Just A Minute

For some time now I have been toying with the idea of posting about the make-up of potentially classic shows. I'm sure many will disagree with my views and i'd be pleased to hear what you have to say. So here is my theory:

There are only a few people who have the skills and/or personality to speak on the given subject AND manage to be funny while avoiding the J.A.M. rule pitfalls. (Eg. P Merton, S Perkins, J Eclair, S Fry, K Hesketh-Harvey, G Norton, R Noble and to a lesser extent J Clary, T Hawks).

In between talking on the subject there are many players who can make funny challenges or come out with one-liners or over-the-top reactions to what has been said and thus contribute and add to the fun eg. S Hancock, M Brigstoke, P Ayres, C Collingwood, G Brandreth, S Frost, M McErlane, P McLynn, D O'Brien, C Neill, F MacAuley, J Lawrence, T Rice and arguably some others.

Another group are those with potential who have perhaps yet to prove themselves fully but have already had good moments such as D Mitchell, D Gorman, A Cochrane, J Dee, P Jupitus, R Brydon.

Then there are those who have little or no business on a J.A.M. panel eg. Lisa Tarbuck (fantastic personality but does little more than contribute an infectious giggle and is mostly incapable of discoursing on a subject AND being funny at the same time) John Seargent (It was all too apparent in the recent show that the days of this kind of contributor are over) Bill Bailey (surprisingly inept at allowing the show to flow, perhaps wanting to be too big a part of it). Greg Proops (plenty of chances but just can't get going when he has the subject). Victor Spinetti is another disaster that springs to mind. Included, it would appear, for geographic reasons, at least the mistake was not long and drawn out like poor Lisa has been.

For a potentially classic show I contend that you need at least two from the first group named above (which you will note is really quite small - I include only those who are still available) and one or two from the second. There is no guarantee of a classic show, of course, the mix has to be right as well as the players being on their 'game' on the day.

Fringe shows used to almost always be classics, with Paul Merton clearly very much at home and excited audiences spurring on Freud, Jones and Nimmo - but too many Fringe shows of late have been disappointing. In recent years the producers have gone out of their way to show-case new talent perhaps taking advantage of the Fringe format allowing bookings for just a single show. But the fresh faces have often either been no good or just too inexperienced at radio/J.A.M. The producer should never have more than one beginner on at any given time and there should always be at least two names from the top group involved. Of course it is essential to try new people from time to time but don't try two new players on the same show! It isn't Opportunity Knocks.

So, having said all that, I'm a little surprised at the negative feeling towards the 3 shows of the new season so far. Yes, the John Seargent and Lisa Tarbuck on the same show was a casting disaster (and I assume there is another show with this pair to come - how John Seargent comes back from that I do not know - for his sake I hope it was the second recording of the pair), but the other two shows have been RICH with talent and a fantastic mix of the top two groups of players with the ever-dependable Paul Merton (along with Nicholas, of course) giving the show the anchor it needs.

If the Fringe shows end up with the right mix of experience and the odd new(ish) face I think this could end up being a classic season as I already rate episodes 1 and 3 as potential classics (only time will tell if they deserve this appellation, of course).

Lastly, Thanks to Paul Hurwood and all those of you who record the shows and make them available to us who don't have the ability/tools to do it ourselves. The service you provide is absolutely invaluable to what I suspect is a very large, mostly silent majority. Thanks again.