The home of the haikulator

 

Links

My Stand-up & gigs
The Coding Craftsman
BurberryAndBroccoli
MarkInventions

The Musical!
Incredible Productions

apostrophell
backlash
incredible
haiku


Previous Posts

Pay What Now?
Outro
Hearing the music
When to quit
I am not as other men
Tonight I was funny
Attack of the Drones
Notes on your set
Why Pissing off a Fellow Comedian was Fun
Can I Just Say That iPads are Lame

Blog Archives

January 1970
October 2001
November 2001
December 2001
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
August 2009
September 2009
January 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
October 2011
December 2011
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
May 2014
July 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
July 2016
August 2017

Global Domination

Locations of visitors to this page

Saturday, February 19

Some random advice for budding comedians

I was chatting with a facebook friend and ended up reeling off a bunch of tips on how to be a comedian. They may be useful to you if you ever wondered how to crack the art form. It's a bit of a random blether as I've edited from bits of the original hat. Hope it's interesting to read.

Things to avoid:
  • Doing yourself down as a comedian - don't tell them you find doing comedy hard in any way, even if a joke fails, don't tell them you have no confidence in your role as comedian
  • Doing yourself down totally on stuff they don't know/care about - parading one's failings/insecurities IS funny, but up to some sort of breaking point, by which the audience stop caring. Likewise, if it's a small thing that they haven't necessarily noticed, then they may not make the leap of realisation that it's funny.
  • Cliches - avoid obvious subjects.... at least, avoid facing them head on - I'll mention this a bit more in a moment.
  • Monologuing - give the audience room to breathe. Stand-up is a dialogue - make room for their reaction.
  • Big explanations for small jokes - the size of the laugh must justify the amount of listening it takes to get to it. Small jokes need small explanations, big jokes, need big ones. If the journey isn't meant to be funny, then keep the journey brief.
Cliches Here are some things which are expected of a comedian to talk about. You can talk about them, but if you do, you should either do a quick line, or come at the subject from the side. Otherwise you're probably not saying anything new, or surprising enough to make a decent laugh.
  • Weight
  • Appearance
  • Periods
  • Porn
  • Masturbation
  • The hilarious difference between genders/races etc
  • Sex
  • Family
  • Tubes
  • Airline experience
  • Sat navs
  • others that you can guess
So, if you opened a set with "So... periods", you will probably get a bunch of audience members and many comedians going "Here we go again".

Positive advice Boil the story down to the biggest joke and work backwards from it. What's the simplest and shortest route to the punchline. Do the subsidiary punchlines justify their branches from that route? Where's the surprise and revelation in each thing you say. Ignore my advice completely and make up your own. Stand-up is a personal thing and my tips should be taken with a pinch of salt.

If you'd like a script doctor's view of your material, feel free to email me on ashley at ashleyfrieze.co.uk a long-hand script of a set. I'm happy to send you feedback as though I was editing a script of my own, with questions, alternatives and ideas for you to try. This may make you go "No. My way is the ONLY WAY", which is a good reaction, since you're showing conviction in your draft, or it may make you go "Yes, but, how about I do this other thing you didn't suggest" which is a good reaction, since you've been able to kick start the script development and make something that's more you than me... alternatively, I might strike it lucky and suggest something you could use.

It's up to you. Or you can not bother. :)

How to start
The "I know what you're thinking" line is a comedy cliche, but it's also an easy way into an audience.

Example: "I know what you thinking - I didn't know that Barry From Eastenders Had a Baby With Shrek" (see photos of me for context)

My favourite "I know what you're thinking" moment was something along the lines of a stand-up saying the following and then getting heckled in the most perfect way - the heckler didn't miss a beat. It sounded like this:

Man: I am a mind reader. I can reach into your minds and work out exactly what you are currently thinking...
Heckler: ... tosser!

Brilliant. Still makes me chuckle.

