|
|
Post by Rich Cornock on Jul 18, 2009 16:30:29 GMT
that is a real shame, all that work....if only they had shown all the programs at the same time  |
|
|
|
Post by garyjordanbrum on Jul 27, 2009 12:09:40 GMT
The Noddy Holder segment on tomorrow nights programme features some great SLADE unseen & rare footage including interviews where he's a bit worse for ware (brahms & List)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Lewis on Jul 29, 2009 18:00:15 GMT
I find it sad reading this thread that Paddy McGuinness's appeal, at the end of the show, for viewers to help retrieve lost archive is nothing more than window dressing on ITV's part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2009 20:15:43 GMT
It's a tragic scenario that Jeff paints and is the sort of thing that gets me right in the gut!
The bottom line is that, despite all the so-called missing TV initiatives, despite all the dedicated work by people like Kaleidoscope, despite all the sustained hard work by the Dr.Who restoration team, those in the positions that count simply do not care about recovering / restoring / archiving missing television. The official archives are happy to leave it at what has managed to survive up to now (by fluke, thanks to dedicated collectors or whatever) and can't be bothered to add more to the total.
It's entirely depressing, especially as groups like WTVA / Primetime were saying the same thing nearly thirty years ago. Has anything changed? Not a lot. A few niche series with proven cult or popular followings are better represented in the archives and the TV companies don't like to be seen to be openly indifferent to finding lost material. There is a niche DVD market for many obscure series now (thanks to Network and a few more) which draws on what has managed to survive anyway. That's all though.
Forums like this exist to try and share information that will lead to finding programmes in the (naive?) belief that the archives will welcome them back with open arms. I believe that archiving our TV history matters as much as it does to preserve movies, books or paintings. Am I (and others) wrong to believe this? Am I just pissing in the wind by spending so much time on this site trying to make a difference and change cultural attitudes? My own personal experience over those thirty years suggests that maybe I AM.
Where is the BTVI (British Television Institute) when it is so desperately needed??? The scenario is extremely depressing.
End of sermon, folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koen Br on Jul 29, 2009 22:25:41 GMT
Looking on the bright side, I think there's one thing that has made a small positive difference during the last decade: the internet. For individuals, it's become much easier to share what they have? This does not only include the latest Madonna DVD and porn, but also something different: home video recordings. From memory, the internet has lead to the discovery and/or recovery of one and a half Avengers episode (granted, not home video but t/r in official archive... might have been discovered at some point anyway, but when?), a Tiswas (from someone who posted a clip on YouTube... turned out he had the whole programme), some TOTP clips (bits of the 500th, a song from an edition recorded by Ian Levine... and there'll be others), various Patricia Cahill performances and a wealth of continuity... ...which somehow fascinate me. (I take it we're all aware that Quatermass, The Avengers or Inspector Morse are rubbish compared to any BBC1 closedown... or is that just me? ;  ) I'm still hoping someone will at some point reseed the 70s continuity packs that were available 'somewhere' two years ago (he added innocently). On the whole I think you're right about executives not caring. I'm just glad so much gets released on DVD these days. Just like with obscure stuff from private collections, something that's been shared has no chance whatsoever to be erased from history as completely as something of which only one copy exists, often in a place to which we have no access. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Jeffs on Jul 30, 2009 1:10:18 GMT
Television. After 35 years I can say, "It's a funny old business".
I think its “day” has been and gone - and while ITV still searches for its place in the new "digital age" it has to live with its past. ITV is an interesting animal. What is its purpose? The rules have been written, then re-written, and re-written umpteen times. Each time ITV has lost something - a death by a thousand cuts. So now, many have the expectation that ITV should still act as it did in its hay day; a rich, well funded public servant. The truth is that it is a commercial entity, searching for its place along side other channels. The baggage of its history means nothing to its commercial future. It never has. It can not afford to repeat its best old shows or make new ones of a similar “weight”. In its present form it may not be commercially viable in this current market.
