I suddenly realised the other day that I haven't posted all of my more recent You Tube videos within this blog.
So, here is a follow up to my video about my appearence on the BBC in July of this year.
This video tells the story of how that tv appearence came to be and what happened during the making of that piece.
Search The Web
Custom Search
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Monday, 15 July 2013
Another Slice Of My 15 Minutes Is Up.
This is a recording of a report on BBC South East Today in which I appeared. It originally went out last Friday evening, 12th July.
It's all about the making of the video for David Bowie's song 'Ashes to Ashes', part of which was filmed near Hastings.
I shall be recording a video all about the experience in due course and explaining the lengths myself and the reporter went to to reach the video location!
As with all these things, most of what was recorded wasn't used in the final piece. I actually think this was the worst bit that I did.
Thanks to Paul for sorting out the video.
It's all about the making of the video for David Bowie's song 'Ashes to Ashes', part of which was filmed near Hastings.
I shall be recording a video all about the experience in due course and explaining the lengths myself and the reporter went to to reach the video location!
As with all these things, most of what was recorded wasn't used in the final piece. I actually think this was the worst bit that I did.
Thanks to Paul for sorting out the video.
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
Looking Backwards, Looking Forwards.
I had a good 2012, so i thought i'd relay some of it for you. Hopefully, 2013 will be equally as good.
Spain Video Playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEBC37CDECFD54624&feature=mh_lolz
Pierless Music: http://pierlessmusic.co.uk/
Moose Musings eBook: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moose-Musings-ebook/dp/B006RXBRTC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357053904&sr=8-1
Moose Musings Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC5uQzuE9wE
Olympic Torch Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro5Po5caIXc
The 'scrabbleman' Trail:
http://andymooseman.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/scrabbleman-trail.html
As expected, i did forget a couple of things. Beatles Day & doing some radio shows for the local University radio station were missed. Phew.
Thursday, 1 November 2012
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
AudioBoo - The Listening Project.
Talking about lost memories & a new way of recording them for future generations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/the-listening-project
https://audioboo.fm/channel/listening-project
Thursday, 7 June 2012
Come In, Your 15 Minutes Is Up.
I'm going to be on the telly box again.
Yes, i meant to say "15 minutes of fame" & not 15 seconds.
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kqz5p
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/britaininaday
My footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6bG6SHi2r4
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Keeping It Real.
Maybe i'm just getting a little pedantic in my old age, or maybe i just get some kind of perverse pleasure out of it, i don't know? But, one of those things that bugs me these days are errors that i notice in tv programs and news reports.
The worst offenders, for me at least, are programs, or news reports, that feature the railway system in the UK.
I'd like a pound for every train that i've seen going backwards, but is actually shown as going forwards. For every train that is meant to be from one Train Operating Company, but is actually from another. And for every train that is stated, or suggested, as being in at a certain location, but is actually somewhere else.
Of course, having worked on the railway for very nearly 36 years has a considerable bearing on this. But, i'm sure that people from any walk of life can spot similar errors in areas that they are aquainted with?
I have a feeling that nobody can help themselves when they see a blatant error pop up on their tv screen? They immediately sit up in their chair and start shouting at the the tv. It is at this point that your wife either notices the same error, or points out that it doesn't really matter and that nobody actually cares.
But, i care and i think that it matters and that is good enough for me.
I can think of a couple of recent examples.
My local BBC news program did a piece about the temporary closure of a rail line, which includes work being carried out in Ore Tunnel, near Hastings. During the film they managed to show the wrong tunnel and the wrong type of train that would be affected. You might not think that this matters, but the train showed was electric and the line and trains to be affected are diesel. An electric train would not get very far on a non-electrified line now would it?
As you can imagine this provoked some debate and laughter amongst local railway colleagues online.
My other example, or examples, concern an otherwise very good BBC program called Great British Railway Journeys. Quite often during the program they show trains going in the wrong direction and shots that are obviously, to the trained and experienced eye, filmed and then played backwards.
As a general rule, trains in the UK drive on the left hand side by the way. So, as soon as i spot one on the right hand side of the tracks my eyes prick up.
As it happens, a few years ago i was actually involved in the filming of a specialist railway documentary. I helped the director facilitate his filming and also drove some of the trains that were filmed. The film was of a train drivers eye view of the railway lines between Brighton, Seaford and Ashford.
Although this was all filmed correctly, after all it was likely to be watched by many railway "anoraks". There was still some footage that was filmed to be used backwards in the finished product.
This was only footage filmed from within the train, looking out of the side window and to be honest there is no way you would be able to tell the difference anyway.
In this instance i totally understand why this was done. It certainly saved a lot of time and money and was not trying to deceive anyone. But it does show how just how frequently this kind of thing is done.
Whilst i fully understand that all of this doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things and that there are certainly far more important things to get worried and worked up about. I've always felt that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well.
As far as tv programs go, i have often thought that these "errors" are generally down to lazy journalism, cost cutting and maybe even deception.
And it doesn't exactly fill you full of confidence in the program concerned does it?
After all, if you can't believe the footage, how can you believe the words?
And don't get me started on news reporters standing in outdoor locations when there is absolutely no need for it. For example:
- Reporters hanging on for dear life and desperately trying not to be blown away when reporting gale force winds. We all know it's windy, but we don't need to see a reporter struggling in the wind, or having their umbrella blown inside out, to realise that.
- Local tv news reporters doing an outdoor piece from, literally, right outside the door to the tv studio building.
News doesn't suddenly become more exciting, authoritative or relevant because it is "reported" from the outdoors.
Phew! That feels better.
PS: If you are interested in seeing, or finding out more about that railway documentary i mentioned and see me driving a train, follow this link: Video125
I might just give the DVD a view myself.
The worst offenders, for me at least, are programs, or news reports, that feature the railway system in the UK.
