# OK, I'll bite - what's wrong with ClassicFM?



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

On some other thread (the Philip Glass one?) someone made a throwaway comment about how people look down their noses at ClassicFM. I've never heard of that, so I searched for it and as near as I can tell it's a British radio station with a fairly decent web site. So I'll bite - what's the problem with it? The only thing I can come up with is the musical choices there seemed fairly mainstream, but is that really so awful?

What's the story?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Their top presenters are John Suchet (a newsreader), Alan Titchmarsh (a gardener) and Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen (an interior designer). Given that these three jokers don't possess even the smallest morsel of classical music knowledge between them, they instead have to fill the airtime with moronic comments about "oh, what a lovely piece that was." And the audience clearly likes that; they don't want to feel intellectually challenged. It is as if the cozy celebrity presenters are a bigger draw than the music itself. That's what offends me the most about ClassicFM. It's all a bit lowest common denominator.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Never heard of it. I just listen to what I want.


----------



## Delilah (May 5, 2014)

Never knew it was a radio show! :/ I do find their website cool though.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Never thought I'd live to see the day where "Oh, what a lovely piece that was" comes in for criticism.

Who listens to ClassicFM or any other mainstream classical radio station to be challenged? I want to relax and perhaps discover and be delighted by new pieces I never heard before. I'm sure I am far from alone in this view.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Who turns on the radio to be challenged?


Fixed yer post


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> Their top presenters are John Suchet (a newsreader), Alan Titchmarsh (a gardener) and Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen (an interior designer). Given that these three jokers don't possess even the smallest morsel of classical music knowledge between them, they instead have to fill the airtime with moronic comments about "oh, what a lovely piece that was." And the audience clearly likes that; they don't want to feel intellectually challenged. It is as if the cozy celebrity presenters are a bigger draw than the music itself. That's what offends me the most about ClassicFM. It's all a bit lowest common denominator.


I think it's fair to point out that Suchet, Titchmarsh and Llewellyn-Bowen are "broadcasters" and have long-since branched out from their starting points. How much they know about Classical Music should not be presumed.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There is nothing wrong or 'awful' about it. The English FM station programs 'good music,' caters to a wide and general public, many of whom are not as fully invested in 'exploring' classical music than, probably, any TC member. The station has sponsors, is a commercial venture, and does also program what they find to be readily popular with its customer - listener base.

That initial thread, "A message from..." read to me like _a message from a bottle,_ and can be "interpreted" as if that 'message' _is of some major importance,_ i.e. it might indicate what contemporary classical should most be aiming to do to please listeners, including airing and promoting video game sound tracks.

The only significance of it is "what is popular with the _sometimes_ much more 'casual' classical music listener"... (a good deal of what they do program I would not call at all casual) and I think the station does not have any pretenses about being anything other than what it is.

I grew up with a classical FM station much more 'rounded' in its programming, so prefer that approach. I cannot say if that station I grew up with 'educated me' more because of its programming, as I was already deep in to classical in earliest childhood, well before I found that FM station. I did learn from it of composers and pieces new to me, and well outside the orbits of the English Classic FM's programming.

I could (and do) sometimes despair that the lighter classical FM presenters are doing less to consistently expose their public to a wider range of classical, from the earliest eras to the contemporary, but those stations serve a function, including playing upbeat baroque in a morning slot, single movements of pieces, etc. I am against the potpourri approach, and the 'use' of music that way, at least as promoted by what is supposedly a 'cultural' resource: but those stations are successful and their listeners do get a lot of what they want.

I would not tune in to Classic FM simply because I want and expect something more and far different from what it offers. Others are quite content with it and do discover some exciting music new to them -- which serves a function I do advocate and serves that particular listener base well enough -- while that programming is just mainly old news and of little interest to me.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

My biggest complaint would be they never play complete works on the station and yet have the balls to issue their own range of CD's promoting 'the full works'.
Aside from that, they're your average greatest hits classical radio station.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

They are a commercial main stream radio station
So to get the advertisers they have to aim at the largest audience they can. Hence music choices are going to tend to be conservative and if they can get well known presenters then all the better.
We recently went to Neville Marriner's 90th birthday concert and they were sponsors and recorded the event for broadcast the day after so they ain't all bad.
I suggest we need Classic FM to generate revenue for the industry as much as anything else


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2014)

mikey said:


> My biggest complaint would be they never play complete works on the station and yet have the balls to issue their own range of CD's promoting 'the full works'.


Eh? What's this then?

http://www.classicfm.com/shop/cds/full-works-cd-collection/


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

mikey said:


> My biggest complaint would be they never play complete works on the station and yet have the balls to issue their own range of CD's promoting 'the full works'.
> Aside from that, they're your average greatest hits classical radio station.


They have an evening slot for "full works" - ok some of them are short -Antonio Vivaldi: Flute Concerto in D major Opus 10 RV.428 - some are "popular" - 1812 - some might be appreciated - Claude Debussy: Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune. It's at 8:00 pm UK time.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

We never listen to the radio in the house, so it's always in the car. We started on Classic fm about twenty years ago when we used to play their 'Classic Romance' programme on the way to and from church. It featured requests with little stories about how couples met and appealed to our romantic slushy hearts. At that time we weren't into classical music at all, so even pops were widening our knowledge. Then we started listening to the station when going on longer journeys, and picked up more. We don't listen all that much now, as we have our own cds to listen to. But I think Classic fm does a valuable job. It is a sort of magazine programme & it does play new cds coming out, which must be a valuable service to the recording industry.

To illustrate its value - it was here that I first heard the Oboe Concerto by (not-really) Albinoni. They said nothing about its attribution, but I'd never heard it before and everyone has to start somewhere.
But also, while I was waiting in the car to pick Taggart up from work, I heard 'Silencio' from *Fire Burning in Snow*, a cd of South American baroque music by _Ex Cathedra_, the third in a series. It had just come out, I told Taggart about it, and we bought it - and then the first two cds too.

So what is *wrong* with Classic fm? That it does 'pops' - is that really *wrong*, when there are so few people in the world who love classical music? I should think that would be *right*, actually. People can always branch out later. It's also right to give the cognoscenti something to gripe about on a Monday morning. (Moody, England hath need of thee at this hour!)


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

Taggart said:


> They have an evening slot for "full works" - ok some of them are short -Antonio Vivaldi: Flute Concerto in D major Opus 10 RV.428 - some are "popular" - 1812 - some might be appreciated - Claude Debussy: Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune. It's at 8:00 pm UK time.


Ok, seemed to have missed that but on the whole it kind of irks me coz you wouldn't hear half a pop song being broadcast. 
I do enjoy their website though. The 'Mozart on Facebook' page was priceless!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Their top presenters are John Suchet (a newsreader), Alan Titchmarsh (a gardener) and Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen (an interior designer). Given that these three jokers don't possess even the smallest morsel of classical music knowledge between them, they instead have to fill the airtime with moronic comments about "oh, what a lovely piece that was." And the audience clearly likes that; they don't want to feel intellectually challenged. It is as if the cozy celebrity presenters are a bigger draw than the music itself. That's what offends me the most about ClassicFM. It's all a bit lowest common denominator.


Sounds a typical piece of musical snobbery, of course, written by a 'holier than thou I Am More Cultured a Than You' type. Most of the time I don't listen to music to be intellectually challenged. I listen to it because I love it and I enjoy it. I listen to classic FM in the car as it's a very enjoyable way (mostly) of spending a journey. 
Your comments about the presenters appear curious if not ignorant. John Suchet has written a biography of Beethoven which does indicate he has some knowledge.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Well, I have no objections to a commercial radio station playing music that its audience wants to hear, or that it has decided its audience wants to hear.
And the music they play is good.
So there's nothing per se wrong with Classic FM.

Now, I don't listen to the radio very much, and my personal collection of music is quite vast anyway, so if I want to hear something specific or something random, my collection is the best option. But there are times when I like to put the radio on (and by "put the radio on" of course I mean "put the television on and pick a radio channel"), and at those times I'm part of Classic FM's audience: they play classical music, I like to to listen to classical music. So, when I'm a listener, I get to complain about it if I wish.

So I do like the music - well, there's about 1 piece in maybe 10-15 that's one of those cloying, too-sweet bits of modern pop-classical I don't like - but the more I hear the less enamoured I become. It's not so much that I'm not being "challenged", it's just that I might say that only one particular part of my musical brain is being stimulated. There's a lot of music I don't find challenging that they don't play either - Hindemith or Martinu, say, or Schubert's gloomier lieder. It's all smooth, nothing rough or spiky, nothing to make me feel anything other than the most simple versions of "happy" or "relaxed". 
And then there're the presenters, some of whom can be clueless and/or irritating.

So, there's nothing per se wrong with Classic FM, but when I'm part of its audience there's a bunch of things wrong with it.

I hope this doesn't come across as snobbery, because I don't want it to. I'm glad that there's a few million people out there listening to _part of_ my favourite kind of music.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I take your point about 'smooth', Nereffid - one of the Classic FM programmes we hated was 'Smooth Classics at Seven'. We hit the off-button pretty fast there. 
But I suppose the Smooth-Lovers have rights too.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

This is almost time for one of those "When I were a lad..." speeches. 

In the good old days in Britain we had the Light programme which played light music both popular and classical - the old thumpers - Radetsky March, Light Cavalry Overture, Lone Ranger theme, some Max Jaffa, some folk. some jazz, some country music, big band music. Then we had the Third programme which played "proper" classical music and intellectual stuff - Bach, Mozart, Mongolian nose flute, talks with Brendan Behan and so forth. We also had Radio Luxemburg for pop music with adverts. People realised that pop music attracted young people with money and that it was an attractive proposition for advertisers so we had pirate radio. Then the BBC sold out and instead of offering what people needed, it offered what people wanted - pop music on 1, light music on 2, culture on 3 and so forth. Then people realised that classical music lovers or people with pretensions to culture had some money and also made a market for advertisers. These people were the same baby boomers who had been sold out by the BBC. So ClassicFM was formed. 

The only solution is to bring back the values of Reith and make a determined effort to educate people. Sounds more than a little Orwellian.


----------



## sonnenuntergangstunde (Apr 20, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I take your point about 'smooth', Nereffid - one of the Classic FM programmes we hated was 'Smooth Classics at Seven'. We hit the off-button pretty fast there.
> But I suppose the Smooth-Lovers have rights too.


I listen to classic fm, mostly in the car or whilst reading. I wont reiterate some already well-made points in this thread in support of classic fm, however I will say that the station _does_ reinforce the 'relaxing' stereotype of classical music quite a lot. Lets hear some more of the furious, darker side of this expansive musical genre!


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Never thought I'd live to see the day where "Oh, what a lovely piece that was" comes in for criticism.


The thing is, I am probably able to formulate opinions such as "oh what a lovely piece" without needing Titchmarsh to do it for me. I just wish they could find something a little bit more insightful to fill the airwaves with. I find it baffling that with all the specialist music journalists in the world, Classic FM would deliberately choose relative ignoramuses to front their flagship programs. If I needed help growing some vegetables, maybe I'd give Titchmarsh a call, but I shudder at the thought of him deciding what music I should listen to as I drive home!

