Can't say I'd ever be comfortable about using the terms 'snobbery' or 'elitism' - after all it is *popular* culture we are talking about here. However, your point is fair, well made, and accurate - if anything drives this site it is a desire for quality in comedy and I'm all for that. A better scheduling policy for many shows (on the BBC especially) is needed - not just comedy. A change of heart about the way programmes are selected and constructed. More focus on recruitng quality writers - rather than just trawling Edinburgh every year. etc. etc.

Still, nice to know you don't really think of the British comedy audience as plebs...

The Corpses done:

>Just to clarify this one.

I don't think what you wrote does clarify 'this one' at all. Neither does it excuse it.

>We don't think that people who enjoy popular programmes are worthy of contempt -

Yet, from your Comic Strip 'edit news': "[NOTE: The name 'Eddie Monsoon' was later adopted by Edmondson's wife Jennifer Saunders for her 'Absolutely Fabulous' character 'Edina Monsoon'. It's doubtful whether the plebs who bought the boxed sets understood this family in-joke...]"

That sounds pretty contemptuous to me. You're assuming ignorance by the audience. And you know what happens when you assume... (insert your own Benny Hill joke here).

>What we're getting at when we talk about 'plebs' is the way the comedy industry insults comedy fans by putting them into little compartments in order to make their jobs easier.

What, like The Corpses proclaiming that the TGP audience are "halfway between Iain Lee and Ibiza" (whatever that means!) and being arrogant enough to assume they know what that audience is laughing at, in order to make their criticism easier. Hmm... it *is* pretty lazy, isn't it?

Conversely, I don't see any evidence of 'the comedy industry' (it's hardly the rock business, is it?) compartmentalising its audience and then cynically targeting each niche group. You've got comedians, right? Then you've got venues, yeah? And the comedians perform at the venues (with me so far?). Someone promotes that, usually by means of posters intended to bring in as large an audience as possible. When do any of these parties start saying "no, we only want the ABC1 groups, no blacks, no Irish"?

>The message being 'Don't be awkward by liking something on its own terms that you've discovered yourself - buy this expensive video instead because it's got the bit where Del Boy falls over in a wine bar...'

All the comedy I enjoy I've discovered myself. I don't see how anyone can have it 'discovered' for them. I seem to recall 'discovering' OFAH on this thing called the TV. I also remember 'discovering' Al Murray when my mate said he was good and recommended we go and see him. What else are we supposed to do? Buy a comedy-pig and go snuffling for one-liners in backstreet NoHo? I also don't read the message that you find implicit in a release of an OFAH video. I read the message "Here's a great OFAH video - please buy it (other comedy videos are available)".

>Now, we *like* Del Boy falling over in a wine bar. Everyone does. But we also like lots of other, more under-rated stuff, and we simply ask that this is given equal attention.

Under-rated stuff, by the very definition of the phrase, attracts *less* attention. Seriously though, folks, the economics of releasing material in a sell-through format (which is what I presume you're banging on about) will dictate that the guaranteed money-spinners are where the investment goes. So, business is about money - nothing new, there. No use throwing the toys out of the pram.

>But they think we're all plebs who will be content with what we're given. And the worse thing is, there are some fans who happily buy into this mentality.

Where? Or are you guessing again?

>We ask fans to campaign for their favourite shows to get released/repeated, rather than cynically accept that the situation will never be changed.

This is laudable, of course. But, it would appear from Lee & Herring's experience with TMWRNJ (and the email bombardment of various personages at the Beeb) that these campaigns can be counter-productive if they're not orchestrated in a reasonable manner. Softly, softly catchee monkey, and all that.

However, I still don't understand how these latter points clarify your position regarding your (continued and quite extensive) use of the word 'pleb' to describe a fictional collective idiocy confronting the face of comedy (presumably with a sort of "uh?" expression on its face). I think you think you're cleverer than the majority of comedy audiences, whereas, in actual fact, your assumptions about them indicate otherwise.

So, who exactly are the plebs? And when do we start annihilating them?

Cheerio

Steve

Steve, aren't you the one who poured scorn on the idea of BBC2's 70s season featuring uncut programmes with their original continuity announcements? I still don't understand to what extent this would be a bad thing. Phill Jupitus (or whoever) trying to remember the lyrics to The Banana Splits - *that's* TV bosses treating the viewers like plebs. What value is this to anyone? Repeating full episodes of The Banana Splits, on the other hand...

We all have our boozy half-memories. But we look to TV for clarification. Or at least I do.

The one that doesn't do the cartoons done:

>Steve, aren't you the one who poured scorn on the idea of BBC2's 70s season featuring uncut programmes with their original continuity announcements?

Ah, not quite, believe it or not. In a former life, I actually got quite far proposing a late-night strand for BBC CHOICE, which was to be a facsimilie of (say) 1978's teatime kids telly (the old 3:55 to 5:35 slot). I still think it'd be great post-pub viewing but we are nearing the final twigs of the nostalgia tree, I fear. It didn't get commissioned, as you may have noticed, because it would have taken something ridiculous like 30 years to have cleared all the paperwork and rights issues. Short BBC clips don't, however, have that problem any more.

What was my point? Oh, that some people actually get more excited by the clocks and continuity than they do about the programmes between. Of course, you understand I mean the VT clocks, not the rolling BBC globe or whatever. And, anyway, as I said, some of them (the programmes) really are boring. Well, the ones I watched were, and wouldn't get me tuning in the following week to watch. Not that I have a problem with people who love VT clocks and testcards (MHP is full of 'em) but it's niche programming.

>Phill Jupitus (or whoever) trying to remember the lyrics to The Banana Splits - *that's* TV bosses treating the viewers like plebs. What value is this to anyone?

