What are some of the advantages of live television and why do you think it was the prevailing format during TV's first decade? What are its disadvantages? How is "liveness" (or the illusion thereof) used by TV today?
I think live television allowed a smoother transition into making it the new main medium of entertainment because it reflected other types of existing live entertainment—such as sports games, theatre/vaudeville, and concerts—that people were already used to watching. While these modes of entertainment didn’t die out, as seen by their continued presence today, television brought the thrill of live entertainment to a consumer’s living room, making television a much more accessible mode of entertainment. As Spiegel noted in Installing the Television Set, television gave you the best seat in the house. Why pay for backrow seats at an expensive piece of theatre when you can turn on your favorite sketch-comedy and be up close and personal? Why invest time and energy going to a sports game when you can just press the button and have the game and commentators at your finger tips? It was a type of amusement that people were already used to, making the TV seem less adventorous and more familiar to the typical American audience.
Of course, some of the disadvantages were that because television was live, there wasn’t room for significant error as it was broadcasted to living rooms across the country. Mistakes happen in any type of live performance, but when your audience is some thousand of all ages, the stakes rise. Of course, as we saw in Texaco Star Theatre and even The Burns and Allen Show, performers slip up— which is even less surprising when you take into consideration how little time they have to rehearse for a weekly hour-long show.
Today, we see “liveness” across a wide variety of popular television. Variety shows like SNL give us the sense of a live piece of theatre like Texaco and Burns and Allen did in early TV. News shows like NBC or FOX give us personal accounts of current events as if we were really there. Reality shows like anything on TLC and MTV bring us to “real people” across the world. However, reality shows as we know from rumors and first-hand accounts are often staged. For example, on cooking competitions on Food Network, the contestants are told the list of “surprise” ingredients they’re working with about a month ahead of time so they can prepare. Nevertheless, the essence of “liveness” and chance we get from the show keeps us watching and cheering on our favorite contestants.
I think that one reason for live TV's prevalence was for marketing purposes. If buying a TV could let people view sporting events, concerts, game shows, shows in theatre, and receive news broadcasts at the same time that people who were actually at the event were seeing it, then it would be much cheaper to buy the television set and watch from home than to buy tickets and travel to all the different sites.
There are many advantages of live television. Like I said, there's a significant economic value for those who liked to see events as they were happening. Having a TV set in the house eliminates the need to buy tickets and pay for travel. Additionally, the different cameras (long, medium, and short) allowed viewers to get all of the best angles and close-ups without paying for expensive seats or moving around in the theater.
There were clear disadvantages as well. Errors were common and couldn't be edited out or redone, and there had to be a huge time commitment by the entire crew to get the performance off in time. Another disadvantage is that if things were caught on air that weren't meant to be seen or heard, you couldn't make the audience "unsee" it.
Liveness of TV today works in a very similar fashion as before. In game shows, sporting events, or contests, fans could watch live and feel like they're there with the crowd because they're seeing everything that the crowd is seeing, and at the same time. News broadcasts can take you to a live reporter anywhere in the world and let you see what's going on right now from thousands of miles away.
As others have said, the main purpose for liveness in the early phases of television was to market to the mainstream. Showing live events on television offered viewers a reason to stay in the home and see vaudeville, sporting, news, and variety from the comfort of their own home instead of buying tickets to the actual live event. This truly offered the television viewer a way to up their pop-cosmopolitain game, while investing a reasonable amount of money in a time where spending was back on the rise. It was also a simpler, cheaper, and more straightforward means of production than the scripted and filmed television that came to the screen later.
There are disadvantages to the prevalence of live television. First, it didn't allow much for program variety. While liveness was used in innovative ways, it still lacked the artistic or storyline freedom of a non-live show. Also, anything could happen or not happen according to plan on live tv, so it would be difficult to have a perfectly executed show without mistakes. Of course, some would say this added to the charm of live tv, but it did make it messy at times.
Liveness is still extremely prevalent today. Late night television, sitcoms, and other specialty shows are filmed in front of a live studio audience to make it seem like the show is actually happening in front of the viewer. Sporting events and newscasts are still live recordings, just more extremely hyperreal than ever with the upgrades in technology. The idea of shooting a live crowd in front of a recorded show urges the viewer at home to be right there with the action.
