The new, new hack. Trashing wildly popular comics and their fans! It’s all the rage!

And this time, the trashing comes with a twist: It’s perpetrated by a comic! (Jason Serafino. We mention his name in passing.)

What is it with these bitter, maundering goofballs? Do they think that standup is a zero-sum game? How many Enlish-speaking people are there in this world? Wikipedia puts it at 375 million… and that’s just the folks who claim to use it as a first language. Throw in the Dutch and the other folks who are handy with it as a second language and you probably have nearly half a billion. That’s half a billion potential fans of standup spoken in English. That’s who we’re all competing for, now that we’re all connected via the internet.

So… why all the fuss if Margaret Cho manages to carve out seven-figure income while catering to one-tenth of one-tenth of one per cent of them?

Does the author think that toppling the top 15 comics will clear the way for him? Is he convinced that it’s a zero-sum game and that he’s number 16?

And the writing is atrocious. We’re not up for any Pulitzers here at SHECKYmagazine.com, but Complex.com might actually hire an editor or two. Carrot Top, “…bores crowds into submission with an array of props that are about as funny as being audited by the IRS.” Oh, really? How exactly does that work? Does he bore them before or after they fork over millions each year (at $49.95 a pop) to see him perform live here in Las Vegas? When does the submission happen? Before or after the ticket prices. (The packed crowd we were part of last year at the Atrium Luxor Theater was far from bored.)

Serafino calls Carrot Top a “ginger-haired dud.” Okay, Gramps, whatever you say! The writing is a cross between Daily Variety and a junior high school “how I spent my summer vacation essay.”

The Carrot Top description should be enough to discredit Serfino. It’s mostly just inaccuracies and pure snark.

But the attempted takedown of Bob Saget clearly demonstrates that Grandpa Serafino is in the dark when it comes to his comedy history. Saget’s comedy “…comes off as a sad attempt to shed an image that has been attached to him for the past two decades,” and he’s “…desperately trying to separate himself from his clean-cut sitcom image by profusely cursing and telling some of the filthiest jokes this side of Reddd Foxx.” One problem: Saget’s been delivering this kind of act since 1980 or so– long before Serafino was watching Full House in his jammies with a bowl of ice cream. Saget, he says, “simply isn’t funny.” (We suppose this nitwit’s never heard of the concept of comedy being subjective. Such pronouncements are embarrassing. But, we suppose embarrassment is yet another concept he isn’t familiar with.)

No doubt Serafino committed this heinous act to gain some sort of cred. We’ll put it in terms that Serafino can understand: “Fail!”

Has he noticed that even the least successful person on his list is pulling down millions? Is this immaterial to him? We suspect that he’s contemptuous of the fans of the top fifteen. Such impotent ranting is difficult to watch. It’s the new hack.

Las Vegans wishing to hear a lengthy interview with “Mr. & Mrs. Comedy” can tune into KNPR tonight at 10-ish. And, through the magic of Podcastitism, those who are outside of KNPR’s footprint can hear it immediately by clicking here.

We were quizzed on our book (of course!) and on a variety of other subjects like our appearance on Last Comic Standing, what it’s like being married standup comics, how we come up with material and hecklers. A wide-ranging interview, done yesterday in the KNPR studios on the campus of College of Southern Nevada.

Since we moved here, nearly ten months ago, we have confirmed one notion: EVERYbody wants to play Vegas. At least it sure seems that way. When we tell people that we’ve moved there, they freeze for a moment, the wheels inside their heads spin briefly and then they ask a variation on the same question: “How can I work Vegas?”

Well… here’s one way, maybe: Enter the Improv’s “Up Yours” contest. That’s a link to the rules for the latest edition of Budd Friedman’s and Mark Lonow’s online clip battle that ends up with six finalists peforming in front of a panel of judges at the Improv comedy club at Harrah’s on the world famous Las Vegas Strip.

The winner gets paid gigs at The Improvs in Las Vegas and in Lake Tahoe, which are, according to the website, “valued at $25,000.” No word on just how many gigs at the two clubs which are necessary to add up to that magical figure. Also, the winner gets “a meeting in Vegas at the time of the finale with an agent from the talent agency APA.”

