Trashing Sublimity- The Heptonstall-Derham problem

[cavatina]

Well, one always has to wonder why you, a New Yorker, would need to be worried about what a British radio station does anyway

I'd rather see myself as a citizen of the world. To the extent that I consume radio and media at all, it's vastly tipped toward the UK: I listen to R3 and R4 far more than NPR. I don't subscribe to the New York Times, I get the FT. I don't take any of our so-called "news" magazines, I read the Economist. I collaborate with my business associates internationally via conference calls from London, Tel Aviv, and Ahmedabad (among others depending on the project).

We're all connected through the internet.

[french frank]

I'd rather see myself as a citizen of the world. To the extent that I consume radio and media at all, it's vastly tipped toward the UK: I listen to R3 and R4 far more than NPR. I don't subscribe to the New York Times, I get the FT. I don't take any of our so-called "news" magazines, I read the Economist. I collaborate with my business associates internationally via conference calls from London, Tel Aviv, and Ahmedabad (among others depending on the project).

We're all connected through the internet.

That may be true. But two points:

1. You actually agree with the basic points that are being made but for some unexplained reason act as an apologist for the authorities.

2. You take what - on these boards at least - is a persistently minority view.

So your 'I'm culturally more British than American' is bewildering.

[Lateralthinking1]

Rauschwerk - "I don't know about always, but certainly at least as far back as the 19th century".

Bryn - "Hmm, I guess Sun Ra's use of "Arkestra" must have been an attempt to put his music on a perceived pedestal".

I enjoyed those.

On dumbing down, I have made this point before but........I have known a fair few movers and shakers in my time, some nice, some not so, salaries unmentionable. I have found that the Oxbridge types who end up in high powered business or policy jobs (as opposed to, say, academics) seem to have their heads so crammed full of that gunk, their media intake is just plain awful.

Even now I am amazed how so many don't listen to Radio 3 or Radio 4, rarely watch BBC4 and have never listened to the World Service. They will either blame work - "I had to work on a paper until 2am" - or if not dismiss them for one reason or another - 3 too high brow, 4 too Middle England - and yet they will settle down instead with Dr Who, Footballers Wives, The Weakest Link, Jeremy Kyle and Emmerdale. And "ooh look, they have left a copy of the Sun, now this will be interesting".

It isn't that these people are wholly without culture elsewhere. It is all tennis, art galleries, films with subtitles in art cinemas, exotic travel, you name it. However, they do tend to believe that they are joining the rest of human life when watching Big Brother and the like. Generally when faced with the prospect of talking to the average viewer of these "feed em to the masses" programmes they tend to say "isn't this terrible?" and run several country miles.

[doversoul1]

Cavatina
Where does your ‘classical music for the mass’ obsession (concern, if you prefer) come from? Do you feel the same about literature? Do you insist, say, Milton or Henry James be available in ‘chapter books’ illustrated with cartoons? Or turn them into Horrible History version of literature for adults? What makes you so convinced that classical music is exclusive? There is nothing to stop anybody going to a concert. Apart from a very few, I don’t think classical music concerts cost more than a lot of rock or pop concerts. Again, apart from a very few, you can go in jeans if you prefer. And there are CDs, some very cheap ones. And of course absolutely anyone can listen to Radio3. If people aren’t interested in classical music, or if they think it is exclusive, that’s their choice. You only make people think it is exclusive if you keep on about how it is NOT exclusive. It can make you feel exclusive, though.

Incidentally, I’d have thought BBC World Service or The Herald Tribune would be the preferred media for a citizen of the world, if such a thing existed.

Lateralthinking1
How many of those Oxbridge types who end up in high powered business or policy jobs do you know personally to make such a sweeping comment? And what makes you think (I presume you mean all) academics are different?

[cavatina]

1. You actually agree with the basic points that are being made but for some unexplained reason act as an apologist for the authorities.

When I worked in the music business (and more generally, the nonprofit sector), time and again I saw organizations flounder and fail because they refused to take an accurate assessment of the current state of affairs and change their fundamental strategy to match the times. Eventually, I was hired by a major US think tank as an assistant research analyst to do analytic research support for a study on this very issue. Here's an excerpt:

THE PERFORMING ARTS IN A NEW ERA

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1367.pdf

The Pew Charitable Trusts commissioned The Performing Arts in a New Era from RAND as part of a broad initiative aimed at increasing policy and financial support for nonprofit culture in the United States. The goal of this study was to assist us in bringing new and useful information to the policy debate about the contributions and needs of the cultural sector at the national, state, and local levels. [...]

