tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post2059680885452537723..comments2024-03-12T12:54:32.926-07:00Comments on Life After Mastermind: Gary's points about MastermindLondiniushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07871325359167581176noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-73316376934381766492011-12-17T09:03:27.507-08:002011-12-17T09:03:27.507-08:00Can you blame me?!
Well done to the Technologists...Can you blame me?!<br /><br />Well done to the Technologists, who were very friendly (as were all the other contestants we met) and worthy winners of the Wall special. (There is, incidentally, another such special due to be shown at some point).Andrew B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12054400570279868608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-33839750132530565092011-12-16T14:16:30.235-08:002011-12-16T14:16:30.235-08:00Hi Peter
Many congratulations on your splendid ac...Hi Peter<br /><br />Many congratulations on your splendid achievements last year. Thanks for commenting.<br /><br />Hi Andrew<br /><br />Nice to see you back on OC ! You kept that one quiet ! <br /><br />Going back to MM, as I said the debate over SS has been going on pretty much since the programme first appeared. It will porbably go on for as long as the programme does. You're never going to have anything that satisfies everyone.<br /><br />DaveLondiniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07871325359167581176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-48503833128420912402011-12-15T11:59:10.464-08:002011-12-15T11:59:10.464-08:00FWIW, I usually don't bother with the SS round...FWIW, I usually don't bother with the SS round, and here's why...<br /><br />I'm a pretty keen chess player with an interest in chess history, and suspect I know more about this subject than the vast majority of people.<br /><br />On the "Tigran Petrosian" round, I would have scored maybe 4 or 5 points (including "Tbilisi". Moreover, apart from his birthplace, I don't feel that I now know more about Petrosian than I did.<br /><br />My view, again FWIW, is that I would much prefer it if the subjects were broader than they currently are, without wishing them to be as broad as (say) "Geography".Andrew B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12054400570279868608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-35362366810932227632011-12-13T08:55:45.727-08:002011-12-13T08:55:45.727-08:00Hi David
It's Peter Reilly here. I agree with...Hi David<br /><br />It's Peter Reilly here. I agree with Paul, and I think many other BBC shows would kill for the viewing audience of MM. Our Grand Final had audience of 1.8M, I understand. It thinks it's fair to say that judging a show's quality purely on it's 'popularity' is fundamentally flawed (saturday night viewing springs to mind!) Without the specialist round, it ain't Mastermind!! In addition what I think attracts viewers is the overall dynamic of the show, that is, watching the contestants cope with pressure (or not, as the case may be) In short it's the whole package that makes people watch of which the SS round is merely one component.<br /><br />Like you, David, I have an affection for MM, which obviously grows when you have an involvement. Certainly as someone with very good, but not spectacular GK, the SS round gave me the chance to play to my strengths - had MM been purely a GK quiz, then I suspect my progress through the rounds in 2010/11 would have been halted.<br /><br />Best Wishes <br /><br />PeterAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16729786582711034122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-54294590863907242162011-12-12T11:48:58.167-08:002011-12-12T11:48:58.167-08:00Hi Rob
Don’t worry – that’s not a rant ! We are a...Hi Rob<br /><br />Don’t worry – that’s not a rant ! We are all of us entitled to our opinion, our likes and dislikes. With regards to the Science questions I remember someone – I think that it was Bamber Gascoigne – commenting that Science questions are much harder to frame, for precisely the reasons that you gave in your post. Which may be one reason why UC does actually do better in terms of audience than MM. I’ll say a little but more about this in reply to Gary.I don’t want to give the impression that I am a totally blind devotee of the show. I do prefer the GK rounds to the SS rounds myself. But I do also think that the show would not be the same without the SS rounds. It wouldn’t be MM. Which is not to say that there is no room for debate over what should be offered as a specialist, and what the scope of such subjects should be. There has been debate over this quite a number of times during the show’s history , and I’ve little doubt that there always will be. <br /><br />Hi Gary<br /><br />Blame ( or thank ) yourself for my in depth reply. If you hadn’t written