Feedback 13 May 2022

[french frank]

They get a dolly question while the relevant minister gets a hob nailed boot.

The really interesting thing is what impression that leaves the audience with. Are listeners/viewers too stupid to understand what's happening and to process what they hear intelligently? A dolly question and a pat answer don't necessarily convince.

[Serial_Apologist]

The really interesting thing is what impression that leaves the audience with. Are listeners/viewers too stupid to understand what's happening and to process what they hear intelligently? A dolly question and a pat answer don't necessarily convince.

As I've just stated, we are constantly reassured about "BBC balance and impartiality", so what else is the uninformed viewer/listener to think? I am saying this is a lie, and I'm not even particularly a supporter of the current "official opposition", so nobody can pin biassed perspective on me. I try to imagine what it would be like were Jeremy Corbyn still leading the LP - remembering "that" infamous Panorama claiming antisemitism.

[french frank]

As I've just stated, we are constantly reassured about "BBC balance and impartiality", so what else is the uninformed viewer/listener to think?

Well, as an answer to the question, I'm not sure that assurances from any entity that they are unbiased, impartial, honest, trustworthy &c. requires a listener to be informed before they doubt what they are hearing. I think, though, it probably needs a prejudiced listener to accept what a prejudiced source is telling them; in other words they are already predisposed towards a prejudiced view.

I am saying this is a lie, and I'm not even particularly a supporter of the current "official opposition", so nobody can pin biassed perspective on me. I try to imagine what it would be like were Jeremy Corbyn still leading the LP - remembering "that" infamous Panorama claiming antisemitism.

I can't deny or challenge you on that since I have no knowledge whatever of these programmes in recent times. I don't often try to imagine what it would be like if Jeremy Corbyn were still the leader of the Labour Party, though I would be 100% certain my own views about it would be very different from yours - without any help from the BBC's biased reporting.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, as an answer to the question, I'm not sure that assurances from any entity that they are unbiased, impartial, honest, trustworthy &c. requires a listener to be informed before they doubt what they are hearing. I think, though, it probably needs a prejudiced listener to accept what a prejudiced source is telling them; in other words they are already predisposed towards a prejudiced view.

Nevertheless biassed reportage and treatment of interviewees doesn't exactly help foster an informed public.

I can't deny or challenge you on that since I have no knowledge whatever of these programmes in recent times. I don't often try to imagine what it would be like if Jeremy Corbyn were still the leader of the Labour Party, though I would be 100% certain my own views about it would be very different from yours - without any help from the BBC's biased reporting.

Yes it's all to easy to overlook one's own prejudices!

Sorry if I've taken the discussion off-topic - rightly or wrongly I see parallels between the different ways standards at the BBC are declining; but apart from myself and one or two others I don't think there's much interest hereabouts in political bias at the BBC.

[oddoneout]

Nevertheless biassed reportage and treatment of interviewees doesn't exactly help foster an informed public.



Yes it's all to easy to overlook one's own prejudices!

Sorry if I've taken the discussion off-topic - rightly or wrongly I see parallels between the different ways standards at the BBC are declining; but apart from myself and one or two others I don't think there's much interest hereabouts in political bias at the BBC.

Lack of posts does not always mean lack of interest. The way the BBC presents the news and other important topics has bothered me for a very long time such that I stopped watching such things on TV decades ago and confine my radio news to R3 headlines. I don't feel I have anything to add to such a debate and being reminded of the implications of what I see as failings I don't find helpful to my general well-being since I can do nothing to change the situation.

[AuntDaisy]

Thanks FF for the earlier Feedback background - does a recording exist? I'd love to hear it.
Also thanks to Ein Heldenleben & Serial_Apologist.


Feedback tweeted this image.
On the full-size screen snapshot, there are two framed posters - one for Jazz, the other looks to be a Gold star for Hotel Management.

Geoffrey Brock's comment made me laugh "Ah. The man responsible for turning Radio 3 into a mediocre channel. Radio 2.5."





(I've chopped out some superfluous text / icons.)

[kernelbogey]

"Radio 2.5":
I don't know who coined this gem, but it was bandied about on the Forum a few years back.

