The Economist on Bruce and SCD
Thanks for posting - an interesting read.
But I think the article is deeply scathing and completely fails to get SCD, its appeal and us - the fans.
Why can't we just enjoy the programme because we enjoy it. No - we have to be a bunch of saddos completely at odds wth modernity and harking back to an earlier era with plaintive longing.
Well I, for one, have no desire for the clocks to be turned back to the immediate post-war era. I like the fact that children don't get polio here anymore and that it's deeply unfashionable to boil vegetables until they are a grey, pulpy unidentifiable mess.
And yet I can love SCD too...now how could that be????
The author is a bit of a fool.
Last edited by Lydia T. Pott : 06-01-2008 at 12:40
But I think the article is deeply scathing and completely fails to get SCD, its appeal and us - the fans.
Why can't we just enjoy the programme because we enjoy it. No - we have to be a bunch of saddos completely at odds wth modernity and harking back to an earlier era with plaintive longing.
Well I, for one, have no desire for the clocks to be turned back to the immediate post-war era. I like the fact that children don't get polio here anymore and that it's deeply unfashionable to boil vegetables until they are a grey, pulpy unidentifiable mess.
And yet I can love SCD too...now how could that be????
The author is a bit of a fool.
Last edited by Lydia T. Pott : 06-01-2008 at 12:40
A bit of a fool - I don't think so..
"But the programme also offers something almost equally primal that, in Britain at least, may help to explain its draw: a sense of community, of being part of a national event—a feeling that television used to provide routinely before viewers' attention was fragmented. In Britain, where social atomisation is perhaps more keenly felt than elsewhere, it also offers Mr Forsyth."
Sharply observed - and NOT negative!
JJ
"But the programme also offers something almost equally primal that, in Britain at least, may help to explain its draw: a sense of community, of being part of a national event—a feeling that television used to provide routinely before viewers' attention was fragmented. In Britain, where social atomisation is perhaps more keenly felt than elsewhere, it also offers Mr Forsyth."
Sharply observed - and NOT negative!
JJ
Very interesting read, thanks.
Brucie is all the things they say, but having lived in the US for many years where there is a homogonized, slick method of presenting I find our bumbling have a go brit effort deeply comforting.
I enjoy strictly not because I want to live in the past, but for its sheer entertainment and it has reminded me how much I enjoyed dancing and having started again I feel much fitter.
Brucie is all the things they say, but having lived in the US for many years where there is a homogonized, slick method of presenting I find our bumbling have a go brit effort deeply comforting.
I enjoy strictly not because I want to live in the past, but for its sheer entertainment and it has reminded me how much I enjoyed dancing and having started again I feel much fitter.
Ooooh, I like this thread. I think it's an okay article but misses the point. You can tell the author hasn't really understood the phenom. Brucie's s'okay but I wouldn't/won't miss him when he goes. 
Sorry, but it's true. Give him the knighthood and get him going...It's the BBC and production team that seem attached to him more than the audience I suspect.
The fan appeal isn't about him anymore. What all the commentators and even the BBC seem to be missing is what we're really interested in. What are most of the threads here about? The pros. And/or their relationships with their celebrities. The pros are becoming celebrities (well, maybe minor ones but still nobody really writes much about the judges now do they?) in their own rights actually.
What are we obsessing about? Well, in the threads I've been looking at, it's the ITT extras and the little practice interactions. And the glories of youtube access so that we can go over it again and again. This commentator doesn't even get that Strictly isn't even about watching tv on the television anymore. Wake up man!
And, IMO, Claudia's much better than Tess or Bruce. Especially because on ITT it's the access to their personality and talent (epsecially over years and in tandem with different personalities under the pressure of competition) that really has made me a fan.
And I'm a pop culture queen. And I know nothing about British history (or care in terms of his nostalgia hypothesis).
So it's a well-written article...but possibly off at least from my perspective. A lot of the posts I've seen here are coming from women and men in their mid 30s-40s or teenagers who actually know a lot about pop culture and who actually are dancers or shaking their booty in some way or another (granted also spending too much time on their computers).
Nice to see you, to see you, nice.
Sorry, but it's true. Give him the knighthood and get him going...It's the BBC and production team that seem attached to him more than the audience I suspect.The fan appeal isn't about him anymore. What all the commentators and even the BBC seem to be missing is what we're really interested in. What are most of the threads here about? The pros. And/or their relationships with their celebrities. The pros are becoming celebrities (well, maybe minor ones but still nobody really writes much about the judges now do they?) in their own rights actually.
What are we obsessing about? Well, in the threads I've been looking at, it's the ITT extras and the little practice interactions. And the glories of youtube access so that we can go over it again and again. This commentator doesn't even get that Strictly isn't even about watching tv on the television anymore. Wake up man!
And, IMO, Claudia's much better than Tess or Bruce. Especially because on ITT it's the access to their personality and talent (epsecially over years and in tandem with different personalities under the pressure of competition) that really has made me a fan.
And I'm a pop culture queen. And I know nothing about British history (or care in terms of his nostalgia hypothesis).
So it's a well-written article...but possibly off at least from my perspective. A lot of the posts I've seen here are coming from women and men in their mid 30s-40s or teenagers who actually know a lot about pop culture and who actually are dancers or shaking their booty in some way or another (granted also spending too much time on their computers).
Nice to see you, to see you, nice.
As a once aspiring economist, I feel I should point out that economist on the whole do not state opinions, merely facts. Yes it is high camp, yes Brucie bumbles his way through, yes the format while popular isn't very intellectual. None of the statements in the article can be called criticism or even scathing they are merely fact.
The author does not say whether he likes the programme or not, he may love it being camp as an economist, he quite possibly loves the concept of pay to vote tv, he doesn't say he just uses some language that could be construed as being a bit close to the edge as far SCD fans are.
Heck I've seen worse language used on here when there is an argument of who did what to who and how awful Len was too such and such a celeb.
It could even be interpreted that the author is admiring, in that despite Bruce (80 next month) despite the kitsch, despite the over used reality/celeb format, he still likes it or well at least admires it's success, cos that is what an economist really appreciates......
The author does not say whether he likes the programme or not, he may love it being camp as an economist, he quite possibly loves the concept of pay to vote tv, he doesn't say he just uses some language that could be construed as being a bit close to the edge as far SCD fans are.
Heck I've seen worse language used on here when there is an argument of who did what to who and how awful Len was too such and such a celeb.
It could even be interpreted that the author is admiring, in that despite Bruce (80 next month) despite the kitsch, despite the over used reality/celeb format, he still likes it or well at least admires it's success, cos that is what an economist really appreciates......
Originally Posted by Hamlet77:
“
It could even be interpreted that the author is admiring, in that despite Bruce (80 next month) despite the kitsch, despite the over used reality/celeb format, he still likes it or well at least admires it's success, cos that is what an economist really appreciates......”
“
It could even be interpreted that the author is admiring, in that despite Bruce (80 next month) despite the kitsch, despite the over used reality/celeb format, he still likes it or well at least admires it's success, cos that is what an economist really appreciates......”
My thoughts too!
JJ
Originally Posted by Hamlet77:
“As a once aspiring economist, I feel I should point out that economist on the whole do not state opinions, merely facts.”
“As a once aspiring economist, I feel I should point out that economist on the whole do not state opinions, merely facts.”
ROFLMAO Economists stating merely facts??? That was a joke right? Hee.
The opinions in this article may be based on different points as you rightly point out, but they are _still_ opinions and hypotheses not facts. Economists do not have some super-speed dial to the truth. Let's not even get into how many times and economies they've messed up with their "facts".
Fantastic article! Thanks for posting. The Economist is a highly respected magazine, essential reading for the A's B's and C1's, partly because of it's keen insight and analysis. And it seems to have hit the nail on the head again here:
"But the programme also offers something almost equally primal that, in Britain at least, may help to explain its draw: a sense of community, of being part of a national event—a feeling that television used to provide routinely before viewers' attention was fragmented. In Britain, where social atomisation is perhaps more keenly felt than elsewhere, it also offers Mr Forsyth."
Popular culture is usually a no-go area for broadsheet class columnists and this one somewhat bucked the trend by writing about Strictly. But didn't he do well!
"But the programme also offers something almost equally primal that, in Britain at least, may help to explain its draw: a sense of community, of being part of a national event—a feeling that television used to provide routinely before viewers' attention was fragmented. In Britain, where social atomisation is perhaps more keenly felt than elsewhere, it also offers Mr Forsyth."
Popular culture is usually a no-go area for broadsheet class columnists and this one somewhat bucked the trend by writing about Strictly. But didn't he do well!
I wonder it this is a gender thing. (assuming Zeus is of the male persuasion). We both thought it was an excellent article, and picked out the identical paragraph to emphasise the point.
JJ (not being patronising one 'ickle bit!)
