| How do I become a stand up comedian?
This is probably the most asked question… and takes
pride of place in the FAQs.
Firstly, pretty much the only fast track to comedy stardom in the world of stand up is
the competitions, which are arguably a double edged sword. The vast majority of people do
it through the tried and trusted route of doing open spots, which aren’t as demeaning
as they sound.
With open spots, you offer to do 5 – 7 minutes at a comedy club for free.
Sometimes this will be on a bill full of open spots, other times you will be on a bill
with more established comedians. It’s a good idea to go and watch some of these
nights before you take part, if you have that opportunity. If your only experience of live
stand up is Jongleurs or the Comedy Store then get out to a smaller gig –
they’re everywhere and the atmosphere will be much different.
If you live in London or nearby, Time Out is the central point of information
for comedy listings. Outside of London – check the local press. City Life in
Manchester is good, and the Guardian guide covers the whole country. Also check Channel 4
Teletext page 457. Some of these clubs will give phone numbers of the promoters. Phone
them and ask (politely!) for an open spot. Some clubs won’t do them and others will
only take open spots who have had a small amount of experience. This is an opinion but one
that is held by the majority… DON’T go straight to the big clubs immediately
– get a little bit of invaluable experience first.
Getting open spots can be very difficult – don’t be surprised when they put
you in for a date over 6 months away. This is normal. Also, most promoters have
answerphones. Just leave your name and phone number saying you’d like to do an open
spot, and expect on average a call back of about 1 in every 30 messages you leave. When
you start doing Open Spots, you’ll pick up loads from the other acts and from the
performing itself.
These mailing excerpts recently appeared on the subject…
From: "Ruth Hine" < Hine@btinternet.com >
Arnold wrote:
>i am totally new to this, i am currently looking
at where i can open mic sessions in london....
Buy Time Out *every* week - look in there for the
telephone numbers of places which do open mic
gigs. You will almost certainly have to wait for
months for a spot - particularly as many places
are closing for the Summer and won't re-open until
the Students return in September/October.
Don't hassle the bookers too much - they have to
deal with hundreds of wannabes every day.
Do not be tempted to get yourself an open spot at
the Comedy Store, Jongleurs or other "big" venues
until you have a lot of experience.
From: "Howard Read" < Howard.Read@ukgateway.net >
…When I was a lad I just turned up to alot of
new-act nights, and got on most
of the time. I don't know if this is still the case (there's millions of
em!) but worth a try if you don't want to wait. It's good to get alot of
gigs booked up though, however far in advance; make you get back on stage
and do it. Tell them you were part of a big comedy Cluedo team in the early
eighties. That may open some doors.
I’ve seen/heard about a stand up comedy course. Are
they any good?
There are arguments both for and against them.
From: "Steve Riley" rumbletum_riley@hotmail.com
>Comedy courses?
>
> Do they help, or do they just give you a blue-print act of eveyone >
>who's ever done that course?
Comedy courses _can_ help, but they can also give you a blue-print, you just
have to decide what you want to take from them. I did Jill Edward's course
before I ever did any gigs and it helped me immensely, it gave me the
confidence to do comedy in front of strangers and five to ten minutes of
usable material to do it with. It helped me avoid getting up and mumbling
my stuff while looking at the floor. But that's as far as it went, and
that's all you should expect to take from it. Don't think you'll be Jack
Dee or Bill Bailey at the end of the course, you'll just have a bit of a
head start over the other guys who _are_ mumbling their material into the
floor. As you carry on doing gigs and writing new stuff you're going to
change anyway, but doing a course can be a good jumping off point.
The thing about Jill's course, is that it seemed (to me) that there were
three kinds of student. There were the ones who thought everything Jill
said was Gospel, the ones who thought Jill was full of it and left, and the
ones that fell somewhere in between. If you go into the course trying to be
one of the last type, you'll be fine. Don't be afraid to disagree, and
don't think that because you disagree with one thing that everything else is
rubbish. Jill knows her stuff and makes a hell of a lot of sense most of
the time, but she's just a person. Think of it in that way. You're _still_
going to end up having to learn from experience at the end of the day, and
god knows I'm still learning a couple of years after dong the course, but I
got a good foundation to build on from it, and I'm glad I did it. That's
all.
From: "Dave Gorman" dave.gorman@virgin.net
>Comedy courses _can_ help, but
they can also give you a blue-print, you just
>have to decide what you want to take from them. I did Jill Edward's course
>before I ever did any gigs and it helped me immensely, it gave me the
>confidence to do comedy in front of strangers and five to ten minutes of
>usable material to do it with.
Yes, but doing some gigs would also have taught you this. Doing it for real
is like doing a course... only doing it properly.
> It helped me avoid getting up and mumbling
>my stuff while looking at the floor. But that's as far as it went, and
>that's all you should expect to take from it. Don't think you'll be Jack
>Dee or Bill Bailey at the end of the course, you'll just have a bit of a
>head start over the other guys who _are_ mumbling their material into the
>floor.
Or... the person who started doing gigs at the same time as you started the
course will have a head start on you. I've seen people from courses doing
their first gig and freaking a bit because it wasn't how they thought it
would be. It never is. You might as well just do it.
There are definitely a few comics who have gone backwards after a course
because they've had to un-learn stuff before they can begin to get it right.
Doing a course might well have taught you that mumbling into the floor was
bad. But then mumbling into the floor doesn't happen because new acts think
it's a good idea. It happens because they're nervous. And, believe me, if
you start gigging you will learn the lesson much quicker. You *will* learn
more from doing 3 gigs than doing 3 weeks on a course.
From: "Neptune Comedy" neptune_comedy@hotmail.com
Bill Hicks (aged 15) once attended a workshop given by Jay
leno and told him
what a crock of shit he was talking and stormed out. So maybe successful
comics aren't the best to give the courses. Who knows?
If you would like to do a course, there’s no hard and fast
starting points as they change from year to year. Post a message to the mailing list and
anybody who knows of any current courses could help you. Some are advertised in Time Out.
What books can I get on being a comedian?
From: "Dave Gorman" dave.gorman@virgin.net
>Anyway, I might as well come out
of lurk mode now I'm writing this thing and
>pose a question. Having done the grand total of 1 (one!) gig in my local,
>and having got two more coming up, I'm a bit short on experience, but I want
>to do the best I possibly can so I've bought a book. Yes, a book. On stand
>up comedy. To try and pick up some tips and pointers on how to do it right.
>No doubt this post will lead to many replies along the lines of "No
>substitute for doing it" or "best way to learn how is to get out there and
>do it", which is ok but you have to get enough under your belt to be able to
>do it until experience starts to kick in don't you.
Yes you do. But the people who will give you that advice have done exactly
that and found it to be true. Did you think they were making it up? The
being shit phase that people go through isn't just about being shit. It's
also about learning. This is an art that ought to value originality so
surely a 'how to' book is anathema. They're inevitably 'how to do it a bit
like the way other people do it' books.
>Anyway the book is Zen
>and the Art of Stand-up by Jay Sankey, and to me it seems ok and full of
>good stuff, apart from the obvious US bias. Any comments on this particular
>book. Any bit's to ignore, or pay close attention to?
I've skimmed through the Jay Sankey book and, in my humble opinion, it is a
load of wank. I don't own a copy so I can't quote directly - but I think
there is a section that says something along the lines of "talk about what
people know. There's no point writing a routine about nuclear physics, try
writing about fast food restaurants instead".
Maybe an 18 year old aspiring comedian is reading Jay Sankey's book. Maybe
he was going to write a beautiful, awe inspiring routine about nuclear
physics. Maybe he's decided not to and written the worlds 3,456th routine
about burgers instead. Hurrah, so the world of comedy gains another hack.
One extra comedian, no extra comedy.
What’s the difference between ‘alternative’
and ‘stand up’ comedy?
This is a never ending thread. The following postings discuss
different aspects of this.
From Al Murray ( al@publy.demon.co.uk )
As it stands now, the 'alternative ' comedy world
has reached something of an impasse. Time has passed since alternative comedy was born,
largely as a reaction to the forms of entertainment then on offer, and as a result many of
the things that it sought to overthrow have been replaced with things as dull/monstrous or
worse still, second hand and lazy.
