The Making Of....

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.

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.

AudioBoo - No Hiding Place.

listen to ‘No Hiding Place.’ on Audioboo

A story about trying to avoid the result of a football match.

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

AudioBoo - A Lost Viewer.

Here's a link to the blog post that i mentioned:
http://andymooseman.blogspot.com/2012/02/sexed-up.html

Two Moments In Time.

I'm sure that we've all seen at least some of the footage of the UK singer/songwriter Adele performing 'Rolling In The Deep' at the Grammys the other night by now?

Not surprisingly, i suppose, it was featured on all of our major news bulletins here in the UK and a very good performance it was too. It certainly made me appreciate the song far more than i had done before. I thought that it brought out the bluesy and gospel feel of the song.
By the way, a lot of the footage has now been taken down from YouTube etc due to copyright demands from the Grammys themselves, spoilsports.

One thing that i noticed about the performance was the reaction of the crowd afterwards. A prolonged standing ovation and a feeling that, for once at least, it was a genuine and spontaneous reaction from the assembled musicians and lesser Grammy goers.

But, it also reminded me of a similar performance very nearly a year ago at the Brit Awards, in London. That performance was of 'Someone Like You' (Watch in HD), but although i didn't see the awards ceremony, to be honest they bore me to tears, i do remember the reaction afterwards.

Although Adele was a big star at the time, the introduction mentioned the fact that she was Number 1 in 17 countries at that moment, that performance catapulted her even higher.

That live version of 'Somone Like You' was played, seemingly, non-stop on UK radio and the song flew to the top of the charts. The YouTube video of that performance went viral and was being shared all over the world. The link above has now been watched over 94 million times!

It was at that time that i started to notice American friends of mine sharing that video on Facebook and suddenly realising that they'd stumbled onto someone quite special.

Fast forward a year and now another great live performance, this time in the USA, threatens to send Adele's career into virtual orbit. Yes, she has already topped the U.S charts and set chart records galore. But i think that the effect of last Sunday's performance will have, once again,  showcased Adele's talent to a whole new audience.
Winning 6 Grammy awards obviously doesn't exactly hinder that either.

But, why her?

Well, i can't pretend to be any expert on the music of Adele. I have both of her albums in my iTunes library, but that is only because i've bought the albums for my wife. I've never actually listened to them all the way through. In some ways, i don't really have to as i hear Adele's music everywhere anyway.

But, i do appreciate it and certainly enjoyed both of those career defining live performanaces mentioned above. For me, the live performances that i've seen have been better than the recorded ones and maybe that's why those tv performances have had such an impact?

As the compere of that Brit Awards show said after Adele had sung, there was no need for pyrotechnics, just a piano and a voice.

Adele doesn't need dancing girls, sexy videos, or autotune and she also just doesn't do lip-synching unlike the majority of other, especially female, singers around at the moment. She relies instead on what she does best, singing and singing with real emotion too. That is obviously helped by the fact that she writes the majority of her own songs.
Yes, she had a full backing band at the Grammys, but it was still an understated performance.
It is all about the performance, there are no distractions.

What people are being drawn to i think, in the case of Adele, is something that they haven't really been able to get from a pop star for some years now. A return to a kind of back to basics performance, just like in the old days.

Another selling point and i'm sure that this is not just coincidence, is the abscence of any real "image". Although, i do feel that this has in actual fact now become her image. Whether that is by accident, or design, i'm not sure.
Without meaning to sound mean, Adele looks rather plain and just doesn't have that 'pop star' look that other female singers have. This means that all of the attention is drawn to her voice and performance and i think she succeeds all the more for that.
This sets her apart from the likes of Lady Gaga, Rhianna and Beyonce, all of whom use their bodies, sexiness and shock tactics to help sell their music.

Adele's success and the reaction to these performances just goes to show that the public do actually appreciate and recognise a great talent when they see and hear one. Hopefully, it will also lead to the general public starting to see through those shock tactics employed by others and help provoke a return to real performances.

Whilst i can't pretend to be the biggest fan of her music,  i'm more than happy to stand up and applaud the talents of Adele. I have a feeling that i'm not alone in that.

Let's hope that her success might herald a new generation of original performers with genuine talent, instead of the ersatz pop performers we've been subjected to for far too long now.

Let's hope also that those two great performances will be followed by many others in the years to come.

PS: Here is a video of Adele's debut tv performance: Daydreamer - June 2007
I know i will have seen this at the time, but don't remember it. I guess that just goes to show that we can't always spot talent when it is in front of us?,

Sexed Up?

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.

Time To Think.

A beach vlog.

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.

AudioBoo - LOL Funny?

Here are links to the books i mentioned in this Boo:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Super-Sad-True-Love-Story/dp/1847082491/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326966001&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/McCarthys-Bar-Journey-Discovery-Ireland/dp/0340766050/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326966067&sr=1-1

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?

Bothered?

Yesterday morning, on the radio, i heard a piece about how the current economic problems are affecting different people in the UK. A cross section of the community were asked about their own personal circumstances in these increasingly difficult times.

As we all are no doubt aware, especially here in the UK, this week has brought even worse news. The continuing concerns about the Euro currency and how that might affect us. The statement from the Governor of the Bank of England, saying that even he doesn't know what's going to happen and that things are pretty grim. As if we needed to be told that.
And then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, gave a statement in Parliament saying that things are worse then he thought they'd be and that the end is not in sight yet.
It was also announced that the state pension age is going to raise to 68 and, of course, we had the public sector strikes, over personal pensions.
So, not a good week!

During the course of that radio discussion two teenage girls, aged 17 and 18, were interviewed. When asked what they thought about George Osborne's statement this week and how it might affect them, they both admitted that they hadn't known who he was. One of them had even asked the other if he might be related to Sharon Osbourne, the wife of Ozzy!

While this produced some laughter amongst the other participants, it does pose a rather serious question. If, at this time of world wide economic crisis, two teenage girls don't even know the name of, arguably, the second most important politician in the UK. What hope is there?

I'm not blaming these particular teenage girls for their lack of knowledge, as i know that they are far from alone here. I have a 17 year old daughter myself and i have a feeling she wouldn't know who George Osborne was either.

Politics, even in these testing times, holds no interest for the young. In fact, politics seem to hold little interest for a fair proportion of the UK population, regardless of their age.
This situation is quite probably replicated across the world.

This apparent apathy about politics, especially amongst the young, is a big worry. After all, these are the people who will be voting for the first time at the next general election. They are the people who should be providing us with our next generation of politicians, both locally and nationally.

So, why this apathy?

I'm sure that some of it can be put down to those old favourites, "what can i do about anything anyway?", "my vote doesn't count?", "they are all as bad as each other" and "politicians don't care about people like me anyway, so why bother?"
Those concerns are age old ones and are still as relevant as they've always been. But, i'm sure that things are worse now than they used to be.

Politicans are now, more than ever, distrusted and seen as being hugely out of touch with the people that they govern. You only have to look at the recent scandal here in the UK about MP's expenses claims to see that.
The current UK goverment is run by multi-millionaires, from public schools, who insist that, "everybody is in this together", when it is patently obvious that they are not.

Money has also become a bigger factor in whether somebody can get elected in the first place in many, if not all countries. Running for office, or running a political party is a costly business and this has taken its toll and excluded many from being able to put their names onto the ballot paper in the first place. It also raises the potential for corruption and favours for those who donate, in the future.

Of course, the recent financial crisis and the bailing out of the banks has had a serious effect on the lack of confidence in politicians. The fact that the banks have been seen to have got away with their bad practices, seemingly, scott free and at the expense of the rest of us (the 99%) has hardly helped.
And then there is that small matter of those very same bankers still being allowed to pick up their large bonuses, while the politicians wring their hands and do nothing. Even though "we", the people, own a large proportion of many of those same banks, after rescuing them.
When were you last rewarded for doing a bad job? Exactly....

Another aspect is that all the mainstream political parties all seem pretty much the same. There really doesn't seem to be much to choose between any of them. The fact that we in the UK have a coalition government at the moment just reinforces that.
All the parties seem to be trying to appeal to the same voters. They have forgotten, or chosen to forget, the rest of us. All we ever hear about is "Middle England", whatever that means.

All of the above does mean that it is hardly surprising that the youth of today find politics unappealing. They feel angry, or at least see the anger of their parents. But, they also feel that they can do nothing about it. Except maybe riot, or occupy a small part of a city.

