Nat Wicks of Chortle UK's take on open mic'rs trying to be edgy.
Any thoughts?
pg--I tend to agree with Nat, but calling it "hack" is, itself, kind of "hack".--seattle
Nat Wicks of Chortle UK's take on open mic'rs trying to be edgy.
Any thoughts?
pg--I tend to agree with Nat, but calling it "hack" is, itself, kind of "hack".--seattle
We'll just take the fact that this was too long and that you didn't read it...as read.
I don't know if it's fair to complain that someone's third time on stage involves hacky, obvious material. Who goes to an open mic and then gets surprised that there's a certain amount of stuff that is neither funny nor original?
I think it's too easy to shit on new people and blame them for things you don't like about yourself, your scene or everything in standup. Everyone starts out and does some questionable or embarrassing jokes, if there is any time or place to do shitty, embarrassing rape jokes it's at an open mic where only 4 people are watching. If people were doing shitty, embarrassing rape jokes on their Comedy Central Presents or at sold out clubs then I can see being a non-shitty-rape-joke comic and writing articles about it and being frustrated. I was at a daycare last week and it was embarrassing how many of those people shit their pants, had terrible coordination, and chose to babble and drool rather than have well thought out mature conversations. It gives humans a bad name.
Hitting "like" is not enough to express how much I agree with what you say, PR.
All right, this is my bad...I framed this discussion poorly.
It was MY choice to say that Nat was specifically talking about open mic'rs (when her article isn't really about absolute beginners, but more about semi-pros)...and it was MY choice to title the thread with the meant-to-be-amusing-as-an-exaggeration-of-the-real-point quote, which has nothing to do with Nat's article.
pg--I still agree that there is too much pride being taken in false bravado, rote shock value, lame button pushing and all-too-typical delusions of edginess...none of which comes close to the inspirations of the truly gifted envelope pushers. And while I'll nod to both Monty & Pixel's point, I don't think there's anything to be gained by not holding people at all levels accountable for their efforts. Aspire ye babblers and droolers!--seattle
We'll just take the fact that this was too long and that you didn't read it...as read.
If the people could do better, PG, why do you think they don't?
To borrow a line from Andy Warhol, as to why he didn't bother to paint his own pictures anymore, "Because it's easier."Originally Posted by Keith Whitener
The inherent tension in saying something shocking--even out of context or with no other point than to shock--generates laughs...and allows the performer to feel an inflated sense of punk-rock credibility.
"I'm just like Carlin and Bill Hicks!" thinks the shitty rape-joke telling comic.
I'm not against dark humor. I'm not against edgy humor. I'm not even against swearing.
I simply agree with the author of the article that a lot of comics are patting themselves on the back for some shit that doesn't deserve much back patting.
pg--How easy is some of this stuff? Well, either you get laughs because what you've said has shocked people into feeling awkward that they are physically compelled to laugh, not at the thoughts behind what you've said but the sheer audacity for having said it...OR...if they don't laugh, you can act smug and self-righteous that they "can't handle" what you've got to say...and either way, you're inoculated from the truth, that what you've said really isn't all that special.--seattle
We'll just take the fact that this was too long and that you didn't read it...as read.
What you say, pg, is all 100% correct, I just think that the whole "I'm just trying to establish accountability and a better standard of quality for others/this establishment" is a lark we play on ourselves. It's really just us unhappily trying to exert some control over a situation we have none in, or over our own situation that we are unhappy with. If you were killing it in your own work and lots of great things were happening for you and you felt happy with where you were, would you even care what some dope at an open mic says? You'd probably laugh at how silly they made themselves look and then continue on your merry way. Likewise, if that writer was super jazzed on what she had going on with herself or her own stand-up, she probably would write about that instead of critiquing the content of fellow comics' sets. It reads as more of a function of the writer's/critiquer's situation than as an indictment or expose on a malignant standup trend. But who knows, I'm on some kind of Kyle Cease bullshit here and I don't want you all to hate me, so don't read too much into any of this.
I agree with you again, PR.