I think the primary appeal behind the live television trend during television’s first decade can be explained through Spiegal’s definitions of hyper-realism and mise-en-abyne. Hyper-realism involves bring the feeling of being at the theater to the living room. However, unlike theater, television provides a new, glossy experience by utilizing close ups and subjective elements that are not objective like reality. The term mise-en-abyne refers to televisions knack for reflexivity, as seen in the self-aware ad placement in Martha Ray and The Burns and Allen Show. By combining hyper-realism and mise-en-abyne, it can be deduced that television allows its audiences to be in on the joke and part of the process while still invoking the feeling of a theatrical performance. Following the rise of vaudeville and Broadway, television capitalized on the trend with this appeal.
While interest in this kind of entertainment has declined over the past decades, the concept behind this form of live entertainment lives on with reality competition shows. With the immense popularity of programs like American Idol and The Voice, a clear favor for reality singing competitions can be assumed. What these shows do so well is that they recruit talent and produce professional aesthetics that give them the appearance of a live concert. Big, flashy concerts have become the new Broadway over the years, and modern live shows like these use the same concepts as their ancestors to the same effect.
The best part about live television is it allows the viewer to get the best seat for watching an event without having to travel and spend money to see it. One can watch a live sporting event on television and have better much better views of the game, seen in Spiegel’s argument for hyper-realism. More importantly, the viewer can stay in the comfort of his/her own home and save the high costs for going to see that event. This is true for all types of live media, such as theatre and late-night comedy performances. Ultimately, the main benefit to live television is this ability make live performances accessible to more people at a much lower cost.
Although this argument can apply for all live television in the past, I do not think it is necessarily the main source for live televisions success and popularity during TV’s first decade. I believe the style of performances on late radio had a much bigger influence on the live aspect of television. Since television essentially replaced the popularity of radio as evening entertainment, many of the shows and even actors were transferred to television. Since audiences were used to radio’s live style, almost everyone transferred over to television to replace listening to radio and maintained their support for live programming.
The main disadvantage to live television, as we have all seen in Captain Video, is the heightened risk for mistakes, ultimately diminishing the quality of the show through error. Although this can be funny in a comedic sketch, it can be very dangerous to shows with more serious tone. Further, a cast will need extensive time to prepare correctly, which can lead to a large gap between shows, such as when Burnes and Allen aired only once every other week.
The aspect of “liveness” is very diminished in television today. Although some performances are still recorded live, such as sports and award shows, many others give an illusion of being live, but are far from it. For example, late night shows are recorded during the day and the recording is aired later that night. Even further, live performances are sometimes lip-synched, which further diminishes the liveliness of the performance because they are really not performing live; rather pretending to.
Live Television allows for a connection with the audience or at least it can make people think that there is. When a show’s host or a character addressed the viewers, they are trying to build a connection and sell the show. Following this, if everyone knows it’s live, then that connection is more likely to form. After all, we did see an example of what happens when a “child” would watch something like Captain Video. In addition to this, the live television format was what actors in theater were already accustomed to so a psychological advantage would be that they’d treat the camera as an audience in theater and make sure to position themselves accordingly. Expanding on this, since other forms of entertainment before Television were generally live including theater, races, sports, and political events like debates, it allows for a natural transition of media as well as consumption.
Now, there are some clear drawbacks to live television. The obvious one is that all mistakes are broadcast. Although, I’d argue that this can also offer a change at building a relationship with the audience as a sort of “inside look” but it does still pose a problem. Additionally, live television requires all actors, commercials, voices, and follow ups to be on hand which can get expensive in terms of paying all these people and, likely, feeding them. A recording here would save quite a bit of money.
I think “live” television, TV audiences, and audience tracks do end up playing a similar role today as a form of connection. In addition, directed audiences in stand up comedy do offer cues to when a bit ends. Sitcoms, on the other hand will insert a cheer or a gasp here and there to help along emotional interaction with their audience. Overall, this seems to indicate live or simulated live audiences are meant to do just about the same thing they did in the early history of Television.
