One of the worst for this is Homes Under the Hammer, any tenuous link, there is a clip of music to go with it, it is so annoying and silly. Someone who works on this programme has to watch this and think, what sort of music can I think of to go with this and comes up with corny associations. It makes me cringe.
Two old topics of dissatisfaction in TV broadcasts are 1:
irrelevant, over loud and intrusive background music, and 2: added, enhanced and mistimed audience laughter, a perfect example of which will be Ant and Dec's new show this evening.
The audience will be hyped up to the point of hysteria anyway but it always sounds to me that their sound is added to in some electronic way to make the programme appear better than it is.
Both of these I can do without.
One theory I like is that the Walkman generation have come of age and are long since in charge of everything. As they were born with earphones installed in their ears they think that life naturally has music accompanying it, and silence sounds odd to them. This would explain why, in talent shows like X-factor for example, we can't hear what people on the stage are saying because of unruly audiences shouting over them. The producers can't play music while commentators are talking so they compensate by asking the audience to cover the (to them) silence.
I don't mind the music that overlays most documentaries myself, unless it's too full of loud bangs and whooshes, but I am getting a little hard of hearing and do have to put the subtitles on in drama if there is dialogue that needs to be heard to understand the plot.
For me the most annoying thing is when they play background music during a drama and whilst people are talking. What's that all about? I find I can't hear what they are talking about and quickly lose interest in the program.
For me the most annoying thing is when they play background music during a drama and whilst people are talking. What's that all about? I find I can't hear what they are talking about and quickly lose interest in the program.
This is a common complaint, it isn't helped by the poor diction of some contemporary actors.
Also this penchant for actors to talk with their mouth full of food, a disgusting habit, often making what they say incomprehensible. I guess it's just a pathetic attempt at adding "realism."
As I mentioned earlier, in classic films, the music was usually muted when actors spoke.
It seemed important in those days for the audience to know what was going on.
What annoys me is that if some documentary goes on location in Wales we have to have, somewhere in it, either just the sound or a film featuring a Welsh choir singing. In a similar way with Scotland, sooner or later, one can guarantee the sound on bagpipes will be heard. It is almost obligatory.
There is far too much use of background music in all types of programme a good place to make cut-backs in these austere times. If a programmes needs background music to hold a viewers attention or to relieve the boredom of the commentary or picture being shown it is probably a programme not worth making anyway.
Where's the evidence that we actually had a discussion?
I'm sure you'd be able to find it.
But we don't have "discussions."
if I say something is "white" you'll usually suddenly appear to say it's "black" or vice-versa.
If you think it's "pointless" reasoning with me, why not take the hint, give everyone a break and stop constantly doing it?
As I've said so many times, I've no interest in any of your opinions, (when you have one), so never quote your posts unless you've criticised one of my opinions..
We discussed it before in one of the "points of view" threads.
You really should try and remember things a bit better.
And it's pointless "reasoning" with you, but i shall still try. Because when you say
The BBC have never said that anyone has ever complained that the background music wasn't loud enough.
it was wrong when you said it in the "points of view" thread, and it's wrong now. If you're allowed to repeat untruths then i'm allowed to repeat the truth.
You don't decide, unless you've suddenly become a mod.....
We discussed it before in one of the "points of view" threads.
You really should try and remember things a bit better.
And it's pointless "reasoning" with you, but i shall still try. Because when you say
it was wrong when you said it in the "points of view" thread, and it's wrong now. If you're allowed to repeat untruths then i'm allowed to repeat the truth.
You don't decide, unless you've suddenly become a mod.....
Hang on you're twisting yourself into knots.
"You really should try and remember things a bit better,"
Talk about me not remembering some ancient discussion only you remember, which you've been unable to prove, (if you could find a link you'd include it), you can't remember what you said yesterday, which was;
"it's pointless reasoning with you."
Yet here you are again!
You really are so unintentionally funny!
I'm not "deciding" anything. You said "it was pointless reasoning with me."
I just agreed.
I bet many as well as me had a huge sigh of relief at that, but I knew it was too good to last.
