Channel 6 is on the case!

Three people were shot when a stand-up comedian opened fire in a crowded Marion sports bar early Saturday, police said.

Rodney Carter is the alleged shooter. And he’s the alleged comedian. He got in a man’s face at Yeakle’s Sports Bar in Marion, IN, at just about closing time (when things always go to hell) and fired several shots at the man’s legs, hitting him three times. (He also probably was exhorting the man to “Dance! Dance! Dance like the chicken shit you are, motherf***er!” We made that part up. But why else do you fire several times at a man’s legs unless you’re engaging in a little Evil Roy Slade action?) He also winged a couple of female patrons. Everyone’s been treated and released.

Carter fled. Marion is about 80 miles or so northeast of Indy. He’s still at large, from what we can tell.

Though the victims have all been treated and released from the hospital, police are still searching for the shooting suspect, 44 year old Rodney Carter. Carter has been trying to make a name for himself as a standup comic since 2002. He goes by the stage name “Dirty Red,” and has several online profiles promoting his work. Now police hope someone will recognize him and turn him in.

That’s from Fox 59′s Kent Erdahl. (Kent must be a journo student. That first sentence is pretty humorous. Do cops only hunt down shooters if the wounds are serious enough to require hospitalization?)

The subhead on the story says, “Marion police hope standup comic’s notority(sic) will help lead to arrest.” Yeah… good luck with that.

We’re pained that they insist on referring to the shooter as a comic. But, hey, it makes for a better story.

We’re also not so sure that they have the right guy. Something’s puzzling us. Check out this clip of “Dirty Red”:

Then check out this pic that accompanied the Channel 6 story:

Is there any way they’re the same person? Any way at all? We don’t think so.

The suspect has supposedly performed at Yeakle’s. So someone at the bar ID’ed him. But the guy in the pic doesn’t look like the guy in the video. So… either there’s someone impersonating Dirty Red. (Or Dirty Red doesn’t look at all like his “eight by ten,” which is true for so many comics!)

But someone purporting to be a friend of Carter’s– and presumably the man who ID’ed Carter as “Dirty Red”– is quoted in the Fox story. Maybe there’s been a mixup at the cop station and the wrong pic is circulating. Or the folks at Fox 59 have bad info. (They did, after all, spell “notoriety” wrong.)

Stay tuned.

We predict that, when Carter is sentenced, he’ll say, “Great. That sounds fair.”

WISH 8 didn’t identify Carter as a comedian. (They also say it happened outside the bar.) We suppose we shouldn’t take umbrage that the various news orgs are seizing upon Carter’s avocation. As the Female Half points out: “If his hobby were the trapeze, they’d be playing that up. And the video would be all over the place!” She speaketh the truth.

We saw this posted as Isaac Witty‘s Facebook status update.  The creator is comedyisnotpretty10.  We don’t know who that is.

Our new favorite catchphrase is, “Great.  That sounds fair.”

We were just talking the other day about how evil bringer shows are and how we should berate those who produce them and shun those participate.

We just finalized our travel arrangements for next month’s trip to Vegas for the World Series of Comedy. It’s going on September 20-25 and it’s the brainchild of comedian Joe Lowers. It’s the second time he’s done a WSOC (the first time, he did it in his home market of Pittsburgh), and this time, he’s promising to hand out 30 weeks of feature work to the winners. (From our calculations, upon observing the front page of the WSOC website, it looks like he’s got 32 clubs promising 75 weeks of work!)

We’ll be in attendance as Exalted Ones. Not quite sure what our capacity will be. We’ll be kinda like Jimmy Carter observing the elections in Nicaragua. We’ll be at the Alexis for nearly the entire affair (after arriving late on the 20th). There’ll be a golf tourney, a poker tourney, a headshot session, so-called “breakfast roundtables” for bookers and agents and meet-and-greets where the bookers and agents are forced to reckon with the comics in attendance… which will probably be far less excruciating than the bookers and owners think it will be. And, of course, a ton of shows to determine the winner– out of 101 comedians selected to compete. (There will even be a show for “Registered Comics”– comedians who are in attendance, but were not selected as one of the lucky 101.)

If we understand it correctly– if we really “get it”– it’s a great idea.

Who pays any attention to feature acts? Who pays any attention to aspiring feature acts? Nobody, that’s who. Oh, sure, everyone goes gaga over the closers, the headliners, the marquee players– they have festivals in far-off exotic locales and industry fatcats and agents and managers flock to them and the floor is slick with slobber and deals get made and whatnot.

