Home  

Members  

Join  

Search  

Listings  

 
<<<<   9084   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 1 / 35
Wayne StylesJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9086   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 2 / 35
Tony BaechlerJun 15, 2013
 

 
Hi,

Actually, it's interesting that you mention this because I've been thinking
about the exact same thing. Since Nicholas is 90, it's just a matter of
time before he is no longer able to continue. The fact is that he will
probably not live longer than 10 more years. He has outlived the four
original players and is now older than Freud was when he left us.

It's interesting that you mention Paul. I've noticed that he seems to be
losing his spark. I've been listening to JAM series 58 and he seems much
sharper and more interested. If you listen to series 66 episode 3 with the
three full minutes, you can hear that someone could have challenged on at
least two of them. To me, it sounded like it wasn't worth the bother and
the panelists didn't seem that interested. I haven't listened to any of
series 65, so I can't compare, but I'm interested in what other people think
of the 2013 shows. Obviously, there are no replacements for the originals,
but to me, after Peter Jones left us it began to sound like a completely
different show. The humor obviously was different due to the younger
comedians, but Freud was silent most of the time and when he did say
something, it seemed like as little as possible. It sounded like he became
more of a spectator and took the attitude that it's a younger person's game.
I wonder if Nicholas was encouraging this a little. Then again, in the
last recording with Peter Jones, he was obviously having a very hard time
concentrating and I could tell that he wasn't so sharp anymore. However,
especially in the 2008 and 2009 shows, Clement Freud almost never responded
with his sharp commentary as he did with the four regulars.

In short, I really can't think of who could replace Nicholas. I don't know
enough about British talent, but I don't think they would pick a current
player of the game. It would have to be someone who already has experience
and can be a good straight man without forcing too much of his personality
on the stars or the game itself. When KW died, there were still three
regulars plus Paul. There so far has been only one chairman and I just
don't see them looking too hard for a replacement. Maybe the chairman of
The Unbelievable Truth could take over, but I don't think so. I think Paul
would be a very bad choice. Oh well, I guess that means Dean will have to
take Nicholas' place.

Anyway, I would be very much interested in what people think of the series
now compared to previous years and how they think it has changed over the
years other than the obvious. In other words, I'm wondering what subtle
changes have happened. While I'm certainly a fan, I don't like the current
series. I prefer the 1975-80 timeframe. Even by 1986 or so the sound of
the show really started to change. I don't like KW either, but I can
tolerate him. My favorite of the originals are CF, PJ and DN in that order.
I would probably like DN more but I haven't heard enough of him to decide.
I was first attracted to the series by recognizing PJ from The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy. I think Paul is a good replacement for KW, but still
doesn't quite have the edge of CF and the originals.