I'd like a pound for every train that i've seen going backwards, but is actually shown as going forwards. For every train that is meant to be from one Train Operating Company, but is actually from another. And for every train that is stated, or suggested, as being in at a certain location, but is actually somewhere else.
Of course, having worked on the railway for very nearly 36 years has a considerable bearing on this. But, i'm sure that people from any walk of life can spot similar errors in areas that they are aquainted with?
I have a feeling that nobody can help themselves when they see a blatant error pop up on their tv screen? They immediately sit up in their chair and start shouting at the the tv. It is at this point that your wife either notices the same error, or points out that it doesn't really matter and that nobody actually cares.
But, i care and i think that it matters and that is good enough for me.
I can think of a couple of recent examples.
My local BBC news program did a piece about the temporary closure of a rail line, which includes work being carried out in Ore Tunnel, near Hastings. During the film they managed to show the wrong tunnel and the wrong type of train that would be affected. You might not think that this matters, but the train showed was electric and the line and trains to be affected are diesel. An electric train would not get very far on a non-electrified line now would it?
As you can imagine this provoked some debate and laughter amongst local railway colleagues online.
My other example, or examples, concern an otherwise very good BBC program called Great British Railway Journeys. Quite often during the program they show trains going in the wrong direction and shots that are obviously, to the trained and experienced eye, filmed and then played backwards.
As a general rule, trains in the UK drive on the left hand side by the way. So, as soon as i spot one on the right hand side of the tracks my eyes prick up.
As it happens, a few years ago i was actually involved in the filming of a specialist railway documentary. I helped the director facilitate his filming and also drove some of the trains that were filmed. The film was of a train drivers eye view of the railway lines between Brighton, Seaford and Ashford.
Although this was all filmed correctly, after all it was likely to be watched by many railway "anoraks". There was still some footage that was filmed to be used backwards in the finished product.
This was only footage filmed from within the train, looking out of the side window and to be honest there is no way you would be able to tell the difference anyway.
In this instance i totally understand why this was done. It certainly saved a lot of time and money and was not trying to deceive anyone. But it does show how just how frequently this kind of thing is done.
Whilst i fully understand that all of this doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things and that there are certainly far more important things to get worried and worked up about. I've always felt that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well.
As far as tv programs go, i have often thought that these "errors" are generally down to lazy journalism, cost cutting and maybe even deception.
And it doesn't exactly fill you full of confidence in the program concerned does it?
After all, if you can't believe the footage, how can you believe the words?
And don't get me started on news reporters standing in outdoor locations when there is absolutely no need for it. For example:
- Reporters hanging on for dear life and desperately trying not to be blown away when reporting gale force winds. We all know it's windy, but we don't need to see a reporter struggling in the wind, or having their umbrella blown inside out, to realise that.
- Local tv news reporters doing an outdoor piece from, literally, right outside the door to the tv studio building.
News doesn't suddenly become more exciting, authoritative or relevant because it is "reported" from the outdoors.
Phew! That feels better.
PS: If you are interested in seeing, or finding out more about that railway documentary i mentioned and see me driving a train, follow this link: Video125
I might just give the DVD a view myself.
Friday, 30 December 2011
Looking Back.
I guess it's inevitable that at the end of a year people start to look back on what has gone before? But, there are some aspects of this "tradition" that have really started to grate with me.
One of these aspects is all of those tv "best of 2011" programs that appear over the festive period. Whilst i accept that some of them are ok, the vast majority are excruciating. The main reason is not always the actual content of the program itself either, but more to do with the presenting style.
Do these programs and the presenters really expect us to believe that what we are seeing is done live? If not, then why do they persist in acting as if they were?
All this talk of Christmas presents, supposed spontaneity and false jollity really doesn't cut it i'm afraid.
I saw a particularly bad example earlier this evening. Well, i didn't see the whole program, as i just couldn't bear to watch it all.
On the BBC there is a daily, weekday program called "The One Show". I happen to watch this show, or at least parts of it, most evenings. But, the "best of" show they had on tonight showed up the worst examples of what i am talking about here.
There were buckets full of false jollity, fake presents and scripted chat. And all as they counted down the shows Top 20 moments of 2011. Of course, none of these shows are complete without the obligatory celebrity guests, either "live", or filmed are they?
All the boxes were ticked and consequently, i switched off.
The best examples of this kind of show, where all they do is basically string a load of old clips together, are the ones where there are no actual presenter(s). The main reason, for me anyway, being that whenever there is a presenter, there always seems to be the need for that person to make some kind of joke when introducing that next clip.
Personally, i blame Dennis Norden.
For those who don't know who he is, he used to present a program called "It'll Be Alright On The Night', way back when. This program was essentially a string of clips of tv presenters, actors etc making mistakes when filming and then swearing.
Sounds hilarious doesn't it?
I'll admit that when that program first aired, all those years ago, it was original and funny. But, as with all these shows, the joke soon started to wear a little thin.
For me, the main reason was that Dennis Norden used to try to be funny between the clips, when all you wanted is for the next selection of clips to start.
This "tradition" continues right up to the present day with such hosts as Bruce Forsyth and those on the "best of" shows. And, would you believe it, "It'll Be Alright On the Night" has been resurrected once again with a new host? Just to rub it in a bit!
Of course, these "best of" shows are easy to make and are also cheap programming for the respective tv stations. After all, all that is required is a producer to select the clips, an editor to put them all together and hey presto, you've got a show.
Then you just get the shows presenters to stay behind one day and record the links between the clips and read the script from an autocue. And don't forget to decorate the studio with some token Christmas decorations, to set the scene.
You don't even need a real audience, although some shows do go to this trouble.
So, i'm not expected them to go away anytime soon.
But, could we just leave out the "jokes" next time around please?
One of these aspects is all of those tv "best of 2011" programs that appear over the festive period. Whilst i accept that some of them are ok, the vast majority are excruciating. The main reason is not always the actual content of the program itself either, but more to do with the presenting style.