But then again, I don't know why I am surprised. Every Christmas at Birmingham Symphony Hall, they do a concert called "Festive Favourites with Alan Titchmarsh," which sells out three or four nights in a row. I am simply astonished that with all the great orchestras who play this venue, it takes a TV gardener to sell the place out. It seems as if our celebrity obsessed culture has infiltrated even the most "high-brow" pursuits. (This is the same British media who recently commissioned a documentary about the International Space Station presented by Dermot O'Leary. Yehh… that's when I lost all faith in humanity).



hpowders said:


> Who listens to ClassicFM or any other mainstream classical radio station to be challenged? I want to relax and perhaps discover and be delighted by new pieces I never heard before. I'm sure I am far from alone in this view.


There's a time and a place. If you want to hear Bruch VC #1 or Rach PC #2 for the millionth time, then ClassicFM is fine. If you want to hear something even a tiny bit more obscure, avoid ClassicFM at all costs.



DavidA said:


> Your comments about the presenters appear curious if not ignorant. John Suchet has written a biography of Beethoven which does indicate he has some knowledge.


If they paid me enough, I could probably re-hash the Beethoven life story after a few weeks' research. But then again, no-one would buy it because I'm not a celebrity.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

There does appear to be a little hint of "exclusivity/snobbery" here
It's a station that serves a purpose, has decent audience levels (me at times)
and, helps to expose people to other areas of music
OK they do tend to focus on the mainstream works, however is that a problem?
I listen in the car, often on my 3 hour commute, it's good that you don't have to concentrate too hard on the music
It's a well thought out radio station, that provides a good service for it's intended audience, which may not be all of the people who post here
That doesn't mean it's bad


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> The thing is, I am probably able to formulate opinions such as "oh what a lovely piece" without needing Titchmarsh to do it for me. I just wish they could find something a little bit more insightful to fill the airwaves with. I find it baffling that with all the specialist music journalists in the world, Classic FM would deliberately choose relative ignoramuses to front their flagship programs. If I needed help growing some vegetables, maybe I'd give Titchmarsh a call, but I shudder at the thought of him deciding what music I should listen to as I drive home!
> 
> But then again, I don't know why I am surprised. Every Christmas at Birmingham Symphony Hall, they do a concert called "Festive Favourites with Alan Titchmarsh," which sells out three or four nights in a row. I am simply astonished that with all the great orchestras who play this venue, it takes a TV gardener to sell the place out. It seems as if our celebrity obsessed culture has infiltrated even the most "high-brow" pursuits. (This is the same British media who recently commissioned a documentary about the International Space Station presented by Dermot O'Leary. Yehh… that's when I lost all faith in humanity).
> 
> ...


Yeah, but you are not the typical listener. 

Having ANY listeners is a fragile achievement. You don't want to scare them away and have only you! :lol:


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

I agree with Winterreisender that the presenters alone are enough to turn me off from the station completely. I can't stand the softly spoken BBC english of the Radio 3 presenters either though, they all sound like even the mildest of excitement would send them into seizures. I think both cases probably have mostly to do with the age of the audience. Contemporary popular culture is definitely too celebrity obsessed, but I don't know anyone who isn't well into middle age who would consider Titchmarsh a celebrity.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

At work we often have Classic FM as our "provider" of background music. The Dutch web broadcast from itunes.

Usually I am not pleased to listen to classical music as a "wallpaper music", but in this case it's fine.
To me, this is actually the main scope for stations like Classic FM (i.e. to play classical music in background).


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Yardrax said:


> Contemporary popular culture is definitely too celebrity obsessed, but I don't know anyone who isn't well into middle age who would consider Titchmarsh a celebrity.


I 'hate' Titchmarsh - there's something so smug about him - but I know lots of middle-aged and elderly women who for a reason that escapes me regard him as a heart-throb. I don't know if he knows very much about music either; however, to do him justice (through gritted teeth), he is an intelligent & fairly well-educated man who has written (pot-boiling) novels, so I think he would do the necessary research.
John Suchet I respect more highly. There is a tradition in the UK that newsreaders are interested in classical music - Richard Baker was such another. 
I am not sure that a music scholar is what is needed to present classical music on a commercial station in any case.


----------



## Trev Edwards (May 3, 2014)

I find the ads intrusive. If I'm at home and want "classical music" I can find better on the web.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Th
> 
> If they paid me enough, I could probably re-hash the Beethoven life story after a few weeks' research. But then again, no-one would buy it because I'm not a celebrity.


Sorry but another statement born of ignorance. Suchet is actually a life long fan of LvB and has researched him extensively.

Another thing. You appear to have the crazy idea that all presenters should be musicologists with PhDs in harmony and composition. I have news for you. Even on radio three most of them aren't! All of the presenter does is read something somebody else (usually) has written about the music. Then we listen to the music!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Yardrax said:


> I agree with Winterreisender that the presenters alone are enough to turn me off from the station completely. I can't stand the softly spoken BBC english of the Radio 3 presenters either though, they all sound like even the mildest of excitement would send them into seizures. I think both cases probably have mostly to do with the age of the audience. Contemporary popular culture is definitely too celebrity obsessed, but I don't know anyone who isn't well into middle age who would consider Titchmarsh a celebrity.


Well, I have a solution! Just play the music unannounced and we will all try and guess what it is! It appears that whoever the announcer is they are going to upset somebody!


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but another statement born of ignorance. Suchet is actually a life long fan of LvB and has researched him extensively.
> 
> Another thing. You appear to have the crazy idea that all presenters should be musicologists with PhDs in harmony and composition. I have news for you. Even on radio three most of them aren't! All of the presenter does is read something somebody else (usually) has written about the music. Then we listen to the music!


I'm not that bothered about academic credentials (even though some of Radio 3's most interesting presenters such as Stephen Johnson have studied musicology and written some interesting books on the subject). But most of Radio 3's presenters are at least specialist music journalists/broadcasters (with some exceptions, such as the awful Katie Derham).

Given that we have specialist politics broadcasters and specialist sports broadcasters, I don't see why classical music should be the domain of incompetent "celebrities."

I agree with you the presenter should be an anonymous voice who reads off a script, but it's clear that the public finds classical music, both on the radio and at concerts, far more interesting when Titchmarsh is there to introduce it. I find that very sad.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not that bothered about academic credentials (even though some of Radio 3's most interesting presenters such as Stephen Johnson have studied musicology and written some interesting books on the subject). But most of Radio 3's presenters are at least specialist music journalists/broadcasters (with some exceptions, such as the awful Katie Derham).
> 
> Given that we have specialist politics broadcasters and specialist sports broadcasters, I don't see why classical music should be the domain of incompetent "celebrities."
> 
> I agree with you the presenter should be an anonymous voice who reads off a script, but it's clear that the public finds classical music, both on the radio and at concerts, far more interesting when Titchmarsh is there to introduce it. I find that very sad.


Frankly I find your comments sad in the extreme. And indeed incomprehensible. Of course people enjoy it when Titchmarsh introduces it. He is a TV and radio presenter and knows how to make it interesting for people. I know plenty of academics who are dull as ditchwater when they try and explain anything. The fact is Titchmarsh is an expert at what does - communicating with the public. Now I know to be valid in some peoples minds something must be boring. But for goodness sake if someone can announce the next tune in a interesting and professional fashion and then I say more power to his elbow, whoever he may be!


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2014)

"What's wrong with..." is inevitably going to bring out the subjective as well as the subjective masquerading as the objective. But not the objective.

If you like ClassicFM, there's nothing 'wrong' with it. If there are things you don't like about it, you are entitled to claim that those are things that are 'wrong' with it, but in expressing your objections, please keep the right side of tolerance for those who like 'smooth', Suchet, Titchmarsh, those over 50 who might recognise former gardeners as expert TV/Radio presenters, etc.

As I said on the thread that originally launched this most recent discussion, I don't listen to ClassicFM, but I have no problem with the idea that lots of people do, lots of people enjoy it, and I can get what I want from music without dissing others.

(Reminds me of the constant disparaging references to hip-hop and Justin Bieber, those twin symbols of all that is 'wrong' with ... with whatever target happens to fit!)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I can't say anything about Titchmarsh because I don't think I've ever heard him on Classic FM, but there are certainly presenters who give me the impression that their knowledge of the music they're playing doesn't extend beyond the track listing they're reading out. You know: "... And that was the Allegro from Vivaldi's violin concerto in A major!"
I suppose the less-informed listener won't notice or care, but it does irritate me somewhat.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> They have an evening slot for "full works" - ok some of them are short -Antonio Vivaldi: Flute Concerto in D major Opus 10 RV.428 - some are "popular" - 1812 - some might be appreciated - Claude Debussy: Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune. It's at 8:00 pm UK time.


This is in stark contrast to the programming of the station I "grew up with." They played _only_ complete works, but some time ago succumbed to the single-movement shorter works format in two daily slots which are primarily single movements of pieces:

One hour in the a.m. is upbeat mainly baroque music to go along with morning prep to start the day.

A 5p.m. rush-hour slot of calming 'beautiful' works to help the 9-5ers wind down -- i.e. both slots are 'music as medicine.'

The rest of the day, the other 22 hours, the programming is complete works.

That station, now available worldwide:
WFMT.com


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Any of us who goes back to the 1950's-1960's remembers how wonderful commercial FM radio used to be.

I couldn't wait for the monthly WQXR (NYC, radio station of the NY Times) program guide to come-the index having all the Beethoven and Brahms symphonies and concertos, sizable helpings of Haydn, Mozart, Schumann, Schubert, etc;
I used to plan my month around that program guide!

Just a disgrace what has happened since, but that's what happens when the audience gradually dies out, not to be replaced and the funding dries up.


Sad.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Just a disgrace what has happened since, but that's what happens when the audience gradually dies out, not to be replaced and the funding dries up.
> 
> Sad.


On a more positive note, I suspect that the audience for art music has grown significantly (though this is just my impression, which could be wrong)--they're just not using radio. There would be better music programming on radio if it weren't so easy for obsessives like ourselves to get our fix in so many other places: youtube, spotify, itunes, amazon, etc...

ClassicFM is probably still valuable as an entry to classical repertoire rather than the final destination it used to be. It's a different purpose, but still a good one.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

So, I listened to ClassicFM last night for a couple of hours. It was pretty much what I expected - "popular' choices, largely, but intermingled with things that were a tad more obscure than I've heard on some American public radio stations. I do see what people mean about "sweet" - there was a definite tendency towards the soporific.

That said, having been a DJ for a free-form radio station, the truth of the matter is that challenging music was a hard sell even back in the days before whatever-you-want-to-listen-to-on-demand-over-the-internet existed. So I'm not sure I disagree with their programming choices from a commercial perspective.

I'm not sure i get the complaints about the presenters, but then I haven't heard the ones mentioned. Largely, what I expect from my radio announcers is "doesn't have an annoying voice" and "doesn't stammer." I think expecting them to be domain experts is really special pleading. To take just one example, I don't believe for a minute that the announcers on CNN Radio, BBC News, or NPR are really experts in anything beyond "being radio announcers". So I think one has to make an affirmative case that a classical radio station needs musicologists if that's what one wants (and, really, if one is serious about the study of music, wouldn't being a _radio announcer_ be a waste of your time and talent?)


