Of course connoisseurs listen to Radio 3 – Telegraph Blogs

Quote:

In 1956, Nikolaus Pevsner – the German architectural historian who wrote about pretty much every major English building in his county guides – wrote The Englishness of English Art. In it, he connected the decent English home, our temperate climate and our moderate politics, to disappointing English art – and our lack of a Bach, Beethoven, Michelangelo or Titian. He had a point. We could hardly match up to the Renaissance in our art and architecture; or to 18th- and 19th-century Germany and Austria when it comes to music. But when it comes to the broadcast of all that culture, we lose our philistinism. Our radio stations remain among the best in the world; next time you’re abroad, just try to find advert-free classical music and spoken word programmes on your radio dial. You could be twiddling for a while. So why on earth does the BBC want to mess around with Radio 3 and Radio 4? Yesterday, the BBC Trust published its service review, attacking those two gems of British – and world – culture. The trust called Radio 3 elitist, claiming that some listeners found it “slightly heavy and inaccessible… and daunting”. The answer, apparently, is to make it “more welcoming and accessible”. Both Radio 3 and Radio 4 were also criticised for appealing mostly to those over 55 years of age from better-off households in the South and South East, with a low reach among black and minority ethnic audiences. The trust concluded that both stations must increase their appeal among different demographic groups. It isn’t Beethoven’s fault that his music happens to be popular among white, middle-class people in the south of England. And it isn’t Bach’s fault that it takes some maturity to listen to his music. When I was a child, I listened to Radio 1; now I’m 39, I listen to Radio 3. You can try to make classical music as accessible as you like, but you can’t get around the fact that there are still an awful lot of notes in there that just won’t appeal to many teenagers. David Liddiment, the BBC trustee who led the review, justified his attack by saying that it was the trust’s role to ensure that the BBC is serving all licence-fee payers. Fair enough – but it is patently impossible for a single station to appeal to all listeners. Give a station a particular profile, and it will appeal to those who identify with that profile. To object to a certain type of person listening to a certain type of music or liking a certain news programme is crazy. At one ludicrous point in the trust’s report, “lighter listeners” are said to object to Radio 3 being aimed exclusively at music connoisseurs. Bears frequent woods, Popes tend to be Catholic and a classical music station appeals to classical music connoisseurs. Those lighter listeners have an option: they can tune in to Radio 1 or Radio 2, as they do in their millions. Last Thursday’s Rajar ratings showed that 90.5 per cent of Britons listen to the radio every week. Yesterday’s report only covered Radio 3, Radio 4 and Radio 7; but if a report on Radio 1 showed that not many white, middle-class, over-55-year-olds listened to Chris Moyles’s morning show, they wouldn’t lose much sleep in Broadcasting House. The tired assumption beneath the report is that middle-class/white/southern = bad; working-class/ethnic minority/regional = good. It’s also deeply patronising to, say, a Mozart fan who happens to be a poor, black Mancunian. The idea that high culture has to be made more “welcoming” to appeal to anyone who isn’t middle-class is loaded with inverted snobbery and the worst of dumbed-down values. It isn’t for the BBC to dictate the demographical breakdown of radio listeners. The only obligation for high-brow institutions like Radio 3 and 4 is to provide the best music and spoken word programmes in the world – excellence will always find discerning listeners, of all races and classes.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

"Excellence will always find discerning listeners, of all races and classes".

Well, no and that's the double-point being made. Either you define excellence as the stuff white southern (upper) middle class people like and thus insult all the other ethnic/regional stuff made by categorising them as inferior... Or you admit that excellence can only be recognised by a specific kind of listeners, certainly not of all races and classes.

Personally, I've always thought that, whatever arty people want to say, the cliche that "les gouts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas" (tastes and colors cannot be argued with) is basically spot on... There's art I like and art I dislike. I am on the record for saying that there are few pieces of Picasso I actually like or would care to own (except as investments). But, here you go, the guy is recognised as one of the greatest artistic genius of all time and The Great One when it comes to the 20thC. Had everyone be like me, Picasso would have died unknown and in poverty...

So, should Radio 3 & 4 start mixing Bach with Eminem? No - But that's just because they appeal to different demographics, not because one is "excellence" and the other isn't. And that's basic marketing - You attack a market by segmenting your customers...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

He does make a good point that you'll never hear the BBC agonising over the fact that people who listen to Radio 1 are mostly young, or that there's a disproportionate number of Asians listening to the Asian channel.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Exactly. The only things to consider are how much it costs to produce Radio 3 & 4 for its share of the demographic it is targeting, the size of said targeted demographic in the first place and if there would be a better use of the money...

Assuming you do want to cover/penetrate the Southern White Middle class demographic and there is no better use of the money, the whole debate and review is utterly pointless.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.