The Female Half of the Staff is currently reading “No Applause-Just Throw Money,” a history of vaudeville by Trav S.D. and is finding it fascinating. (“Much deeper than just a book about vaudeville with funny anecdotes,” says she.)
One particularly interesting mention, discovered by scanning the index, was that of vaudevillian Frank Fay (the “Great Faysie”) whom the author describes as the “unjustly forgotten innovator” of modern standup comedy.
Anthropologically speaking, Fay is the “Lucy” of stand-up; all stand-up bloodlines lead back to him. For a botanical analogy, he is the trunk from which two main branches of comedy would grow. On the one hand, he originated the stand-up comedy style we associate with Hope, Benny, Carson, Leno, and Letterman, the extremely polished “American institution” style, an unspoken confidence that says “an army of people made me possible.” This type of comedian specializes in telling America the jokes that will be repeated around the water cooler at work the next day. On the other hand, with his flip irreverence, Fay is also the father of the more burlesquey style that was to be identified with Ted Healy, Milton Berle, Ken Murray, and such aggressive late-twentieth century comedians as Don Rickles, Alan King, and Jackie Mason. Of all of these, Fay’s foremost successor was Lester Townes (“Bob”) Hope.
(Note: The Lucy referred to above is the pre-human ancestor discovered by anthropologists, not Lucille Ball.) Our recollections of Fay are fuzzy. We’d heard the name here and there over the years, but were unaware of his “seminality.” (Warning: We made that word up!)
Though the book devotes scant attention (so far) to comedy, the observations about vaudeville explain a whole lot about today’s entertainment industry and are eminently applicable to some developments in modern standup. You know us– we’re all about context.
One thing that bugs us– on the dustjacket, is the following (emphasis ours):
Trav S.D. peels back the curtain on the vibrant subculture that persists across the United States today– a vast grassroots network of fire-eaters, human blockheads, burlesque performers, and bad comics intent on taking vaudeville into its second century.
Judging from the author’s insightful and sensitive treatment of the phenomenon of vaudeville (and its practicioners), it is extremely likely that the publisher is the one who inserted the offending phrase. (Once again: Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you? We think not. In this case, the publisher has not only unfairly maligned comedians, but it has also managed to disrespect the author, as we’re fairly certain he wouldn’t characterize any comedians (or any other performers) as “bad.”