Stand-up Comedy Ignorance – BUSTED!
When I put out information about my new reality TV show concept that would objectively evaluate comedians on their ability to generate laughter, cheering, and applause and allow them to compete as such…
I knew it would only a matter of time before I would be visited by the representatives of ignorance.
Fortunately, ignorance can be overcome with knowledge, as opposed to stupid — which appears to be a terminal condition.
Below you will find a comment I received from one of those representatives and my comments follow.
Note: If you are visiting this page from Skanky Magazine, you may want to view this challenge that I offered and that they didn’t have the spine to accept.
The Comment
From everything I read it appears that this [reality TV show concept] is an attempt to shake up the comedy world and see if you can pit comedian against comedian. The fact is that opinions are like, well you know what they are like and everyone seems to have their own opinion about who is funny and who is not.
However Comedy is not like football or baseball where you can compare stats and say this player is better, it just don’t work that way. Comedy comes in many forms that are suited for specific audiences, so comparing every Comedian across the board will not show real results. You will most likely end up drifting off into distance with none of this skewed data affecting anyone or anything (At least we can hope).
Have you ever heard the saying (those who can do, while those who can’t teach)? It appears to apply here. I will not say your educational material is not great, as it very well may be. But let’s not try to upsell it to a point where it will be the new standard to judge comedians.
The only way to judge a comedian is to be there live and see how they perform and if they are funny or not to you the individual. Any other form of measurement is just false data and should be disregarded.
Chuck
My Response
It’s been said that it is better to keep your mouth shut and look stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.
Let me start out with this Chuck…
Your comment is riddled with the same faulty type of information that was used to determine that mercury was a great treatment syphilis at the beginning of the last century.
If my reality TV concept is an attempt at shaking up the stand-up comedy world, then it actually started a decade ago when I launched the Killer Stand-up Comedy System and 6 years ago when I invented Comedy Evaluator Pro.
You know, in the world of beauty contests you could say that there is really no way to compare one equally beautiful woman to another. Yet a winner is determined in every state, on a national and on an International level—every year.
I can think of nothing more subjective to determine a winner about.
But suggest that there are comedians who excel above others on the comedy stage and that it can be determined objectively…
Now that’s blasphemy. Well, it is—for comedians who really can’t cut it.
The ONLY reason comedians haven’t been challenged in the way I am describing is because there has been no mechanism—or even a plan to do so. Now there is.
The part you have missed about my reality TV concept is that there are a wide variety of challenges possible — just as wide as the variety of comedy and comedians that you describe.
As far as data being skewed…
[ ** Sorry... This content is available exclusively for SCP Blog Members ONLY. Please Login or Register to access this MEMBERS ONLY content ** ]
When my software is used to make a determination of a comedian’s performance from a video or audio recording, what is being measured is the actual results that the comedian attained for that performance. There is no mystery, false or skewed data involved when using my software as intended.
To answer your comment directly:
Yes, I am trying to shake up the stand-up comedy world and raise the bar in the world of stand-up comedy. And I will do what it takes to do that, in spite of all the ignorant comments that come along the way.
But please note: I will always welcome a healthy debate on stand-up comedy issues. I am still learning about this amazing art and business. And I do appreciate different views, opinions and perspectives. And I certainly don’t know everything there is to know — I seriously doubt that I ever will.
But if your only knowledge base is grounded in what you gathered from watching TV and not from real experience on stage, working the business of comedy, coupled with an extensive educational background and authorship on the topic…
Best refer to the first sentence in my comments here, because I will eat you alive every time. You won’t need any software to measure that.
Still, I must thank Chuck for his comments because without them, I could offer no response or way to educate others in the process.
UPDATE: This blog post caused quite a stir. Click here for the latest drama!