Live television was advantageous and prevailed during TV’s first decade, in my opinion, because it enabled an endearing sense of authenticity. In the Texaco Star Theatre with Milton Berle, the live aspect of television made for unexpected improvised scenes that created many funny, natural moments for the audience to witness. It made the audience feel as if they were on a joke or unique moment with the show’s host. Furthermore, when Milton Berle slipped on the motor oil and egg mixture in a previous scene, his recovery was so natural and funny that the audience may not even pick up no the fact that this was not intentional. However, it was moments like these that made the sketches and episodes even more entertaining.
Furthermore, the idea of mise en abyme that we read about and discussed in section played a large role in the appeal of live television. By making the audience feel as if they were removed from their own reality such as their living room and in the theatre watching a live performance was important to the effect of live television. By creating this effect people could escape from their present and experience and immerse themselves in a full performance.
Liveliness today has a certain charm to it that has evolved over the years. When watching something live it is exhilarating in a way to know that exact event is happening in another setting and you, as a viewer, get the ‘best seat in the house’ so to say due to the hyper-realism created by television. For a live showing of the Olympics, for an example, you are watching an athletes one defining moment that they have been training for years for. That heightened sense of suspense and expectation is largely created by the idea of live television. Furthermore, live broadcasts and breaking newscasts have certain urgency to them as they have taken precedence over prerecorded material. This sense of excitement or urgency is what live TV conveys today.
When TV first became a form of public entertainment, the first obvious move was to display entertainment in a similar format to how people were used to viewing entertainment: like a stage show. Live television connects the viewers and the audience together, breaking down the fourth wall, and welcoming the viewers to learn about the process along with the producers of the shows. Live shows made people feel comfortable, and also contributed – as Will mentioned above – to a hyper-realism self awareness. The disadvantages to live TV were that, as we saw in the examples of the variety shows in class, that actors weren’t necessarily well prepared, transitions between acts weren’t always smooth. Liveness cheapened entertainment in a way that aided in the separation of quality of TV from cinema. Today live TV is not only incredibly popular, but also incredibly cheap. A studio could crank out five reality shows for less then the price of a drama pilot just to see what sticks. Narrative construction, on the other hand, is a new element that plays out much differently than original Vaudeville inspired shows. On that note, sketch shows today, like Saturday Night Live, play into the nostalgia of this time period (but do a better job of hiding the strings). All and all, liveness plays a different role today then it did in the past as an effort to simulate a live stage experience.
I believe live television was the prevailing format during the early years of new medium because if it allowed the viewer to be transported to events not normally seen from the home, such as sports events and theater, then the only way to make it feel truly authentic was to broadcast it live. This liveness might have also crossed over from the radio years where everything was live, including the music, since these two mediums were closely linked. The only reason radio began to use recordings as its primary format for music, is because much of the money that paid for the live performances was funneled into television. With this being said, the idea of liveness may have originated in this way, but it ultimately prevailed because it allowed accessibility to entertainment already in existence without leaving the household. People often wanted to go see vaudeville performances, or concerts, but may not have had to means. Bringing these events into the home is only one step, but having it broadcast live is another, if the goal of television was authenticity. Furthermore, live broadcasting also separated television from the film industry. TV may not have been able to compete with such an power as Hollywood, without being associated to it, if it had taken up a similar form of entertainment.
Today, live television prevails because it still allows for the sense of "being there" in an authentic form. In the sports industry, TV has altered how we view games. Whereas before television, actually attending sporting events was the norm, today watching it these events on TV has become that standard, and attending the commodity. If it was not for live television, most fans would not receive the authenticity of attending the game, a hyper-authenticity for which the broadcast aims. Furthermore, it allows those without the means of attending something/an event normally, the opportunity to feel that they do. An example of this is the broadcasting of the Oscars, where if it were recorded and broadcast at a different time, viewers would feel one more step removed from an event that the idea of television promises they should feel as if they are there. Also in this case it would make them feel even more removed from the glamour of Hollywood.