On 6/15/2013 2:43 AM, Wayne Styles wrote:
>
>
> OK, lets get back to JAM.
> As Nic starts to think about ending his time on JAM (as he will do
> eventually). We have had some great debates on who may take over from him,
> but is the show in a position to remain being broadcast? Radio and TV being
> the way it is and driven by numbers does anyone know how these are stacking
> up compared to other years. Is it a viable option. The likes of Graham,
> Stephen and Sue (who I have found a surprise soft spot for, she is an
> excellent player), of course Paul is a stalwart, but I do wonder if he has
> lost his way or with his poor mental health, seems to be a game show only
> player now. He has never IMHO found a channel for his talents. He did try to
> emulate Hancock for a while, but that did not workout either.
>
> I dont think younger ones are interested in JAM, I have tried to get them to
> listen, but they get bored after about 30 seconds.
>
> Any thoughts my JAM buddies
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Don Judge <don@...>
> *To:* "just-a-minute@..." <just-a-minute@...>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 June 2013, 9:18
> *Subject:* Re: [just-a-minute] Re: New shows?
>
>
> ....and relax....
>
> hehe, nice one Mark
>
> --
> Chilled
>
> Don __o
> \<,
> .....O/ O
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Mark <sirnylon@...>
> *To:* "just-a-minute@..." <just-a-minute@...>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 June 2013, 3:31
> *Subject:* Re: [just-a-minute] Re: New shows?
>
>
>
>
> On 15 June 2013 08:09, Tallguy <tallguy403@...
> <mailto:tallguy403@...>> wrote:
>
> Sorry but there are currently no threads in this forum
>
>
> If it says that, it means it's available only to registered forum
> users... the wording is regrettable, but I can't do much about that.
>
> On a different thread, unrelated to Tallguy's post...
>
> For those who seem so desperately confused about things, it's not too
> complicated.
>
> - There is the Yahoo mailing list, which is as it always has been. You
> can use it, or not. It's your choice.
> - There is the forum for those who want to use it; you do not *need* to
> use it if you have spiritual, moral, religious, legal, political or
> dietary objections to using it.
> - The forum always has the current login information for my JAM
> collection. You need to register at the forum to get the password
> because that gives me a little control over how that information is
> disseminated across the web. Again, if you don't like it, *don't use
> it*. It's your choice.
> - There's no "two tier" situation. I don't even understand what that is
> supposed to mean.
> - Registration to both this Yahoo list and and the forum is free and
> easy. It's not like selling your firstborn to Satan and then having to
> swim the length of the Thames to qualify.
> - You need not post to either venue if you don't want to. Noone is
> forcing you to do *anything*.
> - If you don't want to download my JAMs, *don't download them*. It's as
> simple as that.
> - Just for the love of Dog please stop moaning and whingeing about how
> difficult life is for you to get free downloads. We seeders put an
> enormous amount of time, money and/or effort into collecting, curating,
> editing and uploading material. If you can't be bothered putting a
> couple of minutes of thought into accessing them, that's your choice.
>
> I really don't see why there are so many pairs of knotted knickers
> waving around.
>
> There. Sorry for getting irritated, but I'm feeling a bit better now.
>
> --
> Mark
> JAM Jar - http://jamjar.nylon.net <http://nylon.net/up> - see the JAM
> forum for login credentials
> JAM forum - http://b9fx.com <http://b9fx.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Have a good day,
Tony Baechler
mailto:tony.baechler@...

 
<<<<   9087   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 3 / 35
Wayne StylesJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9088   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 4 / 35
nylonJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9089   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 5 / 35
MarkJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9090   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 6 / 35
DeanJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9091   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 7 / 35
DeanJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9092   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 8 / 35
DeanJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9093   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 9 / 35
DeanJun 15, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9094   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 10 / 35
Don JudgeJun 15, 2013
 

 

> Maybe they could open up a seat to the public

I think that would be risky to be honest, the cost of negating the risk would take a lot of money and effort.

 
<<<<   9095   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 11 / 35
Wayne StylesJun 16, 2013
 

 

 

 

 

From: Tony Baechler

Anyway, I would be very much interested in what people think of the series
now compared to previous years and how they think it has changed over the
years other than the obvious. In other words, I'm wondering what subtle
changes have happened.

 

 

Me – I find this a really fascinating subject, and anyone who listens to Espen’s stream where you hear old shows followed by new ones must think a bit about how the show has changed. Nicholas often suggests that subtle changes in how he interprets deviation have been instrumental, but I’m actually struck when I listen how little Nicholas seems to have changed the way he does his job. He was always a showman and interested in the show rather than the contest.

 

I think the key changes have been the personnel ones. Peter Jones’s arrival in 1971 was a turning point. For the previous three years the show was largely a battle of quick wit and word agility between Kenneth, Derek and Clement. Peter poked fun at the show, the rules, the contest elements in a way that I think proved to be crucial  to the show’s development. Had JAM stayed primarily a word game without the comedy elements taking centre stage, I don’t think the show would have lasted as long as it has. The second major turning point was clearly Paul’s arrival. Paul’s background was in improvised comedy and the making up of stories and scenarioes on the spot. Now everyone plays the game Paul’s way. It’s possible I think that Clement’s death may prove to be a turning point too, though it may still be too soon to say.

 

What’s changed? I think the major difference is that in the old days, part of the game was to talk about the subject. If  the subject was say Stanley Baldwin, the panellists tried to talk about him, in an interesting way if not always a comic way. Much of the humour actually came from the banter over challenges rather than what was being said on the subjects. These days, the panellists wouldn’t even try to be informative on a straight subject like that. You’ve got to have a laugh line within 10 seconds or Paul will buzz in on you. In 2010 when John Sergeant was on the panel he was an example of what I am saying. He was actually quite good at the mechanics of staying on subject without hesitating or repeating. But he didn’t have many punchlines so he was mercilessly attacked by the other panellists. In the old days John Sergeant’s word skill and knowledge would probably have seen him coming back regularly as a guest

 