Besides, we have a problem of definition here. I do not think of myself as an
alternative comic. To me alternative comedy is the seemingly tight knit group that came
out of the early eighties: The Young Ones, Ben Elton [though he rapidly enough hooked up
with the Oxbridge thing in the form of Rowan Atkinson], French and Saunders - now the UK's
premier light entertainers, and Alexei Sayle. Alternative comedy is not the Store, nor is
it The King's Head either - it is an outmoded and unhelpful label that is more often used
in a pejorative sense by those who consider themselves not to be 'alternative'.
The simple fact that there was a documentary by the BBC shows how establishment the
whole thing is. And surely the whole point was that it existed outside the establishment?
Or do entertainers necessarily get subsumed by the establishment? This is how you get the
embarrassing spectacle of your Rory Bremners going to dinner with their best mate Gordon
Brown and then not really knowing what to do when Labour wins an election.
Of course, having dissed the common definition I will nevertheless carry on using it.
However, if what is now called 'alternative' comedy has one defining characteristic it is
this: it is an essentially liberal [small l] middle class 'art form'. Performers are
[largely] middle class, audiences are [largely] middle class, the values paraded [and
parading of values is a very middle class thing to do] are essentially middle class. There
are of course a billion exceptions to this, and I expect a list from everyone of their
coal mining forebears, this is after all the danger of generalisation, but when you
compare the number of bums on seats there are in Blackpool for some of the most supremely
dull/monstrous or worse still, second hand and lazy acts in the country, with the most
daring innovative bla bla bla stuff on in la-di-da rarefied air if only we'd admit it
Edinburgh, you've got to admit I'm onto something. Ars gratia artis is all very well, but
is it funny? is the question that has reduced everyone to doing ginger jokes, then I got
off the bus routines and dad what are you doing here rib ticklers, or grown men in their
30's banging on and on about what it was like at their school - how fascinating [as if
they can really remember]. An impasse.
Personally I think the current obsession with things being young and/or sexy is
precisely the opposite direction in which things should be heading - that's a fine
cocktail until the audience grow up and want to spend their pocket money on something else
- if 'alternative' comedy really is to be all embracing maybe a few less jokes about old
folks by sexy young things would be a step forward [it'll get them too, or has no one told
them that?]. I don't know. The shock for its own sake 'solution' [and again this is a very
'young' thing to do - and the act I wrote when I was 21 was easily the most offensive
callous thing imaginable] is a similarly hollow solution - there are plenty of young
comics saying shocking things who end up looking like naughty little boys and little else
[and if they use the 'irony' or 'I hate political correctness' arguments then the devil
take them].
From Howard Read ( Howard.Read@ukgateway.net )
The 'Alternative' circuit has just grown to cover
everything from the truely alternative to the modern-day thinly disguised Bernard
Mannings. Certainly down south, (as far as middle-class me can see,) there's no
'Mainstream' circuit anymore (short of Jethro doing his one hour
"Combine-Harvester-My-Lord, Combine-Harvester" show). The people who would have
gone to that now go to Jongleurs when they want to 'do comedy' for a night. I don't know
if anyone's noticed, but is this the first week that Cannon and Ball have been listed in
Time Out? 'Alternative Comedy' now just means 'comedy', and it spans from
liberal-love-one-another-stuff to some stuff which is getting really quite
mesogenistic/homophobic/racist.
From Dave Gorman ( Dave.Gorman@Virgin.net)
A while ago a night of drunken whimsy with friends
led us to invent a new game called 'Joe Pasquale Bingo'. These are the rules: The players
are all circuit comedians. We buy every ticket for a Joe Pasquale gig. Then, when the
squeaky voiced thief does one of your jokes you leave. The last man in the room is the
winner. (or Bradley Walsh)
I mention this because it illustrates the point that there are still two distinct
circuits. And while that's the case they need to have names. Alternative and Mainstream
are the names given for what basically amount to historical reasons. Don't bother
troubling yourself with what the words mean they are just names. It's like with politics.
Conservative with a big C doesn't mean conservative with a little c. Labour doesn't mean
labour and Liberal doesn't mean liberal. It's just a tad more sophisticated than saying
the blue team the red team and the yellow team.
