Talk:Laugh track

Vandalism

Cleaning up a bit of vandalism here and on the page.

First American laugh track?

"The first American television show to incorporate a laugh track was the American sitcom The Hank McCune Show in 1950.[1]" I'm not sure why this should be in the introduction, more notable would be the first laugh track in the world, not just America 122.62.32.133 (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First use of laugh track

According to R R Provine's article Laughter in American Scientist V84, p. 42, the first show to use a laughtrack was the Hank McCune Show broadcast at 7PM EST Sep. 9 1950 to 'compensate for the lack of a live audience.' I cited this article in the laughter entry. --PaigePhault

How does it work?

can someone write about how it works in the production room? how many different tracks are there? how were they selected? from what shows did they come? what are the standard practices? Kingturtle 10:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I hope someone who knows about it will add the information. I don't think the article should be focused completely on just what sitcoms use a laugh track and those that don't. --Mrtea 04:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You literally record it on a separate track on the tape (or these days on the digital recorder) so you can remove it. Each mike comes through a sound board and you can add or delete it. Generally before digital you had eight tracks on a tape (four before about 1967, I think the Beatles' Abbey Road was the first professional album to use four-track) so you record different mikes on different tracks. If you keep a track free you can add a laughter track later. I would imagine it is also used for dubbing, if you record actor's voice mikes on a separate track. There must be some crossplay that it will end up as an "echo" on other tracks-- I am not an expert. -- SimonTrew (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The laughs are programmed into a small laptop looking device with supposedly over 500 different laughs and chuckles. I recently contacted Tamara Johnson over the e-mail, and she said "... the laughs I utilize come from the "laugh men". They are the ones with the audience material and library." I would suspect that at least one of the laugh men is "Jack Donato" after closely studying episodes of Wizards of Waverly Place and My Wife and Kids end credits. The producer of the show tells the re-recording mixers when in particular to insert a laugh track, and how loud and long or short it should be, and the inensity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5. Laughs vary, most from Amercians, some from people overseas. Laugh tracks are inserted most likely just like most editing software, with video and audio tracks and wave-length files that are put under the original and dubbed audio of the programming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.69.81 (talk) 11:20 and 11:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons

I don't know how you can mention shows that don't use the laugh track and not mention the Simpsons, probably the most successful comedy of all of the ones mentioned by far.

So why didn't you mention it?

That's easy. "The Simpsons" is animated. Laugh tracks don't work in animation since there is no live audience watching.Peter Tangney 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There isn't in most sitcoms either. — Mütze 10:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Counter example: The Flintstones. --86.135.218.31 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons is notable because it borrowed many artistic styles from live action television and films, yet rejected the laugh track. It demonstrated how a live action television show could be funny without a laugh track. Many subsequent live-action television shows then borrowed their comedic format from the Simpsons, including the absence of a laugh track. --70.81.253.182 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.

Do shows recycle the same old laugh tracks or does each show record its own? If it is recycled, are we listening to people laughing who are dead now?

i don't know what they do today, but the laugh tracks used in the 70s were of dead people. Kingturtle 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

^^ thats just ridiculous

I no wright??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.9.138 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism-here for rewrite

This section was plagiarized from The Straight Dope. I have posted it here in case someone wants to try rewriting it. If you rewrite from this text, make sure to say, "According to The Straight Dope," or some other similar attribution.

The man who made canned laughter what it is today was Charley Douglass (1910-2003), a sound engineer who devised the 'Laff Box'. This was a unique contraption that stood a little over two feet tall and could be played like an organ to replicate different kinds of laughter, from guffaws to belly laughs. The operator could also select particular genders and ages, so a kids' show could have a simulated audience full of giggling children. No one is really sure where the original recordings came from; some say Douglass recorded audiences from I Love Lucy, The Red Skelton Show, or Marcel Marceau's mime act. All of these were heavy on sight gags, which probably made the recording process a little easier. Douglass won a special Emmy for engineering in 1992.