Hop on, check out the competition and dive in. And, as always, check out the rules before you enter. Know before you go. Poke before you joke. Enter with your head, not over it. Blah, blah, blah.

As with any contest of this sort, the organizers would be remiss if they didn’t include the Universal Release (look for it at the “Terms of Use” link) that pretty much says that anything you submit becomes their property and that they can use it any way they please. Our favorite part of Universal Releases these days is the part where you grant the contest folks the “license to use… all CONTENT… in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed. So if, in the year 2525 (with apologies to Zager and Evans), if somebody invents a way to inject your material into somebody’s brain in such a way that it’s re-written as a playlet and re-enacted by a microscopic troupe of actors composed entirely of tiny carbon nanotubes… you can’t kick. Of course, it’ll probably just end up as a ringtone. BORRRRing!

The news on the internet is confirmed. Patrice Oneal has passed away at the age of 41.

From his Wikipedia entry:

Patrice Lumumba Malcolm O’Neal (December 7, 1969 – November 29, 2011) was an American stand-up comedian, radio personality, and actor. He was known for his cutting, often confrontational crowd work during which he often played couples against each other. He was a resident of Jersey City, New Jersey.

Oneal had a stroke about a month ago, which left him unable to speak. Hit TMZ.com for the story.

Originally appeared on Oct. 8, but bumped.

To whom shall we dedicate it?

We have received many requests for an autographed copy of our book. And we understand why folks would want to own an autographed copy of our book. So we did some research and we’ve figured out a way.

For those who want to own an autographed copy now, we can offer one at $30, payable through PayPal. (That includes the book, autographed, and it includes shipping, via USPS Priority, anywhere in the U.S.) We’re not sure what to do about our Canadian friends (or those in other non-U.S. locales), but we’ll be sure and research that.

Just fill in the name for the dedication, click on the “Buy Now” button and you’ll be whisked to PayPal. There you’ll be asked to fill in your mailing address and other info and we’ll receive your order instantly! Then we’ll mail it to you via USPS Priority!

Of course, you can always buy the book– at your favorite bookstore or off of Amazon.com– and, if we should happen to cross paths (and someone nearby has a Sharpie!), we’ll be happy to sign it!

Listen to this interview with Kate Copstick from the Humour Me Comedy Show which is a British production. Copstick is described as “one of the most respected, revered and feared comedy critics in the industry.”

We’ll let that sink in.

She’s respected, revered and feared. In the course of the interview, Copstick downplays the fear factor, even dismisses it. But a comedy blog saw fit to unironically describe her as “most feared.”

It’s a lengthy interview, so it’s way too long for us to “Fisk” it. But it sends many chills down the spine.

As much as Copstick might protest that she approaches standup in an analytical or intellectual manner, if you listen closely, she seems to be informed by emotion. (The fact that she analogizes her use of the “star-system” of reviewing standup comics to a system of reviewing potential mates is very telling.)

Copstick slags that very star system. She claims to hold it contempt, but, the more she talks about it, we eventually find that it isn’t so much the star system that she dislikes but its use by others. She seems particularly annoyed that people she deems too inexperienced to have/impart an opinion about standup are allowed to do so. She condescendingly refers to a four- or five-star review from a hypothetical website–”IDon’tKnowMuchAboutComedyButIKnowWhatILike.com” she calls it. She basically goes on to say that such opinions are worthless (compared to hers) and that it’s a disservice to the public and to standup that they exist. Essentially, though, she’s revealing herself to be elitist. The message is: Who do these people think they are? Her opinions shouldn’t be forced to compete with upstart websites.

We suppose such an opinion is to be expected from someone in the legacy media. Not all the folks in the media are so disdainful of the folks in the electronic media. But a surprising number are.

