I have just had a look at Dean's blog. He mentions briefly in his very recent article about JAM that back in the 1970s he, as a youngster, kept score, and the official finishing positions were often quite different from the points actually awarded/obtained (let's assume that that was irrespective of the right or wrong of the challenge). Dean (referring to his earlier blogs/emails) and I grew up listening to Kenneth, always desperate to win, needing every point, always wanting to be IN THE LEAD, RIGHT. And Nic saying, encouragingly, when he was, watch out, Kenneth, you haven't held the lead for long....be careful. Dean and I felt Kenneth's desire to find the release of a win. A red letter day indeed, when he did. So to us as teenagers I suppose, it was a very funny game. Unlike Dean's efforts with JAM statistics, my
table keeping lasted just 11 episodes in 1980. I pulled them out of the file today. From ep 277 to 287 the announced positions were right 5 times and wrong 6 times. A couple of those one could put down to showmanship - giving hard working players a joint first.
Now I recall fellow teenagers kept stats....usually football stats....and maybe teenagers do so today. So for every one of us middle aged blokes who (now) listen for a laugh only, and haven't the time or inclination to keep scores, there just may well be youngsters out there who do what we did.
Some BBC announcer introduced a recent show saying, the subjects include.... and ........ So expect to learn absolutely nothing about those subjects.
Tim Rice made the mistake of calling the show a debate in one (hilarious) episode, and Nic pulled him up saying it wasn't. It was a comedy
show, actually.
I Googled The Brains Trust and that led me to Does the Team Think? and Does the Team Think...., the latter a fairly recent revival chaired by Vic and Bob, which seems, from Wiki, to have been a very funny discussion program without the game element (maybe). I say this because some of this group's members may like to go and search for that show if they don't know it. It was not on Radio 4 so I missed it. This could be what JAM would be like without the game.
To echo the comment below, JAM without the competitive game, and the arguments over the rules would be a pale facsimile.
Dave
From: mattcchinn <matt_chinn@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 3:35 PM
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: What is JAM?
Yes, we (or I do anyway) listen to it for the spontaneous comedy banter.
Nicholas has always been bendy with his interpretations of the rules to keep the comedy flowing and to encourage less-experienced players to be more involved (or less intimidated?)
However, as discussed by Nicholas and Paul Merton on the intro to one of the CD collections, it's critical to the show that the players themselves are competitive and argue about the rules. Therein lie some of their best sources of humour.
Cheers,
Matt
--- In just-a-minute@..., "Greg @ Traralgon" <voyage@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Definitely a comedy, rather than a game show. Over the years I had a
> love/hate respect for Clement Freud. He was certainly witty, clever and
> entertaining. But would occasionally irritate me when being pedantic about
> the rules. Also, because I listen to it as a comedy, I am not greatly
> bothered by what may seem like a loose or varying interpretation of the
> rules by Nicholas. I just listen for the laughs!
>
>
>
> Greg.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: just-a-minute@... [mailto:just-a-minute@...]
> On Behalf Of David
> Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 1:08 AM
> To: just-a-minute@...
> Subject: [just-a-minute] What is JAM?
>
>
>
>
>
> Can I ask:
>
> Do most people listen to JAM as a game show or a comedy (or maybe both)?
>
> When I see posts about mistakes or errors in the show I wonder if others see
> JAM as a game show.
>
> Personally I am of the ISIHAC perspective where the points, winners and
> errors don't really matter to me so much. I listen for the laughs and
> entertainment.
>
> I just wondered how others felt.
>
> Love as always, David
>