|
Post by T Morgan on Jan 25, 2022 22:17:04 GMT
Why does it need to be discussed yet again anyway? Move on! The alternative to discussing it, is to let these cultural vandals get away with damaging our history. Regarding the song "Run For Your Life", it was the closing track on yet another hugely successful Beatles album (Rubber Soul). Hardly "not a hit". My reaction? It's just a song! I think people who would get upset about the words of any song have some kind of problem. Just take a deep breath and enjoy life. Save your worries for things that matter. I'm sympathetic to your wish to discuss this topic, but I don't think it's helpful to dismiss the fact that Rebecca (or others) might be upset by the words of a song. Art and culture does disseminate ideas, like propaganda. It isn't always completely harmless. Sacha Baron Cohen knew what he was doing when he played Borat encouraging a group of American Southerners to sing along with "Throw the Jew Down the Well". But his audience weren't in on the joke. I've recently been reading about the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl - who protested her ignorance/innocence. I have a pretty good knowledge of 60s pop music, by the way (for someone born far later), and I'd never heard of that song. It occurred to me in the last few days that John Lennon recorded a more problematic song, "Woman is the N***** of the World". Colin, you've got a point, but in my humble opinion, there's no need to toss insults around, or denigrate an entire generation... I'm actually a millennial myself and it gets a bit tiresome to have my cohort constantly derided for being over-sensitive, as if no-one was ever allowed to take any offence. Of course there are extreme examples of younger people taking "social justice" to a whole new level, but I suspect that BBC Radio 4 Extra repeats are way down their list of priorities. IMO it says more about the BBC's censorious attitudes and disdain towards audiences, who they think are not mature enough to listen to the "offensive" material which has been removed. I'm sure I've heard content warnings before Radio 4 Extra shows. It's what TPTV do. The BBC could have done that, rather than wasting time and money on changing the repeats.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,863
|
Post by RWels on Jan 25, 2022 22:52:15 GMT
I don't know why but the quote function doesn't allow me to show just the part "Because the original tapes may get junked or become unplayable, with only the censored versions surviving. Far fetched? I don't think so. Companies are about making a profit and storage and transfers are a cost." Hmm. I have not heard of anything other than fear that this MIGHT happen, but no actual evidence. I think it's a too simplistic view of how archives work. If anything, digital storage is getting ever cheaper, and archivists do NOT work this way. We should NOT confuse public availability with archival existance. We all know the distinction. It's pretty usual for items to have more than one edition. Think of all the releases where it turned out there was extra footage and alternate versions all along. Or where someone selected a wrong version, and suddenly all the music cut from The Young Ones is back in. But IF the costs were to make companies delete files - after all, this has happened in the past - then they'll use a sledgehammer to get rid of their "worthless" assets, and sack whole departments. They won't take a comb to free the occasional GB or two. Unless someone like Paul V. or an actual archivist rings the alarm bell, as they would, then I really think this is an emotion (fear), and not a real possibility. This is the point where you're losing me because - unlike things to do with availability - there are no facts to support this fear at all. But name me one 21st example of permanent censor edits (directly to the master), and I'll condemn it and grab my pitchfork. (I'm probably only going to make things worse... but... if it did happen, we wouldn't know about it until it was too late... But even then I'm not going down this road on just a hunch.)