Looking back, if the BBC was “Aunty” I looked on ITV as a kindly cheeky “Uncle” – the one who would let you go out and play in the snow – and slip you seven-and-six for a new Corgi toy – even if your Mum frowned on it. It’s this uncle who has now told the truth about Santa. We feel let down and a bit sad.
What of ITV’s competition in this new “digital” market? Do the new channels have an Archive policy? Does SKY diligently save every version of ROAD WARS, transmitted on average 8 hours a day across its three channels? I doubt it does. It’s the same old story. TV programmes are expensive to keep.
Will future generations want to see these shows, or see how they are presented? We will not know until someone asks to see them (perhaps in 2030) and we find they are ‘lost’.
We should look at the words of the Joni Mitchell song Big Yellow Taxi.
Don’t be disheartened by ITV not fulfilling the promise of using “lost” Archive; just keep on searching preserving and where possible sharing programmes and clips which illustrate our past! It is our social history – and if ITV can’t afford to preserve that then it’s up to us –the people who read and enjoy web sites like this one. None of the work done to date is wasted. Don’t give in just because there is no current commercial outlet for the saved and preserved shows. If we do we became like ITV!
|
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Jul 30, 2009 10:01:22 GMT
All interesting, good points.
Raiders of the Lost Archives lives on of course and we continue the search. Long may it find gems of TV.
c
|
|
|
|
Post by garyjordanbrum on Jul 30, 2009 11:02:50 GMT
Coz from set of six
Martha from Monster music Mash
How does it feel Russel Harty
Everyday clunk click:
LLV9058L CLUNK-CLICK Mar 30, 1974 Archive : BBC Jimmy SAVILE hosts his own show with guests Alfred MORRIS M.P., Geoffrey MOORHOUSE and Slade. Slade performs: Everyday (dur 03m05s)
Jane TOTP
Jane Promo
Noize promo (COLOUR VERSION)
BBC Docu Behaviour & Belief:
EFE5017X
BEHAVIOUR AND BELIEF
Jan 16, 1973
Archive : BBC
Core Title : 2:DO YOU BELIEVE IN ROCK 'N' ROLL?
How influential are pop singers and can teachers come to terms with them?
Presented by Gerry NORTHAM
>b/w film, vt inserts, ex library, cpyrt stills
INTVS: Fid BACKHOUSE, Nick TUCKER, Tony JASPER, Noddy HOLDER & Mel HILL
Teaching situation:
Slade 'Gudbye t'Jane' (54s, tx'd in 'Top of the Pops' 16.11.1972)
Quits Jim'll fix it
Nod on Tiswas
Get down get with it gas works promo from Australian TV
Sorry but this was a bit of a let down for Slade fans who were hoping to officially see many other clips from TV lost promo's ect ect which have not been re- tx'd since the original not to mention Earls court 1973 which is at the BFI.
Even I knew where every single piece of footage shown is stashed and could have provided the general public with far better missing slade footage.