"You really should try and remember things a bit better,"
Talk about me not remembering some ancient discussion only you remember, which you've been unable to prove, (if you could find a link you'd include it), you can't remember what you said yesterday, which was;
"it's pointless reasoning with you."
Yet here you are again!
You really are so unintentionally funny!
I'm not "deciding" anything. You said "it was pointless reasoning with me."
I just agreed.
I bet many as well as me had a huge sigh of relief at that, but I knew it was too good to last.
Wrong on all counts Doghouse!
Nice try to divert around your original blunder though.
You stated something that was, simply, untrue.
And you have forgotten an earlier thread where you made the same mistake before.
It really is as simple as that!
Don't think for a second that anyone else is daft enough to fall for what you have just tried to pull off - and failed miserably.
i haven't forgotten, it is YOU that has done that.
Nice try to divert around your original blunder though.
You stated something that was, simply, untrue.
And you have forgotten an earlier thread where you made the same mistake before.
It really is as simple as that!
Don't think for a second that anyone else is daft enough to fall for what you have just tried to pull off - and failed miserably.
i haven't forgotten, it is YOU that has done that.
Oh dear!
You've failed time and again to provide any evidence that you and I had a conversation about anyone suggesting that there was once a complaint that the background music wasn't loud enough in one programme, yet I've given you plenty of opportunities.
"Just 'cos you said so" doesn't cut it.
So obviously what you've said is untrue. You're the one who's blundering! I shouldn't laugh, should I?
You said you it was pointless reasoning with me, (read your own post! Something you seem reluctant to do)
Yet in your very next post you continue to attempt to do just that!
Talk about, "simple as that."
Don't you realise how daft it was to make that assertion now?
You're just arguing for arguing's sake.
So no change there then.
Why don't you move on? Everyone else has. To continue this exchange is a waste of board space, well it is for me.
Producers are scared of silences in any type of programme.
I was watching The Birds (Hitchcock) a couple of days ago. It does not have a music score at all, the silence is itself a tension raising technique if they remade it you just know there would be a thick, soupy, too loud and insistent score telling you what to think/feel at any given moment.
That "reality shte" has its own plinky-plonky soundtrack merely gives me another reason not to watch.
"Sad Piano" is the worst of the lot - some sobbing person gets the hand held close up treatment with the VO telling us a sad tale.
Intrusive background music is absolutely my biggest hate about modern tv. I notice it most in documentaries, but it ruins many dramas too and it's not just the BBC who are guilty.
I wish TVs had a function which enabled the viewer to switch off (or at least turn down) the background music, while leaving the speech and natural sounds unaffected.
I know that people who are only slightly hard of hearing who have simply given up trying to watch them. Perhaps somebody ought to sue the BBC for discrimination, but they'd probably suggest using sub-titles so that it doesn't interfere with their glorious soundtrack.
I suspect that the real answer is that somebody decided to create a BBC soundtrack department and they now have to employ them at every opportunity to justify the expense. It's a pity they couldn't also employ somebody who knows how to balance the sound properly.[/QUOTE
Several years ago BBC Midlands news started playing background music while the Newsreaders were talking. Being slightly hard of hearing myself I complained and they replied that they had a new producer who liked it. The don't do it now.
For all your bluster (and that's all it is!) we HAVE discussed these previously - just do a search for "Points of view".
You were utterly wrong to say what you said then, and you didn't remember it for this thread.
I have now reminded you, so try not to make the same mistake again - it's little wonder people argue with you.
No, you do the search, as it's obviously so important to you, then post a link. Why should I bother?
If it were there, you'd have found it already, so what
you've said is just bluster.
If you can find it, I'll I'll give you two Brownie points.
This dialogue is an "utter" waste of time.
But then you seem to have far more than me.
You're the one who's arguing, I've already suggested we move on, but you just won't let it go will you?
You never do.
No, you do the search, as it's obviously so important to you, then post a link. Why should I bother?
If it were there, you'd have found it already, so what
you've said is just bluster.
If you can find it, I'll I'll give you two Brownie points.
This dialogue is an "utter" waste of time.
But then you seem to have far more than me.
You're the one who's arguing, I've already suggested we move on, but you just won't let it go will you?
You never do.
Nope, try harder, it is you who is arguing, a pattern repeated on every thread you participate in whenever someone calls you on something.
And now you won't even do the search, because you know you're wrong.
Nope, try harder, it is you who is arguing, a pattern repeated on every thread you participate in whenever someone calls you on something.
And now you won't even do the search, because you know you're wrong.
Hang on,
It was you who said there was a thread, but I don't think there was.
The burden of proof is on you, not me, so as they say, "either put up or shut up."
By "someone" I guess you mean you.
No one else has shown any interest.
I never quote any of your posts on programmes, whenever there are any, as they are few and far between, as I'm not interested in your opinions, if you like or dislike a programme, it's fine by me, why should I care?
It's you who's constantly "nit picking" my opinions on programmes. I've lost count of the number of times I've told you this when you've continually banged on unnecessarily, adding nothing of interest.
Now please, give everyone a break by ignoring my posts on programmes as I do yours, (maybe that's your problem?) and move on. This is going nowhere.
It was you who said there was a thread, but I don't think there was.
The burden of proof is on you, not me, so as they say, "either put up or shut up.".
There we go, a discussion about how the BBC listened and turned down the music on a Brian Cox programme....
You and me both participated in it.
I guess you've blustered it out of your own memory.
On further investigation there's some classic Doghouse in this one.
I mentioned about the change of F1 commentator - you blustered back about a presenter, when the point was never about that.
Well there you go, how long did it take you to find that?
I've no recollection of it, shows how important it must have been to me. There's more to my life than remembering who said what when on a message board over a year ago, but I guess everyone should have at least one hobby.
Anyway it's buried in a 19 page thread about the scheduling of Wimbledon.
But I'll award you the two Brownie points as I said I would if you could find it. I'm sure it'll give you a real sense of achievement, so I'm happy for you.
Well there you go, how long did it take you to find that?
I've no recollection of it, shows how important it must have been to me. There's more to my life than remembering who said what when on a message board over a year ago, but I guess everyone should have at least one hobby.
Anyway it's buried in a 19 page thread about the scheduling of Wimbledon.
But I'll award you the two Brownie points as I said I would if you could find it. I'm sure it'll give you a real sense of achievement, so I'm happy for you.
You've failed time and again to provide any evidence that you and I had a conversation about anyone suggesting that there was once a complaint that the background music wasn't loud enough in one programme, yet I've given you plenty of opportunities.
Oh, i found in about 25 seconds as soon as we started debating it AGAIN!
I gave you the opportunity to find it first, but you wouldn't even look because the bluster-ometer was off the scale....
To avoid "egg on face" syndrome i suggest you use less bluster and more of your other facilities in the future - thanks!
Oh, i found in about 25 seconds as soon as we started debating it AGAIN!
I gave you the opportunity to find it first, but you wouldn't even look because the bluster-ometer was off the scale....
To avoid "egg on face" syndrome i suggest you use less bluster and more of your other facilities in the future - thanks!
25 seconds?
If your hobby involves bookmarking every thread on this board in which you've participated, then I guess it wouldn't take all day.
Yes, you must be feeling really pleased with yourself, I can fully understand that, such small victories I guess can be very satisfying for some. So why didn't you find it a few pages back instead of constantly bangin' on about it?
I never blustered, I said I couldn't remember discussing it, I certainly didn't connect it to a topic about Wimbledon scheduling, I'd never have found it. But then why would I want to look for it? I mean, it wasn't that important, was it?
Oh, I s'ppose for some it might have been.
Such intensity about trivial matters always makes me smile.
Nearly all BBC documentaries are ruined by over-loud foreground music (background - I wish!). The Brian Cox ones are particularly bad in this respect, but what makes it even worse is that the speech seems to be simultaneously muffled.
I know that people who are only slightly hard of hearing who have simply given up trying to watch them. Perhaps somebody ought to sue the BBC for discrimination, but they'd probably suggest using sub-titles so that it doesn't interfere with their glorious soundtrack.
I suspect that the real answer is that somebody decided to create a BBC soundtrack department and they now have to employ them at every opportunity to justify the expense. It's a pity they couldn't also employ somebody who knows how to balance the sound properly.
