On 28-May-22 19:57, Hellerat wrote:
> On 22/05/2022 22:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 22-May-22 10:30, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 16/05/2022 17:37, Nick Odell wrote:
>>
>>> I liked the book very much but not the film.  I thought it was one of
>>> those films which tells the story OK but misses much of the depth of
>>> the book, and hence lacked much of what stayed with me about the book.
>>>
>>
>> It is pretty rare to see a film, after having read the book, and not
>> think it falls short.
>> I would be interested to hear where people have found exceptions to
>> this 'rule'.
>>
> Graham Greene's "Travels with my Aunt" is the only book I've read where
> I preferred the film version. The rot started for me with "Mary Poppins"
> when I was quite young, as the Disney version was so far removed from
> the original that I refused to consider it having anything to do with P
> L Travers and saw it as a strange sort of cartoon with Dick van Dyke
> being particularly bad.
>
> I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but I know what I mean, I also
> know what I like whether or not it's Art.
>
Hurrah for the re-emergence of the Hellerat!

The whole problem with this topic is that, having (say) read the book &
then seen the film, you cannot know what your reaction would have been
had you done the opposite.

I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:48:24 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>On 28-May-22 19:57, Hellerat wrote:
>> On 22/05/2022 22:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 22-May-22 10:30, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 16/05/2022 17:37, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I liked the book very much but not the film.  I thought it was one of
>>>> those films which tells the story OK but misses much of the depth of
>>>> the book, and hence lacked much of what stayed with me about the book.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is pretty rare to see a film, after having read the book, and not
>>> think it falls short.
>>> I would be interested to hear where people have found exceptions to
>>> this 'rule'.
>>>
>> Graham Greene's "Travels with my Aunt" is the only book I've read where
>> I preferred the film version. The rot started for me with "Mary Poppins"
>> when I was quite young, as the Disney version was so far removed from
>> the original that I refused to consider it having anything to do with P
>> L Travers and saw it as a strange sort of cartoon with Dick van Dyke
>> being particularly bad.
>>
>> I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but I know what I mean, I also
>> know what I like whether or not it's Art.
>>
>Hurrah for the re-emergence of the Hellerat!
>
>The whole problem with this topic is that, having (say) read the book &
>then seen the film, you cannot know what your reaction would have been
>had you done the opposite.
>
>I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.

I think I saw the Sound of Music before I read about Anna and the King
of Siam and I preferred the film. I have the feeling I've already
posted that?

On Sat, 28 May 2022 at 21:42:28, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:48:24 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>>On 28-May-22 19:57, Hellerat wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2022 22:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 22-May-22 10:30, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>> On 16/05/2022 17:37, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I liked the book very much but not the film.  I thought it was one of
>>>>> those films which tells the story OK but misses much of the depth of
>>>>> the book, and hence lacked much of what stayed with me about the book.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is pretty rare to see a film, after having read the book, and not
>>>> think it falls short.

Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
have a television set; it is mostly for the servants". Yes, the book is
often _deeper_ than the film. (There is also the case an UMRAt has
posited - granted, not very common - where the film-maker has removed
the _not very good_ bits of the book.)

>>>> I would be interested to hear where people have found exceptions to
>>>> this 'rule'.

I was trying to think of one, and admit I couldn't - though I think
that's more failing memory than any proof (-:.
>>>>
>>> Graham Greene's "Travels with my Aunt" is the only book I've read where

I've seen cases where the book was written _after_ the film, and that's
often not a success.

>>> I preferred the film version. The rot started for me with "Mary Poppins"
>>> when I was quite young, as the Disney version was so far removed from
>>> the original that I refused to consider it having anything to do with P
>>> L Travers and saw it as a strange sort of cartoon with Dick van Dyke
>>> being particularly bad.

I _think_ I read the book first and shared your opinion; it's a Long
Time Ago. (DvD was certainly bad!) Mind you, I have since grown very
fond of the Sherman brothers' tunes (to both MP and CCBB). Two in
particular.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but I know what I mean, I also
>>> know what I like whether or not it's Art.

Same here. Sometimes even making an inverse point of it!
>>>
>>Hurrah for the re-emergence of the Hellerat!

Indeed!
>>
>>The whole problem with this topic is that, having (say) read the book &
>>then seen the film, you cannot know what your reaction would have been
>>had you done the opposite.

