|
Post by Stephen on Oct 20, 2004 21:11:59 GMT
Thanks for reinforcing my point. I can't understand why in reply to Andy Hendersons last point to me, you say that writing passionately about a subject dear to the heart will make no difference? It raises publicity for a cause. I note, now I can compose myself not to make emotive retorts, the focus in your reply to my previous e-mails on 'my frustrations'. If Paul Vanessi, Collie Knox and yourself post contraversial & debatable comments this is bound to summon a contraversial & debatable response. however, it draws attention to that aspect which side steps answers to the difficult main points made, i.e. why did the BBC apparently junk the moon landing footage from 1969. This challenges an earlier comment you made in athread about 'everything important being there in the BBC archive, such as all of Laurence oliviers performances or an interview with Jung. Other postings on this forum indicate your recognition that art outside the classical language has value, not just the cliche perceptions. Thus would you not agree that technically your statements are at least partly mistaken? Surely also in view that the catalogue of another great Thespian, John Gielgud is incomplete. And surely also any living thinking human is a cog in the wheel of humanity that turns with some degree of passion in their lifetime? Perhaps the cybermen have taken over some of the adminstrative hierachy of the BBC quantifying George Orwells model for Big Brother? It all depends on the definition of what is important or worthy for each person. There have been a lot of diverse contributions to this thread which at least proves there is no single universal answer to that question. No doubt <everything important> is in the BBC archive by some people's definition although not by others. If we take at the bare bones the most historic material alone then even that is patchy. Apart from the Apollo 11 coverage, there are many political and sporting events and programmes over the years that are not residing in the different archives that could. Programmes of clear importance or interest. If we broaden it to include generally important material artistically <which is perfectly fair> then there are hundreds of noteworthy items and not just a few dozen that are trotted off by the British Film Institute. Plays strands, dramas, arts and magazine programmes, comedies, music series, documentaries. The full breadth of television's richness and diversity. It doesn't need further qualification and I agree with John Miller when he says that debating this actual point in itself sidesteps answering difficult questions about archive policy or the lack of in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Oct 20, 2004 21:19:53 GMT
I remember that in Primetime 3 a long time back there was an item drawing attention to the loss of so much valuable tv. I have it here and it's by Nicholas Pronay. He makes the good point that what would be the point in the Brit Library keeping just snipped articles from the times rather than the whole papers? That is the situation though we have got now with television history . it's pick up the pieces time.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 20, 2004 21:24:48 GMT
ok - let's start with the Political recordings. Please submit your lists of massive amounts of junked political material, so we can see what you are thinking about?
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 20, 2004 21:50:15 GMT
I remember that in Primetime 3 a long time back there was an item drawing attention to the loss of so much valuable tv. I've got that one and another from issue 15 as well. Very well written and makes it's points passionately; the general thrust of what it says still holds true today - the one good thing to come of that article is that of the stuff listed as missing then, several of them have since been found to survive after all. We all know of the quantity of valuable material that was thrown away (and roughly what it consisted of). Anyone genuinely interested in vintage TV for any length of time won't need reminding.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 20, 2004 23:15:20 GMT
.......and most film documentaries do survive, particularly in the case of the BBC as do most of the major o/bs from 1948 onwards as do the majority of BBC TV Newsreel......as do (for example) enough Wednesday Plays to show every week for a year non stop (and Z-Cars ditto) as do.......all the Tonight films......as do even the 1930s Demonstration films (though the 1939 one is a bit suspect!) and so on. Most of the exceptions are in LE and Drama and within those, the vast majority of what IS there hasn't even been scratched for 40 years for any particularly good use. In other words the actuality material is still used more often and was preserved with historical interest in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Oct 20, 2004 23:15:52 GMT
True but what surprises me is that out of all the years of television there have been since recording technology existed, someone actually thinks that all that is important is what has been preserved anyway. Its staggering. doesnt say much for the medium, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 20, 2004 23:23:52 GMT
I think it all should have kept, but I don't ever think that would have been practical at that time. The biggest crime (if you want to call it that) is the arbitrary nature of selection. Most of the early 'examples' of programmes were not recorded for posterity. They were recorded for use as examples of a show, as fillers in case of problems or on request for a review. However, there is no doubt that the BBC was first to recognise the value of preserving historic events and the fact that we can still see the majority of these is a good thing. We are only really deficient in the 'arts'. Since there hasn't been a clamour for a DVD set of 'Wednesday Play' and no one seems to want to even revive the remaining recordings, it could be argued that what we have left is more than we might even have hoped for.
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 20, 2004 23:52:38 GMT
[quote author=Guest-Andy Henderson
1........and most film documentaries do survive, particularly in the case of the BBC as do most of the major o/bs from 1948 onwards as do the majority of BBC TV Newsreel.
2......as do (for example) enough Wednesday Plays to show every week for a year non stop (and Z-Cars ditto) as do.......all the Tonight films......as do even the 1930s Demonstration films
3... Most of the exceptions are in LE and Drama and within those, the vast majority of what IS there hasn't even been scratched for 40 years for any particularly good use. In other words the actuality material is still used more often and was preserved with historical interest in mind. [/quote]
1. Film documentaries are only part of the picture though. Just as many were made on video, certainly over the last 40 years.
2. Well, there may be enough Z-Cars to show end to end for however long you like but they aren't nessesarily all the ones that SHOULD have been saved (nor doesa patchy run nessesarily make sense if you can't show them all - again, it's that "cuttings from The Times" quote mentioned above that's relevant here). And i'm sure that many of the in-between editions of Wednesday Play etc were every bit as good as those that are preserved and hailed as great - we have not been given the chance to make up our own minds. Huge amounts of drama have gone including stuff by the (so-called) recognised big names including Kneale, Potter, Mercer and the rest (all well-known at the time). Vast quantities of Armchair Theatres, Wednesday Plays, Thirty Minute Theatres etc.
Documentary is another matter. Maybe Tonight's FILMS exist but again this is just one side of the coin. Nationwide, Late Night Line-Up (and other such magaxine shows) are the same - all the inserts exist but the programmes themselves, many with interesting interviews with famous people, are just not there.
3. LE implies light and therefore unimportant, despite the fact that a lot of very popular and famous stuff was thrown out invluding the colour Steptoes, Not Only But Also, Marty etc etc (giving the lie to the fact that it was just "old b/w prints that were junked, 'cos no one wants them any more"). Recognised important stuff b/w stuff also went in droves, including Till Death, A For Andromeda, Alan Bennett's On The Margin etc (this is not to mention countless forgotten gems like Where Was Spring? by Eleanor Born and John Fortune). I tend to agree with Terry Jones remark though that it's the comedy and similar stuff that best sums up a period, more so than the "serious programmes".
The fact that certain people took risks to save material proves that there was an awareness of valuable recordings being destroyed. The term "Historical interest" is broad and covers everything mentioned here and not just cans of old newsreel![quote author=Guest-Andy Henderson
1........and most film documentaries do survive, particularly in the case of the BBC as do most of the major o/bs from 1948 onwards as do the majority of BBC TV Newsreel.
2......as do (for example) enough Wednesday Plays to show every week for a year non stop (and Z-Cars ditto) as do.......all the Tonight films......as do even the 1930s Demonstration films
3... Most of the exceptions are in LE and Drama and within those, the vast majority of what IS there hasn't even been scratched for 40 years for any particularly good use. In other words the actuality material is still used more often and was preserved with historical interest in mind. [/quote]
1. Film documentaries are only part of the picture though. Just as many were made on video, certainly over the last 40 years.
