Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 8:21:34 GMT -5
There is something very strange about the Radio 3 Forum, a site where a number of our members have I understand had disagreeable experiences of one kind or another. Perhaps in this thread we can - in the most civilized manner mind you - propose some improvements. A recent example was when I attempted to start a thread in the New Music section. The first respondent, a Mr. Pabmusic, ignored my point and impertinently opened a discussion about a word in my chosen vocabulary. That lasted for thirteen posts, at which point another member, Jean, equally impudently opened a discussion about a second word from my chosen vocabulary. All this went on for four pages, punctuated by half-witted "wise cracks" from the usual assembly (amateur51, bryn, mrgonggong, flosshilde, burning dog, beef oven, scottycelt, and so on). Are not the British when they act in a half-witted way especially disagreeable specimens of the species? After the four pages of drivel, no one had addressed the subject of the thread. I have of course removed my original post and disassociated myself from the whole sorry discussion; I see now how unwise it was to begin it. So I would like to propose two radical changes at the Radio 3 Forum. Firstly, anything unrelated to the intended topic, such as the above-mentioned impudent intrusions of pabmusic and jean, should as soon as they appear be moved off to a separate section or topic. At once. Is that not logical? And the authors of facile one-line "wise cracks" should - after a stern warning - be banned for one week. At once. I would remind those who doubt the efficacy of these measures that the Art Music forum, which is run on very similar lines, now effectively runs itself; I have had to intervene no more often than once every four months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 9:09:46 GMT -5
The Radio 3 Forum is hosted by french frank, so it is really up to her how it works, Sydney Grew. In this context, I remember once quoting Groucho Marx: Wikiquote - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 10, 2013 6:46:59 GMT -5
Like any private drinking club, the "Radio 3 Forum" has a right to run its affairs in any way it wishes.
I am surprised the BBC countenances the (ab)use of the name "Radio 3 Forum" when this messageboard is patently not sanctioned or approved by Radio 3 in the slightest. But that is their business, and not ours.
Frankly the so-called "Friends of Radio 3" merely do themselves a disservice by operating that messageboard. If it was their intention to portray themselves as reactionary, ill-informed snobs - then they have succeeded!
Who are we to stop them shooting themselves in the foot?!
The For3 'Campaign' has not merely faltered. It has failed - and deservedly so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 8:18:36 GMT -5
To be honest, Neil McGowan, I suspect that Mark Sealey, Sarah Spilsbury and their Supporters, or ' Friends of Radio 3' (FoR3), would agree with you that the FoR3 campaign has completely failed over the past decade (2003-13). FoR3 - AimsThey have completely lost the plot, Sydney Grew. As for BBC Radio 3, it is very different from ' The Third Programme' when it was launched in 1946, but the past is indeed a foreign country: they do things differently there. The Radio 3 Forum - The independent forum for Radio 3 listenersAs usual, I have invited all true Friends of Radio 3 to the BBC Proms this summer. Tony Hall, Roger Wright and everyone associated with Radio 3 are more than welcome to join us! We might even share some champagne together at the new Berrys' No.3 Bar (East Arena Foyer), or whatever you fancy. Berrys' Wine Blog - Berrys’ No.3 Bar at The Royal Albert HallIf I may nevertheless go back to Sydney Grew's opening question: what is to be done with ' The Radio 3 Forum'? As french frank hosts the site, it is really up to her how it works, as I pointed out to Sydney Grew. Sydney Grew will be aware that as an Administrator of this particular online discussion forum, I am ultra-liberal, in the sense that almost anything goes. Of course, I realise that I am at an extreme end of the spectrum, and that it may be necessary to manage online discussion forums far more strictly, on occasion. On balance, however, I would prefer to tolerate those who hold completely different points of view from kleines c. How do I know that I am right, after all, Neil McGowan?
