Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh

Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...

"Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic

This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music - probably
royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn,
quite possibly computer-generated - which forced me to turn it off
within a few minutes. Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At
Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to
the end.

Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that
accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the programme,
the dialog, more difficult to discern? The UK has an ageing
demographic, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly
irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking or
sounding and interesting programme.

Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
'more'."

Comments for and against welcome.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/06/2023 20:55, Java Jive wrote:
I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly
> irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
> equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking or
> sounding and interesting programme.

The BBC's "In the factory" is dumbed down and presented in a
patronizing reality TV manner for day time watching by, I suspect, an
ageing population - but insists on playing pop music that hook into
parts of the script, like an inside joke, for any hip youngsters watching.

Other choices of music in similar programmes are swatches of chilled out
electronic dance music, that really has a place in a trendy club or
radio 1 extra.... They tend to be heavy on bass and dynamic range, and
must be annoying.

Switch it off.

If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
YouTube and other streaming platforms.

--
Adrian C

On 24/06/2023 22:35, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
> If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
> YouTube and other streaming platforms.

If you don't like it then don't watch it.

I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
by young kids full of their own self-importance.

On 24/06/2023 22:46, MB wrote:
> On 24/06/2023 22:35, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>> If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
>> YouTube and other streaming platforms.
>
>
> If you don't like it then don't watch it.

I don't.

> I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
> by young kids full of their own self-importance.
Yeah, but not all. Have to be selective.

Lots of options other than aimlessly pressing up and down channel on the
remote control and expecting to be entertained.

I want education, not

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!
5 lost in Submarine Tragedy. Come see the EXCLUSIVE video, we have
You have to see this
THEY ARE ALL DEAD!!!!!!

:-(

--
Adrian C

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 22:46:53 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 24/06/2023 22:35, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>> If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
>> YouTube and other streaming platforms.
>
>
>If you don't like it then don't watch it.
>
>I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
>by young kids full of their own self-importance.

True, but for me that makes the genuine ones all the more valuable. An
inevitable consequence of material being presented on Youtube rather
than a traditional broadcast channel is that it won't have had to run
the gauntlet of producers, editors, consultants etc before being
chosen as suitable for broadcast, thus depriving you of the need to
think for yourself. You must use your own knowledge and common sense
and judge for yourself what you think is worthwhile, just as you would
judge the validity of what someone says in real life. The better
Youtube channels usually have the absolute minimum of 'production
values' or none at all, sometimes just a simple presentation by a
single individual who knows their stuff. Mainstream media don't even
try to compete on these terms, presumably because it would involve an
admission that much of what they do in the interests of presentation
is pointless and wouldn't justify the money they are paid to do it.

Rod.

On 24/06/2023 22:35, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
> On 24/06/2023 20:55, Java Jive wrote:
> I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly
>> irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
>> equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking
>> or sounding and interesting programme.
>

I feel this complaint was first made on the first "points of view"
program back in 1961. People with a technical interest are not important
to the programme maker. They are judged by the quantity of the audience
not the quality. So whilst you are "not alone" you are a small
proportion of the audience. You probably know how to find the
information. Its even possible you can read, so can turn the sound off
to remove the music and read the sub-titles.

Yes its a bummer, but its they way the world is, which is why when I was
asked by a STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Maths) advisor at
the local museum where I volunteer "how would I encourage children to
take STEM subjects", I said I wouldn't, I would tell them to do
something profitable like HR, Marketing or Advertising where they can't
measure success and where they won't be outcasts.....

Dave

On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 08:31:43 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 22:46:53 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 24/06/2023 22:35, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>>> If you have any technical interest in a subject, you will find it on
>>> YouTube and other streaming platforms.
>>
>>
>>If you don't like it then don't watch it.
>>
>>I rarely watch anything on YouTube because they seem to be mostly done
>>by young kids full of their own self-importance.
>
> True, but for me that makes the genuine ones all the more valuable. An
> inevitable consequence of material being presented on Youtube rather
> than a traditional broadcast channel is that it won't have had to run
> the gauntlet of producers, editors, consultants etc before being chosen
> as suitable for broadcast, thus depriving you of the need to think for
> yourself. You must use your own knowledge and common sense and judge for
> yourself what you think is worthwhile, just as you would judge the
> validity of what someone says in real life. The better Youtube channels
> usually have the absolute minimum of 'production values' or none at all,
> sometimes just a simple presentation by a single individual who knows
> their stuff. Mainstream media don't even try to compete on these terms,
> presumably because it would involve an admission that much of what they
> do in the interests of presentation is pointless and wouldn't justify
> the money they are paid to do it.
>
> Rod.

