Skip to main content

It's Radio 1, but not as we know it

These days, as I drive the daughters around in taxi mode (6 hours in the car last Friday), I tend to hear quite a lot of Radio 1. As I've commented before, they have unfortunately stocked the channel with DJs who think that they are the reason people listen, rather than the music, so said daughters are always flipping away from Radio 1 to find music, rather than be bored by inane chatter.

So, in the spirit of the Big Society, I would like to offer my re-designed Radio 1. The BBC are welcome to follow my grand plan, and I give it freely to them. I believe it will make the station much better for its target audience, and will fulfil the BBC's requirement to not just be another broadcaster, but to be a unique public service broadcaster. It will also save them a lot of money - millions of pounds per year.
  1. Get rid of all DJs who don't play at least 15 records an hour. Replace with new, cheap, hungry DJs.
  2. Don't play any music from bands who are already signed to a record label. The commercial stations can give them all the airplay they need.
  3. Put a lot of person time into going through CDs that have been sent in by new bands. Play all of these that are good.
  4. Don't play anything that has been anywhere near Simon Cowell.
But, you cry, won't Radio 1 lose listeners? Yes, it probably will lose some. But it will be serving its target audience much better, and it will save millions. I'm not saying they should play any old rubbish - only the good records they get sent - but I believe there would be plenty there to keep them going, and the effect on the music scene would be transformative.

What about it BBC? Have you got the bottle?
Labels:

Comments

  1. Peet6 December 2010 at 09:09

    6 hours listening to Radio 1 or music in the Radio 1 mold!

    Eeek, sounds like hell on Earth to me - it's your car, and your time, perhaps you should slip in a CD of the Feynman Lectures on Physics Brian?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kulture6 December 2010 at 12:42

    RIP John Peel.. if only all radio presenters followed in his footsteps.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg6 December 2010 at 14:45

    Absolutely - he was superb.

    ReplyDelete
  4. cromercrox6 December 2010 at 22:18

    Two words - needle time. The problem is that talk is cheap, and playin music is expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Clegg8 December 2010 at 09:37

    Is it really cheaper to employ Chris Moyles for however many millions than to pay to play tracks? I thought basic PRS/MCPS was pretty low...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more