Latest RAJARs

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Oh dear!

    Here we go again.

    It’s fine to disagree, but attacking other posters is unacceptable. Seven posts have been removed. However, all those involved in the fracas have a good record on the forum, so no-one has been put into pre-mod on this occasion.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View Post
      I don’t think he was criticised to be honest.There was quite a lot of cultural crossover in the sixties . Malcolm Arnold wrote a concerto for Deep Purple and Symphony Orchestra (mind you I think eyebrows were raised at that ) . The Beatles borrowed from Tavener Stockhausen etc, Led Zeppelin used music concrete. If anything there are more silos now (and certainly less talent in the rock and pop world at least). Who are the “them and us “ In Radio 3 exactly? It’s very eclectic at the moment - perhaps a little too much so as it seems to be playing more and more traditional Radio 2 fare e.g Great American Songbook on EC - I like it but it’s overplayed . Frankly I’d rather they played more heavy metal …
      Not "In Radio 3" but surrounding (I chose my word) - the erroneous perception of what the music and those involved in it are like which perpetuates the idea that it's "not for us" - or "normal people" (!) as I heard someone say a while back.

      Comment


        Originally posted by oddoneout View Post
        Not "In Radio 3" but surrounding (I chose my word) - the erroneous perception of what the music and those involved in it are like which perpetuates the idea that it's "not for us" - or "normal people" (!) as I heard someone say a while back.
        Aah I understand now. Generalising like mad here but I often found classical music fans to have very Catholic tastes taking in jazz , blues , rock , pop especially if they are musicians and can earn a crust performing in these genres . Outside the classical world it’s amazing how many people are really only interested in pop. When you point out that a pop song has a chord sequence lifted directly from a baroque progression they literally don’t know what you are talking about . Mind you I did have one friend who listened to very little classical music written after Palestrina “when the rot set in”

        Comment


          Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View Post
          Aah I understand now. Generalising like mad here but I often found classical music fans to have very Catholic tastes taking in jazz , blues , rock , pop especially if they are musicians and can earn a crust performing in these genres . Outside the classical world it’s amazing how many people are really only interested in pop. When you point out that a pop song has a chord sequence lifted directly from a baroque progression they literally don’t know what you are talking about . Mind you I did have one friend who listened to very little classical music written after Palestrina “when the rot set in”
          I grew up with 60s pop, especially Beatles, who I listened to constantly. I can still sing along to most of them. I came to classical music at least in part through studying German and getting to know Lied settings of German poetry. Schubert's first masterpiece was the song "Gretchen am Spinnrade", written before his 18th birthday.

          My taste is catholic (I assume you meant small c, Helden), but I only listen to classical on the radio. The rock musicians I like tend to be singer-songwriters: Dylan, Joni, Tom Waites, Randy Newman, Lucinda Williams and others. I have a lot of jazz in my collection but most frequently listen to vocals - so many greats, nearly all female. Songs again.

          Comment


            Yes small c but it auto corrected to large C and with all this plainsong on R3 I had earlier bailed out of to listen to Kennedy Rattle in the Elgar I didn’t want to further tempt fate by correcting this sign from above ….

            Comment


              Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View Post
              Generalising like mad here but I often found classical music fans to have very catholic [sic] tastes taking in jazz , blues , rock , pop especially if they are musicians and can earn a crust performing in these genres .
              And it's always seemed to me that 'broadly classical' composers, from medieval times to the present have taken inspiration from other genres: popular songs, folk music, jazz, and now more or less anything with electronic music; and what they created was something new. There have been (and possibly are) pop musicians who follow, for instance, Procul Harem and reveal clear classical influences. And to refer to a pop musician as having been 'classically trained' seems to add a bit of kudos (again, paradoxically) - rather as being on Radio 3 adds kudos. I just don't know what influences current pop, other than Black music of various kinds.
              It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Frances_iom View Post
                basically the Beeb is watering down a gill into a quart pot, and all to often the milk is already somewhat curdled - I guess these days afternoon concert is best described as musical interludes between the adverts.
                Yep. I agree with that. Not enough real meat in the programming.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by french frank View Post
                  And it's always seemed to me that 'broadly classical' composers, from medieval times to the present have taken inspiration from other genres: popular songs, folk music, jazz, and now more or less anything with electronic music; and what they created was something new. There have been (and possibly are) pop musicians who follow, for instance, Procul Harem and reveal clear classical influences. And to refer to a pop musician as having been 'classically trained' seems to add a bit of kudos (again, paradoxically) - rather as being on Radio 3 adds kudos. I just don't know what influences current pop, other than Black music of various kinds.
                  Current pop e,g, Adele , Ed Sheeran is pretty much founded on the sort of classical harmony that Mozart or Beethoven would have recognised - the basic 7 chords of the major or minor scale ( esp the latter in the case of Adele) . What might have struck a 19th century composer would be the liberal use of added minor sevenths , the constant repetition of four , five and six chord sequences, the liberal use of drums and very expensive Turkish cymbals which were (if I have my history right ) only just arriving in Europe in Mozart’s time ..along with the Turkish Army. They might have also been struck by the prominence of the guitar - not an instrument I think either wrote for. But above all they would be amazed by the amount of money pop stars make and probably had a go at writing a few hits themselves.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
                    I think all this relates back to a questioning of the implicit values inherent in Enlightenment thinking - which had tacitly accorded cultural superiority to a European perspective on progress - which had downgraded cultures other than its own, thereby in effect "excusing" the exploitation of the peoples and resources of colonised peoples, while at the same time using the resulting accumulated wealth towards industrialisation and longterm environmental damage for which said "inferior" cultures could claim little responsibility.