So… why not have a bunch of acts who are hungry for work (and, God knows there are a ton of them) come out to the desert and show their stuff (in a lengthy contest format) and hang out with club owners and bookers and agents and maybe come away with a full calendar? Sounds like something The Industry should have been doing all along.  Although, with such innovations as YouTube and Facebook and email and DVD’s, you’d think that gatherings such as this one would be obsolete.  It’s kinda retro, in a way.  People getting out of the office, flying to Vegas and actually eyeballing comics in a club setting for the purpose of assessing their talent.  How 1984!  Maybe it’s the wave of the future.  With the emergence of Southwest Airlines, has it ever been cheaper to actually get off your ass and actually prospect for talent, Mr. Booker Person?  The colleges do it.  It’s been their modus operandi for as long as anyone can remember.

The  club owners and bookers (primarily from the heartland of America) and comedy clinics and seminars will afford everyone plenty of opportunity for… “bonding.”

We organized something similar back in 2001. Only without the shows… or the agents… or the bookers… or the seminars… or the golf or poker. (We basically just told comics to come to the desert for three days and eat and drink and eat and drink some more and just celebrate the fact that they are/were standup comics. We ended up with about 135 or 150 people at the Union Plaza in Glitter Gulch and everybody had a swell time.) This should be similar… only with the added pressure of a competition. And a bunch of agents and bookers and club owners. Come to think of it, it won’t be similar at all.

But it will probably be fun. And, if  the quality of the acts is anywhere near decent, it will probably happen again next year. (Like we said, this is the second time.  Why such a gap between WSOC’s?  Between that one and this one, Lowers moved from PGH to LAS.)

We assume the first one was a success, otherwise, how could Lowers have convinced all these clubs to give up a week or two or three for his crazy scheme?

We hope there’s another one.  It’s probably good for the business.  Had there been something like this when we were featuring, we would have been all over it.  Stay tuned.

We have long held that it’s ghastly to inflict children doing standup on a comedy club crowd.

It was Robert Heinlein who said, “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

We have a new one: Never try to teach a kid standup. It wastes your time and it annoys the audience.

We went over to Helium last night to work out some material on their open mike night. (Helium was nice enough to spare us the sign-up ritual. We were given the last two spots on a lengthy bill.)

The Male Half stayed in the bar and went over notes while The Female Half monitored the room during the show, which was a combination of newcomers and experienced acts.

Up until this point, any child we’ve seen performing on a standup stage has at least had the decency to work clean… or relatively clean. Last night, however, was the exception. A 13-year-old (some said he was 12; he looked 11) went up at Helium and did a cringe-inducing adult set. He paced the stage as if he were performing in his own HBO special. He did “jerking-off” material– enhanced with brief visual re-enactment. He mentioned “tits and ass.” And, when the light came on, he said, “I’d like to stay, but I have to get off because of this damn light.” Nice.

The Male Half missed it. The Female Half was furious. (Such was her anger, she says, that she should have left then and there, lest her anger get the best of her.)

And, if that weren’t enough, Junior took a seat with dad– in the audience– in the third row which, because there was no one seated in the first two rows, was technically the first row. Can we all agree that it’s bad form for the open mikers to take a seat in the audience? Has there been an open mike that hasn’t banned that practice (or at the very least, discouraged it)?

It’s bad enough having a kid in the audience. The violence it does to the audience dynamic is incalculable. Take that and multiply it by a thousand when it’s tween kid whose just been onstage doing masturbation jokes.

The kid got no genuine laughs. It was all shock laughs, cheap stuff. What kind of parent not only allows but encourages this kind of freak show? One feels as though one is witnessing the creation of a self-esteem monster of unparalleled proportions. (The self-esteem monster won’t necessarily make miserable the lives of the comics or patrons at future shows– the kid will most likely wash out, comedy-wise, when the thrill wears off and the laughs dissipate– but his outsized pride and arrogance will fester and balloon until he’s unbearable in nearly every facet of his life.)

The crowd had been stiff and judgmental all night. A roller-coaster for all concerned. Never any momentum.

The Female Half went on next to last and, after about three minutes, attempted to jiggle them out of their complacency by threatening to bring back the child comic for more jokes about masturbation. The response was startling, especially considering that he had gone on much earlier in the night– 17 or 18 comics had gone on between boy wonder and The Female Half. (The spectacle was clearly on everyone’s mind… and not in a good way. It was something that might have been addressed immediately afterward by the emcee. Or by the comedians who followed. But, as most of those who followed were first-timers or very new, none did– none dared deviate from their alloted three minutes, and understandably so. And none of the more experienced comics who came after saw fit to make mention of the trauma. It made for unnecessary tension that needed defusing, but which never got defused.)