The researchers surely can search most of the TV archive Databases of which even I have access to rather than just INFAX ITN SOURCE & THE BFI I bet Nod would have liked to see the Isle Of Aran 1971 gig the BBC hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Seaton on Jul 30, 2009 13:41:30 GMT
now it would be good if the BBC had their own archive channel where they go to whatever was on this day in history (from an old Radio Times) and play it as if it was then. News/Sport/Pop/Trailers/ no matter now bad the footage is. (please do not adjust your set)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2009 16:02:04 GMT
Looking on the bright side, I think there's one thing that has made a small positive difference during the last decade: the internet. For individuals, it's become much easier to share what they have? On the whole I think you're right about executives not caring. I'm just glad so much gets released on DVD these days. Just like with obscure stuff from private collections, something that's been shared has no chance whatsoever to be erased from history as completely as something of which only one copy exists, often in a place to which we have no access. Thanks to all for contributing some heartening replies. On your last point, Koen, which is significant, the same inevitable conclusion was reached in a book I was reading in the BFI bookshop recently (I forget the title). It was basically relating the difficulty the layman has in accessing a once popular series (in this example, ATV's Clayhanger) and the case was made that the more copies of a series being spread around out there, the better, as it meant less chance of something being completely lost if anything happened to the sole copy (through accident or design) if it was residing in the archive of a publically inaccessible profit-making corporation and left to the mercies of their archive selection "policy". If anyone knows the name of the book I was reading, i'd be pleased to know as it needs to be read by everyone here! This point can't be made strongly enough though as it relates directly to the existence (or otherwise) of television programmes. The history of other media such as books, movies, comics, music (i.e. records /CDs) survives in the main because the material exists in duplication publically across the world. Even now though, some archive TV still only exists as a single copy residing with an inaccessible archive. If it were otherwise, we would not have had the losses of the past to such a degree. This is something that needs to change fast... As you say, the internet has certainly democratised access to archive TV, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the copyright issues involved (and this has tended to sidetrack us from the issues here anyway, even though the concerns are legitimate). It worries me though that vast quantities of vintage material is stockpiled by a body (the BFI) whose first love is very clearly cinema (understandably so) and which has no real interest in TV - and some of the material is also unique to this collection alone (the Clayhanger scenario if ever I saw it). Although that's not to underrate the efforts of the small TV-oriented team there headed by Steve Bryant, Dick Fiddy and others over a long period of time. The ground rules need to change profoundly though before vintage television is "safe" from junking ever again. Richard is spot on when he refers to Joni Mitchell's song "Big Yellow Taxi". It's something I relate to the situation regarding the archiving of TV quite often myself. As the lyric goes: "you don't know what you've got till it's gone". |
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Jul 30, 2009 18:27:34 GMT
All fair points Gary, the Slade footage wasn't very remarkable though the BBC were glad to get the ZDF footage back.
We didn't work on anything related to Noddy, not our field, but Camilla was badly advised; and I know some stuff was too expensive to get from the BFI and stuck in rights issue being music.
c
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Jul 30, 2009 18:45:14 GMT
I was wondering recently if in 40 years time people will be saddened by the lack of a 'representative sample' of the user contributed material on youtube. There is little doubt that the internet represents the biggest advance in entertainment (and communication) since television, in my opinion, and youtube is certainly indicative of the times. I wonder if the cultural ephemra and trash of today will be longed for in future times. Odd thought really...........
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Haynes on Jul 30, 2009 21:05:31 GMT
I was wondering recently if in 40 years time people will be saddened by the lack of a 'representative sample' of the user contributed material on youtube. There is little doubt that the internet represents the biggest advance in entertainment (and communication) since television, in my opinion, and youtube is certainly indicative of the times. I wonder if the cultural ephemra and trash of today will be longed for in future times. Odd thought really........... Most people go on Youtube for material thats already in the archive. Clips of people messing around on there phones will probably not be seen as culturally important. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Jul 31, 2009 9:20:01 GMT
I disagree. Everything on youtube does not fall into the categories of safely archived television and happy slapping mobile phone videos! Many of the user generated video clips generate much higher viewing figures than contemporary British television. It is user centred rather than a schedule being fed to the viewer. Will the content that people of this decade choose to watch be deemed culturally unimportant by future researchers? i personaly think it will be seen in a similar light to the material that was viewed as being culturaly unimportant in the 50s and 60s and is now seen as being invaluable documents of how we used to live and be entertained.
Its just a thought anyhow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Jeffs on Jul 31, 2009 11:30:39 GMT
I read somewhere that Mao Tse-tung the leader of the Cultural Revolution in China was asked in the 1960s “What is the relevance of the French Revolution of 1789?”
The communist leader said “It’s too soon to tell”
I think we will not know the cultural or social meaning of “YouTube” for a while yet. We can not yet blame it for killing traditional commercial broadcasting in the UK.
There is a smoking gun… but “it’s too soon to tell” who was responsible for loading the gun or who pulled the trigger.
|
|
) I'm still hoping someone will at some point reseed the 70s continuity packs that were available 'somewhere' two years ago (he added innocently). 
