Just A Minute

People, people, people...!

Can we please stop this unfair treatment of Nicholas Parsons.
 
Espen, being foreign, has never been to a recording of the show. This makes his misunderstanding of the show reasonable. But I can't make up my mind whether those of you who are egging him on in his Nick-baiting are simply being humorous?
 
Can I put it on record, in the hope of ending this misunderstanding, that this is an EDITED show.
 
I don't think those of you who have never been to a radio recording have any idea what that means.
 
This show runs 28 minutes on-air, but the recordings can last as much as 45 minutes. The producer edits the tape down to 28 minutes, but the structure of the show, i.e. the fact that each round lasts one minute, makes unusual demands on an editor. It is almost impossible to edit the actual one minute rounds; so all the editing is focussed on the between-rounds sections, and on the challenges during a round.
 
This means that everything the panellists say gets broadcast verbatim, and the editing concentrates on Nicholas Parsons's contributions as chairman. So it's Nick's remarks which are the most prone to being edited-out.
 
In order to fit, exactly, the 28 minute timeslot, a great deal of the inter-round chat gets edited out, i.e. removed at the editing stage. Because the editor is under pressure to include the one-minute rounds in their entirety, the explanations offfered by the chairman, for his decisions, are prone to be lost. The result is that, many a time, what the listener hears at home is only Nick's actual decision, not the reasons for it, and often not the chat between Nick and the panellists.
 
Even when it's possible to include some of the discussion relating to a challenge, the editing tends to favour the panellist, who is giving reasons why he buzzed; whereas Nick's contributions are often omitted, due to lack of air-time.
 
Hence, the fact that Nick sometimes sounds a complete lemon is often the fault of an unskilled producer, in cutting out Nick's reasons. The skill - or, rather, lack of it - in the editing can make Nick sound an idiot, even though the editing is intended to help keep the show flowing. There were times in the 1990s when the editing was particularly poor, but nowadays the editor makes greater efforts to give some intelligability to Nick's remarks.
 
In radio, the producer acts as the post-production editor. The golden age of the 1970s had producers such as David Hatch, who knew what they were doing. In later years, less experienced producers have been used. The name of the producer gives a clue as to how good or bad the editing on a particular broadcast is going to be. I flinch when certain producers are credited on 'Just A Minute'. I am not going to be invidious, and actually name any - but you all know who I mean, I'm sure.
 
But you are blaming Nick for faults in the editing of the shows, something which is beyond his control.

 

My impression is that Nic's repetition errors have become fewer in the last few years.

I totally agree - I think the difference between Nic during the 2000s versus Nic during the 1990s is stellar, no less. Some of the judgements during the 90s are just horribly bad. It's like he didn't pay attention at all. It sounds like he basically accepted every challenge, especially from the regulars, and changed his mind along the way.

As a matter of fact I think we have to get to this side of the new millennium shift before he's become fairly good.
He's always been charming though. :)