                    I would maintain that the fact that opposition to exploitation, racism and the associated downgrading of cultures other than White and Western (and by and large Male-led) were also implicit in carrying Enlightenment thinking through has been sidelined, is due to the reality that it has been mainly left-wing thinkers and their followers that have pursued it to logical conclusions. Were the latter to be acknowledged, the tag of "elitism" so often thrown at those who, critically, engage with the artifacts of Western post-Enlightenment cultures, would be seen for what it is - embarrassment at the woeful inability of "bourgeois ideology" to embrace rather than seek to disown the best and most progressive of its cultural inheritance, and see it as having contributed to the enriching of "worldviews" as well as being enriched, thus taking a rightful place in a/the wider cultural domain.
                    This post is an excellent example of the problem !!!

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by CGR View Post
                      This post is an excellent example of the problem !!!
                      Assuming I read you right, thanks!

                      Comment


                        Just noticed the latest RAJAR quarterly figures thanks to a Grauniad article "Ken Bruce remains most popular UK radio host".
                        Not sure that I understand them (French Frank would have a better idea), but the previous R3 Listener Shares were 1.4%, 1.6%, 1.3%, 1.4%, 1.3%, 1.3%... so the change doesn't look that dramatic.

                        Station / Group Reach (000s) Reach Percent Average Hours Per Listener (weekly?) Listening Share In TSA %
                        BBC Radio 1 7,676 14 6.2 4.7%
                        BBC Radio 2 14,579 26 11.1 15.9%
                        BBC Radio 3 2,053 4 7.8 1.6%
                        BBC Radio 4 10,604 19 11.4 11.9%
                        BBC Radio 4 Extra 1,972 4 7.2 1.4%
                        BBC Radio 5 live 5,560 10 5.9 3.2%
                        BBC Radio 5 live sports extra 807 1 2.3 0.2%
                        BBC 6 Music 2,846 5 9.9 2.8%
                        1Xtra from the BBC 749 1 4.1 0.3%
                        BBC Asian Network UK 505 1 5.2 0.3%
                        BBC World Service 1,517 3 4.7 0.7%
                        Classic FM 5,159 9 8.6 4.4%
                        There are also the pretty Infographics.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by AuntDaisy View Post
                          Just noticed the latest RAJAR quarterly figures thanks to a Grauniad article "Ken Bruce remains most popular UK radio host".
                          Not sure that I understand them (French Frank would have a better idea), but the previous R3 Listener Shares were 1.4%, 1.6%, 1.3%, 1.4%, 1.3%, 1.3%... so the change doesn't look that dramatic.