I have constantly complained about this, but to no avail.... I started to
watch the BBC documentary on the Neutrino this morning, but the programme
was narrated by a lady with a soft voice supported by unnecessary
interference with incidental music and sound effects. I shut it off

On 24/06/2023 22:35, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
> They tend to be heavy on bass and dynamic range

I don't understand the reference to dynamic range. To me, one of the
defining characteristics of pop music is summed up by "Everything louder
than everything else". There basically is no dynamic range; everything
is full volume.

The bass I agree with. That is usually an exceedingly repetitive and
boring rhythm track, which is the only thing that survives through walls.

I agree, I suspect it has more to do with its easy to do these days, so they
do. Mixing as an art seems to be lost. Autoducking can sometimes be heard
very much like DJs used to do it at parties.
I don't hink the producers like silences either. It is happening on radio
as well, where some jaunty music plays while a scientist explains something
as if he or she were dealing with somebody with intellectual level of Noddy
in Toyland.

Then there is the expert with a foreign language reply, but the subtitles
are not spoken in English so anyone either listening in the next room or
blind has no idea of what was said. if you can translate the question in
voice, why not the answers

There is so much wrong with modern production. Just compare an older radio
drama with a modern one and you will see what I mean.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

This document should only be read by those persons for whom Paranoia is
normal
and its contents are probably boring and confusing. If you receive this
e-Mail
message in error, do not notify the sender immediately, instead, print it
out and make
paper animals out of it. As the rest of this disclaimer is totally
incomprehensible, we have not bothered to attach it.
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:u77hnn$6lmm$1@dont-email.me...
> Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
>
> Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
>
> "Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
>
> This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
> minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music - probably
> royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn, quite
> possibly computer-generated - which forced me to turn it off within a
> few minutes. Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At Night, though I
> did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to the end.
>
> Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same formulaic
> presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that accomplishes
> nothing except make the important parts of the programme, the dialog, more
> difficult to discern? The UK has an ageing demographic, and I'm guessing
> that I'm not alone in getting increasingly irritated by modern production
> values that favour the programme equivalent of make-up rather than
> producing a basically good looking or sounding and interesting programme.
>
> Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
> 'more'."
>
> Comments for and against welcome.
>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!
>
> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
> www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/06/2023 14:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Then there is the expert with a foreign language reply, but the subtitles
> are not spoken in English so anyone either listening in the next room or
> blind has no idea of what was said. if you can translate the question in
> voice, why not the answers

I bet there will be as many people wanting to listen to the expert in
his own language and not an interpreter's version.

On 25/06/2023 14:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I agree, I suspect it has more to do with its easy to do these days, so
> they do. Mixing as an art seems to be lost. Autoducking can sometimes be
> heard very much like DJs used to do it at parties.
> I don't hink the producers like silences either. It is happening on
> radio as well, where some jaunty music plays while a scientist explains
> something as if he or she were dealing with somebody with intellectual
> level of Noddy in Toyland.
>
> Then there is the expert with a foreign language reply, but the
> subtitles are not spoken in English so anyone either listening in the
> next room or blind has no idea of what was said. if you can translate
> the question in voice, why not the answers
>
>
> There is so much wrong with modern production. Just compare an older
> radio drama with a modern one and you will see what I mean.
> Brian
>
All the complaints in this thread fall into the category of "can't
please everyone all the time". No matter what the broadcasters do there
will be an ample supply of people on here finding fault.

On 26/06/2023 12:35, MikeS wrote:
>
> All the complaints in this thread fall into the category of "can't
> please everyone all the time". No matter what the broadcasters do there
> will be an ample supply of people on here finding fault.