Do these programs and the presenters really expect us to believe that what we are seeing is done live? If not, then why do they persist in acting as if they were?
All this talk of Christmas presents, supposed spontaneity and false jollity really doesn't cut it i'm afraid.
I saw a particularly bad example earlier this evening. Well, i didn't see the whole program, as i just couldn't bear to watch it all.
On the BBC there is a daily, weekday program called "The One Show". I happen to watch this show, or at least parts of it, most evenings. But, the "best of" show they had on tonight showed up the worst examples of what i am talking about here.
There were buckets full of false jollity, fake presents and scripted chat. And all as they counted down the shows Top 20 moments of 2011. Of course, none of these shows are complete without the obligatory celebrity guests, either "live", or filmed are they?
All the boxes were ticked and consequently, i switched off.
The best examples of this kind of show, where all they do is basically string a load of old clips together, are the ones where there are no actual presenter(s). The main reason, for me anyway, being that whenever there is a presenter, there always seems to be the need for that person to make some kind of joke when introducing that next clip.
Personally, i blame Dennis Norden.
For those who don't know who he is, he used to present a program called "It'll Be Alright On The Night', way back when. This program was essentially a string of clips of tv presenters, actors etc making mistakes when filming and then swearing.
Sounds hilarious doesn't it?
I'll admit that when that program first aired, all those years ago, it was original and funny. But, as with all these shows, the joke soon started to wear a little thin.
For me, the main reason was that Dennis Norden used to try to be funny between the clips, when all you wanted is for the next selection of clips to start.
This "tradition" continues right up to the present day with such hosts as Bruce Forsyth and those on the "best of" shows. And, would you believe it, "It'll Be Alright On the Night" has been resurrected once again with a new host? Just to rub it in a bit!
Of course, these "best of" shows are easy to make and are also cheap programming for the respective tv stations. After all, all that is required is a producer to select the clips, an editor to put them all together and hey presto, you've got a show.
Then you just get the shows presenters to stay behind one day and record the links between the clips and read the script from an autocue. And don't forget to decorate the studio with some token Christmas decorations, to set the scene.
You don't even need a real audience, although some shows do go to this trouble.
So, i'm not expected them to go away anytime soon.
But, could we just leave out the "jokes" next time around please?
Friday, 2 December 2011
AudioBoo - My Point Of View.
http://audioboo.fm/boos/571260-my-point-of-view
Jeremy Clarkson & me.
My own point of view on "those" comments.
Jeremy Clarkson & me.
My own point of view on "those" comments.
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Life In A Day.
On Saturday, 24th July 2010, myself and approx 80,000 other people, from across the world, took part in a very special project.
It was called Life In A Day and the project was all collated via YouTube, the video sharing website.
Many of you will already know that i have been making and posting videos onto YouTube for over 5 years now. So, when this idea was first announced, i knew that i had to take part.
The whole idea behind the Life In A Day project was for ordinary people to film themselves, or what they were doing, however mundane, on that particular day.
In total over 80,000 people took part, submitting over 4,500 hours worth of video footage. This was then edited down and made into a feature length film directed by Kevin Macdonald (Last King Of Scotland, Touching The Void) and produced by Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Thelma And Louise).
The result was the worlds first crowd-sourced documentary. Something i was very pleased and proud to have played a very small part in.
Well, as i suspected, my own footage ended up on the cutting room floor. But, what did make it past the editors was some truly great video footage, all of which was then put together to make a really heartwarming 90 minute movie.
Although Life In A Day did get a cinema release, i don't think it was ever seen by many viewers. But, never fear, because the movie is being shown tonight, Thursday 3rd November, on British tv.
At 9pm this evening, Life In A Day is on the BBC2 and BBC HD channels. I've been lucky enough to see the movie, via a special screening on YouTube for contributers and can highly recommend it.
For those who cannot see it tonight, or who would like to see it again, Life In A Day can be seen on YouTube and the movie will also be available on DVD shortly.
But, that isn't the end of the story.
If you live in the UK, you can now take part in our very own version. It's called Britain In A Day and takes place on Saturday, 12th November. Although this is also being done via YouTube, where you will have to upload your own video footage. The resulting documentary will be screened by the BBC in 2012.
So, if you've got a video camera, or any device with video making potential, why not get involved?
I know we all tend to think that we lead mundane and ordinary lives, but that doesn't matter. That is a part of life and needs and deserves to be documented just as much as something special does. Of course, if you are doing something special on 12th November, you can film that too.
Just watch Life In A Day and see what the people of the world were doing on 24th, July 2010. You may well be amazed, surprised and even moved by what you see and hopefully, you'll also be inspired to get involved yourself.
Who knows, you just might end up seeing yourself on the BBC?
Happy filming.
It was called Life In A Day and the project was all collated via YouTube, the video sharing website.
Many of you will already know that i have been making and posting videos onto YouTube for over 5 years now. So, when this idea was first announced, i knew that i had to take part.
The whole idea behind the Life In A Day project was for ordinary people to film themselves, or what they were doing, however mundane, on that particular day.
In total over 80,000 people took part, submitting over 4,500 hours worth of video footage. This was then edited down and made into a feature length film directed by Kevin Macdonald (Last King Of Scotland, Touching The Void) and produced by Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Thelma And Louise).
The result was the worlds first crowd-sourced documentary. Something i was very pleased and proud to have played a very small part in.
Well, as i suspected, my own footage ended up on the cutting room floor. But, what did make it past the editors was some truly great video footage, all of which was then put together to make a really heartwarming 90 minute movie.
Although Life In A Day did get a cinema release, i don't think it was ever seen by many viewers. But, never fear, because the movie is being shown tonight, Thursday 3rd November, on British tv.
At 9pm this evening, Life In A Day is on the BBC2 and BBC HD channels. I've been lucky enough to see the movie, via a special screening on YouTube for contributers and can highly recommend it.
For those who cannot see it tonight, or who would like to see it again, Life In A Day can be seen on YouTube and the movie will also be available on DVD shortly.