I think live television allowed a smoother transition into making it the new main medium of entertainment because it reflected other types of existing live entertainment—such as sports games, theatre/vaudeville, and concerts—that people were already used to watching. While these modes of entertainment didn’t die out, as seen by their continued presence today, television brought the thrill of live entertainment to a consumer’s living room, making television a much more accessible mode of entertainment. As Spiegel noted in Installing the Television Set, television gave you the best seat in the house. Why pay for backrow seats at an expensive piece of theatre when you can turn on your favorite sketch-comedy and be up close and personal? Why invest time and energy going to a sports game when you can just press the button and have the game and commentators at your finger tips? It was a type of amusement that people were already used to, making the TV seem less adventorous and more familiar to the typical American audience.
ReplyDeleteOf course, some of the disadvantages were that because television was live, there wasn’t room for significant error as it was broadcasted to living rooms across the country. Mistakes happen in any type of live performance, but when your audience is some thousand of all ages, the stakes rise. Of course, as we saw in Texaco Star Theatre and even The Burns and Allen Show, performers slip up— which is even less surprising when you take into consideration how little time they have to rehearse for a weekly hour-long show.
Today, we see “liveness” across a wide variety of popular television. Variety shows like SNL give us the sense of a live piece of theatre like Texaco and Burns and Allen did in early TV. News shows like NBC or FOX give us personal accounts of current events as if we were really there. Reality shows like anything on TLC and MTV bring us to “real people” across the world. However, reality shows as we know from rumors and first-hand accounts are often staged. For example, on cooking competitions on Food Network, the contestants are told the list of “surprise” ingredients they’re working with about a month ahead of time so they can prepare. Nevertheless, the essence of “liveness” and chance we get from the show keeps us watching and cheering on our favorite contestants.
I think that one reason for live TV's prevalence was for marketing purposes. If buying a TV could let people view sporting events, concerts, game shows, shows in theatre, and receive news broadcasts at the same time that people who were actually at the event were seeing it, then it would be much cheaper to buy the television set and watch from home than to buy tickets and travel to all the different sites.
ReplyDeleteThere are many advantages of live television. Like I said, there's a significant economic value for those who liked to see events as they were happening. Having a TV set in the house eliminates the need to buy tickets and pay for travel. Additionally, the different cameras (long, medium, and short) allowed viewers to get all of the best angles and close-ups without paying for expensive seats or moving around in the theater.
There were clear disadvantages as well. Errors were common and couldn't be edited out or redone, and there had to be a huge time commitment by the entire crew to get the performance off in time. Another disadvantage is that if things were caught on air that weren't meant to be seen or heard, you couldn't make the audience "unsee" it.
Liveness of TV today works in a very similar fashion as before. In game shows, sporting events, or contests, fans could watch live and feel like they're there with the crowd because they're seeing everything that the crowd is seeing, and at the same time. News broadcasts can take you to a live reporter anywhere in the world and let you see what's going on right now from thousands of miles away.
As others have said, the main purpose for liveness in the early phases of television was to market to the mainstream. Showing live events on television offered viewers a reason to stay in the home and see vaudeville, sporting, news, and variety from the comfort of their own home instead of buying tickets to the actual live event. This truly offered the television viewer a way to up their pop-cosmopolitain game, while investing a reasonable amount of money in a time where spending was back on the rise. It was also a simpler, cheaper, and more straightforward means of production than the scripted and filmed television that came to the screen later.
ReplyDeleteThere are disadvantages to the prevalence of live television. First, it didn't allow much for program variety. While liveness was used in innovative ways, it still lacked the artistic or storyline freedom of a non-live show. Also, anything could happen or not happen according to plan on live tv, so it would be difficult to have a perfectly executed show without mistakes. Of course, some would say this added to the charm of live tv, but it did make it messy at times.
Liveness is still extremely prevalent today. Late night television, sitcoms, and other specialty shows are filmed in front of a live studio audience to make it seem like the show is actually happening in front of the viewer. Sporting events and newscasts are still live recordings, just more extremely hyperreal than ever with the upgrades in technology. The idea of shooting a live crowd in front of a recorded show urges the viewer at home to be right there with the action.