such an interesting comment in the first place I wouldn’t have written in anything like as much detail. I look forward to your forthcoming appearance, and to your comments afterwards. Do you know, I’m not sure that I agree that there is no reason why UC should have a bigger audience than MM. Its not just about the questions, it’s the nature of the show. The teams are allowed on UC to demonstrate more personality than you want from contenders on MM. Sometimes JP is almost worth the price of admission himself on UC. UC is more of a head to head contest as well – what with the buzzers etc. <br /><br />As I said, I really look forward to your own comments about your appearences in this series, and hope that you’ll be willing to share them with all LAM readers.<br /><br />Hi Skiffle.cat<br /><br />I know who you are now ! Gillian, it’s a pleasure to have you on board ! It’s difficult to make hard and fast pronouncements on the effect of having a greater /lesser amount of time to prepare. I can only speak of my own personal experience. Thinking back to 2007, I think I had about 8 weeks to prepare for the first subject – score 14 and 2 passes – about 12 weeks for the semi – 15 and no passes – and 5 weeks for the final – 15 and no passes. There were no huge discrepancies between the scores despite the differing amounts of time I had to prepare. But hey, maybe I was just lucky in as much as maybe my final subject needed less learning time. I don’t think so , though. I think it was simply because I was in a state of pure blue funk over the final. I never thought I’d win, but I absolutely didn’t want to be left thinking – if only I’d worked harder. As it was I spent three and a half weeks learning SS for the final, and the last 10 days just working on my weakest GK areas, so that if any ‘sitters’ in those categories came up I had a chance of getting them right. <br /><br />I do still think that a number of people who appear on the show are doing so to test themselves on a particular passion for their specialist. Actually I had the luxury of doing this on champion of champions where I took the Bayeux Tapestry – which incidentally proved to be my best ever specialist score. Actually I can't remember how long I had to prepare - it was about 2 months I think.<br /><br />Hi Paul<br /><br />Congratulations Champ ! Very well done on your excellent win on Only Connect ! I agree with you that if you make huge changes to the SS round, then you change the programme. What you end up with won’t be Mastermind. Which is not to say that the show is above criticism. Far from it. AS I said earlier, the specialist rounds have provoked debate for pretty much the whole of the history of the show. And there’s nothing wrong with healthy debate.Londiniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07871325359167581176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-12059391619958122202011-12-12T06:48:12.075-08:002011-12-12T06:48:12.075-08:00I find this very interesting and have linked to it...I find this very interesting and have linked to it on my blog as I think its worth a read and also put my view up.......http://thequizaddict.blogspot.com/DanielFullardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07635161450969202410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-2938406896469808732011-12-12T01:19:27.748-08:002011-12-12T01:19:27.748-08:00Interesting thoughts. I think there are two areas ...Interesting thoughts. I think there are two areas to consider - the attractiveness of the show to viewers and the experience for contestants. I'll take them in turn.<br /><br />I think you can overstate the small size of MM's audience. The production team told me that it's still one of BBC2's most popular programmes (always in the top ten), and the audience is incredibly loyal - they can mess the scheduling about (which they do) and they still all come back again. This means the format must be doing something right. However, it is true that some people won't watch it, and that the problem for many of them is the SS round. I know the production team work hard to get a mix of subjects (arts, popular culture, sport and history in the case of my first round game), but even then there are programmes where the general public can probably answer very few SS questions. This matters to some people, but not to everyone. Beyond Gary's suggestion, I can't see what can be done about this without changing the whole programme.