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2014)

Taggart said:


> This is almost time for one of those "When I were a lad..." speeches [...]


Well, aye, when I were a lad, our Dad would come 'ome late after a day down t' coal mine, and if we were listening to any popular classics he'd cut our ears off, cook 'em in taters and brown sauce and then murder us before putting us all to bed. Them were the days.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Well, aye, when I were a lad, our Dad would come 'ome late after a day down t' coal mine, and if we were listening to any popular classics he'd cut our ears off, cook 'em in taters and brown sauce and then murder us before putting us all to bed. Them were the days.


Out of curiosity, TH, is your avatar a close likeness? I'd always assumed your name was a metaphor--but now I'm a little disconcerted!


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

peterb said:


> So I think one has to make an affirmative case that a classical radio station needs musicologists if that's what one wants (and, really, if one is serious about the study of music, wouldn't being a _radio announcer_ be a waste of your time and talent?)


I don't think so. If I were an expert in classical music, I can't think of many jobs better than radio presenter on a large classical network, where I could attempt to share this knowledge with a very large audience, much larger than the average university professor can. As I mentioned before, Radio 3 has some excellent programs for people who want to learn something, e.g. "Discovering Music" with Stephen Johnson. But as I said, I'm not looking for musicologists necessarily, but at least specialist music journalists would be nice.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Frankly I find your comments sad in the extreme. And indeed incomprehensible. Of course people enjoy it when Titchmarsh introduces it. He is a TV and radio presenter and knows how to make it interesting for people. I know plenty of academics who are dull as ditchwater when they try and explain anything. The fact is Titchmarsh is an expert at what does - communicating with the public. Now I know to be valid in some peoples minds something must be boring. But for goodness sake if someone can announce the next tune in a interesting and professional fashion and then I say more power to his elbow, whoever he may be!


Although I find it astonishing how Titchmarsh has attracted such a large fanbase, I nevertheless can't argue with the fact that the public at large finds anything with some intellectual substance boring and will only listen to classical music when a well-known celebrity introduces it with banal anecdotes and vaguely emotive language about how lovely the music is. And ClassicFM is just capitalising on this trend. All I'm saying is that I find it a terrible shame that the music itself isn't interesting enough to attract people's attention.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Although I find it astonishing how Titchmarsh has attracted such a large fanbase, I nevertheless can't argue with the fact that the public at large finds anything with some intellectual substance boring and will only listen to classical music when a well-known celebrity introduces it with banal anecdotes and vaguely emotive language about how lovely the music is. And ClassicFM is just capitalising on this trend. All I'm saying is that I find it a terrible shame that the music itself isn't interesting enough to attract people's attention.


Can I just ask what 'intellectual substance' is needed to announce, "Next we have the first movement of Beethoven's Third Symphony," beyond being able to read? Do you think all the BBCs newsreaders are experts in world affairs? No, they are experts in reading the news like presenters are experts in presenting! If you don't like the 'banal anecdotes' etc and the 'smooth classics' then please put on your hair shirt and listen to some Stockhausen or Cage. Leave the rest of us to enjoy the guilty pleasures of liking what we hear!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I don't think so. If I were an expert in classical music, I can't think of many jobs better than radio presenter on a large classical network, where I could attempt to share this knowledge with a very large audience, much larger than the average university professor can. As I mentioned before, Radio 3 has some excellent programs for people who want to learn something, e.g. "Discovering Music" with Stephen Johnson. But as I said, I'm not looking for musicologists necessarily, but at least specialist music journalists would be nice.


Of course, people might not want to listen to your wealth of knowledge. Maybe they would prefer to hear the music instead which is why they tuned in!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Of course, people might not want to listen to your wealth of knowledge. Maybe they would prefer to hear the music instead which is why they tuned in!


Works for me! I don't turn on Classical FM radio for a dissertation. I get enough of that right here!! 

DavidA is on a roll!! :tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Can I just ask what 'intellectual substance' is needed to announce, "Next we have the first movement of Beethoven's Third Symphony," beyond being able to read? Do you think all the BBCs newsreaders are experts in world affairs? No, they are experts in reading the news like presenters are experts in presenting! If you don't like the 'banal anecdotes' etc and the 'smooth classics' then please put on your hair shirt and listen to some Stockhausen or Cage. Leave the rest of us to enjoy the guilty pleasures of liking what we hear!


If all you need is for someone to tell you that the piece of music you're about to hear is the first movement of Beethoven's Third Symphony, then you're right, just a well-spoken person dragged in off the street and given a script to read is all you need.
But personally I think it's nice to occasionally have a bit of commentary or opinion about the music being played, and for that commentary or opinion to sound like it's coming from someone who actually thinks about what's being played.

I don't need an "expert", but an enthusiast would be nice.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I don't think anything is wrong with someone liking Classic FM and they have done a lot of good (for instance sponsoring the Palestrina series I was listening to last night) but I have a lot of sympathy with the views of Winterreisender and deplore the nasty attacks on his views (and more so, the unpleasant insults against his character) by a particular poster on this thread.

I also do not like the 'cosy' and superficial comments of many of the presenters. I also do not like the 'safe' programming, especially the frequent film scores and sugar-pops. I also do not like the dearth of 'full works' during most of the programming. I also do not like the frequent advertising breaks. I also do not like the frequent promotion of certain artists who seem to me to be chosen more for their image than their talent. So I tend to listen to Radio 3 in the car.

If you like Classic FM, then fine - its popular, profitable, and does much good ..... and they won't give a hoot what I think!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Of course, people might not want to listen to your wealth of knowledge. Maybe they would prefer to hear the music instead which is why they tuned in!


Totally agree. I just want announcers to shut up as much as possible and simply play the music. I find it annoying when an announcer feels compelled to strut his/her knowledge.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Of course, people might not want to listen to your wealth of knowledge. Maybe they would prefer to hear the music instead which is why they tuned in!


The whole point is that a lot of people don't tune in to hear the music but to hear Alan Titchmarsh. Why else would ClassicFM pay for him when they could just have an anonymous announcer reading out the names of the pieces for a fraction of the cost? It is a curious case of inverted snobbery whereby the British public feels uncomfortable when faced with anyone possessing expertise on a certain subject, so instead the lovable everyman Titchmarsh has become a face of classical music... It's a marketing strategy that clearly works (I have already mentioned "Festive Favourites with Alan Titchmatsh" that sells out three nights in a row at Birmingham Symphony Hall), but I find it a shame that in order to make a subject "accessible," it must be stripped of all content that is even remotely challenging to the audience.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I can't believe people actually tune in to listen to Titchmarsh - more that they feel reassured that a non-highbrow person (like them) can enjoy classical music. I also don't really think all that many people turn on the radio, particularly when driving, so that they can be 'challenged'. It can still be good music even if it doesn't throw down the gauntlet and shout, 'Which is it to be - fisticuffs, or pistols at dawn?'


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I can't believe people actually tune in to listen to Titchmarsh - more that they feel reassured that a non-highbrow person (like them) can enjoy classical music. I also don't really think all that many people turn on the radio, particularly when driving, so that they can be 'challenged'. It can still be good music even if it doesn't throw down the gauntlet and shout, 'Which is it to be - fisticuffs, or pistols at dawn?'


I also find it hard to believe that anyone would actually choose to listen to Titchmarsh 

As for "challenging" radio, there is of course a time and a place. I think it is always good to be challenged to some extent, whether that means simply hearing a new piece for the first time, or listening to one of Radio 3's more thorough analysis programs such as "Discovering Music," which probably does require one's full attention.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

What a bunch of snobs you guys are!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I never listen to the radio anyway. I like to choose what I listen to.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

I don't know about the actual program but in the articles I've read on their site, many of them just regurgitate old myths without any fact-checking. If you want to get a picture of what classical fm listeners enjoy listening to in classical music, you can check their top 300 lists they do every year. The top 5-10 pieces are pretty much the same every year...or only the same people vote every year and continually listen to the same pieces without branching out at all.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> What a bunch of snobs you guys are!


I object to that! Classical stations should play the music I prefer, not something for a horde of unwashed plebeians! I don't see how you can possibly call that snobbish. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> The whole point is that a lot of people don't tune in to hear the music but to hear Alan Titchmarsh. Why else would ClassicFM pay for him when they could just have an anonymous announcer reading out the names of the pieces for a fraction of the cost? It is a curious case of inverted snobbery whereby the British public feels uncomfortable when faced with anyone possessing expertise on a certain subject, so instead the lovable everyman Titchmarsh has become a face of classical music... It's a marketing strategy that clearly works (I have already mentioned "Festive Favourites with Alan Titchmatsh" that sells out three nights in a row at Birmingham Symphony Hall), but I find it a shame that in order to make a subject "accessible," it must be stripped of all content that is even remotely challenging to the audience.


Oh, so you have done a survey of Classic FM listeners?

And when I'm driving the car, I don't listen to the music programme to be 'challenged'!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I object to that! Classical stations should play the music I prefer, not something for a horde of unwashed plebeians! I don't see how you can possibly call that snobbish. :lol:


Yes, and preferably inaccessible music no-one likes! Make 'em suffer!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Yes, and preferably inaccessible music no-one likes! Make 'em suffer!


Nay, sir, I believe it is (as Handel said) to "improve" 'em. But even he wasn't above writing the pretty tune when it seemed necessary.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2014)

trazom said:


> I don't know about the actual program but in the articles I've read on their site, many of them just regurgitate old myths without any fact-checking. If you want to get a picture of what classical fm listeners enjoy listening to in classical music, you can check their top 300 lists they do every year. The top 5-10 pieces are pretty much the same every year...or only the same people vote every year and continually listen to the same pieces without branching out at all.


So? Who are you...the branching out police?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> So? Who are you...the branching out police?


No, why? Do you not branch out very often? I think the poll just reflects the audience the radio station is geared towards, that's all.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2014)

trazom said:


> No, why? Do you not branch out very often?


Let's ask the question another way. Why does it matter what music people listen to? Unless Classic FM listeners are preventing your enjoyment of what you like to listen to, does it matter that they don't branch out?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Let's ask the question another way. Why does it matter what music people listen to? Unless Classic FM listeners are preventing your enjoyment of what you like to listen to, does it matter that they don't branch out?


It doesn't matter to me what they listen to, only the content of some of the articles that get posted there. I mentioned the the polls because the impression it gives is the radio plays music for people that, in general, do not listen to classical music.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2014)

trazom said:


> It doesn't matter to me what they listen to, only the content of some of the articles that get posted there.


Ah, the old "someone's wrong on the internet".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Ah, the old "someone's wrong on the internet".


"Sorry honey, I can't come right now, somebody's on the Internet and they're *wrong*!"


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Sorry honey, I can't come right now, somebody's on the Internet and they're *wrong*!"


Sorry Ken, I was quoting the Classic FM dumbed-down version, in honeyed, soothing tones!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Ah, the old "someone's wrong on the internet".


I think you missed the point. This topic did ask for what was wrong with classical fm and crappy journalism with samey, single movement performances with syrupy Dj voices saying music 'chill' or 'relax' is good enough for you and some others, then fine; but that's exactly what i dislike with it and why I wrote my OP.



> "Sorry honey, I can't come right now, somebody's on the Internet and they're wrong!"


uhhmm..congratulations for remembering/regurgitating an old internet meme at the relevant time?


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2014)

trazom said:


> I think you missed the point. This topic did ask for what was wrong with classical fm and crappy journalism with samey, single movement performances with syrupy Dj voices saying music 'chill' or 'relax' is good enough for you and some others, then fine; but that's exactly what i dislike with it and why I wrote my OP.


I didn't miss the point at all. I'm sure the OP wasn't expecting only those who think there's something 'wrong' with it to post, but for others of a different persuasion to post their opinions as well.

And you don't stop at what's wrong with Classic FM, you go on to disparage Classic FM's listeners, although you miss the target if you think I listen to it.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> I didn't miss the point at all. I'm sure the OP wasn't expecting only those who think there's something 'wrong' with it to post, but for others of a different persuasion to post their opinions as well.
> 
> And you don't stop at what's wrong with Classic FM, you go on to disparage Classic FM's listeners, although you miss the target if you think I listen to it.


You did, because it's about being "wrong," it's about being disappointed from expecting certain critical standards from journalists their articles. I'm not the first person who's commented on this. It's not disparaging to say more people who listen to classical fm generally don't listen to classical music, either, or that they use classical music to 'chill.'


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Well, as I've said, I listen to Classic FM sometimes, but I don't do it to 'chill'. I generally just want to listen to music as I travel along, and if there's something striking that I haven't heard before, I'm delighted. The popular pieces make it into the top 300 every year, and it's bound to be quite a lot of the same people voting, but it will also be new people who've come to classical music by way of hearing and liking popular pieces - like me. And then very many of them will branch out - like me.

The OP presumably wondered why Classic FM gets a regular beating on here, and wanted opinions on both sides, and this is what has happened. It's sad that the tone has been a bit adversarial & sneering at times, though.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> and if there's something striking that I haven't heard before, I'm delighted.


This is it; I think the idea of being "challenged" is a red herring. For those who don't want to be "challenged", do you at least want to be surprised occasionally? And if the purpose of the playlist overall tends to be generically "upbeat", "relaxing", or "lovely", what are the chances of hearing something genuinely striking?

Many years ago, I helped out on a hospital radio station for a few weeks, presenting classical shows when the regular presenters were on holiday. Given that the audience was "the general public" (actually the station's range extended for a few miles, so there were regular listeners) I figured it was best to have fairly safe choices for the most part. Still, I always kept in mind that the next piece of music I played might change someone's life - it might be the piece of music they never knew they needed to hear. So I tried to keep the selection distinctive enough to avoid it being the "wallpaper" that a station like Classic FM can become. I made sure there were plenty of works and composers that the audience probably hadn't heard (of) before: Koechlin, Milhaud, Tormis, Busoni... Alas, we moved home before I could become a regular presenter myself and start pushing Ligeti et al!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

:tiphat: You sound like the ideal presenter - shall we put forward your name to Classic FM?


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I applaud Classic FM in so far it reaches a very large number of listeners and at the same time introduces them to a lifetime of great music. Despite what others may think, listening to bleeding chunks of the same old warhorses does make some listeners delve deeper into what is laid out before them.
I remember very fondly a programme called Your Hundred best Tunes, a programme devised and introduced by that great broadcaster Alan Keith, and as a boy I avidly devoured every single piece and later discovered Radio 3 as well, and discovered the amazing world of culture and expert option on this strange thing called 'classical music.' I was no music snob and held no high opinion of myself for choosing this seemingly closed world of great art, but that one programme which played all the popular classical pieces changed my world for the better.
Even today I have been introduced to works I had never heard of by that excellent musical buff David Mellor, whose broadcasting style and knowledge is a joy to behold. So in conclusion Classic FM may seem repetitive and musically unsophisticated to some, but it is better to exist than not because for many it will change their lives forever.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> :tiphat: You sound like the ideal presenter - shall we put forward your name to Classic FM?


He'd go automatically into the reject-do-not-call-for-interview heap... as per the advertiser's criteria of what they air, and how long there is air play before they can wedge in some adverts (commercial radio, ya know


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

bigshot said:


> What a bunch of snobs you guys are!


Thanks! :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I'll borrow the comment from myself after I cook..."Hey folks, it's better than nothin'."

I'm also thinking (only briefly) about all the people who find it easier to be negative.

Just never mind.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

There's a local station that does a couple hours of classical in the morning, and they've picked some great works. It was apparent that whoever was making the list certainly knew their stuff. Some of the more obscure material like Viola da Gamba pieces and such... I can't remember any of them, so don't ask.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm not a fan of CFM. When it was first launched I listened to it quite a bit but soon tired of hearing the same pieces come round too often.
Here in the UK we are lucky to have BBC Radio 3 which is excellent in range and depth but I do occasionally flick over to CFM if there is something on R3 that I'm not interested in.
However, in this internet age we have the BBC iPlayer where, on a device of my choice, I can listen to most concerts and programmes that they've broadcast over the previous weeks.

I appreciate others may enjoy CFM but it I'm afraid it often irritates me. Too much advertising and inane comments for my taste.

One other beef I have is to do with their technical equipment. Classical music has a very wide dynamic range and anyone who's tried to listen to a classical CD while driving on the motorway will find themselves turning the volume knob up for the quiet bits and then getting blasted out of their seat when the brass and timps come in fortissimo! This is something that CFM avoid by using the same type of compressors/limiters that are used on pop radio stations. They ensure that the overall level of the music remains far more constant than it would otherwise be. The downside is that the music becomes a little 'squashed' sounding with less space for it to breath and thus less natural and more fatiguing on the ear.

Anyway.... you did ask! On the whole though it's better to have it than not I suppose.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2014)

I have never listened to Classic FM for the simple reason that I don't live in the UK, but of course I can imagine very well the sort of programming. Where I live we have a local channel called Accent4 that seems to be a similar sort of operation to what I have read here, but with an important distinction: it's not commercial - it exists with private funding/subscription. It of course plays a lot of the pop classics, but also features a healthy dose of lesser known works, including what some might call "modernist", though that does tend to be scheduled at off-peak times. And it always offers complete works, not abridged versions. Its target audience is what they call "mélomanes" (i.e. music lovers, those keen on music ...). So what? Should I call in the "Thought Police" to issue fines and punishments for populism? I might very well regret (slightly) the fact that the channel and its listeners opt for, let's say, easy listening on the whole, but as long as they don't advocate ethic cleansing I'm cool with that. 
It's the same with reading: there are those who maintain we should only consume "literature" and shun pulp fiction (what we may call 'airport reading' or crime novels, sci-fi and so on). For sure, if I only read pulp fiction and listened to abridged popular classical music I would be denying myself incredible riches, and I do get saddened by mentalities that refuse to cross boundaries. In my view it is a question of education, exposure and mindset.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Compare. As long as your computer is on, you don't have to live anywhere in particular to 'tune in.'

about:
http://www.wfmt.com/main.taf?p=7,13#snance

Listen:
http://www.wfmt.com/main.taf?p=4,5,35

Right now, it is Britten's _Simple Symphony._ Soon (U.S. Central time) there will be a 'rush-hour' segment of more soothing selections, slower tempi and maybe single movements (there is a parallel a.m. up-tempo segment) the rest, varied, but usually whole pieces are the norm. The announcers are informative, know about music, and I don't see how anyone could be 'socially intimidated' by their presentation.

The station airs 24 hours every day of the year. From midnight (U.S. Central Time) to 6 a.m., the presenter "DJ's" and chooses what they want, or music requested / suggested by listeners.

The station is supported by both commercial advertisers (read copy, no music jingles and its listeners -- so occasionally there are fund raising stretches several times a year.

WFMT has been on the air since 1951.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The announcers are informative, know about music, and I don't see how anyone could be 'socially intimidated' by their presentation.


Certainly beats ClassicFM, whose most musically credible presenter is the opera singer with the stick-on moustache from the "Go Compare" adverts: http://www.classicfm.com/radio/shows/shakespeare-opera/about-wynne-evans/


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tonight at 7:30 ET (so about an hour and a half from now), my local classical station is going to be broadcasting a concert of Morlot and the Seattle Symphony playing John Luther Adams' Become Ocean (the _other_ John Adams), Varese's Deserts, and Debussy's La mer.

Not their normal programming, perhaps, but when they rebroadcast concerts, they generally do so in full. I've tuned in to hear Glass and Britten operas on occasion.

http://www.wgbh.org/995/index.cfm


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Winterreisender said:


> Certainly beats ClassicFM, whose most musically credible presenter is the opera singer with the stick-on moustache from the "Go Compare" adverts: http://www.classicfm.com/radio/shows/shakespeare-opera/about-wynne-evans/


They also have Catherine Bott who is quite a significant voice in early music and err Howard Goodall who ripped off Wagner to write the _Red Dwarf_ music, as well as the bass player from _Blur_. None of that can compare with stick on moustaches though I grant you.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Tonight at 7:30 ET (so about an hour and a half from now), my local classical station is going to be broadcasting a concert of Morlot and the Seattle Symphony playing John Luther Adams' Become Ocean (the _other_ John Adams), Varese's Deserts, and Debussy's La mer.
> 
> Not their normal programming, perhaps, but when they rebroadcast concerts, they generally do so in full. I've tuned in to hear Glass and Britten operas on occasion.
> 
> http://www.wgbh.org/995/index.cfm


Thanks for the heads up, only heard _In the White Silence_ by JLA, wasn't overly interested but would be keen to hear more from him.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

quack said:


> Thanks for the heads up, only heard _In the White Silence_ by JLA, wasn't overly interested but would be keen to hear more from him.


IMO JLA drags down the averages for all postmodern composers named John Adams.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

KenOC said:


> IMO JLA drags down the averages for all postmodern composers named John Adams.


I don't think he's doing many favours to the Lutherans of classical music either.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Actually, our station isn't broadcasting the concert. It is being streamed through our station's website.

http://www.wgbh.org/articles/Morlot-Conducts-Seattle-in-Concert-at-Carnegie-Hall-7239


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> CFM uses the same type of compressors/limiters that are used on pop radio stations. They ensure that the overall level of the music remains far more constant than it would otherwise be.


If that is a fact, that CFM _is_ ladled out just like background music making it a more appropriate channel for restaurants, stores, then it truly is a station with main puporse to broadcast as a sort 'high-class' muzak channel.

One of the biggest differences between that more commercially consumed 'product' and much art music is the dynamic range -- from very quiet to undeniably "We're _not doing anything else but listening to music."_

CFM's aim is to be, for the most part, then "classical wallpaper." That's a bit offensive to the intent of most art music itself


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> If that is a fact, that CFM _is_ ladled out just like background music making it a more appropriate channel for restaurants, stores, then it truly is a station with main puporse to broadcast as a sort 'high-class' muzak channel.


Nice to see CM being put to a good use! I suppose that the right music might be quite relaxing when having, say, a colonoscopy. Certainly orthodontists use it.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> If that is a fact, that CFM _is_ ladled out just like background music making it a more appropriate channel for restaurants, stores, then it truly is a station with main puporse to broadcast as a sort 'high-class' muzak channel.
> 
> One of the biggest differences between that more commercially consumed 'product' and much art music is the dynamic range -- from very quiet to undeniably "We're _not doing anything else but listening to music."_
> 
> CFM's aim is to be, for the most part, then "classical wallpaper." That's a bit offensive to the intent of most art music itself


I have never been anywhere in the UK where Classic FM was used as musak. To quote a British sitcom, we're in the realms of fantasy here...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

quack said:


> Thanks for the heads up, only heard _In the White Silence_ by JLA, wasn't overly interested but would be keen to hear more from him.


John Luther Adams:
Dark Waves




Become Ocean ~ promo clip




The Farthest Place


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> I have never been anywhere in the UK where Classic FM was used as musak. To quote a British sitcom, we're in the realms of fantasy here...


Putting limiters on classical music play _is_ musak practice... whether it is being aired in a shop, restaurant, or home. Limiting flattens out the overall dynamic contour. Limiters are there 'to not disturb' the listener and keep the listening environment dynamically more 'even.'


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I have never been anywhere in the UK where Classic FM was used as musak. To quote a British sitcom, we're in the realms of fantasy here...


Well, in my office they do...
One of us (we are 5 working together) is in charge of selecting and switching various channels on itunes.
Usually the daily playlist includes:
2/3 hours jazz music
2/3 hours oldies
2/3 hours classical - and this is usually Classic FM, from the Netherlands but owned by the same Company (Sky Group). Quite weird to listen to all ads in Dutch.

Right now it's the jazz time...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Putting limiters on classical music play _is_ musak practice... whether it is being aired in a shop, restaurant, or home. Limiting flattens out the overall dynamic contour. Limiters are there 'to not disturb' the listener and keep the listening environment dynamically more 'even.'


But 'musak' is specifically used to refer to music played as ambience in a shop or restaurant, and Classic FM is not used like this in the UK that I have ever heard of.

If an individual office in Italy feels like using Classic FM as ambience, that's fine - but is not relevant to the idea of it being used in shops etc in the UK.

You may not like the smooth or popular aspects of Classic FM but some people have been helped by it, before outgrowing it, and it draws in new people, potential buyers of cds & supporters of musicians, all the time. They can then move on to more demanding music. But there is no point in stating that Classic FM is widely used as musak in the UK when it isn't.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Putting limiters on classical music play _is_ musak practice... whether it is being aired in a shop, restaurant, or home. Limiting flattens out the overall dynamic contour. Limiters are there 'to not disturb' the listener and keep the listening environment dynamically more 'even.'


I think they are there also to keep the dynamic level of the music reasonable even so it can be heard in (eg) a car. Why I like listening to CFM in the car as one doesn't have to keep altering the volume as on a CD.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I've been listening to classical music for over thirty years, and I haven't "outgrown" Schubert's unfinished or Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. Popular classical music is good music. I feel sorry for people who have grown immune to it. Pitiable.

Whenever I hear people speaking disparagingly about popular forms of music, it just makes me suspect that they are in it for reasons other than the music... Like listening to classical music is some sort of exclusive club that one wraps their ego around. No thanks. I'm in love with music, not myself.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> But 'musak' is specifically used to refer to music played as ambience in a shop or restaurant, and Classic FM is not used like this in the UK that I have ever heard of.


 (.. also FAO PetrB)

Muzak is actually a trading name for a company who made (make?) background music.

Classic FM definitely doesn't specifically play background music but people can use any music they wish as wall paper. I find many pieces by Babbit and Boulez make exceedingly good wall paper.
In fact I have noticed many people post on this forum who readily admit to 'listening' to all sorts music while posting here or doing their homework or accounts or marking or whatever. Thus they are using the music as wall paper. We all do it. Sometimes.

The thing about the limiters/compressors used by the broadcaster is not really to with the kind of music being played but only the fact that it must never get too quite.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I've been listening to classical music for over thirty years, and I haven't "outgrown" Schubert's unfinished or Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. Popular classical music is good music. I feel sorry for people who have grown immune to it. Pitiable.
> 
> Whenever I hear people speaking disparagingly about popular forms of music, it just makes me suspect that they are in it for reasons other than the music... Like listening to classical music is some sort of exclusive club that one wraps their ego around. No thanks. I'm in love with music, not myself.


But it is possible to outgrow Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" by listening to the whole opera. It is possible to outgrow Orff's "O Fortuna" by listening to the rest of "Carmina Burana."

I feel sorry for people who assume that there is a direct correlation between good and popular, and who assume that anything not on ClassicFM isn't worth bothering with.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> I feel sorry for people who assume that there is a direct correlation between good and popular, and who assume that anything not on ClassicFM isn't worth bothering.


I'm not sure where to begin with this post...the 'feeling sorry', the old chestnut about good/popular, the generalisation about Classic FM listeners...

What have Classic FM listeners done to you that you would want to express such 'sorrow' for them?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure where to begin with this post...the 'feeling sorry', the old chestnut about good/popular, the generalisation about Classic FM listeners...
> 
> What have Classic FM listeners done to you that you would want to express such 'sorrow' for them?


Trying asking bigshot why he "feels sorry" for people who are bored of Schubert's Unfinished.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> But it is possible to outgrow Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" by listening to the whole opera. It is possible to outgrow Orff's "O Fortuna" by listening to the rest of "Carmina Burana."
> 
> I feel sorry for people who assume that there is a direct correlation between good and popular, and who assume that anything not on ClassicFM isn't worth bothering with.


Why on earth should you feel sorry for people whose only plight is they prefer the lighter side of classical music? I reserve my sympathy for the homeless, the starving, etc.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Why on earth should you feel sorry for people whose only plight is they prefer the lighter side of classical music? I reserve my sympathy for the homeless, the starving, etc.


I repeat: why is no-one having a go at bigshot, who first brought "pity" into the equation? He pities people who don't like Schubert's Unfinished. Hasn't he got better things to worry about?


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> Their top presenters are John Suchet (a newsreader), Alan Titchmarsh (a gardener) and Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen (an interior designer). Given that these three jokers don't possess even the smallest morsel of classical music knowledge between them, they instead have to fill the airtime with moronic comments about "oh, what a lovely piece that was." And the audience clearly likes that; they don't want to feel intellectually challenged. It is as if the cozy celebrity presenters are a bigger draw than the music itself. That's what offends me the most about ClassicFM. It's all a bit lowest common denominator.


Long before bigshot's post, you made very clear your disdain for the station and those who listened to it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> The thing about the limiters/compressors used by the broadcaster is not really to with the kind of music being played but only the fact that it must never get too quite.


Yes. I was under the impression that all radio stations limit the dynamic range explicitly to allow listening in various environments where a large dynamic range would be unpleasant. As DavidA mentioned listening to a classical CD in a car can be rather frustrating due to the range. One is often turning the volume up or down in order to hear the quiet parts or lower the loud parts to manageable volumes. I often take Baroque CDs in the car in order to reduce this nuisance.

I've never listened to ClassicFM, but looking at their top 300, it does not appear to simply be easy listening. There are symphonies by Mahler and Brahms, Ravel Piano Concerto, Bach Cantatas, and Stravinsky Ballets along with many other fabulous works. Obviously there are other works that many of us would likely not listen to. It seems they play popular works which I imagine works quite well with a large number of classical music listeners.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> But 'musak' is specifically used to refer to music played as ambience in a shop or restaurant, and Classic FM is not used like this in the UK that I have ever heard of.
> 
> If an individual office in Italy feels like using Classic FM as ambience, that's fine - but is not relevant to the idea of it being used in shops etc in the UK.
> 
> You may not like the smooth or popular aspects of Classic FM but some people have been helped by it, before outgrowing it, and it draws in new people, potential buyers of cds & supporters of musicians, all the time. They can then move on to more demanding music. But there is no point in stating that Classic FM is widely used as musak in the UK when it isn't.


okeedoh, to avoid the literal interpretations I should have said "Muzak Mentality." Just look at the entry where someone prefers the limiters' "ironing out of the peaks and valleys" when they listen to Classic FM in their car... the complaint, then, is _for many uses not solely dedicated to listening, the dynamic contrasts found in most classical music are thought to be and treated as being inconvenient!_ 

When you are altering the dynamics of a classical recording _so it is less commanding of your attention, that is the Muzak Mentality._ Certainly, I and many another sometimes 'use' classical music as a kind of wallpaper, but without using a dynamics limiter.

I don't have to like that a classical station is using limiters, that the music is being electronically audited so as not to offend by way of its dynamics, but I don't think I have to be quiet up about 'what I think that is,' or how I think the music is being processed for 'easy consumption' simply because some people don't like my thoughts on limiters and broadcasting classical music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> Yes. I was under the impression that all radio stations limit the dynamic range explicitly to allow listening in various environments...


I believe this is quite true. I wish I could apply some of that compression to a few CDs I own!

Re "pleasant music" on the radio, programming seems to vary by time of day. It's typical to have soothing music during commute times, particularly, and work hours where the station might be played as background music. Here there's even an "anti-road rage" interlude at about 5:30 PM, so advertised, where they play things like "Dance of the Blessed Spirits" and so forth. Sometimes it's needed in our traffic, the roads being full of people angry and frustrated by their workaday experiences.

Weightier works are often reserved for the evening hours, when people might be able to settle down to some serious listening. "Modern" music may get its own show at 10 PM or later.

ADDED: Oh dear. Looking just above, it appears that I may have Muzak Mentality. Well, perhaps it's treatable. And if it's a "named condition," Medicare may cover it.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I've never listened to ClassicFM, but looking at their top 300, it does not appear to simply be easy listening. There are symphonies by Mahler and Brahms, Ravel Piano Concerto, Bach Cantatas, and Stravinsky Ballets along with many other fabulous works. Obviously there are other works that many of us would likely not listen to. It seems they play popular works which I imagine works quite well with a large number of classical music listeners.


The Hall of Fame can be misleading, because many of the longer works only make the list based on the strength of a single movement. BWV 147 is in there, but don't expect to hear anything other than "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring." And Mahler's 5th is in there, but it is always the Adagietto that is played (and it is invariably introduced as the music from "Death in Venice").

Similarly, take a look at the highest placed operas in the top 300. They are _Cavalleria rusticana_ (but really it is just the Intermezzo that people vote for) and The Pearl Fishers (based on a certain duet).

So I'm just saying that the Hall of Fame isn't an entirely accurate indicator.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

regarding the Hall of Fame - it is what the listeners vote for (one listener, one vote), not necessarily what they play.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Let's face it - the Hall of Fame s fun. Something to keep people listening. I don't take it seriously - but I so enjoy it!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Why on earth should you feel sorry for people whose only plight is they prefer the lighter side of classical music? I reserve my sympathy for the homeless, the starving, etc.


LOL. Well ain't that jess a "one up" for this entry? 

"Sorry about what some _may be_ missing," might be more the point, but all the 'sorry' business is a bit too much like a pity party and rather off-point.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Why on earth should you feel sorry for people whose only plight is they prefer the lighter side of classical music? I reserve my sympathy for the homeless, the starving, etc.