The David Attenborough series Frozen Planet was utterly ruined for me by the near continuous music soundtrack. It only stopped for his pieces to camera. The music was good quality, but it was very distracting. One of the things about such remote places is that they are very quiet. Sadly what we viewers got was "dramatic" music to highlight the "dramas" mostly created by the editing team.
Is it an american thing? All of our programming seems to be copying crappy american tv values in particular in the reality genre.
Wherever it comes from it reeks of dumbing down. Pretty soon our wildlife programmes will look and sound like those corny Disney wildlife films from the 50s and 60s, complete with cute commentary.
TV drama in the 70s and 80s had hardly any incidental music. Drama and tension were created by the script, acting, direction and editing. Now it's rare to find a drama without it, the main exception being soap, and that's probably just to cut costs and save production time.
Comments
irrelevant, over loud and intrusive background music, and 2: added, enhanced and mistimed audience laughter, a perfect example of which will be Ant and Dec's new show this evening.
The audience will be hyped up to the point of hysteria anyway but it always sounds to me that their sound is added to in some electronic way to make the programme appear better than it is.
Both of these I can do without.
I don't mind the music that overlays most documentaries myself, unless it's too full of loud bangs and whooshes, but I am getting a little hard of hearing and do have to put the subtitles on in drama if there is dialogue that needs to be heard to understand the plot.
This is a common complaint, it isn't helped by the poor diction of some contemporary actors.
Also this penchant for actors to talk with their mouth full of food, a disgusting habit, often making what they say incomprehensible. I guess it's just a pathetic attempt at adding "realism."
As I mentioned earlier, in classic films, the music was usually muted when actors spoke.
It seemed important in those days for the audience to know what was going on.
There is far too much use of background music in all types of programme a good place to make cut-backs in these austere times. If a programmes needs background music to hold a viewers attention or to relieve the boredom of the commentary or picture being shown it is probably a programme not worth making anyway.
We discussed it before in one of the "points of view" threads.
You really should try and remember things a bit better.
And it's pointless "reasoning" with you, but i shall still try. Because when you say it was wrong when you said it in the "points of view" thread, and it's wrong now. If you're allowed to repeat untruths then i'm allowed to repeat the truth.
You don't decide, unless you've suddenly become a mod.....
Hang on you're twisting yourself into knots.
"You really should try and remember things a bit better,"
Talk about me not remembering some ancient discussion only you remember, which you've been unable to prove, (if you could find a link you'd include it), you can't remember what you said yesterday, which was;
"it's pointless reasoning with you."
Yet here you are again!
You really are so unintentionally funny!
I'm not "deciding" anything.
You said "it was pointless reasoning with me."
I just agreed.
I bet many as well as me had a huge sigh of relief at that, but I knew it was too good to last.
Wrong on all counts Doghouse!
Nice try to divert around your original blunder though.
You stated something that was, simply, untrue.
And you have forgotten an earlier thread where you made the same mistake before.
It really is as simple as that!
Don't think for a second that anyone else is daft enough to fall for what you have just tried to pull off - and failed miserably.
i haven't forgotten, it is YOU that has done that.
Oh dear!
You've failed time and again to provide any evidence that you and I had a conversation about anyone suggesting that there was once a complaint that the background music wasn't loud enough in one programme, yet I've given you plenty of opportunities.
"Just 'cos you said so" doesn't cut it.
So obviously what you've said is untrue. You're the one who's blundering! I shouldn't laugh, should I?
You said you it was pointless reasoning with me, (read your own post! Something you seem reluctant to do)
Yet in your very next post you continue to attempt to do just that!
Talk about, "simple as that."
Don't you realise how daft it was to make that assertion now?
You're just arguing for arguing's sake.
So no change there then.
Why don't you move on? Everyone else has. To continue this exchange is a waste of board space, well it is for me.
For all your bluster (and that's all it is!) we HAVE discussed these previously - just do a search for "Points of view".
You were utterly wrong to say what you said then, and you didn't remember it for this thread.
I have now reminded you, so try not to make the same mistake again - it's little wonder people argue with you.