But, that isn't the end of the story.
If you live in the UK, you can now take part in our very own version. It's called Britain In A Day and takes place on Saturday, 12th November. Although this is also being done via YouTube, where you will have to upload your own video footage. The resulting documentary will be screened by the BBC in 2012.
So, if you've got a video camera, or any device with video making potential, why not get involved?
I know we all tend to think that we lead mundane and ordinary lives, but that doesn't matter. That is a part of life and needs and deserves to be documented just as much as something special does. Of course, if you are doing something special on 12th November, you can film that too.
Just watch Life In A Day and see what the people of the world were doing on 24th, July 2010. You may well be amazed, surprised and even moved by what you see and hopefully, you'll also be inspired to get involved yourself.
Who knows, you just might end up seeing yourself on the BBC?
Happy filming.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Only The Technology Changes.
I was briefly listening to the radio this morning and heard about an article in todays Sunday Express. Not a newspaper i would normally go anywhere near, by the way.
In the article, they were worrying about the effect watching tv on the BBC iPlayer etc was having on the children of today. The fear being that children were turning up to school too tired to concentrate on their school work. Because they'd been sitting up in bed half the night watching tv programmes on their iPads, or smart phones.
And this is news?
I was doing exactly the same kind of thing about 40 years ago.
The only difference being that back then i was probably listening to Radio Luxembourg, or a pirate radio station, instead of watching tv.
Many other children at that time, were also hiding under the covers, but reading a book, or a magazine that they just couldn't put down, or it was something that they didn't want their parents to see them reading.
I'm sure we've all been in this situation at some time in our lives, especially as children?
The only difference today is that the technology has moved on in leaps and bounds. We've gone from books, magazines and medium wave radio to wireless Internet, iPads and smart phones.
I'm now a parent myself and i'd be very surprised if my children were not doing exactly as the Sunday Express "exposes".
Exactly what i did myself when i was a child, all those years ago.
People are just the same as they've always been. It's just the technology that changes.
And, rather ironically, Express Newspapers do have their very own iPad App should you want to download it.
So, you can read that article in the comfort of your own bed tonight.
Just don't tell your children!
In the article, they were worrying about the effect watching tv on the BBC iPlayer etc was having on the children of today. The fear being that children were turning up to school too tired to concentrate on their school work. Because they'd been sitting up in bed half the night watching tv programmes on their iPads, or smart phones.
And this is news?
I was doing exactly the same kind of thing about 40 years ago.
The only difference being that back then i was probably listening to Radio Luxembourg, or a pirate radio station, instead of watching tv.
Many other children at that time, were also hiding under the covers, but reading a book, or a magazine that they just couldn't put down, or it was something that they didn't want their parents to see them reading.
I'm sure we've all been in this situation at some time in our lives, especially as children?
The only difference today is that the technology has moved on in leaps and bounds. We've gone from books, magazines and medium wave radio to wireless Internet, iPads and smart phones.
I'm now a parent myself and i'd be very surprised if my children were not doing exactly as the Sunday Express "exposes".
Exactly what i did myself when i was a child, all those years ago.
People are just the same as they've always been. It's just the technology that changes.
And, rather ironically, Express Newspapers do have their very own iPad App should you want to download it.
So, you can read that article in the comfort of your own bed tonight.
Just don't tell your children!
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Sunday, 10 October 2010
What A Week.
Well, what an interesting week this has been.
Links as mentioned:
AudioBoo:
http://audioboo.fm/boos/193773-hastin...
http://audioboo.fm/boos/194217-hastin...
http://audioboo.fm/boos/195222-hastin...
Phtots:
http://twitpic.com/photos/andymooseman
Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0GPu...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWCb2D...
And, wouldn't you know it. Whilst putting these links here, i've found out that my Pier memories video is now a featured video on YouTube!
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
It Was 25 Years Ago Today.....
....that Bob Geldof got the bands to play.
I know that this has come as a bit of a shock to a lot of people. But, 25 years ago today, the Live Aid concerts took place across the world. But, most famously in London and Philadelphia.
Yes. it really is 25 years ago. Now, that makes me feel very old.
Judging from the comments i received when i posted this "news" on Twitter and Facebook yesterday, it makes a lot of other people old as well. Those 25 years seem to have flown by.
I did wonder if the reason why Live Aid seems far more recent, is because it was one of those major events where we can remember where we were and what we were doing when it happened? I could be wrong? But, i do know that i can still remember that hot sunny Saturday in July, very well indeed.
It could also be because of all of the events that led up to those concerts taking place across the globe.
I vivdly remember seeing those original BBC images of the dreadful famine taking place in Ethiopia, in late 1984. I bought the Band Aid single, on both 7 and 12", that came out at Christmas 1984, as did just about everybody else i knew at the time. I also bought the Feed The World t.shirts and i still have a photo of my (now) wife proudly wearing one at the time (And yes, that is me on the left!)
So, all of that could well have a bearing on my memories and why i took so much notice of Live Aid. But, another huge reason is that, at that time, nothing like this had ever happened before. Yes, there had been big benefit concerts before. But, nothing on this scale & certainly nothing that was broadcast live on worldwide TV. The BBC more, or less, abandoned their normal schedule for the day and broadcast the whole event, including the concert in Philadelphia. That type of scheduling had only ever been given to royal weddings, state funerals and moon landings before. So, this was a big deal.
There was also the small matter of the fact that the gigs featured just about anyone who was anyone in the field of rock and pop music, at the time.
So, when the words "It's twelve noon in London, seven AM in Philadelphia, and around the world it's time for; Live Aid ...." were spoken by Richard Skinner. Myself, my friends & countless millions of people around the world, were primed & ready.
I watched as much of the concerts as i could. Although i did miss some of the later performances. Well, it was a hot day and the pub was close to home! Having said that, i did have one of those old fashioned video recorders and taped as much as i could.
So, what do i remember about the music?