It sounds to me, PG, like you are describing something much more complex than just people telling "shocking" jokes just for the laughs. Are the performers, for example, knowingly using shock humor just to get laughs? Do they know, for example, that the laughs they get are nervous chitters? If so, why are they doing it. If not, why get angry at someone who doesn't know any better?
Almost all comics that have only been at it for a couple years (the author's target) will either be "edgy" and not very funny or "clean" and not very funny. A lot of comics I like have said that everybody sucks for 10 or 15 years before they start to really get it. So, instead of looking at open mic comedy as hack or whatever, I try to find stuff about my fellow open mic-ers that looks promising. Whether it is a certain joke or a delivery style they try or a certain subject, I just zone out during the rest of it.
Also, I don't think the subjects mentioned in the story are "taboo" at all. Atell, Stanhope, et al have made that subject matter seem mundane for most comedy fans under 40. I remember asking a non-comic friend of mine about a show I did that included a lot of fucks and shits mixed in between jokes about rape, dicks and disabled veterans and he said he was surprised how clean I was. My point is, I guess, people are blaming the filth when they should be blaming the fact that most comics suck.
Message boards are a great place to have your opinions misconstrued and taken out of context by strangers you would probably hate in real life
I think what sums it up is some people do the material well (Anthony Jeselnik comes to mind) and others just rehash the material without adding anything new, creative or innovative to the mix.
white folks ya'll do this...not in my hood!! In my hood we...(insert black reference)
I liked this article but sorta because I disagree with parts of it. Its nuts for this guy to judge anything coming out of an open mic. Thats just unfair for the same reason that open mic kings are ridiculous. I also think its unfair to call an open mic'er a hack. An amateur who just isn't very good probably doesn't get far enough to be a hack. A hack, I think, is someone who is doing uninspired material past the point of being a newbie to the scene. A semi-pro, or a pro for that matter, can certainly be a hack. I think you turn into a hack from not having what it takes in the long run- but wanting it bad enough to not quit or, oddly, get better.
I like what Annie Liebowitz said about most authors, that they probably shouldn't be doing it. Specifically, not everyone should write a book. I feel that applies to comedy as well, probably any art for that matter. I think its these people who push past amateur nights to become hackie comedians. And I am by no means implying that this is my calling and I am the best. I love it, I feel like its working, but it took me three years to learn that being a cook wasn't for me- who knows what stand up will bring. At least I didn't pay for culinary school. REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE BAY-BAY
As far as shock topics, I think many of them are pretty well covered. It takes a real master to make those topics seem fresh. Personally, my favorite comedians who do dark or sometimes shock material are Dave Attel and Anthony Jeselnik. But really, in the hands of a master, material that should be shocking generally has a larger point that undermines the shock value. I think something that is platonically shocking has little redeeming value, if any.
I'll paraphrase what Attel said about the Kramer incident and its something I whole heartedly believe: If your gonna be shocking, you better back it up with the funny.
I have a joke about how real life lesbians never quite look like they do in porn. I've been hesitant to tell it because the I don't like the punchline as much as the premise. Im still working to crack that one. Its not that Im scared to tell it, its that I don't think it is funny enough to tell yet. I don't see much point in taking a shit in the pool just because. I want to have more integrity than the people I see mistaking a curse word, volume, or taboo subject for a punchline.
Semi pros should know better, but some of the semi pros I have seen are little more than open mic'ers who are comfortable on stage with a certain level of confidence in their delivery. Otherwise, open mics are where people go to get better and that means pushing all the shit out- sweating out the viruses. Poets call it getting the cheese out.
Oh, dear...I happen to hate this argument.
To paraphrase: "Anyone who has anything to say about something is obviously dealing with their own issues".
The result: Nobody should talk about anything?
Why can't it be that she noticed something and felt like discussing it? Why can't knowledge (information and/or opinion) be shared without pointing to some hidden subconscious motive?