cluth 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the most frequently cited sources in this article is Paul Iverson's "The Advent of the Laugh Track," supposedly from Hofstra University Archives. However, the citation provided is not adequate at all because it does not provide enough information for someone to be able to find the article. I called Hofstra University Archives and they do not know how to search for it. Was it part of a conference? Was it published somewhere? How would it be requested, for example, through Interlibrary Loan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccar408 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations

I feel the following two sentences need some kind of citation or removal: TV critics have often claimed that laugh tracks are used to cover up problems with the writing of a TV show, by using artificial "canned" laugh tracks to make the show seem funnier than it actually is. This has led some to change the common phrase "taped in front of a live studio audience" into "live in front of a taped studio audience." --Crossmr 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

List?

should we have a list of shows the use a laugh track?Angelofdeath275 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

It says in the first sentence of the article that the laughter track is is a separate soundtrack with the artificial sound of audience laughter". But most laughter tracks (or at leasts a large proportion) are not artificial; the show is filmed in front of a live audience, so why is this sentence saying that all laughter tracks are fake?

A lot of shows like The Odd Couple and Happy Days, an announcement was broadcast that said "The Odd Couple/Happy Days is filmed before a LIVE audience".

Well, they could hardly film it in front of a DEAD one, can they?

Happy Days later said that it was filmed in front of a studio audience, omitting the word "live".

Arthurvasey (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot be that dense. A laugh track is a fake laugh track added over a show. Actually most shows are no longer taped in front of live audiences. This is something that started to end during the 1980s and was almost dead by the end of the 1990s. If a show has a live audience it does not have a laugh track. If you are watching most any sitcom from very recent history, it has a laugh track. -Thebdj 01:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is absolute rubbish. Situation comedies ARE filmed in front of a studio audience. Do you think this website (http://www.tvtickets.com/) is part of an elaborate scam? So who's the dense one?

This whole Wiki entry is absolute rubbish from beginning to end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.246.157 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Help me make this NPOV

I wanted to add after "Philadelphia": "Their prevalence might be explained by the success of animated comedies such as The Simpsons — which was a major influence on the first of these sitcoms, Malcolm in the Middle — as well as by the increasing use of cutaways, which are clearly not filmed linearly." However, as of now it's unsourced and arguably POV. If anyone wants to adapt this, though, it'd be nice to add. Calbaer 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited the "History" and "Use" sections, in order to make this a bit more NPOV, but it definitely still needs work. I completely took out the phrase that said "as if they would not have known otherwise" because it's pretty snide and totally not NPOV. --HowardW, Jan 18, 2007

Not Having A Live Studio Audience Does Not Mean Canned Laughter

Last of the Summer Wine is hardly an exception, most UK stuff with laughter on it will have been shown to an audience in some form or other. I suspect this is true of most American stuff too and that people don't really understand what the hell they are talking about.

Oh, so that's why the laughter DOESN'T sound generated, and DOESN'T play over things that aren't really funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.190.144 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Most UK sitcoms tended to be shot in front of a studio audience - for location scenes, they played the film footage (video was sometimes used, too) to the audience on monitor sets and they would laugh at the funny bits.

They either had a live audience or no laughter at all.

Some shows, though officially comedies, often couldn't feasibly be shot in front of an audience and, as such, due to having no audience laughter, were treated as dramas - the radio series of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, for example, though a comedy, to circumvent the rules of having a laughter track, was classed as a drama - author Douglas Adams said that each episode took about a month to make - some actors had to play robots or machines and had to be put in a booth and have their voices "treated" - even the TV version didn't have a laughter track, for the same reason - though they initially added canned laughter to the first episode, but it didn't go down well.

Later episodes of Last Of The Summer Wine stopped using studio sequences altogether - they filmed the episode without any audience, then brought an audience in - they screened the edited film and the audience laughed in the appropriate place - that was dubbed on to the finished product.

Arthurvasey (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be more information regarding Married With Children.

Contradictions with Wiki article on "All in the Family"

This article directs the "All in the Family" article. In the "All in the Family" article, Norman Lear is cited as having claimed that the show never used 'canned laughter.' This article states that the show did indeed use canned laughter and 'sweetening' in later years. I don't know which is correct, but I figure it should be pointed out.