Well said.
>>
>>I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>>remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.

Wahey! Someone else who finds that. Yes, I really do latch onto the
first version I hear. Similarly with classical music - even if I
eventually find a recording of the actual composer playing or conducting
the piece, and I _do_ like to find those, I _sometimes_ prefer the
version I first heard.
>
>I think I saw the Sound of Music before I read about Anna and the King
>of Siam and I preferred the film. I have the feeling I've already
>posted that?

Er - the King and I, I think you mean? Though both SoM and TK&I are
musicals, with excellent music to boot, which further confuses the
matter; musicals are not true followings of the story. (Actually, I
don't think the true story of the von Trapp family singers was in
widely-digestible form when the musical film [after Broadway show] was
made; there was an earlier German film - based I think on a German book
- but not in English [or American].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament
utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish trial by
jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)

On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
> remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.

Yes, quite a few for me too. Julie Driscoll's The Wheel's On Fire, The
Cowboy Junkies' Sweet Jane, Jimmy LaFave's Not Dark Yet and several
others definitely come into that category.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 29/05/2022 01:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
> infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
> snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
> have a television set; it is mostly for the servants".

I don't find that too surprising. When I got my first TV permit[1] not
all that long ago[2] I carefully read it from start to finish to see
exactly what was covered. It said that the permit[3] covered my family
and domestic servants to watch and record TV and radio programmes. There
was no mention of friends, relatives or neighbours.

[1] Cunning attempt to avoid spelling mistakes.
[2] Though quite a while back in terms of TV broadcasting.
[3] See [1].

--
Ric

Sid Nuncius wrote:

>On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>> remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.
>
>Yes, quite a few for me too. Julie Driscoll's The Wheel's On Fire, The
>Cowboy Junkies' Sweet Jane, Jimmy LaFave's Not Dark Yet and several
>others definitely come into that category.

I cannot recall ever hearing any other versions of the first two,
and the third is outwith my experience.

For me

Eva Cassidy - Fields of Gold
Dave Burland - I Don't Like Mondays
Roy Bailey - Beeswing
June Tabor - The Band Played Waltzing Matilda

stand out.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:

>
> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
> remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.
>
It's odd, isn't it. Even though I have lots of favourite recordings, I
have multiple favourite ones of certain pieces, like operas or Lieder or
string quartets. If a piece of music is a good piece, surely anyone
could and should have a go without their interpretation being given the
rather second-rate tag of 'cover'? Perhaps some of these covers are even
better than the originals.

--
Kate B

On 29/05/2022 15:32, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>>> remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.
>>
>> Yes, quite a few for me too. Julie Driscoll's The Wheel's On Fire, The
>> Cowboy Junkies' Sweet Jane, Jimmy LaFave's Not Dark Yet and several
>> others definitely come into that category.
>
> I cannot recall ever hearing any other versions of the first two,
> and the third is outwith my experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-NbkW-wBo
It's (to me, unmistakeably) a Bob Dylan song. I think it's a fantastic
recording.

Which reminds me, Adele's version of Make You Feel My Love is another
for me.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 29-May-22 18:36, Sid Nuncius wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-NbkW-wBo
> It's (to me, unmistakeably) a Bob Dylan song. I think it's a fantastic
> recording.

Not fair! That sent me on an extended journey through several versions
of that song. I still prefer Dylan's, but there you go.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 13:14:43, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 29/05/2022 01:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
>>infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
>>snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
>>have a television set; it is mostly for the servants".
>
>I don't find that too surprising. When I got my first TV permit[1] not
>all that long ago[2] I carefully read it from start to finish to see
>exactly what was covered. It said that the permit[3] covered my family
>and domestic servants to watch and record TV and radio programmes.
>There was no mention of friends, relatives or neighbours.
[]
I miss the TV tax receipt of old: they've "dumbed it down" now. It's not
_that_ long ago (well, it probably is, but it doesn't seem so to me)
that (a) it talked about "wireless telegraphy receiving apparatus" (or
some similar phrase), and (b) told me it was only for receiving certain
signals, and if I received anything else, I was to inform the secretary
of state and no-one else, or something like that. [And no, both (a) and
(b) were definitely for TV - I don't remember ever reading a wireless
licence.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Listen, three-eyes, don't you try to out-wierd me, I get stranger things than
you free with my breakfast cereal. (Zaphod Beeblebrox in the link episode)

