# Censorship of new music at The Proms



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Words fail me - apparently omitting new music from TV broadcasts has been the practice at these Proms. It's pandering to the lowest common denominator - sometimes I think "classical music" and its traditional institutions deserve to die

http://www.theguardian.com/music/mu...istle-nyo-prom-bbc-new-music-susanna-eastburn


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dgee said:


> Words fail me - apparently omitting new music from TV broadcasts has been the practice at these Proms. It's pandering to the lowest common denominator - sometimes I think "classical music" and its traditional institutions deserve to die
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/mu...istle-nyo-prom-bbc-new-music-susanna-eastburn


And to think, I was just watching/listening to this:





To be fair, the works are still being performed, and they are also being broadcast live on the radio, so it's the TV programmers who lack respect for their audience (and the musicians involved in the performance, who likely had to work far harder on any modern piece than on Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance marches). Our local classical station will still air live broadcasts of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, even if the program contains works that they would never broadcast at any other time.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

dgee said:


> Words fail me - apparently omitting new music from TV broadcasts has been the practice at these Proms. It's pandering to the lowest common denominator - sometimes I think "classical music" and its traditional institutions deserve to die
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/mu...istle-nyo-prom-bbc-new-music-susanna-eastburn


This angers me but it's not surprising.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I would prefer that stations broadcast all music including modern works. But then I would also prefer books include many equations, graphs, and tables. The books would then contain more information and be much more interesting instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Why do editors just assume book readers won't like equtions and graphs in books? There's a saying in publishing that each equation reduces the sales by half. Why would that be if equations made the books more interesting and more informative? 

I think publishers know that equations and graphs are loved by a relatively small percentage of the potential audience. Clearly the BBC TV programmers believe the same about modern music. Based on my knowledge of classical music fans outside of TC, I'm assuming they are correct. So most of us at TC would love to hear the modern music just as most of my colleagues at work want the equations and graphs, but we are a minority and subject to the desires of a larger group.

Interestingly,the Gaurdian article states, "The BBC has done so much for new music in the UK. It is where many of us have discovered wonderful, surprising, strange and delicious new sounds for the very first time. Radio 3 is the country’s most important commissioner and supporter of new music of all types." However, later in the same paragraph, the article says, "But it’s impossible to read anything into the decisions about what not to televise from the Proms other than a policy-by-implication which assumes that audiences won’t like new music, and that it’s not valued by the BBC." So the BBC has done so much for new music, yet the BBC does not value new music. Hard to understand what the author was thinking.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The thornier modern works are very seldom heard on classical radio. The reason is that to play them is to commit *the* major sin in radio broadcasting -- that is, to make people change the station. Even non-thorny works like 4'33" are seldom encountered. As was explained by my local station, what people hear is "dead air" and assume there's a problem at the station, so -- they head for that dial.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The thornier modern works are very seldom heard on classical radio. The reason is that to play them is to commit *the* major sin in radio broadcasting -- that is, to make people change the station. Even non-thorny works like 4'33" are seldom encountered. As was explained by my local station, what people hear is "dead air" and assume there's a problem at the station, so -- they head for that dial.


Given that the radio broadcasts _are_ airing Birtwistle and Schoenberg and Adams and all of the other horrifying "noise" that the Proms throw at audiences who seem to enjoy it, this isn't the issue here.

"Thorny" is particular to the individual, anyway, and the audience conception of "thorny" changes over time. A decade or so ago my local classical station would almost never have played Debussy, Ravel, or Mahler, and now they do, alongside the occasional Stravinsky and even Hindemith.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Given that the radio broadcasts _are_ airing Birtwistle and Schoenberg and Adams and all of the other horrifying "noise" that the Proms throw at audiences who seem to enjoy it, this isn't the issue here.
> 
> "Thorny" is particular to the individual, anyway, and the audience conception of "thorny" changes over time. A decade or so ago my local classical station would almost never have played Debussy, Ravel, or Mahler, and now they do, alongside the occasional Stravinsky and even Hindemith.


Your last statement is pretty much my point, e.g., where's Birtwhistle? Yes, tastes are individual, but there are certainly broadly shared tastes as well. Adams? Hear some of his stuff all the time on the radio. Schoenberg? Transfigured Night once in a while -- little else. Birtwhistle? Still waiting...