All In The Family never used canned laughter. That is in an error and I already fixed it. Nevilledad 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Monty Python

It should be noted that Monty Python's Flying Circus was NEVER broadcast with an artificial laughtrack, if a sketch didn't get laughs from the live audience it hit the Cutting Room floor-GeorgeFormby1

Surely the worst example of laugh tracks

"Animals do the funniest things", "Planet's Funniest Animals", and others in that genre. I can't watch them, the fake laughter is just cringeworthy. Davetibbs 11:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Same for Full House, Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Family Matters 24.141.131.205 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many cable kid's shows use laugh tracks to excess - Suite Life of Zach and Cody, That's so Raven, iCarly, Hannah Montana, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterita (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Family Matters, definitely. Whenever Urkel does something mildly funny, the audience laughs, claps and whoops like it's the most hilarious thing they've ever witnessed. They even start shrieking at some points. Ugh, shut up. --71.74.89.197 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I hat the laughing audience. Its just there to annoy you. 92.27.1.115 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

greek chorus?

any citable sources ever pointed out the similarity to the greek chorus? --86.135.218.31 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking that... maybe zizek, but if he did I couldn't say where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.74.4 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't even stand the REAL laughter in America's Funniest Home Videos. Tosh.o, Web Soup, & The Soup, which have little to no laughter from their miniscule live audience & filming crew are at least tollerable. The worst part about fake laughter, especially in Hanna Barbera cartoons, is that they always laugh at the unfunniest things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whole page is wrong and written by somebody who has no idea of how TV shows are made

1. All sitcoms with laughter are made in front of a studio audience. A visit to http://www.tvtickets.com/ and http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/tvaudience.html. would have cleared that up quite quickly.

2. The term 'laughter track' refers to the actual laughter recorded on the night, sometimes edited to help transition between takes. It is completely different from 'canned laughter'. The only shows I know which used real 'canned laughter' are 'Scooby Doo' and 'Mash'. If anyone doubts this, why don't they apply for tickets at one of the above sites and see for themselves?

3. Speaking as someone who works in television, and has made various TV shows of the type discussed, I think this is an example of Wikipedia at its absolute worst. Conjecture and conspiracy theory dressed up as hard fact. It should be taken down because it contains as much truth as the average article on, say, Conservapedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.246.157 (talk) 16:32 and 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you'll get a lot further if you come in with constructive criticism and helpful responses, rather than just tearing everything apart. Secondly, dictionary.com defines "Laugh track" as a separate sound track of prerecorded laughter added to the sound track of a radio or television program to enhance or feign audience responses.. Nobody said this was (necessarily) in place of a studio audience, but are you asserting that there is never canned laughter added to enhance what a studio audience generates? Thirdly, I didn't realize such shows as the Flintstones and Jetsons were actually filmed in front of a studio audience... --Rehcsif (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, so you're using MORE CARTOONS to refute my arguments. And the reason I'm tearing the whole piece apart is because it is wrong from top to bottom, and I don't have time to edit it myself. But it's unbelievably frustrating and annoying to see conjecture like this reported as fact. I'll say it one more time to be clear--'canned laughter' is completely different to a 'laughter track' and anything that says they more or less amount to the same thing is disingenuous and insulting to the people who work hard to elicit real laughter from real people. The reason I'm 'tearing it apart' is because it so casually does the same to an entire style of TV comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.246.157 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And in answer to your question, I'm not saying that sweetening doesn't happen, of course it does, but in my own experience the laughter you hear on a show is the laughter you get on the night. Of course you edit it like you edit every other element of a show (for instance, when jumping between takes, or when an audience laughs at something that won't be funny to people at home), but that doesn't mean we're all engaged on a massive conspiracy to make people laugh at things that aren't funny. Please, whoever wrote this entry, just come to see a show. That should clear everything up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.246.157 (talk) 17:07 and 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what you're talking about is only true for British shows. In the US they seem to be much less principled about sticking in fake laughter when the original audience didn't react appropriately. --86.135.218.31 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know this?!! Where are you getting your facts from? When you say 'seem to be', why aren't you sure? And if you aren't sure, why are you assuming it to be true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.230.213 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

