“Howard’s End”
A four-part drama
First episode first shown: 12th November 2017
The lives of the Schelgel and Wilcox families become entwined when Margaret Schelgel befriends the enigmatic Mrs Wilcox.
Dave Plowman
One of my favourites so looked forward to this new version, which I generally enjoyed.
But my usual comment, made very obvious by the concert bit.
If you decide to reproduce the live music in all it gloriousness – crystal clear woodwind and strings – why oh why do we have to put up with such dreadful quality dialogue?
To put it another way. If it’s OK to accept muffled speech, why not the same for music and effects?
Geoff Fletcher
Hated the background music – intrusive and overly loud in comparison with the dialogue. Generally very irritating.
Also it was a bit busy and disjointed in the first half hour – if you were not familiar with the work I think it would have been hard going trying to figure out who was who and what was going on.
Dave Plowman
I’d guess many would complain about the music – as it did fight the dialogue a bit in places.
I didn’t really notice that (it was a bit busy and disjointed) as I know the story pretty well. Which does show it can be best to have fresh eyes and ears to review the final product.
The production team can be too close sometimes.
Geoffrey Hawkes
(… it would have been hard going trying to figure out who was who and what was going on…).
Quite right. I fall into that category and had been looking forward to seeing the famous play for the first time, but found the first episode hard to follow both the plot and the characters. I’ll stick with it and hope it will become clearer as it unfolds,
Geoff Fletcher
There was an article in the “Daily Telegraph” (14th November 2017) about “Howard’s End” saying much the same thing re the incidental music – even using the same adjectives as I did! Unfortunately It wasn’t me wot rote it.
Geoffrey Hawkes
Another prime example of unwanted and superfluous background music occurs on "Only Artists", BBC Radio 4 Wednesdays 9.00-9.45am. It has, what I can only describe as "intensely irritating buzzy fly" music injected at intervals and it really winds me up to the extent that I have to switch off. It’s a shame because the contributors this morning were very interesting but I couldn’t put up with that annoyance continually cropping up – and why should I? The show is a replacement for the long running “Midweek” that was axed when it broke for the summer, with hints of the presenter, Libby Purves being "too posh." I found that comment hard to disagree with as anyone who insists on pronouncing "chicken" as "chickun" instead of the usual ‘chickin" or "garage" "garrahrge" rather than "garridge" sets themselves up for that. Even so, I’d have her back any day in preference to the buzzy-fly.
When the new show was introduced, they made a feature of it as "including original music by Brian Eno," one of those names that listeners were presumably supposed to know instantly, but I myself don’t (my ignorance probably).
A second example is given in “Desert Island Discs”, where the new producer (I guess) chose to add the sound effect of waves lapping on the shore to the sig-tune. Why!? Again the overarching urge to put their own stamp on it, I suspect, when their senses should have been shouting at them to leave something as "sacred" as that, well alone.
But there we are, people like me are just too stuck in our ways, no doubt we’d be told, when moving forward often means change, whether for the better or not,
Mike Giles
I presumed the addition of lapping water at the beginning of “Desert Island Discs” was a comment on global warming, as the island in question is presumably not much above sea level!
In general, I agree about the annoying use of music on Radio 4 at times, especially in trailers ~ they seem to be trying to emulate TV trails, where it is appropriate to feature music in the gaps between speech as there are pictures to watch, but on the radio it just seems like an affectation.
Geoffrey Hawkes
You may well be right, Mike, but it’s a bit obscure for me. Adding the waves to such a well established signature seems like the curator of the Museum of Modern Art in New York saying, "Sorry Mr Monet, but we just need to add a touch of gilt to those lilies," or them at The Louvre saying, "You know Leonardo, we really must add a little bit more rouge to ‘Lisa’s cheeks. It would make her look so much more alluring, don’t you think?"
Peter Cook
I have been watching “Cold Feet” on the DVR.
I found that if the TV volume was adequately set for average dialogue (whispers to shouting) then the ‘music’ was deafening, and much of it unnecessary!
I have been impressed however by “Porridge”; not only has the updated cast and story line worked well, but I have not noticed technical details, which must mean that it is well crafted, with no glaring mistakes such as crossing the line. (which is all too common these days.)
I too hate the soft focus foreground and feet on news items. If it is not worth seeing then don’t broadcast. Our generation was schooled to understand that every shot must have a purpose. So many shots these days are meaningless!!
Roger Bunce
On the subject of Dramas with inaudible dialogue; intrusive, awful music, reverse cuts, etc.
Can I recommend (for those who haven’t seen it yet) – "The Detectorists" – which has none of these problems. The dialogue is brilliant, and clearly audible; the music is gorgeous, entirely appropriate and never intrusive; the photography is beautiful, without a hint of a crossed eyeline (they even manage to make Essex look attractive!); the characterisation and performances are impeccable.
Which leaves the mystery – With "The Detectorists" proving that it is still possible to make excellent television programmes, why can’t those expensive dramas manage it?