But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which you
need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause problems, such
as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/06/2023 13:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/06/2023 12:35, MikeS wrote:
>>
>> All the complaints in this thread fall into the category of "can't
>> please everyone all the time". No matter what the broadcasters do
>> there will be an ample supply of people on here finding fault.
>
> But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which you
> need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause problems, such
> as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.
>

Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for "most
of the people most of the time".

And they seem to be neither more nor less "necessary" than, say,
costumes and sets for dramas[1] and animations[2] for science and
technology.

[1] plays are routinely performed with ordinary, modern clothes on bare
stages
[2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/06/2023 14:00, Robin wrote:
>
> On 26/06/2023 13:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which
>> you need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause problems,
>> such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.
>
> Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for "most
> of the people most of the time".

I didn't say that these features cause problems for most of the people
for most of the time, I said that you could please most of the people
most of the time by excluding those features which are unnecessary and
the inclusion of which cause problems for some of the people some of the
time. And when I say 'some', as we are living in a society with an
ageing demographic, actually it might even be 'most'.

> And they seem to be neither more nor less "necessary" than, say,
> costumes and sets for dramas[1] and animations[2] for science and
> technology.

Nonsense, synthetic background mush-ic adds nothing of documentary value
to programmes such as Discovery or The Sky At Night. Perhaps you'd like
to explain what extra useful information such mush-ic is supposed to convey?

> [1] plays are routinely performed with ordinary, modern clothes on bare
> stages

But here we're talking about documentaries whose primary purpose is to
describe and explain the world, not artistic creations whose primary
purpose is to entertain.

> [2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al

.... and was good enough throughout most of my childhood and youth.

I'm all for 'visual aids' and demos where genuinely they aid
understanding rather than mislead, but modern mixing desks are very
powerful, and there seems to be a tendency to press buttons just because
they can be pressed, rather than production staff asking themselves
whether what they are doing is genuinely adding to rather than actually
subtracting from the final result. Increasingly all too often it seems
to be the latter

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/06/2023 14:44, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/06/2023 14:00, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 26/06/2023 13:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which
>>> you need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
>>> problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.
>>
>> Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for
>> "most of the people most of the time".
>
> I didn't say that these features cause problems for most of the people
> for most of the time,

What you wrote boils down to a simple proposition that "X requires Y".
That is:

X: "please most of the people most of the time"

requires

Y: "avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic"

It may be that what you meant was something a bit different - e.g. that
/more/ people would be pleased /more/ of the time by avoiding such
features. Fair enough if so - but my question remains, where's the
evidence?

> I said that you could please most of the people
> most of the time by excluding those features which are unnecessary and
> the inclusion of which cause problems for some of the people some of the
> time. >> And they seem to be neither more nor less "necessary" than, say,
>> costumes and sets for dramas[1] and animations[2] for science and
>> technology.
>
> Nonsense, synthetic background mush-ic adds nothing of documentary value
> to programmes such as Discovery or The Sky At Night.  Perhaps you'd like
> to explain what extra useful information such mush-ic is supposed to
> convey?

I don't accept your premise that the only metric is the information
content. Another metric is the number of people who hear the
information. I can easily imagine that programmes shorn of music would
have a smaller audience.

>> [1] plays are routinely performed with ordinary, modern clothes on
>> bare stages
>
> But here we're talking about documentaries whose primary purpose is to
> describe and explain the world, not artistic creations whose primary
> purpose is to entertain.

But not to describe and explain the world only to people who want a dry
as dust presentation.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:00:47 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

>[2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al

Simple props like blackboards, whiteboards and brown paper with
sharpies are still good enough for many presenters on Youtube, e.g.
Michael Penn, 'Blackpenredpen', and some of the presenters on
Numberphile. (You can search for all of these by name).

If the subject matter is sufficiently interesting, the presentation
doesn't have to be perfect; it only has to be clear.

Rod.

On 26/06/2023 19:14, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:00:47 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> [2] a blackboard was good enough for Einstein, Bohr et al
>
> Simple props like blackboards, whiteboards and brown paper with
> sharpies are still good enough for many presenters on Youtube, e.g.
> Michael Penn, 'Blackpenredpen', and some of the presenters on
> Numberphile. (You can search for all of these by name).
>
> If the subject matter is sufficiently interesting, the presentation
> doesn't have to be perfect; it only has to be clear.