So instead of debating the semantics of now meaningless words - look at what the actual
differences are. I don't think it comes down to the isms. Racism, sexism and homophobia
are bad things. But they are not the difference. Just as there are a worrying number of
alt. comedians displaying these traits there were mainstream comics who did not. The
difference is (and should be) about ownership of material. Alternative comedians write
their own material, mainstream comics dip into a big bag of old gags and more and more
often into the circuit.
Most old school comics were racist because most people were racist. It's only when
society moved on that they became exposed. But, as they didn't write their own material
and only had a supply of old racist shit to dip into, there was nowhere else to go.
Nowadays, the new 'mainstream' acts tend not to be racist and are certainly no more sexist
than the 'alternative'. But does that mean that everything's alright? I don't think so. If
it did, there still wouldn't be two teams.
Trying to stop someone expressing their opinion is censorship. My namby pamby middle
class liberal self worries about that. Personally, I don't want to share a dressing room
with a racist. I'd choose not to share a bill with a racist on that basis. I'd hope that
punters wouldn't want to see him either. None of that is censorship. People don't have to
buy a product, but the producer has every right to make it available.
But, stealing material is wrong. It's theft plain and simple. Stopping someone using
other people's material is not censorship. But, theft still goes on. That's why there are
still two circuits. What's worrying is the number of people who are supposed to be on
'our' team, who are using the morals that belong in 'theirs'.
From Stephen Grant ( me@stephengrant.com)
I've read with increasing interest the thread
developing on alternative comedy. I have to admit to the fact that I find most people read
too much into the title of 'alternative' - it's relevance in a literal sense is about as
relevant as the word 'fringe' in 'Edinburgh Festival Fringe' (where the fringe is
exponentially larger than the festival itself. But you all knew that.)
I find that categorising is both a good and bad thing - and when people talk about
'alternative' they start by saying what they perceive the difference to 'straight' comedy
being. I like to think that the style of delivery and material maketh the comedy more than
that of a top level 'blood group'. I.e. Deadpan, sarcastic, storytelling, gagtelling,
character, physical, impression, musical, conversational, are all styles that you could
attempt to categorise up to say 50% of the working stand ups, and aren't radio, TV and
book writers who do comedy comedians in some shape or form? This is meandering somewhat,
but the point I'm trying to make is that, to follow what I perceive to be Al's and
Howard's inferences, the difference is surely 'and there was my Dad' type comics and
truely imaginative inventive comics, not straight and alternative. In the same vein - the
difference between Peter Kay and Les Dawson is a lot smaller than Peter Kay and Paul Foot,
and yet Peter and Paul would be considered very 'now' and 'alternative' comics - but to
me, the difference is huge.
From Toby Foster ( Tobyfoster@clara.net)
…As far as I can see, there is no such thing
any longer as alternative comedy. The people I work with are the ones now doing the tv
ads, the corporate gigs, the sketch shows, the radio 4 shows. Alternative to what? Or,
more to the point, "Alternative - Why?".
Every act I speak to these days is working on a screenplay, show, treatment, audition
etc. Most have agents and accountants. Tours are being arranged, ads pay for holidays, and
EVERYONE has done UKPlay. The alternative is now the mainstream, fact. Before you
disagree, bear in mind that we now have as our foremost satirists Iain Lee and Charlie
Cheese. That noise you hear is Peter Cook spinning in his grave.
But hey, so what? Maybe, we've just moved on. Maybe satire used to be important, but
these days, with faceless twats on all sides, it has no bearing. Maybe alternative comedy
used to be important, but these days with very few "isms" getting a public
airing, it has no bearing. Remember that Friday Night Live was nearly twenty years ago.
When Ben Elton appeared in his spangly suits using words like "coloured" and
"gay", Alf Garnett was still on prime time saying "blackie" and
"poof".
How do I enter a stand up comedy new act competition?
The following Edinburgh based competitions happen every year:
The Daily Telegraph Open Mic Awards
So You Think You’re Funny
BBC new comedy awards
Various other new act competitions happen in London – including the Comedy Store
new act, Ha bloody Ha gagster of the year, Hackney Empire New Act and Jongleurs new act
competitions.