Programming for the radio is far different than from the concert hall, not only because the audiences are different, but because the hassle factor of changing the station (versus storming out of the hall) is also not quite the same.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Your last statement is pretty much my point. Yes, tastes are individual, but there are certainly broadly shared tastes as well. Adams? Hear some of his stuff all the time on the radio. Schoenberg? Transfigured Night once in a while -- little else. Birtwhistle? Still waiting...


You won't hear much Shostakovich on the radio either (maybe the Jazz Suite No. 2, and I heard the Eighth Symphony once on the radio in PA). Do you accept the idea that he's about as unpopular as Schoenberg, then? If not, then you'll admit that few conclusions can be drawn about tastes from what gets played on the radio.

(They don't play Adams really on the radio here at all.)

Furthermore, you _will_ hear Birtwistle and Schoenberg on live broadcasts like these. That's why they were brought up in the first place. They _did_ air on the radio. I've heard Berg and Carter and Chin and Adams and all sorts of other things that they'll play on live broadcast.

If people actually listened, then of course they could appreciate much more of this supposedly inaccessible music. But how often do they actually listen? How often do they get a chance? Let's give them a chance. The Proms audiences look appreciative of the Boulez piece I linked to above.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Actually they play quite a bit of Shostakovich on the radio out here. Some works, like DSCH's 4th and 8th, seem seldom encountered. But it's certainly not all Jazz Suites and Gadfly! Probably ten or more times the airtime of the occasional Schoenberg, which always seems to be the same work. Adams and Takemitsu also seem to be favorites here.

Programming in other climes may be different of course.

"If people actually listened..." But of course radio programmers have to deal with people as they are, not as you or I wish they might be. "Madge, what is that stuff they're playing? Switch on the TV, would you?"


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "If people actually listened..." But of course radio programmers have to deal with people as they are, not as you or I wish they might be. "Madge, what is that stuff they're playing? Switch on the TV, would you?"


Right, and people, many of them, DO enjoy and love Ives, Schoenberg, Messiaen, Varese, and Boulez.

It is a minority compared to the larger classical music audience, perhaps, but the classical music audience itself is a minuscule minority compared to the audience for Top 10. And there are more of them than you might think. People aren't as offended by this supposedly offensive music as much as you seem to wish they might be. I remember a BBC prom with Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic where the entire second half was taken up with the 1910s orchestral pieces sets by Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern, all run together without a break. The very large audience loved it, unless they saw fit to express their displeasure by applauding and cheering...

You also continue to ignore the fact that the audience we are talking about here, the radio audience, *is having these works broadcast to them*. Your first statement was completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you mean to insinuate something about the television audience by means of bringing up radio programming in a different country.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> People aren't as offended by this supposedly offensive music as much as you seem to wish they might be.


What an odd thing to say. How would you have any idea what I "wish they might be"? I find that a bit offensive. I'm sure you can understand why.

The fact is (based on my observations, not wishes) that some music has decided negatives for a lot of people. This is the music that is avoided, largely, in radio programming.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> What an odd thing to say. How would you have any idea what I "wish they might be"? I find that a bit offensive. I'm sure you can understand why.


I merely echoed your own words. I am providing you with facts that you ignore regarding audiences, and you consider this "wishful thinking"? I give you a hypothetical the consequence of which seems self-evident to me: if audiences were exposed to more contemporary music, a greater portion of those audiences would come to understand and enjoy contemporary music.

I echoed your words because there is no reason to bring up that radio programmers don't like to program unpopular works in a thread discussing a situation in which radio programmers are in fact broadcasting those exact works, unless perhaps you want to make the situation look worse for those unpopular works than it is.



KenOC said:


> The fact is (based on my observations, not wishes) that some music has decided negatives for a lot of people. This is the music that is avoided, largely, in radio programming.


No, the works that are being avoided at the Proms include Neoromantic and other "conservative" works. The refusal to air them is not a decision based on their relative accessibility.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I merely echoed your own words.


