Listening to the first ten minutes of The News Quiz last night (couldn’t take any more than that) I was struck by how the audience reaction seemed a little out of proportion to the “funny” comments of the panellists. Even allowing for the fact that I – a right wing bastard – am never likely to be particularly impressed by The News Quiz, something still didn’t ring true.
Here are some clips all taken from the first ten minutes of the programme. You’ll hear the final few words of some “amusing quips” by Andy Hamilton, Sue Perkins (x2), Sandi Toksvig, Miles Jupp and Jeremy Hardy, and the audience reaction to each. Each clip is followed by a shorter clip isolating part of the audience response. Finally, the 6 isolated clips are played one after the other for direct comparison. Is it just me or is there something a tad similar about them?
What do you think – is there a bit of laugh track manipulation going on there? Could it be that even the sort of people who attend News Quiz recordings aren’t as impressed by the jokes as we’re led to believe?
Update. In response to a request in the comments, here’s the relevant part of the 6 clips in the form of sound wave graph thingies. Obviously they’re not entirely identical because there’s other stuff going on in each individual clip, but I think they’re close enough to suggest the same bit of laughter may have been added to each one:
Also via the comments I’m reminded that during the opening ten minutes of this week’s show Sandi Toksvig said, “It’s the Tories who have been putting the ‘n’ into cuts”. I’ve become so jaded by Radio 4 comedy, so inured to the bias, that this passed me by as just another unfunny joke. On reflection it really is quite a thing to say, especially when one considers the time the show goes out.
(On the other hand the Tories will indeed put the ‘n’ into cuts if they back down and say “Not now”, as that idiot Huhne has suggested.)
Canned laughter, now that takes me back, to happy childhood watching Happy Days and Taxi. Did the BBC use that “WooWooWooWoo” sample when a special guest walks in the room, just like Fonzie.
Perfect for the next installment of Generic BBC Comedians.
Can anyone analyse the clips scientifically to see if they are indeed the same?
I’d love to see those smug idiots get found out.
They are the same, your ear is better than most computers, listen to the final male giggle/hick that stands out.
Radio 4 canned laughter is mentioned here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABBC_Radio_4
I was listening to the News Quiz this evening (force of habit I guess, as for some reason its gone off the boil these past few months…) but I must have missed the following question when I took my wife a cup of tea. Please could someone let me know if I guessed the coverage correctly:
Sandi: Whose effort bombed this week, but scored 10 out of 10 for effort?
Andy: Was this the excellent puff piece (ed: I think the script said snuff) put together at great expense by that Curtis fellow and his 10:10 crew.
Sandi: Yes, you’re right. Would you like to expand on this. No pressure.
Andy (nervously): Err, o.k. Apparently, the reviews from the first screening received a very small amount of criticism, and the decision was made to pull it. And as a result a hole has been blown in the TV schedules on Sunday as rebroadcasting it may offend those of a nervous disposition.
Sandi: You’re entitled to your view – and for saving the corporation your taxi home, our 10% emission reduction is guaranteed. Jeremy and Sue are tonight’s winners with 10 points!
Cue: audience applause (canned variety)…
Update: This is a repost from the general thread. I really can’t be bothered to find out why “Splattergate” was not worthy of dissection on this program when something or other about schoolchildren in Kent was. They must have been desperate for news in the local paper there last week, and from this beginning such trivia has been catapulted to a national audience.
And DB, it wasn’t even remotely funny – you were correct to switch off.
“I really can’t be bothered to find out why “Splattergate” was not worthy of dissection on this program“
You jest, I realise. I’m sure every poster here knows why it was not deemed worthy.
Faked laughter?
If you think about it this would be a perfect BBC reaction and it fits their psychological profile to a tee.
If their stock PC leftist ‘comedians’ are not funny then dont replace them with real actual funny people just fake the laughter so they appear to be funny.
If the evidence for CAGW is missing then just make some up to make it appear to be genuine.
If the tories/repubicans/ideological enemies are not making mistakes then just make up some smears and inflate criticisisms/indignation from the left.
If the quantity of complaints rises then just make up some fake complaints that in reality are more like praise to air on their few viewers comment sections, you know the kind of thing. ‘the BBC is fantastic but could they be a little more fantastic please. signed Miss Ima fake’
Fake winners of prizes and faked reality shows and rigged feedback via comments.
The BBC has become so addicted to faking and fabricating illusions that everything they do is becoming tainted and its starting to show.
The stock generic ‘comedians’ are becoming quite tedious to listen to but what is the alternative for the BBC? These people are not meant to appeal to the masses, they are PC and BBC approved. The leftists really do not have the ability to see what they have become and they have no real sense of humour other than the desire to attack their enemies with nasty sarcasm and spiteful intent, thats not funny is it? Well it might have been in the school playground.
It sounds like a small audience who are being told when to laugh.
Could be onto something there.
I remember when Lord Tebbit appeared on HiGNFY and said afterwards they had to be given the questions in advance to be that funny. He was mercilessly riduculed.ç
A year or so later and it emerged that yes, Teams Merton and Hislop are given the questions in advance.
You can’t rule anything out with theses people.
Hislop – that great crusader (can I say that?) against humbug, dishonesty and hypocrisy.
We know media audiences are prompted, and without a doubt there’s digital jiggerypokery going on. Even Obamamessiah is teleprompted. People do nothing spontaneous these days – it requires engagement of brain (a disconnect in the generations of today). They have to be prompted or programmed. Sad lot of sheep.
If you listen to people laughing at something funny – they do not all stop at the same time. Some people will laugh for what seems an age. They will also chuckle long after the joke because it will be memorable. Listen to Ken Dodd or Tommy Cooper live recordings that is what real laughter is like.