Check Time Out for details of all of these – the competitions start heats in the
Autumn ready for the finals the following summer, so that’s about the time you should
start looking, if you are interested.
Do stand up competitions mean anything?
Another hotly argued thread.
From: "Dominic Frisby" dominicfrisby@hotmail.com
Don't worry about it. New act competitions are the devil,
as another comedian once said. They leave one person happy and about five hundred, or
however many entrants there were, gutted. Plus they're often fixed.
And people often win through bending rules, over-running being the most common way of
doing so.
From: Dave Gorman Dave.Gorman@Virgin.net
I've seen many suggestions that the competitions are fixed
which seem to float by uncontested. I don't think they are.
<snip>
Who rigs these things and how? What's in it for the judges to make Mark Haynes win?
Isn't it easier to believe that the judges just thought he was better.
I don't really see that any of the competitions are rigged. They're not fair. But
they're not rigged. At the end of the day a gig isn't a level playing field. The running
order has an effect etc. If you just have a clapometer there is nothing to stop somebody
winning all the competitions with 10 minutes of Connolly material. So it makes sense that
there ought to be some judges who, in theory, bring some expert knowledge to bear. But
every individual brings their own agenda.
You might argue that the bigger name acts can end up quite removed from the circuit and
might not be best placed to provide that expertise. But the closer the judges are to the
circuit, the more likely they are to already know some of the acts and that always leads
to accusations of favouritism also.
At the end of the day - it doesn't matter. Too many people place too much importance on
the competitions. Winning one probably advances your career by about 6 months. Which at
close of play after 40 years might not seem too important. Stand-up comedy should be
played with a long term view. Lots of people have won competitions. Some have gone on to
greater things some haven't. It seems to me that those with real merit have made something
of the situation and those that have none have not.
Odd that - almost exactly the same can be said of the people who have not won
competitions. You could be forgiven for thinking it's a meritocracy.
I don't think they're rigged. I don't think they're fair. I don't think they're
important.
From: "Toby" hannibal@clara.net
I do think that comps can give an unrealistic view of the
business. Whereas only 5 or 6 years ago people were footslogging round doing open spots
all over the country and building a solid act and experience, these days the first line of
attack seems to be to enter a comp, pick up 2 grand and start doing the network. All well
and good for those that win, but for the losers it seems to be unfair that after coming so
close, they are back to open mics in front of 30 students in a pub in Durham.
From: The High Priestess priestes@pavilion.co.uk
I think one of the main problems with competitions like
that is that we all know that sometimes you storm and sometimes you have a shit night -
even the geniuses of the circuit who have cracking material, loads of experience and stage
charisma have their off nights. Sometimes you might be the better act usually, but that
night, perhaps due to nerves or the particular tastes of the audience, you come off worse.
From: "Danny Wallace" danny@comedynet.demon.co.uk
>I spoke to one of the supposedly
independent judges afterwards - a friend of mine - and asked why that act >didn't win.
And he said that the other judges, the organizers, had insisted on another act going
through. And, >surprise surprise, it turned out that organizers later offered to
represent the winning act.
Hello. As one of the supposedly independent judges on last year's Daily Telegraph
semi-finals (at the gig that led, in fact, to Marc Haynes deservedly getting into the
final) I just thought I'd give you a view from the other side of the coin.
Yep, running orders are undoubtedly important. But if you know your comedy, you know
what to look for. Like Dave says, what would stop someone from nicking *your* material,
storming it in front of people who, y'know, Don't See Much Comedy, and then winning the
heat? That's not fair, and that's why judges who know the circuit are needed (I have to
admit, though, that Haynes' opening line at the Telegraph final - *not at the semi* - was
a rip-off).
Plus, I'd say that being able to look past audience reaction and make your own mind up
is A Good Thing.
>I once saw such a competition - an early round of one of the
big ones, in which one act shone above the others, >yet didn't win
New Act competitions are about being a New Act... as I understand it, it's about having
the most potential, not about being the shiniest, or even necessarily the funniest. The
funniest on the night, should they win, *may* go on to become yet another tedious addition
to a circuit already overloaded with people doing similar stuff. Someone with *potential*,
on the other hand...
>The judges are made up chiefly of the organizers themselves,
or their cronies.
