Stand up recs

[matedog]

I listened to Demetri Martin (my sis' rec) on the way down to LA and Patton Oswalt on the way up. Demetri was a poor man's Hedberg so he was okay. PO was alright as well. He went on waaay too long on nearly every bit but it had its moments.

Waaay too long = developing the point and potential of a topic.

I only know DM from his Daily Show appearances. Quite honestly, I always think he's the boss' son. I get what he's trying to do—at least I think I do—but he doesn't even amuse me.

Examples: The secret fantasy magazine bit. He begins on piss drinkers. Funny at first and then he goes into the upset editor bit for 2 1/2 minutes. Haha he said "corpse fucker." Haha, he said "whiffle ball fuckers" and "shit fit."

The Tom Carvel ads. Again, funny at first - Tom Waits gargling hot asphalt. He does an impressions of the guy which is fine at first. He goes at it for another 2 minutes doing more impressions of this guy and doesn't change the joke, just keeps redoing it in different ways for another two minutes.

Robert Evans doing ESPN ads. Again, funny at first - Diane Keaton's apple juice vagina. He essentially redoes this joke four times (four rubik's cubes with Brian Dennehey, Gil Gerrard getting fisted, Angie Dickenson and Brian Dennehey, Loretta Switt's bush). There are no real variations it was merely coming up with a 70's star and involve them in a random sexual act. Which after the first time, the novelty wears off. I can do that. "Richard Roundtree and I were doing coke in the bathroom at the Chinatown premiere when an amputee rolled into the bathroom. Roundtree then began to rub his man meat all over the amputee's stumps, etc." So basically I've been listening to the joke for five minutes and it hasn't changed for the last four minutes.

Have you seen The Aristocrats? The Robert Evans and Tom Carvel bits are perfect examples of why professional comedians love telling the aristocrats joke to each other. It's about building levels upon levels of outrageousness and tension, making the audience wonder what the hell could be next. It's the kind of joke that rejects ADD humour—pay attention to it, accept that things are getting weirder and weirder, wonder where the hell this will end. It's basically Oswalt saying over and over, "You think that's funny and weird? I can go a step further." It's also a hell of a lot harder to construct than it seems. Oswalt is just so damn good at it that it seems easy and, apparently, boring.

Except I don't see the bits as getting more funny and weird. Put the Diane Keaton's vagina soaking in apple juice last and put the Loretta Switt's hairy bush joke first and it is the exact same effect.

[Wolter]

Comedy = material + delivery

This.


Ultimately, there is no right or wrong when it comes to comedy (it's what makes YOU laugh), but Hoy's dismissal of (more-or-less) the entire underground comedy scene of the last 3 decades comes as close as possible to wrongness as this issue allows.

When the fuck did I do this? I just said Patton Oswalt was pretty good but that his jokes dragged on too long and didn't get any funnier.

Your critique of the discursive style is very applicable to pretty much any fringe standup since Lenny Bruce.

[matedog]

Comedy = material + delivery

This.


Ultimately, there is no right or wrong when it comes to comedy (it's what makes YOU laugh), but Hoy's dismissal of (more-or-less) the entire underground comedy scene of the last 3 decades comes as close as possible to wrongness as this issue allows.

When the fuck did I do this? I just said Patton Oswalt was pretty good but that his jokes dragged on too long and didn't get any funnier.

Your critique of the discursive style is very applicable to pretty much any fringe standup since Lenny Bruce.

Is the underground comedy scene that limited? From my understanding, it was more broad than that.

[Dr. Medulla]

I listened to Demetri Martin (my sis' rec) on the way down to LA and Patton Oswalt on the way up. Demetri was a poor man's Hedberg so he was okay. PO was alright as well. He went on waaay too long on nearly every bit but it had its moments.

Waaay too long = developing the point and potential of a topic.

I only know DM from his Daily Show appearances. Quite honestly, I always think he's the boss' son. I get what he's trying to do—at least I think I do—but he doesn't even amuse me.

Examples: The secret fantasy magazine bit. He begins on piss drinkers. Funny at first and then he goes into the upset editor bit for 2 1/2 minutes. Haha he said "corpse fucker." Haha, he said "whiffle ball fuckers" and "shit fit."