The performance i was most looking forward to was by U2. Who at that time were not that well known globally. I remember being very disappointed by their performance & thinking that they had blown a really good opportunity to show what they were capable of. Ironically, the rest of the world didn't agree with me & it has become generally accepted, that it was this Live Aid performance that catapulted U2 onto the world stage. What do i know eh?
Apart from that, i vividly remember:
In London:
Status Quo starting it all off with "Rocking all over the world". Very appropriate,
Paul McCartney effectively singing to himself, because his microphone had broken,
George Michaels yellow shirt (I have no idea why, but i bought one afterwards!)
David Bowie giving up one of his songs, so that they could show "That" video ("Drive" by The Cars) & the effect that that had on everybody.
Bob Geldof stopping the Boontown Rats song, "I don't like Mondays", after the words "And the lesson today is how to die..." And the effect that that had on the crowd.
Queen - Their whole set was amazing,
Phil Collins using Concorde to fly betweem London & Philadelphia, so that he could play at both venues.
In Philadelphia:
Madonna, who wasn't very well known then.
"Led Zeppelin", who weren't very good at all. but, at least they were better than,
Bob Dylan (with Ronnie Wood) who was awful & upset many people for suggesting that some of the money raised should go to American farmers instead!
It wasn't the best gig in the world. But, then that wasn't really the point, was it?
Live Aid raised a huge amount of money, for a very good cause & it changed the future of rock gigs forever. Just think of how many more big campaigning gigs have taken place since Saturday, 13th July 1985..
So, yes, i do remember where i was & what i was doing that day & i think i always will.
Do you?
I know that this has come as a bit of a shock to a lot of people. But, 25 years ago today, the Live Aid concerts took place across the world. But, most famously in London and Philadelphia.
Yes. it really is 25 years ago. Now, that makes me feel very old.
Judging from the comments i received when i posted this "news" on Twitter and Facebook yesterday, it makes a lot of other people old as well. Those 25 years seem to have flown by.
I did wonder if the reason why Live Aid seems far more recent, is because it was one of those major events where we can remember where we were and what we were doing when it happened? I could be wrong? But, i do know that i can still remember that hot sunny Saturday in July, very well indeed.
It could also be because of all of the events that led up to those concerts taking place across the globe.
I vivdly remember seeing those original BBC images of the dreadful famine taking place in Ethiopia, in late 1984. I bought the Band Aid single, on both 7 and 12", that came out at Christmas 1984, as did just about everybody else i knew at the time. I also bought the Feed The World t.shirts and i still have a photo of my (now) wife proudly wearing one at the time (And yes, that is me on the left!)
So, all of that could well have a bearing on my memories and why i took so much notice of Live Aid. But, another huge reason is that, at that time, nothing like this had ever happened before. Yes, there had been big benefit concerts before. But, nothing on this scale & certainly nothing that was broadcast live on worldwide TV. The BBC more, or less, abandoned their normal schedule for the day and broadcast the whole event, including the concert in Philadelphia. That type of scheduling had only ever been given to royal weddings, state funerals and moon landings before. So, this was a big deal.
There was also the small matter of the fact that the gigs featured just about anyone who was anyone in the field of rock and pop music, at the time.
So, when the words "It's twelve noon in London, seven AM in Philadelphia, and around the world it's time for; Live Aid ...." were spoken by Richard Skinner. Myself, my friends & countless millions of people around the world, were primed & ready.
I watched as much of the concerts as i could. Although i did miss some of the later performances. Well, it was a hot day and the pub was close to home! Having said that, i did have one of those old fashioned video recorders and taped as much as i could.
So, what do i remember about the music?
The performance i was most looking forward to was by U2. Who at that time were not that well known globally. I remember being very disappointed by their performance & thinking that they had blown a really good opportunity to show what they were capable of. Ironically, the rest of the world didn't agree with me & it has become generally accepted, that it was this Live Aid performance that catapulted U2 onto the world stage. What do i know eh?
Apart from that, i vividly remember:
In London:
Status Quo starting it all off with "Rocking all over the world". Very appropriate,
Paul McCartney effectively singing to himself, because his microphone had broken,
George Michaels yellow shirt (I have no idea why, but i bought one afterwards!)
David Bowie giving up one of his songs, so that they could show "That" video ("Drive" by The Cars) & the effect that that had on everybody.
Bob Geldof stopping the Boontown Rats song, "I don't like Mondays", after the words "And the lesson today is how to die..." And the effect that that had on the crowd.
Queen - Their whole set was amazing,
Phil Collins using Concorde to fly betweem London & Philadelphia, so that he could play at both venues.
In Philadelphia:
Madonna, who wasn't very well known then.
"Led Zeppelin", who weren't very good at all. but, at least they were better than,
Bob Dylan (with Ronnie Wood) who was awful & upset many people for suggesting that some of the money raised should go to American farmers instead!
It wasn't the best gig in the world. But, then that wasn't really the point, was it?
Live Aid raised a huge amount of money, for a very good cause & it changed the future of rock gigs forever. Just think of how many more big campaigning gigs have taken place since Saturday, 13th July 1985..
So, yes, i do remember where i was & what i was doing that day & i think i always will.
Do you?
Friday, 25 June 2010
Glastonbury, the BBC & TV coverage.
Well, it's that time of year again.
The Glastonbury Festival has just kicked off at Worthy Farm down in Somerset & it finally feels as if the Summer is really here at last. So much so that it's not even raining!
As usual, the Glastonbury Festival is being covered extensively by many media outlets. But, especially by the BBC. I'm just sitting here wondering what that coverage will be like this year. The BBC probably has more ways of trying to cover the festival than anyone else. But, it's how they use them that interests me the most.
Like the vast majority of people, my way of accessing & hearing the music is usually via a TV screen. Yes, i could listen to the radion, or use the Internet. But, i always seem to go back to the good old TV. After all what i really want to see are great bands playing music & the best way of trying to get a little bit of the whole atmosphere of a festival is visually. Radio just doesn't, in this case anyway, do quite the same job here.