I feel sorry both for the blind and those who will not see. They both miss out.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

PetrB said:


> When you are altering the dynamics of a classical recording _so it is less commanding of your attention, that is the Muzak Mentality._ Certainly, I and many another sometimes 'use' classical music as a kind of wallpaper, but without using a dynamics limiter.
> 
> I don't have to like that a classical station is using limiters, that the music is being electronically audited so as not to offend by way of its dynamics, but I don't think I have to be quiet up about 'what I think that is,' or how I think the music is being processed for 'easy consumption' simply because some people don't like my thoughts on limiters and broadcasting classical music.


Every one of your favorite classical music stations that you have ever liked has used compressors and dynamic limiters on everything sent over the air. Without exception.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peterb said:


> Every one of your favorite classical music stations that you have ever liked has used compressors and dynamic limiters on everything sent over the air. Without exception.


Of course... the variables of engineering, one recording to the next, the broadcast wavelength, anticipation of what reproducing equipment it is heard on, mean limiters.

But, more than a few comments on CSM that the dynamic curve is enough one does not have to turn the station up or down while playing on a car radio makes me more than question _how much_ the limiter is used, i.e. the impression from these reports is that CFM uses a flatter-line dynamic range setting than I am used to compared to my local FM.

The station I listen to is not 'usable' in restaurants, shops because the dynamic contrasts are too great.

One reason CSM may not be showing in shops and restaurants: in Europe, there are regulations which mandate that if a business is using radio as their in-house music, that the business pay a fee for that usage. There are 'spy customers' who run around checking just this sort of thing. There is no such mandate for radio in the U.S.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Of course... the variables of engineering, one recording to the next, the broadcast wavelength, anticipation of what reproducing equipment it is heard on, mean limiters.
> 
> But, more than a few comments on CSM that the dynamic curve is enough one does not have to turn the station up or down while playing on a car radio makes me more than question _how much_ the limiter is used, i.e. the impression from these reports is that CFM uses a flatter-line dynamic range setting than I am used to compared to my local FM.
> 
> ...


Yes exactly. It's the amount of compressing/limiting that is important. All radio broadcasts use limiters but some like Radio 3 use them very subtly and transparently.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> okeedoh, to avoid the literal interpretations I should have said "Muzak Mentality." ...
> 
> I don't have to like that a classical station is using limiters, that the music is being electronically audited so as not to offend by way of its dynamics, but I don't think I have to be quiet up about 'what I think that is,' or how I think the music is being processed for 'easy consumption' simply because some people don't like my thoughts on limiters and broadcasting classical music.


I don't think you should have brought 'muzak' in at all. It's a pejorative term and not really applicable to Classic FM in any case. Your use of the term seems to sneer at people who like popular classical music. Very few outlets in the UK use radio in the background at all, and when they do, it tends to be a local station or a pop music station. In supermarkets, it tends to be just light music - middle-brow songs or instrumentals, not classical - played from a cd or some such.

Nobody is asking you to be quiet about what you think - I'm not, anyway. I'm not even asking you to stop being such an in-your-face culture vulture. But I have a predilection for accuracy and for some of the posters above who, while not enjoying Classic FM themselves, do not have a down on 'lesser mortals'.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> LOL. Well ain't that jess a "one up" for this entry?
> 
> "Sorry about what some _may be_ missing," might be more the point, but all the 'sorry' business is a bit too much like a pity party and rather off-point.


I'm not at all sorry for what some people might be missing. Some people just do not like classical music. I am someone with very little appreciation of the visual arts. Don't feel sorry for me because I haven't the ability to appreciate them. I just like a nice painting when I see it but haven't the nous to appreciate the finer points. But reserve your sorrow for those who really need it!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There is OBVIOUSLY no right or wrong way to use music, nor any rational or objective basis for disapproving of the way other people use it; nor is any music (or any other sort of art) inherently superior to any other.

Of course some music is more complex or self-conscious or innovative and so on - and those are things we can measure with a degree of something like objectivity: but we cannot establish that (say) complex music or innovative music or whatever is _inherently_ superior. The apparent superiority in that attribution is a project of our own values, not something inherent in the music. And these values are OBVIOUSLY not objective or purely logical.

All attempts to establish some sort of superiority among kinds of music or approaches to music (or literature or clothing or anything) are OBVIOUSLY transparent, naked plays for status. "I like this kind of music" or "I have this certain attitude to music" and "therefore I am superior!"

Of course that kind of thing - creating identities, affirming identities, denigrating people identified as "other" - is precisely what a lot of people actually use music for. It's not objectively right or wrong, it's just something people do. I even suspect music evolved precisely for something like that purpose. (I might add: this topic fascinates me in part because it relates to the evolution of religion, which I suspect co-evolved with music and probably for basically the same purposes. That gets us too far afield for this thread but I would absolutely flapping love to take it up elsewhere if anyone's interested.)

Most of us have inherited our attitudes to music (as to how to approach it, what kind of music should be praised, etc.) from a particular cultural context, the late nineteenth century, when displaying "taste" was one of the main ways to establish one's place among the bourgeoisie, so that "competitive appreciation" became a thing that people did. These attitudes were transformed a bit with the rise of jazz and rock and other "popular" traditions, but not so much that they became unrecognizable.

And so that is what is wrong, for many of us, with ClassicFM. We want to assert that we're in some sense "above" its listeners, so we pretend that our taste in music or our approach to music corresponds to objective values which are not shared by its listeners. We can make it sound good by mentioning pity rather than scorn, but the hierarchy is established with equal clarity regardless.

Being honest about this threatens a lot of us, because we need everyone - especially our own selves - to be unaware of that project for it to work.

Fortunately, there is another strategy: be above all that jostling. Adopt an attitude of tolerant appreciation for various works or genres of music or approaches to music. "I prefer this, you prefer that, everyone's ok here, no one establishes any superiority in this situation, no one needs to feel pity or shame, no growth is necessary - instead, the people who we ought to pity and who ought to feel shame and who are inferior are those who try to use their stated preferences in music to establish some kind of superiority." This strategy asserts such status that you do not need to use your attitude to music or your tastes in music to seek status. This is the attitude you can take when you really are elite and have nothing to prove; but one nice thing about it is, you don't really need to be elite to adopt it. Furthermore, and crucially, it is interesting to note that being honest about our attitude in this case does not threaten our status. Perhaps for that reason:

Right here and right now, in the world of the pseudo-populist globalizing cultural cognoscenti of 2014, that is the most effective strategy. It is the trump card. (What worked in 1890 no longer works as well in 2014.)

I realize that people probably can't just choose their strategy and turn on a dime if it doesn't work; identities are involved here, and to be effective strategies have to be adopted for a long time! It could be quite a crisis, I suppose. And I suppose, especially once we're past adolescence, most people can't just say, "Hey, I'll try this and maybe it'll work."

Luckily for me, it happens (probably not coincidentally) that I prefer to approach music with that attitude, and _I can pull it off_. Watch this:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ClassicFM. Nor is there anything wrong with rap, new country, New Age music, light classical, noise music, death metal, smooth jazz, whatever, and that explicitly includes Muzak. Anyone who says otherwise - anyone for example who scorns or affects to scorn people who enjoy ClassicFM - is trying to gain some unearned status for themselves, and if I cared about them I would pity them and advise them to try a better way; but in fact I usually don't care because the whole thing is so silly, though occasionally people do manage to make me angry with what I take to be their ridiculous attempts to assert their status via their music (or their approach to music, whatever).

So that's how that's done.

Now it happens that I would probably be dissatisfied with ClassicFM if it were my only source of music, and that at least some of the music they play would be to sappy or light or something like that for my own personal tastes, which run toward novelty and self-conscious irony, but that applies only to SOME of their music, and these things are just my tastes, and my tastes might change with more exposure to that music anyway (I could portray this change as "growth" but I doubt that would hold up to skeptical scrutiny).

(It also happens that the fact that my tastes run toward novelty, complexity, self-consciousness, and irony lets me have it both ways, so could perhaps play the old bourgeois competitive appreciation game if I need to. Maybe I even do! I have absolutely no conscious awareness of having formed my tastes for that purpose, but it is interesting - in a self-consciously ironic way! - to note that. Please feel free to take pleasure in that contradiction, and if you want, you can declare that it invalidates my whole self-esteem.)

(It also happens that I've been dissatisfied with communities including the one here at talkclassical because our attitude toward ClassicFM's sort of music has made it harder for me to learn about that sort of music. I realize that I was supposed to be born knowing it, and then grow out of that, but I failed at birth, and have had to find out in other ways.)

(It also happens that my wife is the kind of person who really enjoys things like ClassicFM; when I reflect about the attitude most of you would adopt toward her, and have on occasion actually expressed toward her, I sometimes fantasize about the kinds of violence that solve problems of this sort.)

(It finally also happens that I know quite a few people here really don't like the kinds of things I've said in this post, but although strength of feeling is far from reciprocal I don't like the kinds of things they say in their posts either, and in a world that has a lot of bigger problems we really ought to get some perspective and be ok with all this. It ought to be ok for you [from what you take to be above] to scorn people who like or would like ClassicFM, even my wife, or even that you scorn me for my own musical tastes or approach to music or whatever; perhaps such scorn should be especially ok if you express it as pity; and it ought to be ok for me to say that I think all that is pure cant, so that I reciprocate your feelings [from what I take to be above]. I think we can all get along even after we all know that we all know how the game is being played.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

You know, I swear that autocorrect changes some of my "too"s to "to"s.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

science said:


> And so that is what is wrong, for many of us, with ClassicFM. We want to assert that we're in some sense "above" its listeners, so we pretend that our taste in music or our approach to music corresponds to objective values which are not shared by its listeners. We can make it sound good by mentioning pity rather than scorn, but the hierarchy is established with equal clarity regardless.
> 
> ...
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with ClassicFM. Nor is there anything wrong with rap, new country, New Age music, light classical, noise music, death metal, smooth jazz, whatever, and that explicitly includes Muzak. Anyone who says otherwise - anyone for example who scorns or affects to scorn people who enjoy ClassicFM - is trying to gain some unearned status for themselves


I'm with you on the whole relativist thing - no music is inherently superior to any other - which is why I have not said that ClassicFM is factually rubbish. But that doesn't mean we can't still have a conversation about what we perceive to be the relative merits of one music over another. Some posters on this thread seem to have taken the view that we dare not criticse something if people happen to like it. Clearly some people don't like criticism, perhaps because they don't feel strongly enough to defend their views. I take the opposite approach; given that music is so subjective, it makes this sort of discussion all the more interesting.

So no, there is "nothing wrong with ClassicFM" but I am surely entitled to outline the reasons why it doesn't appeal to me personally without being labelled an elitist or a status chaser.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm with you on the whole relativist thing - no music is inherently superior to any other - which is why I have not said that ClassicFM is factually rubbish. But that doesn't mean we can't still have a conversation about what we perceive to be the relative merits of one music over another. Some posters on this thread seem to have taken the view that we dare not criticse something if people happen to like it. Clearly some people don't like criticism, perhaps because they don't feel strongly enough to defend their views. I take the opposite approach; given that music is so subjective, it makes this sort of discussion all the more interesting.
> 
> So no, there is "nothing wrong with ClassicFM" but *I am surely entitled to outline the reasons why it doesn't appeal to me personally without being labelled an elitist* or a status chaser.


That's precisely right. I did so myself.

