Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The future of JAM, as decreed by Nicholas Parsons

Expand Messages
  • Robert L. Torres
    It s no secret that I m not a big fan of the current chairman of Just a Minute. However there have been moments, very few mind you, where he has actually
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      It's no secret that I'm not a big fan of the current chairman of
      Just a Minute. However there have been moments, very few mind you,
      where he has actually proven to be quite good at what he does.

      I remember there was a discussion some time ago regarding the idea
      of a new chairman. I seem to recall a few people here and there
      that felt that the show would end with Nicholas retiring or dying.
      I feel that this is completely untrue to be honest, and here is
      proof that something like this is untrue from the words of the
      chairman himself, this was a portion of an introduction that
      Nicholas gave before an episode featuring Clement Freud, Lance
      Percival, Wendy Richard and Richard Murdoch, in relation to the
      recent passing of Kenneth Williams:

      "One of the most interesting aspects of this recording is that the
      participants included only one of the original players. We
      frequently had guests, but always three guests, which included
      Kenneth Williams, who was in nearly verey recording when he was
      alive. In fact his contribution was so memorable on occasions that
      when he died, the powers that be at Radio Four thought that the show
      could not survive without him. I remember discussing this with him,
      and pointed out that while Kenneth was brilliant in the show, the
      strength of the show didn't rest on one individual. It was the
      interplay between the players and the chairman, and the repartee
      that was generated, as well as the skill of speaking on the subject.
      Provided the show contained talented and witty performers who could
      also marshal their thoughts clearly, there would always be a
      programme. We would miss Kenneth, as indeed we still do. He was a
      unique performer. But with so much talent available we could survive
      without him. Fortunately common sense prevailed and more series were
      commissioned. And this recording proves the programme can still be
      entertaining and very funny provided there are always two
      experienced players of the game, and they are supported by talented
      and humorous performers."

      From Nicholas' own lips, he stated quite categorically that the
      show's strength does not lie with one individual.

      and it doesn't, no one person is more important than any other, it
      is essentially a team effort, its the interaction between panelists
      and the chairman, as well as their skills at the game and fluency in
      speaking on the subjects that matter the most.

      there are plenty of talented people out there, granted not all of
      them have what it takes to play Just a Minute. By the same token it
      may be hard for any of them to have what it takes to be chairman,
      from the few examples we've seen in the past that there are
      different people who have different approaches of course, but those
      shows are mostly done in the context of enhancing the comedy
      anyway. it shows that someone else can be chairman, but obviously
      you need just the right sort of person to be the right sort of
      chairman on JAM.

      I mean hey, Bob Barker himself realized he couldn't go on forever
      and is stepping down, and CBS wasn't about to pull the plug on 'The
      Price is Right' just because of that. Granted, its different
      because on the one hand you're talking about an actual game show
      where people win prizes and money, and on the other hand you've got
      a comedy panel show where the whole point is to generate humor.

      but the principle still applies, both are long running shows, both
      have had one person as host/chairman for a very long time, and there
      may come a point when Nicholas may have to step down, we all know
      this, it's a fact and an absolute certainty, Nicholas is not going
      to live forever.

      Even the seemingly immortal Desmond Llewelyn somehow knew he
      wouldn't be able to do the Bond movies forever and insisted on a
      character to be created as his replacement, which they did, and it
      proved to be rather poignant considering the poor man died in a car
      crash after he finished his last Bond film 'The World is Not
      Enough', even though there were plans for him to make a cameo
      appearance in 'Die Another Day'.

      anyway, this is not a slight against Nicholas at all, I know he has
      a great love for the show, as do I, as do many people. I would love
      the show to continue, I just feel that its a daft to say that people
      hope the show 'dies with Nicholas'. The show is bigger than Kenneth
      Williams, Derek Nimmo, Peter Jones, Clement Freud and Nicholas
      Parsons. Yes they have all set the groundwork for those who partake
      in the show now, but as individuals they are of no greater
      importance to show as a whole.
    • jeremy_keens
      Some thoughts that have been brewing and some comments. First, due to the generosity of people here I have been able to listen to JAMs from across the decades
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Some thoughts that have been brewing and some comments.

        First, due to the generosity of people here I have been able to listen
        to JAMs from across the decades and have started to get a feel for the
        moods of the show. I think one of the things that I lov about it is
        that the structure allows such freewheeling stories and banter.
        Listening to, say, My Word I am struck by how serious and slow that
        now seems; and having downloaded a few Sorry I haven't a clues it
        reminds me of the problem of a lot of catch-phrase comedy - JAM has
        some but they seem less frequent (examples - Paul's sandwich
        hesitations, Kenneth's explosions).

        This exposure has led me to seek and purchase a copy of Kenneth's
        diaries - he is still my favourite but I am warming rapidly to the
        (not so new now) young turks. As a JAMmy bugger I looked at the JAM
        and Parsons sections via the index first and saw KWs dismissal of Nick
        (he never seemed to have warmed to him) plus his own displeasure at
        some of his 'outbursts'.

        But that takes me onto Nick as chairman. I agree he isn't perfect - he
        plays favourites (often it seems in the context of a particular
        episode, but also over time) but tends to balance; he isn't consistent
        but then who could be over 40 years, as the rules have gatehred a
        wealthy of common-law interpretation (eg the early banning of
        repetition of the subject, which has morphed into you can repeat
        homphones of single words). On the whole I think he does a good job,
        and is a surprisingly good listener noting repetitions that people
        have missed.

