Quote: chipolata @ June 13 2013, 12:03 PM BSTThis thread is basically saying that if you don't like a show it should never have been made. Doesn't matter if people like it or it's well respected, if you don't like it it should be erased from existence.
Or you could always try using one of these. David?
Quote: Julio Lluvia @ June 13 2013, 1:27 AM BSTAaron may I ask why you prefer studio based sitcoms?
I really can't see it, I hate that I am being told when I should laugh of course I make exceptions for 2point4 Children, Cheers and Roseanne, but these were programmes I associate with being a kid and not really having formed an opinion of my own, I am sure there are other studio based sitcoms I like also but recently I can't think of any, The Big Bang Theory I think I might actually enjoy but I cannot stand the canned/audience laughter and so have always thought of it as another low brow (that pretends to be high brow because they know about physics) sitcom.
I would really like to know why studio based appeals to you more.
Okay, two points here. To answer your question first:
I simply prefer the tone, feel - and often, style of humour - of studio sitcoms. They are more friendly, welcoming and escapist. They feel warmer, more honest, and even if I don't find an episode particularly funny, the experience of getting lost in the world is far more enjoyable, so I'll still likely have a smile on my face after the credits.
Opposingly, non-audience sitcoms lack the warm tone. There are exceptions, but they generally feel intensely cynical and, rather than provide escapism, magnify the often awfulness of the real world. I prefer to 'switch off' and be entertained and amused than have realistic monsters and awkward situations thrust in my face.
The second point, I'm sure I'll sound condescending in addressing. I don't mean to be, but it's a very complex topic even aside from the deeply subjective nature of what is and isn't funny in the first place.
"I don't need to be told when to laugh"
Frustratingly, I read a very good article on this subject recently, but can't for the life of me find it now. So I'll do my best to summarise.
To exhibit that attitude is to express a fundamental misunderstanding of how comedy and laughter work, to ignore the history of sitcom, and to throw one's toys out of the pram. It is, in essence: "I do not find this funny. I do not understand why others are finding this funny. This angers me."
(I should point out I am a total comedy geek and have thought and read about this a lot - I don't blame you or anyone else for not having done the same!)
Have you ever been provoked to laugh by a friend or family member's laughter, rather than what they are initially laughing at in the first place? Or simply found the original subject of amusement more funny because others are laughing? You have not punched your best friend in the face, I hope, for telling you when to laugh? Laughter is contagious. Laughter tracks do not tell us when to laugh; they tell us that other people find something funny.
Radio and television are relatively new mediums, essentially only developing in the post-war period. Sitcom specifically, as we recognise it today, first appeared in the 1950s. In developing the art form, producers (not to mention writers, directors and actors) took their cues from what they did know: theatre and cinema. Not least of these was recording programmes in front of a live audience. In part this was what the actors were used to in order to judge their timing, but it has the wonderful side-effect of bringing a distant audience - i.e. at home, perhaps alone, watching television - into the environment of the performance.
You (hopefully) do not watch a performance in a theatre, or a screening in a cinema, all by yourself. The communal viewing experience makes it more enjoyable. Humans are social creatures, by and large, who take cues from others not only in laughter and amusment, but fear, shock, thrill and horror. Ever seen a comic play at a theatre, and experienced the sheer joy of being in a room erupting in spontaneous laughter? Ever thought a film was absolutely wonderful at the cinema, then been far less impressed to see it on television at home some months later?
It's also true that different types of humour work better with different types of production. The one time I can recall a gag-packed sitcom being produced without an audience - The Bleak Old Shop Of Stuff - it fell completely on its arse. Without the communal experience of others' laughter, the weird and wonderful world created by the writer just felt lame and limp. There's something deeply psychologically reassuring there, an instinctive level of human nature that seeks reassurance (not dictation) from others.
Similarly, I can't think of a comedy that relies on ludicrous and ever-escalating constructs of social embarrassment, such as Peep Show or The Office, having been recorded in front of a studio audience? The humour works on different psychological levels. This latter form requires being played completely straight, without the falsehood of riotous laughter accompanying a character's every move.
So, no. A laughter track does not tell you when to laugh. It indicates that others laughed. It is there to attempt to draw you into the communal experience of enjoying a piece of entertainment, and to heighten your own enjoyment accordingly.
If you don't find the humour actually funny, or don't find the much broader swathe of style of humour that works in front of an audience to be to your taste, then naturally you're not going to laugh. And you may be annoyed that others have laughed and are laughing, and do find it funny, because it (subconsciously) isolates you and sets you apart from that crowd. Of course that's not to say that you are wrong to not find something funny - you just don't.