Friday, February 4

With Respect To Believers

This weekend sees QEDCon, a skeptical conference. I wish I could attend. I will have to enjoy it vicariously through the various reports and podcasts I'll see/hear over the next few weeks.

Skepticism is an interesting subject to me. I find myself being both in support of and against its methods from time to time. On the one hand, the sort of thinking that you'd find in a Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh or Edzard Ernst book is unassailably sensible. Here's a summary of how rational thinking works.

Step 1 - define the criteria for judging whether something is true
Step 2 - modify the criteria to account for other confounding variables
Step 3 - modify the criteria some more to account for human failings, like confirmation bias
Step 4 - apply the method and look at the results

If you've done the steps right, and there's debate about exactly what's a confounding variable and what is a human failing, but let's assume we can work those out for a second, then the answer isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of deduction. This applies to anything.

A problem occurs when you start out with a viewpoint of the answer before you've designed the test, and then either design the test to agree with your answer, or retrospectively adjust the method of the test to prove your answer.

Believers are idiots.

Naysayers are idiots in equal measures - they're just registered disbelievers.

Skepticism, linguistically, implies naysaying, which sometimes is a consequence of disagreeing with a belief on the basis of evidence, but often seems to be assuming that some saying of nay is required and then finding evidence to enable that, which is not pure evidence-based rationalism.

So, before entering a debate on what represents a reasonable claim, you have to agree on your criteria for defining what would be accepted as a reasonable claim. This has to be very specific. I don't think the skeptical activists would disagree with that, though their rhetoric often sounds different. When you're confident that your answer is better than someone else's you can't help but display a giddy sense of "he's a bloody idiot", which can occur on either side of the fence dividing believers from naysayers.

This is where skepticism worries me. On the one hand, QEDCon is going to represent an amazing gathering (not an "Amazing Meeting", TAM fans) of minds, providing events and speeches I'd be thrilled to attend. On the other hand, to a large extent, the event will involve a lot of "preaching to the choir" which may, to the uninitiated, look like backslapping and general smugness. I'm not saying it IS that, I'm saying it might as well be that, when the human failings of the passionate are mixed with the perfectly brilliant views of their heroes.

Let's look at the issue of how rational thinking can be applied without closing the door to a meaningful discussion with believers, in other words, how do we approach unproven claims without becoming naysayers. Indeed, can even calling those claims unproven be a starting point?

This is again where I see my own attitude reflected by the jolly band of skeptics. I'm the sort of person who would start a conversation assuming I was right and "they" were wrong, and I know it doesn't win arguments, it just highlights the divide. So, some of the skeptic activists are, effectively, winding up the existing skeptics to agree with what they may already agree with, recruiting some other likeminded people, but are not necessarily likely to reach out to the undecided or the believers.

This is why I like the way that Goldacre describes scientific process, in a way that's not derisory, but just logical. This is why Singh and Ernst's first examples in their wonderful book "Trick or Treatment" are so good, as they do not relate to contentious current debates, but instead show the fallacies still present in current debates, via examples from the past that nobody would, with hindsight, dispute. Ultimately, deciding right from wrong comes down to the method proposed by John Diamond in his book "Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations": essentially paraphrased as "Why don't we determine what's right or wrong, but some sort of system of counting?".

So, I'd like to be part of the choir that's being preached to this weekend. I like the rational song. It's my song. To paraphrase James Randi, I want to live in a world that's based on real things. That said, I'd like to see a change in the way that skeptics approach believers. There's zero point in exchanging blows on a "my ideas are better than yours" basis. The first question to ask is this - "Are you a believer? or can we discuss evidence and rational deductions in relation to your subject matter?". If the person defines themselves as a believer, then you should probably stop.

My view is that neither believers nor naysayers should be allowed control of anything that's important. Let's have the thinkers step up to the plate. This will involve getting out of the conference hall, and spreading the philosophy of rational thought, rather than its outcomes.

I think that's what skeptics are trying to do. So I'm a skeptic.

All content ©2001 - 2012 Ashley Frieze