2. Well, there may be enough Z-Cars to show end to end for however long you like but they aren't nessesarily all the ones that SHOULD have been saved (nor doesa patchy run nessesarily make sense if you can't show them all - again, it's that "cuttings from The Times" quote mentioned above that's relevant here). And i'm sure that many of the in-between editions of Wednesday Play etc were every bit as good as those that are preserved and hailed as great - we have not been given the chance to make up our own minds. Huge amounts of drama have gone including stuff by the (so-called) recognised big names including Kneale, Potter, Mercer and the rest (all well-known at the time). Vast quantities of Armchair Theatres, Wednesday Plays, Thirty Minute Theatres etc.
Documentary is another matter. Maybe Tonight's FILMS exist but again this is just one side of the coin. Nationwide, Late Night Line-Up (and other such magaxine shows) are the same - all the inserts exist but the programmes themselves, many with interesting interviews with famous people, are just not there.
3. LE implies light and therefore unimportant, despite the fact that a lot of very popular and famous stuff was thrown out invluding the colour Steptoes, Not Only But Also, Marty etc etc (giving the lie to the fact that it was just "old b/w prints that were junked, 'cos no one wants them any more"). Recognised important stuff b/w stuff also went in droves, including Till Death, A For Andromeda, Alan Bennett's On The Margin etc (this is not to mention countless forgotten gems like Where Was Spring? by Eleanor Born and John Fortune). I tend to agree with Terry Jones remark though that it's the comedy and similar stuff that best sums up a period, more so than the "serious programmes".
The fact that certain people took risks to save material proves that there was an awareness of valuable recordings being destroyed. The term "Historical interest" is broad and covers everything mentioned here and not just cans of old newsreel!
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 20, 2004 23:59:41 GMT
Mind you, because there is no clamour for a Wednesday Play DVD is no reason to not justify archiving it! If we went by that criteria, then the BBC's Shakespeare / classical music / ballet programming and loads more would have gone long ago. Not that it should though - if something is good of it's kind then it should be preserved for posterity. That's why we have a culture and such things shouldn't merely be at the mercy of market forces.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 21, 2004 8:24:59 GMT
You've answered your own question Laurence. Shakesperare vs The Wednesday play. At any rate, even in these modern times of 2005, we never see seasons of repeats of say, BBC-2 plays from the 80s. Again, you draw on the lofic that what is left cannot be judged because you haven't seen it. Arguably the same situation would probably exist if they were all there and swince you cannot name a large chunk of missing Wednesdays that are deemed of great value, they didn't create an impact at the time (or much of one). With hindsight.....yes.....but that applies to much.
You draw on Nationwide and Line-Up selectively and omitting these were long running shows mostly broadcast live on low budgets. They were never meant to be recorded which is another matter entirely. Despite that there is still good material left to make use of and in the case of Nationwide, there are reference copies.
There isn't much of Marty that is missing and well you know it!! To have the majority of a sixties tv programme expensively held on master vt implies that there was an attempt to avoid wiping, but BBC documentation would prove that once and for all.
Where Was Spring was deliberately wiped, not by mistake.
As for the rest you mention, these are the same tired and weary programmes that battle on in the forum. Interesting to see now because they were ephemeral!!
But...a distinction can be made between interesting and historically important. At that time you know and we all know that these programmes weere generally thought to be one off that no-one wanted to see again. The ballets etc were recorded as being culturally important and of a higher standard. I cannot disagree with with, except to distinguish between popular culture and high culture. This forum and your arguments mostly affect the former.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Boyce on Oct 21, 2004 9:36:18 GMT
Just a thought - the LE material that was wiped seems like in many ways the greatest loss: The Billy Cotton show on BBC4 was like a slab of social history - not just performances, but the shots of the audience - were we really like that back then? And the Dusty show had a real tension in her performance, which you would never be allowed to see today. I think in these shows the BBC was recording history in a way which probably could not have been foreseen at the time.
Regarding the drama, whilst I am a huge fan of old TV and from a personal point of view there are specific plays and shows which I would love to see recovered, I think that stepping back and looking at what is still there, what remains is probably perfectly adequate as a representation.