I’m interested when people say they miss Clement because I reckon a Clement like personality would have no chance of becoming a regular on the show these days. I’m trying to think of a quick-witted and witty professional grump in today’s show biz world. The best I can think of is Simon Cowell! Would he be likely to be invited on to JAM these days – and would he fit in if he was?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
<<<<   9096   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 12 / 35
TroubleshooterJun 16, 2013
 

 
Personally I'd like to see Nic continue for as long as he wants to, and I have to think he wants to do so until the 50th year of the series as long as his health allows it. Paul holds the show together, even when he's having an off day. Amazingly Gyles keeps coming more and more into his own and given the number of shows he has appeared in in recent series I'd say he will be happy to continue being an anchor.

I realize that most of the more popular players have bigger career priorities than JAM, and that Graham, Sue and many of the others are not always available for recordings. Having said that, I do feel there are enough very good players at this time to limit the number of new players to only one per recording, and frankly I enjoy listening more when all four players are well known(in the JAM rotation)to me. I know Nic wants to always have a different lineup for every recording date, but that doesn't always translate to a good show - and unfortunately two good shows as they record two at a time. There have been several very good players missing from the 2013 lineup, players who should have been in the 2013 lineup rather than newcomers or players who have few shows under their belt. Many players have grown on me because of their frequency playing the game and getting ever better at it. If it is necessary to change recording dates around in order to accommodate the better known players to appear I think they should do so, rather than making do with who is available on the recording date. For me solid players are what makes JAM so enormously enjoyable, not listening to newbies struggling to last 20 seconds and not even amusing in their attempt to do so.

These are just my thoughts of course, and I'll keep listening regardless for as long as the show continues.


Louis

 
<<<<   9097   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 13 / 35
MarkJun 16, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9099   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 14 / 35
Tony BaechlerJun 16, 2013
 

 
Yes, you sum up my feelings perfectly. When I first heard the series, it
was with at least two of the original players. I don't remember what show
it was, but I'll guess it was from 1976 or 1977. I know it had Peter Jones
on it because I was looking for him specifically at the time. I don't
recall hearing KW or DN until much later in my listening. I'm almost
positive it had CF as well. I remember noting at the time how similar PJ
and CF sounded.

When I first heard the show, I didn't know it was a comedy. I really
thought it was supposed to be a serious show with some comic moments. Now,
the show is done just for laughs and no one even tries to be serious. I've
noticed that the BBC doesn't even ask non-comedians on the show as guests
anymore. I've also noticed that Paul will buzz in for no reason at all and
sometimes I wonder if it's just so the person speaking doesn't get a full
minute. It certainly doesn't seem to be about the points anymore. In the
earlier days, CF obviously cared very much about winning, but in his later
years, I don't think he did. I think he felt out of place and didn't really
choose to participate anymore due to the subtle changes.

I don't think Giles would be a good choice as chairman for a few reasons.
First, I think he's much too serious about playing the game and I don't
think he could be objective enough. Secondly, he's also not that young and
I think they would want someone around Paul's age. Finally, I just don't
think he would be a good choice due to his personality. They had a show
called Wordaholics with him as chairman. While he did OK, I think they
could've done better and I wouldn't say he was great. Remember that the
chairman gets very few laughs for himself and has to put up with the jokes
aimed at him by the panel. I don't think a lot of comedians could let
themselves go that much. Interestingly, I think of the regular players, CF
was the most fair chairman on the few shows where they had him doing it
instead of Nicholas.

