mcadambombed:

This is a good article here, and by good, while well-written, I also mean thought provoking. I think comedy is bigger than just the idea of stand-up clubs, which I have absolutely nothing against. I see comedy as an inclusive art form featuring classic club stand-up, but also storytelling, t.v. shows, live improv & sketch shows, web series, podcasts, humor websites & articles, books & memoirs, albums, movies, and even theater. To be fanatic about only one I think is pretty narrow and counter-intuitive.

I think because we’re in an age where most of these forms are merging, some talent may feel annoyed that a sacred art form is being disrespected by not being approached the correct way. While I can understand that reaction, I also hope they eventually come to see that it’s not one form of comedy being pushed out in favor of another, just as the oldest sibling isn’t thrown out the window once a new baby is born. I think the article is evidence to the power of comedy (or Comedy, to hold in it’s highest regard) in that it has influenced so many to heed the call of performing. I think as long as they exhibit certain traits, then they can do whatever the hell they want.

Not to be too academic, but what I mean is that I see comedians as holding their own “holy trinity” of being three things at the same time - a thinker (always making sense, even in an absurd way, and providing or working within a context), an artist (creating as honest and professional as possible), and an entertainer (making it work, knowing the audience, and if it doesn’t, either tailoring it or finding a new audience).

If a performer truly holds all of those aspects, do they have to follow only one road-map via the club scene? Obviously that is a great tried-and-true path, as many ho have navigated it have become revered and legendary comics. But over the years, it’s become apparent that the road is not so narrow. In conversations with many friends the topic of “Who is your favorite comedian?” has come up, and the answers have not always been restricted to stand-up comics. Yes, Bill Burr’s name has come up, and other great stand-ups, but so have several others who have only acted in sketch shows or movies, or others who have done random roles and then written or directed films or even wrote books.

That has made me think of how amorphous the idea of a comic has become. The idea of stand-up comedy only seemed to start getting accepted around the 1950’s and 60’s, and then was perfected in the 70’s and 80’s. Some may even go further back and say that Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin were the first comedians in the first motion pictures at the turn of the 20th century. But that is only true in the sense that they were stars who became known across the nation, and even internationally. But comedy’s roots have always been in the smaller vaudeville and side shows, and those have always been known to be very, very diverse.

I think comedy has come full circle, to some extent, where now after the golden age of the “stand-up comic gets a special and then a sitcom” path, we’ve now entered an era where technology has allowed many “amateurs” (everyone was an amateur at one point) to make their own podcasts, web series, or even display videos of their club sets and gain a following. The slumping economy has also shown that there is a place for cheap (or even free) shows around cities, which have allowed for the growth of the so-called alt comedy scene. This era has spawned a resurgence in not only sketch and improv (Without it there would be no period of “improv comic gets movie/t.v. role”, which we’re still kind-of in), but also in storytelling, radio (which is basically what a podcast is, a radio show, and I don’t see that as an insult), and even variety shows and burlesque, which could probably have its own other article.

When you look at all of these different venues for comedic talent, each with their own sub-genres (I almost forgot musical improv and video blogs, among others), it’s easy to see that here is so much crossover between performers who participate in many types of comedy.

The fact that a comic is great at one thing, doesn’t necessarily mean they shouldn’t take a crack at another; George Carlin even acted in a sitcom. While he didn’t like the experience, it’s an example of what comedy is about - seeing what works and abandoning what doesn’t. Seinfeld paired with Larry David (who didn’t stay as a stand-up for long) and will always be remembered for his t.v show. Dave Chappelle’s stand-up was enhanced with his sketches on his t.v. show. Louie CK continues to be the envy of many with his level of creative freedom on his FX show, which has many moments of awkward “alt comedy”, and yet he still continues to also be a club comic. Bill Hicks, who many stand-ups still highly regard, even started making audio sketches as a comedy duo with his friend Dwight Slade, and just before he died, he was also was producing a pilot for a comedic talk show in England called “The Counts of the Netherworld” with his friend Fallon Woodland. Yes, I did get the title of this post from the ending lines of many of Hicks’ club sets, but the club scene isn’t the only answer apparently.

To me, the Great Book of Comedy is less of a textbook and more of a choose-your-adventure book, with plenty of branching paths and multiple endings. The Great Book of Comedy is also a little bit like a Bible too, but let’s hope most comedians see it as something with universal themes that can influence everyone’s life and not as something that will divide us into little teams and pit us all against each other. To take a page from Carlin, I pray to Joe Pesci that that doesn’t happen.