Politics used to be a worthy profession and one that many people aspired to. Thankfully, there are still some who, fortunately, try to carry that on. But, it is now a profession which has been tainted forever. People now seem to be attracted to it for all the wrong reasons, or are just not attracted to it at all.

I don't deny that being a politician is not an easy life, regardless of what some may think. It is hard work, if done properly and the increasing public scrutiny and constant media pressure can't be easy to bear. But, that is partly the result of that public distrust and past misdemeanours.

But, i do wonder if another reason politics has lost its shine over recent years and is not now such a valued career path, is because of the rise of the celebrity? After all, celebrities command more column inches in today's newspapers than many politicians, or world leaders.

Politicans themselves can often now be seen as celebrities. They've increasingly started to appear on reality shows and tv panel game shows. This usually happens towards the end of the particular persons political career i know, but....

So, if even the politicians see celebrity as a future career path, is it any wonder that the youth of today feel the same way and can't be bothered to find out, or care who is actually governing them?

Worrying, isn't it?

So, what can be done about this?
Personally, i can't see things changing any time soon. Well, not until the whole political set up changes. Or, until a completely new political party comes along to shake the foundations of the current system.
Until that time, we will be left with the same levels of distrust and dissatisfaction, with our politicians, that we have now.

Vive la revolution!

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.

Here We Are Now, Entertain Us.

A follow up to my recent video "The Modern Gig Going Experience"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAxgDwlZNIM

AudioBoo - Media Savvy.

Politicians can't pull the wool over our eyes any longer. We're onto them.

AudioBoo - Playground Talk.

How playground conversations have changed over the years.

Twitter And TV.

Last night, things finally came to a head.

What am i talking about? Well, here goes....

Why do some people insist on Tweeting about every single thing that happens in certain TV programs?
There, i said it!

I'm sure that this is a recent phenomenon, certainly here in the UK anyway?
Yes, i know that people have been Tweeting about TV progs, probably since Twitter was invented. But, not with the frequency that seems to have crept in recently.

In the UK, two programs seem to produce the biggest amount of related tweets. On a Saturday & Sunday evening we have the X-Factor and on a Sunday evening, following the X-Factor, we have Downton Abbey.
These two programs do have some of the biggest viewing figures. But, i'm not sure that that alone explains the amount of related tweets. And, yes, the X-Factor does encourage audience participation through voting. But, i don't think this explains it all either.

I'll admit that i have sometimes felt the need to post the odd Tweet during tv programs myself. But, the volume of Tweets during the above mentioned progs has to be seen to be believed sometimes. Some people are Tweeting, literally, every minute.

What i'd like to know is that if these people are spending so much time writing and posting Tweets, how much of the actual program are they seeing? And, if you're taking the time to watch a tv program in the first place, why not watch it instead of looking down at your phone, iPad, laptop etc?
Another aspect that intriques me is how many of the Tweets are not very complimentary about the program being watched. If you don't like the program, why on earth are you watching it?

I remember a time when the Internet was considered to be something of an escape, or even an alternative to tv. In many ways that is how i still view it. But, it's obvious that, for an increasing number of people, that is not now the case. The two worlds are combining and overlapping. Colliding even.
Of course, the situation is made all the worse when the tv programs being Tweeted about are ones that you have no interest in yourself.

Over the past few weekends i have often found myself turning off Twitter when these two tv progs are on. But, by doing that, i am then denying myself everything else that is going on in the Twittersphere.
Why should i do that?
So, i have now felt the need to take some drastic action and last night i 'Un-followed" two of the worst TV Tweeting offenders. Maybe it's my fault for following certain people in the first place? But, as with many things in life, you don't always know what you're letting yourself in for when you sign up!

Maybe the situation will get better when those two particular tv progs finish their run? But, i have a feeling that's not going to happen. Another show will, most probably, come along and grab the attention of the TV Tweeters.

I guess i'll just have to keep my finger poised over that "Un-follow" button for a while longer yet?

AudioBoo - TV Documentaries.

AudioBoo - Old Grey Whistle Test.

Here's a link to the prog on the BBC iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yd8n5/Britain_in_a_Box_Series_4_The_Old_Grey_Whistle_Test/

AudioBoo - Comfort Talking.