Standup Comedy

[Keith Houchen]

13 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

So you’re left with people who weren’t there being ‘outraged’ by something obviously said in jest but which they’re pretending was serious. Clever.

Isn't most of the "Outrage" due to a wanker not really being sorry for what he did and getting booked like nothing happened?  A lot of the annoyance about it that I've seen isn't so much as Louis CK himself, but at those who book him and allow him on their stage?

[wordsfromlee]

10 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

Funnily enough, I hadn't heard his stammer at all until it's been mentioned on here. Not sure if he only started stuttering later in the pod. Either way, it's fine.

He’s had the stutter since he was a kid. He’s said on other podcasts that his stutter gets worse later on in the day when he’s tired so it all depends on what time of day it was recorded as to how bad it is. 

[Dead Mike]

1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said:

Isn't most of the "Outrage" due to a wanker not really being sorry for what he did and getting booked like nothing happened?  A lot of the annoyance about it that I've seen isn't so much as Louis CK himself, but at those who book him and allow him on their stage?

No. Most of the outrage is 'how dare he speak about survivors of school shootings' pretending he was making a serious political statement rather than doing what he's always done & taken a deliberately obtuse POV to serious subjects for comedic effect.

Whether he should still be being booked or if there's still public demand to see him is a separate issue. I believe (not 100%) that he was listed for this gig & it wasn't a surprise set so if people want to be upset because other people still want to see him that's on them. I don't like Jim Davidson because he's a racist, wife beating arsehole but I'm not going to get angry at his dwindling audience.

There's been lots of interesting talk about whether audiences are getting more sensitive & if the climate has changed though? The general consensus is that it hasn't but social media just makes it easier for people to complain but actual audiences largely don't care.

[BomberPat]

Saying people have less right to be outraged because they weren't there doesn't really make any sense, either. A person of colour has every right to be outraged by what gets said at Klan rallies without having to attend in person for the privilege.

The point is, Louis CK is seemingly unrepentant, or at least an awful lot of people don't feel like he's been sufficiently punished/rehabilitated for what he did, and even if he's out there knocking every joke out of the park, that's still a booking that's gone to a disgraced sex offender rather than to a potential new talent and, yeah, I don't need to have heard his material or dissected the specific context of every joke to be outraged about that.

I haven't heard the specific jokes, so can't comment on them in any detail, but it seems to play into offence for offence's sake, and I don't have time for that. There's an attitude around comedy, particularly American stand-up, that something has to offend someone to be funny, and it's absolutely not the case. Nor is it true that "you can't joke about anything any more" - there are plenty of comedians joking about "un-PC", taboo, or otherwise sensitive subjects, you just have to be smart about how you approach them, and, crucially, be funny, and not think that just saying something outrageous counts as a punchline in its own right.

Edited January 4, 2019 by BomberPat

[Dead Mike]

5 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Saying people have less right to be outraged because they weren't there doesn't really make any sense, either. A person of colour has every right to be outraged by what gets said at Klan rallies without having to attend in person for the privilege.

 

TBH I don't think the KKK are acting in jest, they seem quite serious. If people don't want to see Louis CK then his inevitable 'comeback' tour will die on it's arse & he'll take a massive loss on it.

Quote

I haven't heard the specific jokes, so can't comment on them in any detail, but it seems to play into offence for offence's sake, and I don't have time for that

Which is a perfectly reasonable stance. I don't really care much for light observational stuff like Michael McIntyre so I don't watch it unless it's an act at one of my gigs.

Quote

There's an attitude around comedy, particularly American stand-up, that something has to offend someone to be funny

Erm, there really isn't.

 

A comedian can say pretty much whatever they like. The audience absolutely has the right to be offended & walk out & the act also has the right to ignore their complaint. That's pretty much how it works & has done for a long time.

People pretending comedians are making serious statements though are largely always fucking morons. I've had some ridiculous complaints/requests over the years and they've ALWAYS been from a complete berk.  

[BomberPat]

7 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

Erm, there really isn't.

I've seen the sentiment "comedy has to offend someone" expressed a lot, and increasingly surrounding Louis CK.

I've also seen plenty of hack comedians, or just edgy troll types, use the "joking about serious topics is the best way to tackle them" defence as an excuse to make jokes indistinguishable from a Jim Davidson routine, because they want to have their cake and eat it too. That's before you get into the comedians who actively market themselves as "Politically Incorrect".

There are plenty of superb comedians who say genuinely shocking things, or things that aren't "PC" by any stretch - one of Doug Stanhope's shows has the only opening line I've ever heard from a comedian to genuinely shock me, but it's a good joke. Similarly, Stewart Lee, Reginald D Hunter, Katherine Ryan, Dave Chapelle and Jerry Sadowitz, just to name a few off the top of my head, have all told jokes that no one would realistically call "PC" but context, and being a well constructed joke, raises them above the level of just outrage for outrage's sake.