(For example, Brian Urlacher...the NFL players criticizing Jay Cutler during the Packers-Bears game were doing so because they observed Jay, after his injury, behaving on the sidelines in a way that made them question his desire and willingness to do what it takes to lead his team to victory--and NOT, as Brian suggested, because they were all just jealous...)
I'm really not advancing an agenda here. I thought the article was interesting--especially, as in my own scene (which I'm trying to reintroduce myself to), I've noticed a similar trend to what Nat describes happening in the UK. So, I shared it here...
If it gets a "meh" from y'all...that's fine.
But saying that this is saying something about how the writer is unhappy with her life or her own comedic efforts is both a wild stretch and missing the point.
pg--Can't tell you how many times something I've tried to do in an earnest effort to help the local comedy scene have been criticized and even sabotaged by people who tried to ascribe a nefarious motive to whatever I was up to...as it seems unfathomable to some that anyone could do anything without there being something hidden behind it. I understand the skepticism, but it's frustrating for someone as earnest as I can be.--seattle
PS--I get what you're all saying about how criticizing open mic'rs for their content can be a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Doesn't mean you can't make observations, analyze the meaning of those observations and hypothesize some conclusions worth sharing with others based on those observations and analysis. At least that's what I thought...
We'll just take the fact that this was too long and that you didn't read it...as read.
I disagree with PR's second (third?) post. That kind of reasoning clearly leads to "If you ever criticize anything for any reason it really means you're dissatisfied with yourself... never criticize!"
And it's not true. Few have been destroying like Patton has done in the past few years. You'll STILL see him complain and criticize as much as the next guy. When that guy was ripping off his material he didn't say "Oh me my, that's cute. Well I'm just gonna sit down and write another 20 minutes. Let's self improve!" No, he went to fuckin town and obliterated him. It's human nature.
And it doesn't get us anywhere. Hell even if you assume it's true, then what? Are the complaints invalid? Probably not. Let's just assume I'm jealous of every single football player ever and that's why I complain about it. OK good. Well even then, there's still a reason I'm calling Jay Cutler and Shawn Merriman overblown jackasses and not Peyton Manning or Polamalu. There's something to that.
That said I agree a ton with PR's first post. Starting out people are going to say what sounds like jokes to them. You have to. A guy who loves Gaffigan is gonna tell a bad "frozen pizza" joke. A guy who loves Attell is gonna tell a bad "dead hooker" joke. There's really no difference. A guy who loves Attell isn't going to suddenly start with bad "Oh silly movie stars" jokes.
I still have a stack of jokes that I wrote on my computer in middle school, years before I ever actually got on stage. Obviously they're mostly terrible. A ton of them come from my "watching Carlin era". What does that mean for the jokes? It means me stating a 13 year old's opinion and saying 'fuck' a looooooot. I wasn't being intellectually dishonest, I just couldn't decipher yet with any more depth what made Carlin's jokes amazing. That's what it seemed like on the surface.
The thing I think people are saying is that they just don't know what they're doing wrong. So what's the solution? Clearly they're not going to change on their own, and blogging about it isn't going to do anything besides spur talk about it. Only thing I can think of is older better comics telling these guys what they think instead of complaining about it online. Which isn't any slight, it's the natural response, but otherwise bad comics are gonna keep being bad comics in whatever way they are bad comics.
(I'm leaving be that she said she's seen this with guys doing 10/15/20 minute sets alone cause, well I frankly find it unbelievable and can't figure out a context that doesn't include it being a booker's idiocy with them bombing, or then doing well and being knowing hacks)
Because we shouldn't have to deal with this.
Because our friends shouldn't have to deal with this.
Because audiences shouldn't have to deal with this.
Because there are cities in America where, if an open micer tries to pull this kind of unproductive garbage, the booker or a veteran comic will pull them aside and say, "hey, man, don't do that. It's not going to lead to anything."
Or there WERE cities like that. I don't know any more.
Because ultimately, bad comedy forces out good. If the scene is flooded with inept open micers ruining shows, most low to mid-level shows are going to be unbearable, and there's nothing the comics at the top of the bill -- let alone the lower-billed comics who are actually trying -- can do about it.
Because if you don't let the inept open micers know what's up, they're going to go out and start their own Inept Open Micer Comedy Showcases, and they're going to dilute the comedy marketplace in the city.
Because a lot of us -- new and old comics alike -- just want to go up and be funny. And when you have to go up 90% of the time and overcome the room in order to get there, it doesn't matter that you generally succeed. You'd rather not have to fight in the first place.
Erik Charles Nielsen is a moderately funny fellow... right?
Where do you do comedy?
Follow-up question: can I move there?
Erik Charles Nielsen is a moderately funny fellow... right?
The result is check yourself before you wreck everyone else.
It might make you happier to know that it's not everyone else out there who is ruining things while you and good comics watch on defenselessly. If you transfer some of the accountability into your own realm of control then you can actually do something about it (if you wish), rather than put the accountability and control on other people you can't control.
You and Erik can thin slice into oblivion with the best of them and your simulated theoretical scenarios where bad open mic'ers conquer the world and all conversation is outlawed by no complaining laws are pretty logically sound within your own mental simulation program. But honestly if you're unhappy with the way things are in your scene or with a part of your scene, then allow yourself to be wrong about the way things are in your scene. Maybe it isn't as bad or painful as you think, and maybe that means you have more empowering options other than intellectually poo poo'ing it and hoping it inspires someone else to actually do something.
What I'm saying is, what would Henry Rollins do?
If the joke is original, clever and most of all-funny...then the open mic'r is doing good in my book. To hell with how shocking it is. Am I right?
Yeah. I said I can go up at bad rooms and kill. But as they say, "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks." Why is it my burden, and the burden of other comics who actually have the knowledge and the inclination to put on a performance, to live in a city where most shows are a chore to sit through, and have to battle justified skepticism from cold audiences half the time we go up? Why is it not the burden of the people causing the mediocre shows?
This kind of laissez-faire attitude toward bad comedy sanctions bad rooms. You push people, you create consequences, and maybe some of those shaky comics actually get serious and get good. Maybe some of the ones who can't get good don't get booked. That's good for audiences, and in the long run, it's good for the health of comedy as a viable art form. The only people who it's even kind of bad for are the comics who can't be good even if they try. And honestly, they're probably better off moving on to another field anyway.
And no, I'm not talking about some hypothetical world. I'm talking about Los Angeles. I'm living in it. And I've lived in Boston, so I know it can be better.
And the first thing is to let bookers know that they don't have an obligation to book bad comics, and try to hold them accountable when they do.
Don't say some crap like "why don't you start your own show?" Because there are good shows already, shows with standards, and it doesn't change anything. Let's say there are 50 stand-up shows in LA, and 10 of them actually make sure a comic can reliably do well before booking him or her. So I start my show, and now there are 51 and 11. Big freaking deal.
But if there's pressure on the bookers of those 40 other shows... and those bookers pass that pressure on to the comics they book... well, now you have a rising tide.
Some of those 40 bookers won't listen, and others will try to improve their booking and fail, because they're poor judges of talent. But in some cases, they'll start demanding more -- and a lot of previously unfocused comics will rise to that challenge, because now they have to.
(Now, the tough part about raising the barrier to entry is that the terrible comics who now find it hard to get bookings will probably start their own awful shows with their awful friends. Judging by the state of the LA comedy landscape, this has already happened at least twice at some point in history.)
Erik Charles Nielsen is a moderately funny fellow... right?
Erik, IMO, a bigger issue for comics in LA is a lack of a true and available audience. Shows can find bodies to sit in seats but it's rare to fill a whole room with people who are consciously there to have a good experience. I get more bummed by sold out shows that still have that heavy, tiring, unhappy vibe because most of the audience honestly shouldn't be there. They should be doing something they are actually interested in and excited about. I think getting rid of bad open mic'ers pales in comparison to the audience problem in LA and the mistake shows make of ushering people from the boardwalk into their venue who are not going to contribute to an honest, excited audience experience.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote