Home  

Members  

Join  

Search  

Listings  

 
<<<<   1136   >>>>

Topic: The future of JAM, as decreed by Nicholas Parsons

Message 1 / 4
Robert L. TorresAug 1, 2007
 

 
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.

 
<<<<   1142   >>>>

Topic: Re: The future of JAM, as decreed by Nicholas Parsons

Message 2 / 4
jeremy_keensAug 3, 2007
 

 
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@..., "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.
>

 
<<<<   1143   >>>>

Topic: Re: The future of JAM, as decreed by Nicholas Parsons

Message 3 / 4
Dean BedfordAug 3, 2007
 

 
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.

 
<<<<   1144   >>>>

Topic: Re: The future of JAM, as decreed by Nicholas Parsons

Message 4 / 4
Robert TorresAug 5, 2007
 

 
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.