I think the primary appeal behind the live television trend during television’s first decade can be explained through Spiegal’s definitions of hyper-realism and mise-en-abyne. Hyper-realism involves bring the feeling of being at the theater to the living room. However, unlike theater, television provides a new, glossy experience by utilizing close ups and subjective elements that are not objective like reality. The term mise-en-abyne refers to televisions knack for reflexivity, as seen in the self-aware ad placement in Martha Ray and The Burns and Allen Show. By combining hyper-realism and mise-en-abyne, it can be deduced that television allows its audiences to be in on the joke and part of the process while still invoking the feeling of a theatrical performance. Following the rise of vaudeville and Broadway, television capitalized on the trend with this appeal.
ReplyDeleteWhile interest in this kind of entertainment has declined over the past decades, the concept behind this form of live entertainment lives on with reality competition shows. With the immense popularity of programs like American Idol and The Voice, a clear favor for reality singing competitions can be assumed. What these shows do so well is that they recruit talent and produce professional aesthetics that give them the appearance of a live concert. Big, flashy concerts have become the new Broadway over the years, and modern live shows like these use the same concepts as their ancestors to the same effect.
The best part about live television is it allows the viewer to get the best seat for watching an event without having to travel and spend money to see it. One can watch a live sporting event on television and have better much better views of the game, seen in Spiegel’s argument for hyper-realism. More importantly, the viewer can stay in the comfort of his/her own home and save the high costs for going to see that event. This is true for all types of live media, such as theatre and late-night comedy performances. Ultimately, the main benefit to live television is this ability make live performances accessible to more people at a much lower cost.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this argument can apply for all live television in the past, I do not think it is necessarily the main source for live televisions success and popularity during TV’s first decade. I believe the style of performances on late radio had a much bigger influence on the live aspect of television. Since television essentially replaced the popularity of radio as evening entertainment, many of the shows and even actors were transferred to television. Since audiences were used to radio’s live style, almost everyone transferred over to television to replace listening to radio and maintained their support for live programming.
The main disadvantage to live television, as we have all seen in Captain Video, is the heightened risk for mistakes, ultimately diminishing the quality of the show through error. Although this can be funny in a comedic sketch, it can be very dangerous to shows with more serious tone. Further, a cast will need extensive time to prepare correctly, which can lead to a large gap between shows, such as when Burnes and Allen aired only once every other week.
The aspect of “liveness” is very diminished in television today. Although some performances are still recorded live, such as sports and award shows, many others give an illusion of being live, but are far from it. For example, late night shows are recorded during the day and the recording is aired later that night. Even further, live performances are sometimes lip-synched, which further diminishes the liveliness of the performance because they are really not performing live; rather pretending to.
Live Television allows for a connection with the audience or at least it can make people think that there is. When a show’s host or a character addressed the viewers, they are trying to build a connection and sell the show. Following this, if everyone knows it’s live, then that connection is more likely to form. After all, we did see an example of what happens when a “child” would watch something like Captain Video. In addition to this, the live television format was what actors in theater were already accustomed to so a psychological advantage would be that they’d treat the camera as an audience in theater and make sure to position themselves accordingly. Expanding on this, since other forms of entertainment before Television were generally live including theater, races, sports, and political events like debates, it allows for a natural transition of media as well as consumption.
ReplyDeleteNow, there are some clear drawbacks to live television. The obvious one is that all mistakes are broadcast. Although, I’d argue that this can also offer a change at building a relationship with the audience as a sort of “inside look” but it does still pose a problem. Additionally, live television requires all actors, commercials, voices, and follow ups to be on hand which can get expensive in terms of paying all these people and, likely, feeding them. A recording here would save quite a bit of money.
I think “live” television, TV audiences, and audience tracks do end up playing a similar role today as a form of connection. In addition, directed audiences in stand up comedy do offer cues to when a bit ends. Sitcoms, on the other hand will insert a cheer or a gasp here and there to help along emotional interaction with their audience. Overall, this seems to indicate live or simulated live audiences are meant to do just about the same thing they did in the early history of Television.
