Jump to content

Your favourite stand up comedians?


Toonraider
 Share

Recommended Posts

Stuart lee's TV show is back soon with Chris Morris taking over from Armando ianucci.

 

Stuart lee's TV show is back soon with Chris Morris taking over from Armando ianucci.

Stuart Lee reminds us that comedy can be clever on some sub level you get a few minutes later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Stuart Lee reminds us that comedy can be clever on some sub level you get a few minutes later.

And on the other hand he says "the top of the pops" repeatedly for 15 minutes with increasingly withering contempt until its absurdly funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

You know how apparently you shouldn't judge people on appearances? I've not seen any of this cunt's comedy, I've only seen the cunt on the trailers for the latest batch of Live At The Apollo repeats on Comedy Central, but I'm pretty certain he's a cunt.

You can tell by the face. Bet he's all fukin chirpy in his spare time as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you a comedy snob?

Do you like belly laughs, or does giggling 'contaminate the aesthetic experience'? Academic research finds audiences torn betweeen low and high culture.

 

Do the comedians you like indicate who you are? Or indeed – how good a person you are? I went to a fascinating presentation the other morning on "the rise of the comedy snob" – the subject of a book by Sam Friedman, the sociologist (and publisher of the excellent Fest magazine. Friedman offered up a short precis of his research: an absorbing – and sometimes shocking – overview of the schism between "highbrow" and "lowbrow" comedy, and the assumptions people make about what our comedy loyalties say about ourselves.

 

Friedman's research draws on the idea of cultural capital developed by the French scholar Pierre Bourdieu. The idea is that some of us – the middle classes, mainly – are brought up to engage with culture in detached, analytical, "disinterested" ways, whereas those with "low cultural capital" respond instinctively, emotionally or non-intellectually. Traditionally, those distinctions drive some of us towards "high culture" art forms and some towards "low culture", although those hierarchies are breaking down. In comedy, they drive some of us towards Stewart Lee, and some towards Michael McIntyre. But they also incline us to react to the same comedy shows in different ways – and to base our appreciation of comedy on opposing priorities.

 

Friedman conducted interviews with a wide range of comedy show audience members. He found that low cultural capital (LCC) respondents and high cultural capital (HCC) respondents both enjoyed Eddie Izzard, for example – but the former because he was "silly" and the latter because he was "surreal". (Is that a genuine difference, or a semantic one?) More profoundly, he discovered that LCC respondents liked comedy that was light-hearted, easy to understand, avoided "difficulty" and made them laugh. HCC comedy fans, by contrast, wanted to "work" at their appreciation, objected to comedy that was "just" funny, and – I was astonished by this – believed that "laughter contaminated the aesthetic experience."

 

Comedy ruined by laughter? I probably fit the profile of a comedy snob – in that I often like artistically ambitious comedy that makes me think as well as amuse me. But I've never wanted my comedy to supercede laughter; I want it to make me laugh. I was equally surprised – appalled, in fact – by the snobbery Friedman's interviews revealed: quote after quote in which respondents used people's comedy tastes to negatively judge their character. ("Class racism," Friedman called it.) The same people use their own tastes to assert their sophistication and gain "social profit". Depressingly, Friedman's LCC interviewees often assented to this arrangement, describing highbrow comedy in vertical metaphors – "over my head"; "beyond me" – that seemed to concede its superiority.

 

You might say that this happens across art forms and cultural activity in general, which is true. But Friedman argues that comedy has a particular utility when it comes to distinguishing oneself culturally. Because what makes us laugh is more personally revealing than, say, what films we like, and because humour is integral to social bonding and relationship-building, our comedy tastes are uniquely useful in classifying ourselves. (The closest parallel, I suppose, is with music, with which we also identify profoundly and which also lends itself to cultural and character judgments.)

 

I could go on; you should read Friedman's book, and so should I. As I discussed when I wrote about Jim Davidson earlier in this festival, we critics (whom Friedman discusses in his book) need to be aware of our own prejudices and cultural conditioning, and make sure that – to as large an extent as possible – our reviews aren't written exclusively through that lens. At one point in his presentation, Friedman suggested that critics "tell audience what to laugh at," which I don't consider remotely to be in my job description. Comedy snobbery is no more appealing than any other kind of snobbery. I'm passionate about what I like in comedy, and it's my job to tell you why. But if you disagree, vive la difference. Why would you denigrate anyone for having a different sense of humour?

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/aug/15/are-you-a-comedy-snob-edinburgh-festival

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read that, thanks.

 

This bit though, "Why would you denigrate anyone for having a different sense of humour?", surely it's reasonable to denigrate somebody for rating Dapper Laughs? I mean I get that McIntyre is an excellent performer even if his material is hackneyed, I'd like if people packed into arenas to watch Stewart Lee, but McIntyre is excellent at getting "LCC" fans engaged in comedy where Lee is almost pointedly shooing them away, so it's all good.

 

I'd rephrase that question to "Why would you denigrate anyone for preferring a different stand up?", the piece itself says that both types of fans like Izzard (and arguably for the same reason even if it is couched in different terms) and I'd wager that there a large number of comedians that appeal to both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I really liked Bill Connolly when he was original and fresh, but now the stuff just isn't as funny. Not his fault, he's just mellowed with age and you kind of need your comedy to be raw.

 

some of the best comedy I've seen is from absolute no marks, but I'd doubt they had the range to their set to keep you interested for longer than their 15 minute set.

 

Silky is an exception and despite the derision I'm inevtiably going to recieve I think Silky has the quick wit and range to talk about pretty much anything he's experienced and make it funny.

 

he's not th best comedian I've seen, that would be Bill Hicks or Richard Pryor.

I love Silky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.