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.
I kept it back for a while because i was waiting for you to embark on your usual posting pattern, and you didn't dissappoint - it always makes me smile.
Even now, when you have been proved wrong, you still bluster.
You contain even more repeats than the average pay tv channel.....
I kept it back for a while because i was waiting for you to embark on your usual posting pattern, and you didn't dissappoint - it always makes me smile.
Even now, when you have been proved wrong, you still bluster.
You contain even more repeats than the average pay tv channel.....
Enjoy your moment, but when you get a minute, look back at your posts and see how wound up you get over trivia, then wonder why it happens.
As I said, you always make me smile.
Enjoy your moment, but when you get a minute, look back at your posts and see how wound up you get over trivia, then wonder why it happens.
As I said, you always make me smile.
Me? Wound up?
You seem to be actually.
Trivia? That would have been your point that i was responsing too, so if my point (which is right) is "trivia" - then so is yours.
One trend is the use of very short snippets of copyright music, no more than 30 seconds.
Is this simply a dodge to get around the need to pay royalties, as some of the podcasts I listen to have music clips limited to 30 seconds for copyright purposes.
Trivia? That would have been your point that i was responsing too, so if my point (which is right) is "trivia" - then so is yours.
If you didn't get wound up, you'd have moved on, as I did suggest to you, at least a couple of times.
Yes it's all trivia, but the difference of course, is that I find your intensity amusing, as I often tell you that you make me smile, when you go "off on one," because you take it all so seriously.
One of the most pointless examples is when the football match summaries are being read out on Radio Cambridgeshire. It begins with what I can only describe as a techno-lite accompaniment, which is then faded down, so that all you can hear is the high frequency tinkling of the cymbal samples, which is like trying to fight tinnitus.
Background 'noise' is a pet hate of mine too - it smacks of 'dumbing down' and the producers' lack of confidence in the programme content, ie why not let the words and pictures speak for themselves? If a programme is well crafted then background music won't add anything (except irritation).
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.
I rarely get the chance to savour the wonders of daytime TV but I've been off very poorly yesterday and today, and I cannot believe how terrible is BBC1.
HUTH is one of the most awful, crass, low rent, low skill shows I've ever seen. Ghastly presenters and the music is hysterical. They'll pick the most obscure, inappropriate piece so long as there is some tenuous link in the lyric to something referred to regarding whatever damp ridden dump they are featuring. And there's one every time. Does the editor think it amusing or ironic in some way?
Very old fashioned programme - the entire production crew were born middle aged.
I rarely get the chance to savour the wonders of daytime TV but I've been off very poorly yesterday and today, and I cannot believe how terrible is BBC1.
HUTH is one of the most awful, crass, low rent, low skill shows I've ever seen. Ghastly presenters and the music is hysterical. They'll pick the most obscure, inappropriate piece so long as there is some tenuous link in the lyric to something referred to regarding whatever damp ridden dump they are featuring. And there's one every time. Does the editor think it amusing or ironic in some way?
Very old fashioned programme - the entire production crew were born middle aged.
The music in HUTH is hilarious in a horrifying kind of way. I don't know who chooses it, but he has some serious bad taste issues. Either that or he hates his job and wants to get the sack - only to find his producer has a weird sense of humour and actually likes his choices.
You didn't "move on" - and it was you who was in the wrong.
Wasn't my awarding you the two Brownie points enough, for saving a link to an otherwise long forgotten thread over eighteen months old and was actually a topic on the scheduling of Wimbledon, for crissakes? And you were asking me to find it?
And in actual fact, the complaint about the Brian Cox programme, was originally because the music was too loud.
So I'm now going to deduct one of the Brownie points.
You have hit a very raw nerve with me with this topic.So much so I don't know how to put into words my exasperation and annoyance at the amount of accompanying music there is nowadays to virtually everything that is broadcast.
I first noticed it with certain Channel 4/5 programmes about Hotel Inspectors and related ones where there is virtually continual music of a stupid jingly jangly type and it doesn't stop when there is someone speaking.
It of course reflects a modern day disease as music (use the word advisedly) as it is there in practically every high street shop as well.
Need I continue - I just hate its intrusion into what often can be interesting programmes.
In addition to the irritating use of background music, many programmes accompany this with frantic changing of camera shots. For example, in programmes like "The Great British Bake Off", "Masterchef" etc. (while they are cooking) the camera shot changes so frequently that you hardly get to see what people are doing for more than a 1 second. It's very frustrating once you start to notice it.
Programme makers don't understand the concept of "less is more" and that it's OK to have silence in a drama or documentary (or for the camera to linger for more than a few seconds on a shot).
One of the things I like about dramas like Borgen and old documentaries like The World at War is the minimal use of background music. Something that is good quality simply doesn't need it.
You have hit a very raw nerve with me with this topic.So much so I don't know how to put into words my exasperation and annoyance at the amount of accompanying music there is nowadays to virtually everything that is broadcast.