I was watching The Birds (Hitchcock) a couple of days ago. It does not have a music score at all, the silence is itself a tension raising technique if they remade it you just know there would be a thick, soupy, too loud and insistent score telling you what to think/feel at any given moment.
That "reality shte" has its own plinky-plonky soundtrack merely gives me another reason not to watch.
"Sad Piano" is the worst of the lot - some sobbing person gets the hand held close up treatment with the VO telling us a sad tale.
I wish TVs had a function which enabled the viewer to switch off (or at least turn down) the background music, while leaving the speech and natural sounds unaffected.
and then this thread on the POV site http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/NF1951574?thread=8406637
and the BBC guidelines - which are mandatory for the BBC (no one else has this!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-hearing-full
it is worth pointing out that 10 complaints to the BBC on BGM provoke an investigation ...
No, you do the search, as it's obviously so important to you, then post a link. Why should I bother?
If it were there, you'd have found it already, so what
you've said is just bluster.
If you can find it, I'll I'll give you two Brownie points.
This dialogue is an "utter" waste of time.
But then you seem to have far more than me.
You're the one who's arguing, I've already suggested we move on, but you just won't let it go will you?
You never do.
Nope, try harder, it is you who is arguing, a pattern repeated on every thread you participate in whenever someone calls you on something.
And now you won't even do the search, because you know you're wrong.
Hang on,
It was you who said there was a thread, but I don't think there was.
The burden of proof is on you, not me, so as they say, "either put up or shut up."
By "someone" I guess you mean you.
No one else has shown any interest.
I never quote any of your posts on programmes, whenever there are any, as they are few and far between, as I'm not interested in your opinions, if you like or dislike a programme, it's fine by me, why should I care?
It's you who's constantly "nit picking" my opinions on programmes. I've lost count of the number of times I've told you this when you've continually banged on unnecessarily, adding nothing of interest.
Now please, give everyone a break by ignoring my posts on programmes as I do yours, (maybe that's your problem?) and move on. This is going nowhere.
I've been saving this for comic effect :
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=59765390&highlight=music+brian+cox#post59765390
There we go, a discussion about how the BBC listened and turned down the music on a Brian Cox programme....
You and me both participated in it.
I guess you've blustered it out of your own memory.
On further investigation there's some classic Doghouse in this one.
I mentioned about the change of F1 commentator - you blustered back about a presenter, when the point was never about that.
Well there you go, how long did it take you to find that?
I've no recollection of it, shows how important it must have been to me. There's more to my life than remembering who said what when on a message board over a year ago, but I guess everyone should have at least one hobby.
Anyway it's buried in a 19 page thread about the scheduling of Wimbledon.
But I'll award you the two Brownie points as I said I would if you could find it. I'm sure it'll give you a real sense of achievement, so I'm happy for you.
Fades to black ... runs credits over silence:D
Oh, i found in about 25 seconds as soon as we started debating it AGAIN!
I gave you the opportunity to find it first, but you wouldn't even look because the bluster-ometer was off the scale....
To avoid "egg on face" syndrome i suggest you use less bluster and more of your other facilities in the future - thanks!
25 seconds?
If your hobby involves bookmarking every thread on this board in which you've participated, then I guess it wouldn't take all day.
Yes, you must be feeling really pleased with yourself, I can fully understand that, such small victories I guess can be very satisfying for some. So why didn't you find it a few pages back instead of constantly bangin' on about it?
I never blustered, I said I couldn't remember discussing it, I certainly didn't connect it to a topic about Wimbledon scheduling, I'd never have found it. But then why would I want to look for it? I mean, it wasn't that important, was it?
Oh, I s'ppose for some it might have been.
Such intensity about trivial matters always makes me smile.
Wherever it comes from it reeks of dumbing down. Pretty soon our wildlife programmes will look and sound like those corny Disney wildlife films from the 50s and 60s, complete with cute commentary.
TV drama in the 70s and 80s had hardly any incidental music. Drama and tension were created by the script, acting, direction and editing. Now it's rare to find a drama without it, the main exception being soap, and that's probably just to cut costs and save production time.