On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 07:09:52, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>>remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear
>>later.
>
>Yes, quite a few for me too. Julie Driscoll's The Wheel's On Fire, The
>Cowboy Junkies' Sweet Jane, Jimmy LaFave's Not Dark Yet and several
>others definitely come into that category.
>
Then there are the cases (I think we discussed this recently) where
alternative words stick in your mind - especially comic ones: Ill Wind
(Mozart HC1), Lilian Thompson (Chopin's little waltz), or The Chapel
Lead is Missing (Jimmy Brown/Les Trois Cloches). And I suspect the
_majority_ of those now alive are unaware that "on top of spaghetti"
_wasn't_ the original words. (Weren't? Yes, weren't. Wasn't the original
lyric, is probably what I was thinking.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Listen, three-eyes, don't you try to out-wierd me, I get stranger things than
you free with my breakfast cereal. (Zaphod Beeblebrox in the link episode)

On 29/05/2022 20:02, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 29-May-22 18:36, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-NbkW-wBo
>> It's (to me, unmistakeably) a Bob Dylan song. I think it's a fantastic
>> recording.
>
> Not fair!  That sent me on an extended journey through several versions
> of that song.  I still prefer Dylan's, but there you go.

Fair enough - Dylan really isn't bad at all. :o) It's just that I
don't really know his later albums (by which I mean anything from Saved
onward), so Jimmy LaFave's was the first version I heard. I thought it
was exceptional (and still do).

I came across a version by Shelby Lynne a couple of weeks ago. It's
insipid and instantly forgettable. Which just goes to show.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 29/05/2022 21:24, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> Then there are the cases (I think we discussed this recently) where
> alternative words stick in your mind - especially comic ones: Ill Wind
> (Mozart HC1),

Er...I think it's the rondo finale of Mozart's 4th Horn concerto, not
his first.

DINTAFPOU?

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 13:14:43, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> On 29/05/2022 01:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
>>> infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
>>> snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
>>> have a television set; it is mostly for the servants".
>>
>> I don't find that too surprising. When I got my first TV permit[1] not
>> all that long ago[2] I carefully read it from start to finish to see
>> exactly what was covered. It said that the permit[3] covered my family
>> and domestic servants to watch and record TV and radio programmes.
>> There was no mention of friends, relatives or neighbours.
> []
> I miss the TV tax receipt of old: they've "dumbed it down" now. It's not
> _that_ long ago (well, it probably is, but it doesn't seem so to me)
> that (a) it talked about "wireless telegraphy receiving apparatus" (or
> some similar phrase), and (b) told me it was only for receiving certain
> signals, and if I received anything else, I was to inform the secretary
> of state and no-one else, or something like that. [And no, both (a) and
> (b) were definitely for TV - I don't remember ever reading a wireless
> licence.]

I can recall going to our local P.O. to purchase a wireless licence (10/6d.
Seems to ring a bell) though I can’t recall ever reading the small print…

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 29/05/2022 15:32, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>>> remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.
>>
>> Yes, quite a few for me too. Julie Driscoll's The Wheel's On Fire, The
>> Cowboy Junkies' Sweet Jane, Jimmy LaFave's Not Dark Yet and several
>> others definitely come into that category.
>
> I cannot recall ever hearing any other versions of the first two,
> and the third is outwith my experience.
>
> For me
>
> Eva Cassidy - Fields of Gold
> Dave Burland - I Don't Like Mondays
> Roy Bailey - Beeswing
> June Tabor - The Band Played Waltzing Matilda
>
> stand out.
>
> Chris

I haven't heard Dave Burland's version of I Don't Like Mondays, but I
imagine it would be good. I don't recall Roy Bailey doing Beeswing. The
late Roy worked with SIL for a few years, and I was kept informed of his
albums, but I don't remember this. June Tabor's versions of anything are
sublime, and I heard The Band Played Waltzing Matilda by her about fifty
years ago. I only heard Eric Bogle performing it last year.
Steve

On 30.5.22 09:21, steve hague wrote:
> The Band Played Waltzing Matilda by her about fifty years ago

I am really hoping it was not quite that long ago, although I see she
recorded it in 1976 which would probably have been my first hearing of it.