        However I think the B second letter of the alphabet C have created
        their own problem - yes no one panelist was irreplaceable because
        there is/was a pool of regulars and guests. There have been no
        chairman experiments for decades. The chair job is difficult - balance
        but also thinking about the flow or who is hot on a night, listening,
        taking the barbs, working the audience - and also has to have someone
        with a bit less of an ego: it is the panelists game.

        A question - are there any experience current players who you think
        could take on the mantle, and if not who else could. And lets hope the
        organisation I referred to before thinks about trying out some
        apprentices.

        On other points - again thanks for uploads I have listened to the
        latest and I was annoyed by Giles false pedantry - the plural of Midas
        would not have an apostrophe which seems to be what he was claiming
        (as in his reference to Parsons) and the bluster should have been
        pricked (a moment KW could have enlivened).



        --- In just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com, "Robert L. Torres"
        <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
        >
        > It's no secret that I'm not a big fan of the current chairman of
        > Just a Minute. However there have been moments, very few mind you,
        > where he has actually proven to be quite good at what he does.
        /snip/
        >
        > anyway, this is not a slight against Nicholas at all, I know he has
        > a great love for the show, as do I, as do many people. I would love
        > the show to continue, I just feel that its a daft to say that people
        > hope the show 'dies with Nicholas'. The show is bigger than Kenneth
        > Williams, Derek Nimmo, Peter Jones, Clement Freud and Nicholas
        > Parsons. Yes they have all set the groundwork for those who partake
        > in the show now, but as individuals they are of no greater
        > importance to show as a whole.
        >
      • Dean Bedford
        ... I ve written about this before here so no buzzing for repetition from older members. Firstly I d say there is zero chance of anyone else being tried out
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On Friday, August 3, 2007, at 08:44 PM, jeremy_keens wrote:

          > Some thoughts that have been brewing and some comments.
          >
          > First, due to the generosity of people here I have been able to listen
          > to JAMs from across the decades and have started to get a feel for the
          > moods of the show. I think one of the things that I lov about it is
          > that the structure allows such freewheeling stories and banter.
          > Listening to, say, My Word I am struck by how serious and slow that
          > now seems; and having downloaded a few Sorry I haven't a clues it
          > reminds me of the problem of a lot of catch-phrase comedy - JAM has
          > some but they seem less frequent (examples - Paul's sandwich
          > hesitations, Kenneth's explosions).
          >
          > This exposure has led me to seek and purchase a copy of Kenneth's
          > diaries - he is still my favourite but I am warming rapidly to the
          > (not so new now) young turks. As a JAMmy bugger I looked at the JAM
          > and Parsons sections via the index first and saw KWs dismissal of Nick
          > (he never seemed to have warmed to him) plus his own displeasure at
          > some of his 'outbursts'.
          >
          > But that takes me onto Nick as chairman. I agree he isn't perfect - he
          > plays favourites (often it seems in the context of a particular
          > episode, but also over time) but tends to balance; he isn't consistent
          > but then who could be over 40 years, as the rules have gatehred a
          > wealthy of common-law interpretation (eg the early banning of
          > repetition of the subject, which has morphed into you can repeat
          > homphones of single words). On the whole I think he does a good job,
          > and is a surprisingly good listener noting repetitions that people
          > have missed.
          >
          > However I think the B second letter of the alphabet C have created
          > their own problem - yes no one panelist was irreplaceable because
          > there is/was a pool of regulars and guests. There have been no
          > chairman experiments for decades. The chair job is difficult - balance
          > but also thinking about the flow or who is hot on a night, listening,
          > taking the barbs, working the audience - and also has to have someone
          > with a bit less of an ego: it is the panelists game.
          >
          > A question - are there any experience current players who you think
          > could take on the mantle, and if not who else could. And lets hope the
          > organisation I referred to before thinks about trying out some
          > apprentices.
          >
          > On other points - again thanks for uploads I have listened to the
          > latest and I was annoyed by Giles false pedantry - the plural of Midas
          > would not have an apostrophe which seems to be what he was claiming
          > (as in his reference to Parsons) and the bluster should have been
          > pricked (a moment KW could have enlivened).

          I've written about this before here so no buzzing for repetition from
          "older" members.

          Firstly I'd say there is zero chance of anyone else being tried out
          unless Nicholas took ill mid-series or something like that. One of the
          amazing things about Nicholas is that he has NOT ONCE rung up on
          recording day or the day before to say "I'm ill", or "I have to go to my
          grandmother's funeral" or whatever.

          I think the chances are that it will finish up or at least be rested for
          a couple of years when Nicholas goes. It's very very hard to replace a
          chairman and whoever did get the job would be compared with Nicholas -
          and they would be largely unfavourable comparisons. I think the BBC
          might think that it was a good time for something new.

          But a key man here is Paul Merton. I think if he was keen to carry on,
          it would be hard to turn down a talent of his calibre.

          You'd then have to decide what you wanted in a chairman - another
          Nicholas or someone with a different style? I'd agree that a current
          player would be desirable. The key thing is comedy timing - that's what
          Nicholas has in spades and that's what a replacement will need.

          The names that come to mind....

          * Gyles Brandreth - would be favourite if you wanted someone similar to
          Nicholas, I think, an experienced broadcaster and presenter, sharp
          witted and someone you could imagine the panellists pulling the leg off.
          * Julian Clary - really good at panel games. Great comedy timing and
          someone who could do well as a bantering chairman.
          * Kit Hesketh-Harvey - has publically stated an interest in taking over.
          Very sharp and would create a good atmosphere with his giggling.
          * Sheila Hancock - would probably be hard to persuade her but her
          assertiveness would give the show a new and interesting feel I think.
          * Tony Hawks - a virtuoso of panel games, a very good chairman. Would be
          the choice if you wanted someone who was closely tied to the current
          show.

          There are others around like Liza Tarbuck, Marcus Brigstocke, Dara
          O'Briain, Barry Cryer who are experienced at presenting or chairing
          panel games and could come into the running.
        • Robert Torres
          you also have to factor in a certain amount of youth and vitality to the individual, after all, you would want someone to be able to carry the show into the
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            you also have to factor in a certain amount of youth and vitality to the individual, after all, you would want someone to be able to carry the show into the next 40 odd years the way Nicholas has. 

            Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:

            On Friday, August 3, 2007, at 08:44 PM, jeremy_keens wrote:

            > Some thoughts that have been brewing and some comments.
            >
            > First, due to the generosity of people here I have been able to listen
            > to JAMs from across the decades and have started to get a feel for the
            > moods of the show. I think one of the things that I lov about it is
            > that the structure allows such freewheeling stories and banter.
            > Listening to, say, My Word I am struck by how serious and slow that
            > now seems; and having downloaded a few Sorry I haven't a clues it
            > reminds me of the problem of a lot of catch-phrase comedy - JAM has
            > some but they seem less frequent (examples - Paul's sandwich
            > hesitations, Kenneth's explosions).
            >
            > This exposure has led me to seek and purchase a copy of Kenneth's
            > diaries - he is still my favourite but I am warming rapidly to the
            > (not so new now) young turks. As a JAMmy bugger I looked at the JAM
            > and Parsons sections via the index first and saw KWs dismissal of Nick
            > (he never seemed to have warmed to him) plus his own displeasure at
            > some of his 'outbursts'.
            >
            > But that takes me onto Nick as chairman. I agree he isn't perfect - he
            > plays favourites (often it seems in the context of a particular
            > episode, but also over time) but tends to balance; he isn't consistent
            > but then who could be over 40 years, as the rules have gatehred a
            > wealthy of common-law interpretation (eg the early banning of
            > repetition of the subject, which has morphed into you can repeat
            > homphones of single words). On the whole I think he does a good job,
            > and is a surprisingly good listener noting repetitions that people
            > have missed.
            >
            > However I think the B second letter of the alphabet C have created
            > their own problem - yes no one panelist was irreplaceable because
            > there is/was a pool of regulars and guests. There have been no
            > chairman experiments for decades. The chair job is difficult - balance
            > but also thinking about the flow or who is hot on a night, listening,
            > taking the barbs, working the audience - and also has to have someone
            > with a bit less of an ego: it is the panelists game.
            >
            > A question - are there any experience current players who you think
            > could take on the mantle, and if not who else could. And lets hope the
            > organisation I referred to before thinks about trying out some
            > apprentices.
            >
            > On other points - again thanks for uploads I have listened to the
            > latest and I was annoyed by Giles false pedantry - the plural of Midas
            > would not have an apostrophe which seems to be what he was claiming
            > (as in his reference to Parsons) and the bluster should have been
            > pricked (a moment KW could have enlivened).

            I've written about this before here so no buzzing for repetition from
            "older" members.

            Firstly I'd say there is zero chance of anyone else being tried out
            unless Nicholas took ill mid-series or something like that. One of the
            amazing things about Nicholas is that he has NOT ONCE rung up on
            recording day or the day before to say "I'm ill", or "I have to go to my
            grandmother's funeral" or whatever.

            I think the chances are that it will finish up or at least be rested for
            a couple of years when Nicholas goes. It's very very hard to replace a
            chairman and whoever did get the job would be compared with Nicholas -
            and they would be largely unfavourable comparisons. I think the BBC
            might think that it was a good time for something new.

            But a key man here is Paul Merton. I think if he was keen to carry on,
            it would be hard to turn down a talent of his calibre.

            You'd then have to decide what you wanted in a chairman - another
            Nicholas or someone with a different style? I'd agree that a current
            player would be desirable. The key thing is comedy timing - that's what
            Nicholas has in spades and that's what a replacement will need.

            The names that come to mind....

            * Gyles Brandreth - would be favourite if you wanted someone similar to
            Nicholas, I think, an experienced broadcaster and presenter, sharp
            witted and someone you could imagine the panellists pulling the leg off.
            * Julian Clary - really good at panel games. Great comedy timing and
            someone who could do well as a bantering chairman.
            * Kit Hesketh-Harvey - has publically stated an interest in taking over.
            Very sharp and would create a good atmosphere with his giggling.
            * Sheila Hancock - would probably be hard to persuade her but her
            assertiveness would give the show a new and interesting feel I think.
            * Tony Hawks - a virtuoso of panel games, a very good chairman. Would be
            the choice if you wanted someone who was closely tied to the current
            show.

            There are others around like Liza Tarbuck, Marcus Brigstocke, Dara
            O'Briain, Barry Cryer who are experienced at presenting or chairing
            panel games and could come into the running.


            Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
            Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

          • BikerDon
            I have just been back to my account on Sendspace. The comedy shows I uploaded for you Guys as zip files are still there after many, many months. All the files
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 16, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I have just been back to my account on Sendspace.
              The comedy shows I uploaded for you Guys as zip files are still there after many, many months.
              All the files I uploaded as mp3 are long since gone.
               
              So it looks like if you want files to be left alone 'ad infinitum' on Sendspace, upload them as zip files.
              Good news in my books.
               
              I have not forgotten the files I promised to upload AGES  ago, just been too busy bnuilding model aeroplanes <grin>, sorry Guys.
              You will get them one day, I promise.
              --
              Cheers
               
              Don    __o
                       -\<,
                ..... O/ O
            • Robert Torres
              I ve noticed that many of the links for downloads to past episodes are broken.  this is very unfortunate and I wonder if anyone plans to fix them any time
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 20, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I've noticed that many of the links for downloads to past episodes are broken.  this is very unfortunate and I wonder if anyone plans to fix them any time soon or if everyone managed to get what they needed from the links, and they're just content to let the links remain broken. 
                 
                I hope that isn't the case, as I'm still trying to get that one episode which is Joan Bakewell's first appearance and I haven't been able to do so because the link remains broken. 
                 
                if someone could fix the links possibly, that would be great. 

              • frankntom
                Hi there, it s hard to know which ones are broken without specifics. Would you please list the ones you ve tried and found to be bad? I believe that everything
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 20, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi there,

                  it's hard to know which ones are broken without specifics. Would you
                  please list the ones you've tried and found to be bad?

                  I believe that everything I've shared via megaupload is good for at
                  least two more years, and the gigasize ones for a few more months.

                  Joan


                  --- In just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com, Robert Torres
                  <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I've noticed that many of the links for downloads to past episodes
                  are broken.� this is very unfortunate and I wonder if anyone plans to
                  fix them any time soon or if everyone managed to get what they needed
                  from the links, and they're just content to let the links remain broken.�
                  > �
                  > I hope that isn't the case, as I'm still trying to get that one
                  episode which is Joan Bakewell's first appearance and I haven't been
                  able to do so because the link remains broken.�
                  > �
                  > if someone could fix the links possibly, that would be great.�
                  >
                • queenofknerds
                  Something I really enjoy about Just A Minute is the way it s evolved and how every episode sounds totally different based on the combination of panellists. You
                  Message 8 of 16 , Nov 22, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Something I really enjoy about Just A Minute is the way it's evolved
                    and how every episode sounds totally different based on the
                    combination of panellists. You can recognise the eras changing as the
                    various regulars join or leave the programme over time. The only real
                    constant factor has been Nicholas and, let's face it, after forty
                    years and seven hundred episodes, the show would sound strange without
                    him. That isn't to say it won't be any good. I think the show's strong
                    enough to continue long after Nicholas but it would take a lot for us
                    to dismiss him as the greater chairman.

                    I've seen some very good points both for and against continuing the
                    show after Nicholas. I fully expect in future an explosive debate like
                    the current one over ISIHAC - Humph and Nicholas are both truly
                    irreplaceable but when it comes down to it we all really just want the
                    shows to go on forever. If only!

                    Regards,
                    Queenie

                    --- In just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com, Robert Torres
                    <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > you also have to factor in a certain amount of youth and vitality to
                    the individual, after all, you would want someone to be able to carry
                    the show into the next 40 odd years the way Nicholas has.
                    >
                    > Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:
                    > On Friday, August 3, 2007, at 08:44 PM, jeremy_keens wrote:
                    >
                    > > Some thoughts that have been brewing and some comments.
                    > >
                    > > First, due to the generosity of people here I have been able to listen
                    > > to JAMs from across the decades and have started to get a feel for the
                    > > moods of the show. I think one of the things that I lov about it is
                    > > that the structure allows such freewheeling stories and banter.
                    > > Listening to, say, My Word I am struck by how serious and slow that
                    > > now seems; and having downloaded a few Sorry I haven't a clues it
                    > > reminds me of the problem of a lot of catch-phrase comedy - JAM has
                    > > some but they seem less frequent (examples - Paul's sandwich
                    > > hesitations, Kenneth's explosions).
                    > >
                    > > This exposure has led me to seek and purchase a copy of Kenneth's
                    > > diaries - he is still my favourite but I am warming rapidly to the
                    > > (not so new now) young turks. As a JAMmy bugger I looked at the JAM
                    > > and Parsons sections via the index first and saw KWs dismissal of Nick
                    > > (he never seemed to have warmed to him) plus his own displeasure at
                    > > some of his 'outbursts'.
                    > >
                    > > But that takes me onto Nick as chairman. I agree he isn't perfect - he
                    > > plays favourites (often it seems in the context of a particular
                    > > episode, but also over time) but tends to balance; he isn't consistent
                    > > but then who could be over 40 years, as the rules have gatehred a
                    > > wealthy of common-law interpretation (eg the early banning of
                    > > repetition of the subject, which has morphed into you can repeat
                    > > homphones of single words). On the whole I think he does a good job,
                    > > and is a surprisingly good listener noting repetitions that people
                    > > have missed.
                    > >
                    > > However I think the B second letter of the alphabet C have created
                    > > their own problem - yes no one panelist was irreplaceable because
                    > > there is/was a pool of regulars and guests. There have been no
                    > > chairman experiments for decades. The chair job is difficult - balance
                    > > but also thinking about the flow or who is hot on a night, listening,
                    > > taking the barbs, working the audience - and also has to have someone
                    > > with a bit less of an ego: it is the panelists game.
                    > >
                    > > A question - are there any experience current players who you think
                    > > could take on the mantle, and if not who else could. And lets hope the
                    > > organisation I referred to before thinks about trying out some
                    > > apprentices.
                    > >
                    > > On other points - again thanks for uploads I have listened to the
                    > > latest and I was annoyed by Giles false pedantry - the plural of Midas
                    > > would not have an apostrophe which seems to be what he was claiming
                    > > (as in his reference to Parsons) and the bluster should have been
                    > > pricked (a moment KW could have enlivened).
                    >
                    > I've written about this before here so no buzzing for repetition from
                    > "older" members.
                    >
                    > Firstly I'd say there is zero chance of anyone else being tried out
                    > unless Nicholas took ill mid-series or something like that. One of the
                    > amazing things about Nicholas is that he has NOT ONCE rung up on
                    > recording day or the day before to say "I'm ill", or "I have to go
                    to my
                    > grandmother's funeral" or whatever.
                    >
                    > I think the chances are that it will finish up or at least be rested
                    for
                    > a couple of years when Nicholas goes. It's very very hard to replace a
                    > chairman and whoever did get the job would be compared with Nicholas -
                    > and they would be largely unfavourable comparisons. I think the BBC
                    > might think that it was a good time for something new.
                    >
                    > But a key man here is Paul Merton. I think if he was keen to carry on,
                    > it would be hard to turn down a talent of his calibre.
                    >
                    > You'd then have to decide what you wanted in a chairman - another
                    > Nicholas or someone with a different style? I'd agree that a current
                    > player would be desirable. The key thing is comedy timing - that's what
                    > Nicholas has in spades and that's what a replacement will need.
                    >
                    > The names that come to mind....
                    >
                    > * Gyles Brandreth - would be favourite if you wanted someone similar to
                    > Nicholas, I think, an experienced broadcaster and presenter, sharp
                    > witted and someone you could imagine the panellists pulling the leg off.
                    > * Julian Clary - really good at panel games. Great comedy timing and
                    > someone who could do well as a bantering chairman.
                    > * Kit Hesketh-Harvey - has publically stated an interest in taking
                    over.
                    > Very sharp and would create a good atmosphere with his giggling.
                    > * Sheila Hancock - would probably be hard to persuade her but her
                    > assertiveness would give the show a new and interesting feel I think.
                    > * Tony Hawks - a virtuoso of panel games, a very good chairman.
                    Would be
                    > the choice if you wanted someone who was closely tied to the current
                    > show.
                    >
                    > There are others around like Liza Tarbuck, Marcus Brigstocke, Dara
                    > O'Briain, Barry Cryer who are experienced at presenting or chairing
                    > panel games and could come into the running.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
                    > Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
                    >
                  • Robert Torres
                    I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I m not sure if it had
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 22, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                       
                      This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                       
                      this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.

                    • kj.naughton
                      Hello Robert, In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Robert,

                        In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or Nicholas's state of health then.

                        However as the episode (and the previous post in the thread) are from 2007 then the fact that Nicholas is still going in 2010 without any noticeable drop-off in lucidity seems to indicate that it's perhaps the "bad" editing. But no worse, perhaps, than the recent apparent swapping round of last rounds which mucked up the scoring in two broadcasts.

                        I'm aware that most of us here tend to be Just A Minute "nerds" and would notice the things that the other several million listeners wouldn't. Having had some editing experience in a previous role, I don't envy the editor's task in trying to produce two programmes of exactly the right length from two pretty anarchic shows recorded in front of a live audience. I don't think it's that the BBC don't care or even aren't paying attention - I think it's more there is a line to be drawn between getting a programme broadcastable and getting it absolutely perfect. Personally I'm happy enough with the editing and I'm not sure that spending several hundereds or even thousands of pounds of the license fee on additional edit suite time would be worth it to get every show "perfect".

                        I was suprised and delighted to hear you being concerned for Nicholas's overall wellbeing. It had appeared from some previous posts that you had quite a negative view of him and, seeing your name on this one, I was braced for another broadside. Good too see you being more mellow.

                        Cheers

                        kJ


                        --- In just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                        >  
                        > This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                        >  
                        > this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.
                        >
                      • Robert Torres
                        I know I ve railed against Nicholas in the past, and I know many of my posts have been rather vociferous in my intense dislike for Nicholas behavior and
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I know I've railed against Nicholas in the past, and I know many of my posts have been rather vociferous in my intense dislike for Nicholas' behavior and overall conduct on the program.  but I was worried as to whether it was the onset of dementia or alzheimer's or if it was just a case of bad editing. 
                           
                          Speaking of editing, I've actually taken to using the Audacity program to try, in some cases, to edit two editions of Just a Minute into one whole.  its a lot of fun, especially if both programs feature the same panelists, because it tends to enhance the overall presence and performances of all the panelists in attendance, and it does sorta give off a feeling of what it might be like to be in attendance to one whole recording before its edited to pieces for broadcast. 

                          --- On Wed, 2/24/10, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@...> wrote:

                          From: kj.naughton <kj.naughton@...>
                          Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                          To: just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 8:11 AM

                           
                          Hello Robert,

                          In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or Nicholas's state of health then.

                          However as the episode (and the previous post in the thread) are from 2007 then the fact that Nicholas is still going in 2010 without any noticeable drop-off in lucidity seems to indicate that it's perhaps the "bad" editing. But no worse, perhaps, than the recent apparent swapping round of last rounds which mucked up the scoring in two broadcasts.

                          I'm aware that most of us here tend to be Just A Minute "nerds" and would notice the things that the other several million listeners wouldn't. Having had some editing experience in a previous role, I don't envy the editor's task in trying to produce two programmes of exactly the right length from two pretty anarchic shows recorded in front of a live audience. I don't think it's that the BBC don't care or even aren't paying attention - I think it's more there is a line to be drawn between getting a programme broadcastable and getting it absolutely perfect. Personally I'm happy enough with the editing and I'm not sure that spending several hundereds or even thousands of pounds of the license fee on additional edit suite time would be worth it to get every show "perfect".

                          I was suprised and delighted to hear you being concerned for Nicholas's overall wellbeing. It had appeared from some previous posts that you had quite a negative view of him and, seeing your name on this one, I was braced for another broadside. Good too see you being more mellow.

                          Cheers

                          kJ

                          --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                          >  
                          > This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                          >  
                          > this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.
                          >


                        • Don Judge
                          Be wary of using Audacity if you re concerned about sound quality as in losing it. Audacity converts the mp3 to a wav to let you edit it and then back to mp3
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Be wary of using Audacity if you're concerned about sound quality as in losing it.

                            Audacity converts the mp3 to a wav to let you edit it and then back to mp3 when you save the result.
                            Hence why it takes so long to load and save.

                            These two operations will each incur a slight loss in sound quality.
                            The more edits you do the more the downgrade.

                            A better alternative is mp3DirectCut
                            The interface is similar to Audacity but it does all its edits in mp3 format hence no losses.

                            Check it out at
                             
                            Cheers

                            Don    __o
                                  -\<,
                            ..... O/ O





                            From: Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...>
                            To: just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 2010 16:07:25
                            Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,

                             

                            I know I've railed against Nicholas in the past, and I know many of my posts have been rather vociferous in my intense dislike for Nicholas' behavior and overall conduct on the program.  but I was worried as to whether it was the onset of dementia or alzheimer's or if it was just a case of bad editing. 
                             
                            Speaking of editing, I've actually taken to using the Audacity program to try, in some cases, to edit two editions of Just a Minute into one whole.  its a lot of fun, especially if both programs feature the same panelists, because it tends to enhance the overall presence and performances of all the panelists in attendance, and it does sorta give off a feeling of what it might be like to be in attendance to one whole recording before its edited to pieces for broadcast. 

                            --- On Wed, 2/24/10, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

                            From: kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk>
                            Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                            To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 8:11 AM

                             
                            Hello Robert,

                            In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or Nicholas's state of health then.

                            However as the episode (and the previous post in the thread) are from 2007 then the fact that Nicholas is still going in 2010 without any noticeable drop-off in lucidity seems to indicate that it's perhaps the "bad" editing. But no worse, perhaps, than the recent apparent swapping round of last rounds which mucked up the scoring in two broadcasts.

                            I'm aware that most of us here tend to be Just A Minute "nerds" and would notice the things that the other several million listeners wouldn't. Having had some editing experience in a previous role, I don't envy the editor's task in trying to produce two programmes of exactly the right length from two pretty anarchic shows recorded in front of a live audience. I don't think it's that the BBC don't care or even aren't paying attention - I think it's more there is a line to be drawn between getting a programme broadcastable and getting it absolutely perfect. Personally I'm happy enough with the editing and I'm not sure that spending several hundereds or even thousands of pounds of the license fee on additional edit suite time would be worth it to get every show "perfect".

                            I was suprised and delighted to hear you being concerned for Nicholas's overall wellbeing. It had appeared from some previous posts that you had quite a negative view of him and, seeing your name on this one, I was braced for another broadside. Good too see you being more mellow.

                            Cheers

                            kJ

                            --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                            >  
                            > This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                            >  
                            > this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.
                            >


                          • Robert Torres
                            I ve used Audacity for a while, and haven t noticed any lost in sound quality.  although I might consider using the other program you mentioned in the near
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I've used Audacity for a while, and haven't noticed any lost in sound quality.  although I might consider using the other program you mentioned in the near future. 

                              --- On Wed, 2/24/10, Don Judge <don@...> wrote:

                              From: Don Judge <don@...>
                              Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                              To: just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com
                              Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 3:05 PM

                               
                              Be wary of using Audacity if you're concerned about sound quality as in losing it.

                              Audacity converts the mp3 to a wav to let you edit it and then back to mp3 when you save the result.
                              Hence why it takes so long to load and save.

                              These two operations will each incur a slight loss in sound quality.
                              The more edits you do the more the downgrade.

                              A better alternative is mp3DirectCut
                              The interface is similar to Audacity but it does all its edits in mp3 format hence no losses.

                              Check it out at
                               
                              Cheers

                              Don    __o
                                    -\<,
                              ..... O/ O





                              From: Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com>
                              To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
                              Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 2010 16:07:25
                              Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,

                               
                              I know I've railed against Nicholas in the past, and I know many of my posts have been rather vociferous in my intense dislike for Nicholas' behavior and overall conduct on the program.  but I was worried as to whether it was the onset of dementia or alzheimer's or if it was just a case of bad editing. 
                               
                              Speaking of editing, I've actually taken to using the Audacity program to try, in some cases, to edit two editions of Just a Minute into one whole.  its a lot of fun, especially if both programs feature the same panelists, because it tends to enhance the overall presence and performances of all the panelists in attendance, and it does sorta give off a feeling of what it might be like to be in attendance to one whole recording before its edited to pieces for broadcast. 

                              --- On Wed, 2/24/10, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

                              From: kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk>
                              Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                              To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
                              Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 8:11 AM

                               
                              Hello Robert,

                              In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or Nicholas's state of health then.

                              However as the episode (and the previous post in the thread) are from 2007 then the fact that Nicholas is still going in 2010 without any noticeable drop-off in lucidity seems to indicate that it's perhaps the "bad" editing. But no worse, perhaps, than the recent apparent swapping round of last rounds which mucked up the scoring in two broadcasts.

                              I'm aware that most of us here tend to be Just A Minute "nerds" and would notice the things that the other several million listeners wouldn't. Having had some editing experience in a previous role, I don't envy the editor's task in trying to produce two programmes of exactly the right length from two pretty anarchic shows recorded in front of a live audience. I don't think it's that the BBC don't care or even aren't paying attention - I think it's more there is a line to be drawn between getting a programme broadcastable and getting it absolutely perfect. Personally I'm happy enough with the editing and I'm not sure that spending several hundereds or even thousands of pounds of the license fee on additional edit suite time would be worth it to get every show "perfect".

                              I was suprised and delighted to hear you being concerned for Nicholas's overall wellbeing. It had appeared from some previous posts that you had quite a negative view of him and, seeing your name on this one, I was braced for another broadside. Good too see you being more mellow.

                              Cheers

                              kJ

                              --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                              >  
                              > This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                              >  
                              > this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.
                              >



                            • Robert Torres
                              I meant no disrespect by the implication, as I stated, I was merely concerned for Nicholas wellbeing.  I know its a shock considering how much I ve railed
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 25, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I meant no disrespect by the implication, as I stated, I was merely concerned for Nicholas' wellbeing.  I know its a shock considering how much I've railed against him in the past.  I must say that I am very impressed by the fact that he is still going and doing what he is doing, even at 87.  it certainly does elevate him a bit more in my view, not a lot, just a tiny bit.  :) 

                                --- On Fri, 2/26/10, Dean <dbedford@...> wrote:

                                From: Dean <dbedford@...>
                                Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                                To: just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 6:07 AM

                                 
                                It seems very unlikely anyone suffering from dementia or alzheimers will ever chair a game show, especially one requiring the concentration of JAM. Nicholas is 87 this year - surely we should be congratulating him on his mental acuity at such an age! And I think that I share kj's view that there is little point to speculating on what terrible diseases he may have - it also seems in poor taste.

                                Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:07 AM
                                Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,

                                 
                                I know I've railed against Nicholas in the past, and I know many of my posts have been rather vociferous in my intense dislike for Nicholas' behavior and overall conduct on the program.  but I was worried as to whether it was the onset of dementia or alzheimer's or if it was just a case of bad editing. 
                                 
                                Speaking of editing, I've actually taken to using the Audacity program to try, in some cases, to edit two editions of Just a Minute into one whole.  its a lot of fun, especially if both programs feature the same panelists, because it tends to enhance the overall presence and performances of all the panelists in attendance, and it does sorta give off a feeling of what it might be like to be in attendance to one whole recording before its edited to pieces for broadcast. 

                                --- On Wed, 2/24/10, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

                                From: kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk>
                                Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                                To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
                                Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 8:11 AM

                                 
                                Hello Robert,

                                In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or Nicholas's state of health then.

                                However as the episode (and the previous post in the thread) are from 2007 then the fact that Nicholas is still going in 2010 without any noticeable drop-off in lucidity seems to indicate that it's perhaps the "bad" editing. But no worse, perhaps, than the recent apparent swapping round of last rounds which mucked up the scoring in two broadcasts.

                                I'm aware that most of us here tend to be Just A Minute "nerds" and would notice the things that the other several million listeners wouldn't. Having had some editing experience in a previous role, I don't envy the editor's task in trying to produce two programmes of exactly the right length from two pretty anarchic shows recorded in front of a live audience. I don't think it's that the BBC don't care or even aren't paying attention - I think it's more there is a line to be drawn between getting a programme broadcastable and getting it absolutely perfect. Personally I'm happy enough with the editing and I'm not sure that spending several hundereds or even thousands of pounds of the license fee on additional edit suite time would be worth it to get every show "perfect".

                                I was suprised and delighted to hear you being concerned for Nicholas's overall wellbeing. It had appeared from some previous posts that you had quite a negative view of him and, seeing your name on this one, I was braced for another broadside. Good too see you being more mellow.

                                Cheers

                                kJ

                                --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                                >  
                                > This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                                >  
                                > this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.
                                >



                              • Mark
                                Also lately Audacity has been crashing on me during recording. I have Adobe Soundbooth (previously Cool Edit Pro, then Adobe Audition) which works well (in
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 25, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Also lately Audacity has been crashing on me during recording.  I have Adobe Soundbooth (previously Cool Edit Pro, then Adobe Audition) which works well (in spite of being having the typical Adobe bloat and an ugly interface).

                                  On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  I've used Audacity for a while, and haven't noticed any lost in sound quality.  although I might consider using the other program you mentioned in the near future. 

                                  --- On Wed, 2/24/10, Don Judge <don@...> wrote:

                                  From: Don Judge <don@...>
                                  Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                                  To: just-a-minute@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 3:05 PM

                                   
                                  Be wary of using Audacity if you're concerned about sound quality as in losing it.

                                  Audacity converts the mp3 to a wav to let you edit it and then back to mp3 when you save the result.
                                  Hence why it takes so long to load and save.

                                  These two operations will each incur a slight loss in sound quality.
                                  The more edits you do the more the downgrade.

                                  A better alternative is mp3DirectCut
                                  The interface is similar to Audacity but it does all its edits in mp3 format hence no losses.

                                  Check it out at
                                   
                                  Cheers

                                  Don    __o
                                        -\<,
                                  ..... O/ O





                                  From: Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com>
                                  To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
                                  Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 2010 16:07:25
                                  Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,

                                   
                                  I know I've railed against Nicholas in the past, and I know many of my posts have been rather vociferous in my intense dislike for Nicholas' behavior and overall conduct on the program.  but I was worried as to whether it was the onset of dementia or alzheimer's or if it was just a case of bad editing. 
                                   
                                  Speaking of editing, I've actually taken to using the Audacity program to try, in some cases, to edit two editions of Just a Minute into one whole.  its a lot of fun, especially if both programs feature the same panelists, because it tends to enhance the overall presence and performances of all the panelists in attendance, and it does sorta give off a feeling of what it might be like to be in attendance to one whole recording before its edited to pieces for broadcast. 

                                  --- On Wed, 2/24/10, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

                                  From: kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk>
                                  Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                                  To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
                                  Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 8:11 AM

                                   
                                  Hello Robert,

                                  In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or Nicholas's state of health then.

                                  However as the episode (and the previous post in the thread) are from 2007 then the fact that Nicholas is still going in 2010 without any noticeable drop-off in lucidity seems to indicate that it's perhaps the "bad" editing. But no worse, perhaps, than the recent apparent swapping round of last rounds which mucked up the scoring in two broadcasts.

                                  I'm aware that most of us here tend to be Just A Minute "nerds" and would notice the things that the other several million listeners wouldn't. Having had some editing experience in a previous role, I don't envy the editor's task in trying to produce two programmes of exactly the right length from two pretty anarchic shows recorded in front of a live audience. I don't think it's that the BBC don't care or even aren't paying attention - I think it's more there is a line to be drawn between getting a programme broadcastable and getting it absolutely perfect. Personally I'm happy enough with the editing and I'm not sure that spending several hundereds or even thousands of pounds of the license fee on additional edit suite time would be worth it to get every show "perfect".

                                  I was suprised and delighted to hear you being concerned for Nicholas's overall wellbeing. It had appeared from some previous posts that you had quite a negative view of him and, seeing your name on this one, I was braced for another broadside. Good too see you being more mellow.

                                  Cheers

                                  kJ

                                  --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                                  >  
                                  > This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                                  >  
                                  > this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.
                                  >






                                  --
                                  Mark Kelly
                                  Manager - Information Systems
                                  McKinnon Secondary College
                                  McKinnon Rd McKinnon 3204, Victoria, Australia
                                  Direct line / Voicemail: 8520 9085
                                  School Phone +613 8520 9000
                                  School Fax +613 9578 9253
                                  kel@...

                                  Webmaster - http://www.mckinnonsc.vic.edu.au
                                  IT Lecture notes: http://vceit.com
                                  Moderator: IT Applications Mailing List


                                • Dean
                                  It seems very unlikely anyone suffering from dementia or alzheimers will ever chair a game show, especially one requiring the concentration of JAM. Nicholas is
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 26, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    It seems very unlikely anyone suffering from dementia or alzheimers will ever chair a game show, especially one requiring the concentration of JAM. Nicholas is 87 this year - surely we should be congratulating him on his mental acuity at such an age! And I think that I share kj's view that there is little point to speculating on what terrible diseases he may have - it also seems in poor taste.

                                    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:07 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,

                                     

                                    I know I've railed against Nicholas in the past, and I know many of my posts have been rather vociferous in my intense dislike for Nicholas' behavior and overall conduct on the program.  but I was worried as to whether it was the onset of dementia or alzheimer's or if it was just a case of bad editing. 
                                     
                                    Speaking of editing, I've actually taken to using the Audacity program to try, in some cases, to edit two editions of Just a Minute into one whole.  its a lot of fun, especially if both programs feature the same panelists, because it tends to enhance the overall presence and performances of all the panelists in attendance, and it does sorta give off a feeling of what it might be like to be in attendance to one whole recording before its edited to pieces for broadcast. 

                                    --- On Wed, 2/24/10, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

                                    From: kj.naughton <kj.naughton@ yahoo.co. uk>
                                    Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,
                                    To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
                                    Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 8:11 AM

                                     
                                    Hello Robert,

                                    In reality, this query is not answerable by anyone who posts on this group as none of us know how good or bad the BBC editing was in 2007 or Nicholas's state of health then.

                                    However as the episode (and the previous post in the thread) are from 2007 then the fact that Nicholas is still going in 2010 without any noticeable drop-off in lucidity seems to indicate that it's perhaps the "bad" editing. But no worse, perhaps, than the recent apparent swapping round of last rounds which mucked up the scoring in two broadcasts.

                                    I'm aware that most of us here tend to be Just A Minute "nerds" and would notice the things that the other several million listeners wouldn't. Having had some editing experience in a previous role, I don't envy the editor's task in trying to produce two programmes of exactly the right length from two pretty anarchic shows recorded in front of a live audience. I don't think it's that the BBC don't care or even aren't paying attention - I think it's more there is a line to be drawn between getting a programme broadcastable and getting it absolutely perfect. Personally I'm happy enough with the editing and I'm not sure that spending several hundereds or even thousands of pounds of the license fee on additional edit suite time would be worth it to get every show "perfect".

                                    I was suprised and delighted to hear you being concerned for Nicholas's overall wellbeing. It had appeared from some previous posts that you had quite a negative view of him and, seeing your name on this one, I was braced for another broadside. Good too see you being more mellow.

                                    Cheers

                                    kJ

                                    --- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I was just listening to an episode from 2007, the panelists were Paul Merton, Gyles Brandreth, Jenny Eclair, and Julian Clary.  Now, I'm not sure if it had to do with the way the show was edited, since we're talking about one session being split into two recordings, or if it was just general confusion on Nicholas' part...  but there was one point where at the end of one round, Nicholas starts talking as if he's about to wind up the show, saying that Jenny finished in fourth place, but it wasn't even the final round.  and then at the end of the final round he starts talking as though its only the end of the first round, in reminding people that whoever speaks when the whistle blows gains an extra point. 
                                    >  
                                    > This isn't a slag or slur against Nicholas, this is just genuine concern for his overall wellbeing.  I mean, is it because for 40 years he has said these scripted things so often, that now they just kick in automatically regardless of what round it is?  Is it a case of his mental computer, which he uses so often to rerun the whole of the show in his mind, suffering a glitch which takes him occasionally into auto-pilot? 
                                    >  
                                    > this is a genuine query, only cuz if its a case of bad editing, then it seems like the BBC aren't paying attention or don't care, but if its Nicholas, well then... I need say no more.
                                    >


                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.