Cheers,
Steve Roye
The Professor of Funny for Money
About the Author/Founder of The Stand-up Comedy Professional
Steve Roye is the author of the Killer Stand-up Comedy System and author of the content made available in the Comedy Pro Membership Program available on this site. Over the past decade, Steve has established himself as a leading, globally recognized expert in the field of stand-up comedy material development, delivery and entertainment business strategies for comedy entertainers as well as speaking professionals.
For more information about Steve, please check out the About The Author section on this site.
Dear Steve,
In reading the pathetic continuing objections of those (alleged) comedians who are STILL desperately arguing vs your “per laugh” meter as a “true” measure of value as a comedian (some even challenging it as [if somehow too] “importantnesses” I thought I’d provide you some “scientific proof” that a comedian is MOST VALUED by his/her ability to make people (actually) physically LAUGH:
Very few are aware of this FACT, but several medical institutions, including UCLA Medical Center, Sloan Kettering and Mayo Clinics all have created special “laugh yourself to heath” therapy that encourages the patient to LAUGH OUT LOUD as now a STANDARD recommendation for those with disease; including terminal CANCER – which actually has proven to provide a HIGHER success ratio for full remission than any combination of Chemo/radiation (which is still used to bring the ‘cancer cell count’ down – but does NOT cause the number of cases of recovery) as it has been proven that the PHYSICAL ACT of “actually laughing out loud” provides a release of dopamine into the bloodstream that is so powerful that “physical laughter” combined with de-stress exercises are now considered the future KEY component to the CURE to cancer!
In fact, If you look at comedy from a factual HISTORICAL point of view… whether during the age of Kings, where the court jester was provided highest status as part of the King’s royal court because he “made the King laugh” – or studying actual accounts of concentration camp prisoners where certain ‘special’ prisoners were spared or granted highest privileges because they could calm soldiers for BOTH sides because they “made them LAUGH” – to the modern era where people now pay for tickets to laugh because it makes them “FEEL GOOD”… the ability to “make” people “actually” LAUGH has always been provided the highest VALUE. (Including the most recent “surprising” surveys where a majority of women agreed the #1 MOST ATTRACTIVE male feature for them was NOT a man’s “eyes” or muscularity, etc., but instead was “If he can make me LAUGH!” So, whether you study ancient history or examine today’s most up-to-date scientific research, the most valuable “comedians” are measured by their ability to MAKE YOU LAUGH!
Hell even social outcast computer nerds created a special significance for laughing with “l.o.l.” – which they created ESPECIALLY for when they are LAUGHING OUT LOUD. *As far as I know, they never created anything special for a “big smile”…
…which would obviously be “B.S.”
I think THAT says it all!
Keep up the good work,
Bob Kennzington
Wonder if you saw the snotty post regarding your TV venture and software @ sheckymagazine.com entitled “Tap into a delicious vein of importantness [sic]“. Strange how the comedy mindset is so fixed in its ways.
Essentially your software is based on the simple premise that all successful comedians have used since some caveman got his first laugh: The more laughter you get during your set, the more successful (i.e. the funnier) your set. Comedians use that yardstick every time they get off stage. The difference is: you can’t hide from the numbers.
I too have met with (as shayne michael put it) tone deaf comedians who walk off stage all excited, “Man, I killed!” And, you just look at them like, was I at the same show?
I’m uncertain where the disconnect, the consternation, the snooty contempt for the software comes from. Is it because it quantifies the laughter? Is it the simple arithmetic? Is it that they assume you’re spending too much time on a computer analyzing data and not enough time on stage? Or, is it that they can no longer pretend that they “killed”?
I also wonder how many Vaudeville comedians rolled over in their graves when the first comedian recorded his/her set to evaluate at a later date (now any comedian worth his/her weight records audio or video).
Yeah, I saw the shecky article. Even though they have telethons for that stuff, it isn’t helping much it would appear
I cannot think of a single great idea that hasn’t encountered some serious resistance, along with a sea of nay-sayers.
In this case, having a device that helps measure length and frequency of laughs generated during a stand-up set is pretty darn scary for marginal comedians — whether they will admit it or not.