On 6/15/2013 10:29 PM, Dean wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony Baechler <mailto:tony.baechler@...>
> Anyway, I would be very much interested in what people think of the series
> now compared to previous years and how they think it has changed over the
> years other than the obvious. In other words, I'm wondering what subtle
> changes have happened.
>
>
> Me – I find this a really fascinating subject, and anyone who listens to
> Espen’s stream where you hear old shows followed by new ones must think a
> bit about how the show has changed. Nicholas often suggests that subtle
> changes in how he interprets deviation have been instrumental, but I’m
> actually struck when I listen how little Nicholas seems to have changed the
> way he does his job. He was always a showman and interested in the show
> rather than the contest.
>
> I think the key changes have been the personnel ones. Peter Jones’s arrival
> in 1971 was a turning point. For the previous three years the show was
> largely a battle of quick wit and word agility between Kenneth, Derek and
> Clement. Peter poked fun at the show, the rules, the contest elements in a
> way that I think proved to be crucial to the show’s development. Had JAM
> stayed primarily a word game without the comedy elements taking centre
> stage, I don’t think the show would have lasted as long as it has. The
> second major turning point was clearly Paul’s arrival. Paul’s background was
> in improvised comedy and the making up of stories and scenarioes on the
> spot. Now everyone plays the game Paul’s way. It’s possible I think that
> Clement’s death may prove to be a turning point too, though it may still be
> too soon to say.
>
> What’s changed? I think the major difference is that in the old days, part
> of the game was to talk about the subject. If the subject was say Stanley
> Baldwin, the panellists tried to talk about him, in an interesting way if
> not always a comic way. Much of the humour actually came from the banter
> over challenges rather than what was being said on the subjects. These days,
> the panellists wouldn’t even try to be informative on a straight subject
> like that. You’ve got to have a laugh line within 10 seconds or Paul will
> buzz in on you. In 2010 when John Sergeant was on the panel he was an
> example of what I am saying. He was actually quite good at the mechanics of
> staying on subject without hesitating or repeating. But he didn’t have many
> punchlines so he was mercilessly attacked by the other panellists. In the
> old days John Sergeant’s word skill and knowledge would probably have seen
> him coming back regularly as a guest
>
> I’m interested when people say they miss Clement because I reckon a Clement
> like personality would have no chance of becoming a regular on the show
> these days. I’m trying to think of a quick-witted and witty professional
> grump in today’s show biz world. The best I can think of is Simon Cowell!
> Would he be likely to be invited on to JAM these days – and would he fit in
> if he was?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Have a good day,
Tony Baechler
mailto:tony.baechler@...

 
<<<<   9100   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 15 / 35
Tony BaechlerJun 16, 2013
 

 
Interesting that you mention wanting regular players. If you look at the
series up to around 1986, you'll see that many of the series ran 26 episodes
with mostly the four regulars. Even when there was a guest, they still kept
at least two or three of the regulars. Eventually there were more guests
and the regulars didn't appear as often. Now the only guaranteed regular is
Paul.

Since you mentioned Gyles, I had a realization thanks to Dean's site. Even
though Paul is now a regular and has more appearances than the other players
nowadays, Gyles is actually a much longer player, going back to the
originals. It's no wonder to me that he's so good at the game because he
has had a lot of experience. I think in terms of challenges and
personality, he is closest to CF but without being as grumpy. He likes the
arbitrary challenge though, like repitition of "you" and pushing the rules
of the game. I think that similar to CF, his goal is to win and outsmart
the rest of the players. I also think that's exactly why he wouldn't make a
good replacement for Nicholas.

On 6/16/2013 4:28 PM, Troubleshooter wrote:
> Personally I'd like to see Nic continue for as long as he wants to, and I have to think he wants to do so until the 50th year of the series as long as his health allows it. Paul holds the show together, even when he's having an off day. Amazingly Gyles keeps coming more and more into his own and given the number of shows he has appeared in in recent series I'd say he will be happy to continue being an anchor.
>
> I realize that most of the more popular players have bigger career priorities than JAM, and that Graham, Sue and many of the others are not always available for recordings. Having said that, I do feel there are enough very good players at this time to limit the number of new players to only one per recording, and frankly I enjoy listening more when all four players are well known(in the JAM rotation)to me. I know Nic wants to always have a different lineup for every recording date, but that doesn't always translate to a good show - and unfortunately two good shows as they record two at a time. There have been several very good players missing from the 2013 lineup, players who should have been in the 2013 lineup rather than newcomers or players who have few shows under their belt. Many players have grown on me because of their frequency playing the game and getting ever better at it. If it is necessary to change recording dates around in order to accommodate the better known player
s to appear I think they should do so, rather than making do with who is available on the recording date. For me solid players are what makes JAM so enormously enjoyable, not listening to newbies struggling to last 20 seconds and not even amusing in their attempt to do so.
>
> These are just my thoughts of course, and I'll keep listening regardless for as long as the show continues.
>
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> .
>


--
Have a good day,
Tony Baechler
mailto:tony.baechler@...

 
<<<<   9101   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 16 / 35
kj.naughtonJun 17, 2013
 

 
Hi folks,

I don't think that's entirely fair. There are some established players who appeared recently who aren't comedians, for example Pam Ayres (poet), Sheila (actress) and Charles (actor), Kit (musician), plus Gyles and Liza aren't really comedians either.

