OT: This video is brought to you by: A high quality recommendation algorithm. I really love the fact I can click most of my YouTube recommendations and end up with a good video...
OT: This video is brought to you by: A high quality recommendation algorithm.
I really love the fact I can click most of my YouTube recommendations and end up with a good video...
Yes I was tempted to reword the title into "How", but I settled on adding a subtitle instead. It's a good video either way so I didn't mind the very slight clickbait :)
Yes I was tempted to reword the title into "How", but I settled on adding a subtitle instead.
It's a good video either way so I didn't mind the very slight clickbait :)
I like this style of video. Maybe it's only a matter of time before I notice something annoying about it but so far, I like the mix of relaxed explanations, 10 minutes or less and a seemingly...
I like this style of video. Maybe it's only a matter of time before I notice something annoying about it but so far, I like the mix of relaxed explanations, 10 minutes or less and a seemingly trustworthy level of research. I guess the subtle difference between "why" and "how" is forgivable. Reminds me a lot of Vox.
I’ve been watching The Crew on Netflix and it does have the usual sitcom laugh for the jokes but damnit the show is so funny I’m usually laughing louder than the laugh track, so it doesn’t really...
I’ve been watching The Crew on Netflix and it does have the usual sitcom laugh for the jokes but damnit the show is so funny I’m usually laughing louder than the laugh track, so it doesn’t really bother me.
When most people say "laugh track" they are referring to any non-diegetic laughter used to accentuate punchlines. This used to be accomplished with a Laff Box, and later with a live audience.
When most people say "laugh track" they are referring to any non-diegetic laughter used to accentuate punchlines. This used to be accomplished with a Laff Box, and later with a live audience.
Do note that even with live audiences, they are recorded separately for editing reasons, and furthermore, there is usually some kind of obligation for them to laugh. Sometimes there is even an...
Do note that even with live audiences, they are recorded separately for editing reasons, and furthermore, there is usually some kind of obligation for them to laugh. Sometimes there is even an indicator of some sort telling them when to laugh. People who don't laugh enough aren't allowed back. So laughter from live audiences is about as genuine as canned laughter.
(And regardless of all that, equally as annoying.)
Now that's the part I definitely don't agree with ;) Seinfeld and IT Crowd are wonderful comedies, and I don't think their laugh track removes anything from that. I don't think it necessarily adds...
regardless of all that, equally as annoying
Now that's the part I definitely don't agree with ;) Seinfeld and IT Crowd are wonderful comedies, and I don't think their laugh track removes anything from that.
I don't think it necessarily adds to it either but they're products of their time, and having watched them in a time where laugh tracks were common, it's like … a limitation of the time. Like film grain. You can feel it dating the comedy a bit, and you can ignore it, it just changes the feel of the show a bit.
Calling film grain "annoying" would be equally weird imo.
I don't think it does, and i care a lot about that distinction. It calls TBBT as having a laugh track, but that is because it makes the distinction with canned laughter (including what it mentions...
I don't think it does, and i care a lot about that distinction.
It calls TBBT as having a laugh track, but that is because it makes the distinction with canned laughter (including what it mentions as the laff box). But it also lays down why you might want to have the laughs be recorded and replayed as a track over the scene, even if it's the same scene that was shot with those laughs.
As a huge fan of Linehan's sitcoms, and as someone who agrees with his avid defense of live audiences, i get what you're trying to say. Maybe it's because I'm familiar with the subject at hand but the distinction seemed clear to me.
Canned laughs artificially inject reactions. Live audiences provide unique responses, give a sense of community and energize the performers. That's a relevant distinction in my view.
Canned laughs artificially inject reactions. Live audiences provide unique responses, give a sense of community and energize the performers. That's a relevant distinction in my view.
I'm making the distinction in my reply and you're not seeing it, so it's not surprising you don't catch the distinction in the video :) Laugh track: recorded audience laughter, heard in the final...
I'm making the distinction in my reply and you're not seeing it, so it's not surprising you don't catch the distinction in the video :)
Laugh track: recorded audience laughter, heard in the final cut.
Canned laughter: pre-recorded laughter, added to the final cut.
A laugh track may include canned laughter, and may also include live audience reactions.
I don't know why you're being so defensive. Your post implied that neither I nor the article make the distinction. If you recognize that we do, then what's the point you're making? Semantics?
I don't know why you're being so defensive. Your post implied that neither I nor the article make the distinction. If you recognize that we do, then what's the point you're making? Semantics?
OT: This video is brought to you by: A high quality recommendation algorithm.
I really love the fact I can click most of my YouTube recommendations and end up with a good video...
Interesting but I don't really see the "why" answered. Seems like it just went out of style?
Yes I was tempted to reword the title into "How", but I settled on adding a subtitle instead.
It's a good video either way so I didn't mind the very slight clickbait :)
I like this style of video. Maybe it's only a matter of time before I notice something annoying about it but so far, I like the mix of relaxed explanations, 10 minutes or less and a seemingly trustworthy level of research. I guess the subtle difference between "why" and "how" is forgivable. Reminds me a lot of Vox.
I’ve been watching The Crew on Netflix and it does have the usual sitcom laugh for the jokes but damnit the show is so funny I’m usually laughing louder than the laugh track, so it doesn’t really bother me.
Again: most post 1980 shows have no laugh track. They have live audiences.
When most people say "laugh track" they are referring to any non-diegetic laughter used to accentuate punchlines. This used to be accomplished with a Laff Box, and later with a live audience.
Do note that even with live audiences, they are recorded separately for editing reasons, and furthermore, there is usually some kind of obligation for them to laugh. Sometimes there is even an indicator of some sort telling them when to laugh. People who don't laugh enough aren't allowed back. So laughter from live audiences is about as genuine as canned laughter.
(And regardless of all that, equally as annoying.)
Now that's the part I definitely don't agree with ;) Seinfeld and IT Crowd are wonderful comedies, and I don't think their laugh track removes anything from that.
I don't think it necessarily adds to it either but they're products of their time, and having watched them in a time where laugh tracks were common, it's like … a limitation of the time. Like film grain. You can feel it dating the comedy a bit, and you can ignore it, it just changes the feel of the show a bit.
Calling film grain "annoying" would be equally weird imo.
I don't think it does, and i care a lot about that distinction.
It calls TBBT as having a laugh track, but that is because it makes the distinction with canned laughter (including what it mentions as the laff box). But it also lays down why you might want to have the laughs be recorded and replayed as a track over the scene, even if it's the same scene that was shot with those laughs.
As a huge fan of Linehan's sitcoms, and as someone who agrees with his avid defense of live audiences, i get what you're trying to say. Maybe it's because I'm familiar with the subject at hand but the distinction seemed clear to me.
Canned laughs artificially inject reactions. Live audiences provide unique responses, give a sense of community and energize the performers. That's a relevant distinction in my view.
It is a relevant distinction, but it is still useful to have a single term that captures both concepts.
I'm making the distinction in my reply and you're not seeing it, so it's not surprising you don't catch the distinction in the video :)
Laugh track: recorded audience laughter, heard in the final cut.
Canned laughter: pre-recorded laughter, added to the final cut.
A laugh track may include canned laughter, and may also include live audience reactions.
You do make a distinction, but not the same I make. No need to hypothesize about my reading ability.
I don't know why you're being so defensive. Your post implied that neither I nor the article make the distinction. If you recognize that we do, then what's the point you're making? Semantics?