Oddly enough, it doesn’t really seem bother those who can CONSISTENTLY kill on stage.
I have dealt with this sort of thing for years. And I can can say is…
Fight the math. Fight the measurement. Don’t fight me. I’m just trying to help funny people get the most out of their time on stage.
Great comment!
Tha Prof
The main thing to remember about any comedy reality tv show is this:
It is first and foremost a TELEVISION SHOW.
NOT a comedy show.
Meaning, character development and personality play the major role of CASTING a reality television show.
So, the amount of “funny” involved in a comic’s net worth is not very relevant to the amount of “watchability” for television a comic has on a show like Last Comic Standing.
This is most obvious on the second to last season when the guy who did impressions won the show’s audience instant pass to the next round. He actually killed that crowd, that night, and went forward.
The guys on the show like Doug Benson totally railed on the dude ( I forgot his name, but he did a crazy spot on Robert DeNiro…)
Then, NBC totally removed the CHANCE for a comic to win a night like this…there was NO instant pass on the last season because NBC wanted more control over who advanced.
I can say with great certainty that I am not an expert on what will fly or what won’t when it comes to reality TV programming.
But I can also say that the TV folks don’t really know either until it airs. There are many factors involved in a successful TV show.
Cheers,
The Prof
While I agree that consistent audience laughter is the great judge of a comedian’s net worth, most “contests” don’t live up to this standard. Last Comic Standing starts with two judges in the back of an empty room evaluating the talent. The follow up “show” is to make sure the performers don’t choke on stage (the decision who goes on has already been made before the show). In every club show I’ve ever been in the comics who win just happen to have close ties with the club. In either case comics who kill but don’t fit “the profile” don’t advance.
I’ve been told again and again that I’m too old at 50 to get attention from the TV industry. Until I see a older contestant on ANY comedy based reality show I believe them. Old and Ugly just don’t work no more. There never will be another Marty Allen.
I have to agree with your assessment of comedy competitions in general.
As far as any reality TV show goes…
It must still be watchable, marketable and profitable. It’s still just a business like any other.
As far as older comedians getting on the boob tube…
I believe Hollywood has ignored the largest market available today. And with that said, I also suspect that it will only be a matter of time before there is a dedicated TV network or two devoted to those of us who are more “mature”.
When that happens, there will be many more opportunities for older comedians and actors on TV.
Great comment!
The Prof
As a Stand-Up who is working in the industry full-time now, in most part due to Killer Stand-Up and working on the material with the assistance of Comedy Evaluator Pro:
Steve, you missed something that Chuck also needs to note…
When you evaluate with Comedy Evaluator Pro, you are measuring that comedian in front of the audience that has come to see them. In other words, all the talk about “comedy being subjective” is right, because the comedian is being evaluated in front of an audience that is subjective and, for better or worse, has decided to subject themselves to this particular comedians work.
In addition, this also means that if a comedian gets in front of an audience that does not necessarily appreciate their work, and still scores a high PAR, well guess what?!? It means that comedian is good.
This also goes for a comedian who comes on first (…oooh, I gotta warm up the crowd…), comes in the middle (…oooh, they wil be ready to not laugh as much by then…), comes last (…oooh, eveyone will be too drunk to get my comedy by then…), has something happen during a set (…oooh, the waitress dropped her tray…) and so on and STILL KILLS: well it means, once again, that comedian is good.
What I am beginning to see is that people afraid of the Evaluator and it’s positive audience reaction (PAR) score are probably those who a) wouldn’t likely get a high PAR and b) would not be bothered to learn to write better material or tweak their material in order to do so as a result of being evaluated. It was this (being willing to subject myself to the evaluators evaluations and then working on my material to make it better) that has allowed me to develop great sets and get great work and great laughs. It is also why I have comedians asking me to work with them and coach them because I seem to be able to work the same rooms as them and get more laughs than them and never have to utter any profanity or lower myself to blue jokes.