She looked over to see Super Dad playfully punching Sonny Boy in the arm saying (loud enough for all to hear), “I’m proud of him!”

The Female Half’s blood pressure skyrocketed. She hammers the kid a couple of times more. Then it’s onto the rest of her set.

She fully admits that she allowed her anger to dictate her actions and momentarily deviate from the night’s mission. But the attitude and the posture (head on the table!) of the juvenile open miker was an affront that was insufferable. What was also galling was the fact that both parent and child seemed oblivious to the rudeness they were displaying.

As she winds up her set and says her goodbyes, the kid leaps up, approaches the stage and, while ostentatiously proffering a slip of paper in the direction of The Female Half, announces loudly to the assembled, “Here’s my number!”

The Female Half halts the proceedings and says, “Hold on… If he thinks I’m touching that piece of paper after he’s been up here telling everybody he masturbates, he’s out of his mind.” The reaction is mixed. She exits.

A comic should never (NEVER!) approach another act while that act is onstage. Never. Not at the beginning of the set, not in the middle, not at the end. That is pure bush league. It’s unprofessional. It bespeaks a colossal arrogance. It is indicative of a thundering ignorance of the ways of, for lack of a less pretentious term, “The Theater.” As seemingly informal as the standup millieu might be, there are still some unspoken rules and regulations. Not the least of which is you don’t insinuate yourself into someone else’s act– not physically, not verbally– unless you are asked to do so. (And the “Ick Factor” of a 12-year-old giving his number to a 44-year-old woman is off the charts.)

We hope this kid doesn’t get any more spots. For every one of the 20 or so spots that were given out last night, there might be three comics desiring that same spot. Which means that a couple aspiring (adult) comics went home last night disappointed, while this precocious twerp soaked up a precious slot.

It got us to thinking about the art of emceeing. In an above paragraph, we note that the incident could have been ameliorated, the tone of the evening recalibrated, by the emcee. However, the emcee at this particular open mike is at a distinct disadvantage– he’s sequestered in the green room just off the stage and can’t clearly hear (or see!) what’s transpiring onstage. And, since many of the sets are three minutes in length, it’s not practical for the emcee to monitor the acts by leaving the green room to watch from the showroom. There should be a monitor back there. Sure, situations like this one arise only occasionally, but proper emceeing– emceeing that keeps it moving, that occasionally comments on moments of shared experience with the audience, that offers a running commentary on the progress of the show– practically requires that the emcee be familiar with what transpires onstage, not sequestered backstage.

And by that, we mean that the average age of the Big Four television networks is getting higher.

The Hollywood Reporter delivers the news. Is it bad news? We suppose it depends on how you deal with it. Kinda like aging itself.

…ABC’s median viewership aged one year last season — to 51. CBS also grew a year, to 55. NBC gained two years, to 49. And Fox stayed the same, a relatively nubile 44.

Compare this to a decade ago. ABC was 43, CBS was 52, NBC was 45 and Fox was only 35.

So… it looks like the folks who were watching ten years ago… and who were older then… have continued to watch. But fewer youngsters have adopted the TV viewing habit. And TV is having a devil of a time competing for eyeballs and attention against such newfangled technology as the internet and video games.

The report, cobbled together from Nielsen data, also says that:

Comedies tend to be the youngest-skewing shows. In the fall of 1999, there were 45 broadcast sitcoms. Last fall there were just 20.

Conversely, procedural dramas are among the oldest-skewing genres. A decade ago, there were only five. Last fall there were 20.

So, television’s way of dealing with the death spiral is… to throw their lot in with people who are between the ages of 45 and dead. Run away from the youngest-skewing shows (and nod sagely when the TV critics declare the sitcom genre dead) and heap on more CSI‘s, NCI’s and Law & Orders. Oh… and develop programs that don’t do well in syndication… and minimize the chance of a scoring big with a Seinfeld or a Cosby.

Has Big TV become an offshoot of the Hemlock Society? Their swan dive into demographic death is quite something to behold. Maybe it’s several layers of entrenched executives who are loath to learn new methods and/or adapt to the new landscape. There’s a similar phenomenon going on in publishing. Entrenched publishing execs are, much to the consternation to the younger folks in the layers beneath them, determined to hold fast to the old business model. The theory is that they’ll resist change, continue to draw their salaries, get what they can out of the business, knowing full well that it’s circling the drain. The up-and-comers are tearing their hair out and wondering if there will be anything left for them to salvage.

