutes). Would R4 broadcast an uncut dramatisation of Venus and Adonis? Where would experimental new writing find a place? But as for the general thrust: 'This policy statement is a dog's breakfast, and only serves to underline the deep insecurity at the heart of the corporation' – thank goodness! 'The dead hand of worthiness'? And we thought it was just us 'not being rational' again.

A pencilled-in interview for the R4 Today programme on Thursday morning didn't happen because R4 was angling for us to provide a well-known speaker to confront Roger. That being impossible at short notice, and Roger being anyway 'unavailable', the interview was dropped. So FoR3 was denied the opportunity to state its case directly.

Further news will be circulated in the usual way to supporters.

The BBC's Statements of Programme Policy 2004/2005 for television and radio were published on April 29th. The network radio pages can be read (pdf file) here or, in text version only, here. The R3 statement is on page 25.

Back in January, FoR3 submitted details of its concerns to the Governors. We argued that since last year's statement had pronounced that 'classical music remains at the heart of the schedule' R3 management had not respected this, particularly in their determination to place the ever increasing amount of non-classical music in the accessible evening and weekend slots. In other words, they had placed more importance on attracting new audiences to new output than on catering for long-standing listeners – who had consequently lost much of their evening listening time. Alternative musics are now broadcast at times when the vast majority of human beings are able – and want – to listen. Classical music programmes, on the other hand, though still overwhelmingly in the majority, are broadcast when people are asleep (1am to 7am) and during normal working hours when large sections of the listeners, though awake, are prevented from listening.

We'd had no response until this new Statement appeared. Now, the crucial phrase 'classical music remains at the heart of the schedule' has been dropped. In fact, the only specific mention of classical music occurs in the introductory sentence: "BBC Radio 3 provides a broad spectrum of classical music, jazz, world music, drama and arts discussions." Primus among musical pares, apparently, though possibly only on alphabetical grounds.

We still have options to pursue. We can and should press for a detailed reply from either Radio 3 management or the Governors. Meanwhile, the only possible covert response that we have detected is that world pop/rock music seems to have been reduced on Late Junction, with world music being mainly traditional (and perhaps with an increase in jazz). This could discourage the Radio 1 listeners, and a reduction in audience might persuade management to cut back the hours or move some of it to other parts of the schedule.

A fuller discussion of the Statements is here. Please contact us if you have any comments.

It was interesting that FoR3 was consulted about this week's upcoming production on The Wire in order to elicit the views of Mr/Ms Average Radio 3 Listener on the subject of this 'controversial drama'. If you missed the 'gay kiss' saga, you can catch up with it here in the Sunday Telegraph.

Commenting in a personal capacity, it seemed only fair to keep an open mind and assume the play might be seriously good. As a result of our carefully chosen words which declined to condemn what we hadn't heard, the top hit for anyone googling 'Friends of Radio 3' at the moment is a gay website declaring that "Radio 3 listeners" (all of them, apparently) are backing the broadcasting of the play…

The whole business creates an invidious personal dilemma: whether to listen to the play since The Wire is a programme which past experience has taught us to avoid (and therefore the only reason to listen on this occasion would be prurience); or not to listen to it and forfeit all right to say how terrible it was. If it was.

A press release from the BBC Press Office reported yesterday on a meeting of the BBC Governors, and included the following:

'The Governors agreed a schedule of business, up to the appointment of a new Chairman. This includes the review of several BBC digital services, agreeing Statements of Programme Policy for 2004-5, assessing performance against objectives set by Governors last year and reviewing the impact of new arts programming on BBC Television.'

The Statements of Programme Policy will include the plans drawn up by management for each TV channel and radio station for the forthcoming year (mid-September 2004 to mid-September 2005). Last year, preliminary details of R3's new autumn schedule (following the Proms season) were released on February 28th, so we can expect the new plans to be announced quite soon. Last year the details were very selective and concealed many disappointing changes which didn't emerge until later, in some cases just a couple of weeks before they were due to come into effect.

Last year also, the Controller was relatively helpful about expanding, for the benefit of Radio 3 classical music messageboard users, on his positive plans. It's probably unlikely that he will respond this year, but I think we should query anything that seems to call for it. It seems advisable that new representatives should be involved in this exercise, this year on behalf of FoR3 rather than the old Classical Forum community. Though we have no formal democratic structure, all our activities are open to all supporters, so anyone wanting to be more closely involved should contact us.

The phrase 'assessing performance against objectives' refers to the issue which FoR3's recent submission addressed. We argued that management did not achieve what they said