It’s these kind of people (those who are scared of evaluation) who turn up for open mic nights (not that I recommend them, mind you) and complain that the audience is too big, too small,wasn’t the right ‘type’, and so on.
Seriously, at the end of the day, first and foremost the idea of good comedy is to make people laugh. You can be creative, be experimental, deliver a message within it and so on sure (I do). But if you bill yourself as a comedian or a humorist and people don’t laugh, please do us all a favour and reconsider your calling.
Now, bring on the show…
MG
It seems to be pretty common to claim certain types of comedy are hack. Prop comedy, Guitar acts, impressionists etc. But I think it is far more accurate to say that some types of comedy have lower numbers of great comics within their ranks for whatever reason.
For example prop comedy seems to be considered hack by nearly everyone you meeet. Gallagher and Carrot Top have got to be two of the most bashed comics who have ever lived. Whether or not they deserve that ridicule is another question, but how many times during these types of discussions have you heard Steve Martin listed as a hack because he was a prop comic? The guy used to blow up balloon animals and put fake arrows on his head. Despite that, no one ever says that Steve Martin was a hack.
I guess my point is that within each type of comedy there are good and bad comics and that the type of comedy does not preclude someone from being a great comic.
John
John, I don’t have any clue why prop comics would be categorized as hacks. I think that is largely due to the fact that they can get big laughs with props while comedians who suck without them can’t get the same level of laughs.
The issue remains the same — you can either command big laughs or your can’t. You can’t hide behind “art” when it comes to being able to generate laughs — or point the finger at someone with props or a guitar as the “reason” they are funny.
Prop comedians have to make the props work too. They have NO advantage over any comedian. If anything, they have an extra piece of equipment to deal with.
Great observation and comment!
Cheers,
The Prof
I use the word Hack to mean a thief as well — but also in my circles Hack can be broadened to mean a comic that is using tired premises and still redoing something that gets laughs.
So in my book there is hack-proper and hack-general.
To the road-comic snobs I spoke about I think they would view all impressionists and jugglers as hack.
But I know what you mean when you say “hack” means stealer — for sure.
Interesting discussion, one that comics have with each other all the time. I don’t think even the audience appreciates how important they are to the comic’s act. I have seen “good”comics with good material not do as well as not so good comics who really relate to the audience through their personality, material content, and respect for the audience (an under rated component) and the fact that when they perform, they OWN the stage.
I’ve seen comics kill that I personally don’t like because yes, comedy is very subjective to the audience and I just don’t like their paricular style…but i cannot deny that the ultimate judge, the audience, is pissing themselves laughing or that the structure and delivery of their act is top notch. (To be honest, most of the ones I don’t like are ego maniacs and I begrudgingly have to say they are good comics, even though i wouldn’t cross the road to run them over.)
And I know that when people like some of those with “hack” comments above, get onstage and simply don’t deliver at a high level, they accuse the audience of being stupid, and therefore, other more successful comics of being hacks. Ego! I’ve been doing stand up for almost 15 years, have worked my way up to headlining, and I am constantly working, when some of those “hack-sayers” are still hanging around trying to get hired.
As for the whole teacher can’t do it argument, I am always willing to learn and refine my craft. Now, who do you want to learn from, someone who talks a good game, or someone who’s actually been in the game? I’ll take experience over theory any time!
While I agree that there is a certain part of comedy that’s subjective, there’s also a certain part that isn’t. You see it first among comics that aren’t listening to their audience. We used to call it tone deaf. Tone deaf comics are extremely annoying because they usually use phrases like, “It wasn’t my audience, they don’t get me, or this isn’t my night.” Every audience is your audience, you’re responsible for making them get you and every night damn well better be your night.
Regarding the beauty contest analogy, yeah there’s a subjective quality to beauty, but I know ugly when I see it. It’s the same with comedy.
At the most basic level comedy is this simple: You have an idea story or joke. If it works on stage: keep doing it, and pay attention to how well it works and how often. Keep doing that material until you come up with something that works even better. That part of comedy is objective and measurable. And if you can’t get that far, big laughs all the time you’re on stage, you shouldn’t be booking yourself as a comic.
Now, if you want to be more socially relevant like Bill Maher, a great story teller like Bill Cosby, a social commentator like George Carlin or a great writer like Stephen Wright, you can work on those skills along the way. That’s harder than simply repeating every comment that ever gets a laugh. And it will take longer. Moreover, you better be prepared to study the best comics to do it, in addition to getting on stage at least in my humble opinion.
But, along the way, you damn well better get a laugh out of the audience while your on stage and every time you’re on stage. And getting laughs 35% of the time you’re on stage, however you want to measure it, is lowballing it, if you want to be remembered among a sea of a thousand other comics. If material consistently doesn’t work and you’re unwilling to let it go, you’re an exceptionally weak writer. Fix it, or come up with something else. Being on stage gives you a responsibility to the people who are up after you. No comic wants to win the audience back, even at an open mic.
Now, back to the subjective part of comedy. I will sometimes throw away things that get huge laughs for something that gets less for subjective reasons, the material is too old [and I'm sick of it], it’s slightly out of character, or maybe I’m just not personally compelled to talk about it. But that second step only comes if you’re getting laughs in the first place.
If you’re not getting laughs, it’s not the audience’s fault that you’re not winning them over. You can be as smart on stage as Bill Mahr. If you’re playing Podunk Montana, the fact they can’t relate to you because there’s no traffic light for 200 miles is not an excuse for a bad set. It’s your responsibility to win them over, even if your personal brand of comedy isn’t, subjectively, their cup of tea. At least that’s the way you better look at it if you hope to ever get paid. Disagree with me do a paid show, get no response and use the excuse, that wasn’t my audience. Tell me when you get invited back.
By the way a hack is someone who does comedy that someone else did already, usually word for word. It doesn’t mean I have an opinion that disagrees with yours.
.-= Shayne Michael´s last blog ..Available Chanels =-.
Fanstastic comments Shayne.
But don’t candy coat it — just say what you mean (just kidding).
Love the “hack” definition — which is ironically, about the most “hack” term used today when it comes to describing comedians…
Thanks Shayne!
The Prof
Great point Bob!
It’s like the College football regular season. Once they do go to a play-off system in college football, the regular season will no longer matter like it does now!
Another point I wanted to mention goes toward the “comedy-snobs” out there. I know some road comics that think their form of the craft is somehow harder to do, or even better in their own mind.
However, I was recently on a television show with other working comics. It was a show that featured clean-comedy. (It will air in 2010 on BET.)
There were road comics there that were cleaning their act up for five minutes so they could be on the show, and then there were other comics there that were on the show BECAUSE they were already clean comics and just funny enough to make it on the show. (And then there was me, the one dude that got lucky and squeeked past the judges…)
BUT it was an illuminating event the night the main “cheezy” comic performed. This guy had been ridiculed back stage by every “road comic” as “hack, cheezy, un-original” you name it…the road guys hated this guy.
Well, the night this “cheezy-hack” performed in front of the live studio audience taping HE RIPPED IT. I came out of the green room because of the thunderous sounds of laughter — I wanted to see who was on stage…and it was this guy.
I looked at one of the road-comics that had this really depressed look on his face. I said, “what’s wrong?”
He responded, “These people are REALLY laughing…and that kills me.”
What this road comic couldn’t believe was this supposedly cheezy-hack-un-original comic was actually making people laugh. And I loved how the road comic differentiated between laughing, and “really laughing.”
BOTTOM LINE — this cheezy hack deserved to be on the show because he was funny enough. I am sure his PAR for that five minute set would have been 35-40 range no doubt. And when that road comic performed, he too was in the 40 range, which proved he also deserved to be there.