She admits to being a failed comedian. Red flags go up immediately. Copstick spins this as a positive thing. Being a bad comic, she says, makes her better able to spot a bad comic. She likens it to being an alcoholic. We paraphrase, but Copstick essentially says, “An alcoholic can always spot another alcoholic.” In our experience, we’ve known too many alcoholics who think that everybody is an alcoholic. Glass of wine with dinner? Definitely someone with a problem, goes the logic. Not exactly comforting to hear a comedy critic employ such twisted reasoning.

She also seems to imply that she’s a failed journalist as well. At the very least, she implies that she’s slumming it, that her current dalliance with standup comedy criticism is not “proper.” (And by “proper,” she means legitimate. And, by extension, we get the feeling that she feels that standup may not exactly be legitimate. At least not the vast majority of it.)

These are not the kinds of things we’re comfortable hearing from someone who is allegedly respected, revered and, worst of all, feared.

As with Jason Zinoman, we are uncomfortable with the assumptions and prejudices that Copstick brings to the table.

Copstick writes for the Scotsman. She reviews comedians who perform across the pond. So the amount of “damage” she could do to the comedy scene over here is minimal.

Why anyone would want an American version is beyond us.

Jason Zinoman is a theater critic for the New York Times. Earlier this month, in his “Arts Beat” blog, “The Culture at Large,” Zinoman says:

If a stand-up comic kills in the forest, does it make a sound? I don’t know, but what’s more certain is that no critic from a major paper will review it. Every night in this city, scores of artists take the stage and perform for large, enthusiastic audiences, and are usually ignored by critics in the media capital. Most of those comedians are ordinary or bad, but a few may become the next Richard Pryor or David Letterman.

He says this as a way of teasing the NYT’s “regular column dedicated to comedy criticism… Stand-up and improv will be the meat and potatoes of these essays, but it will by no means be limited to those fields.”

This is heralded by some as a great day for standup comedy. We’re not convinced.

Zinoman’s first column, on comic Hannibal Buress, contains high praise for Buress. (Praise that, we hasten to add, is deserved.) Then we read paragraph six:

Despite the rumbling buzz surrounding this comic who has refined his skills for nine years, first in Chicago and then New York, obscure dance companies have been reviewed more often in the mainstream press.

Emphasis ours.

Zinoman is trying to make the case that Buress has been wronged because he hasn’t been reviewed in a major daily newspaper. And that he has been doubly or triply wronged because he’s been ignored by the NYT. But, as it is demonstrated in the paragraph just before the above-cite graf, Buress has earned the admiration of his peers, has landed some prestigious writing gigs and is now signed to write and star in a Fox sitcom (co-produced by Jonah Hill!). So, Buress has been doing just fine without any help from the Old Gray Lady.

Standup, Zinoman says, “is the only major art form in which most American critics don’t take performers seriously until they leave the field” and he cites Jerry Seinfeld and Louis C. K. as proof of this questionable claim. Those two comics, he says, “needed television shows to really receive notice.”

Today’s comics “don’t get no respect, and considering their ambition, diversity and influence, they should.”

We are puzzled. Those comedians, Seinfeld and C.K., earned considerable respect– among their peers, in the industry and among their fans– and eventually parlayed that respect into situation comedies on a major network (Seinfeld on NBC) and on major cable outlets (C.K. on HBO and FX). And they did it all without critics. Why do we suddenly need help from critics?

We’re torn. We understand the power of the press. We also understand the considerable influence of the Times. And that power and influence could be a shortcut– for a handful of fortunate comedians– to the big time. And good for them if it happens!

But Jason Zinoman is but one man. One man who now wields (disproportionate?) influence by virtue of his new designation as comedy critic at the NYT. To those who rejoice at the prospect of regular standup reviews in the Times, we would recommend that they temper their joy with caution.

Such a column will have an effect on comedians, on consumers of comedy and on the business of comedy. And not all of it will be positive. Much of it may be negative.

We already note that Zinoman says that “most of those comedians are ordinary or bad.” We are not, at this point, going to dispute this claim, but we wonder why a critic would feel compelled to include this in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the essay that kicks off the whole comedy reviewing adventure.

And in his second column– on female comedians– Zinoman says offhandedly that “a majority of male stand-ups are neurotics nursing anxieties.”