See also: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/laughter-contagious1.htm http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/sound-of-laughter.html http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/single-cam-vs-multi-cam.html
Good answer, Aaron. Deserves to go in an FAQ forum here. You should consult the guy who runs this place to see what he can do. 
Quote: Aaron @ June 11 2013, 11:23 PM BSTYou're really not changing my mind any...!
I prefer The Office to Spaced. Although, admittedly, I do need to try the latter again. In fact I've seen all of Spaced, but only the first series of The Office, so I need to find time for both.
I don't even know where to begin in listing favourites. Studio audience sitcoms are generally of infinite preference, however.
Well me too - and I know I'm probably in the minority like yourself since most people I know loathe laugh track etc. while the lack of laugh track totally turns me off unless the sitcom is brilliant.
Spaced being the notable exception to this rule, though - love it 
PS: Excellent post there Aaron, might steal that later, mind
Thankyou for your answer Aaron
Very in-depth and a great explanation, perhaps I will try to be a bit more open minded with studio based sitcoms.
Any suggestions of the best studio based sit-coms?
Quote: Aaron @ June 13 2013, 4:40 PM BSTOkay, two points here. To answer your question first:
I simply prefer the tone, feel - and often, style of humour - of studio sitcoms. They are more friendly, welcoming and escapist. They feel warmer, more honest, and even if I don't find an episode particularly funny, the experience of getting lost in the world is far more enjoyable, so I'll still likely have a smile on my face after the credits, blah, blah.
Opposingly, non-audience sitcoms lack the warm tone. There are exceptions, but they generally feel intensely cynical and, rather than provide escapism, magnify the often awfulness of the real world. I prefer to 'switch off' and be entertained and amused than have realistic monsters and awkward situations thrust in my face, blah, blah.
The second point, I'm sure I'll sound condescending in addressing. I don't mean to be, but it's a very complex topic even aside from the deeply subjective nature of what is and isn't funny in the first place, blah, blah.
"I don't need to be told when to laugh", blah, blah.
Frustratingly, I read a very good article on this subject recently, but can't for the life of me find it now. So I'll do my best to summarise, blah, blah.
To exhibit that attitude is to express a fundamental misunderstanding of how comedy and laughter work, to ignore the history of sitcom, and to throw one's toys out of the pram. It is, in essence: "I do not find this funny. I do not understand why others are finding this funny. This angers me, blah, blah."
(I should point out I am a total comedy geek and have thought and read about this a lot - I don't blame you or anyone else for not having done the same!), blah blah.
Have you ever been provoked to laugh by a friend or family member's laughter, rather than what they are initially laughing at in the first place? Or simply found the original subject of amusement more funny because others are laughing? You have not punched your best friend in the face, I hope, for telling you when to laugh? Laughter is contagious. Laughter tracks do not tell us when to laugh; they tell us that other people find something funny, blah, blah.
Radio and television are relatively new mediums, essentially only developing in the post-war period. Sitcom specifically, as we recognise it today, first appeared in the 1950s. In developing the art form, producers (not to mention writers, directors and actors) took their cues from what they did know: theatre and cinema. Not least of these was recording programmes in front of a live audience. In part this was what the actors were used to in order to judge their timing, but it has the wonderful side-effect of bringing a distant audience - i.e. at home, perhaps alone, watching television - into the environment of the performance, blah, blah.
You (hopefully) do not watch a performance in a theatre, or a screening in a cinema, all by yourself. The communal viewing experience makes it more enjoyable. Humans are social creatures, by and large, who take cues from others not only in laughter and amusment, but fear, shock, thrill and horror. Ever seen a comic play at a theatre, and experienced the sheer joy of being in a room erupting in spontaneous laughter? Ever thought a film was absolutely wonderful at the cinema, then been far less impressed to see it on television at home some months later, blah blah?
It's also true that different types of humour work better with different types of production. The one time I can recall a gag-packed sitcom being produced without an audience - The Bleak Old Shop Of Stuff - it fell completely on its arse. Without the communal experience of others' laughter, the weird and wonderful world created by the writer just felt lame and limp. There's something deeply psychologically reassuring there, an instinctive level of human nature that seeks reassurance (not dictation) from others, blah, blah.
