Of far more significance, Geoff, is the issue of what kind of service you want. I want a service that both educates and entertains. I want R3 to push my way works or composers or ideas that I might otherwise miss. I want access to concerts or talks or whatever that I can't attend because of distance or cost or time. On balance I consider R3 does these things admirably. I also recognise that other people enjoy things I don't like or even detest (such as jazz), and I'm happy that R3 caters for them. Contrary to your claim I find that R3 is wonderfully diverse and inclusive. To check on that point I've just scanned through the schedule for the next few days and have been almost overwhelmed in realising that there's such a richness and variety of things I want to listen to that if I did would bring to a sudden halt all the other things I do. Where is the actual evidence that there is something about R3 (its 'culture', choice of material, the voices of announcers or whatever) that "turns many off of 'classical' music"? I rather suspect you're guilty of uttering propaganda. Have you imagined what life would be like without R3? Would you prefer a commercial service that in the interests of 'selling' itself panders to the majority and hence lowers its standards because it gives up challenging and educating its audience? And finally, what on earth is wrong or inappropriate in exclaiming 'a real corker' or 'a veritable cracker' over a performance of real and exciting merit?
Rather than merely throwing bricks, Geoff, your case would be far more compelling if you explained how you would do things differently if you had the task of directing R3.
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb