Just A Minute

JAM Series | JAM Stats | JAM Today | JAM Group

<<<< 3944 >>>>

Topic: Re: The future of JAM,

Message 1 / 3
Don JudgeFeb 24, 2010

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

http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html

Cheers

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

From: Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
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.
>

<<<< 3946 >>>>

Topic: Re: The future of JAM,

Message 2 / 3
DeanFeb 26, 2010

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.

From: Robert Torres

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:07 AM

To: just-a-minute@...

Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: The future of JAM,

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.
>

<<<< 3947 >>>>

Topic: Re: The future of JAM,

Message 3 / 3
Robert TorresFeb 25, 2010

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@...
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.

From: Robert Torres
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:07 AM
To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com
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.
>

<<<< 3947 >>>>

Back to the Top

Message History

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	10	23	12	1	13	5	1	19	12	31	4	14
2018	4	7	21	8	9	37	9	5	19	25	5	14
2017	4	34	22	12	17	20	4	19	23	44	23	16
2016	13	49	39	57	60	87	10	32	24	12	9	23
2015	51	97	32	49	41	54	20	28	0	14	31	16
2014	9	75	68	33	28	33	52	82	51	32	38	79
2013	463	251	98	87	81	192	88	98	86	38	54	27
2012	92	121	180	199	125	88	71	155	118	166	125	144
2011	112	78	71	73	134	225	252	152	62	183	165	63
2010	142	117	153	94	69	49	69	183	82	71	68	75
2009	67	45	42	97	90	149	110	70	63	42	35	39
2008	200	120	175	120	70	109	87	115	71	45	58	38
2007	165	447	132	99	95	57	140	118	74	88	125	99