<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
SJosephine
User

Gold Boarder
 
 The anecdotes - 2004/06/18 07:15 I've just been reading the anecodotes Jake told between jokes and I find them rather hard to read. As on oral historian who has transcribed hundreds of hours of anecdotes I know you simply do not write it literally as it is spoken like that.

There are many reasons: first of all as I've said, it makes it jerky to read, then, far from preserving the veracity of the intentions of the speaker, it give a totally false impression and can sometimes alter the whole sense of what they were trying to say. At the very least it makes them sound drunk!

So (in my umble opinion) it should be written, as is standard pratice, without the jerky ers and ums and half-words.
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
SJosephine
User

Gold Boarder
 
 Re:The anecdotes - 2004/06/18 07:24 PS:

I didn't mean this to be in any way disrespectful to Keith who's done a stirling job here and very well done too - I woz just putting in me 2cents.
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
KeithD
Admin

Admin
 
 Re:The anecdotes - 2004/06/18 09:39 Well, horses for courses. For me, there is a great charm in reading Jake's fumbles and stumbles and changes of direction. A few people have commented on the transcriptions (in Topica, not here), and all have said that the literal transcription makes them able to hear Jake telling the stories. I'm aware that this is far from standard practice. From memory it was Ed Oliver (or maybe Ian Burdon) who first transcribed a Jake 'talking bit' warts and all, and I liked it like that, so I carried on the same for those that I have transcribed - so far without adverse comment.

But maybe those people who don't like it like that just haven't bothered to say so before now.

The difference, I suggest, is that whereas for almost all anecdotes the important element is the content, with these Jake talking bits the way it is said is, for some of us anyway, at least as important.

I do know what you mean, SJ, and had thought some time ago that maybe we ought to have two versions: one "live", as it were, and one cleaned up - more what Jake would have said had he written it down. Something like that can be seen for the Molly Metcalfe intros, where there is a prepared, read intro taken from an early TV show and an ex tempore one from a later show, essentially covering the same ground. And, to be frank, the prepared version is flat and uninspiring compared to the extemporised one - both heard and, for me, read.

It would be good to see if anyone else feels as SJ, and / or whether there is support for having two versions.

I'll post this thread on Topica, too.
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Malcy
User

Platinum Boarder
 
 Re:The anecdotes - 2004/06/18 09:50 Hi, Josephine !

Welcome to the madhouse.

My tuppence is that you'd have to try to encompass some of the vocal style of the reported person - and Jake was indeed very jerky, staccato, forgetful, and it wouldn't come across if it were tidied up.

The person who immediately sprang to mind as an example was Frankie Howerd. Reading a properly transcribed report of a ten minute speech of his would go like

"That lady in the front there. You're a very nice woman. She is, isn't she ?"

and that is sadly not a successful historical reflection of Frankie's delivery, which would have really gone

"Ooh no. Don't. You're wicked. Ooh no, no, Missus in the front. Nay ! Nay !" etc.

In my tuppence, in a hundred year's time someone who hav never seen Frankie on the telly would read the first, proper version and think "He sounds very staid and boring. Why on Earth was he so popular ?" and as such an attempt at historical preservation, it would have failed. Discuss !

Don't even get me started on Stanley Unwin. Truely remarkabold : deep joy !

Good to have you on board, Josephine ! Do you play any Jake stuff ? Are you coming to the Fest ? Eranu !
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Teacher
User

Fresh Boarder
 
 Re: The anecdotes - 2004/06/18 10:19 From my point of view, it's great to "hear" Jake through the words. I miss my vinyl LPs - especially the live performance - but there's nothing to play them on out here (Burma), and in any case I couldn't find them up in my Dad's loft back home - I suppose I'll have to have another look next year when I go again (hopefully - in both meanings of the word).

Academic purism is fine, if it's an academic context that you're dealing with, but Jake was definitely not an academic performer. His offhand delivery belied a well-prepared, probably what artists often call "rehearsed spontaneity", and it is undeniable that he was a master of that craft.

Some of us can only aspire to such heights … Squeeze-box? Constant screamer.
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
KeithD
Admin

Admin
 
 Re: The anecdotes - 2004/06/18 20:03 SJ, you need to visit Topica to see the bulk of the debate there: http://lists.topica.com/lists/jakethackray/read

You'll need to register if you haven't already.

Thanks for livening us up recently. Please keep posting.
  | | The administrator has disabled public write access.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

This is a non-profit site. If you feel that your copyright has been infringed please contact the webmaster.
The comments are property of their posters - all the rest © The Jake Thackray Website 2003-2007
Design & Hosting by Sneakytrick