Oooh. That was spooky. I could have sworn a moment ago the subject line for this thread read "XXXX and XXXX: Why the Corpses Are Wrong", and referred to the Corpses by name, but it appears to have suddenly changed.

Why?

>Oooh. That was spooky. I could have sworn a moment ago the subject line for this thread read "XXXX and XXXX: Why the Corpses Are Wrong", and referred to the Corpses by name, but it appears to have suddenly changed.
>Why?

Because the corpses have asked me to remove their names ...

Nice try...

What about calling them ....Does that count?

Nope... bye

Rather a lot of 'I's in that message, Dave, which makes you sound rather egotistical.

Incidentally, weren't the Corpses at the Riverside on the 17th July when you supported Stewart Lee? Sounded like a good opportunity to talk to them then. Why didn't you?

Oh sorry, you're not reading the forum again, are you? Diddums.

Someone else who makes sense... can't be true, surely...

laters

I think he's misinterpreted the entire 'Edit News' section. It's not criticism, it's just pointing out certain weird facts.

"Is there a chance the track will bend?" "Not on your life, my Hindu friend."

They're wrong, and they're grotesquely ugly freaks!

>I asked Rob to take it down again. It remained for at least 3 weeks. At the same time I received a personally abusive e-mail calling me a c**t and accusing me of petty policing. Odd, as far as I know the only person who knew that I had asked for it to be taken down was Rob S.

so what you are in fact suggesting is that the email in question was in some way originating from Rob?

such a shame when people resort to personal abuse and intimidation, eh Dave?

Also, I find it ironic that you refer to the corpses as arrogant, yet are amazed that they did not jump at the chance to meet with you.

Why were you so desperate to meet them anyway? Was it really to do with the 'setting the record straight' as far as the 11O'CS article goes (something which you dont seem overkeen to associate yourself with) or was it more to get to know who they are because you were uneasy about their anonymity?

He's gone, you idiots. Shows how little time you spent really reading:

>I will not be taking part in this forum again. It's a shame, because there are others here with something to say.

Give it up.

I wonder who posted that then.

Oh that's a foolish assumption.

Not me. Anyway, onto a technical curve... when *are* the corpses getting internet access? do they live in a cave with no phone or leccy? are they that close to the bread line that they have flour in their eyebrows? surely one of them can use an internet cafe or something...
Incidentally, the points by 'The Gorman' are quite valid... highlighting the faults which are inherent in any site such as this... it's not, to be fair, a fault necesarrily you can blame at the feet of the corpses. The system of critique is one that from it's very principle is flawed. the problem seems to arise in their ignorance of this, and their persistence in using arrogance and bulldozer 'humour' where surely subtlety and a more rapier like quality would be more in key with the ideals... food for thought.. let's eat it.

Your idiocy in these matters combined with your arrogance is alarming.

Now, that surely is the most concise (and star wars - esque) insult i've ever heard on this site....

Well done.

>Your idiocy in these matters combined with your arrogance is alarming.
>
>Now, that surely is the most concise (and star wars - esque) insult i've ever heard on this site....
>
>Well done.
>
Who is more foolish? The fool? Or the fool who follows him?

Umm... the fool who names one of his main characters Obi Wan Kenobi...
which quite clearly has the word
'...Wan K...'
in it...

If you'd like to know The Corpses' names, just mail me YOUR SURVEY ANSWERS at:

[email protected]

No, I won't really.

If there is a good reason why the names can't be given out, could someone who knows it mail it to me? Promise not to tell.

One of the names isn't a secret anyway.

Which one's that then Jon?

MM

>Umm... the fool who names one of his main characters Obi Wan Kenobi...
>which quite clearly has the word
>'...Wan K...'
>in it...
>

Which, of course, doesn't mean anything in America...

Oh, it does.

I made that my mission.

Gary Glitter's not allowed on the Web much. Cound he be one of the ...

>Oh, it does.
>
>I made that my mission.

Subbes, I am intrigued - tell me more...

(Although, of course it didnn't mean anything in the US in 1977. In fact I seem to remember Phil Collins on Miami Vice using the term 'wanker' and defining it as a 'stupid person' - what an appropriate ambassador. And that's before we've even mentiond the infamous Mork and Mindy 'Mr Wanker' incident...)

Uh... when I moved over here (USA) I said it was my mission to use the word 'wanker' in as many different ways as possible. I get here and find that already, 10% or more of americans know what it means. Eek.

David,

I'm quite sure you'll get to read this. I shall address your points without arrogance - comedic or otherwise.

The Alan Davies Show observation - this wasn't about us not understanding how radio is made - it's about current producer attitudes towards the listening audience. When it comes to a stray laugh, a corpse, a failed take or an ad lib, a producer has a choice between strictly sticking to a script and cutting said instances, or using a bit of common over whether to credit the listening audience with the intelligence to realise that such events are funny in themselves (on those occasions that they are - the audience were absolutely delighted by Eldon's waiter silliness and this got the biggest laugh in the whole session) and leave them in. Our point here is that, as a producer, one is taught, first and foremost, to do things 'properly'. Fair enough. But people who deviate from the norm generally show they have a bit more faith in the listening or viewing audience to understand what's going on. In our view. Check out the Mary Whitehouse article in ARCHIVE REVIEW for more on this - specifically in ref to Armando Iannucci.

In fact, after that particular recording, we approached producer Jane Berthoud and suggested that she keep the original laugh in. She told us she'd 'think about it'. She chose to avoid any possible confusion, obviously. Her choice. Not a choice which we're claiming reflects badly on her (there is another article on the site which champions Berthoud's strengths as a producer) but a 'typical' one in our view.

Here's a great illustration: On the title track to Sgt Pepper (which is augmented by taped audience noise), there's a random audience chuckle during the trumpety bits. This was placed on the song by Paul McCartney as a tribute to childhood memories of radio comedy. He explained this in some Beatles book or other, saying that it was always exciting to hear a studio audience laughing at something which wasn't necessarily apparent ('What happened? Did someone trip or pull a funny face?'). Next time you do a 'Call My Bluff' with George Martin you can get him to confirm this!

As for the 'Animal House' thing - it was an observation, that's all. Read the Edit News intro which explains that the whole thing is part of an evil plan to get people to observe comedy more closely. The more people who realise there's more to a comedy show than the edited end-product will hopefully ensure that production decisions like cutting stuff people might not understand will happen less and less. It's all about not treating the audience like idiots at the end of the day. We've explained several times that our fascination with such things is ridiculous and silly but that the site is just a way of allowing people to eavesdrop. But you've read far too much into it.

Al Murray, blah. We've attended hundreds of radio/TV recordings. We know the form, cheers. The Saville/HIGNFY thing was specifically written with a keen knowledge of how such recording sessions work (which is possibly why it fooled so many people). And when something seems out of sorts to us (as was the case with TGP) then why shouldn't we be allowed to say so?

11 O'Clock Show. You and Charlie Brooker both seem to think we're arrogant to want to know why said show went so bad so quickly. The new thread was devised to draw a distinction between comments like 'Iain Lee is a wanker' and to get to the point of why the show is so bad. Contrary to your claims, we do have a certain amount of insider knowledge of what goes on. And a one-time contributor to the show has actually confirmed, on this forum, that the article itself is an accurate, well-argued (and devastating) attack. That's one point of view. But would it be arrogant to suggest that the real reason you and Charlie annoyed is because the 'one-time 11 O'Clock Show writer' tag isn't particularly helpful to your careers?

You asked us to contact you. We chose not to, mainly because, having looked at the site, the only bit about you was the thing about you being a contributor to the 11 O'Clock Show. At the end of the day though we just don't happen to think you're that important a player in the comedy world. Just our view. Take it or leave it. You have enough positive PR on your own site, specially selected by yourself from Time Out articles, in turn rewritten from Avalon press-releases presumably originally okayed by yourself. You can play the media game with the best of them. We've chosen not to observe those rules.

Incidentally, you appear to be suggesting that Rob or one of the SOTCAA editors sent you an abusive email. This isn't true. And you're wicked to suggest otherwise.

Looking forward to next year's Edinburgh show 'Dave Gorman's Big Pocket'. La la la�

No hard feelings.

(name removed) 4 SOTCAA

Nice to see you kept arrogance out of that reply.

> 11 O'Clock Show. You and Charlie Brooker both seem to think we're arrogant to want to know why said show went so bad so quickly.

No.

Speaking for myself here, I think you have *every right* to want to know why the 11OCS turned out the way it did. But I don't believe you have the right to tell everyone involved in it to "rot in hell and die", or demand that they publicly apologise or "justify their existence". That *is* arrogant.

Whether intended as amusing hyperbole or not, those provocative statements only hinder any kind of rational debate (which is what you claim to be interested in) by enraging those who might otherwise shed some light on the subject. I'll put my hand up here and admit to getting needlessly hot-headed about it.