(I did a quick straw poll in the office.) Well, there *are* some people who don't remember The Banana Splits but who quite like Phill Jupitus/Jamie Theakston, and who are old enough and interested enough to have stayed up to watch the programme. (Speaking from a purely TV point-of-view, that's why the talking heads go into these shows: they add an air of familiarity to archive stuff and hence bring in a younger audience who may not be familiar with the source - and they're cheaper than clearing old footage, of course. I'm not for one second suggesting that the people in my office stayed up *especially* to see Jamie Theakston go "ummm".)

>Repeating full episodes of The Banana Splits, on the other hand...

I'm all for the video/DVD release. Show me where to sign. Always hated the programme myself.

>We all have our boozy half-memories. But we look to TV for clarification. Or at least I do.

One of the interesting things I think (and this, thank heavens, applies to comedy - wahey, back on topic!), is that TV programmes in the past were nearly always made for the masses, the majority, whatever. Nowadays we seem to have an increasingly vocal series of niche *minorities* claiming they're being neglected because 'their' shows aren't being repeated. The TV companies haven't shifted their view - they're still making mass appeal programmes - but there just seem to be a *lot* more people these days who take television oh-so-more-seriously. Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't think I've explained it very well, but I have to go and get a train to London.

Anyway, you completely ignored my previous posting and changed the subject, you twats. (And I never got a reply to my defence of TV Cream... grumble, grumble.)

Cheerio

Steve

>Steve, aren't you the one who poured scorn on the idea of BBC2's 70s season featuring uncut programmes with their original continuity announcements? I still don't understand to what extent this would be a bad thing. Phill Jupitus (or whoever) trying to remember the lyrics to The Banana Splits - *that's* TV bosses treating the viewers like plebs. What value is this to anyone? Repeating full episodes of The Banana Splits, on the other hand...
>
>We all have our boozy half-memories. But we look to TV for clarification. Or at least I do.
>
>
I agree with the SOTCAA editor. This is pub talk.

Thanks for that, Gee.

I'll fuck off, then.

Cheerio

Steve

(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.

Got the message, yet?

>(Speaking from a purely TV point-of-view, that's why the talking heads go into these shows: they add an air of familiarity to archive stuff and hence bring in a younger audience who may not be familiar with the source - and they're cheaper than clearing old footage, of course.

The second reason, fine - I can accept that there might well be copyright problems with showing long clips/whole programmes. But Steve, I'm sorry, the whole talking heads theme in this series (and increasingly all TV documentaries about TV) is getting out of hand. Why DIDN'T they interview more people involved in the programmes/films? Take The Clangers the other week - co-creator Oliver Postgate is seemingly delighted to chat about his work if anyone bothers to ask him (there was a superb hour-long interview on BBC London Live a few months ago to publicise a wonderful autobiography), but his contribution on I Love 1970 was limited to a few seconds of an archive interview, while goons like Kathryn Flett and minor comedians "paid tribute" with insightful comments like "The Clangers - oh, that was really great". Couldn't every single person on this bloody forum have done better than that? (Alright, almost all.)

Similarly, The Banana Splits - did you know that Richard "Lethal Weapon" Donner was head director on the series? Or that Hanna-Barbera made the series - couldn't someone have got their opinions/anecdotes? Can't be arsed, so they get someone in the BBC canteen to come in and sing the theme tune. Sorry - but it's just not good enough.

Theakston and Jupitus may well be (inexplicably) popular with the youth audience, but on that basis they may as well get Craig David and Louise in. I mean that. T & J know jack about it - the only reason they're in it (apart from laziness on the part of the programme makers and commissioning editors) is that someone thought this makes them "everyday people" not media figures. Well, it doesn't - it just makes those of us sitting on the sofa shout "Not him/her/them again, for f***'s sake!".

A few years ago, the BBC did one of the most cynical series I've ever seen. It was called "Sitcom Selection Box" and featured highlights from all the usual popular BBC sitcoms, filled out with utterly pointless and unrevealing comments from "the stars" (Roslin, Harriott, need I go on?). A more interesting programme (and it wouldn't have been difficult to beat) would have tracked down writers/producers/actors for how the series came together. Better still, just show an old episode. But of course, "just showing an old episode" would be accused of "more bloody repeats" by Points Of View bores. And using talking heads counts as a new programme - and how cheap! Now they don't have to make any new programmes ever
again...

What's more, it becomes abundantly clear that most of the people working on these infuriating programmes don't appear to know anything about their own industry or heritage (pompous choice of word, but there we are).

I don't work in television, but I suspect that I know more about its history than almost anyone at the BBC does these days. I Love The 70s is riddled with factual errors (see Julie Burchill (continued) strand), and lazy research. This has been such a wasted opportunity of a series.

>Theakston and Jupitus may well be (inexplicably) popular with the youth audience, but on that basis they may as well get Craig David and Louise in. I mean that. T & J know jack about it - the only reason they're in it (apart from laziness on the part of the programme makers and commissioning editors) is that someone thought this makes them "everyday people" not media figures. Well, it doesn't - it just makes those of us sitting on the sofa shout "Not him/her/them again, for f***'s sake!".

I think the programme makers would have jumped at the chance to include Louise or Craig David but the managers wouldn't let them waste their time going on a show like that because the show would benefit more than the artist.

In other words, Phil Jupitosser is on because he's cheap and available and they already have his mobile number and they know for a fact that he's not busy this evening.

There's also the fact that Craig David is 19, was thus born in 1981, and is entirely devoid of interesting recollections of the 70s... oh hang on, I haven't thought this through...

Yes but he's probably seen Shaft, or knows someone who has. Don't dismiss the fellow.

Craig knows all the days of the week too. Watch out for his next single release, "I love The 70s", in which he recites the years of the 1970s, in sequence, from 1970 to 1979.