Media mistakes
- Thread starter RobH1
- Start date
prpr
Well-Known Member
"MOTD: Mexico v England" with description "Replay of Mexico v England from Azteca..."
It's not exactly hard, is it?
As always. They just can't help themselves giving away the result when you're looking for a replay of something where you don't want to know the result. So what's the point?
Just one of many reasons why I almost never use it.
Anyway the cheating <slur> ba5t@rd5 got their comeuppance, despite the penalty that wasn't, which pleases greatly.
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
Just remove the word "live" if it isn't actually live. Simples.
EEPhil
Number 28
Then, going back to your arts point, you get into the argument about whether a concert is recorded live or in the studio. And was it recorded as live in the studio or was it post-produced.
gomezz
Well-Known Member
The important distinction to be made is if it is full coverage, extended highlights or short highlights. The length of the programme is a clue though fitting full coverage of a football match into a ninety minute slot does mean editing out some of the full coverage (ad-ration breaks, injury assistance etc). Many people also think full coverage should include all the pre/half time/post match puerile punditry.
Bearing that in mind I suggest that "full coverage" is the best way of labelling it.
Bearing that in mind I suggest that "full coverage" is the best way of labelling it.
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
No! The important distinction is whether it is being broadcast at the time it is happening. I am not much interested in sport, but I am definitely not interested when it isn't live (although, that said, I enjoyed the darts from Madison Square Garden which was a delayed broadcast – but so far as I can remember it was not listed as "live").
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
An item on Morning Live about using the heads of reed mace as insulation. Except even the farmer called them bullrushes. They are not bullrushes, the plant is not even a rush. Everyone thinks they are bullrushes, because of an incorrect illustration in a children's bible.
Wildebeest
Member
Sky sports usually do this and it works.
I have a brother who never goes out to concerts, theatre etc. When I say I've seen someone live, meaning I attended a concert, he always thinks I mean I saw a recorded concert on TV
gomezz
Well-Known Member
If you are interested in the sport event then you will already know if it is live or not. What you may not know is how and when the broadcaster is making that live coverage available for those unable to watch live, live. For example I am currently watching the as live coverage of the Spain v Portugal World Cup which I could not watch live, live because I was working. Not knowing what happened means that in my time frame it has not yet happened.
If you do not already know if a sport event being shown on the TV is live then you are not interested in it enough to care one way or another.
prpr
Well-Known Member
OMG. You've just invented a new term for live?
Why not live, live, live? Or live, live, live, live.
What stupidity. It's either live or it isn't.
EEPhil
Number 28
What about "recorded live"? Worse still, I've just found out that an audio recording described as "live" (possibly from multiple concert recordings in the late 1970s) was fiddled with in the studio to tweak the bum notes played on stage. Hardly "live" or even "as live".
"Live" and "New" are terms abused by media companies everywhere.
Black Hole
May contain traces of nut
"Live" = "not a studio recording". Ugh.
gomezz
Well-Known Member
Nope! It is a term I have used for donkey's years, perhaps ever since I got my first VCR back in the 80s.
EEPhil
Number 28
All sorts of fun to be had with how you describe studio recordings. Are ones recorded in one take, with all the musicians present and the mixing done at the time, live? Certainly ones where the individual musicians lay down their track, possibly in multiple takes, and then post recording it is mixed isn't live.