Comedy Evaluator Pro Software

[beccaBeccaBECCA]

Has anyone else heard of Comedy Evaluator Pro software? First of all, it's real! It's not satire.

Second, it takes a recording of any live comedy act and calculates laughs-per-minute, the duration of laughter/applause breaks, speech-to-laugh ratios.... things I know all comics tacitly consider - in their heads, or in notepads, or that they listen for during playbacks of their performances (not unlike ball players watching game footage)...
But it seems a bit bizarre to have a program that could precisely numerically evaluate how funny you are. And of course, a computer doesn't take into account human variables (crowd size, crowd mood, previous acts, et al).

I'm sure that, in theory, something like Comedy Evaluator Pro could be very useful, but I think everyone would agree that Comedy is more art than science. To look at something so subjective with such a cold, clinical eye seems, to me at least, to be missing the big picture.

I'm definitely not against this type of thing (hell, I haven't even mustered up the [proverbial] balls to try an open mic yet), but I ran across this online and it seems to be very polemic - comics are VERY split on the issue.

Has anyone used this program or heard good/bad things about it? I know it's featured in the new documentary I Am Comic (Which definitely deserves its own thread!).

Some links and videos:

http://www.comedyevaluatorpro.com/

http://www.sheckymagazine.com/2009/1...en-served.html

http://hubpages.com/hub/standup-docu...omedy-software

[YOUTUBE]u8XDeN6XsrA[/YOUTUBE]

It's all very interesting, no?

[fggrhjkhdeu]

It looks like a satire, just a not so original one..

first of all, the developer used the "scam 2.0" template for his website.
then he writes "there are only two major (and measurable) events that occur when a comedian is performing: ..... laughter cheering or applause"

I dont know what actual comedians think about that statement, but for me, when i watch a good comedian I feel I get much more than a few laughs

[funnyclown]

Apparently, the way to be funny is to perform in front of the world's most generous audience.

http://realfirststeps.com/standupcom...niest-comedian

[fggrhjkhdeu]

Also, the best way to succeed in Hollywood is to be a family member
like this guy:

"So Steve, thanks again for making dreams come true!
Johnny Hollywood
Professional Comedian"

testimony from http://www.killerstandup.com/

[Evander]

I hear that they are working on an update that utilizes a webcam to make sure you're flailing enough to be funny.

[Monty]

"But if I have it my way, within the next 5 years PAR Score will be the PRIMARY factor used to hire comedians or comedy entertainers, with the type of content the comedian delivers as the secondary consideration."

You know what comedy needs more of? Statistics. I've always felt that things weren't really funny unless they could be broken down and quantified. Also, this provides solid numerical proof that adding a laugh track makes things funnier. Science is awesome. And hilarious, apparently.

[apreacher]

that this is so extremely and verifiably wrong on so many levels to the extent that it seems like a cheap farce of a mockery designed to illicit a steady stream of "rage vomit" from me and those like me leads me to suspect that this thing just might be real.

[scamboogah]

Can Dat Phan sue this guy?

(Does complicated math equation)

No.

[beccaBeccaBECCA]

Can Dat Phan sue this guy?

(Does complicated math equation)

No.

I though of Dat Phan and his charts and graphs while writing this post! (For better or worse....).
It all seems so surgical. It's comedy, people! That said, different people do what works for them, I guess.

[drbristol]

Is it cheaper than Comedy Boot Camp?

[Bushviper]

Saying that some individual is the "Worlds funniest comedian" is pushing it. Anywhere outside the US he might still be amusing although even in the English speaking world he will not get as many laughs, when you get to people who do not speak English he will bomb. Have to keep all claims realistic!

[Jim Nayzium]

I think there are a few things at work here.

And I am a user of the materials sold at killerstandup.com -- and can give you guys great insights to this situation... I am sure you will blast me for defending him, but rest assured, I am a person that paid for his materials, used them, and then benefitted from them...

1. Steve Roye is a polarizing writer and personality. He claims things that are black or white.. and we all know nothing is black or white.

2. To attack him on this type front is futile, because he will keep coming back with his evidence to the contrary, which we may not have believed to begin with...

3. Here is the truth -- his 300 page writing guide on how to develop and write comedy material is a fantastic and practical way to jump start your writing material abilities... seriously.

4. the concept of laughs per minute is a sound one. However, what everyone in the forums wants to jump on is how "subjective" it all is. Without a doubt, if you want to use his materials and software to falsely evaluate yourself you can... and you can trick yourself into feeling "funnier" than you really are.

For example, a 30 member audience that laughs lightly at your jokes and produces a PAR score of 35 versus a 400 member audience that laughs hysterically and produces a 35 PAR score...

Well -- all the tool does is simple path people... YOU, or whoever is evaluating YOU is the one that pushes the button that DECIDES what the laughter is or isn't.

So from that stand point, to act like the TOOL itself is bad is flawed on multiple levels.

5. Not sure why I am still numbering these things?

6. Going to continue to number then though.

7. What is true is this tool may or may not create a bunch of amateur comics doing poor self evaluations of their performances and therefore feel mistreated by clubs that won't book them. BUT isn't the comedy world already filled with these people?

8. The truth is this -- if you apply his written material advice to your own comedy material from his purchased work (which is seemingly overpriced in general...but is well worth it...) then your own personal PAR score will go up.

9. If you aren't doing some form of hard self evaluation of your own performances you are never going to improve enough to continue working for money...seriously.

10. A practical example would be to run his software concept on any great comic that you love and you will find that their PAR scores are all above 30 and some around 50.

11. Then using the same button-pushing threshold to qualify the button push to begin run it on one of your own sets... and see what you come up with ...

Let's pretend in this example my 10 minute set scored a 25. That means that 25 percent of my stage time was filled with laughter.

Well, I then apply the writing guide materials I learned from Steve Roye's books to that very same 10 minute set and low and behold the next time I perform those same jokes... I do it with my newly created jokes written with the concepts I learned from Roye and I score 35...

The system works whether old fashioned comics want to admit it or not.

12. Again, not sure why I am numbering.

13. What I think the real point that everyone is missing is that Steve Roye's Dreams of having the PAR score take over the universe through his software are just that -- his dreams....

DON't let this crazy talk by him color your opinion of what he is actually offering to you as a comic though.

His total system is around 650 pages worth of material when you print it out and put it in notebooks... and I got mine through an affiliate link which made it cost 147 instead 297...

Folks -- After ONE paid show that I charged more for because I was better at comedy it more than tripled that price back in return.

I do corporate comedy...largely in part to this system.

I can honestly say that if you are scared to spend 150 bucks to vastly improve your attack at your craft then you are missing the boat.

The link I used is here

http://mybestmaterial.com

The bottom line is this ---

Steve Roye is a crazy polarizing personality that likes to have contraversy surrounding his products...

HOWEVER

his products do what they say they will do and they work!

The line that would be place under the bottomline -- the UNDERLINE -- is this --- if you are lying to yourself about how funny you are, then his software will help you to continue to do that...

if you are honest with yourself about how funny are ... then his software and materials will help you get FUNNIER!! I guarantee that.

[Phil]

Does it count number of smashed watermelons?

[Monty]

2. To attack him on this type front is futile, because he will keep coming back with his evidence to the contrary, which we may not have believed to begin with...

What if I just want to arbitrarily snipe at him by taking his wildest claims out of context and making fun of them? I suppose that's also technically futile, but at least it's fun!

5. Not sure why I am still numbering these things?

Because numbers are awesome, that's why. Here, check this out:

635

See?

[bao]

I think there are a few things at work here.

And I am a user of the materials sold at killerstandup.com -- and can give you guys great insights to this situation... I am sure you will blast me for defending him, but rest assured, I am a person that paid for his materials, used them, and then benefitted from them...

if you are honest with yourself about how funny are ... then his software and materials will help you get FUNNIER!! I guarantee that.

This post reminds me of an old Irish parable ...

Debating comedy with a guy named Jim Nayzium is like wrestling with a bear: its best to play dead and wait for him to get bored, and hope he just wanders off into oncoming traffic.

[fggrhjkhdeu]

Because numbers are awesome, that's why. Here, check this out:

635

See?

true, that is also why Comedy by the Numbers has the best comedy teachings

[JayRunner]

Here's the problem, I don't want to just make people laugh, I want to make them laugh at what I think is funny.

