I have spent some time reading through all the comedy forums recently, there are a lot of strong opinions on them and a lot of people who talk sense with contrasting view points from other people whom also talk much sense.
I have my own opinions on some of the things I read but my stance has always been that just because I think something about a particular subject, person, group or anything really, then I should not expect everyone else to share my opinion or be considered wrong if they do not. Now that makes little sense in some ways but it's that I don't believe in myself and of course I think I'm right otherwise my opinion would change as no one wants to knowingly be wrong about something unless they are trying to save face when proven wrong.
In comedy there is a lot of opinion about all kinds of things but one thing I have noticed with the forums is there are a lot of opinionated people too, they just don't accept that there are other points of view, and why should they?
Opinions are important in comedy, if you can make someone think differently and have a laugh at the same time its a strong position, especially if you want to make your opinion heard.
This leads me to the question should comedy have a point? By this I mean should each comedian be tackling hard hitting, political or globally important topics with their materiel??
Does there need to be a preach in among the laughs? I ask this, in many ways rhetorically, because I am starting to get regular paid work for my comedy. I am realistic, it is only the smaller promoters that are offering it and I have much work to do to tighten up my set properly, for example I have 45 mins of stuff but realistically only about 15/20 mins that is strong enough. My paid work is often to open or close a small promoters gig, the occasional 15 min middle spot and a fair amount of MCing, but.... none if it was with the instructions 'make a point', instead the instructions 'make them laugh' are what I hear and I do to a degree (this isn't me patting myself on the back, or at least not intentionally) but I have no thought provoking materiel, no political satire, no world issues thrown into the equation, just silly stories of things that happened to me that I have embellished and of course turned into materiel.
I did a middle open 10 not long ago with a pro headliner who was coming from Manchester, this was a guy who I had met twice before but I doubt would remember me as he was MCing a gong show when we met. He is one of the friendliest and nicest blokes I have met and also hilariously funny. He did his closing 45 mins at said gig and was asked back for an encore, he smashed it out of the park even having to break up a fight in the audience when someone heckled and someone else opted to defend the comic. I can tell you this guy is excellent I really like him, yet, his reviews on a well known comedy website are less than favorable because he does not do anything 'groundbreaking'? now why would that matter? what he does every time I see him is make everyone in the room laugh, yes there are dick jokes but so what they are brilliant dick jokes!
So should this act be considered in the wrong because he does not really have an agenda, he is seemingly apolitical and he just tells funny jokes. I don't thin so, I have I guess answered my own question there but really there is no answer to that question which is why on the forums many comics row with each other. I just think whatever you do you have to be funny consistently through your set.
Open spots often go for the obvious stuff, I do, I have a dyslexia joke that I fucking hate yet keep using, this is not me saying there is an excuse to not be a better act. I believe you should be the always working and tightening your stuff, but if your stuff is not groundbreaking then so what?
Audiences have had a week at work, the stresses of their daily grind are put to one side and they have bought a ticket to a comedy club to laugh, relax, release all the endorphins that laughing produces. So if you are the purveyor of that laughter through dick jokes (the act I was referring to earlier has a lot more than dick jokes by the way) or through some kind of thought provoking masterclass then hat's off to you, because you are a comedian and you are doing what you are paid for and it is commendable no matter how achieved.
It is a fascinating debate. I have grown up watching and obsessively studying stand up and as such have developed the misguided opinion that I know better than others. This annoys me as it is rare that Im so aware of a prejudice and yet so powerless to address it.
ReplyDeleteI find myself prisoner to my tastes to the extent that I have become quick to dismiss things as 'worthless' if they dont so much as directly appeal to my tastes.
It is worth saying that, thinking logically this doesnt stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny as I appreciate that comedy, as with music, encompasses a breadth of styles and appeals.
The comedians that have engaged me most effectively are those that embody an agenda in their work. Daniel Kitson, Stewart Lee, the late Bill Hicks and the great Doug Stanhope all transcend the format to produce something which goes beyond comedy and into social commentary and their material speaks to me more personally as a result.
Also present with all four of the above (less so with Bill) is a solid awareness of how comedy works and a willingness to play with the rules. Lee, for example often deliberately 'losing' an audience just to necessitate winning them back.
My relationship with the arts in general can be distilled into a quest to find resonance with the way I think and act. My obsession with stand up is perhaps most indicative of this.
Naturally it still has to be funny or it is compromised.
But this is not where it ends. If Im looking for escapism, which I often am, something genuinely funny will suffice. I am a fan of free-standing 'gag-men' on their own terms, I just prefer an act to have an agenda.
When I want to listen to something moving and thought provoking, I put a Sage Francis record on, when I need cheering up, I reach for NWA.
Its the same with standup.
Great article there mate. Well put.
Dave.
Hi Dave
DeleteThanks for your comments, I find it interesting what you say in particular about being prisoner to your tastes.
I like to be challenged in my thinking and I like when someone I don't totally agree with, for example Steve Hughes, makes me agree or at least sympathise. I also like to just laugh for the sake of something being funny, a silly or cheap joke will still get the same laugh from me. I like your music analogy which sums this up nicely.
Jim