<br /><br />As people who saw me on MM will know, I tended to put in an average perfomance on SS and then recover the situation (until the final, anyway) on GK. As you can imagine, therefore, I like the extended GK round. However, the fact remains that MM winners have always done excellently on both SS and GK (Ian and Jesse certainly did in the last two), and you can't do that just by cramming. Unless and until someone wins on the basis of faultless but boring SS and hopeless GK (which I can't see happening), my view is if it ain't broke, don't fix it....Paul Steepleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14850380609899260934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-11576220261293502002011-12-11T17:32:47.715-08:002011-12-11T17:32:47.715-08:00I've read the comments and posts on this with ...I've read the comments and posts on this with interest; I'd like to just respond to one comment you make, Dave:<br />"Witness the number of people who produce great specialist rounds in the first round, then bomb in the semis on specialist. If it was merely a job of boning up for them, then there really oughtn’t to be that much of a difference between any of their specialist rounds. Yet there often is."<br /> Both times that I entered MM, I did better in the first round than in the semis. I'd say that the main reason was the shorter length of time to prepare for the semifinal. In the last series, I spent at least 12 weeks on Josephine Baker (scored 18) but only had 8 weeks to do Butch Cassidy (scored just 7). There were other factors in that poor performance, but if I'd had as long to study for the semi as for the first round, I'd certainly have done better than that.Skiffle.cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14196107677175829685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-50280704459080063112011-12-11T13:01:13.106-08:002011-12-11T13:01:13.106-08:00Hi Dave (and Rob),
Thanks very much for such an i...Hi Dave (and Rob),<br /><br />Thanks very much for such an in-depth reply; I have to say I was a bit embarrassed when I had to break my post into two, as it was too long to post as one response, so I'm glad that it didn't put you off reading it! I thought you may disagree; for obvious reasons, I know that the show is important to you, as you acknowledge!<br /><br />The slightly irritating thing is that I could answer your post much more easily if I could comment on my own recent experience, but I can't and won't, so I will probably take up this discussion again in the new year when I've been on.<br /><br />However,just to address a few things: first, there is no reason why UC should have a bigger audience than MM. Both are tough, highbrow quizzes. Which is better - to have a loyal but smallish audience, or one of BBC2's highest regular audiences, for similarly pitched shows? UC is hardly 'Push The Button with Ant and Dec'! Both shows audiences have dropped since the heady (and never repeatable) era of the 1980s but MM, proportionately far more. And it has to be down to the format. In this era, shows live or die by viewing figures - MM is not immune (as we saw in 1999). And although I'm critical, I have affection for it - I want it to keep going.<br /><br />Second, to end the savoir/connoitre problem, you should only allow broad topics, unlearnable in their entirety in 6-12 weeks. Nearly everybody I've met who has been on the show revised like mad for their SS - yes, most people picked things they had a prior interest in (I am in a minority, I think, in picking 'tactical' subjects like the planets, or as I did this time, the 7 wonders, and starting from scratch!) but what they knew or didn't know on the night was based on short-term, not long-term study. Just look at what people say on the final 'filmed segments' about the amount of work they are putting in!<br /><br />Third, Rob is right in that the choice of SS often has a bearing on how well contenders do. Pick a narrow subject, or someone with a smallish canon of work (eg JK Rowling, not Agatha Christie - though the chestnutty 'The Novels of Emily Bronte' or 'The Operas of Beethoven' are obviously better, if unlikely to be permissible!) rather than something science based, broad or a bit woolly (eg 'Western Ceremonial Magic', say) and you stand a far better chance. I'd say that this has a much bigger bearing on heat 1/semi SS score discrepancy, though to prove it I'd have to do some major stat analysis!<br /><br />Lastly, I agree that MM's main attraction is that you get roughly 80-90 fat-free, good GK questions a show, but why do you have to sit through 15 minutes of, to my eyes, flannel before getting to them? I know many people who fast forward the iPlayer or Sky+ machine to halfway through - I often have! I'm sure Rob has done, too. Equally, as far as drama goes, the main drama of watching the contender's increasing panic/confidence/concentration/despair should be in round 2, but you know as well as I do that anyone 7 or 8 points behind after the SS has, under most circumstances, a snowball's chance in hell of winning, so often that is lacking when it should matter most. I don't think the amount of drama in the first, SS round is enough to rescue it, but that's my opinion.