Do we really need (or want) "Canada Live" on CBC Radio 1?

Many of us are Radio 2 refugees. What is a “Radio 2 refugee”, you might ask? Well, I’ll tell you. It is a former listener of Radio 2 who has had to turn to other radio stations for their daily classical music fix.

I discussed alternatives to CBC Radio 2 in other posts. I did not mention in those posts, however, my almost traitorous decision to start listening to CBC Radio 1. Yes, I am a recidivist CBC radio listener.

I listen to CBC Radio 1 in the car, while working in my basement workshop, while painting walls. Any place where I require radio entertainment.

Yet I notice recently that the boys and girls in short pants that ruined Radio 2 seem to be trying to work their magic on Radio 1. What, specifically, am I referring to? Funny you should ask. It’s “Canada Live”.

“Canada Live” was first introduced on Radio 2 to replace “In Performance”, if I recall correctly, in 2007. Who was the bright light at the CBC who decided that what Canadians really, really wanted was to listen to mediocre performers performing across Canada, live and in performance? Well, not live, really. Recorded. But they were live when performing. We think.

Now the CBC, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that what CBC Radio 1 listeners really, really, REALLY want is to listen to mediocre performers performing … well, you know what I’m going to say next. Yes, CBC Radio 1 now has “Canada Live” on its schedule at 2:00 PM on Friday afternoons. Why? Why, I ask? Did I ask for this? Did you ask for this? Wouldn’t you really rather have another segment of “Ideas”? Or, God forbid, at least another episode of “Rewind”? But no. You have to listen to “Canada Live”. And if you’re not willing to listen to it on CBC Radio 2, well then, by God, you will damn well listen to it on Radio 1!

An anniversary to remember.

An anniversary for the CBC passed recently and I didn't mention it in this blog. What anniversary was that, you might ask? Why, it was the second anniversary of Phase I of CBC Radio Two's disastrous attempts at restructuring its programming, which began March 19, 2007.

Of course, we didn't know at the time that it was simply Phase I of a larger program. No, the CBC Radio Two listening audience merely thought it was an ill-advised restructuring of the evening programming - the cancellation of the "World at Six" news broadcast, the replacement of "Music for a while" with the much-reviled "Tonic", the replacement of "In Performance" with the cretinous "Canada Live", the cancellation of "Two New Hours" and the introduction of the crapulent "The Signal" and the cancellation of "Brave New Waves" and "Northern Lights". Oh, and I forgot to mention: the cancellation of the "The Arts Report" and Joe Cummings during the "Music and Company" morning broadcasts. Well, I suppose it was unfair that the evening schedule should bear the brunt of the restructuring.

Following Phase I of the CBC restructuring was Phase II - the cancellation of "Symphony Hall", "The Singer and the Song" and the removal of Howard Dyck from "Saturday Afternoon at the Opera". And, following swiftly on the heels of Phase II like a rabid dog chasing a postie came Phase III, the cancellation of "Here's to You", "Studio Sparks" and "Sound Advice", and the replacement of "Disc Drive" with "Radio 2 Drive" and "Music and Company" with "Radio 2 Morning". The announcement of Phase III, of course, resulted in a storm of protest, letters written to the editors of newspapers, protests in the streets on April 11, 2008, the creation of Facebook groups in protest and much general hand-wringing. But it all came to naught. The CBC continued on its merry way in spite of the protests of its listeners.

Two years have passed since the beginning of Phase I and the CBC is very much in the news lately. Last week the CBC announced program cancellations and staff reductions in response to a budget shortfall, blamed by CBC management on the loss of revenues from television advertising during this global recession. The CBC has even announced that they may have to resort to asset sales - the sale of buildings owned by the CBC - to meet their budget. Of course, global recession aside, the lack of funding increases for the CBC over the past several years and the Conservative government's refusal to provide additional funding to the CBC during this time of crisis can also be blamed for the current mess the CBC finds itself in.