Lucky for me, I killed my 5 minutes on television as well which proved I should be there, BUT I KNOW that I am not a headliner yet for sure!!! because I cannot do 45 minutes in a club and achieve a 40 PAR score, NO WAY, Not Yet!
I am averaging 35 or so in Churches over 30 minutes time, so I am getting there.
I just think the “traditional comics” that feel threatened by this system need to do ONE simple thing.
TAKE one of your best five minute sets on your website or youtube and run the evaluator on it.
You will find out really quick whether you are then a backer of the system.
BE WARNED — If you are struggling to become a feature as a host, or struggling to become a headliner as a feature — my bet is your PAR Score is in the 20′s and you are not being honest with yourself.
HOWEVER, if you are struggling to become a headliner as a feature and your PAR score is a 40 — then keep hope alive! You will get your chance, and the better news is when you do get your chance you are absolutely ready for it!
The best thing the tool provides is an objective tool for US to use on ourselves!!!
I have never left stage thinking that I totally ripped it and and then NOT graded out over 30.
LIkewise, I have never left stage thinking, “hmmm, not sure about that one, ” and then run the evaluator tool and found that I did indeed kill…
COME ON PEOPLE — just learn to be honest with yourself!! Seriously.
Steve’s stuff flat out works.
And mostly it works because it is ANALYZING what HAS happened…NOT telling you what is GOING to happen.
It is actually hard to argue with the results.
The only vague question becomes what is laughter…and in hindsight on video it’s not too hard to tell folks.
Bingo! Well put and nails it hard.
Way to go Jim. Now just between me, you and Bob…
I’m in the process of MAKING TV spots and subsequent opportunities happen for comedians. No easy task, I can assure you.
The catch? You gotta be really funny. Mildly funny just ain’t gonna cut it.
The Prof
Dear Steve,
I couldn’t disagree more with the “ignorance” comment that attempted to criticize your “measurement” technique for a comedians reality competition. But for a completely different reason than those you cited – for the tremendous PROMOTIONAL value it would provide.
One of the major differences in comedy and say “acting” is that it DOESN’T have a well known (by the general public) form of “ultimate” award. Acting has Oscars; Emmy’s, etc. Writers have Pulitzer. Even scientists have the Nobel prize. It’s obvious that NONE of those can really “measure” an objective “best.”
However, whether its really a vote for “favorite” accomplishment, or most popular – it’s PUBLICITY! It brings ATTENTION to the concept of the different accomplishments of those in the field. And, whenever an artist, ESPECIALLY a comedian, can become part of THAT discussion THEN the accomplishment(s) and the individual(s) become part of the public awareness – which IS the ultimate goal of an artists career.
Ironically, even the complainants example “sports” benefits from THAT more than simple statistics. What do all the HIGHEST PAID and most SUCCESSFUL sports (and ultimately most successful athletes) have in common? They are INTERESTING to the public.
There are many types of sports and great athletes. But its the sports which are the most argued; compared, etc that are the most SUCCESSFUL. Football, Baseball, Basketball (even Poker – is that even a sport?) But they all have THAT going for it. Are they really “better” athletes than say triathletes; probably not. But they ARE more “compared” verses each other by the public. Therefore they are more SUCCESSFUL.
Ironically I believe its obvious that your “comparison” idea (for the very reason that the complainant chose to ARGUE AGAINST it!) serves to create the scenario that is greatly NEEDED by – and would be VALUABLE to – todays comedians.
Thank you for providing a “fresh opinion” that is exactly what comedy NEEDS – a little controversy; something to ARGUE about! That will bring more sorely needed public awareness to those being argued about. And, in show business, that’s SUCCESS!
Keep up the good work!
Bob Kennzington
Bob, you hit the nose right on the head with your comments!
For those who don’t know Bob Kennzington…
He is a MASTER self-promoter and understands what it takes to get recognition, attention and publicity better than anyone that I have ever met.