<br /><br />And, yes, I totally agree that the 'chats' were awful as a contender. They made for dreadful telly too - grilling someone on camera, in front of a live audience, who is already wracked with nerves for 2 minutes and expecting them to be interesting or witty just ain't gonna work!<br /><br />But I do see where you are coming from...I just think MM could be a better show, and I want it to be, and I want it to stay on my telly, and not get cancelled, or shunted from pillar to post. And like I said, I will probably take this up in April (or thereabouts) again, so be warned! Many thanks for the reply though! Garydrgaryegranthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660095695123216649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401280171563686515.post-6440997281958805842011-12-11T11:24:18.846-08:002011-12-11T11:24:18.846-08:00Dave (and Gary),
I find this exchange very intere...Dave (and Gary),<br /><br />I find this exchange very interesting, especially as I approach the subject as a (former) quizzer who played almost everything except Mastermind.<br /><br />While I skim through your weekly summary of the show (and Mr Weaver's too), I only tune in to Mastermind if I actually know one of the contenders; and even then I tend to skip the specialist rounds of the other contenders. I appreciate that the specialist subjects are one of the ways in which Mastermind is distinctive, but to me they are also really rather tedious - and I would have thought that I should be right in the middle of the core audience.<br /><br />I have three problems with the specialist subjects. First, very simply, I don't care about many of the subjects. As you yourself have commented previously, the worst possible answer to a quiz question is "I don't care", yet that is my reaction to most of the specialist questions. It perhaps also does not help that many of the subjects - and I'm going to tread carefully here, for fear of causing unnecessary offence - reflect a certain middle-aged Radio 4-listening view of the world, being particularly skewed towards writers and literary series, other creative arts, and history and historical figures. By definition, these subjects - along with certain elements of popular culture, such as television series and film franchises - offer a definitively-bound answer space, permitting the dedicated contender to study the entirety of a subject, without fear that the question writers would approach it in a different way; they can be contrasted with many subjects from (for example) the sciences or the "-ologies", which tend to have much 'fuzzier' margins. Sadly, these latter subjects are ones which I would tend to find more interesting.<br /><br />Second, the subjects do seem to be becoming increasingly narrow: too often a specialist subject seems to involve just the works of a particular individual, or even just a particular group of an individual's works; it seems actually less usual these days - though this may be a trick of my memory - to hear someone take a subject introduced by the classic "life and work of" formulation. This means that the questions tend to become also more detailed, so as to maintain the parity of difficulty between specialist subjects; for example, if one has not seen a particular television programme, I find no interest in watching someone try to recall a particular character's response to another character's line, or a plot detail of no inherent significance beyond the show's universe.<br /><br />Further to this, however, the third problem is that I don't feel that I actually find out anything of interest about most of the specialist subjects: their inherent specificity (and the aforementioned detailed questions) preclude any indication of the subject's context or wider importance. In fact, I often used to find myself coming to the end of two minutes about a particular person very little the wiser as to why I should have heard of them, or what they did that was actually notable. In fact, to pick up the point about savoir and connaître, I get the feeling that neither the contenders nor the question setters could actually write an essay discussing the subject, even if they could tell you every last detail about the subject's mother's budgerigar.<br /><br />None of this is to deny that a lot of people do enjoy the show - you included, of course - but I personally would enjoy it much more (and watch it regularly) if the specialist subjects were just a bit broader. I wouldn't go as far as Gary - "geography" is a category, not a specialist subject - but I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to specify beyond the classic "life and work of" level, or to take a subject that necessitates minor plot point and dialogue questions to make it challenging.<br /><br />Ok, rant over!<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />RobRadindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15479757219736635939noreply@blogger.com