This all sounds great & quite often it is. But, i usually end up getting very, very frustrated watching the TV coverage of Glastonbury & more often than not, i end up shoutng at the screen.
Why is this? Well, as i said, what i want is to watch great bands, playing some great music. But, what i so often get instead, are the presenters talking about themsleves & what they've been up to, who they've seen & who they've met. Rather than seeing the actual music being played.
So often, whilst a presenter is talking, you can hear your favourite band playing in the background. Either that, or you get a completely un-needed acoustic performance, played out in the BBCs own studio. Instead of a "proper" performance from one of the many stages at the festival.
Now, i'll admit that it's not just the BBC who are guilty of this. Recently ITV "covered" the Isle Of Wight Festival & made exactly the same mistakes. Although i didn't see very much of their coverage & you can probably guess why i didn't watch more. It was the same old problem. Presenters talking amongst & about themselves, whilst the music played on in the background.
For a music lover like me, this is so very frustrating. As with many big festivals, some of the biggest bands in the world are playing there & yet you get to hear so very little of it.
I know that there are restrictions, often placed by the bands themselves, on how much they will allow the BBC etc to show of their live performances. But, with 45 stages, at Glastonbury anyway, & hundreds of great bands playing. Surely there is no excuse for not concentraing on the music, instead of anything else?
I do realise that it is not possible to capture every single performance, by every single artist. But....
The BBC are making a very big thing about the amount of coverage they are giving to this years Glastonbury Festival. In fact, so much so, that they have been accused of effectively advertising the festival.
So, surely they have no excuse whatsoever for not producing the goods?
I'm hoping that this year will see a different attitude to the TV coverage & that we will see more of the actual music & less of all the other "stuff". And by "the actual music", i don't mean that i only want to hear a band play their "hit" song & nothing else. We don't all have the attention span of a goldfish you know.
Anyway, rant over & here's hoping that i'm proved wrong & that i will have to eat my words, come Monday morning.
I'll not be holding my breath though.
The Glastonbury Festival has just kicked off at Worthy Farm down in Somerset & it finally feels as if the Summer is really here at last. So much so that it's not even raining!
As usual, the Glastonbury Festival is being covered extensively by many media outlets. But, especially by the BBC. I'm just sitting here wondering what that coverage will be like this year. The BBC probably has more ways of trying to cover the festival than anyone else. But, it's how they use them that interests me the most.
Like the vast majority of people, my way of accessing & hearing the music is usually via a TV screen. Yes, i could listen to the radion, or use the Internet. But, i always seem to go back to the good old TV. After all what i really want to see are great bands playing music & the best way of trying to get a little bit of the whole atmosphere of a festival is visually. Radio just doesn't, in this case anyway, do quite the same job here.
This all sounds great & quite often it is. But, i usually end up getting very, very frustrated watching the TV coverage of Glastonbury & more often than not, i end up shoutng at the screen.
Why is this? Well, as i said, what i want is to watch great bands, playing some great music. But, what i so often get instead, are the presenters talking about themsleves & what they've been up to, who they've seen & who they've met. Rather than seeing the actual music being played.
So often, whilst a presenter is talking, you can hear your favourite band playing in the background. Either that, or you get a completely un-needed acoustic performance, played out in the BBCs own studio. Instead of a "proper" performance from one of the many stages at the festival.
Now, i'll admit that it's not just the BBC who are guilty of this. Recently ITV "covered" the Isle Of Wight Festival & made exactly the same mistakes. Although i didn't see very much of their coverage & you can probably guess why i didn't watch more. It was the same old problem. Presenters talking amongst & about themselves, whilst the music played on in the background.
For a music lover like me, this is so very frustrating. As with many big festivals, some of the biggest bands in the world are playing there & yet you get to hear so very little of it.
I know that there are restrictions, often placed by the bands themselves, on how much they will allow the BBC etc to show of their live performances. But, with 45 stages, at Glastonbury anyway, & hundreds of great bands playing. Surely there is no excuse for not concentraing on the music, instead of anything else?
I do realise that it is not possible to capture every single performance, by every single artist. But....
The BBC are making a very big thing about the amount of coverage they are giving to this years Glastonbury Festival. In fact, so much so, that they have been accused of effectively advertising the festival.
So, surely they have no excuse whatsoever for not producing the goods?
I'm hoping that this year will see a different attitude to the TV coverage & that we will see more of the actual music & less of all the other "stuff". And by "the actual music", i don't mean that i only want to hear a band play their "hit" song & nothing else. We don't all have the attention span of a goldfish you know.
Anyway, rant over & here's hoping that i'm proved wrong & that i will have to eat my words, come Monday morning.
I'll not be holding my breath though.
Monday, 1 March 2010
Radio, Radio.
There has been much speculation over here in the UK about the BBC trying to reduce it's costs & how it might go about doing that.
One of the most predicted ways for this to be achieved, is for the BBC to pull the plug on two of it's digital radio stations, 6Music & Asian Network.
Both of these radio stations are considered to be "niche" stations & therefore not for the masses. But, does this mean that they should be culled?
Personally, i think the fact that they are "niche" radio stations, is a very good reason for them to stay broadcasting. Far too often these days, there appears to be very little choice when it comes to listening to music on the radio. Well, here in the UK anyway.
Most radio stations all sound the same & that problem has only got worse over the past few years.
What makes stations like "6Music" & "Asian Network" stand apart from the competition, is that the DJs are often knowledgeable music fans & not "personalities" trying to sell themselves. They love their music & it shows. They are also often allowed a lot of free choice in the music that they play. This is something that rarely happens elsewhere. This helps to give these particular radio stations more variety & originality than others.
Specialist does not have to mean boring. It won't appeal to everybody. But, it's not really meant to.
