eumaas wrote:I think Hoy's critique was a structural one as well as a performance one.
By his own admission he likes others on the list that Wolt gave as having similar structural styles and isn't too familiar with most of the others. I don't see how Hoy's critique (correct me if I'm wrong here, Hoy) was anything other than "Patton Oswalt employing that method does not do it for me as much as you guys."
I saw nothing that was a wholescale rejection of the style and all comedians that use it.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Wolter wrote:I suppose I overstated it, but to be honest, your lack of joy in the journey over the destination saddens me.
I admit I have too much of a tin musical ear to appreciate most jazz, but the whole point of most of the more discursive comics (Oswalt, David Cross, Brian Posehn, Dana Gould, Zack Galifinankas (sp.), Janeane Garafalo, Dylan Moran, the late Bill Hicks, George Carlin, and Lenny Bruce, and many, many more) is the working out the variations inherent in a theme, as well as bonding with their audience in a less hacky way than the setup, punchline, segue, setup, punchline segue pattern that ruled (and still to a large extent, rules) standup.
Disliking or finding one of the above to be not-as-great-as-advertised doesn't preclude enjoyment of the scene in general tho. The same structure applied by different people can yield different results in the audience. There are some on that list that I like more than others. If you took one that I didn't like as much and said "this is a great example of the method," then yeah, I'd probably be likely to not think much of the style itself without more data at hand.
As has been alluded to, somewhat kindly and also somewhat disparagingly, most stand up doesn't even try to be universally appealing. There are target audiences in mind, and whether you're in that target audience can fluctuate. It can be based on more long term factors (age, region, etc), but fuck, your mindset at the time can determine how well you cotton to an act.
I don't think Hoy is being too sacriligous here, is the point. No reason to get up in arms.
I think Hoy's critique was a structural one as well as a performance one.
As did I.
If I was mistaken, then nevermind.
Although his comment that assumes "shock value" is Oswalt's intent, to me, screams "missed the point."
The Dr. said that with each passing iteration, the joke is supposed to get more funny and shocking.
Oh, you were specifically talking about the Aristocrats? Nevermind. That's either, you find it funny or you don't stuff.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
eumaas wrote:I think Hoy's critique was a structural one as well as a performance one.
By his own admission he likes others on the list that Wolt gave as having similar structural styles and isn't too familiar with most of the others. I don't see how Hoy's critique (correct me if I'm wrong here, Hoy) was anything other than "Patton Oswalt employing that method does not do it for me as much as you guys."
I saw nothing that was a wholescale rejection of the style and all comedians that use it.
Your moderation sickens me, neutral.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
Wolter wrote:Oh, you were specifically talking about the Aristocrats? Nevermind. That's either, you find it funny or you don't stuff.
It took me about a quarter of the way through that movie to start finding it at all funny and by the end I couldn't stop laughing.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Wolter wrote:It really is one of those things (like free jazz) that you have to either get or it's nonsense.
I think when I first saw the doc it just wasn't something I was familiar with so I needed the developing context for me to get it.
great flick, by the way, for anyone that hasn't seen it yet.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
eumaas wrote:I think Hoy's critique was a structural one as well as a performance one.
By his own admission he likes others on the list that Wolt gave as having similar structural styles and isn't too familiar with most of the others. I don't see how Hoy's critique (correct me if I'm wrong here, Hoy) was anything other than "Patton Oswalt employing that method does not do it for me as much as you guys."
I saw nothing that was a wholescale rejection of the style and all comedians that use it.
Well, I was trying to point out why his method was generally not funny. But sure, I'll roll with that since this discussion has to end eventually.
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.
eumaas wrote:I think Hoy's critique was a structural one as well as a performance one.
By his own admission he likes others on the list that Wolt gave as having similar structural styles and isn't too familiar with most of the others. I don't see how Hoy's critique (correct me if I'm wrong here, Hoy) was anything other than "Patton Oswalt employing that method does not do it for me as much as you guys."
I saw nothing that was a wholescale rejection of the style and all comedians that use it.
Well, I was trying to point out why his method was generally not funny. But sure, I'll roll with that since this discussion has to end eventually.
Like hell it does!
