![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerI'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?
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?