Most UK radio stations are now owned by a few big media companies. This means that their "output" is often shared by many stations. The same song, being played at the same time, across many different regional stations. Unfortunately, not many people are aware of this.
This is the reason that radio in the UK can often be so bland & boring.
One of the main criticisms about the BBC, is often the fact that it is publically funded & therefore has an unfair advantage over its commercial rivals. Some people see the licence fee as a tax & a tax for something they might not use, or even want to use. This is a very valid point & one that does need to be looked into.
But, the BBC is also supposed to be a public service broadcaster & in my opinion that is exactly what the BBC is doing by having radio stations such as "6Music" & "Asian Network".
Without this public funding, we could lose these "niche" stations forever.
It wasn't long ago that the UK very nearly lost it's only national classic rock radio station Planet Rock.
Thankfully, due to public pressure, some new Rock Music loving investors came along & saved the station. This is what can easily happen in the cut throat world of commercial radio.
Is that what we want to happen to all of the original music stations out there? I certainly hope not.
There has already been a public outcry about the possible loss of these BBC stations, especially, "6Music". A Save 6Music Facebook page has already been set up & now has over 75,000 fans.
One of the criticisms of "6Music" is the fact that it has "only" 700,000 regular listeners. Ironically though. i suspect that all of this extra publicity about the potential loss of the station has helped to increase those listening figures by quite a lot. That can only be a good thing. I must admit that i've started to listen to "6Music" again, after a fairly long gap & i've enjoyed what i've heard too.
Whilst some people are crying out for "6Music" to be axed, i haven't heard any of those same people saying that we should shut down newspapers that have a circulation of under 700,000. There are even other BBC radio stations with less listeners. But, possibly because they are Classical Music stations, they are never threatened. Strange that....
One other aspect of this whole situation is the fact that both of these threatened BBC radio stations are Digital Radio Stations. Apparently, only 20% of the UK population was even aware that "6Music" existed & thereby hangs a tale!
Digital radio has been promoted & sold as a great new future for radio listening. But, the truth is that it has just not taken off in the way that was expected.
Part of the problem for that is that parts of the UK still cannot actually receive digital radio, due to the patchy signal coverage. If people can't even hear these new radio stations, it's hardly surprising that they either haven't heard of them, or don't listen to them.
Also, potential listeners have to buy a new & often more expensive, radio to listen to these new stations. Many people just can't afford to do that & many others simply refuse to do so. And who can really blame them?
Digital radio & even digital TV for that matter, really needs a radical rethink, before it's too late.
Let's hope that this whole situation provokes a debate about the general state of radio in the UK & also a, much needed, discussion about digital radio.
There are already dates for the switch off of the analogue TV signals in the UK & no doubt, dates for the switch off of the analogue radio signals will not be too far behind.
Once those analogue signals are turned off, there is no turning back.
If & when the analogue radio signals are turned off, many excellent radio stations will cease to exist, forever.
Are we really prepared to let that happen?
One of the most predicted ways for this to be achieved, is for the BBC to pull the plug on two of it's digital radio stations, 6Music & Asian Network.
Both of these radio stations are considered to be "niche" stations & therefore not for the masses. But, does this mean that they should be culled?
Personally, i think the fact that they are "niche" radio stations, is a very good reason for them to stay broadcasting. Far too often these days, there appears to be very little choice when it comes to listening to music on the radio. Well, here in the UK anyway.
Most radio stations all sound the same & that problem has only got worse over the past few years.
What makes stations like "6Music" & "Asian Network" stand apart from the competition, is that the DJs are often knowledgeable music fans & not "personalities" trying to sell themselves. They love their music & it shows. They are also often allowed a lot of free choice in the music that they play. This is something that rarely happens elsewhere. This helps to give these particular radio stations more variety & originality than others.
Specialist does not have to mean boring. It won't appeal to everybody. But, it's not really meant to.
Most UK radio stations are now owned by a few big media companies. This means that their "output" is often shared by many stations. The same song, being played at the same time, across many different regional stations. Unfortunately, not many people are aware of this.
This is the reason that radio in the UK can often be so bland & boring.
One of the main criticisms about the BBC, is often the fact that it is publically funded & therefore has an unfair advantage over its commercial rivals. Some people see the licence fee as a tax & a tax for something they might not use, or even want to use. This is a very valid point & one that does need to be looked into.
But, the BBC is also supposed to be a public service broadcaster & in my opinion that is exactly what the BBC is doing by having radio stations such as "6Music" & "Asian Network".
Without this public funding, we could lose these "niche" stations forever.
It wasn't long ago that the UK very nearly lost it's only national classic rock radio station Planet Rock.
Thankfully, due to public pressure, some new Rock Music loving investors came along & saved the station. This is what can easily happen in the cut throat world of commercial radio.
Is that what we want to happen to all of the original music stations out there? I certainly hope not.
There has already been a public outcry about the possible loss of these BBC stations, especially, "6Music". A Save 6Music Facebook page has already been set up & now has over 75,000 fans.
One of the criticisms of "6Music" is the fact that it has "only" 700,000 regular listeners. Ironically though. i suspect that all of this extra publicity about the potential loss of the station has helped to increase those listening figures by quite a lot. That can only be a good thing. I must admit that i've started to listen to "6Music" again, after a fairly long gap & i've enjoyed what i've heard too.
Whilst some people are crying out for "6Music" to be axed, i haven't heard any of those same people saying that we should shut down newspapers that have a circulation of under 700,000. There are even other BBC radio stations with less listeners. But, possibly because they are Classical Music stations, they are never threatened. Strange that....
One other aspect of this whole situation is the fact that both of these threatened BBC radio stations are Digital Radio Stations. Apparently, only 20% of the UK population was even aware that "6Music" existed & thereby hangs a tale!
Digital radio has been promoted & sold as a great new future for radio listening. But, the truth is that it has just not taken off in the way that was expected.