Using this software I could go up on stage with a stun gun and blast myself in the thigh, UPROARIOUS LAUGHTER. Then I can pull a petite girl from the audience to kick me in my testicles, really hard, ROOM EXPLODES. My PAR score for my 5 minute open mic is 80 and I go home, think about my set, open a few veins and die as the world's funniest comedian.

[Hardwick]

Look, young comics, if something gets you to be critical and evaluate your set, GREAT. You don't have to live and die by the numbers in this program, but if it gets you to think about what you're doing and how you can improve then it can't be all that bad. If you do use it, just use it as a guideline and not the defining principle of your set. You have to be smart enough to know not to punch yourself in the balls for ten minutes just to get certain scores (though, that would be pretty rad).

You could also just perform a lot, record your sets and pay attention. This software sounds like it's good for those who need some type of quantifiable measurement system, with pretty numbers. That's not for everyone.

And Becca, I'm sorry to break this to you, but stand-up is not more art than science. It's both. Equally. The art is how you express your ideas but the science is in the crafting of it. To consistently sustain your art you need the structure of science to hold it in place and re-calibrate it often. At least, that's what I've found in the 11 years I've been doing it.

I commend this guy for trying to nerdify stand-up, whether or not it works for everyone. As someone who likes putting systems in place, I appreciate where it's coming from. Would I use it? I'd probably try it just out of curiosity and in a spirit of fun, but I certainly wouldn't live my comedy life by it. As was previously stated in this thread, there are too many organic factors that a program can't account for.

That said, fuck it. If it works for you, aces! Everyone's comedy path is different. But for me, and to be redundant redundant, I would only use it as a guideline.

End of Line.

[beccaBeccaBECCA]

Look, young comics, if something gets you to be critical and evaluate your set, GREAT. You don't have to live and die by the numbers in this program, but if it gets you to think about what you're doing and how you can improve then it can't be all that bad. If you do use it, just use it as a guideline and not the defining principle of your set. You have to be smart enough to know not to punch yourself in the balls for ten minutes just to get certain scores (though, that would be pretty rad).

You could also just perform a lot, record your sets and pay attention. This software sounds like it's good for those who need some type of quantifiable measurement system, with pretty numbers. That's not for everyone.

And Becca, I'm sorry to break this to you, but stand-up is not more art than science. It's both. Equally. The art is how you express your ideas but the science is in the crafting of it. To consistently sustain your art you need the structure of science to hold it in place and re-calibrate it often. At least, that's what I've found in the 11 years I've been doing it.

I commend this guy for trying to nerdify stand-up, whether or not it works for everyone. As someone who likes putting systems in place, I appreciate where it's coming from. Would I use it? I'd probably try it just out of curiosity and in a spirit of fun, but I certainly wouldn't live my comedy life by it. As was previously stated in this thread, there are too many organic factors that a program can't account for.

That said, fuck it. If it works for you, aces! Everyone's comedy path is different. But for me, and to be redundant redundant, I would only use it as a guideline.

End of Line.

Great points! And this may seem counterintuitive, but I'm honored to have been (sort of) ripped out/set straight by you! (I'm a fangirl first. You were great on Kevin Pollak's Chat Show!).

I agree with all of your points, especially that constant reevaluation is necessary to excel in comedy (or in any passion, really) - to prevent complacency or settling. I guess it's just that my mind, and I imagine many people who are given to comedy/performance would tend to similar strengths, processes language/art more readily than it does math and science. Quantifying things I consider art, at first, seems like a horrible bastardization, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to be able to garner some form of concrete data from something, like comedy, that's otherwise endlessly debatable.
The manual calculation of laughs by comics has been going on for ages, so this program, designed to make the job easier, couldn't be as outlandish as it seems!

I hope it didn't seem like I was attacking this program or its creator. I worded the post carefully to open a dialogue and I think, so far it's been a good one!

[bradyoil]

Kudos for opening up the topic... Now, truthfully if the programme just got a comic to listen to his/her act... that activity alone, even while smokin' a fatty, would make him/her think of a "tag" or a trim of a word... and that is honing the craft.

Crafting the craft allows the art to be more arty.

BTW, Dat Phan got a PAR score of 37 with a youtube bit. "Not too shabby" as Steve Roye said.