The problem comes when the presenter writes the "slides" (whether on
blackboard or overhead projector) in real time. That speed is fine when
you are expected (eg in a school classroom) to copy the teacher's words
into your own exercise book, but it is very slow when concepts are being
explained.

There is also the problem of the lecturer who writes more quickly which
then causes his handwriting to suffer. I remember at university one of
the lecturers wrote on an overhead projector in real time, but the
awkward angle of the projector when he was standing beside it and need
for speed meant that his handwriting was *very* poor: shaky and almost
illegible. I think he may also have had very shaky hands.

Now that would not have been too much of a problem if it had been text,
but he was lecturing in maths, and he was writing algebra. I remember
there was a loud groan of sudden understanding from the audience when
people suddenly realised that what they had thought for most of the
lecture was a Greek nu was actually a u - and the difference was
critical to understanding what he was teaching us. Someone suggested
afterwards to him that it might be "easier" (yeah, for us!!!) if he
wrote his slides out in advance (or even got them typed if he could lay
his hands on an algebra package for his computer) so his meaning wasn't
obscured by his shaky handwriting. The lecturer blew his top and
complained to the dean of the faculty - "how dare a 'mere' student tell
him how to lecture". The dean attended the next lecture and saw the
lecturer's handwriting - and in a spectacular show of disloyalty to his
colleague, stopped the lecture and said "the student who complained
about your handwriting made a very good suggestion - I think you might
be advised to act on it, Dr Smith".

If you are delivering the same lectures each year, it makes sense to
have your material prepared in advance rather than re-generate it
on-the-fly each year.

There was another lecturer who gave out specimen answers to the class
exercises a few days after we'd tried them, but he tried to fit
everything onto a single sheet of A4 paper, so there were boxes and
arrows where he ran out of paper in one place and continued in a vacant
bit of paper somewhere else. He also omitted a lot of the logical steps
in progressing from the question to the answer, covered by "clearly"
(which invariably means "this bit is hard, so I'll just gloss over it").

I like to tackle a complicated mathematical problem (eg solving an
equation) in lots of very simple steps, then if I realise I've gone
wrong (or gone up a blind alley and I;m making things progressively
worse) I can back-track and see where I might have gone wrong. So a
model answer which omits that step-by-step reasoning and takes gigantic
"clearly" steps is bugger-all use as a teaching aid :-(

On 26/06/2023 15:28, Robin wrote:
> On 26/06/2023 14:44, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 26/06/2023 14:00, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/06/2023 13:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But you can please most of the people most of the time, to do which
>>>> you need to avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
>>>> problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic.
>>>
>>> Be nice to see the evidence that these features cause problems for
>>> "most of the people most of the time".
>>
>> I didn't say that these features cause problems for most of the people
>> for most of the time,
>
> What you wrote boils down to a simple proposition that "X requires Y".
> That is:
>
> X: "please most of the people most of the time"
>
> requires
>
> Y: "avoid features of programmes that commonly cause
> problems, such as *TOTALLY UNNECESSARY* background mush-ic"

Exactly, so if you're trying to make a programme for a public service
broadcaster, presumably you want it to reach the maximum number of
people, so don't introduce anything unnecessary that gets in the way of
doing that.

> It may be that what you meant was something a bit different - e.g. that
> /more/ people would be pleased /more/ of the time by avoiding such
> features.  Fair enough if so - but my question remains, where's the
> evidence?

How many complaints do the BBC receive demanding more incidental music
compared with those complaining about the incidental music that is
already there? I don't have any figures, but confidently I can predict:
zero.

>> Nonsense, synthetic background mush-ic adds nothing of documentary
>> value to programmes such as Discovery or The Sky At Night.  Perhaps
>> you'd like to explain what extra useful information such mush-ic is
>> supposed to convey?
>
> I don't accept your premise that the only metric is the information
> content.  Another metric is the number of people who hear the
> information.  I can easily imagine that programmes shorn of music would
> have a smaller audience.