And, like we’ve been saying for eleven years or so: It’s strange that there aren’t more sitcoms. Most sitcoms stars are men and women in their late 30s/early 40s. You’d think the networks would be attracted to a genre that had funny, appealing stars that are right down the demographic middle– between the youngsters and the seniors.

Three years ago, The Female Half, in her regular “Keep It Tight” column, recalled the passing of her grandfather, who coincidentally died one day after Elvis Aaron Presley. It’s a sweet, sad and insightful remembrance of her grandpop and a look into the jumble of feelings inside an 11-year-old as she reconciles her personal grief at the passing of a loved one with that of a nation grieving over a cultural icon. The Female Half linked to it off of her Facebook page today (it being the anniversary of Presley’s death) and folks seemed to enjoy reading it!

Then I thought about Lisa Marie. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like to mourn the loss of a loved one while complete strangers– a whole country full of them almost– mourned him as well. Just like Elvis did, my grandfather died on the bathroom floor. How awful it would have been if I had to listen to the whole world speculate as to why.

Read the whole thing.

It’s Chapter 10 of today’s isse of the BBC broadcast, Newshour (hit the little black box marked “10″ to go right to the segment entitles “Funny Women.”) and it “explores” the question of why there are so few female comedians.

Okay. It’s a bit of an eye-roller– just how many times can one kick this thing around? It’s pretty much settled that men dominate the business of standup. And there are a few theories that attempt to explain why that is. And we really haven’t heard any new ones in quite some time. And we keep hearing the same ones over and over.

The interviewer solicits viewpoints from Lynn Parker, who’s been running Funny Women Awards for eight years (At this year’s Edinburgh Festival, Parker says they have 350 women entering.) and Piers Hernu, an editor and writer for various British “lad mags.”

Parker is sane and reasonable. (“I think it’s just a bloke-y profession…” Our new favorite adjective “bloke-y!”)

Hernu, on the other hand, is goofy.

How else to explain his contention that, “It’s just one of those things. The sexes are good at certain things and women, unfortunately, when it comes to standup, or comedy in general, women just aren’t that funny,” and that “they find it quite difficult to make a room of people laugh.” When the interviewer allows that, maybe it’s the case that women might find it impossible to make a roomful of men laugh, perhaps it’s possible that they might make a roomful of women laugh, Hernu responds, “No, I don’t think so.” So… essentially, he’s delusional. He’s in an interview with a woman who runs a program that is choosing the funniest women from among 350 entrants and he ignores the reality to hold fast to this notion that women aren’t funny.

It’s an odd sort of bigotry that, were it to be directed at those of a particular race or religion, would make him the object of scorn. However, since it’s directed at a gender, his opinion is not only tolerated, but it’s held up as an objective truth. Curious.

We don’t get angry at these folks any more. We pity them.

We have the feeling that Hernu is the “go-to guy” when the British electronic press has a controversy that centers on gender. He’s not there to present a coherent argument but to try to make the female or the feminist on the other side of the issue crack. His statements are so outrageous (and so dated) that he’s almost the comic relief in such situations.

It may well be that Hernu isn’t aware of any funny females in Britain (the numbers among standup comics there are far more startlingly male than those in the U.S. or in Canada), but, in this day and age, Hernu has no excuse for not being aware of all the examples of quite successful female comics that are mentioned by the interviewer. (Or whose exploits are chronicled in books, maybe– Pearl Williams, Fanny Brice, Rusty Warren, Moms Mabley? Anything ringing a bell, Piers?) Hernu comes off like a buffoon.

H/T to FOS Lisa Corrao for the BBC link!

From the Facebook status update of Costaki Economopoulos:

I’m about 9 sets in to understanding comedy in Scotland, and I did the Late N Live show tonight (1:20-3:00 AM) It’s a big deal here. Been “vetting” jokes for several shows to get ready. This joke flies here, this one doesn’t, etc. I put together the set- and I didn’t “kill,” but as far as MY part of it goes- I fucking rocked! Feels good to embrace a nutty comedy exercise and come out on top. Yay me!

Yay, indeed.

This particular “essay,” short though it may be, speaks volumes. We absolutely love this sentiment.

Regardless of how long you have been in the business, it’s a good thing– a very good thing– to take on a task that you’re not 100 per cent sure you can master, or that will even turn out good. An observer (a non-comedy observer) might think that merely going up at a comedy club, with a healthy crowd, on a weekend evening might be a challenge (and he would be right), but choosing an exercise that is far outside one’s comfort zone, while it may be fraught with “danger,” has benefits that are huge– it rearranges the brain, makes you think differently; it often bolsters confidence in areas where there might still be insecurity.

