Just A Minute

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Oz" <j_a_m_fan@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Oz
>
> thanks for such an interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you say.
>
> Do you agree with me that they may be better to go back to the formula for the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and have say four or five regulars, three of whom are in each show (sometimes two, sometimes four but three on average)?
>
> I think that would help with the repartee and getting people to play off each other more...
>
> Haven't heard this week's show yet (I've been travelling) so I've that to look forward to!
>
> And yes thanks indeed to the kind people who share their files... lots of love from me!
>
> thanks again Oz...
>
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Oz
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:58 AM
> To: just-a-minute@...
> Subject: [just-a-minute] Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>
>
>
> 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.
>

--- In just-a-minute@..., Julian Personal <julianxbishop@...> wrote:
>
> Oz, I think your analysis is spot on. I suspect the producers of the show probably try to follow these type of rules when booking guests....in addition to trying to ensure that there is at least one woman; balance between older and younger panellist; not too south of England biased etc etc.
>
> I imagine that the producers try to get the "regulars" booked first (Probably Merton, Brandreth, Perkins, Norton and Hawks) and then fit in others around these regulars. However, there are so many more opportunities for comics now (than say 20 years ago). All of the regulars will have a lot of commitments that, as professionals, they will want to keep; and they will all have opportunities outside comedy that they want to explore. It's for this reason that there will never be a settled panel as there was in the old days. My guess is that the panel composition often has to change at the last minute for a variety of reasons and someone is brought at reasonably short notice. In these cases, the balance of the panel may be upset. I've also heard that the increase in shows outside London has meant that it is more difficult to secure the bigger names on a regular basis.
>
> JAM tries a lot of newbies. In some respects, this is healthy but I think they've overdone it. If I were the JAM producer, I wouldn't chase the new comedian in town. I think those that work best are those that listened to it growing up. They understand how to play the game and how to make it entertaining. Above all, they understand that it's a team game. They also love the game and will continue to play it as they get more successful (because they want to be part of its heritage). Paul Merton loved the game when he was young, and he continues to play it because he loves it. I don't know what fee is paid for the show, but he certainly doesn't need the money. Most of the panellists would earn a lot more from corporate work for one evening's work. Graham Norton is another example of someone who has earned a fortune in his career and does it for fun. It shows in the contribution both make to the show.
>
> Not every newbie will work as the producers would have hoped. Given the format of the recording, you almost always have 2 recordings of the newbie (but with the newbie having almost no time to learn from the first). I like it when they persevere with someone; I seem to recall that Graham Norton had a relatively poor start. Even Stephen Fry couldn't initially talk for more than 10 seconds without repeating himself.
>
> The price of finding someone really special at the game is that you have to have a few failures too. Personally, I would like to have at least one non-comedian on the panel (widens perspective). John Sergeant is a bright, articulate person with a sense of humour, but - as one of my daughters would say - he sucks at the game. I suspect he should no longer be booked.
>
> Thanks for your post, Oz.
>
> Julianwww.julianxbishop.wordpress.com
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "Oz" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>

 

Julian,

Thanks for responding to my thoughts. I agree with much of what you say (see my reply to Dean also), though would dispute the fact that more shows are outside London now. The producers seem to be going backwards in that respect, and maybe it is because it makes bookings easier. I've noticed, for example, that Stephen Fry has NEVER done a show outside London.

I also accept that there are bound to be failures with some newbies - what really erks me is when they try someone who has clearly never even bothered listening to the show before ... AND is useless at it. It seems a waste of an opportunity.

I mention the Fringe as a good place to try out newbies because its the one place they have to give someone just one show ... having said that surely it wouldn't be the end of the world to invite two newbies along to a London show and give them one each? it never seems to be done, not these days anyway. And lets face it, its a great place to get national and even international exposure for a lesser name.

The fee for the show is notoriously small (although I have no actual proof of this) and so to get such stars as Norton and Merton the producers must be completely dependent on their good will towards the show.