But who is really to blame for the crisis at the CBC? Greedy mortgage lenders, bankers and insurance companies who precipitated the global financial crises leading to the current recession and the resulting loss of advertising revenue? Sub-prime borrowers who borrowed too much money to buy houses they couldn't afford and whose subsequent defaults on their mortgages lead to the uncertain value of the asset-backed commercial paper that the banks invested in? Alan Greenspan, for lowering interest rates in 2001, only to initiate a program of interest rate increases in recent years leading to sub-prime borrowers being unable to meet their mortgage payments when their adjustable-rate mortgages reset to a higher interest rate? Canadian voters for electing governments who failed to increase funding for the CBC over the past several years? Or perhaps CBC management, for failing to adequately manage their working capital such that they could withstand a recession?

I suspect that the answer is, to some degree, all of the above. But there is another aspect to consider.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine that a right-wing government is in power, a government which does not believe in the need for a public broadcaster and which does not have the moral courage to propose the dismantling of the public broadcaster, but instead prefers to let the public broadcaster wither and die through lack of funding. Suppose too that the public broadcaster, in a misguided attempt to make itself more relevant, has gutted its programming, replacing a classical music schedule with a hodge-podge of contemporary, bland music, thereby alienating its core audience to the extent that that core audience feels compelled to protest the public broadcaster's actions to their Members of Parliament, to the Minister of Heritage, to the national newspapers, to the public broadcaster's Board of Governors - in short, to anyone who will listen. The right-wing government, seeing the public dissatisfaction with the public broadcaster, views this as a green light to continue their program of starving the public broadcaster in order to eventually abolish the public broadcaster through attrition. Suppose that the public broadcaster's once-loyal audience, who would have previously protested job layoffs, program cancellations and regional station closings and may have attempted to counter the right-wing government's attempts to kill the public broadcaster just can't be bothered anymore because they feel they have been betrayed by the public broadcaster and are no longer willing to stand up for the public broadcaster. Would the public broadcaster find itself in a state similar to the state that the CBC currently finds itself in? Perhaps. Could the public broadcaster be blamed for not only giving the right-wing government the ammunition with which to shoot it, but also giving it the gun and instructions on how to use it? Most certainly. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. What goes around, comes around. Insert your favourite aphorism here.

Of course we're all losers in this scenario, especially those CBC employees still working at the CBC, the CBC employees who have taken early retirement, either forced or in disgust at recent actions of CBC management, as well as the laid-off CBC employees who are all entirely blameless for the misguided actions of CBC management during the last two years. Oh, but I almost forgot, there are some winners. Namely, those members of CBC management who will still receive their bonuses for 2008.

My summary of the CHPC meeting with CBC execs held May 1 2008

Mr. Hubert Lacroix, President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada, Mr. Richard Stursberg, Executive Vice-President, English Services and Mr. Sylvain Lafrance, Executive Vide-President, French Services, appeared before the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on May 1 2008.

I was not able to attend the meeting but instead watched the video of the meeting on the Parliament video site here.

I’ve attempted to summarize those portions of the meeting relevant to the changes in the CBC Radio Two programming that have taken place over the past year and those changes that have been announced for September. I have based this summary on the notes that I took while watching the video since I do not have access to a transcript of the meeting; consequently, any errors or omissions are mine alone. If you know where a transcript of the proceedings can be found, please let me know.

During his opening remarks, Mr. Schellenberger reminded the committee members that questions that overstepped the bounds of the committee’s mandate according to the Broadcasting Act, or that threatened the CBC’s operational independence, were out of order and would not be considered.

I find it interesting that Mr. Schellenberger felt it necessary to make this remark. The Broadcasting Act clearly states:

40. The Corporation is ultimately accountable, through the Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.

So, if Members of Parliament are not allowed to question CBC Executives concerning decisions that are relevant to “the conduct of its affairs”, then who is? Who is to oversee the CBC, if not the elected representatives of the taxpayers, namely, the Members of Parliament?

Fortunately, the Members of Parliament ignored the instruction of the Chairman and proceeded to ask questions concerning recent operational decisions of the CBC.