Failing at such an endeavor can make you work harder. Or… it can help you accept limitations– which might have the positive effect of enabling you to focus on your strengths. In the long run, it’s nearly always a win-win, even if, at the time, it feels like a trainwreck.

We’ve enjoyed similar benefits in the not too distant past. A year or three ago, we got the opportunity to perform in country clubs. Now, it may not seem like a big deal or much of a stretch to do country clubs– as opposed to comedy clubs, casinos or nightclubs- but, initially at least, the differences were stark– we were forced to work clean, we were required to dress differently, we had to appeal to a significantly older and more affluent crowd. And the adjustments necessarily had to take place all at the same time and immediately. After an initial period of adaptation, it can be said that we mastered it. Now, these gigs are some of our more enjoyable engagements. And– bonus– what we learned while acclimating to the country club or private party dates has positively affected our presentation across other venues and situations. Initially, however, they were stressful. Very stressful. There were times (when we were onstage) when we glanced at our watch and wondered if doing our allotted time would be possible– without resorting to our edgier, forbidden, R-rated material.

But, we persevered. And we did so because we were convinced that there was some sort of vague, possibly far-off benefit to be had.

We’ve got all of August off. Instead of taking it easy, we decided to take advantage of the downtime to hit some open mikes or talk our way onto various weekend stages and do some five-minutes sets.

During the Last Comic Standing audition and showcase gauntlet, The Female Half realized that her five-minute set muscles had atrophied. She felt wholly unprepared for the initial audition and subsequent showcase set. Relying on years of experience, however, the sets went well… but her feeling of unpreparedness nagged at her. And she fully admits that, had she advanced to Hollywood, she could have been in deep trouble. Her act had become a 30- to 45-minute, club act. One might think that adapting those skills to doing a set that only lasts five minutes would merely be a matter of getting off early! But “doing five” is an entirely different beast, requiring a whole different set of skills and nerve and mindset. But it’s important to be able to do both.

Thus, our August offensive.

The Male Half, on the other hand, had been practicing “the five” (or, to be precise, 4:30, the ideal length, the industry standard for a late-night spot) for eighteen months prior to the LCS auditions. So, he was greased up for the brief set. He hasn’t mastered it, but he’s farther along than he was at the outset of his experiment. (And far better off than, say, four years ago, when he was absolutely paralyzed at the prospect of assembling the 4:30, remembering the set list, and delivering it without any deviation.)

We find ourselves working on multiple, simultaneous tracks. The Female Half, in addition to working the “sprint muscles,” is also focusing on the story-telling approach to delivering and writing material– a devilishly difficult endeavor, as it entails adopting a radically different pace, different punchline-density, etc. She may well find that she does not excel at such an approach. However, failure, like we said, may have benefits.

The Male Half, with an eye toward corporate and cruise work, is desperately trying to marshal the various scraps of material, ideas, premises and bits that have gathered over the years and categorize them in an effort to determine what’s clean and what’s not. The hope is that he’ll be able to compartmentalize and call up whichever material is needed for whichever situation he finds himself in. (For some acts, this has been Priority Number One since Day One. We say, “God bless them.”)

How do we find ourselves in this place? We don’t like the word “lazy.” Instead, we’ll say that we’ve been “complacent.” The opposite of complacent is “anxious.” Which is exactly what we’ve felt on more than one occasion over the past few months/years when confronted with certain challenges. So, our efforts are meant to eliminate– or at least minimize– the anxiety. Anxiety can get you places. It can be a great motivator. But, at some point, being prepared– having confidence, which is the exact opposite of being anxious– is a saner, happier route. We may be mistaken, but we think that the vast majority of comics swing from anxiety to complacency– with varying frequency and amplitude. And that most comics, most good ones, are aware of when they’re operating from uncertainty and when they’re operating from contentment. And that they bring on the challenges with the knowledge (or the vague intuition) that doing so will undoubtedly redound to their advantage.

Costaki Economopoulos is a tremendous comic. And he’ll no doubt master the art of “playing Scotland.” And it doesn’t matter if he ever performs in Scotland again. But we have no doubt that he’ll be an even better standup comic for having risen to the challenge.

Predictably, we’re getting a lot of comments on our posting on the final episode of LCS. In rare cases, we find it interesting to bring a comment “topside.”