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 10, 2013 12:01:24 GMT -5
As french frank hosts the site, it is really up to her how it works
I entirely agree with this. I cannot sympathise with the way that site is managed currently, but of course it has a right to exist - and it clearly serves a community who enjoy the way it is run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 3:10:32 GMT -5
I suppose that it is worth asking whether ' The Radio 3 Forum' and the ' Friends of Radio 3' (FoR3) are a bunch of muppets, as Neil McGowan suggests. Well, I don't personally think that Mark Sealey, Sarah Spilsbury and their supporters are muppets, or stupid, although it is worth measuring FoR3 against its stated aims over the past decade (2003-2013). Perhaps they should really be doing this for themselves anyway, but as there has been no attempt to do so, here goes! Well, BBC Radio 3 is distinctive in 2013, and does maintain high artistic and intellectual standards. I commend Radio 3 to everyone reading ' The Third'! BBC Radio 3The content of Radio 3 does attract small audiences, relative to Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 4 and Classic FM. Nevertheless, I would argue that the content of Radio 3 needs not necessarily attract only small audiences. The BBC Proms, for example, has always attracted large audiences, and it is broadcast on Radio 3. It is, in reality, the highlight of the schedule! 2013 marks the 119th year of the Proms and it still remains true to its original aim: to present the widest possible range of music, performed to the highest standards, to large audiences! As for acknowledging an obligation to build an audience for the content rather than alter the content to build an audience, the content is changing all the time anyway. Classical music is not a canon of great composers! It is not destined for the museum! It remains a living artform, as contemporary composers continue to add the repertoire. Classical music is therefore changing all the time! So are its audiences. The audience for classical music, however, is unlikely to be the same as the audience for jazz and world music, and the audience for music is unlikely to be the same as the audience for drama! As it happens, I listen to all of them, but when I go to live events, the audiences can be very different indeed! Well, FoR3 has conveyed listener concerns to BBC management over the past decade. There are, however, several obvious problems which deserve to be discussed! a. What form has this engagement with the BBC taken? b. Has the BBC engaged with FoR3? c. What has been the outcome of this engagement? The principal problem, I suspect, lies in the extent to which FoR3 does represent and convey listener concerns. FoR3 claims to represent Radio 3 listeners, but it most certainly does not represent the views or concerns of kleines c. Quite the opposite, in fact! Neither Sydney Grew nor Neil McGowan, for example, shares the same views, concerns and tastes as kleines c, but nevertheless, none of us is represented by FoR3! As a scientist, it is also worth addressing the mathematics of the situation. BBC Radio 3 has about two million listeners. This has been surprisingly constant over the past decade. Friends of Radio 3 has about five hundred supporters. 2,000,000 - 500 = 1,999,500 FoR3 therefore conveys the concerns of about five hundred supporters. There is no attempt by Mark Sealey, Sarah Spilsbury and their five hundred supporters to debate, either online or off, with the two million listeners who actually listen to Radio 3. Quite the reverse! No dissent can be tolerated! It seems to me that the Friends of Radio 3 are only prepared to debate with one another, despite numerous attempts over the past decade to open up the debate, both online and off. I have personally gone out of my way to engage with FoR3. In preference to the stated aims of the Friends of Radio 3, give me BBC Radio 3 any day!
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 11, 2013 13:56:08 GMT -5
Friends of Radio 3 has about five hundred supporters. According to their own figures - which are not transparent to outsiders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2013 6:05:56 GMT -5
Good afternoon, Neil! If I may address your point directly: Friends of Radio 3 has about five hundred supporters. According to their own figures - which are not transparent to outsiders. I would guess that they are close enough, Neil. Here is the relevant webpage: FoR3 - SupportersAccording to FoR3, Friends of Radio 3 is an informal group of Radio 3 listeners from all parts of the United Kingdom and including a small number of overseas supporters from as far afield as the United States, Fiji and Japan. It is worth noting that the group is informal, so you cannot actually become a friend or a member, merely an 'informal' supporter. The group does not accept donations. More relevant, however, is the extent to which FoR3 represents the views of its own (500) supporters, (2 million) listeners to BBC Radio 3 in general and the wider community in which we live (over 60 million in the UK and 7 billion worldwide)? The association between FoR3 and The Radio 3 Forum also requires clarification. Friends of Radio 3 will tend to post their opinions on The Radio 3 Forum, for example french frank, but membership of The Radio 3 Forum does not make you a supporter, or Friend of Radio 3. For the record, french frank classes 'kleines c' as 'a nuisance', and I am therefore banned, permanently, from posting on The Radio 3 Forum. As a loyal listener to Radio 3, sometime promenader and supporter of the BBC in general, I would guess that FoR3 splits R3 listeners into two camps. In the spectrum of opinion between elitism and populism, I would place myself at the populist extreme. FoR3 would place itself at the other end of the spectrum, without wanting to call themselves elitist, although most listeners would probably be happy enough to meet somewhere in the middle. Sydney Grew, Neil McGowan and kleines c, the three principal posters in this particular online discussion forum, have all been in some kind of online dialogue with french frank (and FoR3) for the best part of a decade. We are all going to have different views on her campaign. My own view is that she has the support of many Radio 3 listeners, I would guess roughly half, but that most listeners to R3 have probably never heard of the existence of 'The Friends' anyway, unless they have posted regularly on the various BBC Radio 3 message boards. Personally, I am quite happy with a bit of elitism and a bit of populism, not to mention a bit of snobbery and a bit of inverted snobbery, but neither should be allowed to get in the way of good broadcasting. Of course, there is no consensus as to what good broadcasting, and a good broadcast, actually are. As Sydney Grew is actually making broadcasts here in ' The Third', perhaps we need to discuss what good broadcasting means to us?