Part of the problem for that is that parts of the UK still cannot actually receive digital radio, due to the patchy signal coverage. If people can't even hear these new radio stations, it's hardly surprising that they either haven't heard of them, or don't listen to them.
Also, potential listeners have to buy a new & often more expensive, radio to listen to these new stations. Many people just can't afford to do that & many others simply refuse to do so. And who can really blame them?
Digital radio & even digital TV for that matter, really needs a radical rethink, before it's too late.
Let's hope that this whole situation provokes a debate about the general state of radio in the UK & also a, much needed, discussion about digital radio.
There are already dates for the switch off of the analogue TV signals in the UK & no doubt, dates for the switch off of the analogue radio signals will not be too far behind.
Once those analogue signals are turned off, there is no turning back.
If & when the analogue radio signals are turned off, many excellent radio stations will cease to exist, forever.
Are we really prepared to let that happen?
Friday, 19 February 2010
Get Your Facts Right!
I recently made a YouTube video called Shock! Horror! all about newspapers & TV news shows using videos, mainly to sensationalise the news & yes, it was a bit of a rant.
Well, here's another one....
Tonight, my local tv news show did an item which contained facts which i know full well are incorrect.
Without going into too much detail. The story concerned a young girl who had recently had life saving heart surgery & had then needed to use a special machine to keep her alive, while she recovered. Thankfully, the little girl is fine & making a full recovery.
During this news item, they referred to this piece of equipment/machine as if it were a fairly new piece of technology & that this young girl was one of the first to ever use it in the UK & at the hospital concerned, Guys & St Thomas' Hospital in London.
The piece of equipment is an ECMO machine. For the uninitiated, this stands for Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation. The machine is very similar to a heart bypass machine. But, one that can be used for longer periods, allowing the patients heart to rest & recover from the ordeal of surgery.
Just do a Google search for "ECMO" & you get plenty of useful results.
This is one of the best ones: GOSH
ECMO machines have been used in the UK since 1992. They were first used at Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London. So, it's hardly new technology is it?
I know what you're thinking. "How does he know so much about this subject"
Well, in 1994 my daughter used an ECMO machine herself & in Guys Hospital too.
In fact, she was the first person to ever use an ECMO machine at Guys Hospital.
The staff at Guys had never used one before & actually had to borrow equipment from other hospitals to build one. Including Great Ormond Street. I remember one doctor coming all the way down from Leicester with some of the equipment & staying to help set it up & make sure that it all worked correctly.
It all seemed a bit of a Heath Robinson affair at the time. But, it worked & it helped save my daughters life.
My daughter was born with her Pulmonary Artery & her Aorta connected to her heart the wrong way round, amongst other issues. This condition is know as Transposition Of The Great Arteries, or TGA & requires major open heart surgery to correct it.
This is exactly the same condition that the young girl in tonights tv news programme had.
Thankfully, like the young girl featured, my daughter has made a full recovery & is now a happy & healthy 15 year old teenager.
OK, so i have had personal experience & so knew about this condition & about the ECMO machine itself. But, it only took me a few clicks of a mouse to find plenty of information about the subject & enough information to know that the facts they used in their news story were incorrect.
In these days of widespread Internet access, i don't think anyone can be excused for not checking their "facts". Especially not a BBC news show.
So, is this another case of lazy journalism? Possibly....
My other theory is that this is could be another effect of getting the viewers to suggest stories for the programme. Something i wrote about in my last blog post: Ask The Audience
I have contacted the news programme & have pointed out their error. I'll let you know if i hear anything back from them.
I will not be holding my breath though.
Well, here's another one....
Tonight, my local tv news show did an item which contained facts which i know full well are incorrect.
Without going into too much detail. The story concerned a young girl who had recently had life saving heart surgery & had then needed to use a special machine to keep her alive, while she recovered. Thankfully, the little girl is fine & making a full recovery.
During this news item, they referred to this piece of equipment/machine as if it were a fairly new piece of technology & that this young girl was one of the first to ever use it in the UK & at the hospital concerned, Guys & St Thomas' Hospital in London.
The piece of equipment is an ECMO machine. For the uninitiated, this stands for Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation. The machine is very similar to a heart bypass machine. But, one that can be used for longer periods, allowing the patients heart to rest & recover from the ordeal of surgery.
Just do a Google search for "ECMO" & you get plenty of useful results.
This is one of the best ones: GOSH
ECMO machines have been used in the UK since 1992. They were first used at Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London. So, it's hardly new technology is it?
I know what you're thinking. "How does he know so much about this subject"
Well, in 1994 my daughter used an ECMO machine herself & in Guys Hospital too.
In fact, she was the first person to ever use an ECMO machine at Guys Hospital.
The staff at Guys had never used one before & actually had to borrow equipment from other hospitals to build one. Including Great Ormond Street. I remember one doctor coming all the way down from Leicester with some of the equipment & staying to help set it up & make sure that it all worked correctly.
It all seemed a bit of a Heath Robinson affair at the time. But, it worked & it helped save my daughters life.
My daughter was born with her Pulmonary Artery & her Aorta connected to her heart the wrong way round, amongst other issues. This condition is know as Transposition Of The Great Arteries, or TGA & requires major open heart surgery to correct it.
This is exactly the same condition that the young girl in tonights tv news programme had.
Thankfully, like the young girl featured, my daughter has made a full recovery & is now a happy & healthy 15 year old teenager.
OK, so i have had personal experience & so knew about this condition & about the ECMO machine itself. But, it only took me a few clicks of a mouse to find plenty of information about the subject & enough information to know that the facts they used in their news story were incorrect.
In these days of widespread Internet access, i don't think anyone can be excused for not checking their "facts". Especially not a BBC news show.
So, is this another case of lazy journalism? Possibly....
My other theory is that this is could be another effect of getting the viewers to suggest stories for the programme. Something i wrote about in my last blog post: Ask The Audience
I have contacted the news programme & have pointed out their error. I'll let you know if i hear anything back from them.
I will not be holding my breath though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)