It's also the case that the BBC has tried to get non-comedians involved but many of the recent ones have been eminently forgettable. I give you Terry Wogan, John Sergeant and Hugh Bonneville. The recent non-comedians who I've enjoyed include Rick Wakeman (who was excellent at the show) and Fi Glover.

I do agree, though, that the emphasis of the show has changed to be played mostly for laughs. I'm one of those who vastly prefers this to the older fact-based format. Indeed it's probably true to say that I dislike the old shows with Peter being the only spark of life in what, to me, is a half-hour of preachiness (if there's such a word) interspersed with Kennethisms - which I also dislike.

It may be that the format now makes it much more likely that comedians will be good players so those are the people the BBC book. As others have pointed out, the current format actually works against people like John Sergeant, which is sad. However it's better to have a good show of comedians than a dull show of others.

IMHO, of course.

Cheers

kJ

--- In just-a-minute@..., Tony Baechler <tony.baechler@...> wrote:
>
> I've noticed that the BBC doesn't even ask non-comedians on
> the show as guests anymore.

 
<<<<   9102   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 17 / 35
MarkJun 16, 2013
 

 

On 16 June 2013 15:29, Dean <dbedford@...> wrote:

I’m trying to think of a quick-witted and witty professional grump in today’s show biz world. 

- Jack Dee - but he's already taken.

- Surprisingly enough, Jeremy Clarkson also leaps to mind.

- What about Bill Nighy... he would be a hoot, and at 63 he's just the right vintage.

- Germaine Greer?  Perhaps too annoying...

A hosting choice that leaps to mind is Tony Hawks - he's smooth and gentle, like Nic, a little sensitive, and has a great voice for radio.

--

Mark

JAM Jar - http://jamjar.nylon.net - see the JAM forum for login credentials

JAM forum - http://b9fx.com

 
<<<<   9103   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 18 / 35
Don JudgeJun 17, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9104   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 19 / 35
Espen KrømkeJun 17, 2013
 

 

 

A hosting choice that leaps to mind is Tony Hawks - he's smooth and gentle, like Nic, a little sensitive, and has a great voice for radio.

I've always rooted for Tony ever since we first started these discussions. I think he would be a really good chairman too.

Tony as the new chairman and Graham as regular along with Paul. That'd take JAM over the hurdle.

 
<<<<   9107   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 20 / 35
TroubleshooterJun 17, 2013
 

 
I'm not against the idea of having Tony give it a go when Nicolas passes the torch. One reason that immediately comes to mind would be the fact that Paul, Graham, Sue and Gyles would be comfortable with razzing Tony very quickly, perhaps (probably?) even immediately, and Tony has a sly wit that would allow for him to sometimes fire back while at other times allow for humility. He's a very gracious player and while I think it would be an unfortunate loss for the panel, he doesn't seem to be on the panel as much as in past years.

As I said before, I'm not against bring in new players as it must be done in order for the game to carry on, but one per show would suffice with three JAM familiars. Also, if Paul is absent from a recording I think the smartest thing they could do is NOT use that recording date for new players - for example, a team such as Graham, Sue, Tony and Gyles would make for great listening when Paul is unavailable. There are several long standing players you could rotate into that foursome if need be, names like Julian, Jenny, Sheila, Ross, Liza, Charles, Kit, or Pam; there are enough great players to make up some funny solid panels when Paul can't make the date. In my opinion there is only one first banana and that's Paul. I'm a big fan of many established players but none of them are as consistently aggressive in a comedic way as Paul. I'd like to not feel that way in all honesty, but I've heard many shows with Paul absent over the years and it takes a rock solid panel to make up for his loss.

When Clement was still around I think it was a bit easier to make up for Paul not being on the panel from time to time, but of late it simply hasn't worked well. The more I listen to shows that included Linda Smith the more I miss her as a player, and I think the game does as well. I also agree with some of the comments made by others in reference to non-comedians - I love listening to Sheila, Pam, Kit and Charles and I also thought that Rick Wakeman came across as both a funny, engaging guy and a good player.