LOL! You asked me above for evidence about something that seems to me
to be merely a matter of common sense, while what you're claiming above
is a much less believable claim! So where's your evidence?

> But not to describe and explain the world only to people who want a dry
> as dust presentation.

I confidently predict that if such inappropriate incidental music was
dropped from documentary programmes, their audience ratings would not
diminish at all, and may well increase due to the programmes being more
intelligible as a result. Even the replies here suggest this, while
granting that to an extent it's a matter of judgement, but from the tone
of them I make it:
Agree with me: 5
Don't agree: 2

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 24/06/2023 20:55, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
>
> Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
>
> "Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
>
> This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the first
> minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music  -  probably
> royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless churn,
> quite possibly computer-generated  -  which forced me to turn it off
> within a few minutes.  Ditto, the most recent edition of the Sky At
> Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one through to
> the end.
>
> Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
> formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic that
> accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the programme,
> the dialog, more difficult to discern?  The UK has an ageing
> demographic, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting increasingly
> irritated by modern production values that favour the programme
> equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good looking or
> sounding and interesting programme.
>
> Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less' means
> 'more'."
>
> Comments for and against welcome.

Received the usual bland reply today, I include it anonymised below:

Reference xxxx-etc

Hi xxxx

Many thanks for taking the time to contact though with regrets for the
'circumstances' and your dislike of the background music and sound
effects in some of our programmes (in this instance The Discovery
episode 'Seeing More').

The (appropriate) use of background music and sound effects is an issue
across the whole of the broadcasting industry, including obviously
radio, and one the BBC is very aware of. We even published a best
practice guide based on a study we conducted (though admittedly TV
focused) which is available on the BBC Academy’s College of Production
website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112136134

[Note: You need to be able to log in to see this. I haven't tried
further, so don't know whether the same login as you'd use to watch a
programme would work, or whether you'd need something like a staff login.]

The decision to use background noise, music and/or effects is a creative
one which producers take, to clearly mark out distinct segments of a
programme, highlight moods and atmosphere or convey emotion, and for
many listeners, if not most, these add to the overall feel of a show,
rather than taking away from it.

[Note: No supporting evidence given for this claim.]

However, we recognise that for some listeners background music et al can
make a programme difficult to listen to and/or unappealing. So there’s a
balance to be struck between differing needs and preferences. At
present, despite the above linked best practice guide, there are no hard
rules in this regard. Our approach is to offer a range of content
produced in different styles in the hope and conviction that we strike
the correct balance most of the time.

Apart from that, I can say that there is concern that some programmes
are becoming overloaded with effects and there is an internal debate in
that context in the World Service. Your feedback, which I have shared
with senior editors in the World Service, will hopefully further
enlighten that debate.

I hope that the above has at least some explanatory value and that,
despite your objections in this regard, you will continue listening to
our programmes in the future .

Best regards,
xxxx xxxx
BBC News

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 20:09:04 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>The problem comes when the presenter writes the "slides" (whether on
>blackboard or overhead projector) in real time. That speed is fine when
>you are expected (eg in a school classroom) to copy the teacher's words
>into your own exercise book, but it is very slow when concepts are being
>explained.
>
>There is also the problem of the lecturer who writes more quickly which
>then causes his handwriting to suffer. I remember at university one of
>the lecturers wrote on an overhead projector in real time, but the
>awkward angle of the projector when he was standing beside it and need
>for speed meant that his handwriting was *very* poor: shaky and almost
>illegible. I think he may also have had very shaky hands.

Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.

Many Youtube presentations use speeded up video or crude jump-cuts to
shorten the boring bits, and nobody cares.

You don't have to start with a blank screen and create the entire
material from scratch in front of the viewers. It's possible to start
with a diagram, equation, or whatever it is, already prepared, or
partially prepared, and for the presenter to add to it. It's simple
and can be very effective. Watch Dr John Campbell's Youtube
presentations for instance. Better still, watch lots of Youtube
presentations and you'll soon realise there are good teachers and bad
ones, and it's mostly the good ones you keep going back to.

Rod.

