There's been some wholesale renaming (and retconning of the listings) - no longer do we have Afternoon and Saturday plays, now they're Afternoon and Saturday dramas. And the Womans Hour drama has become the 15 minute drama.

The latter makes sense, but the others? Are we going to see Reading At Bedtime and Classic Adaptation?

Yes, Paw - I discovered this latest piece of pointless fiddling when I went on to the iplayer and typed in Afternoon Play - as I do often just to see what's available. The result was - 'no match'. I really would like to see a bunch of the nincompoops who come up with these 'ideas' all gathered in a room. I'm simply curious to know what these people look like.I bet they're young. I bet they giggle a lot but are easily offended. I bet they've never been involved in making a play at any level. I mean - they're still laying out the cast lists on the iplayer in a way that makes them truly hard to decipher. I've complained about that a lot. I even spoke to a senior producer about it. She said there was nothing she could do - senior producers steeped in drama have no power over incompetent numpties.

Lets not make a drama out of a crisis or play with words.

A quick browse through dictionaries suggests the words are interchangeable , but "play" as a verb has numerous other connotations. So perhaps there is a grain of sense in the change and "drama" is the mote juste.. Also I have been moaning for years that what the BBC mainly offers are not "plays" in the tradition sense but dramatisations - so perhaps they are coming closer to my point of view.

All a play on words really.

I do feel that there are indeed people gathered in a room somewhere just changing words to justify their exisance and make access to the Internet harder for tiros like me. I would forgive them, however, if this change meant that if when they actually used the word "play" it would actuallly mean a properly constructed dramatic piece written by a proper and tradition playwright for acting on stage or broadcast. I am not however holding my breath and am probably playing the fool.

Lady Penelope Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also I have been
> moaning for years that what the BBC mainly offers
> are not "plays" in the tradition sense but
> dramatisations - so perhaps they are coming closer
> to my point of view.

Aren't the plays mostly original, with only the Classic Serial being dramatisations?

> I would forgive them,
> however, if this change meant that if when they
> actually used the word "play" it would actuallly
> mean a properly constructed dramatic piece written
> by a proper and tradition playwright for acting on
> stage or broadcast.

So most of the ones in the afternoon don't fit this criteria?

Havent time to analyse all in detail, but I just came across "Saturday Drama" (as usual looking for something else). On is the belated final (and to my mind very disappointing) series of Journey into Space - a serial, surely, and the other is a dramatisation of a case study , for goodness sake!...Calling them dramas imho is pushing it, but they certainly are not plays. In my view the BBC are trrying to disguise the fact that they air hardly any classic plays by putting anything that does not easily fit into another category into the slot called "drama" to pretend to satisfy the BBC Trusts requirement for a variety of forms of entertainment. As for dramatisations, personally I dislike 90% of them, but I accept that there are those who do enjoy them so what is wrong with calling a spade a spade and listing them AS " dramatisations", so that those who do like them can access them and those who dont wont be disappointed when they were hoping for a play or a reading.

We could talk for ages, Lady P, about the differences between a play and a drama and a dramatisation. (I think we've done so before!)

My complaint was about needless tinkering on the iplayer - tinkering which makes it (a wonderful invention in itself) no easier to use. I'm quite convinced the people concerned did not have the convenience of listeners in mind when they made the meaningless change.

Also - Freud treated a patient. He wrote his case history. Then a writer made a play based on the characters involved. That's not a dramatisation. It may have been a mediocre play (I haven't listened; I listened to the first in the series - well, ten minutes - and it was mediocre) but I don't see how it can be called a dramatisation, in the generally accepted meaning of the word.

I hope you find something soon that you enjoy listening to.

Obviously none of you were paying attention to the BBC Mediacentre page (formerly known as the BBC Press Office). The rebranding of the page happened late last year and it's been a slow roll out. I assume rebranding will continue. Sounds like a lot of busy work to me.

The only reason I know all this is because I read through the Mediacentre Program Information page every week to find out what's coming up on both tv and radio.

rforrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also - Freud treated a patient. He wrote his case
> history. Then a writer made a play based on the
> characters involved.

Funnily enough, and apropos of nothing, as I was reading these words, I was also listening to this song:

Crying Wolf

Quote

Your desperate cries,
they all come out as bleats:
you thought you were a wolf-man,
but you're really
just a sheep.

> That's not a dramatisation.
> It may have been a mediocre play (I haven't
> listened; I listened to the first in the series -
> well, ten minutes - and it was mediocre) [...]

I listened to all of the first play, but also wasn't very impressed by it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2106 Feb 23 2012 by Matamore!.

rforrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We could talk for ages, Lady P, about the
> differences between a play and a drama and a
> dramatisation. (I think we've done so before!)

Maybe but I think in most cases the difference between a dramatisation (an book adapted to play format) and a play or drama is clearer than that between a play and a drama. The wolf thing (which I didnt listen to (I dont need anything depressing or scary at the moment , enough in real life) but relied (stupidly on the "blurb" seems to be an exception and I dont know what it should be called)
>
> My complaint was about needless tinkering on the
> iplayer - tinkering which makes it (a wonderful
> invention in itself) no easier to use. I'm quite
> convinced the people concerned did not have the
> convenience of listeners in mind when they made
> the meaningless chang

No there I do agree - work creation by people who let us say are of questionable literacy! Just I think in this case , while neither is ideal, "drama" is a less inaccurate term for the hotch potch they broadcast than "play". And I still think they are fudging to avoid making the effort to find some real "plays"
>
> Also - Freud treated a patient. He wrote his case
> history. Then a writer made a play based on the
> characters involved. That's not a dramatisation.
> It may have been a mediocre play (I haven't
> listened; I listened to the first in the series -
> well, ten minutes - and it was mediocre) but I
> don't see how it can be called a dramatisation, in
> the generally accepted meaning of the word.
>
> I hope you find something soon that you enjoy
> listening to.

rforrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------.
>
> I hope you find something soon that you enjoy
> listening to.

Thanks rforrest, actually there are a few programmes I enjoy but mainly old favourites and just now and then I find the occasional gem among the dross.
But they and too few and far between and I waste too much time trying to find something to my taste and listening to something I dont enjoy because I was mislead by the description. Considering the number of stations and programmes available there should in fact be enough to satisfy even my peculiar tastes but they dont seem to have anyone capable of categorising and describing them properly. And it has been a long time since they did a play or a reading I enjoyed.

As time goes by I listen to the BBC less and less as I write off those I try out of curiosity, get bored with repeat of old favourites and frustrated by spending more time trying to find a programme than actuallly listening!

I actually enjoyed the first episode of a dramatisation recently (perhaps because I hadnt read the book so it didnt suffer by comparison) - the latest Rosemary Sutcliffe - but was disappointed to find it was weekly - that is too long for me to carry a plot and one cant use listen again to check back on something one missed.

I've been listening to the Afternoon Play and Woman's Hour Drama pretty regularly for years. I'm not sure how they can classify them as strictly drama when they have comedy's pretty frequently, as well. I think in that context Afternoon Play would be much closer, unless of course they won't be doing comedy in that slot any more.

Same for Woman's Hour Drama. They broadcast comedies in that slot too, sometimes. And since they are fifteen minute episodes of a larger work, it's actually more like a Daily Serial.

You probably hadn't noticed yet, Pen, because it's not really your genre, but they have an unabridged reading that started this week of Day of The Triffids. I'm hoping this is a foot in the door for you.

I agree there should be something for everyone.

There is a letter in next week's Radio Times that I wish I had written:

"Radio 4 recently changed the name of their Saturday Play and Afternoon Play, replacing the word 'Play'with 'Drama'. This reflects the way these drama strands have become a home for drama series and serials, rather than individual dramas. Where once we heard five Afternoon Plays each week, we now often get four episodes of an Afternoon Drama and a single Afternoon Play. It seems that the solitary play will soon be squeezed out entirely.

These dramas and serials are often entertaining and sometimes deliver great drama. But plays have other virtues. One-off plays and dramas give radio variety, freshness and unpredictability. Crucially, they are also a vehicle for introducing new talent.

It seems that radio is following television. Plays and one-off dramas were once a mainstay of television, which meant a huge variety of productions, issues and actors came to the screen. Cathy Come Home, for instance, was a Wednesday Play. Now we watch the occasional "single drama". They're special not because they are all wonderful (though some are), but because they're rare. Must radio go the same way?".