[AuntDaisy]

David Lloyd
I feel Alan could have made more of @BBCRadio3 role of giving listeners more context around music played - the presenters are knowledgeable and I’ve learnt a lot over forty plus years - Classic FM is a good gateway to classical music

I forgot to add that David Lloyd 's comment seems to amalgamate R3 & CFM. Shurely shome mishtake.

[AuntDaisy]

"Radio 2.5":
I don't know who coined this gem, but it was bandied about on the Forum a few years back.

From 2011 http://www.for3.org/forums/archive/i...hp/t-3294.html

BetweenTheStaves
26-09-11, 10:34
No-one mentioned that Brian Sewell has picked up on the phrase Radio 2.5.
Also in the same issue, Janet Street-Porter has also come out against Radio 2.5 and as she's been invited to take part at the Free Thinking Festival in November, she will be an advocate. (Note to readers. It was a toss-up in cafe nero this morning whether I read the DM or the Grauniad). Link to her piece here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...time-home.html down to the bottom


Frances_iom
26-09-11, 10:54
No-one mentioned that Brian Sewell has picked up on the phrase Radio 2.5.
the earliest ref I can find to "radio 2.5" dates back to 2006 - http://www.overgrownpath.com/2006_12_01_archive.html - was it coined here or is there an earlier use of it to illustrate the vandalism that RW has wrought

I liked this 2019 mention

A few years ago, The Friends of Radio 3 accused R3 of becoming Radio 2.5.
Not so any more. It’s reached Radio 2.2 or thereabouts on Breakfast.

[french frank]

Almost 20 years ago, we were able to report each week on which 'celebrities' had responded to our appeal for support. Peter Maxwell Davies was one (who had also been involved in an earlier protest about R3 programming). I might now be allowed to mention Harrison Birtwistle, with whom I had a couple of phone calls, but in an email from his agent (manager?) was later banned from mentioning in connection with FoR3 under penalty of something or other. With his death I suppose I can now say he supported us, mentioning 'lowest common denominator'. Colin Davis was another musician. And Antony Hopkins. And Stanley Sadie. Plus well-known literary figures. Other 'legends' are still alive so I won't mention them.

In the end, the BBC decided that the audience for what I'll call 'Third Programme-style listening' was becoming too small and was diminishing so it wasn't worth having an entire station devoted to catering for such listeners. A member of the BBC Trust support staff asked me at a meeting what I meant by 'serious listening', and I said 'Listening to a Beethoven string quartet with the score open on my knees (and trying to follow it without getting lost). '

The way of the world has provided a tsunami of casual (light) entertainment as big business, and the BBC has gone along with it.

[DracoM]

<< provided a tsunami of casual (light) entertainment as big business, and the BBC has gone along with it. >>

AND inserted more and more bits of that dripped into R3 schedules esp Alker-holic progs.

If I want to hear jazz, I know where on R2 / R3 how to get it - so, yes I know where to get it, so why dilute R3's raison d'etre with what I can get more of, and better intro-ed, and better contextualised, than on mainstream R3?

[AuntDaisy]

Almost 20 years ago, we were able to report each week on which 'celebrities' had responded to our appeal for support. Peter Maxwell Davies was one (who had also been involved in an earlier protest about R3 programming). I might now be allowed to mention Harrison Birtwistle, with whom I had a couple of phone calls, but in an email from his agent (manager?) was later banned from mentioning in connection with FoR3 under penalty of something or other. With his death I suppose I can now say he supported us, mentioning 'lowest common denominator'. Colin Davis was another musician. And Antony Hopkins. And Stanley Sadie. Plus well-known literary figures. Other 'legends' are still alive so I won't mention them.

In the end, the BBC decided that the audience for what I'll call 'Third Programme-style listening' was becoming too small and was diminishing so it wasn't worth having an entire station devoted to catering for such listeners. A member of the BBC Trust support staff asked me at a meeting what I meant by 'serious listening', and I said 'Listening to a Beethoven string quartet with the score open on my knees (and trying to follow it without getting lost).

The way of the world has provided a tsunami of casual (light) entertainment as big business, and the BBC has gone along with it.

Thanks for that FF - some big names & fascinating details.
(I'm also impressed you can read & follow the score.)

'Twas ever thus... (as you mentioned)
From Humphrey Carpenter's "The Envy of the World":
"The Sound Broadcasting Society (formerly the Third Programme Defence Society) holds a press conference at the home of Ralph Vaughan Williams, on 18 July 1957, to protest against the BBC's proposed cuts in the Third. (Left to right) Michael Tippett, Paul Sieghart, Peter Laslett, Roy Walker, Sir Laurence Olivier, Peter Needs and Vaughan Williams (with ear trumpet)."



(I'm looking forward to the ghost-written, second edition possibly entitled "The Ennui of the World"?)

[Ein Heldenleben]

Almost 20 years ago, we were able to report each week on which 'celebrities' had responded to our appeal for support. Peter Maxwell Davies was one (who had also been involved in an earlier protest about R3 programming). I might now be allowed to mention Harrison Birtwistle, with whom I had a couple of phone calls, but in an email from his agent (manager?) was later banned from mentioning in connection with FoR3 under penalty of something or other. With his death I suppose I can now say he supported us, mentioning 'lowest common denominator'. Colin Davis was another musician. And Antony Hopkins. And Stanley Sadie. Plus well-known literary figures. Other 'legends' are still alive so I won't mention them.

In the end, the BBC decided that the audience for what I'll call 'Third Programme-style listening' was becoming too small and was diminishing so it wasn't worth having an entire station devoted to catering for such listeners. A member of the BBC Trust support staff asked me at a meeting what I meant by 'serious listening', and I said 'Listening to a Beethoven string quartet with the score open on my knees (and trying to follow it without getting lost). '

The way of the world has provided a tsunami of casual (light) entertainment as big business, and the BBC has gone along with it.

Very interesting that his agent scotched the idea of going public. It strikes me there are two irreconcilable or perhaps paradoxical cultural trends. Serious music has never been more readily available. Fifty years to get a score and listen to a Beethoven string quarterl I had to go to Lewisham or Westminster Public Library (it had a superb music library) and get it or buy an expensive Eulenberg score at Foyles . Now I can either but a cheap Dover score or download for free from IMSLP. The music is free on a low qual streamer or high qual for a mere £10 a month. Scholarly articles on the quartets are available on the internet or through JSTOR. In short it’s never been easier to access “high” culture .

At the same time our main broadcasters are slowly withdrawing from mass audience classical music - ITV used to broadcast Glyndebourne on the channel in the 70’s and 80’s . Saturday night on BBC 2 in the 70’s was very often an opera or a classical concert.That’s virtually all gone . Even BBC 4 now gives over an entire evening each week to eighties and nineties pop / rock .Radio 3 now rarely broadcasts anything other than chunks before midday.

So is there some link ? Is there an assumption that because you can get “the real deal” so readily for free or near free the broadcaster should provide something else? Or is it all about attracting and retaining the casual listener ? Or is classical music pretty much dying out as a mass taste? By mass I mean drawing in millions on TV not 00’s of thousands on radio - though in fact most 18th and 19th century musicians would have been ecstatic at 100,000 listeners - the equivalent of 50 full Covent Gardens.

[french frank]

(I'm also impressed you can read & follow the score.)

I can't. I always get lost when there are repeats and fumble to go back a few pages, by which time … But the 'seriousness' is in the trying, not the succeeding

The legendary Jocelyn Hay of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, whom I met along with Colin Shaw, retired chief secretary at the BBC, advised us to get as many celebs involved as possible, so we were seeking to emulate the "Third Programme Defence Society". The difference was that they organised the publicity themselves, whereas we were nobodies trying to rally support.

I did feel bitter about the way people at the BBC treated us: there was certainly some adverse briefing not only to journalists but also to some of our distinguished supporters. When I pointed out that we had a lot of support from such people, the BBC reply was: "We know. We employ them." A few supporters subsequently asked for their names to be withdrawn; one at least said was that he thought his support was responsible for him getting less work from the BBC. I actually defended the BBC on that and said I didn't think that would be the case - but I admired him for being open and honest about his reasons for withdrawing. Others were more vague but I thought they'd been got at..

[french frank]

Very interesting that his agent scotched the idea of going public.

Sorry, I missed your reply, Helders - too busy penning my own. I'll come back to what you say later - just getting lunch, then have to go out. But you make some interesting points. Just wanted to hasten back to say I'm not ignoring them!