Here are some examples
Notice how some people are still laughing even after others have stopped.
Was it Sandi Toksvig who said “It was the Conservatives who put the N in CUTS”. They can’t help themselves. I just switched off.
That’s bloody canned laughter, that’s what that is. No humour, no spontaneity, nothing.
I think DB should send his research to Feedback, and also make a formal complaint and see wait response he gets.
He will not get a response. I have been waiting over a month for a reply to a complaint that I have made.
The evidence is powerful DB. Good work!
It just reinforces how good the latest crop of fresh stand-ups are. I have just enjoyed – again – Michael MacIntyre’s Roadshow. This week from Dublin, with four more people I’d never seen before, and all of them (and the same thing happens, week after week) using sparkling material that is completely free of the tired old left-wing drivel on which Radio 4 ‘comedy’ is utterly dependent. Not a single ‘Thatcher’ to be heard. Genuine, fresh, observational comedy.
I see from today’s papers that Ben Elton is making a comeback. Oh joy. It will be a treat to see him struggle keep up with the modern talent. It’ll be like seeing Jeremy Hardy on QI, where he looked like a beached whale (a skinny whiney version, admittedly) when all around were showing that they had brain cells capable of knowledge and interests, and discussing them in an entertaining way.
Thank you for showing the sound waves. So now you have proved, that when these Libtard comedians make a “witty” remark there is a sound of tumble weeds going through the auditorium. Or, there is no audience at all, I’ll take the latter. Who would want to listen to Jeremy Hardy anyway, well, apart from that one line in Blackadder.
Sorry to spoil everyone’s fun, but this is not canned laughter. Here’s an audio graphic of the six bits of laughter selected:
http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g410/DezMezPez/stuff/NewsQuizAudio.jpg
Each sample is taken from the first titter – to just before the next person starts to talk.
There is a common element in all of them: the “Ha Ha Ha” correctly identified by DB. On my pic the first “Ha” is marked by the white vertical line and sure enough everything after the line clearly matches up.
However, the laughter tracks before the line all have different lengths and different profiles. It’s obviously not the same sample repeated six times.
What’s happening is that the original recording of the News Quiz goes on for an hour and a half, which is then cut down to half an hour of the “best bits”. So they are using generic samples such as the “Ha ha ha” to disguise the edits. Not very elegantly; but that’s probably due to time constraints.
It also explains why the audience reaction seems to cut off rather abruptly at some points.
As to; “I was struck by how the audience reaction seemed a little out of proportion to the “funny” comments of the panellists.” This is due to group dynamics. There may be only one or two people in the audience who find something funny but everyone else will get swept along. Laughter is contagious after all.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. I do wonder if the irregularities you highlight could also be explained by a hand on the volume fader. By this I mean that if it was canned laughter, each time it’s played will still vary slightly in length and volume due to the human element of bringing it in and out. That doesn’t explain everything we see there, of course. A handful of others laughing in the studio could easily cause the other slight peak differences.
I admit I haven’t taken any time to test my theory, but the regularity of the impulse groups might be one last avenue to look into.
I thought about that, but the initial bursts of laughter are different in each sample. You can’t fake that with a flick of the volume knob.
Dez,
Er yes in fact you can very easily with digital recording and editing suites now commonly available, the BBC would certainly have the latest digital equipment allowing the m to fade in anything they want as the actors speak live in real time.
You can introduce jet aircraft and animal and ambient sounds real time and take away sounds real time too. The sound you hear from your radio is not like it was in the olden days, they can and do manipulate the sound to an amazing degree, they can make the ugliest voice sound like an angel and in real time too.
I think one of the least advertised technical developements has been digital sound manipulation and I wonder why that could be?
You can very easily change the pitch of a singer up or down by about half a semitone before it becomes obvious (hence the recent X-Factor story). You can also shorten or lengthen a sample by about 15% before it all goes a bit Metal Mickey.
Digital Audio is a wonderful thing but there are quite conservative limits as to what you can do. Ears aren’t easily fooled.
These days, the BBC and other top recoding studios use exactly the same (admittedly high-end) PC’s anyone else can buy on their local high street. Get your hands on the right software, some knowledge and some talent; and anyone can make a broadcast quality recording in their own bedroom.
That’s a revolution that has happened in the last five years or so…
It *has* been advertised. Perhaps you just haven’t noticed 😉
Okay, even I don’t think the BBC pays a very, very young person a very, very low wage (I wish I could find that Helen Boaden quote again) to spend time manipulating the audio with vocoder, etc., after the show, just to fake this up.
I couldn’t help thinking, as I sat in silent stunned stony-faced astonishment, watching the latest series of Harry and Paul, how useful some canned laughter would have been to hide the fact that their well of comic inspiration has, at last, run dry.
Such a shame after the last series.
I managed five minutes and fifty eight seconds before I lost the will to live and closed the connection, awful. Look at the recent series of debates on 5Live where 300 listeners of the station have the chance to quiz politicians, I was unaware that there were as many as 900 union officials still left in the country and that all of them turned up and got on the wireless. Amazing. A cynic might say that the BBC stage manages ALL parts of their output. Nothing off message, ever.
Having attended the recording of the show there is no ‘laugh now’ prompting
but there is clearly a lot of editing out going on – especially when a slightly
pissed Phil Jupitus has the mike.
Audience is is very well miked from above in several places.
Hopelessly leftie panel (especially Hardy & Steele) and audience conduct a love-in.
I have never had a fight in my adult life but if I ever cross the path of Phil Jupitus then I reserve the right to start.
Porky the Poet, outclassed by both Attila the Stockbroker and Seething Wells to such a degree that he was pretty much ignored by those of us in the know back then.