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jan 26, 2022 1:40:29 GMT
Whilst censorship has become an increasingly pertinent issue these days I honestly don’t believe it’s worth trying to ‘discuss’ here Colin. For one thing these forums function arguably far better sans political squabbling. Naturally censorship shouldn’t be regarded as a primarily political issue but it is all the same and there’s nothing we can do to change that! Certainly past experience has shown that any attempt to initiate genuine debate in the interests of constructive discourse soon devolves into petty factional bickering. Unfortunately a minority seemingly cannot (or will not) comprehend the issue beyond the myopic confines of trite right vs left partisanship… In actuality though censorship far transcends the petty borders of party politics as it progressively curtails creative endeavour and artistic expression of which ultimately impacts us all, obviously. This will not end well. For anyone. Agreed, and it really doesn't help for certain people to continually make this a left v right issue... eg. "but you're siding with billionaire tax dodgers for whom you're purely voting fodder!" I noted that the thread was closed on the other forum about this subject. Not sure why the thread started by Ed Brown about the cuts, and the one about The Clitheroe Kid needed deleting entirely. Closing them would have been sufficient. As with other websites perhaps the introduction of what is often colloquially referred to as a ‘War Room’ would be prudent here? As the name suggests it’s a lightly/non modded sub forum that acts as a repository/focal point for issues of a more ‘contentious’ nature. There they can be bickered over in blissful perpetuity without (potentially) derailing threads in the main forums. …That said, such areas are usually the last places one finds the aforementioned “constructive discourse” so maybe not! Regardless, for what it’s worth I agree: thread closure must surely be a better option in the circumstances rather than thread deletion.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Jan 26, 2022 14:08:10 GMT
William Hartnell was born in 1908 and there are allegations to the effect that he didn’t much care for non-whites. There is information here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hartnell However, how different was he from others born in the same era? This isn’t the place to discuss Hartnell’s clearly complex character but if you wanted to make accusations of bigotry there is probably evidence available. The way things are nowadays - changing a typeface! - what do you do with old TV shows where the star could be accused of being a bigot? The real problem stems from the fact that some people simply cannot tolerate someone having a different point of view. Some would argue that having Hartnell's views is not being a bigot; they are also entitled to their view. The "socially aware" brigade seem to have concluded that their view is the only correct one, and everyone else is wrong; therefore, the "non-socially aware" must be corrected in their thinking. They won't correct mine! The way to defeat them is to continue to go about one's life the same way one always has, and refuse to go along with the nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Jan 26, 2022 14:15:28 GMT
Colin, you've got a point, but in my humble opinion, there's no need to toss insults around, or denigrate an entire generation... I'm certainly not intending to insult any individual here in this group; I'm certainly willing to insult a general collection of people who are infringing on my rights, and everyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jan 26, 2022 15:41:04 GMT
I don't know why but the quote function doesn't allow me to show just the part "Because the original tapes may get junked or become unplayable, with only the censored versions surviving. Far fetched? I don't think so. Companies are about making a profit and storage and transfers are a cost." Hmm. I have not heard of anything other than fear that this MIGHT happen, but no actual evidence. I think it's a too simplistic view of how archives work. If anything, digital storage is getting ever cheaper, and archivists do NOT work this way. We should NOT confuse public availability with archival existance. We all know the distinction. It's pretty usual for items to have more than one edition. Think of all the releases where it turned out there was extra footage and alternate versions all along. Or where someone selected a wrong version, and suddenly all the music cut from The Young Ones is back in. But IF the costs were to make companies delete files - after all, this has happened in the past - then they'll use a sledgehammer to get rid of their "worthless" assets, and sack whole departments. They won't take a comb to free the occasional GB or two. Unless someone like Paul V. or an actual archivist rings the alarm bell, as they would, then I really think this is an emotion (fear), and not a real possibility. This is the point where you're losing me because - unlike things to do with availability - there are no facts to support this fear at all. But name me one 21st example of permanent censor edits (directly to the master), and I'll condemn it and grab my pitchfork. (I'm probably only going to make things worse... but... if it did happen, we wouldn't know about it until it was too late... But even then I'm not going down this road on just a hunch.) Perhaps it's too early for much evidence to have come to light as far as TV is concerned? But what about I Claudius? Didn't a small part of that disappear after first broadcast because it was cut for censorship reasons? Was the method used to copy off the last part and then assemble edit it back onto the master tape? In the film industry numerous things have been cut and for all kinds of reasons. One example is It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Released now as a 197-minute reconstruction of the original 202-minute roadshow version. If you've seen the reconstruction you'll know what the quality is like because the cut bits weren't looked after the same as the main neg. Some weren't kept at all. The added parts are faded, some have a black border, there are even a couple of small bits that are audio only with still photos. In the case of the Laurel and Hardy films the original titles were chopped when MGM stopped distributing them. The "nameplate" title that we grew up seeing on BBC2 repeats isn't the original. The idea that everything will be kept because digital storage is becoming cheaper is a fallacy. It all still has to be managed. Last I heard the BBC was using LTO tape and there has been the suggestion that in the future entire archives will have to be migrated every decade or so as equipment changes. We all know the various stories about how things came to be binned at the BBC. There must be numerous people working there now who would love to destroy various things in the archive because of their personal ideology? Do you imagine that someone who is in favour of pulling over statues wouldn't also like to put the master tapes of certain shows through a bulk eraser? The whole ideology is about removing/erasing/destroying certain things. Archivists constantly make decisions about what to keep and for a whole range of reasons. Sometimes budgetary which could be an issue for the BBC of the future.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 26, 2022 16:21:33 GMT
