On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:38:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

[me]
Given that it was the first night and that the broadcast was on BBC 1, I
would personally support the editorial decision to provide on-screen
information.

So would I *if it were optional*. It would be good if the content of the
subtitles were actually useful, but that is another matter *if they are
optional*.

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree in a friendly
manner on this matter. ;-)

What I personally find far more distracting than onscreen text is the
use of multiple often moving cameras. The stereo image no longer
matches with the picture. (Moving the stereo image with the picture
would be even worse!) Why do producers feel the need to do this? Is it
to justify their jobs and all of the expensive equipment required?


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Jim Lesurf wrote:
But Teletext 888 *is* available for PAL/UHF, and is routinely used for
subtitles.

But won't record on to a bog-standard video recorder.

Being able to watch programmes live as they go out is for
many people a luxury. The BBC may take the view that in this
case they will reach the broadest possible audience with
on-screen subtitles. Ultimately it's their call. Any classical
music fans who don't feel that Radio 3's Beethoven week alone
justified this year's licence fee, feel free to disagree.

In article .com,
wrote:
But Teletext 888 *is* available for PAL/UHF, and is routinely used for
subtitles.

But won't record on to a bog-standard video recorder.

Then get an S-VHS. Don't see why the 'live' viewers should suffer to save
those who record money. Or the same would apply to any programme, since
they all have subtitles on 888.

Being able to watch programmes live as they go out is for
many people a luxury.

Eh? It may be a certain times of the day, depending on their work pattern.
But then so much is repeated on the other channels.

The BBC may take the view that in this
case they will reach the broadest possible audience with
on-screen subtitles. Ultimately it's their call. Any classical
music fans who don't feel that Radio 3's Beethoven week alone
justified this year's licence fee, feel free to disagree.

You don't pay a licence fee for radio.

So if all you get from the BBC is R3, then it's effectively free. Is that
how you value Beethoven? ;-)

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...

What I personally find far more distracting than onscreen text is the
use of multiple often moving cameras. The stereo image no longer
matches with the picture. (Moving the stereo image with the picture
would be even worse!)

Hear, hear

(Though I don't mind a close up of a performer playing a lengthy piece.)

It seems to me there's a possible use for the digital TV "Playercam" here;
you can choose whether to watch the violins, the clarinets, or whatever.

Tim

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
But won't record on to a bog-standard video recorder.

Then get an S-VHS. Don't see why the 'live' viewers should suffer to save
those who record money. Or the same would apply to any programme, since
they all have subtitles on 888.

But if you use 888 regularly you probably have the recording
technology already. The issue here is where ordinary (hearing)
people may need more information than they can get from the audio.
It's more similar to English subtitles for foreign-language
dialogue. Advocating 888 for that in all cases, just so speakers
of the language can avoid having a cluttered screen, would be
seen as an extreme position.

If the BBC want to be seen to be addressing concerns about
accessibility of their classical music output, I'd far rather
see them spicing up the visual presentation than dumbing
down the musical content or forcing the orchestras to spend
half their time running workshops in prisons.

"Tim Martin" wrote in message
news

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...

What's this got to do with AUDIO?

I find I usually enjoy music more if I can hear what's being played ...

Not always, though. I enjoy pibroch more if I can't hear it.

Tim



...and even better if I can't actually see it.

Mike

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:00:26 +0100, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote:


"Tim Martin" wrote in message
news

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...

What's this got to do with AUDIO?

I find I usually enjoy music more if I can hear what's being played ...

Not always, though. I enjoy pibroch more if I can't hear it.

Tim



..and even better if I can't actually see it.

Mike


But if you can't see it, how are you going to shoot the *******?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:00:26 +0100, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote:


"Tim Martin" wrote in message
news

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...

What's this got to do with AUDIO?

I find I usually enjoy music more if I can hear what's being played ...

Not always, though. I enjoy pibroch more if I can't hear it.

Tim



..and even better if I can't actually see it.

Mike


But if you can't see it, how are you going to shoot the *******?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

M16 continuous spray, bound to get a few of 'em.

-=Mike=-

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:38:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

[me]
Given that it was the first night and that the broadcast was on BBC
1, I would personally support the editorial decision to provide
on-screen information.

So would I *if it were optional*. It would be good if the content of
the subtitles were actually useful, but that is another matter *if they
are optional*.

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree in a friendly manner
on this matter. ;-)

No, no. We must keep shouting at one another until one of us hits the other
with a wet kipper. :-)

What I personally find far more distracting than onscreen text is the
use of multiple often moving cameras. The stereo image no longer matches
with the picture. (Moving the stereo image with the picture would be
even worse!) Why do producers feel the need to do this? Is it to justify
their jobs and all of the expensive equipment required?

I also find this distracting at times. However less so than the subtitles
as I'm used to shifting my gaze around an orchestra. TBH my eyes aren't
much good anyway...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article . com,
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
But won't record on to a bog-standard video recorder.

Then get an S-VHS. Don't see why the 'live' viewers should suffer to
save those who record money. Or the same would apply to any programme,
since they all have subtitles on 888.

But if you use 888 regularly you probably have the recording technology
already. The issue here is where ordinary (hearing) people may need
more information than they can get from the audio. It's more similar to
English subtitles for foreign-language dialogue. Advocating 888 for
that in all cases, just so speakers of the language can avoid having a
cluttered screen, would be seen as an extreme position.

The parallel would be showing the score onscreen as the music was played.
Although I'd also think this was a bad idea *if not optional*, it would at
least have a more immediate time-relationship with the music than the naff
'subtitles' on the 1st night. The problem with these was partly the way the
covered so much of the picture area, and the trivial nature of many of the
comments.

I recorded the first part onto DVD so had a change to view/listen again
earlier today. Many of the subtitles simply repeated what the announcer had
already said, or told us what we could already see/hear. Many were on the
level of "The soloist has started playing". This isn't any sort of 'musical
education', it is stating the obvious. Thus a lot of the content of the
subtitiles was trivial. Given this, I'd be surprised if anyone who actually
found some of the subtitles useful would actually have *wanted* them to be
recordable.

If the BBC want to be seen to be addressing concerns about accessibility
of their classical music output, I'd far rather see them spicing up the
visual presentation than dumbing down the musical content or forcing the
orchestras to spend half their time running workshops in prisons.

I'd agree. Particularly if they do so by providing *additional* broadcasts,
and making things *optional*. Alas, I don't regard telling *everyone* the
stunningly obvious as 'education' or 'accessibility'.

Still, the recording sounds excellent with the TV display switched off.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html