Quote

A comedian can say pretty much whatever they like. The audience absolutely has the right to be offended & walk out & the act also has the right to ignore their complaint. That's pretty much how it works & has done for a long time.

I agree. But discussing a comedian's material, and the merit or lack thereof, on social media or anywhere else is all part of that. It's criticism or, at most, it's the equivalent of making the decision to walk out. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by BomberPat

[Dead Mike]

The main difference is whether the joke works or not. The acts you've listed all absolutely deliberately use shock as a comedic tool, lots of people do because it works. However, the more contentious the topic the harder it is to keep the audience on side & to make it work. That's where the skill lies. I saw Reg Hunter do a 'work in progress' gig ahead of the fringe one year where he was still working from notes & a lot of was raw & didn't work. Come the festival he'd worked it out & it did.

It was really annoying when Frankie Boyle was breaking through & people who didn't understand how comedy works were claiming 'He just says shocking stuff'...'Anyone can go on stage & just say paedophile'. You saw a bunch of new acts who actually believed this was the case trying it at new act nights & gong shows confused as to why they were dying on their arse.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Dead Mike

[Keith Houchen]

22 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

TBH I don't think the KKK are acting in jest, they seem quite serious.

But given how it's been revealed to a lot of people who previously didn't know, hasn't the actions of Louis CK shown him to be a completely deplorable person somewhat blur the line as to what he is joking about and what he actually thinks about a subject?  When a decent guy makes a joke like that, it's easier to note the difference.  But when a shitty guy makes a shitty comment, it's harder to believe it isn't what they actually think.

But I do love that process of working and perfecting something.  You don't judge a song on the demo version.  I remember Metallica released a single from the Black Album and one of the extra tracks on the CD single was a demo of Wherever I May Roam that didn't have lyrics for a lot of it and it was Hetfield singing "Yadda lala laaaaaa" as a placeholder and it got derided.  I loved hearing the crafting of it and how they went about structuring it.  Really insightful.

[BomberPat]

Admittedly, the only "work in progress"/workshop sets I've ever seen have been Stewart Lee and Rob Newman, both of which were better than most comedians' finished products.

[Dead Mike]

10 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

But given how it's been revealed to a lot of people who previously didn't know, hasn't the actions of Louis CK shown him to be a completely deplorable person somewhat blur the line as to what he is joking about and what he actually thinks about a subject?  When a decent guy makes a joke like that, it's easier to note the difference.  But when a shitty guy makes a shitty comment, it's harder to believe it isn't what they actually think.

Dunno tbh? I think whether you can separate the art from the artist is completely subjective & there's no right or wrong answers, it's up to the individual. His actions had nothing to do with school shootings though which is what this whole 'outrage' is about. If he was doing a routine about how tricky it is asking female comics whether he could knock one out in front of them it'd be a very different thing altogether. 

[HarmonicGenerator]

32 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

The main difference is whether the joke works or not. The acts you've listed all absolutely deliberately use shock as a comedic tool, lots of people do because it works. However, the more contentious the topic the harder it is to keep the audience on side & to make it work. That's where the skill lies. I saw Reg Hunter do a 'work in progress' gig ahead of the fringe one year where he was still working from notes & a lot of was raw & didn't work. Come the festival he'd worked it out & it did.

It was really annoying when Frankie Boyle was breaking through & people who didn't understand how comedy works were claiming 'He just says shocking stuff'...'Anyone can go on stage & just say paedophile'. You saw a bunch of new acts who actually believed this was the case trying it at new act nights & gong shows confused as to why they were dying on their arse.

Having been to some comedy nights where new acts have tried to just say shocking stuff, there is nothing more awkward than the silence that follows each of their attempts at a joke.

The idea of 'work in progress' gigs is really fascinating, because normally you'd only see something like a play (in terms of live entertainment) after it had been rehearsed. They have 'previews' but you're seeing essentially the finished article. But I guess it's because standup is so dependent on an audience, you've got to try stuff out multiple times? I've never been to one - what are the audiences like for this? Is there an additional level of collaboration as the comedian works things out? Genuinely interested!

On the Louis CK thing, I never really heard/watched his stuff before he was outed as a pest so I can't comment on how in-keeping this leaked show was. But if you've been the subject of that much negative press attention, doing material about how survivors of school shootings need to get over themselves is probably not the best 'first day back' material even if you don't think anyone's going to record it, let alone when so much attention is on you and every little thing you do or say. Regardless of whether it's 'funny' or not (for me it's really, really not) the fact he's gone straight back in with the edgier stuff makes him come across as unrepentant even if he's not - and there will be a lot of people who know what he did who've never heard his routine before, who won't care whether the jokes are an act or not, or whether or not his actions were related to the material. If that makes sense, which it might not.