William Hartnell was born in 1908 and there are allegations to the effect that he didn’t much care for non-whites. There is information here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hartnell However, how different was he from others born in the same era? This isn’t the place to discuss Hartnell’s clearly complex character but if you wanted to make accusations of bigotry there is probably evidence available. The way things are nowadays - changing a typeface! - what do you do with old TV shows where the star could be accused of being a bigot? The real problem stems from the fact that some people simply cannot tolerate someone having a different point of view. Some would argue that having Hartnell's views is not being a bigot; they are also entitled to their view. The "socially aware" brigade seem to have concluded that their view is the only correct one, and everyone else is wrong; therefore, the "non-socially aware" must be corrected in their thinking. They won't correct mine! The way to defeat them is to continue to go about one's life the same way one always has, and refuse to go along with the nonsense. It’s an extremely bad way to do history, it’s presentism. However, it isn’t history, it’s a hatred of the modern (western) world and everything and everyone that made it. It’s seek and ye shall find, a historical witch hunt, although most of those condemned are not condemned for being unusual but for being of their time - a norm is made into an exception.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 26, 2022 16:28:52 GMT
Hmm. I have not heard of anything other than fear that this MIGHT happen, but no actual evidence. I think it's a too simplistic view of how archives work. If anything, digital storage is getting ever cheaper, and archivists do NOT work this way. We should NOT confuse public availability with archival existance. We all know the distinction. It's pretty usual for items to have more than one edition. Think of all the releases where it turned out there was extra footage and alternate versions all along. Or where someone selected a wrong version, and suddenly all the music cut from The Young Ones is back in. But IF the costs were to make companies delete files - after all, this has happened in the past - then they'll use a sledgehammer to get rid of their "worthless" assets, and sack whole departments. They won't take a comb to free the occasional GB or two. Unless someone like Paul V. or an actual archivist rings the alarm bell, as they would, then I really think this is an emotion (fear), and not a real possibility. This is the point where you're losing me because - unlike things to do with availability - there are no facts to support this fear at all. But name me one 21st example of permanent censor edits (directly to the master), and I'll condemn it and grab my pitchfork. (I'm probably only going to make things worse... but... if it did happen, we wouldn't know about it until it was too late... But even then I'm not going down this road on just a hunch.) Perhaps it's too early for much evidence to have come to light as far as TV is concerned? But what about I Claudius? Didn't a small part of that disappear after first broadcast because it was cut for censorship reasons? Was the method used to copy off the last part and then assemble edit it back onto the master tape? In the film industry numerous things have been cut and for all kinds of reasons. One example is It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Released now as a 197-minute reconstruction of the original 202-minute roadshow version. If you've seen the reconstruction you'll know what the quality is like because the cut bits weren't looked after the same as the main neg. Some weren't kept at all. The added parts are faded, some have a black border, there are even a couple of small bits that are audio only with still photos. In the case of the Laurel and Hardy films the original titles were chopped when MGM stopped distributing them. The "nameplate" title that we grew up seeing on BBC2 repeats isn't the original. The idea that everything will be kept because digital storage is becoming cheaper is a fallacy. It all still has to be managed. Last I heard the BBC was using LTO tape and there has been the suggestion that in the future entire archives will have to be migrated every decade or so as equipment changes. We all know the various stories about how things came to be binned at the BBC. There must be numerous people working there now who would love to destroy various things in the archive because of their personal ideology? Do you imagine that someone who is in favour of pulling over statues wouldn't also like to put the master tapes of certain shows through a bulk eraser? The whole ideology is about removing/erasing/destroying certain things. Archivists constantly make decisions about what to keep and for a whole range of reasons. Sometimes budgetary which could be an issue for the BBC of the future. There are plenty of things from the past - such as King Kong - that were hacked about. More recently remember how the freeze frame of Tom Baker being held under the water in Deadly Assassin was excised from the master tape after first transmission. We’ve yet to see what happens to the various versions of TV and radio shows, but the past doesn’t fill me with confidence! We don’t know how these are described in the catalogue and what happens if the shorter, cut version is identified as the broadcast, or primary, version? Someone comes along to do a clean up, and what do they keep?