The Tom Carvel ads. Again, funny at first - Tom Waits gargling hot asphalt. He does an impressions of the guy which is fine at first. He goes at it for another 2 minutes doing more impressions of this guy and doesn't change the joke, just keeps redoing it in different ways for another two minutes.

Robert Evans doing ESPN ads. Again, funny at first - Diane Keaton's apple juice vagina. He essentially redoes this joke four times (four rubik's cubes with Brian Dennehey, Gil Gerrard getting fisted, Angie Dickenson and Brian Dennehey, Loretta Switt's bush). There are no real variations it was merely coming up with a 70's star and involve them in a random sexual act. Which after the first time, the novelty wears off. I can do that. "Richard Roundtree and I were doing coke in the bathroom at the Chinatown premiere when an amputee rolled into the bathroom. Roundtree then began to rub his man meat all over the amputee's stumps, etc." So basically I've been listening to the joke for five minutes and it hasn't changed for the last four minutes.

Have you seen The Aristocrats? The Robert Evans and Tom Carvel bits are perfect examples of why professional comedians love telling the aristocrats joke to each other. It's about building levels upon levels of outrageousness and tension, making the audience wonder what the hell could be next. It's the kind of joke that rejects ADD humour—pay attention to it, accept that things are getting weirder and weirder, wonder where the hell this will end. It's basically Oswalt saying over and over, "You think that's funny and weird? I can go a step further." It's also a hell of a lot harder to construct than it seems. Oswalt is just so damn good at it that it seems easy and, apparently, boring.

Except I don't see the bits as getting more funny and weird. Put the Diane Keaton's vagina soaking in apple juice last and put the Loretta Switt's hairy bush joke first and it is the exact same effect.

I disagree. Do it once and it's a throwaway joke. Doing it multiple times, building on the effect of what preceded, is about working with and challenging the audience's expectations. If it comes off as having the same effect, the initial joke must not have worked for you. Which is fine—not every joke is going to appeal to every member of the audience—but that's not the intent of that kind of material.

[nsc]

Mitch Hedberg.

just discovered him recently. a very funny guy.

[Wolter]

Is the underground comedy scene that limited? From my understanding, it was more broad than that.

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.

If it comes off as having the same effect, the initial joke must not have worked for you. Which is fine—not every joke is going to appeal to every member of the audience—but that's not the intent of that kind of material.

Also, this.

[Flex]

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.

[Wolter]

I don't think Hoy is being too sacriligous here, is the point. No reason to get up in arms.

You're new here, aren't you.

I added some halfassed disclaimers about there being no right and wrong, dammit!

[Flex]

I don't think Hoy is being too sacriligous here, is the point. No reason to get up in arms.

You're new here, aren't you.

I just think attacking him over something that isn't at all an indefensible position to have dilutes it when he gets chastised for actual indefensible positions.

[Flex]

I added some halfassed disclaimers about there being no right and wrong, dammit!

It was like saying "not that there's anything wrong with black people as a race, but here's all the things I don't like about them."

[matedog]

Is the underground comedy scene that limited? From my understanding, it was more broad than that.

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.

If it comes off as having the same effect, the initial joke must not have worked for you. Which is fine—not every joke is going to appeal to every member of the audience—but that's not the intent of that kind of material.

Also, this.

Carlin is great. I watched his Carnegie Hall video back in the day and quite enjoyed that. I am familiar with the others listed to varying degrees although I haven't dug into them.

I think part of the reason why I didn't enjoy PO that much was that I'm pretty desensitized to that. I don't find shitting rubik's cubes or smelly vaginas to be particularly shocking (although the rubik's cube coming solved was a good touch).

[Wolter]

I don't think Hoy is being too sacriligous here, is the point. No reason to get up in arms.

You're new here, aren't you.

I just think attacking him over something that isn't at all an indefensible position to have dilutes it when he gets chastised for actual indefensible positions.

You robots are all alike. One logical contradiction and you get overridden by a Canadian macro.

[eumaas]

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.

[Wolter]

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."

[matedog]

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.