Now I'm well and truly confused. Please point out where I "wished" something might be? Otherwise, forget it as this is less than pleasant.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Now I'm well and truly confused. Please point out where I "wished" something might be? Otherwise, forget it as this is less than pleasant.


In response to:



Mahlerian said:


> If people actually listened, then of course they could appreciate much more of this supposedly inaccessible music. But how often do they actually listen? How often do they get a chance? Let's give them a chance. The Proms audiences look appreciative of the Boulez piece I linked to above.





KenOC said:


> radio programmers have to deal with people as they are, not as you or I wish they might be.


This implies that I might "wish" for people to listen to this music, but radio programmers have to deal with the audience that already exists.

I pointed out that an audience for this music does exist, so some people are listening.

Furthermore, radio programmers are playing this music in situations such as this one.

I didn't express any personal "wishes" for the audience, merely for the radio programmers, that they might more often have respect for their audience. The article linked to in the OP points out that there are many people who are looking for the new, the challenging, and the interesting in the music of the last 50-60 years.

I am still confused. Why did you enter into this topic with a comment that was irrelevant, and then proceed to continue to harp on it after its irrelevance was pointed out? Are you interested in discussing the points at hand, or not?

If not, then why get involved in the first place?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> The article linked to in the OP points out that there are many people who are looking for the new, the challenging, and the interesting in the music of the last 50-60 years.
> 
> I am still confused. Why did you enter into this topic with a comment that was irrelevant, and then proceed to continue to harp on it after its irrelevance was pointed out? Are you interested in discussing the points at hand, or not?
> 
> If not, then why get involved in the first place?


Some outrage was expressed that radio stations were not carrying some of the more modernistic pieces played at the Proms. I pointed out that radio stations avoided pieces that cause too many people to change the station. Yes, some people want to hear them: But many will tune them (and the station) out, at least (it seems) in the opinion of the programmers.

This seems to me blindingly obvious and is in no way a value judgment, nor does it seem irrelevant. I can't understand why you seem so offended by the observation.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Some outrage was expressed that radio stations were not carrying some of the more modernistic pieces played at the Proms. I pointed out that radio stations avoided pieces that cause too many people to change the station. Yes, some people want to hear them: But many will tune them (and the station) out, at least (it seems) in the opinion of the programmers.
> 
> This seems to me blindingly obvious and is in no way a value judgment, nor does it seem irrelevant. I can't understand why you seem so offended by the observation.


But, as I pointed out in my post before yours, and as is stated in the article, and as I've tried to correct you on about four or five times now,

*THE MUSIC IS BEING AIRED ON THE RADIO*

it's just not being aired on TV.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

The Proms are well attended because they are "the Proms" regardless of the musical content. I do think most modern classical is not radio friendly and needs to be played sparingly. Radio stations are a business first and foremost. Only non-profit stations can afford to take a lot of chances and even they have to be careful not to alienate the audience they are trying to attract. It bothers me that so many modern music enthusiasts believe that modern classical should be more common place and that the "majority" of listeners are losing out. The fact is that ears have to be trained and a lot of musical background and understanding is required for most modern music to be appreciated. I use the word appreciated rather than "enjoy" for a reason. Much of the modern music is hard to outright enjoy outside of intellectual exercise. It also demands a lot of concentration from the listener to get any measurable sense of enjoyment. 

I have been listening to classical music for 40 years with a lot of variation of styles and only in the last ten years have I truly been able to start enjoying modern music and only with effort and work. Most people are not serious listeners like those of us who haunt this board. We are the exception and not the rule and never will be. Why do you think most symphony orchestras do not schedule more modern music? Do you honestly think it's because the conductor and musicians of the orchestra don't care about modern music themselves? No! The unfortunate reality of it all is that when modern music is schedule those concerts inevitably have a drop off in attendance. Now many orchestras still schedule some modern material in the mix but are very careful to do so. Whether we like it or not the radio stations, concert halls, orchestras etc. are firstly businesses and it does not make good business sense to provide a product that will make people change the channel or not come out to your concert. When modern composers start to figure a way to write music that reaches people where they are and respond to emotionally then people may be more tolerant of concerts with modern pieces. Until then the majority will just turn it off and stay away because that's the only way the consumer has to tell a station or orchestra they don't like something. 

If only the world was as enlightened as we eh? 

Kevin


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> But, as I pointed out in my post before yours, and as is stated in the article, and as I've tried to correct you on about four or five times now,
> 
> *THE MUSIC IS BEING AIRED ON THE RADIO*
> 
> it's just not being aired on TV.


Oh. (where's the smiley for being embarrassed?) Well, it worked this time. In that case, it's a puzzle. I'd think modern works would be more acceptable on TV than on the radio. Maybe there's another theory, but I can't think of it.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Oh. (where's the smiley for being embarrassed?) Well, it worked this time.


You're hilarious, KenOC. By the way, I find your avatar deeply disturbing. What the devil is it? An eyeless Rabbit?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

People are forgetting that the BBC, which is what we're discussing, is not independently financed, it's public broadcasting financed through TV licensing, they don't lose any money if people "tune out" because they're already being paid for by the general public. These arguments hold up for independent broadcasters, but the BBC can afford to take risks. 

Personally I think the BBC produces mediocre content most of the time, and their Proms programming is highly predictable. Every year before I look at the schedule I already know the majority of concerts will focus on a handful of German speaking composers active primarily between 1600 and 1900, the remainder being filled out with popular works from France and Russia, a handful of American hits, a couple of dull commissions from BBC sponsored "young artists" and rarer still the late night concert where they throw all the stuff composed after 1950 in a paltry effort to appease "the weirdos". If the purpose of the Proms is to bring classical music to the masses, why only bring a tiny bit of it? Give the "new" stuff a proper chance, if you hide it all the time it's no surprise when people react to the little the do hear like they're living in the 1860s.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> People are forgetting that the BBC, which is what we're discussing, is not independently financed, it's public broadcasting financed through TV licensing, they don't lose any money if people "tune out" because they're already being paid for by the general public. These arguments hold up for independent broadcasters, but the BBC can afford to take risks.


Is that still true? I see that the BBC news site on the Internet is rife with advertisements. A shame, IMO.

http://www.bbc.com/news/


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Here's the BBC page (no ads) for the Proms show thats going to be on the radio here in NZ in about an hour. It lets you listen to the entirety of the show (Berio's Sinfonia and Shostakovich's Symphony 4). The are pages for each show with full concert listening available:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/whats-on/2014/august-05/14996


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

That's good! Anybody who's up, I can recommend Petrenko's DSCH 4th. Based on the recording anyway.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Oh, but you don't have to hear the NZ-time radio broadcast. That concert (from three weeks ago) and all the others are there on the BBC site to be listened to at your leisure.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2014)

KenOC said:


> But of course radio programmers have to deal with people as they are....


:lol:

Fortunately, I had already swallowed my last sip of coffee when I read this. Aside from "people as they are" being, well, um.... How ARE they?, radio programmers do nothing of the sort, none of the ones I've had any dealings with, anyway. Radio programmers deal with guesses. Guesses and fears. Are these guesses and fears based on marketing research? Well, radio programmers would certainly like you to believe that. And would be quite pleased to find that some people DO believe it.

Don't believe it.



Lope de Aguirre said:


> You're hilarious, KenOC. By the way, I find your avatar deeply disturbing. What the devil is it? An eyeless Rabbit?


It's just a harmless bunny.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

What's considered new music at the Proms? Prokofiev? :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The thornier modern works are very seldom heard on classical radio. The reason is that to play them is to commit *the* major sin in radio broadcasting -- that is, to make people change the station. *Even non-thorny works like 4'33" are seldom encountered.* As was explained by my local station, what people hear is "dead air" and assume there's a problem at the station, so -- they head for that dial.


*Ahhh... an attempt at humor, I gather.*


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ahhh... an attempt at humor, I gather.


Not at all. This was addressed on-air by a DJ, since they had evidently received some queries.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The thornier modern works are very seldom heard on classical radio..... to play them is to commit *the* major sin in radio broadcasting -- that is, to make people change the station -- they head for that dial.


My local FM classical station, WFMT (now available via streaming world wide) never shied away from contemporary, let alone edit the program of a live or recorded symphony broadcast, but it is a radio station.

It seems this is relatively the same in the UK, although it could be argued that _with the additional gloss of being able to watch the performers, the modern / contemporary might hold interest more than it would if presented as audio alone [radio]._ Since the opposite seems to be the case, are then television viewers innately that much more conservative than those who listen to radio? Or is that just the television producers and directors?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Not at all. This was addressed on-air by a DJ, since they had evidently received some queries.


Most recordings of 4'33'' are, literally, a joke -- one released in the late 70's or 80's in the states became popular on juke boxes (remember those?) where people could 'buy' a slot of time with no music.

Those recordings of the work with no sound on them at all miss the point. Suggesting 'playing' those recordinngs to a radio station -- or as brought up by a DJ -- shows just how widespread 'not getting' the piece is.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Most recordings of 4'33'' are, literally, a joke -- one released in the late 70's or 80's in the states became popular on juke boxes (remember those?) where people could 'buy' a slot of time with no music.
> 
> Those recordings of the work with no sound on them at all miss the point. Suggesting 'playing' those recordinngs to a radio station -- or as brought up by a DJ -- shows just how widespread 'not getting' the piece is.


Speaking of jokes, I'd be the guy who crams $20 in that Juke Box and spends it all on repeat playings of 4"33', to ensure the next 2 hours would be silent and my ears wouldn't have to listen to country music or pop/rap/blah. Then I'd sit back and watch people demand their money back after thinking the Juke Box was broken.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> It seems this is relatively the same in the UK, although it could be argued that _with the additional gloss of being able to watch the performers, the modern / contemporary might hold interest more than it would if presented as audio alone [radio]._ Since the opposite seems to be the case, are then television viewers innately that much more conservative than those who listen to radio? Or is that just the television producers and directors?


I assume more people watch the TV BBC than hear the radio, but I don't know. If the TV station has a broader audience, then it seems the producers might believe that radio listeners are more hardcore classical music fans on average than the TV listeners. The modern works would create more problems for the TV audience, and hence, the producers would drop the modern music from the TV but not the radio.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Interestingly,the Gaurdian article states, "The BBC has done so much for new music in the UK. It is where many of us have discovered wonderful, surprising, strange and delicious new sounds for the very first time. Radio 3 is the country's most important commissioner and supporter of new music of all types." However, later in the same paragraph, the article says, "But it's impossible to read anything into the decisions about what not to televise from the Proms other than a policy-by-implication which assumes that audiences won't like new music, and that it's not valued by the BBC." So the BBC has done so much for new music, yet the BBC does not value new music. *Hard to understand what the author was thinking*.


The BBC is a very large and diverse broadcasting organisation, ergo the priorities of each channel are (and should be) different - as an example, Radio 3 makes no reference to sport whatsoever in its programmes (and even its news) whereas the news channel plays no classicla music. BBC Radio 3 and the TV channel BBC4 operate under the auspices of the BBC but have different priorities - The Guardian author presumably anticipates that the readers of this UK based newspaper would be aware of this?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> What's considered new music at the Proms? Prokofiev? :lol:


A cheap dig, Sir!

Yes, there *could* be more 'modern' music in the Proms (and on Radio 3) but one could also argue that there could be more 'early' music too. All things considered, I think they *do* achieve a reasonable balance


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Headphone Hermit said:


> The BBC is a very large and diverse broadcasting organisation, ergo the priorities of each channel are (and should be) different - as an example, Radio 3 makes no reference to sport whatsoever in its programmes (and even its news) whereas the news channel plays no classicla music. BBC Radio 3 and the TV channel BBC4 operate under the auspices of the BBC but have different priorities - The Guardian author presumably anticipates that the readers of this UK based newspaper would be aware of this?


I suppose that could be, and maybe British readers would find nothing odd about that paragraph. I still would think the author could have used different wording than simply BBC to make such strongly opposing statements. Still, the general point is clear.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I assume more people watch the TV BBC than hear the radio, but I don't know. If the TV station has a broader audience, then it seems the producers might believe that radio listeners are more hardcore classical music fans on average than the TV listeners. The modern works would create more problems for the TV audience, and hence, the producers would drop the modern music from the TV but not the radio.