Unidentified weasel “HT” commented:

Read coverage of LCS before and after the halves were thrown a bone. The tone is remarkably different.

To which we replied:

Our tone is remarkably different?” Perhaps our tone is different because the show is different. Perhaps our tone is different because the comedians weren’t forced to perform in a laundromat. Perhaps our tone is different because the comedians weren’t dressed up as jesters and made to perform at a Renaissance fair. Perhaps our tone is different because the producers vowed to treat the comics with respect and highlight the performance of standup comedy rather than set up situations where the comedians heckle their colleagues or wash a car or are transported on a short, yellow bus.

How’s this for a remarkably different tone? Go fuck yourself.

The implication is that we trashed the show in seasons past and that, now that we’ve been “thrown a bone,” we’re all sweetness and light when we post about the show.

Our short answer is above.

Our long answer is that HT displays a stunning lack of reading comprehension. Our analysis of the show started in earnest with the second season. We said very little about season one. We took a dim view of the show, mainly because we were skeptical that a primetime reality show (which was, keep in mind, a relatively new phenomenon back then) was the proper way to present standup comedy. It was long time ago (June of 2003) and our focus at the time was on news coverage of standup, standup news and columns.

We hadn’t yet formally switched to a “blog” format until June of 2004. In fact, our decision to switch to a blog, using Blogger technology, was driven by our growing interest in analysis and commentary– specifically, our desire to “live blog” Last Comic Standing‘s second season. And our desire to live blog LCS was driven by the fact that it had become a phenomenon and that Season Two featured one of our columnists, Bonnie McFarlane.

Our coverage of seasons two through six were brutal.  We did not hold back.  There was a lot to loathe and we went into it in great detail.  And when there was something that was praiseworthy, we pointed that out as well.  Why, we ask, would anyone read that coverage and “throw us a bone?”   In fact, there was every reason to lock us out of the process in perpetuity because: 1. There was no reason for anyone to believe that our negative coverage was motivated by bitterness over not being included in the show or 2. There was no reason to believe that our positive comments on the show was an attempt by us to curry favor with the producers (otherwise, we would have merely praised the show and spared it our scorn), so 3. Our inclusion in the show might be seen by the producers as a gamble that was nowhere near worth taking and that 4. Our participation in the show might be seen by us as a gamble nowhere near worth taking, as we could have been portrayed as unprofessional or worse, or that our credibility might be damaged beyond repair.

In addition to dismal reading comprehension, HT betrays an unhealthy suspicion of our motives. We have always tried to be honest and above-board about what we think and why we think it.  Those are the rules in the brave new world of journalism (in the era of the WWW).   People who blog– and who blog honestly– know that they must get out in front of any conflict and lay it all out on the table.  Which is what we endeavor to do with each and every adventure.  LCS was no different.

And our coverage of this season (the season that we appeared on!) was, in many ways, just as critical as that of previous seasons. And, like we said, our tone may have been somewhat modulated by the fact that the show actually has made improvements. Regardless of our participation in the show, we would have followed our previous policy of praising it when praise was due and savaging it when the show made missteps. But we were on the show! Which must make our negative comments on this season’s show all that much more counterintuitive. Were we “thrown a bone,” our comments would have been uniformly upbeat and positive, with nary a cross word.

It’s incomprehensible that anyone could read our first-person account of our experience with LCS and conclude that we were “thrown a bone.”  We had no special treatment– our auditions, at 11 in the morning, were just like all the dozens (hundreds?) of others that took place that week (and in previous weeks) in New York and Hollywood.  The grueling  11-hour day was the same for every comic who made it into the evening showcase.  And, the three-day taping in Glendale was an arduous gauntlet of interviews, strategy, tactics, plotting and performing.  Which is not to complain. But, from our perspective, it doesn’t resemble being “thrown a bone.”

Bone-throwing implies that the reward is a token, and/or that it’s undeserved or that the intentions of the giver are less than honest or that there might exist a quid pro quo.  It implies appeasement.  If giving two comics– each with a quarter-century of stage experience in a variety of venues (Clubs, colleges, casinos, television, radio, etc.) — an audition for a television show is “throwing them a bone,” then either the commenter is unfamiliar with the meaning of the phrase or he is, like we said, suspicious of the motives of not just us, but of all those involved.  We suspect it’s the latter.  Which is why we say, “Go fuck yourself.”

While we’re talking about comments, we recommend the comments under a previous post in which LCS Finalist Laurie Kilmartin defends herself and the LCS process against rather thin criticism from one of our readers.

Congratulations to Felipe Esparza!