Nope. Where do you get this from? Unless 'chiefly' means a freelance journalist,
someone from the Independent, someone from the university's Ents department, and *one
bloke* from Avalon (and I think it's fair enough to allow the organisers some say in the
matter).
Responsible journos know when they're being led on, or when they're being forced to act
like sheep. Avalon told me so.
From: "Al Murray" al@publy.demon.co.uk
This subject just won't lay down and die - I think it's
been discussed more than anything else on this digest. If this were a
uk-comedy-competition digest that might be understandable etcetera. My feeling is if you
think they really are as fixed as all that then don't enter them [and usually the 'fixed'
accusations are based on that most reliable of witnesses - hindsight, the sight of one's
hind-quarters].
Anyway, my experience of competitions is not of being a disgruntled entrant but as a
judge. This was last year in Melbourne. There was a clear winner, and all the other
comedians were furious [the grapes were awful sour that night - they all went on about the
material being nicked but none of them could really say where from, or say it to his
face...]. But he was the clear winner, and it was nothing to do with the running order, or
anything else [and while we're on the subject there was far too much swirling chaos around
the big event for anyone to stop and consider fixing the running order]. Then we went
through a hilariously shabby charade while the audience waited of pretending to judge and
not just give it to the guy.
What was the point I wondered? Well, it was about getting some excitement around comedy
[and we're all for that], sniffing out new talent - though the lightning strikes thing is
clearly very dangerous and backfires all to easily. Competitions are easy to judge in
terms of 'he's good for someone who doesn't know what he's doing'. But is this the best
way of people getting started [not sure]?
I'm rueful about the whole thing, and really don't think they serve any long term
purpose - if you're good you'll make yourself known anyway, and if you're good and win a
competition then you'll end up accused of being the recipient of a 'fixed' award and
despised by everyone else. I suppose what I'm saying is thank God I can't enter any
competitions any more.
How important is an agent for a career in stand-up comedy?
This was a thread prior to UK comedy digests numbered 275.
Any help gratefully received!
Is there a minimum age to being a comedian?
No – The winner of 1999’s BBC new comedy award was
17. And Ashleigh Storrie has been doing standup since she was 12.
Is there a maximum age to being a comedian?
No – ‘Grandad from Hell’ Norby West started
doing comedy in his late 60’s.
I think Ali G is ace and I want to recite him until
I’m blue in the face. Hello?
Goodbye.
How important is original material?
By most accounts, ‘very’ if you want to make a name
for yourself.
From: "Rob Heeney" neptune_comedy@hotmail.com
So far Lee and Herring have only attacked one joke - the
classic pull back and reveal. "I was 28", "Then I got off the bus",
and "that was just the teachers" are all essentially the same joke.
Personally I'd like it if they moved on to some of the other easy options.
Just imagine if....etc,etc.
I read a pretty good guide a while back called the Hack's Guide To Comedy about how to
avoid doing easy, hackneyed material. It was written by Steve Rosenthal and can be found
at
http://www.jmas.co.jp/FAQs/comedy-faq/hack
It's Americanised, but you'll get the general gist.
Why are there so few women in stand up?
I will put threads on this subject here soon.
How do I get a gig in the states?
Not easily. Stories abound of people having to pay to
do open spots – or buy at least a minimum number of drinks. Your best source of
information is TONY (Time Out New York) – and a very good rate for international
calls on your home phone number.
How much do stand up comedians earn?
This is a FUQ – frequently unanswered question.
There are no set ‘rates’ but established clubs like Jongleurs pay
approximately £150 for a full support set. Rates tend to vary between £40 and £200 for
full slots depending on location and day of the week, and half spots and the most half of
that range.
It does vary hugely and for smaller gigs fees will vary from comic to comic, based on
how far they are coming for the gig, how funny the booker thinks they are (or
aren’t), what day of the week it is, what direction the wind was blowing in, etc etc.
Sometimes comedians are on door splits, which can give them as little as a fiver.
Why does the same material storm one night and die the
next?
No one knows. The beauty of comedy is in the lack of rules.
(IMHO)
How do I write a hit sitcom?
Best ask someone who helps people do it for a living:
www.sitsvac.org |