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
Wolter wrote:Oh, you were specifically talking about the Aristocrats? Nevermind. That's either, you find it funny or you don't stuff.
It took me about a quarter of the way through that movie to start finding it at all funny and by the end I couldn't stop laughing.
It really is one of those things (like free jazz) that you have to either get or it's nonsense.
There is a good bit on The Office when Dwight tries his version of the joke:
Dwight: The Aristocrats. A man and his wife and his children go into the offices of a talent agency. And the talent agent says, 'Describe your act.' And the man says something really, really raunchy and the talent representative says, 'What do you call yourselves?' And the man says, 'The Aristocrats!'
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.
Wolter wrote:Oh, you were specifically talking about the Aristocrats? Nevermind. That's either, you find it funny or you don't stuff.
It took me about a quarter of the way through that movie to start finding it at all funny and by the end I couldn't stop laughing.
It really is one of those things (like free jazz) that you have to either get or it's nonsense.
There is a good bit on The Office when Dwight tries his version of the joke:
Dwight: The Aristocrats. A man and his wife and his children go into the offices of a talent agency. And the talent agent says, 'Describe your act.' And the man says something really, really raunchy and the talent representative says, 'What do you call yourselves?' And the man says, 'The Aristocrats!'
Which, if one is aware of both the joke and Dwight's personality, is actually hilarious.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
Wolter wrote:Oh, you were specifically talking about the Aristocrats? Nevermind. That's either, you find it funny or you don't stuff.
It took me about a quarter of the way through that movie to start finding it at all funny and by the end I couldn't stop laughing.
It really is one of those things (like free jazz) that you have to either get or it's nonsense.
There is a good bit on The Office when Dwight tries his version of the joke:
Dwight: The Aristocrats. A man and his wife and his children go into the offices of a talent agency. And the talent agent says, 'Describe your act.' And the man says something really, really raunchy and the talent representative says, 'What do you call yourselves?' And the man says, 'The Aristocrats!'
Which, if one is aware of both the joke and Dwight's personality, is actually hilarious.
Exactly.
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.
Wolter wrote:It really is one of those things (like free jazz) that you have to either get or it's nonsense.
I think when I first saw the doc it just wasn't something I was familiar with so I needed the developing context for me to get it.
great flick, by the way, for anyone that hasn't seen it yet.
I don't intend for this to sound elitist, but The Aristocrats is for people who want to understand why something is funny, rather than just laugh. Like the difference between a mechanic and a driver. Nothing wrong with just wanting to laugh (and the bonus material with comedians sharing their favourite jokes has tons of that, especially Larry Miller's Bavarian cream pie joke) but what makes the aristocrats joke so exceptional to analyze is that, really, it's not funny. At all. But the telling, the messing around with the audience's expectations, that begins to reveal what successful comedians do. Carlin once described his job as "thinking up goofy shit and then reporting it to you," but that's extreme self-deprecation (also somewhat reflective of his style of humour at the time). The material is only half the work—it's how it's told, how to manipulate the audience into being more receptive. A comedian who can't read a room isn't funny—simple as that.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Flex wrote:
It took me about a quarter of the way through that movie to start finding it at all funny and by the end I couldn't stop laughing.
It really is one of those things (like free jazz) that you have to either get or it's nonsense.
There is a good bit on The Office when Dwight tries his version of the joke:
Dwight: The Aristocrats. A man and his wife and his children go into the offices of a talent agency. And the talent agent says, 'Describe your act.' And the man says something really, really raunchy and the talent representative says, 'What do you call yourselves?' And the man says, 'The Aristocrats!'
Which, if one is aware of both the joke and Dwight's personality, is actually hilarious.
Exactly.
I loved that joke on the show. Cracked me up.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Dr. Medulla wrote: A comedian who can't read a room isn't funny—simple as that.
It's hard as hell, let me tell you. My very brief foray into that was semi-successful, but it is a skillset that combines native ability AND experience. But those moments when you are actually on (I think I had 2-3 out of the dozen or so times I went up) and can feel the pulse of the audience are better than any high I've ever had.
Of course, the lows (bombing) are about as awful as I've ever felt.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