Suddenly feel much older.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 29/05/2022 18:36, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 15:32, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>>>> remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear
>>>> later.
>>>
>>> Yes, quite a few for me too.  Julie Driscoll's The Wheel's On Fire, The
>>> Cowboy Junkies' Sweet Jane, Jimmy LaFave's Not Dark Yet and several
>>> others definitely come into that category.
>>
>> I cannot recall ever hearing any other versions of the first two,
>> and the third is outwith my experience.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-NbkW-wBo
> It's (to me, unmistakeably) a Bob Dylan song. I think it's a fantastic
> recording.
>
> Which reminds me, Adele's version of Make You Feel My Love is another
> for me.
>
I remember hearing All Along the Watchtower when I was in my teens and
thinking I don't know what this is about, but I know it's amazing. Then
the Hendrix version arrived. Even Dylan was seriously impressed.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 07:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
<toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:

>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 13:14:43, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> On 29/05/2022 01:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>> Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
>>>> infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
>>>> snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
>>>> have a television set; it is mostly for the servants".
>>>
>>> I don't find that too surprising. When I got my first TV permit[1] not
>>> all that long ago[2] I carefully read it from start to finish to see
>>> exactly what was covered. It said that the permit[3] covered my family
>>> and domestic servants to watch and record TV and radio programmes.
>>> There was no mention of friends, relatives or neighbours.
>> []
>> I miss the TV tax receipt of old: they've "dumbed it down" now. It's not
>> _that_ long ago (well, it probably is, but it doesn't seem so to me)
>> that (a) it talked about "wireless telegraphy receiving apparatus" (or
>> some similar phrase), and (b) told me it was only for receiving certain
>> signals, and if I received anything else, I was to inform the secretary
>> of state and no-one else, or something like that. [And no, both (a) and
>> (b) were definitely for TV - I don't remember ever reading a wireless
>> licence.]
>
>I can recall going to our local P.O. to purchase a wireless licence (10/6d.
>Seems to ring a bell) though I can’t recall ever reading the small print…

With that price ticket on it, you're sure you bought the item at the
Post Office, not from the Haberdasher?

Nick

On Mon, 30 May 2022 09:29:05 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On 30.5.22 09:21, steve hague wrote:
>> The Band Played Waltzing Matilda by her about fifty years ago
>
>I am really hoping it was not quite that long ago, although I see she
>recorded it in 1976 which would probably have been my first hearing of it.
>
I heard her sing it at The Blue Boar Folk Club, Prittlewell and I
think it might have been before the recording came out. It was one of
those I-know-exactly-where-I-was-when-I-heard-that moments.

The Pogues do a creditable version too.

Nick
>Suddenly feel much older.

steve hague wrote:

>On 29/05/2022 15:32, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/05/2022 20:48, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can think of songs where I first heard a cover version, and that
>>>> remains the 'proper' version to me, regardless of what I might hear later.

>> For me
>>
>> Eva Cassidy - Fields of Gold
>> Dave Burland - I Don't Like Mondays
>> Roy Bailey - Beeswing
>> June Tabor - The Band Played Waltzing Matilda
>>
>> stand out.

>I haven't heard Dave Burland's version of I Don't Like Mondays, but I
>imagine it would be good.

Indeed. I have it on a couple of LPs: Rollin' and Willin'.

>I don't recall Roy Bailey doing Beeswing. The
>late Roy worked with SIL for a few years, and I was kept informed of his
>albums, but I don't remember this.

It is track 8 on Coda.

> June Tabor's versions of anything are
>sublime, and I heard The Band Played Waltzing Matilda by her about fifty
>years ago. I only heard Eric Bogle performing it last year.

Gosh! Doesn't time fly? I guess the first time I saw her would
have been 1986, followed by Eric in 1994.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On 30.5.22 11:36, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Gosh! Doesn't time fly?