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 12, 2013 6:40:42 GMT -5
I was rehearsing at the Bolshoi Theatre on Friday - in the lunch break we were in the cafeteria, and the question of the Bolshoi's new cinema relays (which begin next week) came up. My Russian colleagues asked if broadcasts like 'The Proms' are still popular in Britain? I explained that they were - but that a woman in Bristol and her friends were leading a campaign against the way classical music is broadcast in Britain. My colleagues were flabbergasted. As I went on to list the things which anger the Fiends of R3 - presenters giving details of the works being played, the history of their composition, and the biographies of the performers - my chums creased up with laughter. "No, you're making this up, Neil! They fill the time between items - not with advertising or sponsor messages - but with information about the music... and people have formed a COMPLAINT GROUP?? How sad Benjamin Britten is no longer alive! He could have written an opera about such people! A comic opera!".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2013 8:08:47 GMT -5
According to Wikipedia, ' Albert Herring' explores society's reaction to an odd individual, although, in this case at least, it is from a generally humorous and lighthearted perspective. Some of Benjamin Britten's contemporaries saw in the title character a satirical self-portrait of the composer. Wikipedia - Albert HerringPerhaps we are all ultimately Albert Herring, Neil?
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 12, 2013 9:19:20 GMT -5
Indeed so. The action in Albert Herring is set in motion by a domineering woman called Lady Billows, who decides - after sending her secretary, Mrs Pike, to spy on them - that none of the village girls are morally suitable as Queen of the May. She resolves to have a King of the May instead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2013 10:02:06 GMT -5
. . . I went on to list the things which anger the F[r]iends of R3 - presenters giving details of the works being played, the history of their composition, and the biographies of the performers - my chums creased up with laughter. . . . I don't think the first two items there are things that anger the Friends of Radio 3. Some of the things that do anger - or at least mildly disturb - the Friends of Radio 3 are indicated here: thethird.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=ourbcs&action=display&thread=1041) The B.B.C. has increasingly encouraged listeners-in to take a perverse interest in the persons and personalities of its announcers. 2) The announcers are the wrong sort of people; on the spur of the moment they utter opinions, impressions, irrelevancies and trivialities; they chatter, hesitate, deviate and repeat themselves. 3) It is true that the announcers give far too much irrelevant biographical information, mostly read from the back of the record-case. There is not nearly enough analysis of each art-work by experts and description of its composer's intentions. 4) The broadcasting of single movements torn out of larger works is a scandalous affront both to the composer and to the listener. 5) The advertising "trailers" are an unspeakably vulgar intrusion. 6) The broadcasting of a well-worn unimaginative war-horse repertoire. 7) The creeping americanization, every month a little worse. The problem is, I agree, that the "Friends" are ineffectual (or ineffective if you prefer). Perhaps they have been talking to the wrong people all these years. Perhaps they should organize direct action: monthly marches, placards, posters, shame, sit-ins, a flood of letters to the Times the Guardian and the Financial Times. And find out whether the B.B.C. is breaking any rules. Anyway, many members of the Radio 3 forum - even French Frank herself - have admitted that they now no longer listen to Radio 3 at all. Despite the many eminent persons who are members of the "Friends" they have no power, because "demo-cracy" is another word for "rabble-rule." The cause was lost long ago. Indeed in the case of the Radio 3 forum we see this in practice: the moderation is too "nice" - over-nice but utterly misdirected. This means that serious persons are banned as "nuisances" or "disruptive" but for years now the most outrageous nitwits and merchants of triviality have been tolerated. A new broom is needed, some one who will step in and at once expel the lot of them!
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on May 12, 2013 10:53:44 GMT -5
Anyway, many members of the Radio 3 forum - even French Frank herself - have admitted that they now no longer listen to Radio 3 at all.
And indeed, why should they? It is, after all, only a radio station - of which we now have a pleasing plethora. I listen mostly to Swiss Internet Radio these days. I usually choose the opera channel, but they are having a themed "bel canto opera" weekend, which is not quite my thing. On their main channel this afternoon we've had Smetana, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Beethoven and Haydn. No jazz, no cricket, no neocon "news" propaganda - ideal while I am working.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 12, 2013 13:29:28 GMT -5
The announcers are the wrong sort of people; on the spur of the moment they utter opinions, impressions, irrelevancies and trivialities; they chatter, hesitate, deviate and repeat themselves. Dear me! Time, perhaps, for the venerable Mr Parsons to take charge of them?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 0:37:52 GMT -5
Time, perhaps, for the venerable Mr Parsons to take charge . . . It would certainly be an improvement Mr. H. Is he musical do you know?
|
|