Sorry if this is just a bit of random waffle.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 21, 2004 14:51:14 GMT
You've answered your own question Laurence. Shakesperare vs The Wednesday play. So what TV company do you represent then, Andy? I don't follow your logic at all. I didn't say I couldn't name other Wednesday Plays that should have been kept. You assumed that. How about Hello, Good Evening and Welcome just as an example? What I actually said was that a lot of the missing editions were probably as good as the ones that have been saved. The series didn't have the reputation it did for no reason. You have this misty view of the BBC as a friendly, benevolent organisation nobly saving all the important stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth. If something didn't appear to create a big impact at the time, that's no judgement of it's qualities. Sometimes quality is of a quieter nature. I don't draw on Nationwide and LNLU selectively - those were examples out of many. Do we have to really list the whole history of such shows? Whether they had low budgets and were broadcast live is irrelevant. It's the quality of the content that matters! "Still good material left"? Maybe but it's fragments from a long run that could have been more comprehensive and richer had more been kept. That isn't a convincing argument at all. Reference copies of Nationeide? Yes, fuzzy b/w off-airs when better recordings could exist - in the colour '70s, there is no reason for this to be so. There are four Martys missing - two thirds of the first series. Quite a few. If there was an attempt to avoid wiping, as you say, then it's a rare exception. What would documentation prove other than the fact that it wasn't the norm? So Where Was Spring (and a hoard of others - that was an example of one of many worthy series) was deliberately wiped? We knew that already though! Just another example of vandalism. Tired and weary? On The Margin? Till Death? Steptoe? I don't think they were ephemeral even then (definitely popular and probably controversial, therefore worthy of being kept), although the wipers thought so! Plenty of others didn't and it's really a matter of opinion. That's all. It wasn't a "general" consensus that these things were of no importance - merely that those in positions of influence thought so and were able to carry out the wiping without being challenged. Those that thought otherwise were not able to do anything about it. As you say, Steve - the LE material is in many ways is the greatest loss. It's also more individual - a ballet can be re-staged to similar effect any number of times (and yet one more version being dumped is maybe no great loss) but a comedy series perhaps depends on just one interpretation of the subject matter for it's success (e.g. Hancock, Steptoe). High culture versus popular culture? That's just irrelevant to me although a body that deals with the arts in the way that the BBC does should have had the vision to see beyond such false distinctions and preserve quality wherever it came from.
|
|
|
Post by Gareth R on Oct 21, 2004 15:32:40 GMT
He makes the good point that what would be the point in the Brit Library keeping just snipped articles from the times rather than the whole papers? Sadly, that line of argument completely ignores the rights minefield that has always surrounded archive television. Even today, many people who ought to know better still insist on figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "La la la, I can't hear you" whenever anyone brings up the pertinent and enormous problem of rights. If the British Library - or *any* literary library, for that matter - had to operate under the strictures applying to television archives in the 50s, 60s and 70s, it would only be allowed to retain copies of (for example) The Times for a set period - say, three years. After that time, it would either have to destroy its copies, or pay a very large sum of money to re-purchase the right to allow readers to access the newspaper for a further fixed period - and at the end of *that* period it would have to pay again, and so on. Can you see the difference...?
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 21, 2004 16:09:46 GMT
Can you see the difference...? No, because i'm talking about a different issue. Not about re-use for commercial use. About preserving something of artistic merit for posterity.
|
|
|
Post by Gareth R on Oct 21, 2004 16:36:32 GMT
No, because i'm talking about a different issue. Not about re-use for commercial use. About preserving something of artistic merit for posterity. Sadly, rights issues still impinge either way. And as others have pointed out ad nauseam, but people such as yourself never seem to acknowledge, endless whining about decisions made 40 years ago won't bring back a single missing programme. Yes, a lot was lost. Yes, a lot was also kept, the vast majority of which has never been seen since, overshadowed as it is by D****r W*o et al. I sometimes wish that the people who constantly waste their breath spitting the dummy about programme junkings would divert their energies into trying to secure exposure for the all the riches of British broadcasting that have been gathering dust for decades... they'd be in with a fighting chance of actually achieving something worthwhile if they did.
|
|