I am an avid viewer of the UK Channel 4 TV program "Time Team".
For those not in the know, it is a program all about archaeology and it has been broadcasting now for many years. Every program visits a different archaelogical site and spends 3 days excavating there. Sometimes they find very little and other times they strike the jackpot and find something historically exciting and significant.
The program has been in the news this week after two of its presenters have quit the program. One a long serving archaeologist and the other, a new presenter brought in for the latest series, the 19th, which started airing on Channel 4 a few weeks ago.
Whilst i have no intention of trying to read between the lines of statements, from various parties, that i have read and second guessing what actually caused those resignations. Some things, to fans of the program at least, are pretty evident.
Before the current series starting broadcasting, i saw pieces saying that the old format had been changed slightly. There was a new, second presenter for example, Mary-Ann Ochota, one of those who has quit. It was also revealed that some other regular contributors would not be as visible this time around.
This has been born out when watching the start of the new series. Some people seem to have gone altogether and others are not present for whole episodes, but turn up occasionally in others.
Of course i understand that there can be many reasons for this. People move on to pastures new, although i've not seen any suggestion of this. Others could be busy with their own careers as professional archaeologists, or experts in their own particular field and, maybe, just can't spare the time to appear in a tv program.
But, what has become evident to me as i've been reading the fall out of these resignations over the past few days, is that the whole program production of Time Team has changed for this new series.
For some strange reason the producers seem to have decided to mess with a well loved formula and to try to sex it up.
I fully understand that things might have to change. Things can get a little stale, but we're not talking about a comedy show that has to dreamt up and written here. We're talking about a factual program with a seemingly endless supply of material.
This seems to me to have been a classic case of trying to fix something that wasn't broke in the first place.
Sure, Time Team isn't for everybody, but it never will be. It is what i would call classic niche market tv. The audience will never be huge, but those that do watch will be passionate about the program and the subject matter. They will and have, become very attached to the program and don't want to see change just for the sake of it.
I feel very sorry for those presenters that have felt the need to resign. After all, it's hardly their fault that they've got caught up in all of this.
They have, in effect, become the victims of the changes, as have the viewers as well.
How many more times are we going to see perfectly good tv programs and radio shows being sexed up to, supposedly, make them more appealing to the general public?
We can probably all think of examples of our favourite shows being changed and usually changed for the worse too. I know that there are several shows that i now don't either listen to, or watch because of this trend.
I just hope that Time Team doesn't become another one.
Thankfully, the fall out from this latest debacle suggests that lessons have been learned and that the next seires will feature a return to "normal service".
Only time will tell.
Search The Web
Custom Search
Showing posts with label presenters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presenters. Show all posts
Friday, 10 February 2012
Friday, 25 November 2011
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Celebrity DJs.
This morning i read that Planet Rock, a UK Classic Rock radio station, were changing their breakfast show DJ.
Now, for anyone who knows anything about radio and i would hardly call myself an expert by the way, the breakfast show slot is always seen as, probably, the most important in that stations schedule.
So, a change of breakfast show DJ is pretty big news. Especially as the DJ being replaced is none other than Alice Cooper. Yes, that Alice Cooper.
I have no idea as to why Alice Cooper is being replaced, if indeed he is. It is quite possible that he's just decided that his time as a breakfast DJ is done. But, i don't believe that, as his show is syndicated and is almost certainly not "live" anyway. Alice's show is being moved to an evening slot by the way.
All this leads me to wonder whether this is, maybe, the start of the end of the celebrity DJ?
Once again, i somehow doubt it, but i personally hope that it at least signals a change in the attitude of radio stations towards DJs.
Over the past few years it seems to have become increasingly fashionable for a radio station to have at least one "celebrity" DJ and often far more than that.
By this i mean a person who has been employed as a DJ because they have become famous elsewhere first. Many UK radio stations now have DJs who are first and foremost, actors, tv personalities etc etc.
Being a DJ is not their job, rather a, quite probably, lucrative sideline.
Quite possibly some of these celebrities have had some experience as a DJ in their past. But, my problem with this is that they have been employed as a DJ because of their celebrity status and not because of their skills as a DJ. They have been given their high profile radio show because of their celebrity, in the hope that their name will bring in extra listeners and to help sell some extra advertising.
Yes, i know that DJs often become celebrities in their own right, especially in this day and age. But, they became a celebrity for being a DJ and not the other way around.
So, does this actually matter?
Personally, i think it does. Although i suspect i may be in a minority on this one.
How many of these celebrity DJs actually work the controls themselves?
How many have any real knowledge of the music and the artists that they are playing?
How many have a real passion for the music that they are playing, or for radio generally?
To me, that is what a DJ should bring to a radio station. A passion for the music, the medium and the ability to present the show themselves.
When we think of all of our own personal favourite radio DJs from the past, that is exactly what you got. People like John Peel epitomised that and, thankfully, people like Bob Harris still do.
Maybe, these people aren't, or weren't the best DJs in the world, but they always command your respect, precisely because they know what they are talking about.
Maybe, i'm a little old fashioned in that i listen to the radio to hear music? Because of that, i want to listen to a presenter who knows what they are talking about.
I fully realise that a DJ such as Alice Cooper and others, certainly know their music, but i still don't tend to like them as DJs. I would much rather have a passionate and knowledgeable total unknown DJ, than one who is there because of their name and celebrity status.
How many potentially great radio presenters are being sidelined and kept out of work because of this current attitude towards DJs?
And just think, if this attitude had been prevalent, back in the 1960s and 1970s, would we ever have had such inspirational DJs as John Peel, Bob Harris and even Tony Blackburn?
Somehow, i doubt it.
So, i wish the new Planet Rock breakfast show DJ, Lucio Buffone, well and who knows, i might even start listening to the show now.
Now, for anyone who knows anything about radio and i would hardly call myself an expert by the way, the breakfast show slot is always seen as, probably, the most important in that stations schedule.
So, a change of breakfast show DJ is pretty big news. Especially as the DJ being replaced is none other than Alice Cooper. Yes, that Alice Cooper.
I have no idea as to why Alice Cooper is being replaced, if indeed he is. It is quite possible that he's just decided that his time as a breakfast DJ is done. But, i don't believe that, as his show is syndicated and is almost certainly not "live" anyway. Alice's show is being moved to an evening slot by the way.
All this leads me to wonder whether this is, maybe, the start of the end of the celebrity DJ?
Once again, i somehow doubt it, but i personally hope that it at least signals a change in the attitude of radio stations towards DJs.
Over the past few years it seems to have become increasingly fashionable for a radio station to have at least one "celebrity" DJ and often far more than that.
By this i mean a person who has been employed as a DJ because they have become famous elsewhere first. Many UK radio stations now have DJs who are first and foremost, actors, tv personalities etc etc.
Being a DJ is not their job, rather a, quite probably, lucrative sideline.
Quite possibly some of these celebrities have had some experience as a DJ in their past. But, my problem with this is that they have been employed as a DJ because of their celebrity status and not because of their skills as a DJ. They have been given their high profile radio show because of their celebrity, in the hope that their name will bring in extra listeners and to help sell some extra advertising.
Yes, i know that DJs often become celebrities in their own right, especially in this day and age. But, they became a celebrity for being a DJ and not the other way around.
So, does this actually matter?
Personally, i think it does. Although i suspect i may be in a minority on this one.
How many of these celebrity DJs actually work the controls themselves?
How many have any real knowledge of the music and the artists that they are playing?
How many have a real passion for the music that they are playing, or for radio generally?
To me, that is what a DJ should bring to a radio station. A passion for the music, the medium and the ability to present the show themselves.
When we think of all of our own personal favourite radio DJs from the past, that is exactly what you got. People like John Peel epitomised that and, thankfully, people like Bob Harris still do.
Maybe, these people aren't, or weren't the best DJs in the world, but they always command your respect, precisely because they know what they are talking about.
Maybe, i'm a little old fashioned in that i listen to the radio to hear music? Because of that, i want to listen to a presenter who knows what they are talking about.
I fully realise that a DJ such as Alice Cooper and others, certainly know their music, but i still don't tend to like them as DJs. I would much rather have a passionate and knowledgeable total unknown DJ, than one who is there because of their name and celebrity status.
How many potentially great radio presenters are being sidelined and kept out of work because of this current attitude towards DJs?
And just think, if this attitude had been prevalent, back in the 1960s and 1970s, would we ever have had such inspirational DJs as John Peel, Bob Harris and even Tony Blackburn?
Somehow, i doubt it.
So, i wish the new Planet Rock breakfast show DJ, Lucio Buffone, well and who knows, i might even start listening to the show now.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)