Bemused

[avevale_intelligencer]

I've read a number of books on radio comedy, and many of the writers seem to find it hard to understand why so many shows included a musical interlude, or even two. They theorise that somebody thought the audience would need a break from laughing in case they split something, or that it was a vestigial survival from the music halls, or something.

It's perfectly obvious to me. If you schedule one or two musical interludes, performed live at the recording...you've got musicians. Sitting there, being paid for their time, available for whatever you want to bung into the script. Without the song or the band number, it's hard to imagine the BBC, even in the dear old days of the Goon Show, stumping up for a full orchestra and a jazz band. And when you imagine what the Goon Show would have been like without Wally Stott's amazing music links, or Ellington, or Max Geldray's appalling acting, or even the crowd noises provided by the said musicians...as I said, the reason for the musical interludes becomes perfectly obvious.

Why does this simple explanation elude serious writers?

Comments

[mundungus42.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Perhaps it's is a positive and negative space thing.

The books are written by people who are concerned with constructing the positive space in acts and scenes, and within that, making individual jokes land. They know they need to take breaks within the dramatic structure for various radio business. What goes into those breaks, be it advertisement or music, is of less concern to them, and is therefore something they've thought less deeply about.

Or on the other hand, these are people who are hyperaware of structure, beat, and tone. Maybe they're looking for a more complicated explanation (i.e., music hall history) than a simple one.


PS Either way, the solution is more writers who are also musicians. *high five*

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Back at you. :)

[coth.livejournal.com]

Because people who think about writing don't usually think about the practicality of performance, or if they do they aren't very good at thinking about it. There's a spectrum. And this comment doesn't just apply to writers on radio comedy either, but to most reviewers of most media.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

[NODS] And, indeed, to most *fans* of most media. =:o}

[clothsprogs.livejournal.com]

What I was thinking but expressed better than I would have.

Teddy

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

But is that a *reason* for having the musical breaks, a just a useful by-product? The budgetting decision for hiring a band wouldn't have been in the hands of the script-writers after all; but once the script-writers know they've *got* a band, they can work 'em in (especially once they've all got to know each other in rehearsal for the early shows, and know what they'll be up for.)

Like most things in life, I think it's a mistake to look for a single cause. I've always understood it as being a *combination* of "well duh, why wouldn't you have a musical break?" (i.e. that's what both show-makers and audiences were used to, aka "if it ain't broke don't fix it", aka "music hall tradition"), and practicality.

First, bear in mind that the earliest radio comedy shows, just like their stage forbears, had to be performed live from beginning to end. The next generation were recorded, but editing was frowned upon, so effectively those were still live shows, and with the added pressure of getting everything in within a very tightly specified timeslot. Actors taking part in a frenetic half hour of comedy where neither mistakes nor long pauses between scenes were permitted would surely be grateful for a chance to rest and recoup midway... And in the event that you accidentally finished *early*, it was good to have a lengthy closing number/theme that could pad out the required 29.5 minutes (or whatever) running time, and be faded out where necessary. (Fading out a piece of music mid-way seems to be far more acceptable to most listeners than fading out a comedy sketch/scene before the punchline!)

Second, there's the contractual/legal/financial aspect. The BBC employed an army of musicians of course for it's own musical programmes, but their style and talents weren't necessarily what was needed for a comedy show, and I suspect the Music Department would have resisted any attempts to co-opt them as mere musical decoration on "low brow" programming anyway. And any independent band leader being asked by the BBC to provide a couple of "meanwhile, on the other side of the stage..." musical links for a pittance is wisely going to say "What's in it for us, besides a long drive to Shepherd's Bush, 2 hours of set up and tear-down, and lunch in your famous canteen?" So either *they* ask for the musical number as a way to let the public know "We are a real band who play proper stuff like this!" (because *that* kind of exposure, especially back then, really was worth something!), or the producer says "Well if you want that much money, then we need to get our money's worth out of you...".

And even when the technology made it possible/easier to play in pre-recorded music links rather than having the band there every week, the Musicians Union had things to say about that, so it took a while to become an acceptable, let alone accepted, practice.

Now, in the case of the Goon Show, add in the fact that Spike (who was central to the whole show's existence) specifically wanted to get more jazz on the radio...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, I am coming at it from the viewpoint (as mundungus42 mentioned) of a writer who's also a sort-of-if-you're-not-picky musician and probably about .463 of a producer. Which last is who would have been responsible for the budgeting proposal, if not the actual implementation, and in those days I have the impression that the producer was more "on the team" with the writers than with the accounts department. Had more autonomy, surely, pre-Birt.

I'm prepared to admit that the other things may have been part of the decision; it just seems odd that the writers leave out what to me is the big obvious benefit and focus on the ones that plainly even to them don't seem entirely satisfactory.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Suggestion: Rather than reading books about radio comedy, why not listen to radio documentaries about radio comedy? You get to hear quite a lot of the history from the horses' mouths, that way. Not that you can rely on it not to have been embellished, of course... =:o}

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Because I can read and still listen out for when I'm needed, for one thing.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Ah! Good point.

Speaking of which, where are we vis-vis the car sitch? Email me.