Mr. Hubert Lacroix then made an opening statement, during which he commented on the Committee’s recent report and the proposed MOU between the government (I assume) and the Corporation. Mr. Lacroix also stated that during the four months that he has held the position of CEO he has met with employees and “stakeholders that work in broadcasting” across the country. It is interesting, however, that at no point in his opening remarks did Mr. Lacroix state that he had met with Radio Two listeners to attempt to understand their concerns, even though there have been protests concerning the Radio Two programming changes taking place for the past year, and certainly within the last month. Are the CBC listeners not important to the conduct of the Corporation?

Mr. Lacroix also stated that in the four months since he has become CEO the CBC has focused on three priorities: its people, its programs and its push to move forward with its strategic initiatives. Once again, conspicuous by its absence is any mention of serving the needs of listeners. Where are the CBC Radio listeners in Mr. Lacroix’s priorities? Clearly not among the top three.

Mr. Lacroix also alluded to the recent protests by the CBC Radio Two listeners on April 11, stating that not all listeners are satisfied with change. However, Mr. Lacroix stated, CBC management will not shy away from making hard changes. What does this mean, precisely? Even if the majority of CBC Radio Two listeners are not in favour of the programming changes, CBC Radio executives are determined to push their changes through? Where will it end? Until there are no listeners left?

During the questions from the committee members that followed, Mr. Bill Siksay, Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas, questioned the CBC executives about the recent changes that have been made to classical programming on Radio Two. Mr. Siksay reminded the executives that in many rural areas there are no alternatives to CBC Radio as very few commercial radio stations feature classical music. Mr. Siksay asked the CBC executives why listeners were being abandoned, especially in Vancouver, where listeners have been loyal to Radio Two?

Mr. Lacroix replied that the recent changes to the Radio Two programming are intended to make Radio Two the greatest showcase of Canadian music in the country and to expose listeners to other genres. Mr. Lacroix also reiterated the point that classical music will remain the most important genre on CBC Radio Two. Furthermore, Mr. Lacroix stated, in September the CBC will begin a streaming audio service on the internet to “stream classical music 24/7”.

This seems to be the crux of the CBC’s argument. (I find it interesting that the CBC executives have not felt the need to promote this viewpoint with Canadians prior to making the programming changes, but instead believe it’s acceptable to make the changes first, then explain their rationale. But this is another topic for discussion later.) Their argument, as I understand it, goes like this: the CBC is Canada’s public broadcaster. Therefore, it is the CBC’s mandate to promote Canadian artists, from every musical genre and every ethnic group represented in Canada. If this means that CBC Radio Two becomes a hodge-podge of music, everything from country music to jazz to pop to classical, so be it. It’s all in the name of cultural diversity! So what if no one actually listens to it!

The problem with this, of course, is that there is no focus on the listener. What does the listener want to hear? There is no focus on the quality of the music. Is it of sufficient quality to be played on Canada’s national broadcasting service? There is no focus on educating the listener. Is the music being featured on Radio Two accepted as being one of the great performances that deserves to be heard?

What if this approach to content was taken by, for example, the National Gallery of Canada? Suppose the National Gallery decided to focus primarily on Canadian artists, rather than considering the merits of the art? Would Canada be better served by being exposed to more Canadian art, albeit at the expense of other works of art from other countries, including the great masterpieces from Europe from previous centuries? Would this not be considered a somewhat provincial attitude?

What if this approach to content was taken by public libraries? What if public libraries in Canada decided to feature Canadian writers, at the expense of other authors from other countries. Would Canadians be better served by having access to more Canadian authors, even if best-sellers from other countries or the classic literature from other countries and other eras was not available, or was still available but not as widely?

Mr. Ed Fast, Member of Parliament from Abbotsford, pointed out that four of the finalists from the “Canadian Idol” competition had backgrounds in classical and choral music. Mr Fast also expressed concern that, as CBC scales back on classical music, fewer Canadians would develop an appreciation for classical music. Mr. Fast asked the CBC executives how they would measure the impact of their decision to reduce classical music on CBC Radio Two.

Mr. Lacroix reiterated his statement that Radio Two would become a showcase for Canadian talent in other genres and that “classical is not going away” on Radio Two, merely sharing the airwaves to better reflect other genres.