Leaving aside the fact that Zinoman is bringing his prejudices and questionable assumptions to the task of reviewing standup comics (he is human, after all), we can’t help but think that this could end badly.

While others jump for joy at the prospect of a new-found “respect” conferred upon some select comedians (and, by extension, all of us in the profession) by virtue of a mention in the Times, we fear a future where those not sanctioned by the Times are viewed as somehow lacking. (Or worse, a negative review– and there will be negative reviews– will unfairly derail a comedian’s career or damage his marketability.) We fear that this will have an undue influence on consumers of comedy who will make their choices based solely on the latest review.

Our biggest fear is that comedians will start changing to conform to what they perceive as the features necessary to receive the blessing of Zinoman (or other reviewers). The logical outcome of such a scenario is that comedians will slowly begin to sound, act and look the same. Already, we’ve heard from one comedian who cautioned that we should go easy on Mr. Zinoman, not anger him. The theory is that standup needs columnists. We’re not convinced. And such subservience gives the reviewer added, unearned power which might warp the creative process.

There’s a lot to be said for a community of comedians essentially laboring (incubating?) in relative obscurity, operating only on feedback from audiences.

We’ve nearly always refrained from reviewing performances or CD’s or DVD’s. This stuns some of our readers and disappoints many of our colleagues. We have a very good reason for this. We prefer to let folks make up their own minds. We’ve paid more attention to a comedian’s “backstory,” or an interview or a story about a comic’s interesting side projects. We assume that nearly all experienced, successful comedians are making an honest and unique attempt at standup, at making people laugh.

We stopped paying attention to reviewers and reviews– about movies, about restaurants, about wine, about music– a looong time ago.  It was frustrating when we disagreed with a critic and not at all satisfying when we agreed.  Tragically, we’ve seen some things destroyed by a negative review or two.

We’re not saying that the Times’ move is automatically a tragic development. But we are urging everyone to be cautious and that this isn’t the salvation of comedy that so many believe it to be.

We awoke this morning to find that a Facebook friend (Carl Brandt) posted on The Male Half’s wall that SHECKYmagazine had been “name-checked” on the Nick and Artie Show, the nationally-syndicated radio show hosted by Artie Lange and Nick DiPaolo. (The show debuted October 3 and is described as focusing on sports and entertainment.)

We hopped onto the N&A website and listened to hour one of the Thursday broadcast in which a caller, Karen from Boston, chatted with the hosts about the Steve Sweeney assault story (Scroll down to see our post on that). Sure enough, at the end of her call (at the 12:15 mark of the broadcast), she quoted the last line of the aforementioned SHECKYmagazine post– “It’s even more astonishing that anyone would tangle with a Boston comic! If she had done that in the 80s, she’d be in a full body cast right now.”

Tellingly, “Karen” referred to the author of the line (and to the author of the blog) as “he.” This is something we’ve noticed now for a long time. While it is true that the blog is named after a man. And while it might be argued that the tone of the magazine could be interpreted as masculine, we’ve gone to great lengths to convey that it’s a joint effort between two people– a man and a woman. We even have our photographs prominently displayed top left! We’ve adopted certain crazy conventions (like referring to The Female Half and The Male Half, and wiping out any use of “I” when writing posts) to make it clear that the posts are authored jointly. We’re not sure how anyone– let alone “Karen,” who is obviously a woman– could automatically use the masculine pronoun when referring to our blog. But it happens with alarming frequency.

We briefly addressed this very subject during a recent interview with Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVR-J) columnist Mike Weatherford. Weatherford’s Sunday column was based on that interview and contains the following pertinent passage, on the subject of married couples in comedy:

But they still don’t have a lot of company among married comedians. “There’s a few out there,” he says, “but they seem curiously reluctant to … ”

“Say they’re married,” she adds, finishing a sentence in the way long-married couples do. “(Promoters) tend to devalue the female half of the couple.”

Emphasis ours.

Promoters, readers, audiences– all tend to devalue the female half of the couple.