JJ (not being patronising one 'ickle bit!)
Originally Posted by Lydia T. Pott:
“Thanks for posting - an interesting read.
But I think the article is deeply scathing and completely fails to get SCD, its appeal and us - the fans.
Why can't we just enjoy the programme because we enjoy it. No - we have to be a bunch of saddos completely at odds wth modernity and harking back to an earlier era with plaintive longing.
Well I, for one, have no desire for the clocks to be turned back to the immediate post-war era. I like the fact that children don't get polio here anymore and that it's deeply unfashionable to boil vegetables until they are a grey, pulpy unidentifiable mess.
And yet I can love SCD too...now how could that be????
The author is a bit of a fool.”
“Thanks for posting - an interesting read.
But I think the article is deeply scathing and completely fails to get SCD, its appeal and us - the fans.
Why can't we just enjoy the programme because we enjoy it. No - we have to be a bunch of saddos completely at odds wth modernity and harking back to an earlier era with plaintive longing.
Well I, for one, have no desire for the clocks to be turned back to the immediate post-war era. I like the fact that children don't get polio here anymore and that it's deeply unfashionable to boil vegetables until they are a grey, pulpy unidentifiable mess.
And yet I can love SCD too...now how could that be????
The author is a bit of a fool.
”
I think not!!! They are right at least in one aspect, in the way I read it anyway, that it gives a sense of community. You just have to look at the various appreciation threads on this forum to see that.
Originally Posted by jjackson42:
“I wonder it this is a gender thing. (assuming Zeus is of the male persuasion). We both thought it was an excellent article, and picked out the identical paragraph to emphasise the point.
JJ (not being patronising one 'ickle bit!)”
“I wonder it this is a gender thing. (assuming Zeus is of the male persuasion). We both thought it was an excellent article, and picked out the identical paragraph to emphasise the point.
JJ (not being patronising one 'ickle bit!)”
It could be that or maybe we just both have great taste?
Originally Posted by Zeus:
“It could be that or maybe we just both have great taste?”
“It could be that or maybe we just both have great taste?
”
Probably both.
I do find it amusing how many people moaning about the article were (apparently) female.
JJ
The fact: Strictly is very popular.
The opinion: this popularity is baffling.
There is an idealisation of the past (well, there always is) as shown by the constant stream of costume dramas. But it is ridiculous to attribute the popularity of the show to any one thing. It is not Bruce, it is not the nostalgia of seeing dances such as the foxtrot, it is not the celebs, it is not the judges, it is not the music, it is not the pros, it is not the dancing, it is not the voting format, it is not what the press makes of the show etc. For each viewer, it is a different mixture of some of the above (i.e., for me, it is the pros, the dancing, the music. To a lesser extent the pros. Bruce, the judges make little difference, though am increasingly turning off the current judges.)
While the attempt to analyse the popularity was admirable, it seems obvious that whoever wrote this missed the point.
The opinion: this popularity is baffling.
There is an idealisation of the past (well, there always is) as shown by the constant stream of costume dramas. But it is ridiculous to attribute the popularity of the show to any one thing. It is not Bruce, it is not the nostalgia of seeing dances such as the foxtrot, it is not the celebs, it is not the judges, it is not the music, it is not the pros, it is not the dancing, it is not the voting format, it is not what the press makes of the show etc. For each viewer, it is a different mixture of some of the above (i.e., for me, it is the pros, the dancing, the music. To a lesser extent the pros. Bruce, the judges make little difference, though am increasingly turning off the current judges.)
While the attempt to analyse the popularity was admirable, it seems obvious that whoever wrote this missed the point.
Originally Posted by clonion:
“The fact: Strictly is very popular.
The opinion: this popularity is baffling.
There is an idealisation of the past (well, there always is) as shown by the constant stream of costume dramas. But it is ridiculous to attribute the popularity of the show to any one thing. It is not Bruce, it is not the nostalgia of seeing dances such as the foxtrot, it is not the celebs, it is not the judges, it is not the music, it is not the pros, it is not the dancing, it is not the voting format, it is not what the press makes of the show etc. For each viewer, it is a different mixture of some of the above (i.e., for me, it is the pros, the dancing, the music. To a lesser extent the pros. Bruce, the judges make little difference, though am increasingly turning off the current judges.)
While the attempt to analyse the popularity was admirable, it seems obvious that whoever wrote this missed the point.”
“The fact: Strictly is very popular.
The opinion: this popularity is baffling.
There is an idealisation of the past (well, there always is) as shown by the constant stream of costume dramas. But it is ridiculous to attribute the popularity of the show to any one thing. It is not Bruce, it is not the nostalgia of seeing dances such as the foxtrot, it is not the celebs, it is not the judges, it is not the music, it is not the pros, it is not the dancing, it is not the voting format, it is not what the press makes of the show etc. For each viewer, it is a different mixture of some of the above (i.e., for me, it is the pros, the dancing, the music. To a lesser extent the pros. Bruce, the judges make little difference, though am increasingly turning off the current judges.)
While the attempt to analyse the popularity was admirable, it seems obvious that whoever wrote this missed the point.”
Exactly!
The underlying assumptions in the piece are just that - assumptions - and the facts, such as they are, are few and far between. If they want to know why we like the programme we need to be asked and I'm not aware of any statistically relevant research into that any more than there is any statistically relevant research into SCD voting.
Perhaps worth reminding ourselves that just because a piece is published in a serious journal does not make it gospel.
Originally Posted by clonion:
“The fact: Strictly is very popular.
The opinion: this popularity is baffling.
There is an idealisation of the past (well, there always is) as shown by the constant stream of costume dramas. But it is ridiculous to attribute the popularity of the show to any one thing. It is not Bruce, it is not the nostalgia of seeing dances such as the foxtrot, it is not the celebs, it is not the judges, it is not the music, it is not the pros, it is not the dancing, it is not the voting format, it is not what the press makes of the show etc. For each viewer, it is a different mixture of some of the above (i.e., for me, it is the pros, the dancing, the music. To a lesser extent the pros. Bruce, the judges make little difference, though am increasingly turning off the current judges.)
While the attempt to analyse the popularity was admirable, it seems obvious that whoever wrote this missed the point.”
“The fact: Strictly is very popular.
The opinion: this popularity is baffling.
There is an idealisation of the past (well, there always is) as shown by the constant stream of costume dramas. But it is ridiculous to attribute the popularity of the show to any one thing. It is not Bruce, it is not the nostalgia of seeing dances such as the foxtrot, it is not the celebs, it is not the judges, it is not the music, it is not the pros, it is not the dancing, it is not the voting format, it is not what the press makes of the show etc. For each viewer, it is a different mixture of some of the above (i.e., for me, it is the pros, the dancing, the music. To a lesser extent the pros. Bruce, the judges make little difference, though am increasingly turning off the current judges.)
While the attempt to analyse the popularity was admirable, it seems obvious that whoever wrote this missed the point.”
Fact: Strictly is very popular
Opinion: Er, your post above.
Gosh, Clonion, seems as though you fell into the same trap as the author of the article!
But don't worry I do that all the time as well!
As it happens, I think the article wasn't that far from the truth. But the interesting thing about it was the author's apparent perception, published as it was in such a high regarded and well respected magazine. For my part I sincerely doubt that the views expressed came from a lone voice in the wind.
How strange - an article that is wholly positive about SCD and the position it has managed to reach in the mind of the GBP gets hammered on here! BUT almost exclusively by female members of the thread.
JJ (puzzled)
JJ (puzzled)
Originally Posted by Zeus:
“Fact: Strictly is very popular
Opinion: Er, your post above.
Gosh, Clonion, seems as though you fell into the same trap as the author of the article!
But don't worry I do that all the time as well!
As it happens, I think the article wasn't that far from the truth. But the interesting thing about it was the author's apparent perception, published as it was in such a high regarded and well respected magazine. For my part I sincerely doubt that the views expressed came from a lone voice in the wind.”
“Fact: Strictly is very popular
Opinion: Er, your post above.
Gosh, Clonion, seems as though you fell into the same trap as the author of the article!
But don't worry I do that all the time as well!
As it happens, I think the article wasn't that far from the truth. But the interesting thing about it was the author's apparent perception, published as it was in such a high regarded and well respected magazine. For my part I sincerely doubt that the views expressed came from a lone voice in the wind.”
Hee! It was more the assertion that The Economist deals entirely with facts - as the author appears to find the popularity baffling, then that is his/her opinion. The things I picked out as being part of the appeal would equally turn some people off. And while I would be baffled at that, I would respect it as their opinion, but would refute them if they argued it as fact!
I did appreciate reading something a little more... high-brow dealing with SCD. I found it interesting, among other things, in attributing the popularity to a nostalgia factor, as opposed to the "oh, they're fit! I'll vote for them" school of thought that seems to be trotted out as the reason why SCD appeals.
