Just A Minute

 
<<<<   9310   >>>>

Re: 462 - Goose - a new edit

Messages in this topic: 11 View All
Tony BaechlerAug 15, 2013
 

 
Hi,

Thanks for this useful bit of information. I had noticed that the WS shows
were shorter but wasn't sure why. As I've mentioned here before, I am a fan
of quiz shows. I went to the WS archives and found an episode of Brain of
Britain, but the running time is only 26:49 and I was wondering why. The
regular BBC shows usually run close to 28:00. I can't really see what they
would need to edit out of a quiz show, but your explanation of JAM edits
below makes sense. I have heard several other comedies rebroadcast by ABC,
such as Many a Slip, so presumably they are the WS versions. Again, I
noticed that at least a couple of minutes are missing, but I can't figure
out what was cut. That now makes some sense. I would still really like a
complete set of Many a Slip without the WS edits. Many episodes of JAM seem
to run 25:00 as well, also ABC rebroadcasts.

On 8/14/2013 8:38 PM, James R Curry wrote:
>
>
> Hello, JAMfolk!
>
> I'll keep the interesting bit at the top and the stuff you can ignore below.
>
> So, slowly making good on my promise to sort through the World Service
> episodes, I compared the crisp if low-bitrate World Service copy of #462,
> Goose, to the version in my collection. The prior version in my collection
> is quite muffled, so as always, let me know if you have a better source.
>
> THE INTERESTING BIT
>
> I've made a new edit of #462, using the World Service recording and splicing
> in two bits from the old recording that weren't in the world service copy.
> 35 seconds of material. This gives us a full copy of the episode in a
> mostly better quality than I believe we had before.
>
> It's available in my usual stash, which I won't post here. If you don't
> have it and you're a regular poster, email me.
>
> THE LESS INTERESTING DETAILS
>
> Oh, to be a World Service editor. I'm honestly not sure if the World
> Service edits are trimmed down from the domestic broadcast, or if both edits
> start with the same source material and are created independently. There
> are a lot of timing differences, when in one edit the studio audience
> laughter will be shorter (it's kind of white noise, so I imagine easy for
> them to make that sort of cut) or speech will be tightened with a pause
> between words shortened here and there. It's actually kind of interesting
> the first time you play the edits on top of each other, and they seem
> perfectly in sync for a little while, and then all of a sudden one has
> jumped ahead because of these edits.
>
> In this case, the World Service edit was actually the longer one for the
> first couple of minutes. Then, after that, the original broadcast was
> consistently longer due to these non-content edits. They gained 32 seconds
> like this, in fact.
>
> There are two actual content edits in this episode, and these are the bits I
> restored (I really don't care about the non-content changes). From Dean's
> incredibly helpful site, here's the first of them:
>
> NP: 23 seconds for you, salad days starting now.
>
> CF: Good challenge, yes.
>
> NP: I think it's a good challenge, yes, Clement. Definitely. And I gave my
> reason and I think I was justified. Derek you have the subject,
>
> Obviously non-essential talk that's cut for time, but I do hate missing
> banter, especially with the original team. It's part of the great character
> of the show.
>
> The other edit was likely for content:
>
> DN: I once saw an untouchable in Bombay with a terrible carbuncle and I went
> to the local hospital and said "would you please give this poor man a
> dressing?" Now as he was of the wrong caste they wouldn't apply a dressing
> to him. Now I thought it was a tragedy...
>
> BUZZ
>
> NP: Paul Merton challenged.
>
> PM: Oh sorry, I was... dressing!
>
> NP: Dressing is the subject.
>
> PM: Sorry.
>
> NP: You can repeat the subject on the card, yes, it is easily done.
> Thirty-one seconds still with you Derek.
>
> As I've observed before, the World Service edits do tend to drop any content
> that may be considered sensitive, so I can see why this was excised.
>
> Anyhow, hope someone other than me enjoys the edit - I've encoded it back at
> a higher quality than any of the sources to try to stem generational loss.
>
>
> --
> James R Curry
> scratchy@... <mailto:scratchy@...>
>
>
>


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

 
<<<<   9310   >>>>

Back to the Top