And we’re not whining. It is what it is. And it certainly has shaped how we’ve dealt with business and work. And we certainly understand how other couples seek to build a wall between their respective careers (usually at the insistence of the female half of the partnership).

But we’ve embraced it. For a time– back in 1988 or 1989, we strove to make it clear that we were separate entities, that we didn’t have to be booked together, etc.  But, no matter how hard we tried, the message didn’t get through.  We eventually rolled over.  Now, we’ve totally given up and given in. And now, it’s on a billboard!

We especially like the billboard below, in the distance, that says, “Divorce Custody!” (It’s readable on larger versions of the pic, trust us!)

WCVB, Boston’s Channel 5, has an account of the arrest of Erica Porzio, a 24-year-old ball of fire from Revere who assaulted veteran Boston comic Steve Sweeney for remarks Sweeney made during his show Saturday night at the Giggles comedy club in Saugus.

Sweeney told police he was talking to friends between shows when a woman threw a glass of beer at him.

Police arrested Erica F. Porzio, 24, of Revere, who they charged not only with assaulting Sweeney, but also the club’s owner, Steven Castraberti, who suffered a broken finger when he said he tried to restrain her.

Sweeney said he was approached by Porzio who told him she was offended by a comment he made concerning her sexuality during the show.

Porzio’s father said Sweeney made derogatory remarks about her off stage, not during his comedy routine.

That last bit is probably horse manure– most likely Porzio’s father trying to throw gasoline on the fire. We believe Sweeney’s account. Porzio must have been hopping mad–she threw the entire drink, glass and all– not just the beer!

Audience members occasionally get steamed, but they rarely wait around and get physical. We’re kind of suprised it doesn’t happen more often. Usually, though, they just leave… or get tossed out.

The Female Half does a pre-emptive strike and tries to nip such behavior in the bud– at the end of her set (in which she often busts balls), she gets the audience to applaud for those whom she may have abused and says that taking a joke “is a sign of good character.” (Thereafter, anyone who chooses to jump bad is admitting that he has bad character… and who wants to do that?)

Of course, dealing with a heckler (or a drunken heckler) is a whole different ballgame… especially if the comic manages to get the better of the heckler– and get the entire room to laugh. Ouch! Every so often, that humiliation (abetted by alcohol) will elicit a response like the one above.

The most shocking part is that it happened “between shows!” It wasn’t even the second show! It’s unusual for someone to get that worked up on the first show Saturday!

It’s even more astonishing that anyone would tangle with a Boston comic! If she had done that in the 80s, she’d be in a full body cast right now.

H/T to Saad!

Since we’re headlining at Big Al’s this month a the Orleans (and since we didn’t have a show on Sunday night), we managed to jiggle a few connections and get comped into Don Rickles at the Orleans Showroom last night.

Rickles.

That’s right. We saw Don Rickles. We know that thousands of people have seen Rickles over his 63 years, but we haven’t seen him yet! And we think it is incumbent upon every standup comic to see as many of the masters as he/she can.

And what made it twelve times cooler was seeing him in Vegas! With a full orchestra! And a packed house!

It’s been quite a year for us– we saw Shecky Greene at the Southpoint in April on his birthday weekend. And now we saw Rickles!

We dig the mid-century caricature that loomed over the stage before showtime. (We’re pretty sure it’s mid-century since he’s depicted as having hair!)

The kind of comedy that Rickles purveys (and that Greene purveys) is going to die with them. It’s “a little song, a little dance” and no one– NO one– is keeping the tradition up. We’re not insisting for a minute that anyone should incorporate the soft-shoe into his act. We watch these guys do what they do and we know that no one will carry on the tradition. So we are nostalgic (“A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past”) and as we watch, we understand that what we’re witnessing will not be around– except via video or film.

Rickles was rickety. But his enthusiasm for performing is not dampened. His interaction with the band (especially the musical director who acted as his ultimate straight man) was hysterical. And it was a joy to watch him deliver some of his more pointed lines– such confidence and such a raucous response from the audience!

It was a thrill to see the legend after having grown up watching him on the small screen.

He’s coming back in March.