ReplyDeleteLive television was advantageous and prevailed during TV’s first decade, in my opinion, because it enabled an endearing sense of authenticity. In the Texaco Star Theatre with Milton Berle, the live aspect of television made for unexpected improvised scenes that created many funny, natural moments for the audience to witness. It made the audience feel as if they were on a joke or unique moment with the show’s host. Furthermore, when Milton Berle slipped on the motor oil and egg mixture in a previous scene, his recovery was so natural and funny that the audience may not even pick up no the fact that this was not intentional. However, it was moments like these that made the sketches and episodes even more entertaining.
Furthermore, the idea of mise en abyme that we read about and discussed in section played a large role in the appeal of live television. By making the audience feel as if they were removed from their own reality such as their living room and in the theatre watching a live performance was important to the effect of live television. By creating this effect people could escape from their present and experience and immerse themselves in a full performance.
Liveliness today has a certain charm to it that has evolved over the years. When watching something live it is exhilarating in a way to know that exact event is happening in another setting and you, as a viewer, get the ‘best seat in the house’ so to say due to the hyper-realism created by television. For a live showing of the Olympics, for an example, you are watching an athletes one defining moment that they have been training for years for. That heightened sense of suspense and expectation is largely created by the idea of live television. Furthermore, live broadcasts and breaking newscasts have certain urgency to them as they have taken precedence over prerecorded material. This sense of excitement or urgency is what live TV conveys today.
When TV first became a form of public entertainment, the first obvious move was to display entertainment in a similar format to how people were used to viewing entertainment: like a stage show. Live television connects the viewers and the audience together, breaking down the fourth wall, and welcoming the viewers to learn about the process along with the producers of the shows. Live shows made people feel comfortable, and also contributed – as Will mentioned above – to a hyper-realism self awareness.
ReplyDeleteThe disadvantages to live TV were that, as we saw in the examples of the variety shows in class, that actors weren’t necessarily well prepared, transitions between acts weren’t always smooth. Liveness cheapened entertainment in a way that aided in the separation of quality of TV from cinema.
Today live TV is not only incredibly popular, but also incredibly cheap. A studio could crank out five reality shows for less then the price of a drama pilot just to see what sticks. Narrative construction, on the other hand, is a new element that plays out much differently than original Vaudeville inspired shows. On that note, sketch shows today, like Saturday Night Live, play into the nostalgia of this time period (but do a better job of hiding the strings). All and all, liveness plays a different role today then it did in the past as an effort to simulate a live stage experience.
I believe live television was the prevailing format during the early years of new medium because if it allowed the viewer to be transported to events not normally seen from the home, such as sports events and theater, then the only way to make it feel truly authentic was to broadcast it live. This liveness might have also crossed over from the radio years where everything was live, including the music, since these two mediums were closely linked. The only reason radio began to use recordings as its primary format for music, is because much of the money that paid for the live performances was funneled into television. With this being said, the idea of liveness may have originated in this way, but it ultimately prevailed because it allowed accessibility to entertainment already in existence without leaving the household. People often wanted to go see vaudeville performances, or concerts, but may not have had to means. Bringing these events into the home is only one step, but having it broadcast live is another, if the goal of television was authenticity. Furthermore, live broadcasting also separated television from the film industry. TV may not have been able to compete with such an power as Hollywood, without being associated to it, if it had taken up a similar form of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteToday, live television prevails because it still allows for the sense of "being there" in an authentic form. In the sports industry, TV has altered how we view games. Whereas before television, actually attending sporting events was the norm, today watching it these events on TV has become that standard, and attending the commodity. If it was not for live television, most fans would not receive the authenticity of attending the game, a hyper-authenticity for which the broadcast aims. Furthermore, it allows those without the means of attending something/an event normally, the opportunity to feel that they do. An example of this is the broadcasting of the Oscars, where if it were recorded and broadcast at a different time, viewers would feel one more step removed from an event that the idea of television promises they should feel as if they are there. Also in this case it would make them feel even more removed from the glamour of Hollywood.