--- In just-a-minute@..., Espen Krømke <espen.kromke@...> wrote:
>
> Den 17. juni 2013 02:37, skrev Mark:
> >
> > A hosting choice that leaps to mind is Tony Hawks - he's smooth and
> > gentle, like Nic, a little sensitive, and has a great voice for radio.
>
> I've always rooted for Tony ever since we first started these
> discussions. I think he would be a really good chairman too.
>
> Tony as the new chairman and Graham as regular along with Paul. That'd
> take JAM over the hurdle.
>

 
<<<<   9108   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 21 / 35
Espen KrømkeJun 18, 2013
 

 

 

I'm not against the idea of having Tony give it a go when Nicolas passes the torch. One reason that immediately comes to mind would be the fact that Paul, Graham, Sue and Gyles would be comfortable with razzing Tony very quickly, perhaps (probably?) even immediately, and Tony has a sly wit that would allow for him to sometimes fire back while at other times allow for humility. He's a very gracious player and while I think it would be an unfortunate loss for the panel, he doesn't seem to be on the panel as much as in past years.

 
<<<<   9112   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 22 / 35
michaelJun 18, 2013
 

 
Hi all..first time poster..yawn..i heard that, pardon...firstly may i say a big THANK YOU to you all, hey just for being alive and sharing my love for " Just a Minute." btw i hate JAM love Just a Minute..bet i'm not the only abbreviation hater...anywhooo

I think I have a very good candidate for the chairmanship..dear Steven Fry ...

i ty.

--- In just-a-minute@..., Mark <sirnylon@...> wrote:
>
> Agree. The average man/woman off the street would sit there like an
> ossified lump, jaw open, just listening.
> And if one did speak, it would probably destroy the flow of the game.
> Imagine throwing a random audience member into the Folies Begeres Can-Can
> sequence...
>
>
> On 16 June 2013 16:40, Don Judge <don@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > > Maybe they could open up a seat to the public
> > I think that would be risky to be honest, the cost of negating the risk
> > would take a lot of money and effort.
> >
> > Has anyone here tried playing JAM?
> > We tried it a few times as a family and it was incredibly difficult.
> > That was without the added pressures of an audience, radio recording,
> > other experienced team members.
> >
> > Even some of the present guests fail miserably and that's when they're
> > used to public speaking and entertaining etc.
> >
> > Mind you, as with Britain's Got Talent and the like, there may well be
> > some closet JAM experts lurking out there - they might just take some
> > finding.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers
> >
> > Don __o
> > \<,
> > .....O/ O
> >
> >
> > --
> Mark
> JAM Jar - http://jamjar.nylon.net <http://nylon.net/up> - see the JAM forum
> for login credentials
> JAM forum - http://b9fx.com
>

 
<<<<   9116   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 23 / 35
MarkJun 18, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9119   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 24 / 35
TroubleshooterJun 20, 2013
 

 
Is the companion show to this one the one where Gyles talks about he and Tony deciding that they would be joint winners when appearing together, having been deemed joint winners in their last show together? Just curious about that as I listened to that episode a few days ago. Of the current players I can't see anyone who would be as apt a candidate for the position. Tony just seems to have the demeanor for it, and it would be good to have a regular 'taste' of Tony's humor on the show even though he would not be a player.

--- In just-a-minute@..., Mark <sirnylon@...> wrote:
>
> I especially remember Tony in #684 ('Ruby Anniversary') when Nic decided to
> bend the rules just a bit. To quote from Dean's transcript:
>
> NP: So let me give you the final situation. Janey Godley who we love having
> on the show and does so well, but she did finish in fourth place. But Kit
> Hesketh-Harvey, who always does well, contributes magnificently, a
> brilliant third place. Gyles Brandreth, who always is great value in the
> show, in an amazing second place. But he was only one point behind Tony
> Hawks so wouldn't it be fairer to say that Gyles and Tony are our joint
> winners this week? Yes! So it only remains for me to say thank you to these
> four delightful players of the game, Tony Hawks, Gyles Brandreth, Janey
> Godley and Kit Hesketh-Harvey. I also thank Trudi Stevens, who has blown
> her whistle so well and also...
> TH: Are you taking some sort of betting bung on this then?
> NP: In what sense?
> TH: Well the person who is one point ahead at the end doesn't actually win?
> NP: Tony you got your applause for that extra point you got. No I just
> thought as we, I mean we are competitive, but at the same time we're
> generous.
> TH: Yes but a lot of people are betting on this game round the world.
> NP: All right, let's have a round of applause for Tony Hawks because he got
> one point more than Gyles! Justice is done so we carry on with the
> wind-up....
>
> Tony's (rightful) sensitivity to Nic's arbitrary ruling, and his clever
> retort at a time during which I imagine he was fuming internally, make me
> consider him a worthy future frontman for the show.
>
> Mark
>

 
<<<<   9121   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 25 / 35
Don JudgeJun 20, 2013
 

 

> NP: [SNIP] Justice is done so we carry on with the wind-up....