stones, glass houses? give your own sources. --86.144.101.168 (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well actually How I Met Your Mother is shot without and audience, and the producers take note of where a "post audience" laughed at the show and insert a laugh track —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.69.81 (talk) 11:09 and 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

iCarly and Drake and Josh were both shot on closed sets and featured occasional laughs from the people on the crew (With the exception of the pilot episode of Drake and Josh) Seasons 6-10 of All That also shot on closed sets and relied on filling in realistic laugh tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.69.81 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This may or may not be helpful. I have been to several BBC shows (the tickets are free) and the laughter is genuine. Therefore I am not sure if calling it manufactured laughter or canned laughter is accurate.

They did occasionally ask you to laugh on the second take as much as you did on the first one, to save editing the tape. I don't know if that's still true, but certainly it wasn't fake laughter, just you don't laugh so much the second time. If it went to three or four takes then the audience would generally be laughing as much as the actors, cos everyone was anticipating the laugh. But on the first take the laugh was real, just something silly had happened (a "blooper" I believe it is called in the US).

Obviously there are exceptions where a deliberate audience laugh is required, as a parody(?) for something deliberately unfunny, but it is quite clear to the audience that their own "canned laughter" is expected and appreciated and indeed they are part of the performance. The same happens in pantomime in the UK.

So on the whole I am not sure this article is up to standard. It seems to be very US-centric and neglects cultures where deliberate laughter is expected. I think perhaps it should be renamed "canned laughter", or at least that the distinctition between the US and other nations should be made clearer (e.g. by section headings). The technical process in all countries is pretty much the same, of course --SimonTrew (talk) 23:48 and 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm visiting as an uninterested observer who suddenly was interested in laugh tracks for some reason. Contrary to the above commentary, I found the article informative and very interesting. It was well laid out. It answered all my questions. I just wanted to pass along a Gold Star to those involved. Cheers. --119.59.82.146 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be a featured article ... tidied up a bit

Excellent article ... featured article vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.158.225 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

greedy?

"Eventually, both performers and producers began to get greedy when they realized the power behind these prerecorded chuckles" seems an odd way of phrasing it for a neutral encyclopaedia. I have changed it to "began to realise the power behind these prerecorded chuckles"84.92.163.247 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Tom Wainwright

Agreed. I believe I put that original sentence in the article, and it was based directly from a TV Guide article in 1966.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm in the middle

I deleted this show from the list. It never used a laugh track and it was filmed with one camera (16mm). Saemikneu (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS!

Okay, Dan Schneider (the creator of iCarly and Drake and Josh), explained this on his blog. A shows process with a laugh track goes like this:

• They shoot scenes that are capable of being shot in front of a live audience in front of one. This is very hard for certain shows(Wizards of Waverly Place as an example) because the show features many special effects, or something that could possibly harm audience members. I have been to two tapings (True Jackson and Suite Life on Deck), and we also shot many scenes over and over and over again, and by the time they got the final take, only a few people laughed. Since I am a big geek, I really know this part. The editors (sound re-recording mixers, laugh mixers, or post production providers) will go and sit with the produccer and director of the episodes and slowly insert or sweeten the episode. For some shows this is very easy because it is funny, for others the show is either not that funny or shoots without a live audience. I can watch a show and tell you specifically what laugh is a laugh, and even know some right away. Contact me at my YouTube (www.youtube.com/inzonex) and I will put up plenty of videos showcasing the laughs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.69.81 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming this. It is no secret that many live shows are still sweetened today. You're link at Youtube is verification within itself, so the article passes the WP:V test.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

first reality show with laugh track?