Yes I first saw her as a "Silly Sister". I think that was late 1976 but
cannot be sure.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 30.5.22 11:12, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 07:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
> <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:
>
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 13:14:43, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>> On 29/05/2022 01:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>> Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
>>>>> infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
>>>>> snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
>>>>> have a television set; it is mostly for the servants".
>>>>
>>>> I don't find that too surprising. When I got my first TV permit[1] not
>>>> all that long ago[2] I carefully read it from start to finish to see
>>>> exactly what was covered. It said that the permit[3] covered my family
>>>> and domestic servants to watch and record TV and radio programmes.
>>>> There was no mention of friends, relatives or neighbours.
>>> []
>>> I miss the TV tax receipt of old: they've "dumbed it down" now. It's not
>>> _that_ long ago (well, it probably is, but it doesn't seem so to me)
>>> that (a) it talked about "wireless telegraphy receiving apparatus" (or
>>> some similar phrase), and (b) told me it was only for receiving certain
>>> signals, and if I received anything else, I was to inform the secretary
>>> of state and no-one else, or something like that. [And no, both (a) and
>>> (b) were definitely for TV - I don't remember ever reading a wireless
>>> licence.]
>>
>> I can recall going to our local P.O. to purchase a wireless licence (10/6d.
>> Seems to ring a bell) though I can’t recall ever reading the small print…
>
> With that price ticket on it, you're sure you bought the item at the
> Post Office, not from the Haberdasher?
>
> Nick

I think it was 7/6 and they stopped it when they realised that much of
the money was being paid to the Post Office to issue them.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

krw wrote:

>I think it was 7/6 and they stopped it when they realised that much of
>the money was being paid to the Post Office to issue them.

ISTR that it was said that dog licences cost more in
administration than they brought in.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 30.5.22 11:12, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 07:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
>> <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 13:14:43, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote
>>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>>> On 29/05/2022 01:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>>> Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
>>>>>> infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
>>>>>> snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
>>>>>> have a television set; it is mostly for the servants".
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't find that too surprising. When I got my first TV permit[1] not
>>>>> all that long ago[2] I carefully read it from start to finish to see
>>>>> exactly what was covered. It said that the permit[3] covered my family
>>>>> and domestic servants to watch and record TV and radio programmes.
>>>>> There was no mention of friends, relatives or neighbours.
>>>> []
>>>> I miss the TV tax receipt of old: they've "dumbed it down" now. It's not
>>>> _that_ long ago (well, it probably is, but it doesn't seem so to me)
>>>> that (a) it talked about "wireless telegraphy receiving apparatus" (or
>>>> some similar phrase), and (b) told me it was only for receiving certain
>>>> signals, and if I received anything else, I was to inform the secretary
>>>> of state and no-one else, or something like that. [And no, both (a) and
>>>> (b) were definitely for TV - I don't remember ever reading a wireless
>>>> licence.]
>>>
>>> I can recall going to our local P.O. to purchase a wireless licence (10/6d.
>>> Seems to ring a bell) though I can’t recall ever reading the small print…
>>
>> With that price ticket on it, you're sure you bought the item at the
>> Post Office, not from the Haberdasher?
>>
>> Nick
>
> I think it was 7/6 and they stopped it when they realised that much of
> the money was being paid to the Post Office to issue them.
>

The licence cost 10 shillings in 1923. [
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom ]

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 30/05/2022 11:12, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 07:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
> <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:
>
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 at 13:14:43, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote
>>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>> On 29/05/2022 01:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>> Not that any UMRAt would ever be guilty of it, but the "the book is
>>>>> infinitely better than the film" view _often_ has more than a whiff of
>>>>> snobbishness about it - rather like (remember this one?) "Oh yes - we
>>>>> have a television set; it is mostly for the servants".
>>>>
>>>> I don't find that too surprising. When I got my first TV permit[1] not
>>>> all that long ago[2] I carefully read it from start to finish to see
>>>> exactly what was covered. It said that the permit[3] covered my family
>>>> and domestic servants to watch and record TV and radio programmes.
>>>> There was no mention of friends, relatives or neighbours.
>>> []
>>> I miss the TV tax receipt of old: they've "dumbed it down" now. It's not
>>> _that_ long ago (well, it probably is, but it doesn't seem so to me)
>>> that (a) it talked about "wireless telegraphy receiving apparatus" (or
>>> some similar phrase), and (b) told me it was only for receiving certain
>>> signals, and if I received anything else, I was to inform the secretary
>>> of state and no-one else, or something like that. [And no, both (a) and
>>> (b) were definitely for TV - I don't remember ever reading a wireless
>>> licence.]
>>
>> I can recall going to our local P.O. to purchase a wireless licence (10/6d.
>> Seems to ring a bell) though I can’t recall ever reading the small print…
>
> With that price ticket on it, you're sure you bought the item at the
> Post Office, not from the Haberdasher?
>
> Nick

Milliner, Shirley.

john