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jan 26, 2022 16:31:23 GMT
Another sad aspect of this is that in some cases it actually prevents performances by ethnic minority people from being shown. If they took roles in the many dramas that were made in the past about race, more than likely the BBC won't want to show those now. Here's another example... This is a duo called Sweet Dreams on Top of the Pops in 1974 (in 1976 they did A Song For Europe). For whatever reason Polly Browne decided it would be a good idea to wear brown make-up (sometimes darker than this) and Tony Jackson was apparently willing to appear with her like that. Unfortunately they're introduced by Jimmy Savile and because of the way it starts off it's difficult to see how this could ever be shown in full because of that alone. Leaving aside what some will see as problems it's a wonderful performance and his only time on TOTPs. One that will likely never be seen on TV again.
|
|
|
Post by T Morgan on Jan 26, 2022 17:15:28 GMT
The Black and White Minstrel Show included black performers later on in its run. I think Lenny Henry might even have done a sketch on it.
|
|
Kev Hunter
Member
The only difference between a rut and a groove is the depth
Posts: 608
|
Post by Kev Hunter on Jan 26, 2022 17:34:02 GMT
Another sad aspect of this is that in some cases it actually prevents performances by ethnic minority people from being shown. If they took roles in the many dramas that were made in the past about race, more than likely the BBC won't want to show those now. Here's another example... This is a duo called Sweet Dreams on Top of the Pops in 1974 (in 1976 they did A Song For Europe). For whatever reason Polly Browne decided it would be a good idea to wear brown make-up (sometimes darker than this) and Tony Jackson was apparently willing to appear with her like that. Unfortunately they're introduced by Jimmy Savile and because of the way it starts off it's difficult to see how this could ever be shown in full because of that alone. Leaving aside what some will see as problems it's a wonderful performance and his only time on TOTPs. One that will likely never be seen on TV again. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> I think there was a wee bit more to it than Polly Brown(e) deciding it was a good idea to wear brown make-up - she was renamed (possibly by her management) "Sara Leone" when she was part of Sweet Dreams, an obvious play on Sierra Leone; apparently Polly was once rumoured to be romantically linked to Savile, which doesn't say much for her decisions at all.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,863
|
Post by RWels on Jan 26, 2022 17:50:07 GMT
Hmm. I have not heard of anything other than fear that this MIGHT happen, but no actual evidence. I think it's a too simplistic view of how archives work. If anything, digital storage is getting ever cheaper, and archivists do NOT work this way. We should NOT confuse public availability with archival existance. We all know the distinction. It's pretty usual for items to have more than one edition. Think of all the releases where it turned out there was extra footage and alternate versions all along. Or where someone selected a wrong version, and suddenly all the music cut from The Young Ones is back in. But IF the costs were to make companies delete files - after all, this has happened in the past - then they'll use a sledgehammer to get rid of their "worthless" assets, and sack whole departments. They won't take a comb to free the occasional GB or two. Unless someone like Paul V. or an actual archivist rings the alarm bell, as they would, then I really think this is an emotion (fear), and not a real possibility. This is the point where you're losing me because - unlike things to do with availability - there are no facts to support this fear at all. But name me one 21st example of permanent censor edits (directly to the master), and I'll condemn it and grab my pitchfork. (I'm probably only going to make things worse... but... if it did happen, we wouldn't know about it until it was too late... But even then I'm not going down this road on just a hunch.) Perhaps it's too early for much evidence to have come to light as far as TV is concerned? But what about I Claudius? Didn't a small part of that disappear after first broadcast because it was cut for censorship reasons? Was the method used to copy off the last part and then assemble edit it back onto the master tape? In the film industry numerous things have been cut and for all kinds of reasons. One example is It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Released now as a 197-minute reconstruction of the original 202-minute roadshow version. If you've seen the reconstruction you'll know what the quality is like because the cut bits weren't looked after the same as the main neg. Some weren't kept at all. The added parts are faded, some have a black border, there are even a couple of small bits that are audio only with still photos. In the case of the Laurel and Hardy films the original titles were chopped when MGM stopped distributing them. The "nameplate" title that we grew up seeing on BBC2 repeats isn't the original. The idea that everything will be kept because digital storage is becoming cheaper is a fallacy. It all still has to be managed. Last I heard the BBC was using LTO tape and there has been the suggestion that in the future entire archives will have to be migrated every decade or so as equipment changes. We all know the various stories about how things came to be binned at the BBC. There must be numerous people working there now who would love to destroy various things in the archive because of their personal ideology? Do you imagine that someone who is in favour of pulling over statues wouldn't also like to put the master tapes of certain shows through a bulk eraser? The whole ideology is about removing/erasing/destroying certain things. Archivists constantly make decisions about what to keep and for a whole range of reasons. Sometimes budgetary which could be an issue for the BBC of the future. Those examples haven't got anything to do with 21st century political correctness. Nothing, not a sausage. Are you suggesting that we should discuss missing episodes here??