The "status chaser" thing shouldn't bother any of us; all psychologically normal - you, I, probably everyone here - do it one way or another.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

With some reservations, I like Classic FM, but I see that it has drawbacks for lovers of classical music who want to learn; that it has a smooth format, and presenters who may not have been chosen for their musical knowledge originally; and that it may do things with sound that don't please people of knowledge.

I haven't in any of my posts said that you can't disagree with me or think that Classic FM isn't good. I haven't labelled people who disagree with me as elitists or status chasers* - although I don't like it if they seem to cast slurs on people who do like or have liked Classic FM. I don't believe, either, that you can make sweeping generalisations about people - or religion - or music - or the whole of civilisation - on the basis of their response to Classic FM. 

And on the whole I have enjoyed the discussion.

It bemuses me that at times it has been so adversarial. I don't mind people disagreeing with me on anything, if they do it with courtesy. And I hope I have not shown discourtesy in my turn.

Isn't this a *Discussion* Forum? 

(*I can't think anyone likes being called 'a status chaser', Science, because it implies a lot more than wanting to be thought well of. It implies that a person is a phoney & self-obsessed, which is not normally considered 'psychologically normal' - whatever that actually is. )

PS I am not a relativist. I don't consider that any music has intrinsic moral superiority over another, but in artistic terms, I do think some types of music are* more likely to* have artistic superiority in terms of variety, complexity, use of harmony, good lyrics or whatever. Classical music as a genre is *more likely to* display artistic superiority to some other genres (unspecified); but that doesn't mean that a classical music lover is superior to those who prefer other genres (unspecified).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> I can't think anyone likes being called 'a status chaser', Science, because it implies a lot more than wanting to be thought well of. It implies that a person is a phoney & self-obsessed, which is not normally considered 'psychologically normal' - whatever that actually is.


Really? I'm sorry! I didn't realize it would come across that way. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify!

What I have in mind is just the ordinary, normal human need to be respected, liked, admired, loved, to fit in - that kind of thing. Nothing abnormal, just normal ordinary human social behavior.

I think the following explanation is an elaboration that isn't needed for any of the points I made in the first post, but I don't want to hide anything and it is an enjoyable topic (for me anyway), so I'll admit some further ideas that I have along these lines:

I do have to admit that I am probably the most cynical person any of us are ever going to meet about human behavior and motivation. In particular I have little or no faith in our conscious awareness as a guide to our actual mental processes: I suspect that our conscious processes are at least in part designed to be deceptive: that our consciousness is in part our brain lying to itself in order to navigate the complexities of social life more effectively. This could seem abnormal or unpleasant because it is definitely not what we consciously think is going on, but this is what I think normally goes on in a human mind - this is what I think goes on in _my_ own mind, although of course like everyone else I am unaware of it, and I think my psychological processes are _basically_ normal!

But again, that is for full disclosure and for fun and afaict probably not a necessary part of what I'd meant earlier.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Oh Science, you *do* seem to like to second-guess yourself. I know about hidden motives & so on, but myself I feel that conscious awareness is central.

(PS This is a fascinating topic but not relevant here, so I have just launched a thread on it in the Community Forum, q.v.)

It's all about words & their connotations. 'Status chaser' is definitely not a nice thing to be called, so if you meant nothing more by it than the fact that we all want to appear in our best light to others, you may have obscured your argument under waves of resentment. 

I agree that there are some people who can't talk about music without wanting to be thought better & more refined than others in their choices - but I don't think the people on this thread who don't like Classic FM are guilty of it. Their criticism of commercial classical music stations is justified and worth making. My point is simply that without these pop-classical stations, we wouldn't be reaching out to new people & they do a good job in making sure that musicians get something to eat.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Their criticism of commercial classical music stations is justified and worth making.


_Some _of their criticisms of the station may well be justified; I don't see how their criticisms of the _audience _is justified, explicit or implied and I don't see why those criticisms should be left unchallenged.

Just to reiterate, this is not personal: I don't listen to Classic FM myself, but I'm not going to criticise those who do and get enjoyment out of doing so.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> Oh Science, you *do* seem to like to second-guess yourself. I know about hidden motives & so on, but myself I feel that conscious awareness is central.
> 
> (PS This is a fascinating topic but not relevant here, so I have just launched a thread on it in the Community Forum, q.v.)
> 
> ...


Maybe so; I didn't introduce that term to the discussion and I was unaware that it existed until Winterreisender used it. I had no idea it was pejorative.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> [...] My point is simply that without these pop-classical stations, we wouldn't be reaching out to new people & they do a good job *in making sure that musicians get something to eat*.


And quite right, too! I've never met a musician who doesn't like their victuals. Did you ever see that BBC _Eroica_ film (featuring LvB and the circumstances around the first rehearsal of his 3rd Symphony)? There was a key scene for me when Beethoven calls a halt to proceedings in order to feed the orchestra. Loved that!


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

To Science and Ingélou:

I think the term "status seeker" may come from Maslow's Triangle. Here's a Wiki link for an explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

The upshot (if you agree with his thesis) is that once our basic needs are realized (eating, shelter, and so on) we move on to other levels. The need for 'status' is near the top of the triangle. I'm afraid I'm still at the base of this triangle. Still, I know a good tune when I hear one, eh?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

TalkingHead said:


> To Science and Ingélou:
> 
> I think the term "status seeker" may come from Maslow's Triangle. Here's a Wiki link for an explanation:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
> ...


Great post!

I'm gonna respond to it in Ingélou's new thead.


----------



## tovaris (Aug 28, 2012)

There is a certain way as they do their "Hall of flame". They play certain pieces of music and because of that, MAKE people to listen and like those certain type of music. It's like a playlist, listeners don't have a chance listening other kind of pieces (for example Beethoven's full piano sonatas - only some movements very rare and no full string quartets just movements also very sometimes etc.). Therefore when it comes to voting, listeners vote for those pieces what they play the most.
Has anyone ever had a look on this year top300? Well if not I'm giving you the top5 and you can tell its relevancy. I'm not saying, that I dislike the top5, but come on! Regarding Rachmaninov 2nd, most of the listeners only could recognize the 2nd movement, because that's what they only play!

1. Vaughn Williams -The Lark Ascending
2. Rachmaninov - Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor
3. Vaughn Williams - Fantasia on Theme By Thomas Tallis
4. Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 5 in E flat
5. Mozart - Clarinet Concerto in A major


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Come to think of it, these days I never listen to classical FM radio. I prefer to be in control, listening to what I want, when I want.

Even when I drive, I rarely have the radio on, but when I do, it's an "adult mix" of 1950's to 1980's popular songs, the key being memorable melodies; the way things were.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> To Science and Ingélou:
> 
> I think the term "status seeker" may come from Maslow's Triangle. Here's a Wiki link for an explanation:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
> ...


But _status_ *seeker* is a more neutral term. What was used was the definitely pejorative _status_ *chaser*!

Nuances are all!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> I think the term "status seeker" may come from Maslow's Triangle. Here's a Wiki link for an explanation:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs


I think Maslow says somewhere that people begin by liking whatever their parents listen to on the radio, then transition to listening to their own music while squirreled away in their rooms, then progress to sharing every d****d thing they listen to on Facebook or "Current Listening," eventually listen to a broad spectrum of music from a variety of sources and venues without the need for social recognition, and finally (if they are truly self-actualized) make their own lousy music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> But _status_ *seeker* is a more neutral term. What was used was the definitely pejorative _status_ *chaser*!
> 
> Nuances are all!


Just in case there's any remaining confusion about what I meant by "status," I feel this post does a good job illustrating it.

Edit: Also, "status chaser" was introduced to the discussion in a defensive way, as in "I am not a status chaser," rather than in an offensive "you are a status chaser" way. I repeated it without intending it in a pejorative sense.

What matters to me is that we clear the pejorative content from the word "status" and _any_ verbs attached to it. That we seek or chase or pursue or desire or crave or need or flourish when we have status is obvious to me and not at all the kind of thing that makes us bad people; how we go about getting it is the thing I meant to address, and a thing of some consequence I suspect.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> I think Maslow says somewhere that people begin by liking whatever their parents listen to on the radio, then transition to listening to their own music while squirreled away in their rooms, then progress to sharing every d****d thing they listen to on Facebook or "Current Listening," eventually listen to a broad spectrum of music from a variety of sources and venues without the need for social recognition, and finally (if they are truly self-actualized) make their own lousy music.


Very nice!

Sounds like Kohlberg or Piaget to me.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

There are no 'status chasers' on TC now that the 'likes' notification fault has been fixed - now we can all pretend to be indifferent to who likes our posts


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Sorry, science, I accept that you didn't mean 'status chaser' as pejorative, but it *is* - sadly, words mean what they mean in common usage, not what you or I decide that they should mean. That sounds like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> Sorry, science, I accept that you didn't mean 'status chaser' as pejorative, but it *is* - sadly, words mean what they mean in common usage, not what you or I decide that they should mean. That sounds like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland!


I absolutely accept that principle; I was just unfamiliar with "status chaser" as a term at all, let alone a pejorative one. If I'd known, I wouldn't have repeated it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There is one point that I don't want to retreat on here - I think we're generally _at least semi-_conscious of a social strategy (roughly analogous to "trying to seem cool") when we insult other people's music.

If we just said, "I don't like that," or, "That's not my thing," that would be one sort of thing. No way to know what is going on there.

But when it goes beyond that, into insulting people's preferences, I cannot and will not believe, no matter what anyone says on the matter, that they can do that without _at least a little_ (probably a whole heck of a lot of) conscious awareness that they're trying to assert their own superiority of some kind and other people's inferiority. We can see it when listeners get accused of laziness, ignorance, closed-mindedness, pretentiousness, etc. Such descriptions have an obvious and inevitably intentional social thrust.

And that is the difference between saying, "I don't like (any of or some of or much of) the music they play on ClassicFM," which is just a statement of preferences (the origins of which are way too mysterious for any of us to evaluate), and statements along the lines of, "ClassicFM insults its listeners by assuming that they're intellectually lazy." That statement obviously implies and probably amounts to nothing but, "People who like that music are intellectually lazy." The person who makes such a statement knows what he is doing and does it intentionally.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

What intrigues me is the extent to which this assertion of superiority is deliberate.

So if I say "If I were in charge of Classic FM, they'd play more Xenakis (or Bruckner, or Guillaume de Poitiers, or whatever)" then you can come back to me and ask "Why, what's wrong with what they play now?", at which point I'm going to have to concede that more Xenakis/Bruckner/Guillaume is just my personal preference or claim that it's somehow inherently better. If the latter, then I can make various arguments about culture, education, and the vast tapestry of human experience, and all the time I am absolutely sincere in my belief that this is the correct approach, and if people would only listen to me then they could join me and come into the light and all would be right with the world.
Here, I'm not so much asserting superiority as lazily assuming it. Alternatively, though, I can actively assert superiority by pointing out all the things that are inherently wrong (not just "not as good") with the music presently being played.

For me it boils down to the degree to which we think the way _we_ like music is the way other people _should_ like music.