Broad social changes also expose the vulnerability beneath the apparent robustness of the performing arts. Although the United States maintains its status as the world’s most advanced industrial society, we are less optimistic than in the mid-1960s about the imminent prospects of well-being for all our citizens, and we struggle to find solutions to an increasingly complex array of thorny social problems. The arts, only one of many public goods, must compete for both financial resources and the public’s attention with an ever-increasing array of other social needs. Furthermore, now that the post–cold war era is more than a decade old, it has become clear that the arts no longer serve as a symbol of national identity and of the freedom and diversity of ideas that underpinned the federal investment in the arts during much of the second half of the 20th century. In addition, the rapid diversification of the nation’s populace has both enriched and fragmented our cultural landscape. The nonprofit arts, particularly the performing arts, once again face the possibility of insufficient resources, a threat that makes their future uncertain.

We commissioned this report on the cusp of the 21st century to provide policymakers, arts funders, and the performing arts community with concrete knowledge about the status of the performing arts in this changing environment, and to give ourselves some guidance about how we might work together to respond to the new financial and policy challenges.

While I do agree with a great deal of what you're saying, as I've said many times before, I believe trying to dictate policy in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster.

2. You take what - on these boards at least - is a persistently minority view.

Must everyone always agree with each other? One would think you'd want more people of all opinions to come here and debate these issues seriously. When anyone who dares to disagree with the "received wisdom" is instantly slathered in sleazy ad hominems and vicious personal attacks, it's no wonder nobody from the BBC bothers to post here.

And as far as I know, I have a "persistently minority opinion" about almost everything everywhere I go; nothing new about that. I'm just a persistently minority kind of person, I guess.

So your 'I'm culturally more British than American' is bewildering.

Nevertheless it's true. I resent having my nationality thrown up at me like it actually means something when it's completely irrelevant: I absolutely reject the so-called "American national character", have a unique set of values all my own, and have precious little in common with damn near everyone I ever met. To ascribe anything about me to my nationality is blatant bigotry, pure and simple.

For what it's worth, some of the same researchers who worked on the project above also were hired by the University of Cambridge and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) to assess the impacts of arts and humanities research conducted there:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR816.html

Not everyone thinks Americans have nothing to say about UK arts policy.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lateralthinking1 - How many of those Oxbridge types who end up in high powered business or policy jobs do you know personally to make such a sweeping comment? And what makes you think (I presume you mean all) academics are different?

The places of my employment for 25 years were swarming with them. These "sorts" became increasingly swollen while the workforce steadily withered. Ultimately, they arrived in coach loads. It took at least ten minutes each morning just to get through the barriers.

In fact, when I come to think of it, that was even in the days when Glenda Jackson was permitted a smoking room. I'm going back a long way. And, of course, some university people I had once known transmogrified during the period too.

No, not Oxford or Cambridge but the establishment had taken in the borderlines. It had severe aspirations. It was number six in the UCCA chart so what I was doing there heaven only knows.

Now then. Do we all know WHY we join together for certain standards? I can think of at least a dozen reasons why it could be argued that this is "a good thing" to do. My main reason is not necessarily one of the most obvious ones and some might consider it to be a little narrow.

I believe that some radio should be wonderful radio and designed on the established principles of public broadcasting. It seems to me that all the other reasons would then naturally follow through.

[cavatina]

I have known a fair few movers and shakers in my time, some nice, some not so, salaries unmentionable. I have found that the Oxbridge types who end up in high powered business or policy jobs (as opposed to, say, academics) seem to have their heads so crammed full of that gunk, their media intake is just plain awful.

I didn't even have a TV for years until my friends bought one for me; I still couldn't tell you much about pop culture. When I lived in West Hollywood, people were always pointing out celebrities to me and I couldn't have cared less. Mostly I just use it to tape old movies off the Turner Classic Movies channel and watch them later; I'd rather spend my time working on my own projects.

Oh, and it's nice to turn on nature shows for my cat when I'm out of the house.

[doversoul1]

Originally posted by Cavatina

I have a "persistently minority opinion" about almost everything everywhere I go

I think ff means (at least I think) you are a minority on these boards, as your outlook clearly represents those of the majority of the world or rather that of what is (may be unfortunately) assumed to be the typical American. Radio3 is a UK radio station and for a minority interest. I don’t think there is any point in arguing about this.

[french frank]

When I worked in the music business (and more generally, the nonprofit sector), time and again I saw organizations flounder and fail because they refused to take an accurate assessment of the current state of affairs and change their fundamental strategy to match the times.

