Online survey 2014

[french frank]

so the question would be 'How well does R3 serve people with some interest in Classical Music who would like to know [a lot] more?'

I might crib that, ackers, because (as I've said) we challenged the form of the question in the last survey - on the grounds that it wrote something into Radio 3's service licence remit that wasn't there, as well as omitting all mention of those who wanted to know more - regardless of how much they knew already.

Look at the report on the 2011 online survey, replies to the equivalent question about catering 'particularly' for people with 'little knowledge of classical music':

"Many believe that those who listen to Radio 3 will already have some classical knowledge and the station provides a deeper, more thorough appreciation of classical works, therefore it is an inappropriate requirement for the station to have to build appreciation amongst people with little knowledge of classical music. In line with this, some respondents feel there is little to attract new listeners to the station and Classic FM may be better at providing an introduction to classical music. Listeners may then move onto Radio 3 to broaden their knowledge of classical music. Alternatively some respondents feel that the station is still perceived as high brow and elitist and not accessible to new listeners, and therefore, the station needs to make an effort to appeal to younger and new audiences through promotion and programmes to appeal to new listeners."

Look at the use of 'many' and 'some' (my bold): if that doesn't indicate that more people felt that it wasn't Radio 3's role to cater for those with little knowledge, what would? Yet Radio 3 took it as the go-ahead to turn all the peaktime listening over to such listeners.

[pastoralguy]

I'm going to say that, as a teenager getting into classical music, my initial experiences were from records (starting with my Dad's mainstream collection) and going to concerts. Terrible as it may sound, I had no idea that Radio 3 existed. The TV broadcasts of the Proms didn't mention Radio 3 at all so I must have been 'involved' for perhaps 5 years before I bought a Radio Times and discovered what I was missing.

This would have been circa. 1977 - 1982. I could probably have experimented with music I didn't know (such as the other 8 Beethoven symphonies!) instead of saving up to buy CfP records. I suppose that what I'm saying is that is it such a bad thing that Radio 3 is making itself accessible?

[Richard Tarleton]

This would have been circa. 1977 - 1982. I could probably have experimented with music I didn't know (such as the other 8 Beethoven symphonies!) instead of saving up to buy CfP records. I suppose that what I'm saying is that is it such a bad thing that Radio 3 is making itself accessible?

Erm - in what respect was it not accessible before, pg? It was accessible to me as a newbie aged 18 in 1967. I really don't understand this. If the problem was that you hadn't discovered its existence, by virtue of not buying the Radio Times, that's a different issue surely? Once I started listening to it there was no stopping me

[amateur51]

In my opinion, if Radio 3 had remained exactly unchanged, with Patricia Hughes trrrrilling and cooooing, etc., then its audience would have gone the same way as Alan Keith's Hundred Best Tunes and would by now be facing extinction.

Your characterisation of Patricia Hughes is way off-beam - she certainly enunciated clearly and exuded calm, unlike today's over-excited personalities on jujube E-numbers

And didn't Alan Keith simply die of great age?

[amateur51]

Erm - in what respect was it not accessible before, pg? It was accessible to me as a newbie aged 18 in 1967. I really don't understand this. If the problem was that you hadn't discovered its existence, by virtue of not buying the Radio Times, that's a different issue surely? Once I started listening to it there was no stopping me

It was the gift of a small truly portable Bush transistor radio from proud parents for my having passed the 11-plus exam that liberated my musical life & interest. With it I was able to listen to classical music, jazz, popular music of a by-gone age, plays & comedy shows all provided by the BBC, and of course the terribly attractive Radio Luxembourg and pirate radio!! A golden age imho

[pastoralguy]

Erm - in what respect was it not accessible before, pg? It was accessible to me as a newbie aged 18 in 1967. I really don't understand this. If the problem was that you hadn't discovered its existence, by virtue of not buying the Radio Times, that's a different issue surely? Once I started listening to it there was no stopping me

I just didn't know there was such a thing as a Radio 3! Crazy as it may seem now, no-one said to me 'so you're interested in classical music. Why don't you listen to Radio 3?'

It was my desk partner in the recently founded National Youth Orchestra of Scotland who told me. She dragged me to a newsagent and bought me the Radio Times. And, like you, once I started listening to it there was no stopping me!

Until then, I'd never heard of it.

I suppose because I lived in Edinburgh, I didn't hear the BBCSSO, (who are based in Glasgow), so I had no idea that all their concerts were recorded for broadcast. I mainly heard the SNO whose concerts were rarely broadcast.

[french frank]

I suppose that what I'm saying is that is it such a bad thing that Radio 3 is making itself accessible?

What is being challenged is the way it's being done. Average age of the audience at last Charter review: 57. Average age last quarter: 59, reach: fourth lowest ever. So even on its own terms (assuming they are valid) it's not succeeding.

I didn't know about Radio 3 either. I think I found it in middle age by twiddling the knob of my radio. And I hardly knew any classical music at all, even then. But I didn't find it inaccessible. Ever.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't know the reason "why", but what happened at Radio 2 was that Your Hundred Best Tunes was perpetuated without change until Alan Keith died and could not then be continued in any form because it was about three decades out of date. If the programme had evolved with the times, with subtle shifts in content, form, presentation, etc., it would probably still be running today, like Songs of Praise on BBC1. Instead, it was treated as Alan Keith's personal show and preserved as an archaic living relic of the distant past, appealing to the same people (with no renewals) until they dropped one by one off the perch.

I tend to agree that there was a very good case for Radio 2 retaining a classical music dj show, but Radio 2 made it impossible by retaining Alan Keith for so long.

I hazily recall that Melodies for You, earlier on Sundays, survived a bit longer, but eventually morphed into Alan Titchmarsh, who featured much easy listening and oldies with a few light classics thrown in. And he's now been replaced by Michael Ball, with the easy listening and oldies remaining, but not the light classics as far as I know.

In my opinion, if Radio 3 had remained exactly unchanged, with Patricia Hughes trrrrilling and cooooing, etc., then its audience would have gone the same way as Alan Keith's Hundred Best Tunes and would by now be facing extinction.

You're not by any chance Ann Lesley of the Daily Wail, are you? I only ask because I can well imagine her writing in the vein you choose for contributing to this forum.

[Serial_Apologist]

I just didn't know there was such a thing as a Radio 3! Crazy as it may seem now, no-one said to me 'so you're interested in classical music. Why don't you listen to Radio 3?'

It was my desk partner in the recently founded National Youth Orchestra of Scotland who told me. She dragged me to a newsagent and bought me the Radio Times. And, like you, once I started listening to it there was no stopping me!

So, if by your own evidence it wasn't too inaccessible for you back then, why then ask why it shouldn't be made more accessible today? That seems like a non sequitur.

[pastoralguy]

So, if by your own evidence it wasn't too inaccessible for you back then, why then ask why it shouldn't be made more accessible today? That seems like a non sequitur.

Actually, if you had included my next sentence which said 'until then, I'd never heard of it' then it may have clarified my meaning.


I suppose what I mean is that the BBC should do more (as they seem to be trying to do) to highlight that Radio 3 is there for those who might be interested.

For me, personally, it wasn't obvious it existed. But that's only my personal experience.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

feel free to crib if anything is of use ...

there is a fundamental statistical inadequacy in the phrase 'little knowledge'; over 85% plus have no knowledge of serous music do not go to gigs/concerts or buy revordings [iirc] and of that large number a vast proportion have little or no interest .... the top level of audience additions for all of serious music and drama can not be in excess of 5 million more steady listeners ... they will be attracted by programmes being more interesting about serious arts, not by being populist and personality/celebrity driven .... the popular radio stations already mine that seam so Hall's joined up approach might make sense if R2 R1 led to R3 and R6 for the serious audiences but only if R3 and R6 are more interesting to people with both a burgeoning and established interest in serious musics drama poetry &c ... Wright has clearly lost R3 audience members by his populist broadcasting approach, as i tried to tell him at the South Bank when he spoke, it is misleading to term what has been done as 'dumbing down' when it is such a betrayal of the established identity of the service and the loyalty of its audience

[Richard Tarleton]

Nice quote from Rod Liddle in an excellent piece in the Sunday Times - primarily about the lamentable Clare Balding Wimbledon show ("BBC succeeds in dumbing down Wimbledon") and other TV disasters, but it has a wider resonance :

...Blame the producers, but even more blame the BBC executive mindset. They don't undertstand what viewers[listeners?] want any more - and this comes from an elitist and incalculably condescending attitude towards the majority of people who pay its licence fee.

His more detailed point is that instead of treating Wimbledon viewers like the experts they fancy themselves to be, for a fortnight a year at least, the programme makers patronise them with fun and games.

Elitist and incalculably condescending - perfectly describes...ah no, of course he's left.

[french frank]

His more detailed point is that instead of treating Wimbledon viewers like the experts they fancy themselves to be, for a fortnight a year at least, the programme makers patronise them with fun and games.

Elitist and incalculably condescending - perfectly describes...ah no, of course he's left.

Just posted on the FoR3 Fb page about the newspaper reports - one in the S. Times, it seems - that the Budget 'will' have measures to make the BBC pay for the free TV licences for the over 75s. With 20% slashed off the BBC's revenue will they still give priority to the populist services (made as populist as possible) at the financial/cultural expense of Radio 3 which will have to carry on toeing the populist line?

But it does see a near-impossible balancing act: trying to 'serve' as many licence fee payers as possible without 'dumbing down' or being 'too elitist'. But let Radio 3, at least, even if alone among the BBC services, be allowed to be unapologetically intelligent and intellectually ambitious.

[gurnemanz]

I dislike the way the BBC feels the need to "over-package" things for our consumption. As we know, R3 mornings suffer from this. I only watched Wimbledon 2Day once to pick up on Dustin Brown beating Nadal (we got about 10 minutes of it). I've never seen poor Clare Balding look so ill at ease, desperate to do well, having been instructed to present it in a manner which she herself did not appear to approve of.