(On the other side of the coin, those who're adamant that playing more Xenakis/Bruckner/Guillaume is a step _away_ from the light are also asserting _their_ superiority, but this isn't the debate going on in this thread, I don't think).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I happened to come across this on Classic FM's page on the 20th century:
http://www.classicfm.com/discover/periods/modern/second-viennese-school-where-start/

I'm a little surprised that Classic FM even has a page on the Second Viennese School. Never mind that it's horribly condescending and filled with gross factual errors and distortions...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Never mind that it's horribly condescending and filled with gross factual errors and distortions...


The text basically says: "It's awful and mathematical music, romantic was definitely better. But give it a try"... LOL that's an odd way of 'promoting' the music if you ask me...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

It also speaks of Berg's "12-tone" Sonata...which is in B minor.

Seriously? If you're going to even mention Berg, why not mention his _most popular work_, which is actually 12-tone?

Also, did Webern ever ask for "bashing instruments to get a percussive sound"???


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> It also speaks of Berg's "12-tone" Sonata...which is in B minor.
> 
> Seriously? If you're going to even mention Berg, why not mention his _most popular work_, which is actually 12-tone?
> 
> Also, did Webern ever ask for "bashing instruments to get a percussive sound"???


It's amazing how they perpetrated all the cliches in one single short text!: mathematical... random... inexpressive... confusing chromatic with 12-tone... good god!...

"It meant that the music wasn't based on melody, it was based on maths"... *groan* *facepalm*


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I happened to come across this on Classic FM's page on the 20th century:
> http://www.classicfm.com/discover/periods/modern/second-viennese-school-where-start/
> 
> I'm a little surprised that Classic FM even has a page on the Second Viennese School. Never mind that it's horribly condescending and filled with gross factual errors and distortions...


Holy crap that article is terrible. How did this make it onto a "professional" website? Sounds like a 16 year old's blog post. And why is Steve Reich thrown into the last paragraph?? That's more random than anything in Schoenberg's music.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I appreciate that that page attempts to contrast Verklarte Nacht with Variations for Orchestra. It actually doesn't sound like an "astonishing leap" to me at all.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


> It's amazing how they perpetrated all the cliches in one single short text!: mathematical... random... inexpressive... confusing chromatic with 12-tone... good god!...
> 
> "It meant that the music wasn't based on melody, it was based on maths"... *groan* *facepalm*


Their "Fast and Friendly Guide to the Modern Era of Classical Music" on youtube isn't much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUDQurQ42VI#t=83


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> Their "Fast and Friendly Guide to the Modern Era of Classical Music" on youtube isn't much better.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUDQurQ42VI#t=83


Stravinsky was the first great modern composer, then Schoenberg composed 12-tone music, and after him, Mahler kept on writing music using Romantic techniques. Boulez and Stockhausen are to be lumped together as simply "going their own way", but since we now have Karl Jenkins, everything is just fine in the world of music. I've learned a lot today. Thanks Classic FM!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Stravinsky was the first great modern composer, then Schoenberg composed 12-tone music, and after him, Mahler kept on writing music using Romantic techniques. Boulez and Stockhausen are to be lumped together as simply "going their own way", but since we now have Karl Jenkins, everything is just fine in the world of music. I've learned a lot today. Thanks Classic FM!


Don't forget, Debussy never existed. Dissonance is that stuff that doesn't go together, like cheese and cigarettes, and there is no connection between 20th century music and late 19th century music at all.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> Don't forget, Debussy never existed. Dissonance is that stuff that doesn't go together, like cheese and cigarettes, and there is no connection between 20th century music and late 19th century music at all.


Oh, Debussy existed, he just was in the Romantic period, which somehow Mahler also managed to write his modern works in.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Oh, Debussy existed, he just was in the Romantic period, which somehow Mahler also managed to write his modern works in.


Well, at least the 20th century didn't get special treatment in terms of the weird over generalizations and inaccuracies.













 (I especially like in this one where they mention Machaut and show a painting of Vivaldi).


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Ligeti, Xenakis, Nono, Kagel, Lutosławski, Carter, Feldman, Partch, Babbitt? Damn you, Classic FM!!!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Stravinsky was the first great modern composer, then Schoenberg composed 12-tone music, and after him, Mahler kept on writing music using Romantic techniques. Boulez and Stockhausen are to be lumped together as simply "going their own way", but since we now have Karl Jenkins, everything is just fine in the world of music. I've learned a lot today. Thanks Classic FM!


The litany of recent reports in this thread on these articles makes it sound like Classic FM is a sort of musical fundamentalist's group!

Maybe it should advertise itself as the 'We almost or never play "Yucky Music"' station


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Well, at least the 20th century didn't get special treatment in terms of the weird over generalizations and inaccuracies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As the reports keep rolling in... 
this station is sounding more and more cartoonish, and "Radioland amateur nite."


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> Holy crap that article is terrible. How did this make it onto a "professional" website? Sounds like a 16 year old's blog post. And why is Steve Reich thrown into the last paragraph?? That's more random than anything in Schoenberg's music.


It's not a terrible article, it's just an alternate interpretation-- poetic license, in fact. Who are you to judge what is accurate and what is not? It's all subjective and your literal narrowmindedness is stifling and condescending and ultimately what drives normal people away from this great subject. stop being so elitist, maaaaaaaan.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

trazom said:


> It's not a terrible article, it's just an alternate interpretation-- poetic license, in fact. Who are you to judge what is accurate and what is not? It's all subjective and your literal narrowmindedness is stifling and condescending and ultimately what drives normal people away from this great subject. stop being so elitist, maaaaaaaan.


Just as it's not elitism to say that light is, in fact, both a particle and a wave, it's also not elitism to remind people that Berg's Sonata is not a 12-tone work.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

trazom said:


> It's not a terrible article, it's just an alternate interpretation-- poetic license, in fact. Who are you to judge what is accurate and what is not? It's all subjective and your literal narrowmindedness is stifling and condescending and ultimately what drives normal people away from this great subject. stop being so elitist, maaaaaaaan.


Nope, sorry. There are many points the article makes that are just flat out wrong.

Such as: "Schoenberg achieved it by developing his 12-tone method, in which he would take the 12 notes of the musical scale and arrange them in a predefined order. Sometimes it would be completely random, other times it would be in a very particular order."

A completely random order? How do you even *arrange* a tone row in a *random* order? Random by what standards? Schoenberg, Berg and Webern all picked their tone rows to serve specific purposes. This comment about them being in a random order is just an attempt to play into a perceived and untrue stereotype that they think the "common man" has about Schoenberg's music.

What about: "Webern's music was especially stripped-back and precise, often requiring some strange techniques on the part of the performer, like flutter-tonguing and bashing instruments to get a percussive sound."

The first part is often true, but what are they implying by the second part? That Webern was the first composer to use flutter-tonguing and percussive instrumental effects? Jeeze, those techniques have been around since the 19th century so why mention them in relation to Webern as if he was the first composer to do this stuff? To me it just seems forced in there, again, to play into some stupid preconcieved notion they think the reader might have that "twelve tone music is scary and unlistenable oh my gosh!". These websites should stop doing that and just talk about the music like they would talk about anything other music.

"Most of all, though, Webern was responsible for influencing the next generation of serialists. Without those baby steps in a world of tonal freedom (albeit one with some fairly bonkers sounds in it) the like of Karlheinz Stockhausen, Steve Reich and Pierre Boulez"

And like I mentioned before, why on earth is Steve Reich thrown in this paragraph. His musical style has nothing to do with Webern and certainly wasn't influenced by it in any kind of tangible way. It's not a huge deal I guess but it makes the writer sound like he doesn't know what he's talking about, as if he went to wikipedia, typed in "20th century composers" and picked three names at random.

"What's not to like about a series of mathematically ordered and determined notes that don't make harmonic sense, arrive at unexpected moments and are often wilfully noisy?"

Don't make harmonic sense? 12 tone music isn't dealing with common era harmony...so what's the point of that sentence? It's like criticizing a piece of visual art because it didn't allow you to smell the subject. That's not the purpose or the parameters it's working within. Mathematically ordered? Well if you consider putting tones into a certain order particularly "mathematical" than ok. It's no more mathematical than the harmonic system used by Beethoven. And willfully noisy? What's willfully noisy? Isn't the finale of Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony willfully noisy? It's certainly not trying to be quiet but failed.

The article is just littered with these stupid assertions that, yes play into the stereotypes about atonal music, but don't make any sense when you really think about it.

And as Mahlerian said, Berg's piano sonata is not a 12 tone piece, as the article suggests.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Just as it's not elitism to say that light is, in fact, both a particle and a wave, it's also not elitism to remind people that Berg's Sonata is not a 12-tone work.


And here I thought that light was that stuff that beamed out of your eyes so that you can see things. Not so much at night, though.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"I'm in love with music, not myself."

It should be a some of both.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> And here I thought that light was that stuff that beamed out of your eyes so that you can see things. Not so much at night, though.


I've got that covered, too.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> Don't make harmonic sense? 12 tone music isn't dealing with common era harmony...so what's the point of that sentence? It's like criticizing a piece of visual art because it didn't allow you to smell the subject. That's not the purpose or the parameters it's working within. Mathematically ordered? Well if you consider putting tones into a certain order particularly "mathematical" than ok. It's no more mathematical than the harmonic system used by Beethoven. And willfully noisy? What's willfully noisy? Isn't the finale of Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony willfully noisy? It's certainly not trying to be quiet but failed.


I love the double standard:

"Look at Bach! His music is mathematical and perfect because it is so mathematical!"

"Look at Schoenberg! His music is mathematical and terrible noise because it is so mathematical!"

As it is pointed out in Slonimsky's Lexicon, music you don't like _always_ seems louder, even if it is demonstrably not louder in terms of decibels.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> Just as it's not elitism to say that light is, in fact, both a particle and a wave, it's also not elitism to remind people that Berg's Sonata is not a 12-tone work.


That post was meant to be a joke. I was being 100 percent sarcastic.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

trazom said:


> That post was meant to be a joke. I was being 100 percent sarcastic.


Oh, sorry...I wish I could tell the difference. Even with the maaaan there... :lol:


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

violadude said:


> Don't forget, Debussy never existed.


Debussy was that French guy who wrote Bolero, right? Great song, that one. I like how it was written in the 20th century but isn't ugly.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Yardrax said:


> Debussy was that French guy who wrote Bolero, right? Great song, that one. I like how it was written in the 20th century but isn't ugly.


It's pretty well known that Debussy wasn't really French. He was German, a scion of the Von Bussitz clan, armament manufacturers. His repetitive and ever-louder Bolero was supposed to suggest heavy armored divisions rolling across the borders of some small unfortunate country. Shostakovich noted this.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

trazom said:


> That post was meant to be a joke. I was being 100 percent sarcastic.


Ya sorry, I didn't pick up on that either. Oh well, everything I said was still 100% true


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Limp veg with no meat


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2014)

Quite possibly overcooked (and limp) veg with no meat and scarce use of spices and condiments.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

There's a paradox here, of course. To discourse so knowledgeably about Classic FM, a person needs to have listened extensively - otherwise any criticisms would be partial, sneering & unjust - perish the thought. So all you lot must have hours of experience and be 'sneaking-regarders' for Classic FM. 
*Happy listening, guys!* :cheers:


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2014)

I am perished. Beyond my sell-by date.


----------