 
<<<<   9125   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 26 / 35
Wayne StylesJun 20, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9126   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 27 / 35
TroubleshooterJun 20, 2013
 

 
Alas, speaking for myself (an American fan) I honestly am woefully unaware of many personalities across the pond who I'm sure would be good candidates, therefore I'm only able to comment on the panelists.Liza has always been great fun on the show. While my vote still goes to Tony, I do think she'd have a good personality for the show. On the other hand, I don't think several of the regular panelists would so freely throw barbs at Liza as chairperson whereas I feel they would at Tony.

Louis

--- In just-a-minute@..., Wayne Styles <wayne.styles@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Jammers
> Well it seems that Tony is leading the way as someone who knows the show, but this is limiting it to the panelists? How about those in show business that have never been on the show. What skills do you think they would need and who would fit the bill?
>  
> John Sergeant
> Liza Goddard
> Lisa Tarbuck
> Nigel Havers
> John Sessions
>  
> All these spring to mind as people who can laugh at themselves without getting upset.
> Just a thought

 
<<<<   9161   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 28 / 35
DeanJun 26, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9163   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 29 / 35
James R CurryJun 26, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9165   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 30 / 35
Jeremy KeensJun 26, 2013
 

 

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:09 AM, James R Curry <scratchy@...> wrote:

 

Clarkson *would* be interesting.  Otherwise, another vote for Tony here.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Dean <dbedford@...> wrote:

Jeremy Clarkson would be interesting. I really like that idea. Germaine Greer is an interesting thought too. Don’t know Bill Nighy.

 

 

 

From: Mark

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:37 PM

To: just-a-minute@...

Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Will JAM continue

 

 

On 16 June 2013 15:29, Dean <dbedford@...> wrote:

I’m trying to think of a quick-witted and witty professional grump in today’s show biz world.

- Jack Dee - but he's already taken.

- Surprisingly enough, Jeremy Clarkson also leaps to mind.

- What about Bill Nighy... he would be a hoot, and at 63 he's just the right vintage.

- Germaine Greer?  Perhaps too annoying...

--
James R Curry

scratchy@...

 
<<<<   9172   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 31 / 35
BethAnneJun 27, 2013
 

 
Yeah, I don't know about Clarkson. He is entertaining and he is funny, but his general attitude of sneering at everything just doesn't seem to fit in with the JAM mantra.

Am I the only one who thinks the show should die with Nicholas?

 
<<<<   9173   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 32 / 35
MarkJun 27, 2013
 

 

 
<<<<   9174   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 33 / 35
Julian BishopJun 27, 2013
 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about Clarkson. He is entertaining and he is funny, but his general attitude of sneering at everything just doesn't seem to fit in with the JAM mantra.

Am I the only one who thinks the show should die with Nicholas?

 
<<<<   9175   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 34 / 35
TroubleshooterJun 27, 2013
 

 
I'm in agreement. Losing both Nicolas and Paul would be more than I think the show could weather. As has been mentioned before, losing Paul could be enough to cause the show's demise. As Paul has stated, there are simply too many good players out there at the present time to do away with the show should anything happen to Nic. Still and all, without the right chair replacement the show could easily wither and die a quick death. Whoever takes those duties after Nicolas should certainly have their own charm and grace.

Louis

--- In just-a-minute@..., Julian Bishop <julianxbishop@...> wrote:
>
> Probably on this community! It's an interesting perspective though and one which has not been debated here.
>
> I think if Paul decided to retire when Nicholas passed, the show would stop. I'm guessing that Nicholas would want it to continue after he was gone.
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2013, at 6:57 AM, "BethAnne" <jamdeviation@...> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I don't know about Clarkson. He is entertaining and he is funny, but his general attitude of sneering at everything just doesn't seem to fit in with the JAM mantra.
> >
> > Am I the only one who thinks the show should die with Nicholas?
> >
> >
>

 
<<<<   9183   >>>>

Topic: Re: Will JAM continue

Message 35 / 35
MarkJun 26, 2013