He’s this season’s “Last Comic Standing.”

It must be tough– unbearably tough– to come so close to $250,000 and not get it.  Our hearts go out to Myk Kaplan, Mike DeStefano, Roy Wood, Jr., and Tommy Johnagin.

And, while a quarter of a million bucks might seem like a large sum to someone who has been making the standard road money that’s available out there, it’s small change in the larger entertainment scheme of things.

But the confetti hadn’t even hit the Alex Theatre stage before rumors ricocheted around the WWW about how this season was “rigged,” because Esparza is managed by New Wave… and New Wave is headed by Barry Katz… and Barry Katz is one of the executive producersof the Last Comc Standing.

But we have to ask: Is the fact that he’s managed by New Wave the sole reason that Esparza won the competition?

And, conversely, if management by New Wave were the sole prerequisite for winning the competition, wouel not all of the show’s past winners be comics who are managed by New Wave.

So… not all the winners have been managed by New Wave.  And not all the finalists have been New Wave clients.  So, if you’re going to “fix” the show, and you’re going to expose yourself to all kinds of enmity (or legal challenges), then why not just go whole hog and fix it real good– ensure that all ten finalists are under the New Wave banner and make damn sure that your company benefits from managing the winner, the five touring comedians and the ten folks who get the most primetime network television exposure– week in and week out– over the course of a long summer.

All of this talk of “rigging” and “fixing” only makes sense if we select which bits of data to pay attention to and ignore a lot of other data.

A prime example of this selective focus is illustrated in the speculation that’s making the rounds centering on tortured language from the NBC website.

The heart of the controversy seems to stem from the following passages in the “Voting Rules” section. The same basic rules are then restated in the Voting FAQ. (Note: “The Administrators” are “NBC Studios, Inc., NBC Universal, Inc. and/or Telescope, Inc. and their respective parent, subsidiary and affiliated entities and persons”):

These rules are subject to change at any time at the sole discretion of the Administrators. Notification regarding any such change will be posted at NBC.com.[...]

5. Conditions for Voting:
Administrators reserve the right to disqualify, block or remove any votes from any individual who votes by any electronic, mechanical or automated means, or otherwise tampers with the vote process, or for any other reason, as determined by Administrators in their sole discretion. Administrators are not responsible for any damages to voters’ device(s) that may occur from use of service. Administrators reserve the right, for any reason and in their sole discretion, to modify, suspend or discontinue the voting service without prior notice.

Administrators reserve the right to modify the show’s contest rules, and the terms and conditions of this voting process at any time in their sole discretion.

The amateur detectives conveniently leave out this paragraph, however:

Caution: Any attempt by an entrant or any other individual to deliberately damage any online service or website, tamper with the voting process, or otherwise undermine the legitimate operation of the voting is a violation of criminal and civil laws and should such an attempt be made, Administrators reserve the right to seek damages and/or other remedies from any such person to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Emphasis ours. We’re no legal experts. But this sounds like it bursts the conspiracy theorists’ bubble. It initially reads like something that’s inserted to aid the Administrators in preventing fraud. But we maintain that it could also prohibit fraud on the part of the Administrators. It could subject them to prosecution should they be tempted to manipulate the peoples’ vote.

The other conspiracy theory revolves around the idea that the show is cast. The theory is that the producers of the show very carefully and deliberately manipulate the early rounds of the show to determine who ends up among the forty or fifty “contestants” who vie for the ten Finalist spots.

Of course they do!

Is there an objective way to determine the fifty funniest people in America? Is there a special, magic “Applause Meter” out there somewhere that would precisely and correctly calibrate audience reaction during the evening showcase (ignoring, via some sort of algorithm, the applause from the people that contestant number three packed into the audience through his carefully orchestrated Facebook and Twitter campaign)? Is there a Standup Comics Registry that calculates and maintains rankings via a finely tuned system, like those of the USTA or the USGA?

If the show weren’t “cast,” what means of stocking the show would the conspiracy theorists recommend? Perhaps they have in mind a Blue Ribbon panel of experts. Who, then, would determine the makeup of that august body? Perhaps it would be a carefully chosen panel of universally respected agents, managers and talent coordinators that would submit candidates for inclusion in the showcases. Good luck finding anyone who would fit that description.

And even if great care were taken to pick the hopefuls– using whichever fantasy method you can concoct– could we find two comics who would agree on the legitimacy of even a handful of the choices? No matter which way were chosen, controversy would exist and theories would abound.

There’s no perfect system.

It’s Chinatown, Jake. It’s television. It’s comedy.