Edited January 4, 2019 by HarmonicGenerator

[BomberPat]

Again, not heard the specific jokes, but the feeling I've seen on Twitter seems to be that - as @Merzbow said - the list of things he was joking about (gender non-conformity, Parkland survivors) felt straight off a right wing edgy crib sheet, and people are seeing it as the smokescreen of him ironically taking contrary positions having fallen because of his actions, so the notion of him being a "woke" comedian (which I never really understood in the first place, tbh) is no longer there. I'm not sure I've explained that very well.

The "separating art from artist" debate is one that will never be settled, and one where people will have different breaking points for different artists. I think it's inherently more difficult for a stand-up, though, where the entire medium is largely built on the pretense of it being a conversation between performer and audience, and even moreso in the case of a more "confessional" comedian like Louis CK.

 

Quote

 I've never been to one - what are the audiences like for this? Is there an additional level of collaboration as the comedian works things out?

Something I found really interesting talking to Rob Newman (/namedrop) after his work-in-progress set was that, very early on in the conversation, he wanted to know where in the room I was sat. That's not going to be the same for everyone, but that's the level of detail he was approaching the show with - whether jokes, particularly those with a more physical element, landed as well with the back row as with the front.

I had a lengthy discussion with him around one joke in particular, that I felt relied on too much prior knowledge (the punchline was about French onomatopoeia), and was perhaps too beholden on an Eddie Izzard routine that, while the jokes were different, hit some of the same reference points. Whether that discussion filtered into any eventual changes in the routine, I don't know, but it was fascinating having that access to the inner workings of someone I consider an absolute master in his field. 

[Keith Houchen]

8 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

Dunno tbh? I think whether you can separate the art from the artist is completely subjective & there's no right or wrong answers, it's up to the individual. His actions had nothing to do with school shootings though which is what this whole 'outrage' is about. If he was doing a routine about how tricky it is asking female comics whether he could knock one out in front of them it'd be a very different thing altogether. 

It's the reference and intent thing, isn't it?  He had nothing to do with the shootings but when a piece of shit 'jokes' about it, it's hard to tell how much of it is a 'joke'

[gmoney]

10 minutes ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

The idea of 'work in progress' gigs is really fascinating, because normally you'd only see something like a play (in terms of live entertainment) after it had been rehearsed. They have 'previews' but you're seeing essentially the finished article. But I guess it's because standup is so dependent on an audience, you've got to try stuff out multiple times. I've never been to one - what are the audiences like for this? Is there an additional level of collaboration as the comedian works things out? Genuinely interested!

 

I've been to a show called "Old Rope" in London a few times. The premise is that the stand up does mainly new material, however there is a rope hanging from the ceiling and if they do any old stuff they have to hold onto it. It's pretty fascinating as different acts test stuff in different ways. Milton Jones came on and dispassionately told some one-liners from a notebook and put any jokes that worked in his pocket, while people like Ed Gamble and Janey Godley just did a regular set that wasn't very polished. Rich Hall's stuff bombed so badly, he spent most of his set saying how shit it was, which was ironically very funny.  

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by gmoney
I don't know why there's a line at the bottom of this post

[Dead Mike]

7 minutes ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

 

The idea of 'work in progress' gigs is really fascinating, because normally you'd only see something like a play (in terms of live entertainment) after it had been rehearsed. They have 'previews' but you're seeing essentially the finished article. But I guess it's because standup is so dependent on an audience, you've got to try stuff out multiple times? I've never been to one - what are the audiences like for this? Is there an additional level of collaboration as the comedian works things out? Genuinely interested!

 

Very conscious of not being a name dropping wanker but we used to put on a lot of 'work in progress' gigs ahead of the Edinburgh festival. 2 acts doing their hour shows with an interval in between. They were advertised as work in progress & cheap so the audience knew they weren't getting the finished article. Different acts approached them differently depending on what stage of writing they were act & where the show was. Some people would be literally reading off notes, going back to pieces of paper and giving a '4th wall' level of commentary as they went along 'That's getting binned'...'Winner, that's staying' etc. Others would have very close to the finished article where it was memorised & very slick. From an audience POV it's luck of the draw whether you're getting something very rough or seeing a top performance for the price of a chippy tea. I'd definitely look out for them in your local area though as you're both going to get a chance to see a 'name' act in a small room on the cheap before you get to the 'creative process' part of it.