Laugh-track question at Talk:Fire Me...Please. --EarthFurst (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sanford and Son

I know that later episodes of Sanford and Son (particularly the final season) had some sweetening done, you can hear a belly laugh of a "HAAAAAAAAAAAA!" dubbed repeatedly, but were earlier episodes sweetened with Charley Douglass's laughs? I was watching an early episode the other day where Fred and Lamont fly to St. Louis regarding the will of Fred's deceased uncle, and thought I heard a mild Douglass laugh or two added to the soundtrack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.212.215 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very true about many shows throughout the 90s. They were "sweetened" to add additional, louder laughter. This has been confirmed and WP:V several times over.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

E!

The Soup, The Dish, and Web Soup all have laughter. Is it canned?

There was a gag that a person could buy a Spencer's or a magic shop that, when shaken, would laughter like a sitcom audience. No mention of this silly device that many teachers used to take away from class clowns?

On GarageBand '06 (I'm not sure of other versions), there's a way to do canned laughter with the keyboard. The movie, Date Movie, uses this laughter in a special audio track on the DVD. (I myself have used it for a project where I took Pulp Fiction and added laughter and cheering and boos throughout the whole film. What a pain, but was quite worth it.)

That's all I can think of. Toodles. Apple8800 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera made a mistake...

Here's something to ponder. Why was Hanna-Barbera cheap in doing a laugh track for their 1970's line of cartoons? Why couldn't they have just kept utilizing a full laugh track? If Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!, The Banana Splits, and Josie and the Pussycats were successful hits, then they could've kept using a full laugh track. They did not need to deal with a limited inferior-sounding one. Evanaeus (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2011

• There is little written on this, but the basic word was that Douglass charged a great deal for usage of his mysterious box. Since Saturday morning cartoons had a less attentive, mature audience, Hanna-Barbera and others did not put much effort into "orchestrating" a quality laugh track.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think Rankin/Bass could have gotten away with it, if they had just toned down the laughs just a tad. I think their track was even better than Hanna-Barbera's, but I do agree it was probably a little too invasive to balance out the realistic nature of an audience. On the contrary, if you actually go on YouTube and watch the Season 2 episodes of The Jackson 5ive, you should note that you don't hear many belly laughs in the episodes compared to the first season. Just a little food for thought, Oanabay! --Evanaeus (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess

This article makes a fundamental misassumption that because an event follows another that they were necessarily related. I.e., that because Show X followed Show Y, that it was somehow a reaction to Show Y. Every instance that is claimed needs to be cited by a reliable reference, for example reading "We decided to include a laugh track because it was successful on Show Y".

If reliable, independent resources are not available? Then nothing should written. Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not an opportunity for armchair scholars of popular culture to present their opinions and to shoehorn a mention of their favorite show.

Particularly important is to fix the international perspective. Several editors added international material that suggests they are speaking from their own experience, rather than a comprehensive understanding of a country's broadcast history. In that same light, I'm suspicious that the main article text makes the entire process of implementing laugh tracks appear as if it happened in the US, with no influence or input from international sources. That may indeed be the attitude of referenced authorities, but since US shows have long been internationally distributed, emulation or feedback to US distributors was bound to have happened almost immediately. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article as constituted is a problem. The version that was there originally (and which someone keeps trying to restore) was a mess of inaccuracy and speculation, mostly ripped off from a Cecil Adams thing. It was half speculation and half conflating laugh tracks with real audiences. The version that's there now is essentially the old article with all the inaccurate stuff taken out, but it would help if it were rewritten by someone who actually knows about the full international history of the laugh track. The problem is that virtually everything written about laugh tracks, in books and elsewhere, conflates laugh tracks with real laughter and includes all kinds of fake information about "sweetening" (there is evidence that shows with real laughter used it to some extent; there is no evidence that it was used as extensively as the original article claimed, and the original article was a major source of misinformation about live audiences being "fake"). I don't know what to do short of leaving the article in its current shortened form. It may be not free of speculation but the information in it is mostly accurate, just incomplete.