And the same data that some folks use to prove the illegitimacy of the contest might be seen by others as proving its legitimacy. One case in point: “Look at the winners over the years! That proves that the wrong people won. That proves that America’s votes were ignored! That proves that those most deserving were shafted!”

Actually, one might look at some or all of the winners and could just as easily claim quite the opposite: “Look at the winners over the past seven seasons! That proves that the right people won! That proves that America’s votes were taken into account! That proves that those most deserving were elevated to the status of America’s funniest comedians!”

Everybody’s all over the map!

Comedy, we might remind everyone for the thousandth time, is subjective. And that tiny sliver of the people who watch the show (and who care enough to go to the trouble to vote for a winner) vote in ways which seem to many people to be illogical or capricious or just plain wrong. Perhaps everyone else in the top ten have fans who aren’t the kind of people who vote ten times on the phone, then cross the room to vote ten times on their computer.

All of which is not to say that Felipe Esparza didn’t deserve to win. No one “deserves” to win. Expunge that word from your vocabulary when discussing this phenomenon. Esparza won. There are people who are ecstatic about that and there are people who are groaning about that. But that would have happened no matter who won. And the people who groan shop around for bits of “evidence” that they (and their favorite) have been somehow wronged.

We are of the opinion that such controversy is good. We stated privately that each of the five remaining finalists were competent enough and handled themselves professionally enough during the finals so that enough of the viewing audience might have voted in such a way as to make any of them the ultimate winner. And that is good for standup. Were there a clear winner– were there no doubt that one comedian was superior and the rest were merely also-rans– it would have been a dark day for comedy indeed, for it would have meant that the contest was a failure and that standup comedy (at least as reflected in the makeup of the finalists) was in a sorry state.

Fortunately, that wasn’t the case. Any of the five could have won.

Are we saying all this to suck up to the producers? Certainly not. (Besides, we’re not so sure there’s any payoff in doing so.)  We’re just trying to introduce a little reality into the analysis of a “reality show.”

As far as the rest of last night’s finale goes, the musical numbers in general (and Gloria Gaynor’s number in particular) were painful. We were particularly nauseated by the shots of the judges “grooving” to the beat and the clutch of remaining finalists “grooving” in the wings. Couldn’t that time been better used to show more comedians? Instead of handing over a bronzed rubber chicken to Kurt Metzger, how about letting Metzger do a tight five instead? We’re not clear as to the connection (other than Craig Robinson’s musical avocation/alter ego) between these musical numbers and standup comedy. (And what was the theory behind dressing the Finalists up in their “Sunday-go-to-meetin’ ” clothes? They looked like some sort of awkward, religious boy band, more suited to entertaining at spiritual retreats or peddling across the country recruiting for the Latter Day Saints.)

And we were struck by the editing of Kathy Griffin’s set. There are rumors swirling that her set was… “enhanced.” There is speculation that the audience reaction was, in television producion parlance, “sweetened.” It certainly seemed (on our 26-in. Sanyo,viewing the local NBC affiliate in HD), that the visual often didn’t match the audio– when an applause break was happening, the wide shots didn’t show a whole lot of people putting their hands together. Indeed, early on in the set, the bursts of laughter seemed too neat and tidy to be real. Three times (at least!) the visual didn’t match the aural. We’d love to know the story behind that!

As for the judges performances last night: That was an untenable situation… as we are fond of saying: “No good can come of it.” The bar was set so high, the expectations so blown out of proportion, due to the previous ten weeks of acting as “judges,” that no comedian could have possibly come out of that experience unscathed.

Unlike a number of our peers, we hope there’s a Season 8 of LCS. There are so few slots on network primetime television for standup comics (doing standup comedy) that we’d hate to see this one disappear. And it certainly keeps people talking about standup.

And, of course we have a personal connection to the show, having appeared on it this season– both Halves of the Staff on June 21 and The Male Half on July 5). People have been asking us if the show has done us any good. We’re not sure how to answer that… yet. At this point, the intangibles outweigh the tangibles. But it also depends on what we do with this credit and this exposure. And that applies to everyone who has appeared on the show– even if only for a second or two or three. Will we do it again next year, if the opportunity arises? Maybe we will, maybe we won’t. There are a lot of comics asking themselves that question right now.

We hope to hang out with the Touring Five when they come to Princeton or Wilmington (each venue being equidistant from SHECKYmagazine.com HQ). (We won’t be able to join them for their Philadelphia-area appearance at the Keswick, as we’ll be gigging in Hilton Head that week.)