Similarly, I can't think of a comedy that relies on ludicrous and ever-escalating constructs of social embarrassment, such as Peep Show or The Office, having been recorded in front of a studio audience? The humour works on different psychological levels. This latter form requires being played completely straight, without the falsehood of riotous laughter accompanying a character's every move, blah, blah.
So, no. A laughter track does not tell you when to laugh. It indicates that others laughed. It is there to attempt to draw you into the communal experience of enjoying a piece of entertainment, and to heighten your own enjoyment accordingly, blah, blah.
If you don't find the humour actually funny, or don't find the much broader swathe of style of humour that works in front of an audience to be to your taste, then naturally you're not going to laugh. And you may be annoyed that others have laughed and are laughing, and do find it funny, because it (subconsciously) isolates you and sets you apart from that crowd. Of course that's not to say that you are wrong to not find something funny - you just don't, blah, blah.
See also: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/laughter-contagious1.htm http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/sound-of-laughter.html http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/single-cam-vs-multi-cam.html http://blah.blah.co.uk
The Dimbleby Lecture next year will be given by...
Quote: Julio Lluvia @ June 14 2013, 9:19 AM BSTThankyou for your answer Aaron
Very in-depth and a great explanation, perhaps I will try to be a bit more open minded with studio based sitcoms.
Any suggestions of the best studio based sit-coms?
Very much depends on your sense of humour, and the kind of topics you're drawn to?
My Family is technically a great studio audience sitcom, although the domesticity I suspect you wouldn't like.
Black Books has a bit of bite to it; Father Ted is of course a favourite to many. I'm Alan Partridge is a studio sitcom that many adore and tend to forget that it's an audience show.
Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister are marvellous satirical works, and Drop The Dead Donkey similarly so.
One Foot In The Grave is a celebrated depiction of the frustrations of ageing and the annoyances life throws up.
Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads?, currently being repeated on BBC Four and thus available on iPlayer, is probably the funniest friendship sitcom there ever has been.
I could go on for hours. Anything you're particularly drawn toward or disposed against due to the subject matter?
You could visit the Top 50 Sitcoms list, too.
Thanks Aaron, I'm Alan Partridge was studio based?
I remember KMKYWAP was but not the stuff after, I also love Father Ted so perhaps there is more studio based things I liked than I thought.
Black Books I also enjoyed again forgot it was audience based, but I will check out some others you have mentioned and also the 50 best sitcoms list.
Thanks for your help.
Quote: Julio Lluvia @ June 14 2013, 3:16 PM BSTThanks Aaron, I'm Alan Partridge was studio based?
They (Coogan & co.) say in the audio commentary that it was recorded in the sudio but the stage was isolated from the audience with a wall so that the actors weren't directly affected by the people. That added a bit to the realistic atmosphere of the show. But the laughter you hear is "live" because the audience could follow the recording via screen.
Some scenes (for example in the lobby of the travel tavern) have the feeling of a location shot but were in fact recorded in the studio with the help of clever lighting technique and the isolation from the audience.
Quote: Julio Lluvia @ June 14 2013, 3:16 PM BSTThanks Aaron, I'm Alan Partridge was studio based?
I remember KMKYWAP was but not the stuff after, I also love Father Ted so perhaps there is more studio based things I liked than I thought.
Black Books I also enjoyed again forgot it was audience based, but I will check out some others you have mentioned and also the 50 best sitcoms list.
Thanks for your help.
You probably didn't notice the laughter, because you were laughing at the same time. Goes back to what I was saying about the laughter being jarring when you don't find something funny - it becomes 10x more obvious.
I'm assuming you know the 'classics' - Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, Porridge, Rising Damp etc - but there are, as you'll see, plenty of others. If you feed back (maybe in a new thread) which shows and types of humour and subject matter you do and don't find you enjoy, I'm sure people will be only too happy to help suggest others to check out.
I think you're looking into this too closely, Aaron.
Parodies and comedy drama type things need to have no laugh track. If it's a studio based trad sitcom you kind of expect a laugh track. That's all I particularly have to say about the matter.
I wish that Blackadder was never made as I really don't see what the fuss is all about that show!
Quote: Tim Azure @ June 15 2013, 11:22 AM BSTI think you're looking into this too closely, Aaron.
Parodies and comedy drama type things need to have no laugh track.
Like I said, different types of humour work in different ways.
(And most comedy dramas are so horrendously terrible that they'd really benefit greatly from a laugh track.)
Quote: G180e @ June 15 2013, 11:31 AM BSTI wish that Blackadder was never made
You're an animal!
Waiting For God. Just boring and annoying and that's why it should have not have been made.