I tend to agree with your non-comedian point also - but unless you can find someone with the wit and cutting sense of humour of Clement Freud, ie. a pretty unique individual, then it probably wont work. I did name Tim Rice and Gyles Brandreth as non-comedians though. Lisa Tarbuck is an example of a non-comedian who really doesn't work.

Thanks again for reading and thinking about my comments.

Oz

--- In just-a-minute@..., Julian Personal <julianxbishop@...> wrote:
>
> Oz, I think your analysis is spot on. I suspect the producers of the show probably try to follow these type of rules when booking guests....in addition to trying to ensure that there is at least one woman; balance between older and younger panellist; not too south of England biased etc etc.
>
> I imagine that the producers try to get the "regulars" booked first (Probably Merton, Brandreth, Perkins, Norton and Hawks) and then fit in others around these regulars. However, there are so many more opportunities for comics now (than say 20 years ago). All of the regulars will have a lot of commitments that, as professionals, they will want to keep; and they will all have opportunities outside comedy that they want to explore. It's for this reason that there will never be a settled panel as there was in the old days. My guess is that the panel composition often has to change at the last minute for a variety of reasons and someone is brought at reasonably short notice. In these cases, the balance of the panel may be upset. I've also heard that the increase in shows outside London has meant that it is more difficult to secure the bigger names on a regular basis.
>
> JAM tries a lot of newbies. In some respects, this is healthy but I think they've overdone it. If I were the JAM producer, I wouldn't chase the new comedian in town. I think those that work best are those that listened to it growing up. They understand how to play the game and how to make it entertaining. Above all, they understand that it's a team game. They also love the game and will continue to play it as they get more successful (because they want to be part of its heritage). Paul Merton loved the game when he was young, and he continues to play it because he loves it. I don't know what fee is paid for the show, but he certainly doesn't need the money. Most of the panellists would earn a lot more from corporate work for one evening's work. Graham Norton is another example of someone who has earned a fortune in his career and does it for fun. It shows in the contribution both make to the show.
>
> Not every newbie will work as the producers would have hoped. Given the format of the recording, you almost always have 2 recordings of the newbie (but with the newbie having almost no time to learn from the first). I like it when they persevere with someone; I seem to recall that Graham Norton had a relatively poor start. Even Stephen Fry couldn't initially talk for more than 10 seconds without repeating himself.
>
> The price of finding someone really special at the game is that you have to have a few failures too. Personally, I would like to have at least one non-comedian on the panel (widens perspective). John Sergeant is a bright, articulate person with a sense of humour, but - as one of my daughters would say - he sucks at the game. I suspect he should no longer be booked.
>
> Thanks for your post, Oz.
>
> Julianwww.julianxbishop.wordpress.com
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "Oz" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Steve Kenrick" <steve.kenrick@...> wrote:
>
> I'll leap to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. True, she's not in the Premier
> League of JAM players, but she does have an air of honesty and normality,
> that some of the more extrovert, surreal players choose not to exhibit. For
> me, that produces a programme that is well balanced.
>
>
>
> I would choose Lisa over Sue Perkins every day of the week, in fact I'd
> choose anyone over..
>
>
>
>
>
> From: just-a-minute@... [mailto:just-a-minute@...]
> On Behalf Of Oz
> Sent: 21 August 2010 08:54
> To: just-a-minute@...
> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Dean,
>
> I do agree that that formula is best, averaging 3 regulars drawn from a pool
> of those I named in my 'top group'. However, I suspect that it just isn't
> possible due to the schedules of those people. Paul Merton would probably
> make time and Tony Hawks and Kit Hesketh-Harvey probably have time, but
> those such as Fry and Perkins seem to have an unbelievable amount of other
> work, Ross Noble has moved abroad, Clary and Norton probably have more work
> than they can handle also. Even Jenny Eclair's mainstream career has taken
> off in a big way in recent years (I say 'even' because her stand-up is
> pretty crude stuff and nowhere near the mainstream).
>
> It really can only happen if such stars as these are prepared to put aside
> some of their other (most likely better paying work) simply for love of the
> tradition of the game.
>
> I'm surprised no one has leapt to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. Does this
> mean everyone agrees with me that her run has been over-long? Or is it just
> that people couldn't be bothered to read such a long post?
>
> Keep safe on your travels, Dean
>
> Oz
>
> --- In just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dean" <dbedford@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Oz
> >
> > thanks for such an interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you say.
> >
> > Do you agree with me that they may be better to go back to the formula for
> the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and have say four or five regulars, three of whom
> are in each show (sometimes two, sometimes four but three on average)?
> >
> > I think that would help with the repartee and getting people to play off
> each other more...
> >
> > Haven't heard this week's show yet (I've been travelling) so I've that to
> look forward to!
> >
> > And yes thanks indeed to the kind people who share their files... lots of
> love from me!
> >
> > thanks again Oz...
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Oz
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:58 AM
> > To: just-a-minute@... <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > Subject: [just-a-minute] Recent Shows/Classic Shows
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>

--- In just-a-minute@..., Julian Personal <julianxbishop@...> wrote:
>
> Assuming the fee is around £500 to £1000 (per two shows), I know for a fact that a couple of big name JAM regulars well earn over 50 times that for hosting big corporate shows*
>
> How many of us would regularly swap our work for stuff that pays 1/50 of what they could get elsewhere. Therefore, you would either do it to build your profile (which most of the regulars don't need to do) or because you love the show and the opportunity to have dinner with the other panellists. Either way, it would suggest that you book those who grew up with the show.
>
> * Even Gyles Brandreth (not a big name in celebrity terms) quotes a rate of £5K according to his agent's website.
>
> Julian
>
> www.julianxbishop.wordpress.com
>
> On 21 Aug 2010, at 09:22, "Oz" <j_a_m_fan@...> wrote:
>
> > Julian,
> >
> > Thanks for responding to my thoughts. I agree with much of what you say (see my reply to Dean also), though would dispute the fact that more shows are outside London now. The producers seem to be going backwards in that respect, and maybe it is because it makes bookings easier. I've noticed, for example, that Stephen Fry has NEVER done a show outside London.
> >
> > I also accept that there are bound to be failures with some newbies - what really erks me is when they try someone who has clearly never even bothered listening to the show before ... AND is useless at it. It seems a waste of an opportunity.
> >
> > I mention the Fringe as a good place to try out newbies because its the one place they have to give someone just one show ... having said that surely it wouldn't be the end of the world to invite two newbies along to a London show and give them one each? it never seems to be done, not these days anyway. And lets face it, its a great place to get national and even international exposure for a lesser name.
> >
> > The fee for the show is notoriously small (although I have no actual proof of this) and so to get such stars as Norton and Merton the producers must be completely dependent on their good will towards the show.
> >
> > I tend to agree with your non-comedian point also - but unless you can find someone with the wit and cutting sense of humour of Clement Freud, ie. a pretty unique individual, then it probably wont work. I did name Tim Rice and Gyles Brandreth as non-comedians though. Lisa Tarbuck is an example of a non-comedian who really doesn't work.
> >
> > Thanks again for reading and thinking about my comments.
> >
> > Oz
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@..., Julian Personal <julianxbishop@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oz, I think your analysis is spot on. I suspect the producers of the show probably try to follow these type of rules when booking guests....in addition to trying to ensure that there is at least one woman; balance between older and younger panellist; not too south of England biased etc etc.
> > >
> > > I imagine that the producers try to get the "regulars" booked first (Probably Merton, Brandreth, Perkins, Norton and Hawks) and then fit in others around these regulars. However, there are so many more opportunities for comics now (than say 20 years ago). All of the regulars will have a lot of commitments that, as professionals, they will want to keep; and they will all have opportunities outside comedy that they want to explore. It's for this reason that there will never be a settled panel as there was in the old days. My guess is that the panel composition often has to change at the last minute for a variety of reasons and someone is brought at reasonably short notice. In these cases, the balance of the panel may be upset. I've also heard that the increase in shows outside London has meant that it is more difficult to secure the bigger names on a regular basis.
> > >
> > > JAM tries a lot of newbies. In some respects, this is healthy but I think they've overdone it. If I were the JAM producer, I wouldn't chase the new comedian in town. I think those that work best are those that listened to it growing up. They understand how to play the game and how to make it entertaining. Above all, they understand that it's a team game. They also love the game and will continue to play it as they get more successful (because they want to be part of its heritage). Paul Merton loved the game when he was young, and he continues to play it because he loves it. I don't know what fee is paid for the show, but he certainly doesn't need the money. Most of the panellists would earn a lot more from corporate work for one evening's work. Graham Norton is another example of someone who has earned a fortune in his career and does it for fun. It shows in the contribution both make to the show.
> > >
> > > Not every newbie will work as the producers would have hoped. Given the format of the recording, you almost always have 2 recordings of the newbie (but with the newbie having almost no time to learn from the first). I like it when they persevere with someone; I seem to recall that Graham Norton had a relatively poor start. Even Stephen Fry couldn't initially talk for more than 10 seconds without repeating himself.
> > >
> > > The price of finding someone really special at the game is that you have to have a few failures too. Personally, I would like to have at least one non-comedian on the panel (widens perspective). John Sergeant is a bright, articulate person with a sense of humour, but - as one of my daughters would say - he sucks at the game. I suspect he should no longer be booked.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your post, Oz.
> > >
> > > Julianwww.julianxbishop.wordpress.com
> > >
> > > --- In just-a-minute@..., "Oz" <j_a_m_fan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Steve Kenrick" <steve.kenrick@...> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liza_Tarbuck
>
>
>
> Don't get me wrong Oz, I'm not trying to say that Lisa is a strong or even
> good player. However, when the likes of Paul Merton and Ross Noble are on
> the show, for me, it helps to have more subdued players like Lisa, or even
> John Sergeant there to produce a more balanced panel.
>
>
>
> When La Perkins is on with either Paul or Ross, or both, she is so
> determined not to be overshadowed by them, that in my opinion she tries too
> hard. Mind you, being the fair person that I am, I haven't given up with
> her. Every time I see she is a panellist, I hope that she is going to say
> something to make me laugh, even smile. It just hasn't happened yet
>
>
>
> There is no other panellist whose performance irritates me like hers. The
> only other performer who came close was Wendy Richards, who imo, seemed to
> take herself and the game too seriously. Unfortunately for her, she
> appeared to have neither the education nor the intellect to compete
> effectively with her more learned competitors.
>
>
>
> From: just-a-minute@... [mailto:just-a-minute@...]
> On Behalf Of Oz
> Sent: 21 August 2010 12:39
> To: just-a-minute@...
> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>
>
>
>
>
> Well I must admit I've had my problems with Sue Perkins in one respect,
> namely her very basic lack of general knowledge on a couple of
> cringe-inducing occasions. I can't say I hold anything against L.T. at all.
> Simply that when talking on a subject she is neither particularly
> interesting or funny. No more so than a likeable member of the public might
> be, in fact. Come to think of it, other than having a very famous father,
> what is her claim to celebrity other than being just another C list
> panellist on various game-shows?
>
> --- In just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Kenrick"
> <steve.kenrick@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll leap to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. True, she's not in the Premier
> > League of JAM players, but she does have an air of honesty and normality,
> > that some of the more extrovert, surreal players choose not to exhibit.
> For
> > me, that produces a programme that is well balanced.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would choose Lisa over Sue Perkins every day of the week, in fact I'd
> > choose anyone over..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Oz
> > Sent: 21 August 2010 08:54
> > To: just-a-minute@... <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Recent Shows/Classic Shows
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Dean,
> >
> > I do agree that that formula is best, averaging 3 regulars drawn from a
> pool
> > of those I named in my 'top group'. However, I suspect that it just isn't
> > possible due to the schedules of those people. Paul Merton would probably
> > make time and Tony Hawks and Kit Hesketh-Harvey probably have time, but
> > those such as Fry and Perkins seem to have an unbelievable amount of other
> > work, Ross Noble has moved abroad, Clary and Norton probably have more
> work
> > than they can handle also. Even Jenny Eclair's mainstream career has taken
> > off in a big way in recent years (I say 'even' because her stand-up is
> > pretty crude stuff and nowhere near the mainstream).
> >
> > It really can only happen if such stars as these are prepared to put aside
> > some of their other (most likely better paying work) simply for love of
> the
> > tradition of the game.
> >
> > I'm surprised no one has leapt to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. Does this
> > mean everyone agrees with me that her run has been over-long? Or is it
> just
> > that people couldn't be bothered to read such a long post?
> >
> > Keep safe on your travels, Dean
> >
> > Oz
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dean" <dbedford@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Oz
> > >
> > > thanks for such an interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you say.
> > >
> > > Do you agree with me that they may be better to go back to the formula
> for
> > the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and have say four or five regulars, three of
> whom
> > are in each show (sometimes two, sometimes four but three on average)?
> > >
> > > I think that would help with the repartee and getting people to play off
> > each other more...
> > >
> > > Haven't heard this week's show yet (I've been travelling) so I've that
> to
> > look forward to!
> > >
> > > And yes thanks indeed to the kind people who share their files... lots
> of
> > love from me!
> > >
> > > thanks again Oz...
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Oz
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:58 AM
> > > To: just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Subject: [just-a-minute] Recent Shows/Classic Shows
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
>

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Oz" <j_a_m_fan@...> wrote:
> When Sue Perkins first appeared on our TV screens, didn't she used to be part of a double-act? What happened to the other woman, if indeed this was the case? Does anyone know? It might be an indicator to her sense of loyalty, or otherwise, which could be relevant to JAM if the producers have her pencilled in as co-anchor with Merton.

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Oz" <j_a_m_fan@...> wrote:
...Ross Noble has moved abroad...

On Sat Aug 21st, 2010 3:53 AM EDT Oz wrote:

>Hi Dean,
>
>I do agree that that formula is best, averaging 3 regulars drawn from a pool of those I named in my 'top group'. However, I suspect that it just isn't possible due to the schedules of those people. Paul Merton would probably make time and Tony Hawks and Kit Hesketh-Harvey probably have time, but those such as Fry and Perkins seem to have an unbelievable amount of other work, Ross Noble has moved abroad, Clary and Norton probably have more work than they can handle also. Even Jenny Eclair's mainstream career has taken off in a big way in recent years (I say 'even' because her stand-up is pretty crude stuff and nowhere near the mainstream).
>
>It really can only happen if such stars as these are prepared to put aside some of their other (most likely better paying work) simply for love of the tradition of the game.
>
>I'm surprised no one has leapt to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. Does this mean everyone agrees with me that her run has been over-long? Or is it just that people couldn't be bothered to read such a long post?
>
>Keep safe on your travels, Dean
>
>Oz
>
>--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Oz
>>
>> thanks for such an interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you say.
>>
>> Do you agree with me that they may be better to go back to the formula for the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and have say four or five regulars, three of whom are in each show (sometimes two, sometimes four but three on average)?
>>
>> I think that would help with the repartee and getting people to play off each other more...
>>
>> Haven't heard this week's show yet (I've been travelling) so I've that to look forward to!
>>
>> And yes thanks indeed to the kind people who share their files... lots of love from me!
>>
>> thanks again Oz...
>>
>> Dean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Oz
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:58 AM
>> To: just-a-minute@...
>> Subject: [just-a-minute] Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>