Mr. Fast then asked whether the same goal could not have been achieved by establishing another FM channel, leaving Radio Two as a mostly classical channel. Mr. Fast asked whether other options were considered and what consultation took place before these changes were implemented.

Mr. Stursberg stated that studies and consultations took place over the three previous years and that these consultations were the “most far-reaching” in the history of the CBC. Mr. Stursberg also reiterated the point that access to classical music would continue on Radio Two and that a new classical channel would be featured on the internet. Mr. Stursberg also pointed out that 30,000 pieces of music are released in Canada each year, yet only 240 pieces are played on radio. Mr. Stursberg stated that there is a “vast commercial landscape that is not heard” and that the shift in strategy on Radio Two was not meant to denigrate classical music, but instead intended to expose Canadians to music that they have had little access to in the past.

Well, this is all very interesting. If studies and consultations had taken place in the three years prior to the programming changes being implemented, don’t you think your or I (as loyal Radio Two listeners) would have heard about it? Don’t you think there would have been discussions on the CBC web site, on CBC Radio Two itself, in newspaper articles, in town hall meetings, on phone-in shows (on “Cross-country Check-up” perhaps) ? Instead, the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming that were introduced on March 19, 2007, were sprung upon an unsuspecting listening audience with little or no warning. This constitutes the “most far-reaching” consultation in the history of the CBC? What does the CBC do when it want to surprise someone?

As for the statement that there are 30,000 pieces of music released each year yet only 240 get commercial airplay, well, perhaps there is a good reason that only 240 get commercial airplay (if indeed these statistics are true, I have no way of knowing). Could it be that only 240 deserve to be heard? Is Radio Two to become a dumping ground for Canadian content that no one else wants?

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia, Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis, stated that he has noticed the change in mix on Radio Two and that if one is looking for classical music, it is getting to the point that “Radio Two is not the place to go” as it is becoming “hit and miss – lounge music, then jazz”. Mr Scarpaleggia also suggest that if the music mix becomes too broad, then in major markets it will get to the point that listeners will disengage from Radio Two and CBC Radio Two’s audience share will fall. Those who want to hear pop music will go to commercial radio. Mr. Scarpaleggia wondered: what will happen if the CBC executives appear before this committee in the future, after CBC Radio’s market share has fallen to one percent (from the current three percent)?

Mr. Lacroix replied that CBC Radio is attempting to replicate the depth and analysis currently devoted to classical music in other genres and that classical music will remain in the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot. CBC Radio Two listeners will still know where to go to hear classical music. Mr. Lacroix stated that he would be disappointed if Radio Two listeners moved to other channels and did not “open up to other genres”.

Mr. Scarpaleggia replied that the CBC Radio Two listener may not be able to listen to CBC Radio Two during the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM timeslot and may want to hear classical in his or her car, or on the kitchen radio. In that case, will the CBC Radio Two listener be lost forever? (The answer to that question is yes, of course the listener will be lost forever. But I realize it was a rhetorical question.) Mr. Scarpaleggia asked if the CBC would create another radio station, if it had sufficient funding.

Mr. Stursberg stated that the CBC could not afford to build another FM radio network. Mr. Stursberg also stated that, as a result of market research, it was becoming clearer that the CBC Radio Two audience was becoming older. It was also clear that the prevailing view that the audience would “grow into Radio Two” was not taking place. Radio listeners in their 40s and 50s were not moving to Radio Two. Therefore, Mr. Stursberg stated, Radio Two would have to be repositioned and, by doing so, would serve the Canadian music industry better. Mr. Stursberg also stated, surprisingly, that he was “not too worried about losing the audience”.

Mr. Michal Chong, Member of Parliament for Wellington-Halton Hills, made several points concerning Radio Two. Mr. Chong compared CBC Radio Two’s decision to revamp its programming to Coca-Cola’s decision to introduce “New Coke” in 1985, stating that the CBC was alienating its core audience. Mr. Chong asked why, if the CBC was interested in showcasing new artists, they were putting new artists on FM radio instead of on the internet. Mr. Chong pointed out that FM listeners tend to be an older demographic, whereas younger listeners tend to listen on-line more often. Mr. Chong also suggested that if the CBC wanted to showcase diversity, a third FM band would be required as is commonly the case with public broadcasters in Europe.

Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC executives had any market share data available to judge the success of their programming changes. Clearly, the subject of the discussion had been the changes to CBC Radio Two, yet Mr. Stursberg persisted in trumpeting the audience share of CBC Radio One and CBC Television before finally stating, with an apparent straight face, that no erosion had been seen in the Radio Two audience, and none was expected!

Mr. Siksay asked whether audience erosion had not occurred in Vancouver and Mr. Stursberg replied that it had not. Mr. Stursberg also stated that the CBC would not have a clear sense of the CBC’s market share “until the beginning of next year”, after the new programming had been launched in September.

Mr. Siksay then asked: when did the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming begin? Mr. Stursberg, showing himself to be a master of the understatement, replied that some “small changes” had been made in the past year.

Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC did not survey its audience to determine the reaction to these changes and Mr. Stursberg replied that the CBC does not survey its audience, relying instead on the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Mr. Stursberg reiterated the point that the CBC has not seen any erosion in market share.

I find Mr. Stursberg’s remarks preposterous. Of course the CBC executives have access to market share data and of course they can assess the impact of the changes in the programming on CBC Radio Two’s market share! They have a full year’s worth of data to assess, from the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot, when “Music for Awhile” and “In Performance” were replaced by the crapulent “Tonic” and even the more crapulent “Canada Live”. Unfortunately, members of the public do not have access to this data. While it is true that the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) provides access to its "Top Line Radio Reports" here, the fact is that this data covers the time period from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM Monday to Sunday as one single value - hardly granular enough for a member of the public to determine if, for example, CBC Radio Two has lost listeners in the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot during weekdays. One would expect that if the effects on audience share of the move away from classical music would have been felt, it would be in this timeslot. And, the fact is, the BBM have compiled a full years' worth of data for the CBD to analyze - and the CBC, as a subscriber to their service, receives data that is much more specific than available to the general public. If the changes in CBC Radio Two’s evening schedule, first launched on March 19 2007, were such a smashing success, as the CBC executives would have us believe, doesn’t it make sense that the CBC executives would be willing to highlight this success? Or perhaps this experiment has not been so successful after all, and the CBC executives are unwilling to admit this?

After further questioning the meeting was adjourned, and Mr. Schellenberger thanked the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

I find all of this quite astonishing. After a year of programming changes we finally hear, in a public forum, CBC Radio management’s rationale for the changes that have been taking place on Radio Two. If you were the executive of a large corporation planning to implement an unprecedented change in your product, wouldn’t you prepare your customers carefully for such a change? Wouldn’t you advertise this change well in advance, preparing your customer for the change so that, when it did happen, the customer would be prepared for it and perhaps even be looking forward to it? And, before making such a change in your product, wouldn’t you survey your customer base to make sure that your customers were receptive to such changes?

Nothing of the sort has happened in this case. Instead, CBC Radio has attempted to force these programming changes down the throat of their audience and, what is worse, appear to be completely oblivious to the impact that it has had on their audience. They are not willing to change their course and it appears that there is no government body that is willing or able to make them change their course.

What is the Canadian taxpayer to do when a Crown corporation begins to run amok?

A reply from the Minister of Heritage, the Hon. Bev Oda

Readers of this blog may recall that I sent a letter (as well as an e-mail) to the Minister of Heritage, Ms. Bev Oda, on May 17 2007. You may read the original letter in my May 17 blog entry. Ms. Oda's office was kind enough to reply to my e-mail on May 24, stating that they had received my e-mail and would follow up with a more detailed response.

I received the following response on July 20 2007 from Ms. Bev Oda's office:

Dear Mr. Wooten:

Thank you for your correspondence of May 17, 2007, regarding Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) radio programming.