Letter ends.

It does seem to me that the rot set in when the afternoon plays were cut down to 45 minutes. Some writers can pack a huge amount into 45 minutes and it can be a really intense listening experience. More often they feel like dramatised short stories.

In recognition of that, we now get series so that the stories or characters can be explored more and there is a certain amount of shorthand that can be used as the writers assume knowledge of the setting and characters. That's fine for the regular listener but I do find myself irritated by the proliferation of series - especially if the same one keeps popping back and it doesn't appeal to me as that means a part of the drama output is lost to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 1204 Mar 14 2012 by cats22.

Thanks for posting that letter Cats, and your own comments are relevant too- I particularly agree about the assumed knowledge of setting andcharacters which is one of my constant bugbears.

I read somewhere that the entire media (British and US),including printed newpress, and lead by Television are assuming their audience has a very short attention span. The trouble with this is that it becomes self perpetuating - the less exposure people have to material that require concentration the weaker their brains will become!

Lady Penelope Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for posting that letter Cats, and your own
> comments are relevant too- I particularly agree
> about the assumed knowledge of setting
> andcharacters which is one of my constant
> bugbears.
>
> I read somewhere that the entire media (British
> and US),including printed newpress, and lead by
> Television are assuming their audience has a very
> short attention span. The trouble with this is
> that it becomes self perpetuating - the less
> exposure people have to material that require
> concentration the weaker their brains will become!

Their audience are the ones with no alternatives. I'd like to think those who can do get their media elsewhere do. With the internet and high speed internet at that, the world is your oyster--literally.

Television by it's nature does shorten your attention span. This is like Coca Cola, after years of advertising "Drink Coke" telling people they're fat because they drink Coke. It's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. The audience who yearn for good story telling do search out for it and tv and media is not where they look. They've even stopped complaining about the lack of good shows because the networks aren't paying attention.

But this exodus is a two edged sword, and media will deteriorate more as long as the audience defect to other sources because the people left don't know any better. What's the solution though? Do we force the media to give the audience they have left what can only be compared to a course of cod liver oil treatments? You force the audience to consume the "good stuff". Hasn't happened yet. I don't remember the last time any tv series or film of substance has captured the imagination of the population at large. But then I don't think I've been to the cinema for close to ten years now, so I what do I know?

lifeomarsfan said:

Their audience are the ones with no alternatives. I'd like to think those who can do get their media elsewhere do. With the internet and high speed internet at that, the world is your oyster--literally.

I am not sure where I go for what I want though. I toyed with the idea of getting an internet radio but didn't in the end as I doubted there would be anywhere else that is offering what Radio 4 used to offer. If I can't get it from the BBC where would I get it from? My collection of audiobooks is growing but they used to be an alternative to good radio, not a substitute.

I don't remember the last time any tv series or film of substance has captured the imagination of the population at large.

I offer Sherlock although I have to admit it is not substantial. It is well-written, well-made and well-acted though.


I find all this so very annoying because radio is so cheap compared to television.

lifeonmarsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't remember the last time any tv series or
> film of substance has captured the imagination of
> the population at large.

The Wire? (It was widely compared to Dickens.) But even it didn't capture a large audience (as Dickens did), so your point stands, even though it doesn't imply that there has been nothing of worth on television in recent years. (Having a large audience isn't to be equated with value, only too obviously.)

Me, I'm giving up my television at the end of this month, or the beginning of next month, or whenever it is that we are all supposed to go digital. I just can't be bothered. There are not enough good programmes (and there are so many deeply annoying programmes!) to justify me trying to get to grips with the technology. (Also, I need to save money.)

I am glad to hear I am not the only one who hasnt been to a cinema for years Mars!

I got access to English language TV for the first time in 15 years, four weeks ago (just dont ask how, too complicated)............ So far I have watched Upstairs Downstairs which I must admit I am hooked on - mostly for the historical interest. No other programme has lasted more than 5 minutes!

But I suspect we are the, dare I say, intelligent minority. Most people seem to be adicted to soaps, dancing on ice (nearly gave my a migraine, and I dont suffer from them, perhaps I should check the colour setting!) not to mention sport.

Interesting point about alterntives, Mars, I dont see the Internet as entertainment. True I access radio through it but only because of where I live and I cant afford both Internet and satellite. Internet for convenient communication and information, but I dont see it as an entertainment tool.

Other options for me books - printed word (cheap) and audio books (my only luxury) and the occasional DVD. A little live music and dancing (local) and unfortunately only amateur dramatics for English language plays. Mind you it was much the same when I lived in the UK but for financial rather than access reasons. What I miss most of all about the UK is the annual production of a Shakespeare play in the grounds of a Stately Home (a bit like th Regents Park theatre)>

Oh and what we have lost most is the art of good conversation, just occasionally I indulge in a good meal and interesting talk with likeminded friends, but for intelligent exchange of views I rely on - guess what - this Phorum, so perhaps I should take back what I said about the Internet!

Surely its a matter of values. We live in a financially driven commercial world and dear old Aunty no longer sees her role as including education but purely what brings in the dosh, which means catering to the masses and ignoring minority interests.

What's sad is I am told the programs I get from a friend (from BBC Four mostly) are diluted versions of documentaries and films the BBC used to produce and they're still better than what PBS (alone) has produced in recent years. I say alone because PBS does co produce some shows with the Beeb. The BBC seems to be the only source online I can think of for drama and readings. I am sure it is an expensive enterprise and only the BBC can afford to do it apparently. There's a little station on Hong Kong I ran across online a few months back and they repeat BBC readings and dramas, so no new content there.

Lady Pen, an argument can be made on the financial benefits of producing shows and films, everything seems to be corporate owned now, but a few jewels show through, though that's probably always been the case. We get British dramas here in the US, until the advent of cable, we only knew what PBS showed us. It takes money to produce and buy these programs. How can we get away from the financial merits of these entertainment media content?

I have dipped my toes in the reality show pool and came out only liking Who Do You Think You Are? although I liked the Christmas specials of How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria? and Any Dream Will Do. What does that say about me? I grew up watching variety shows with Carol Burnett, Sonny and Cher, Tony Orlando. I think we lost the ability to do these kind of shows when Bob Hope died. American Idol just doesn't cut it for me as a variety show. Haven't watched X Factor or any of those shows because that's time I can't get back.

Cats, a friend sent me episodes of The Wire, but the couple of episodes I watched didn't engage me, although I liked it's predecesor Homicide: Life on the Streets. Maybe part of the problem is I have a low threshold for gritty drama that could easily be happening not too far away from me (I can watch the Australian series Underbelly with no problem). But if The Wire is as well written and acted as Homicide, I agree it is a good show and too bad only HBO could show it. I really like Sherlock too (big fan of Steven Moffat) and I am saving the last episode of series 2 to watch sometime when there's absolutely nothing to watch on tv...Downton Abbey was one I waited eagerly for, but that's not too substantial either. It's Upstairs Downstairs located in a country house. What I am absolutely hooked on are the documentaries and films about artists and composers. Can't get enough of those.

Matamore, I took advantage of the government allowance to purchase a digital box for my analog tv and I daisy chained my dvd recorders with the tv set so I have the ability to record stuff when I am not home. That is my only concession to digital tv. I refuse to trash a perfectly good tv set in favor of a flat screen. But I agree there isn't much to watch except repeats of very old tv shows (I caught a couple of Perry Masons the other night as well as The Untouchables). I like getting programs from Korea and China because it is insight to a different life. One of the channels gets news feeds from Europe and I think my favorite is RAI, the Italian network. Bad news in Italian doesn't sound so bad. I used to watch a lot of PBS, but they've cut back on their programming too. Every time I turn them, they're always asking for money. We're supporting a network which is on perpetual begging mode. I just wish they would bite the bullet and just do ads in blocks like I've seen on ITV (2 ad blocks in the hour shows and 5 minute ad blocks before and after the half hour shows)

Just to say I have never seen The Wire. I don't think it's my sort of thing. My offering was Sherlock.

BBC4 is the station I am most likely to watch now and it reminds me of what BBC2 used to be like.

I think we have discussed elsewhere the rights and wrongs of the BBC having a commercial arm and I am happy that it is there one, by and large. I would be even happier though if the revenues fed through into more new programmes that appealed to me!

AudioGo sells downloads of a lot of plays and serials although the curse of the rights issues strikes there too and they are mainly the newer ones. If things carry on as they are, there will be fewer and fewer plays that are worth selling.

There are surprisingly few from radio 3, which is odd. If you are the sort of person who is willing to pay to download plays, the chances are you have the necessary attention span and are willing to listen to more thought-provoking plays.

What I like about the British networks is they are willing to throw stuff on the wall to see if anything sticks. Has any show not have its complete run because of law ratings? With the few episodes they produce per year, they can afford to throw stuff at the wall, unlike US networks who have to make 13 to 22 episodes per series and if the ratings don't come in, they pull the show.

It seems no doubt that the BBC was - and to an extent still is - unique in that is was able to produce good quality entertainment basically from a licence fee without commercial imput - althought I believe the original set up was from private funding.

So why cant it do it now. I have been thinking about that, and maybe part of the answer is celebrity culture and our willlingness to pay small fortunes to "stars" in both the entertainment industry and the sports field (pun intended!) - sometimes in both cases as a personality cult rather than talent! When the BBC l(like myself) was in its infancy many of the artistes learned their craft as entertainers to the armed forces (Bob Hope and the Goons to name but a few) and on demobilisation were glad to get work for (even allowing for inflation) peanuts by todays standards. Equally I think writers worked long hours and in conditions and for pay (Ok I listened to Dennis Norden) that would send some of todays running to the smelling salts.

Funding the Beeb has been discussed here and onR7 many, many times. I seem to remember from my TV watching days that ITV produced some good programmes among the crowd pullers. Although they still have to watch audience ratings, maybe the ITV system of block advertisements is less subject to direct intervention than what I understand is th American system of sponsorship of individual programmes?

It would be interesting to see what US company would do what Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencers had done for ITV drama. (State Farm Insurance sponsors Nova or Nature?) I am probably not current on who's advertising on ITV any more because the ITV stuff I get are iplayer feeds now. I loved the ads you guys have over there, before they got Americanized.

Yes I had forgotten that! Some of the adverts were classics intheir own right , and have produced phrases that have entered into the language. ("A drama from a crisis" and "Happiness is ..................." ) Plus three new breed names for dogs. There is probably a whole field for study there.

OT but just reminded me of a joke I keep forgetting to post:

"People who think Greece should abandon the Euro and go back to its own currency are trying to make a drachma out of a crisis"

Nowadays, the main adverts are for insurance and money-lending facilities; 'Sliders; That's how we roll here'.

Gone are the days of the aliens and mashed potato and the piano-playing chimps.

. Ivor



The original and real cat with the swishy tail.
Accept no imitations.

I just remembered those Aardman ads for Scots Gas was it? And the bulldog for Churchill insurance. I love the Boursin ads too and it was always a thrill to hear Sean Bean's voice on the Morrison's ads.

For me, the best made ad of all time was the Guinness white horses - fantastic graphics with a wonderfully apt soundtrack (though for the life of me I cant recall the title of the music - anyone help?)

Edit to add....................now that ad was drama.

I'm NOT paranoid......thats just what THEY want you to think!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2108 Mar 15 2012 by tepeethetroll.

Uncle Wiki says,'The music track in the advert was created by British band Leftfield and eventually this formed the basis of their track "Phat Planet" which appears on their 1999 album Rhythm and Stealth.'

. Ivor



The original and real cat with the swishy tail.
Accept no imitations.

lifeonmarsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I like about the British networks is they are
> willing to throw stuff on the wall to see if
> anything sticks. Has any show not have its
> complete run because of law ratings?

There's been a few, though so few I can't remember the names, but there has been plenty of imported series which weren't fully shown.

> With the few
> episodes they produce per year, they can afford to
> throw stuff at the wall, unlike US networks who
> have to make 13 to 22 episodes per series and if
> the ratings don't come in, they pull the show.

That's something I've never understood - why do American series run for so many episodes? Why not do six of them at a time? Or is it the flogging a dead horse syndrome?

lifeonmarsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously none of you were paying attention to the
> BBC Mediacentre page (formerly known as the BBC
> Press Office). The rebranding of the page happened
> late last year and it's been a slow roll out. I
> assume rebranding will continue. Sounds like a lot
> of busy work to me.

Do you know when this was? I've not been able to find anything about it.