Thanks a ton Bob! Great lesson and great feedback!
Cheers,
The Prof
1. Just wanted to differentiate myself from Jim Firenze! – I am Jim Nayzium!
2. I think all the arguments are really stressing the wrong points.
Steve, understandably you got upset at the comments of the Chuck person and chose to defend yourself with your resume.
I, as a reader of most of your materials, would have simply chosen to defend your materials.
Any educated person, or a any person wishing to be educated, should be able to read what is good advice and deem it so, whether you have a respectable resume or not.
My former boss played in the NFL for 9 seasons and was terrible at teaching the skills involved with football.
I for one, would rather have someone gifted in teaching teach me, than someone gifted in other areas try and teach it.
All that to say —-
CHUCK is actually DEFENDING your argument without realizing it.
He says
++++++++++
The only way to judge a comedian is to be there live and see how they perform and if they are funny or not to you the individual. Any other form of measurement is just false data and should be disregarded.
++++++++++
AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! (with the addition of the grading of the video.)
I think what some folks get lost thinking in this is the context of the show….
I assume the reality show will have all competing comics performing in front of the same audience each challenge right?
Then, use your system to determine the true winner.
Therefore, Chuck’s comments would have credibility if each challenge was in front of a different audience.
Church comics and Club comics have this debate all the time — who is funnier…etc…
But the only way to really ask that is “Who is funnier tonight?” and then perform in front of the same crowds.
NOW — road comics will argue that church comics are less original or hack in some way because of the “nicer” church environment …. HOWEVER, the road comic that performs in front of a church audience that doesn’t laugh at him at all — cannot argue that he was funnier that night than the church comic who does get laughs, can he?
All I am saying is CHUCK may be missing the overall point — which is —
comic 1 performs — comic 2 performs — and instead of a vote by the audience on who we liked better — your system is attempting to mark for the record who got the most laughs.
I believe if 2 comics scored well over 35 percent STEVE would be the first to admit that one may just be more “likable” than the other…..
BUT if a likable comedian scores 20 on the PAR score and another dude who everyone hates while performing scores 40 — YOU CANNOT argue that the second guy ISN’t FUNNIER — you can only argue that you don’t like him as much, which means you are not placing the value of the performance on the laughter…. which is the point, right?
Your points are well thought out and well taken.
But allow me to point this out as well…
Just because there is a “fastest man in the world”, it sure doesn’t seem to stop anyone else from trying to become that — on a global scale.
What I am truly up against here are myths and superstitions that have persisted about stand-up comedy for a very long time — just like when it was thought that a human could not survive if they ran faster than 4 minutes in a mile or were able to break the sound barrier in an airplane.
There are very, very few profesional athletes (relatively speaking). They are at the top of the heap.
There are very, very few comedians who are 40+ PAR Score achievers, no matter how you want to “spin” it — same crowd, different crowd — it really doesn’t matter among real professionals.
Could winners change frequently? Well, they do in every single sport. Could winners be determined at every level? Well, they seem to have that in sports too.
There are a lot of athletes that have numerous awards and trophies that don’t include a Super Bowl Ring.
So, why can’t that be the case for comedians? I can think of one thing right off the bat:
My reality TV show concept is new and scary.
Keep those comments flowing! I’m lovin’ it!
Cheers,
The Prof
hehe, nice resume. Great headliner spots. hehehee. Opened for Goldthwaite? Wow, it must have been nice to be so near a comedy god.
God, there are so many hacks out there. You are one of them.
Man, I just love the greenroom hacks spouting out about how bad all the other hacks are. Makes me miss standup.
Calling another comedian a hack is the ultimate comeback, huh Jim?
Well, you’re gonna have to do a lot better than that, I’m afraid…
My comedy resume is what it is. I am proud of it and anyone who is willing to call another comedian a hack without seeing them perform is just a loser.
Cheers,
The Prof