BBC Radio 3 broadcasts 24 hours a day (although not exclusively 'classical' - there are a few hours for jazz, folk, 'world' music etc). BBC4 broadcasts less than 12 hours a day, predominantly NOT music of any kind. Hence the radio channel has loads, loads more space and time for 'new' music than the TV channel does.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> BBC Radio 3 broadcasts 24 hours a day (although not exclusively 'classical' - there are a few hours for jazz, folk, 'world' music etc). BBC4 broadcasts less than 12 hours a day, predominantly NOT music of any kind. Hence the radio channel has loads, loads more space and time for 'new' music than the TV channel does.


Yes, and 3 classical music concerts per week during Proms season is 3 more than you usually get any other time of year. It's a shame they're truncated, but I think this is a glass half-full/half-empty kind of situation.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

Ridiculous, the BBC shying away from the avant garde. I may not like modern orchestral music but there are many that do!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Television executives can try whatever they want, but they're not going to save themselves. Last time I watched any television was when I inadvertently entered a pub during a World Cup match.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> My local FM classical station, WFMT (now available via streaming world wide) never shied away from contemporary, let alone edit the program of a live or recorded symphony broadcast, but it is a radio station.
> 
> It seems this is relatively the same in the UK, although it could be argued that _with the additional gloss of being able to watch the performers, the modern / contemporary might hold interest more than it would if presented as audio alone [radio]._ Since the opposite seems to be the case, are then television viewers innately that much more conservative than those who listen to radio? Or is that just the television producers and directors?





mmsbls said:


> *I assume more people watch the TV BBC than hear the radio*, but I don't know. If the TV station has a broader audience, then it seems the producers might believe that radio listeners are more hardcore classical music fans on average than the TV listeners. The modern works would create more problems for the TV audience, and hence, the producers would drop the modern music from the TV but not the radio.


BBC Radio 3 is a station devoted since its inception in 1967 to art music - until fairly recently (1998), classical music exclusively, as well as "some element in the evening of cultural speech programmes - poetry, plays and talks by scientists, philosophers and historians". As HH notes, its remit is wider now. The BBC would broadcast contemporary music from the Proms on R3 anticipating that it would find an appreciative audience there.

BBC 4 is an 'upmarket' digital TV station of recent origin which devotes itself to current affairs, documentary, drama, international film and it has regular music programming on a Friday evening, most of it Rock and vintage Pop, and none of it classical. I imagine the decision reflects the BBC's view of the TV channel's different cultural 'position' and supposed audience.

Listening / watching figures:

BBC R3 - 1 884 000 listeners / week (4% population reach)
BBC 4 - 1% of UK TV audience


----------



## circulus (Jul 1, 2014)

hpowders said:


> What's considered new music at the Proms? Prokofiev?


But I thought they've played a lot of modern stuff -- a couple years ago I remember them doing Zappa and Nancarrow.

And they did Unsuk Chin just this week! Wish I were in England...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

"If people actually listened..." But of course radio programmers have to deal with people as they are, not as you or I wish they might be. "Madge, what is that stuff they're playing? Switch on the TV, would you?"

Given that the radio broadcasts are airing Birtwistle and Schoenberg and Adams and all of the other horrifying "noise" that the Proms throw at audiences who seem to enjoy it, this isn't the issue here

Whether for good or bad the arts today exist and must survive within a market system based upon popularity. Broadcasting classical music already proves a challenge considering the limited market. Broadcasting Schoenberg, Xenakis, Berg, or Milton Babbitt is certain to prove even less financially viable... whether you or I or 4 of our friends go in for that sort of thing.

Honestly I have rarely heard Schoenberg or Adams on the radio... and Birtwistle? Never. Yes they have an audience... but how big? Is this audience at all capable of supporting the costs of TV broadcast? I am lucky to have a classical radio station here that has established an endowment and gone non-for-profit to ensure their continued survival. They do play a variety of music... including live performances from the Metropolitan Opera, the Detroit Symphony, and the Cleveland Orchestra which frequently programs Modernist and contemporary work. They also have a program entitled "Not the Dead White Male Composer's Hour" where they explore contemporary music. This is recognized as a niche market... not unlike the audience for organ music ("Pipe Dreams") and Broadway Musicals that are also given a small weekly slot.

Unfortunately, we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't insist on a democratic form of government... yet expect that this will not apply to the arts as well.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

But, as I pointed out in my post before yours, and as is stated in the article, and as I've tried to correct you on about four or five times now,

THE MUSIC IS BEING AIRED ON THE RADIO

What is the cost to broadcast upon the radio vs upon TV?


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

circulus said:


> But I thought they've played a lot of modern stuff -- a couple years ago I remember them doing Zappa and Nancarrow.
> 
> And they did Unsuk Chin just this week! Wish I were in England...


Zappa is hardly modern. He's been dead years! Try Gorecki or Birtwistle.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

People are forgetting that the BBC, which is what we're discussing, is not independently financed, it's public broadcasting financed through TV licensing, they don't lose any money if people "tune out" because they're already being paid for by the general public. These arguments hold up for independent broadcasters, but the BBC can afford to take risks.

That may be true... but most Non-for-Profit arts institutions recognize that they must meet the expectations of wealthy patrons and corporate sponsors... as well as the masses... or they will likely see their funding pulled. Most big art museums, for example, continue to pander to a broader audience with exhibitions of not only Impressionism and Post-Impressionism (very popular) but also shows on the work of fashion designers, automobiles and motorcycles (the Guggenheim famously staged a show on Harley Davidson), theme shows dealing with celebrities (ie. art about or owned by Elvis, Marilyn, Liz Taylor, etc...).

Do we imagine that such complaints are new? Can you imagine Michelangelo complaining that he didn't want to paint or sculpt another damn work pandering to the church or Bach insisting he wasn't going to compose one more stupid cantata because what he really wanted to write was an atonal opera setting Petronius' _Satyricon_?

Of course, contrary to the OP's use of the term "censorship" we are largely free as artists to create as we wish without concern for the audience... there is simply no guarantee that we will have an audience.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

LarryShone said:


> Zappa is hardly modern. He's been dead years! Try Gorecki or Birtwistle.


It might be an idea to read some posts - informed opinion can be useful


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> What is the cost to broadcast upon the radio vs upon TV?


Given that they're filming already all of the concerts in full, and that certain of these are later to be broadcast (a special program dedicated to Birtwistle and Maxwell-Davies is noted in the link provided by the OP), I would imagine that the additional costs of airing the footage are not all that significant, especially when it only comes to three minutes.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Honestly I have rarely heard Schoenberg or Adams on the radio... and Birtwistle? Never.


The Boston Symphony is going to be playing Birtwistle this next season (alongside the complete Firebird score and a piece by Liadov), and the concert will be broadcast live. I'm planning on attending, though (being interested in the conductor Jurowski), so I won't hear it on the radio.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> an atonal opera setting Petronius' _Satyricon_?


This actually exists, it just isn't by Bach.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Fortunately, I had already swallowed my last sip of coffee when I read this. Aside from "people as they are" being, well, um.... How ARE they?, radio programmers do nothing of the sort, none of the ones I've had any dealings with, anyway. Radio programmers deal with guesses. Guesses and fears. Are these guesses and fears based on marketing research? Well, radio programmers would certainly like you to believe that.

Oh yes, of course. Radio Programmers and Station Owners are simply guessing. They're just taking a shot in the dark hoping that their guesses don't result in huge losses of revenue and advertisers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The entire argument seems moot when we have YouTube, Amazon.com, Spotify, streaming radio, etc... through which we can all listen to what we wish to hear.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> This actually exists, it just isn't by Bach.


Hey, somebody had to do it. Only goes to show just how hard it is to be original. Had Bach only tackled this project back in the mid-18th century just imagine how ahead of the curve he would have been. Hell, he might have actually made a mark on music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hey, somebody had to do it. Only goes to show just how hard it is to be original. Had Bach only tackled this project back in the mid-18th century just imagine how ahead of the curve he would have been. Hell, he might have actually made a mark on music.


Well, you know that Bach, never did much of anything worthwhile. A lazy idler, too!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

LarryShone said:


> Zappa is hardly modern.