I appreciate your advising me of your views on this matter and have carefully noted your comments. While the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for overall broadcasting policy and legislation, the CBC operates independently of the Government under a framework provided in the Broadcasting Act. As an autonomous Crown corporation, its Board of Directors and senior management are responsible for its day-to-day operations, including its radio programming. In view of the autonomy of the CBC, you might wish to share your views directly with Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, its President and Chief Executive Officer, at the address provided in the enclosure.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is responsible for the licensing, regulation and supervision of all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system. The CRTC was established by Parliament under the Broadcasting Act as an autonomous body that operates independently of the Government and is responsible for its own day-to-day operations and decisions. The CRTC maintains a record of complaints against licensees and takes these into consideration when broadcasters apply for renewal of their licences. In view of the autonomy of the CRTC, you might wish to share your concerns on this matter directly with Mr. Robert A. Morin, its Secretary General, at the address provided in the enclosure.

I trust that this information is useful. Please accept my best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Bev Oda, P.C., M.P.

Enclosure

ANNEX

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch
President and Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Post Office Box 3220, Station C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1Y 1E4
Telephone: 613-288-6000
Electronic mail: commho@ottawa.cbc.ca
Web site: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Mr. Robert A. Morin
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Telephone: 819-997-0313
Toll-free: 1-877-249-2782
Facsimile: 819-994-0218
Electronic Mail: info@crtc.x400.gc.ca
Web site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

Now, this how I believe a Member of Parliament or Minister's office should operate: they acknowledge your letter and follow with a reply within a reasonable period of time. Well done, Ms. Oda! This is in contrast to some of the other letters that I have sent; for example, the letter to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, the letter to Ms. Jane Chalmers or the letters to several Members of Parliament on the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where I received no replies or acknowledgements at all. To give full credit where credit is due, Ms. Jennifer McGuire and Mr. Gary Schellenberger's office also responded to my letters. You may see Ms. McGuire's response in my June 21 blog entry, and my subsequent reply in my June 29 blog entry. My reply to Mr. Gary Schellenberger's response is in my May 15 blog entry.

As for the content of the reply, to tell the truth this is about what I expected to receive. I didn't really expect Ms. Oda to march into the offices of CBC Radio and demand that they alter their behaviour and begin to consult Canadians more often when making programming changes. As Ms. Oda states (or, more correctly I assume, someone in her office) CBC management is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the corporation and operates independently of the government. The reason that I wrote this letter to Ms. Oda's office (and I encourage you to do the same) is so that members of the government will know just how unhappy CBC Radio Two listeners are with CBC Radio management. Perhaps this information will prove useful to the Members of Parliament at some point in the future.

I encourage everyone reading this blog to use the above addresses and write your own letters of protest concerning the changes to CBC Radio Two's programming to Mr. Robert Rabinovitch and Mr. Robert Morin.

A new web site protesting the CBC Radio Two programming changes

There is a new web site that has been created to serve as a forum for those CBC Radio Two listeners who are concerned about the programming changes that have taken place on CBC Radio Two. The link to the web site is listed under "Links" on the right hand side of this page and is also here. I encourage all of you to visit this site and make your opinions known!

The authors of this web site have begun a petition to protest these changes, and I have to admit their petition is more successful than my own - 242 signatures as of the time I write this! You can find a link to it under "Links" on the right, and also here.

New Classical Program on Sunday Afternoons on CBC Radio Two!

The "official" CBC Blog has announced a new program of classical music on Sunday afternoons.

The blog entry announces:

"Classical lovers, rejoice! CBC Radio 2 is going to air at Sunday-afternoon show featuring high-quality classical performances.

The Sunday show, to run from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., is as yet unnamed, but will feature classical performances from the best Canadian and international symphonies and chamber orchestras.

CBC Radio program director Jennifer McGuire said the goal is to grow younger audiences by drawing them into classical listening with better-quality and more contemporary works."

The description of this new show - "classical performances from the best Canadian and international symphonies and chamber orchestras" - sounds promising, but I'll wait until I hear the first broadcast before passing judgement.

Having said that, I really have to wonder just what is going on at CBC Radio. When the new evening schedule was launched (replacing "Music for Awhile" with "Tonic" and "In Performance" with "Canada Live") the rationale given at the time was that CBC Radio Two was trying to appeal to a younger audience, and the new programming - jazz and live performances of more contemporary music - was supposed to do just that. Jennifer McGuire, CBC Radio's executive director of programming, is said in a March 19 2007 Globe and Mail article to have stated that "CBC Radio Two's target audience is between 35 and 49 years old, yet the majority of current listeners are over 50. So the network is looking to attract a relatively younger, although still adult audience." - implying that the classical programming previously broadcast appealed to the to over-50 set, while the new programming would appeal to the 35 - 49 year old age group.

And now we are told that "the goal is to grow younger audiences by drawing them into classical listening with better-quality and more contemporary works." On Sunday afternoon? After church, perhaps, while waiting for the Sunday dinner served at 5:00 PM? This is 2007 folks, not 1927! If CBC Radio really wanted to "grow younger audiences by drawing them into classical listening" what was wrong with the classical music that was featured on "Music for Awhile" and "In Performance"? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what is meant by "better-quality and more contemporary works".

There are two excellent comments made in response to this announcement by individuals who, from their comments, appear to be in precisely the age category (early twenties, I assume) that the CBC should be aiming for if they want to have a sustainable audience, and yet clearly both are unhappy with the programming changes that are taking place on CBC Radio Two. You can read their comments here. CBC Radio Two management, are you able to admit that you have made a mistake and return "Music for Awhile" and "In Performance" to the evening schedule of CBC Radio Two?

March 19, 2007 - a day that will live in infamy in the hearts of CBC Radio Two listeners

Well, this is it. The new evening programming begins on CBC Radio Two. On my drive home from work I tune in to CBC Radio Two at 6:00 PM. Two minutes of news, then Katie Malloch launches her new program, "Tonic". Now, I like Katie Malloch. I liked her program when it was on for an hour or two on Sunday evenings. I like jazz, late at night, driving home after an evening out, cool jazz playing as the street lights and darkened buildings flash by. But at 6:00 PM? Yes, I realize that there are jazz fans who like to listen to jazz at any time, day or night. As you will see from future postings on this blog, I do not mean to belittle or denigrate any musical genre or those who appreciate the music that has become the mainstay on CBC Radio Two in the evening. The point of this blog is that CBC Radio Two management has made wholesale changes to the evening schedule without consulting Canadians or providing any period for Canadians to comment on the proposed changes. What is more abhorrent, CBC Radio Two has not provided any means for CBC Radio Two listeners to comment on the changes in programming in a public forum where CBC Radio Two listeners can exchange opinions and comments, for all to see. This is the purpose of this blog - I hope to stimulate open discussion by CBC Radio Two listeners of the changes that have taken place. Future posts will document the letters I have written to CBC Radio management and the response I have received (or lack thereof), feedback I have posted on the CBC Radio Two web site, letters I have written to the House Standing Committee on Canadian Culture (which, incidentally, has initiated a study entitled "A full investigation of the role for a public broadcaster in the 21st century" - check out the Committee's link to the right). But I am getting ahead of myself. This post was only intended to describe that first week.

So, I continued to listen to Katie's program. I listened all the way home. I continued listening at home. Some of the music I enjoyed, some I did not. All in all, I would have preferred "Music for Awhile" and Danielle Charbonneau.

I listened to the new "Canada Live" at 8:00 PM. I tried to enjoy it - I really did! But I gave up after ten to twenty minutes and changed to Espace Musique - or perhaps it was "Couleur FM", 97.1 in the Ottawa/Gatineau region.

The rest of the week continued in the same vein. (I missed Tuesday's programming, attending Murray Perahia's performance at the National Arts Centre with my girlfriend - finally, a classical music fix in the evening!). But I diligently listened to CBC Radio Two for the rest of the week, trying to find some good in it all. Sad to say, I found very little.