I first noticed it with certain Channel 4/5 programmes about Hotel Inspectors and related ones where there is virtually continual music of a stupid jingly jangly type and it doesn't stop when there is someone speaking.
It of course reflects a modern day disease as music (use the word advisedly) as it is there in practically every high street shop as well.
Need I continue - I just hate its intrusion into what often can be interesting programmes.
As I've often said, music is sometimes used as a form of obfuscation, to mask the fact that what you're watching, at particular moments lacks interest, suspense or in a drama, the standard of acting appears to be poor.
It would seem as if that when some recorded programmes are reviewed in post-production, it's a case of the producer/director saying; "Ramp the music up a bit here 'cos this scene's a bit dull...hmm.. and there too, hmm, better make it louder throughout."
The complaints to the BBC have gone on for over a decade, other channels must get complaints too. But the BBC seem to come in for the most flack.
Time and again the situation is raised on that little fluffy Sunday afternoon TV comedy show called "Points of View" and the occasional "suit" is dragged on to say, "We'll address the problem." but it seems to usually be just a fob off, as they know it'll happen again. So as David Vine would say "and there you have it!"
So many programmes are produced by so many BBC people and other companies for them, they haven't a hope in hell of really controlling it.
It makes it seem worse when you start to recognise what they are doing with the music in some programmes.
The trouble is that I have become allergic to it as you can to so many potential irritants from the world we live in. Some programmes have, for me, become unwatchable.
Wasn't my awarding you the two Brownie points enough, for saving a link to an otherwise long forgotten thread over eighteen months old and was actually a topic on the scheduling of Wimbledon, for crissakes? And you were asking me to find it?
And in actual fact, the complaint about the Brian Cox programme, was originally because the music was too loud.
So I'm now going to deduct one of the Brownie points.
And you stated something which wass wrong, i told you it was wrong and that we'd debated it before.
This is when you should have "moved on" yourself, but we get the usual indignant routine and multi-page argument.
All of this started because you were in error in the first place.
And all of this would not have happened if you "moved on" or "scrolled down" and didn't take this as seriously.
In addition to the irritating use of background music, many programmes accompany this with frantic changing of camera shots. For example, in programmes like "The Great British Bake Off", "Masterchef" etc. (while they are cooking) the camera shot changes so frequently that you hardly get to see what people are doing for more than a 1 second. It's very frustrating once you start to notice it.
And you stated something which wass wrong, i told you it was wrong and that we'd debated it before.
This is when you should have "moved on" yourself, but we get the usual indignant routine and multi-page argument.
All of this started because you were in error in the first place.
And all of this would not have happened if you "moved on" or "scrolled down" and didn't take this as seriously.
Read the first line of your post, then look at your post count and then ask yourself who actually takes this board seriously. You need very little encouragement, or haven't you noticed?
A read through your contributions to this thread as in many, would reveal you've added little more than a bit of "nit picking." But that's just you, everyone's different.
As for the assertion that there were complaints that the music was considered not loud enough in the second Cox programme, given that the original programme was thought to have music too loud, read like another bit of BBC spin. "We can't do right for doing wrong." But your "loyalty" to the BBC would never let you consider that.
I've suggested you move on enough times, in many threads, but you always want the last word. You'll be back again.
Read the first line of your post, then look at your post count and then ask yourself who actually takes this board seriously. You need very little encouragement, or haven't you noticed?
A read through your contributions to this thread as in many, would reveal you've added little more than a bit of "nit picking." But that's just you, everyone's different.
As for the assertion that there were complaints that the music was considered not loud enough in the second Cox programme, given that the original programme was thought to have music too loud, read like another bit of BBC spin. "We can't do right for doing wrong." But your "loyalty" to the BBC would never let you consider that.
I've suggested you move on enough times, in many threads, but you always want the last word. You'll be back again.
Regardless of the distractions, you were wrong. Simple.
Regardless of the distractions, you were wrong. Simple.
You're back, no surprise there. I'm just responding to the countless post you've made quoting my comments, after I made one on the OP's own.
I'll admit to not having as good a memory as you for trivia.
But then I don't bookmark every thread to which I've ever contributed. There's more to life than that... for some.
You're back, no surprise there. I'm just responding to the countless post you've made quoting my comments, after I made one on the OP's own.
I'll admit to not having as good a memory as you for trivia.
But then I don't bookmark every thread to which I've ever contributed. There's more to life than that... for some.
If your own views were "trivia" then you wouldn't defend them so much.
You dig in and argue with insolence but dismiss other's views as trivia - when, by definition, yours are too.
It's an odd stance, seeing as you were wrong in the first place so have, in effect, started the argument yourself.
Comments
I kept it back for a while because i was waiting for you to embark on your usual posting pattern, and you didn't dissappoint - it always makes me smile.
Even now, when you have been proved wrong, you still bluster.
You contain even more repeats than the average pay tv channel.....
Enjoy your moment, but when you get a minute, look back at your posts and see how wound up you get over trivia, then wonder why it happens.
As I said, you always make me smile.
Me? Wound up?
You seem to be actually.
Trivia? That would have been your point that i was responsing too, so if my point (which is right) is "trivia" - then so is yours.
Is this simply a dodge to get around the need to pay royalties, as some of the podcasts I listen to have music clips limited to 30 seconds for copyright purposes.
If you didn't get wound up, you'd have moved on, as I did suggest to you, at least a couple of times.
Yes it's all trivia, but the difference of course, is that I find your intensity amusing, as I often tell you that you make me smile, when you go "off on one," because you take it all so seriously.
I rarely get the chance to savour the wonders of daytime TV but I've been off very poorly yesterday and today, and I cannot believe how terrible is BBC1.
HUTH is one of the most awful, crass, low rent, low skill shows I've ever seen. Ghastly presenters and the music is hysterical. They'll pick the most obscure, inappropriate piece so long as there is some tenuous link in the lyric to something referred to regarding whatever damp ridden dump they are featuring. And there's one every time. Does the editor think it amusing or ironic in some way?
Very old fashioned programme - the entire production crew were born middle aged.
The music in HUTH is hilarious in a horrifying kind of way. I don't know who chooses it, but he has some serious bad taste issues. Either that or he hates his job and wants to get the sack - only to find his producer has a weird sense of humour and actually likes his choices.
You didn't "move on" - and it was you who was in the wrong.
Wasn't my awarding you the two Brownie points enough, for saving a link to an otherwise long forgotten thread over eighteen months old and was actually a topic on the scheduling of Wimbledon, for crissakes? And you were asking me to find it?
And in actual fact, the complaint about the Brian Cox programme, was originally because the music was too loud.
So I'm now going to deduct one of the Brownie points.
I first noticed it with certain Channel 4/5 programmes about Hotel Inspectors and related ones where there is virtually continual music of a stupid jingly jangly type and it doesn't stop when there is someone speaking.
It of course reflects a modern day disease as music (use the word advisedly) as it is there in practically every high street shop as well.
Need I continue - I just hate its intrusion into what often can be interesting programmes.
Programme makers don't understand the concept of "less is more" and that it's OK to have silence in a drama or documentary (or for the camera to linger for more than a few seconds on a shot).
One of the things I like about dramas like Borgen and old documentaries like The World at War is the minimal use of background music. Something that is good quality simply doesn't need it.
As I've often said, music is sometimes used as a form of obfuscation, to mask the fact that what you're watching, at particular moments lacks interest, suspense or in a drama, the standard of acting appears to be poor.
It would seem as if that when some recorded programmes are reviewed in post-production, it's a case of the producer/director saying; "Ramp the music up a bit here 'cos this scene's a bit dull...hmm.. and there too, hmm, better make it louder throughout."
The complaints to the BBC have gone on for over a decade, other channels must get complaints too. But the BBC seem to come in for the most flack.
Time and again the situation is raised on that little fluffy Sunday afternoon TV comedy show called "Points of View" and the occasional "suit" is dragged on to say, "We'll address the problem." but it seems to usually be just a fob off, as they know it'll happen again. So as David Vine would say "and there you have it!"
So many programmes are produced by so many BBC people and other companies for them, they haven't a hope in hell of really controlling it.
It makes it seem worse when you start to recognise what they are doing with the music in some programmes.
And you stated something which wass wrong, i told you it was wrong and that we'd debated it before.
This is when you should have "moved on" yourself, but we get the usual indignant routine and multi-page argument.
All of this started because you were in error in the first place.
And all of this would not have happened if you "moved on" or "scrolled down" and didn't take this as seriously.
Simple reason = They're the only broadcaster that openly reveals complaints. Result = They get kicked more.
See my post upthread about ADD-addled editors.
Read the first line of your post, then look at your post count and then ask yourself who actually takes this board seriously. You need very little encouragement, or haven't you noticed?
A read through your contributions to this thread as in many, would reveal you've added little more than a bit of "nit picking." But that's just you, everyone's different.
As for the assertion that there were complaints that the music was considered not loud enough in the second Cox programme, given that the original programme was thought to have music too loud, read like another bit of BBC spin. "We can't do right for doing wrong." But your "loyalty" to the BBC would never let you consider that.
I've suggested you move on enough times, in many threads, but you always want the last word. You'll be back again.
Regardless of the distractions, you were wrong. Simple.
You're back, no surprise there. I'm just responding to the countless post you've made quoting my comments, after I made one on the OP's own.
I'll admit to not having as good a memory as you for trivia.
But then I don't bookmark every thread to which I've ever contributed. There's more to life than that... for some.
If your own views were "trivia" then you wouldn't defend them so much.
You dig in and argue with insolence but dismiss other's views as trivia - when, by definition, yours are too.
It's an odd stance, seeing as you were wrong in the first place so have, in effect, started the argument yourself.