What I query here is the assumption that the strategy of a cultural organisation should be dictated by business rather than cultural concerns. The cultural aims come first (my opinion). In any case, many companies (M&S was famously one) suffered when they ditched their existing clientele for (as they hoped) a buzzier, funkier one. They ended up pleasing no one.

While I do agree with a great deal of what you're saying, as I've said many times before, I believe trying to dictate policy in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster.

Sorry, I don't understand. I'm not the one dictating policy. But I would say that a preferable strategy to the present one is within the context of the BBC's radio portfolio and cultural broadcasting generally.

Must everyone always agree with each other? One would think you'd want more people of all opinions to come here and debate these issues seriously.

I think it must be quite obvious that I'm quite happy with people debating the issues seriously and am willing to respond (actually, I enjoy it ). On 'agreement', I'm simply referring to your admissions that you dislike (intensely) the same things that I/we/others dislike (intensely) but you have this altruistic notion that your tastes should not be catered for because you are, culturally, part of an unrepresentative minority. I, on the other hand, take the view that the BBC should not merely cater for that minority, it should aim to develop that type of listener who will appreciate serious, in-depth analysis and want to take their music listening to a more advanced level. I don't think that 'primary entry points for new listeners', with emails, text messages and chart shows is the way to do it. And I would contend that listeners who complain that presentation is too 'formal', 'stuffy' and over their heads have no aspiration to become that kind of listener. No matter how much effort Radio 3 puts into being 'accessible' (11 years under RW alone) some people still find it over formal (see Audience Council submissions). How can you discuss serious subjects in the jokey, 'bantering' style of popular radio?

And as Richard Osborne has put it:

"What everyone should be worrying about, however, is the loss of that old drip-feed of expert, uncondescending talk about music with which the BBC created and educated an audience in the first place. Will an informed audience even exist by 2030?"

I resent having my nationality thrown up at me like it actually means something when it's completely irrelevant: I absolutely reject the so-called "American national character", have a unique set of values all my own, and have precious little in common with damn near everyone I ever met. To ascribe anything about me to my nationality is blatant bigotry, pure and simple.

The response to that is the same as that of the Scottish government to the human rights lawyers querying the level of university tuition fees for English students: it's not a question of nationality but of domicile (English students living in Scotland get reduced fees). As the BBC's reply to those who have complained about On Demand TV (and high quality audio) being unavailable to other parts of the world makes clear, BBC services are intended for UK residents - no matter what their nationality and, indeed, no matter whether they are, individually, licence fee payers.

[cavatina]

Originally posted by Cavatina
I think ff means (at least I think) you are a minority on these boards, as your outlook clearly represents those of the majority of the world or rather that of what is (may be unfortunately) assumed to be the typical American.

When I was in Austria speaking German, someone asked me if I were French. When I was in France speaking French, someone asked me if I were German.

"Typical American" my sweet patootie.

Radio3 is a UK radio station and for a minority interest.

I'm every inch the minority you are--indeed, more so-- and made my living in the music world for years and years. As a former arts policy analyst, I have a sincere interest in the issues FF raises here, and to say I have no right to comment because I'm not British beggars belief.

If they didn't want filthy foreigners listening to Radio 3, they never should have put it on the internet where we could wrap out grubby little foreign ears around it, now should they.

I don’t think there is any point in arguing about this.

No kidding. "Smile, nod, and keep on trucking."

[cavatina]

What I query here is the assumption that the strategy of a cultural organisation should be dictated by business rather than cultural concerns. The cultural aims come first (my opinion).

Yes, but when a cultural organisation turns its nose at business concerns in any number of ways (ignoring marketing, underfunding development, no strategic analysis, no long-term planning) it isn't in a position to fulfill its mission at all. I've been a staff cuts victim more times than I care to remember, and can't even begin to tell you how poorly mismanaged most nonprofits are. I saw it all: incompetence, waste, fraud, nepotism, sleazy largesse, "quid pro quo" shenanigans... ineffectual boards with no accountability, no oversight, no involvement... it's a nightmare out there.

You can't have a cultural organisation without "culture" or "organisation".

In any case, many companies (M&S was famously one) suffered when they ditched their existing clientele for (as they hoped) a buzzier, funkier one. They ended up pleasing no one.

Very true, I'm not denying this is a problem. Has Radio 3 got it absolutely right yet? Obviously not, or they wouldn't keep trying new things. But to blast them for being daring and having the guts to try seems a real mistake.

Sorry, I don't understand. I'm not the one dictating policy.

Yes, but you're making "ideals first, reality later" recommendations that, from everything I've seen, get people into real trouble.

I'll address the rest of your post later; it's 10:00 and I never seem to get out of here until the afternoon. Museums await...thanks!

[doversoul1]

Cavatina

When I was in Austria speaking German, someone asked me if I were French. When I was in France speaking French, someone asked me if I were German.

I only refer to what you say and not how you sound for the obvious reason.

Typical American" my sweet patootie.

Whether or not one agrees, stereotypes do exist, and you fit in the image of the stereotypical American rather nicely.

As a former arts policy analyst, I have a sincere interest in the issues FF raises here

I understand that we discuss matters here as listeners of Radio3.

to say I have no right to comment because I'm not British beggars belief.

To say that you have no right to comment because you are not a regular Radio3 listener shouldn’t.

grubby little foreign ears

I have got a pair of those.

[aeolium]

Another point is that so much of R3's provision now (and style of presentation) is directed at the casual or new listener, rather than a 'knowledgeable R3 audience'. The many magazine programmes featuring short and well-known pieces, the constant hype and advertising, the cosy bonhomie of the presenters, all of these are concerned with the transient audience, not the core. Even if this strategy is successful - and statistics suggest it is not - what happens if a new listener is drawn in and wants to go further than the familiar, to learn more? There is precious little to sustain that interest. The one in-depth programme which examined works closely, Discovering Music, is being restructured into a shorter concert interval programme. Unfamiliar and new music is rare - new music largely confined to a late-night slot except when the Proms are on. It is as if the content is being targetted (like so much of the BBC's provision these days) at a perpetual adolescent.

Yet what has fundamentally changed in the character of the audience since, say, the 1980s to require this change? There was then much the same variety of age-groups, ethnicities, classes, competing interests from other sorts of music, other distractions (not the internet, true, though that is also another opportunity). What has persuaded this generation of R3 managers and executives to believe that unless classical music is sold like a brand of washing powder everyone will lose interest? I think it is simply an intellectual failure on the part of those in charge at the BBC - a trahison des clercs - who have listened to bad advice from too many marketing people. No-one 'sold' me classical music - it was provided, and I responded to it.

[french frank]

Has Radio 3 got it absolutely right yet? Obviously not, or they wouldn't keep trying new things. But to blast them for being daring and having the guts to try seems a real mistake.

They are not daring, nor do they have 'guts' in doing as they do. They straightforwardly have the bean-counters who know nothing and care less about classical music telling them they have to attract more listeners. If they have to go down market to get them, so be it. If they have to ditch any pretention to be serious and profound, so be it. If they have to be crass and banal, so be it. And if a minority, who want something better in terms of artistic range and challenging new work and a deeper level of information, don't like it, so be it.

The BBC is supposed to cater for all audiences - and that includes minorities. In terms of classical music, Radio 3 has very little (Hear & Now and perhaps Composer of the Week?) which is targeted on those who want something more intelligent than phone-ins.

Daring? Guts? Since when has popularising and going for the lowest common denominator been 'daring'? 'New things'? But they're not new - they're old hat from popular radio stations, plus the occasional big promotional event. The BBC/R3 wants a bigger slice of the casual classical market which is why it's expressly targeting the Radio 4 audience which otherwise looks to Classic FM. It's cynical and shabby.

aeolium: I agree in every respect.

[Norfolk Born]

They are not daring, nor do they have 'guts' in doing as they do. They straightforwardly have the bean-counters who know nothing and care less about classical music telling them they have to attract more listeners. If they have to go down market to get them, so be it. If they have to ditch any pretention to be serious and profound, so be it. If they have to be crass and banal, so be it. And if a minority, who want something better in terms of artistic range and challenging new work and a deeper level of information, don't like it, so be it.

The BBC is supposed to cater for all audiences - and that includes minorities. In terms of classical music, Radio 3 has very little (Hear & Now and perhaps Composer of the Week?) which is targeted on those who want something more intelligent than phone-ins.

Daring? Guts? Since when has popularising and going for the lowest common denominator been 'daring'? 'New things'? But they're not new - they're old hat from popular radio stations, plus the occasional big promotional event. The BBC/R3 wants a bigger slice of the casual classical market which is why it's expressly targeting the Radio 4 audience which otherwise looks to Classic FM. It's cynical and shabby.

aeolium: I agree in every respect.

french frank: I agree with you in every respect.