On Sat Aug 21st, 2010 8:09 AM EDT Steve Kenrick wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liza_Tarbuck
>
>
>
>Don't get me wrong Oz, I'm not trying to say that Lisa is a strong or even
>good player. However, when the likes of Paul Merton and Ross Noble are on
>the show, for me, it helps to have more subdued players like Lisa, or even
>John Sergeant there to produce a more balanced panel.
>
>
>
>When La Perkins is on with either Paul or Ross, or both, she is so
>determined not to be overshadowed by them, that in my opinion she tries too
>hard. Mind you, being the fair person that I am, I haven't given up with
>her. Every time I see she is a panellist, I hope that she is going to say
>something to make me laugh, even smile. It just hasn't happened yet
>
>
>
>There is no other panellist whose performance irritates me like hers. The
>only other performer who came close was Wendy Richards, who imo, seemed to
>take herself and the game too seriously. Unfortunately for her, she
>appeared to have neither the education nor the intellect to compete
>effectively with her more learned competitors.
>
>
>
>From: just-a-minute@... [mailto:just-a-minute@...]
>On Behalf Of Oz
>Sent: 21 August 2010 12:39
>To: just-a-minute@...
>Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>
>
>
>
>
>Well I must admit I've had my problems with Sue Perkins in one respect,
>namely her very basic lack of general knowledge on a couple of
>cringe-inducing occasions. I can't say I hold anything against L.T. at all.
>Simply that when talking on a subject she is neither particularly
>interesting or funny. No more so than a likeable member of the public might
>be, in fact. Come to think of it, other than having a very famous father,
>what is her claim to celebrity other than being just another C list
>panellist on various game-shows?
>
>--- In just-a-minute@...
><mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Kenrick"
><steve.kenrick@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'll leap to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. True, she's not in the Premier
>> League of JAM players, but she does have an air of honesty and normality,
>> that some of the more extrovert, surreal players choose not to exhibit.
>For
>> me, that produces a programme that is well balanced.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would choose Lisa over Sue Perkins every day of the week, in fact I'd
>> choose anyone over..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: just-a-minute@...
><mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
>[mailto:just-a-minute@...
><mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>> On Behalf Of Oz
>> Sent: 21 August 2010 08:54
>> To: just-a-minute@... <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
>
>> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dean,
>>
>> I do agree that that formula is best, averaging 3 regulars drawn from a
>pool
>> of those I named in my 'top group'. However, I suspect that it just isn't
>> possible due to the schedules of those people. Paul Merton would probably
>> make time and Tony Hawks and Kit Hesketh-Harvey probably have time, but
>> those such as Fry and Perkins seem to have an unbelievable amount of other
>> work, Ross Noble has moved abroad, Clary and Norton probably have more
>work
>> than they can handle also. Even Jenny Eclair's mainstream career has taken
>> off in a big way in recent years (I say 'even' because her stand-up is
>> pretty crude stuff and nowhere near the mainstream).
>>
>> It really can only happen if such stars as these are prepared to put aside
>> some of their other (most likely better paying work) simply for love of
>the
>> tradition of the game.
>>
>> I'm surprised no one has leapt to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. Does this
>> mean everyone agrees with me that her run has been over-long? Or is it
>just
>> that people couldn't be bothered to read such a long post?
>>
>> Keep safe on your travels, Dean
>>
>> Oz
>>
>> --- In just-a-minute@...
><mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dean" <dbedford@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Oz
>> >
>> > thanks for such an interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you say.
>> >
>> > Do you agree with me that they may be better to go back to the formula
>for
>> the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and have say four or five regulars, three of
>whom
>> are in each show (sometimes two, sometimes four but three on average)?
>> >
>> > I think that would help with the repartee and getting people to play off
>> each other more...
>> >
>> > Haven't heard this week's show yet (I've been travelling) so I've that
>to
>> look forward to!
>> >
>> > And yes thanks indeed to the kind people who share their files... lots
>of
>> love from me!
>> >
>> > thanks again Oz...
>> >
>> > Dean
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Oz
>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:58 AM
>> > To: just-a-minute@...
><mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
>>
>> > Subject: [just-a-minute] Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>
>
>