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jan 26, 2022 17:53:41 GMT
Another sad aspect of this is that in some cases it actually prevents performances by ethnic minority people from being shown. If they took roles in the many dramas that were made in the past about race, more than likely the BBC won't want to show those now. Here's another example... This is a duo called Sweet Dreams on Top of the Pops in 1974 (in 1976 they did A Song For Europe). For whatever reason Polly Browne decided it would be a good idea to wear brown make-up (sometimes darker than this) and Tony Jackson was apparently willing to appear with her like that. Unfortunately they're introduced by Jimmy Savile and because of the way it starts off it's difficult to see how this could ever be shown in full because of that alone. Leaving aside what some will see as problems it's a wonderful performance and his only time on TOTPs. One that will likely never be seen on TV again. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> I think there was a wee bit more to it than Polly Brown(e) deciding it was a good idea to wear brown make-up - she was renamed (possibly by her management) "Sara Leone" when she was part of Sweet Dreams, an obvious play on Sierra Leone; apparently Polly was once rumoured to be romantically linked to Savile, which doesn't say much for her decisions at all. One of her former bandmates said the stories about being involved with Savile were just a publicity stunt. Many people were taken in by Jimmy Savile. I don't really see how any of what you've said adds up to more. She obviously loved soul music. As usual you're looking at it and judging from a 2022 perspective nearly 50 years later. Think about that. We're as far removed from 1974 as they were from 1926. Pamela Stephenson appeared in brown make-up as Moira Stewart on Not the Nine O'Clock News and Ronnie Barker appeared as "Big Fat Momma" and Ronnie Corbett as Stevie Wonder in a Top of the Pops spoof in the early 1980s. One of the most concerning things about the censorship is that allows the BBC to play a holier than thou role. Because nothing is shown it's almost as if the BBC never made anything like this. And then when one thing pops up the individual is jumped on as an out-of-the-ordinary bigot. When it fact it was all quite widespread and part of the culture of the time.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jan 26, 2022 17:59:14 GMT
Perhaps it's too early for much evidence to have come to light as far as TV is concerned? But what about I Claudius? Didn't a small part of that disappear after first broadcast because it was cut for censorship reasons? Was the method used to copy off the last part and then assemble edit it back onto the master tape? In the film industry numerous things have been cut and for all kinds of reasons. One example is It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Released now as a 197-minute reconstruction of the original 202-minute roadshow version. If you've seen the reconstruction you'll know what the quality is like because the cut bits weren't looked after the same as the main neg. Some weren't kept at all. The added parts are faded, some have a black border, there are even a couple of small bits that are audio only with still photos. In the case of the Laurel and Hardy films the original titles were chopped when MGM stopped distributing them. The "nameplate" title that we grew up seeing on BBC2 repeats isn't the original. The idea that everything will be kept because digital storage is becoming cheaper is a fallacy. It all still has to be managed. Last I heard the BBC was using LTO tape and there has been the suggestion that in the future entire archives will have to be migrated every decade or so as equipment changes. We all know the various stories about how things came to be binned at the BBC. There must be numerous people working there now who would love to destroy various things in the archive because of their personal ideology? Do you imagine that someone who is in favour of pulling over statues wouldn't also like to put the master tapes of certain shows through a bulk eraser? The whole ideology is about removing/erasing/destroying certain things. Archivists constantly make decisions about what to keep and for a whole range of reasons. Sometimes budgetary which could be an issue for the BBC of the future. Those examples haven't got anything to do with 21st century political correctness. Nothing, not a sausage. Are you suggesting that we should discuss missing episodes here?? I specifically addressed points you made in your post about censored (removed) material being lost and preservation in the digital age.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 26, 2022 18:03:08 GMT
There are significant problems with archiving in the digital era as you need to preserve the programs to access the material.
It’s much easier to have a 35mm negative and just shine a light through it.
|
|