Let's have a rational discussion on this topic. I am not following the argument that most sources conflate laugh tracks with real laughter and includes all kinds of fake information about "sweetening". If sweetening is no longer done on today's sitcoms, then it needs to be sourced. There is nothing published to the contrary. It appears that the more recent information is where this article runs of the rails. The older info—say pre 1990s—is pretty accurate and there are many sources to prove it. There was also a superb thesis written by a Ph.D at Hofstra University in the early 1990s that brought much older info together. In that light, the majority of the article suffices in the WP:V, WP:VERIFY and WP:SOURCE departments. Also, the last comment was not signed by anyone. Major no-no.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article feels like its missing a section regarding the intent and purpose of laugh tracks. That is why i came to the discussion page and further googled it when the article didnt have the answers. -Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.162.165.39 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

US-centrism, and journalistic style

This article is almost exclusively about the USA, but doesn't say so. It treats three other countries effectively as foreign oddities, and doesn't cover the rest of the world at all. It's also written far more like a magazine article than an encyclopaedic one. How about "Critics took note of the inferior sounding laugh track permeating Hanna-Barbera's Saturday morning fare"? It's not even sourced. I laughed out loud when I read the suggestion above that this could be a featured article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Television is U.S.-centric by definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.126.236 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is heavily US-centric. As such I'm boldly adding an appropriate warning template.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.74 (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. influence has been noted as such in the article. It should be noted overall that the laugh track is very much a U.S. invention and phenomenon. Very little has been written about laugh tracks outside of the U.S., since they are not used in any great abundance anywhere but the U.S. By default, the article is almost exclusively about the U.S.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.126.236 (talk) is 100% correct in stating that television is U.S.-centric by definition. The birth of the laugh track goes hand in hand with the birth of television; they are inseperable.Oanabay04 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Marvin Kitman's "Don't Make Me Laugh" doesn't appear to exist

The citation for much of the early history of the laugh track appears not to exist. The publication, "Channels of Communication," doesn't exist in the three journal databases I've searched.

"Hogan's Heroes" section picture is wrong

The picture in the Hogan's Heroes section is not of the pilot episode. I feel that since this section is all about the pilot episode, it should have an actual frame from it. The current picture is a picture taken during the filming of a later first-season episode.

I could not find a pilot-episode still on Commons. Perhaps someone can help with a picture of their own?

24.245.45.131 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Point against laugh tracks

I seem to recall that in an anniversary special about M*A*S*H, one of the people involved with the show said he didn't like laugh tracks because they were used "because the audience is too stupid to know when to laugh". That could be Larry Gelbart, since he's cited in the article as not wanting to use one but had to. Can anyone else verify this? It's possibly the 30th Anniversary from 2002 and it might be the same special where David Ogden Stiers said he wished there could be a moratorium on talking about TV shows. I guess he was a bit tired of discussing M*A*S*H. —RRabbit42 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Help them along

"they can give people pointers about what's funny and help them along"

Have people always been this stupid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.100.235 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Boo track

What is it called when pre-recorded sounds of indignation are used (like in Let Them Talk (TV series))? --AVRS (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Audio file

I beleive it would be worth investigating whether or not we can find an appropriate public-domain audio file for this article. An audio file example of a laugh track would greatly benifit the article.SecretName101 (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) SecretName101 (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"No laugh" videos on YouTube

In recent years I find lots of videos on YouTube where the laughs tracks were artificially deleted. For example this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgKgXehYnnw

A surprising number of people see those videos and think: shows like Friends are not funny at all. Because if you watch these videos, you hardly feel any urge to laugh. It's just actors making faces and very weird pauses after moderately funny lines.

But this is a false conclusion. Two reasons. First: Especially comedy is extremely time sensitive. A wrong pause can ruin nearly every joke. Instead of removing artificial laughter those videos insert artifical pauses. Second: Some of these shows are still recorded in front of a live audience. The "no laugh" videos do not show the original version of the show. The actors on Friends had to make pauses because a real audience was laughing. When the audience didn't laugh, the scenes were sometimes changed on the fly. How it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K_7w6zQIuw --2A0A:A543:CFA5:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Non encyclopedic part

the "laff box" section has some weirdly pro-Charley Douglass statements, and the title of the section itself is also pretty weird all things considered. --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 21:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Heck, as noted above, the whole thing reads like a mafia one article or college essay, not an encyclopedia article. oknazevad (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)