On 26/06/2023 20:09, NY wrote:
> Now that would not have been too much of a problem if it had been text,
> but he was lecturing in maths, and he was writing algebra. I remember
> there was a loud groan of sudden understanding from the audience when
> people suddenly realised that what they had thought for most of the
> lecture was a Greek nu was actually a u - and the difference was
> critical to understanding what he was teaching us. Someone suggested
> afterwards to him that it might be "easier" (yeah, for us!!!) if he
> wrote his slides out in advance (or even got them typed if he could lay
> his hands on an algebra package for his computer) so his meaning wasn't
> obscured by his shaky handwriting. The lecturer blew his top and
> complained to the dean of the faculty - "how dare a 'mere' student tell
> him how to lecture". The dean attended the next lecture and saw the
> lecturer's handwriting - and in a spectacular show of disloyalty to his
> colleague, stopped the lecture and said "the student who complained
> about your handwriting made a very good suggestion - I think you might
> be advised to act on it, Dr Smith".

We had one lecturer, also maths, whose writing was illegible and he had
astrong accept - we never worked out if he was Scottish or East European
or what?

Many stopped going to his lectures because you did not learn anything
then one day, part way into his lecture someone got up and walked out.
There a murmur around the lecture theatre and first one, then two .....
got up and walked out.

It was very impressive show of what a waste of time his lectures were
but what no one realised was the first person had arranged to leave
early for an appointment somewhere.

We also had a professor who talked fast and made no attempt to check
people understood. When they had the mock exams, it was obvious that no
one had understood him and he had to repeat the course - our fault or
course!

On 26/06/2023 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
> Received the usual bland reply today, I include it anonymised below:

How many letters / EMails do you think the BBC receive every day?

How much would it cost to answer every one individually?

There would be no money left to make any programmes.

On 27/06/2023 06:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
> judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.

The few times I look at YouTube are usually when I am trying to solve a
problem with computer, camera etc. Google will usually direct to many
YouTube videos which might last five minutes or an hour but usually the
information could have passed on less than a single side of A4 which can
be printed out and consulted whilst trying to solve the problem.

On 26/06/2023 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/06/2023 20:55, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Discovery - Seeing more [but hearing less]
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4nnh
>>
>> Complaint registered to the BBC as follows ...
>>
>> "Documentaries ruined by endless mush-ic
>>
>> This programme starts off in the jungles of Africa, but within the
>> first minute began to feature endless incidental synthetic music  -
>> probably royalty free, probably for the reason that it's just endless
>> churn, quite possibly computer-generated  -  which forced me to turn
>> it off within a few minutes.  Ditto, the most recent edition of the
>> Sky At Night, though I did at least grit my teeth and see that one
>> through to the end.
>>
>> Why must absolutely everything these days be reduced to the same
>> formulaic presentation with the same or similar background mush-ic
>> that accomplishes nothing except make the important parts of the
>> programme, the dialog, more difficult to discern?  The UK has an
>> ageing demographic, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone in getting
>> increasingly irritated by modern production values that favour the
>> programme equivalent of make-up rather than producing a basically good
>> looking or sounding and interesting programme.
>>
>> Modern producers need to learn when 'more' means 'less' and 'less'
>> means 'more'."
>>
>> Comments for and against welcome.
>
> Received the usual bland reply today, I include it anonymised below:
>

That's far from a bland brush-off. The writer has addressed your
specific point and provided evidence of the BBC's awareness of, and
action on, the issue. If you are disappointed not to get "we agree and
the DG has ordered 'no more music in any factual programme: action this
day'" then that's life.

My only criticism is that the link requires a BBC login which is for
employees. But I think the research it covers was that which was
reported widely at the time (2011?).

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 27/06/2023 08:57, MB wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 06:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> Video presentation can easily solve both these problems, and if done
>> judiciously it can do it without seeming gimmicky.
>
>
>
> The few times I look at YouTube are usually when I am trying to solve a
> problem with computer, camera etc. Google will usually direct to many
> YouTube videos which might last five minutes or an hour but usually the
> information could have passed on less than a single side of A4 which can
> be printed out and consulted whilst trying to solve the problem.
>
>
>

Quite often the manufactures will provide the information in the user
guide on the equivalent of a sheet of A4. It's after reading that you
have to seek out a Youtube video to gain that extra gem of information
to enable you to get it working.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk