To wrap up my series of posts about the midday classical music research undertaken by the Public Radio Program Directors Association, I conducted a Q&A by e-mail with Wes Horner. Horner has a long track record in arts and documentary programming for public radio. He started in the business as a producer at Boston’s WGBH, then went on to serve as executive producer of NPR’s Performance Today. He also worked in the same role for Smithsonian Productions, helped develop From the Top and is now involved with Five Farms, a series of radio documentaries about farming families in the U.S.
Horner wrote a commentary for Current newspaper last year in which he questioned the findings and implications of the Midday Classical Music Testing Project. I asked him to explain his views and to lay out the priorities classical public radio should be pursuing. Here’s our interview.
Scanning the Dial: What do you see as the shortcomings of the PRPD Midday Classical Music Testing Project?
Horner: Two issues:
(1) The conceit that you can make meaningful decisions about programming pre-recorded music on CD based on testing artificially excised samples, tested in an artificial environment, I believe is building a house of cards on a foundation of quicksand. Music is more complex than the study recognizes, as is real-life listening. The data aren’t very useful.
(2) Tinkering with the process of making the “right” selection of CD tracks in the hopes that we can energize music on radio is a deflection from where our energy and resources ought to be focused. Namely, how can public radio create music programming that shares the values of our successful news programs? We need to come to grips with the dissonance we’ve created between our music programming and our news/talk programming. And we ought to ask ourselves what the landscape would look like in music on public radio nationally if we invested money, developed production infrastructures, and cultivated talent on both sides of the microphone on a scale similar to that of news. Imagine — please — that the community of music makers and music lovers considered public radio their meeting place of engagement, as do newsmakers and news consumers.
Scanning the Dial: What do you think of the changes now taking place at stations applying the research, as one of my previous posts detailed?
Horner: Too soon to tell. It takes a longer test than a few books to realize any meaningful results from any programming changes. There’s nothing wrong with music programmers trying to be smarter about playing appropriate music at appropriate times of the day. But I don’t believe the PRPD study is the place to spend a lot of time looking for guidance. Is there value in paying attention to those choices? Yes. Should on-air staff continue to be coached in an ongoing effort to make classical music hosting more personable, less pretentious, and more focused on attracting excitement from a general audience which craves good information presented in an entertaining way? Absolutely. But this is work that nibbles around the edges of more fundamental issues.
My argument is that we need to look at a much bigger picture — fast — in order to insure that music on public radio evolves far beyond spinning CDs as our base.
Scanning the Dial: How else should programmers at classical stations decide what to play during midday?
Horner: The question presumes that we can insure a successful future by continuing to place all of our eggs in the CD-spinning basket. Others can — and are — providing that service: satellite radio, individuals who push the “random shuffle” button on their iPods, and most of all, Wi-Fi radio. We can do better, and we must, if we are to claim a position of value in listeners’ lives.
Programmers should be demanding music programs that are as well financed, as timely, and as well produced as our national news programs.
Scanning the Dial: What is the proper place of research in classical radio?
Horner: Research can be used in classical radio in the same way it is used in radio in general: Who’s listening? For how long?
However, it’s critical to remember that audience research is always looking backward. It tells you where you’ve been, like looking off the stern of the boat. It is not a map to the future, where there are a hundred unforeseeable variables, most of which are out of your control. And research is a very poor predictor of the results of innovation. To the contrary, research tends to reinforce an instinct to avoid innovation and instead to mimic existing paradigms. Ask our colleagues in commercial television entertainment. I place an equal or greater trust in creativity and my gut response.
Further reading
- Horner’s commentary for Current (PDF)
- Five Farms, Horner’s current documentary project
- My previous posts about the midday classical research:
Photo of Horner by Rob Ludera
Subscribe Via Email
Enter your email address to subscribe to Scanning the Dial and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.