Memorable concerts during that week included the "Black History Month" concert, the "Sicilian Jazz Project", "Corb Lund and the Hurtin' Albertans" (I'm not making this stuff up, check out the CBC Radio Two home page under "Concerts on Demand"). There may have been others - or in fact these may have taken place the next week - but my memories of that bitter time are, thankfully, beginning to fade.

Now, I have nothing against the performances listed above, the content of the performances or the performers who participated in them. I'm sure that the performances were excellent, the performers are dedicated musicians and that there is an audience for such performances. My point is that CBC Radio Two has abandoned its listeners with such drastic changes in programming. Imagine if "Hockey Night in Canada" had been replaced with "Ballet Night in Canada". What would be the reaction? There would be rioting in the streets, CBC management burned in effigy, letters written to the editor. Don Cherry would likely replace (by popular demand) Stephen Harper as the leader of the Conservative Party, run for Parliament in the next election, win a seat in the House and the election by a record margin, then restore some sense to CBC management and return Hockey Night in Canada to its rightful place in the CBC schedule. But classical music? Who cares? Who is being affected?

Well, oddly enough, quite a few people apparently. Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, referred in his March 22 2007 address to the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of "... a decade of almost continuous growth in audience share and loyalty". Is this how audience loyalty is rewarded?

The unfortunate thing is that many of the CBC Radio Two listeners are from the generations that are less likely to be computer literate or able to protest these changes. Will they start a blog? Will they go to the CBC Radio Two web site and provide feedback to CBC Radio Two? Will they write letters to CBC Radio management? Will they write to their Member of Parliament? Will they protest on Parliament Hill? Will they see this blog? Sadly, no. It is up to you, reader, to do these things for those who can not.

The warnings become clearer

The announcements on CBC Radio Two became more frequent as the bleak month of March wore on towards March 19 2007, initially just vague references to the new schedule, then more explicit announcements. "Music for Awhile" would be replaced by an evening program of jazz, beginning at 6:00 PM. The evening newscast, "The World at Six" from 6:00 - 6:30 PM, would be replaced by a short summary of the top news stories of the day. (And "short" means two to three minutes - how 's that for in-depth reporting of the day's top news stories?). "In Performance", which generally consisted of recorded performances of classical music performed by Canadian orchestras, would be replaced by "Canada Live", performances of a variety of musical genres in venues across Canada.

Wonderful, I thought. CBC Radio Two management has decided that the CBC Radio Two listener should adopt jazz as their preferred choice of music when driving home or preparing the evening meal. And apparently classical music after 8:00 PM is now out of favour - we should be listening to other genres. We should be widening our horizons, become more culturally diverse, learn to enjoy different types of music. Furthermore, apparently we do not need to be informed of the day's events when we are listening to CBC Radio Two - a three minute summary of the news at 6:00 PM is all we need. If we want more in-depth discussion of the day's news stories, we can always tune in to Radio One.

Minicult has issued a new directive, and we complacent Canadians must obey. War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Jazz is good!.

Early warnings of the impending disaster

It must have been sometime in late February or early March 2007 when, while listening to Danielle Charbonneau's "Music for Awhile" program on CBC Radio Two, I heard Ms. Charbonneau announce that there would be a new program replacing "Music for Awhile", beginning March 19 2007. My heart sank. I was afraid that I knew what was coming - more crapulent programming such as the Friday evening "Canada Live", or whatever it was called at the time. I immediately regretted that I had not expressed my dissatisfaction to CBC Radio Two management the previous year when the new Friday evening programming was launched - live performances of eclectic music from across Canada that could be of interest to only the comatose or taxi drivers. Latvian hip-hop, Bulgarian Blues, Polynesian operatic works - you name it, it was not too bizarre or of limited interest to the general CBC Radio Two listening audience to be featured on Friday evenings. I could only tolerate it for several seconds before changing to Espace Musique where good taste still prevailed.

What to do? Should I begin writing letters now? Telephone my Member of Parliament? Begin a protest march on Parliament Hill? No, being a calm, considerate, complacent Canadian, I thought I should at least give it a try. Wait for March 19. Listen to the new programming - after all, I naively thought, it might not be as bad as I imagined it could be. It might even be good! Thus proving that hope springs eternal.