                          Station / Group Reach (000s) Reach Percent Average Hours Per Listener (weekly?) Listening Share In TSA %
                          BBC Radio 1 7,676 14 6.2 4.7%
                          BBC Radio 2 14,579 26 11.1 15.9%
                          BBC Radio 3 2,053 4 7.8 1.6%
                          BBC Radio 4 10,604 19 11.4 11.9%
                          BBC Radio 4 Extra 1,972 4 7.2 1.4%
                          BBC Radio 5 live 5,560 10 5.9 3.2%
                          BBC Radio 5 live sports extra 807 1 2.3 0.2%
                          BBC 6 Music 2,846 5 9.9 2.8%
                          1Xtra from the BBC 749 1 4.1 0.3%
                          BBC Asian Network UK 505 1 5.2 0.3%
                          BBC World Service 1,517 3 4.7 0.7%
                          Classic FM 5,159 9 8.6 4.4%
                          There are also the pretty Infographics.
                          An increase from 1.3 % to 1.6 % is a 23 per cent increase so it is quite considerable. That’s nearly a quarter increase in share. The problem is the accuracy of the statistics . I don’t know what the Rajar Margin of error is. I do know as a general rule that the smaller the share figure the greater that margin of error is. That’s because the number of people reporting becomes very small indeed. I think the Rajar panel is about 10,000 people . 1 per cent of that is just 100 people. If a few misremember that can skew the figures. So just twenty people out of 10,000 getting things wrong can account for the share increase. On the other hand it might be that Radio 3 listeners just don’t get things wrong !

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by AuntDaisy View Post
                            Just noticed the latest RAJAR quarterly figures thanks to a Grauniad article "Ken Bruce remains most popular UK radio host".
                            Not sure that I understand them (French Frank would have a better idea), but the previous R3 Listener Shares were 1.4%, 1.6%, 1.3%, 1.4%, 1.3%, 1.3%... so the change doesn't look that dramatic.
                            Thanks for posting, AD. I'm out to birthday lunch in a minute, so will do comparisons later.

                            The point about the share is that it never shifts that much: 1.6% is at a high mark, but since, relative to the total of radio listening (all BBC and commercial stations) it would need mega-massive increase in R3's listening to register much of a change. I believe R3 management reported white faces all around when share fell to 0.9% one quarter, but usually 1.3% would be average - so it is certainly up. To me this simply records success in persuading listeners to switch on and get on with their lives so that the sounds babble away in the background. I'm just reading a paper about the changes made to music programming in 1957-1967: there was opposition within Radio 3 to this kind of 'wallpaper' music back then.

                            More later.
                            It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by french frank View Post
                              Thanks for posting, AD. I'm out to birthday lunch in a minute, so will do comparisons later.

                              The point about the share is that it never shifts that much: 1.6% is at a high mark, but since, relative to the total of radio listening (all BBC and commercial stations) it would need mega-massive increase in R3's listening to register much of a change. I believe R3 management reported white faces all around when share fell to 0.9% one quarter, but usually 1.3% would be average - so it is certainly up. To me this simply records success in persuading listeners to switch on and get on with their lives so that the sounds babble away in the background. I'm just reading a paper about the changes made to music programming in 1957-1967: there was opposition within Radio 3 to this kind of 'wallpaper' music back then.

                              More later.
                              I often play music in the background and can understand the use of "wallpaper" to condemn this habit, but I don't feel guilty or frivolous when I do so. I certainly don't want Parsifal or Winterreise "babbling away" in the background as I solve a crossword clue or do the washing-up.

                              Who listens to music intently and concentratedly all day long?

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View Post
                                An increase from 1.3 % to 1.6 % is a 23 per cent increase so it is quite considerable. That’s nearly a quarter increase in share. The problem is the accuracy of the statistics . I don’t know what the Rajar Margin of error is. I do know as a general rule that the smaller the share figure the greater that margin of error is. That’s because the number of people reporting becomes very small indeed. I think the Rajar panel is about 10,000 people . 1 per cent of that is just 100 people. If a few misremember that can skew the figures. So just twenty people out of 10,000 getting things wrong can account for the share increase. On the other hand it might be that Radio 3 listeners just don’t get things wrong !
                                Thanks Ein Heldenleben - that's helpful.
                                Apologies for missing your earlier post on RAJAR.


                                Originally posted by french frank View Post
                                Thanks for posting, AD. I'm out to birthday lunch in a minute, so will do comparisons later.

                                The point about the share is that it never shifts that much: 1.6% is at a high mark, but since, relative to the total of radio listening (all BBC and commercial stations) it would need mega-massive increase in R3's listening to register much of a change. I believe R3 management reported white faces all around when share fell to 0.9% one quarter, but usually 1.3% would be average - so it is certainly up. To me this simply records success in persuading listeners to switch on and get on with their lives so that the sounds babble away in the background. I'm just reading a paper about the changes made to music programming in 1957-1967: there was opposition within Radio 3 to this kind of 'wallpaper' music back then.

                                More later.
                                Happy Birthday (if it is yours).

                                Given how pretty (& IMHO useless) the RAJAR Infographics appear to be, here's an AD one on listening share.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X