Quite right, as he was born near the end of the modern period and worked during the ongoing "contemporary" period.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Are there far fewer World Premieres and/or UK Premieres at this year's Prom? In the last few Proms there's been at least a dozen each year, usually with the composers getting up to say a few words, but I haven't encountered listings for anywhere near as many for 2014.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

I would think that music of living UK composers like the ones listed would be of particular interest and featured on a Proms telecast. The producers could do one of those biographical character essays (like on sporting events) that help provide context and make an television audience care about some person they may have never heard of before.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

hpowders said:


> What's considered new music at the Proms? Prokofiev? :lol:


It probably is. I note that the Birtwistle piece they cut was something like 3 minutes in length. The reason is that inserting new (I mean really new) music into an orchestral concert is not easy. They are very expensive (the need to pay commission and / or royalties) and they chew up inordinate amounts of rehearsal time.

I think that Kevin Pearson provided a pretty realistic answer from a listener in middle ground position in his reply here.

I like new and newer classical music, however I realise that Kevin's is the majority position. Boulez, Cage and others where arguing basically for an ivory tower view of classical in the post-1945 era. We missed a golden opportunity then to reach out to the middle ground, look at commonalities rather than differences.

These days if you want to hear a substantive amount of new music live, your best chances would be either with an ensemble that is devoted to this area (eg. Ensemble Intercontemporain) or go to the music department at the nearest university.

The more radical types of new music has become ivory tower, more or less, but people shouldn't be complaining if that was allowed to happen due to various dividing lines that where put up long ago - and still it seems, haven't fully been taken down (or maybe its too late). Who didn't respect the audience in the middle ground in the first place, I ask? Who started getting militant when it was a time to reach out? Not comfortable questions to answer, even for those of us into new music to whatever extent, unfortunately.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

The classical audience is used to a mixed program bag. The article's writer may be overreacting, with such a small sample used for her tsunami. One incident, one work of three minutes. Where's the beef!?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Is it possible this has nothing to do with how the BBC perceive their audience and more to do with their contracts with living composers? That, say, radio broadcast is part of the standard Proms contract, but use on tv requires a separate contract and paying more than they can or more than they wish to?

edit; oh sorry, Sid touched on this already


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vaneyes said:


> The classical audience is used to a mixed program bag. The article's writer may be overreacting, with such a small sample used for her tsunami. One incident, one work of three minutes. Where's the beef!?


Also, I wonder what if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak. What if the work in question was by someone like Eric Whitacre? Or someone else along those lines.

All in all I would argue on principle not to cut the program, however the reality is that not many things in music go simply on principle. Realpolitik, the 'on the ground' or 'at the coalface' sort of stuff so often intervenes. No big deal, and contemporary composers (including Boulez, but also Reich) have admitted in recent decades that its not always possible, feasible or even desirable to put in such works in a standard orchestral program.

There's three big reactions to being given a snippet of the avant-garde in between your standard 'old' stuff at a regular concert:

1. Take it, classical music includes new music, its necessary to keep the art alive (whether I like it or not may be another issue - the principle thing).

2. Take it, but secretly think 'I'm waiting for my Beethoven symphony after interval.'

3. Totally reject it.

I for one don't like the old 'thorn between two roses' method of concert programming. Eg. two established repertoire works sandwiching a new/newer work. Maybe its better for the new work to open the gig, as a kind of short entree type thing, grab the audience's attention with its novelty. But programming is tricky, the best concerts that have mixed old and new that I've went to tended to do it with regard to linking the various pieces on the bill. Its a bit like good museum curatorship - putting the right paintings next to eachother on a wall, in a room, as part of an exhibition with some theme. That's what I think is crucial - links between things, not just the old and failed decontextualised methods.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If you program a new piece first, some audience members will simply come late. Best to schedule it second, just after something popular-say Beethoven's 5th Symphony-and just before intermission.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Whats funny is I actually heard this Prom on the radio yesterday without realizing it was the one being discussed here. And the Birtwistle piece was by far the gentlest, least challenging, of the four works.

Plus, another Prom I heard on the radio a few days ago had Berio's Sinfonia, ferchrissakes, and if they're willing to play that on tv then all the floodgates are open, and there really must be some other reason for not airing Birtwistle.


----------