To imply that each behind-the-scenes individual is responsible for the finished whole is unfair. Dave Gorman's Dagenham Ford metaphor is valid, and I'd like you to address this point. If you were reading closely, *my* most telling statement on the 11OCS was my description of my time on the show as a "Vietnam tour of duty", which I think is a fair assessment, and as much as I'm going to say in a public forum.

> Contrary to your claims, we do have a certain amount of insider knowledge of what goes on.

And perhaps you do. But the inclusion of factual errors and wild conjecture in your article suggests otherwise. Harsh criticism and fearless reportage are one thing, but if you want your views taken seriously, be sure you know the facts.

> But would it be arrogant to suggest that the real reason you and Charlie annoyed is because the 'one-time 11 O'Clock Show writer' tag isn't particularly helpful to your careers?

If this was the case, why would either of us publicise the point by drawing further attention to our involvement in it on a public forum situated on a site that despises the show?

Listen, I've said it before, but this time I'll say it explicitly and in a friendly manner: if you want better comedy, write some. Your fake HIGNFY transcript was brilliant. So is the Edinburgh pastiche. The anger, passion, paranoia, and utter lack of restraint that makes you such compelling-yet-deeply-flawed critics (and it does) also makes you write very funny things which deserve a wider audience (including, er, 'plebs').

I genuinely believe it's a crying shame you don't pour your energies into creating a purer form of the stuff you claim to love.

At the risk of being called a self-promoting shitbox, that's what I did when I started doing tvgohome -- I was sick of spending my time slumped in front of the TV, moaning about it. Whatever your views of my "heavy-handed, grab-a-reference" site, it's gone straight from my head and onto the monitors of more people than I could have dreamed of, without being fucked up, compromised, or watered down by a committee -- and it actively welcomes contributions from anyone with something funny to add. I'm proud of it, and now its success (justified or otherwise) has given me the opportunity to create new things *on my own terms*.

Why *don't* you two do something similar? Perhaps you'd do a better job than me. I'll fucking help if you like.

Anyway [LOVE MODE: OFF], I also think you should take a deep breath, stop deliberately winding people up, keep a lid on the paranoid grumblings and the arrogance, and instead own up to getting carried away far too often for your own good.

Now, in precisely *what* way does all of the above make me a pointless, 11OCS-tainted cunt this time?

cb

>Anyway [LOVE MODE: OFF],


Fucking hell! Charlie's a robot! Run! Hide! He'll kill us all!!!!

>To imply that each behind-the-scenes individual is responsible for the finished whole is unfair. Dave Gorman's Dagenham Ford metaphor is valid, and I'd like you to address this point. If you were reading closely, *my* most telling statement on the 11OCS was my description of my time on the show as a "Vietnam tour of duty", which I think is a fair assessment, and as much as I'm going to say in a public forum.

What happens if lots of Fiesta owners start to complain about failed breaks though?

>> Contrary to your claims, we do have a certain amount of insider knowledge of what goes on.
>And perhaps you do. But the inclusion of factual errors and wild conjecture in your article suggests otherwise. Harsh criticism and fearless reportage are one thing, but if you want your views taken seriously, be sure you know the facts.

The Other Corpses Editor has asked me to ask you if you would email us explaining as much as possible what you feel the errors and inaccuracies are in that article, so that they can be corrected if need be. However, as previously pointed out, a one-time contributor to the show (whose involvement predated both yourself and Dave Gorman) has confirmed the article's accuracy. This has also been confirmed to me by another Talkback insider. If you feel there are errors though, the corpses would honestly like to hear them.

>> But would it be arrogant to suggest that the real reason you and Charlie annoyed is because the 'one-time 11 O'Clock Show writer' tag isn't particularly helpful to your careers?
>If this was the case, why would either of us publicise the point by drawing further attention to our involvement in it on a public forum situated on a site that despises the show?

At a recent gig, Dave Gorman decided to have a friendly chat with me about the site. At one point during the conversation he asked me what of his previous work the corpses had seen. At this point I mentioned the 11OCS and Dave immediately denied having anything to do with it. I replied with "but we've got video tape with your name in the credits" out of genuine confusion - to which he replied "I wasn't the script editor in series 3". Make of that what you will, but I suspect Dave's appearance in this forum is not to publicise his association with the show.

I'm certainly not siding with anyone associated with 11 O Cock Show intnetionally, but i think this strand highlights the problems i see in the delivery, if not the sentiment, of the material here. Replies are abrasive. It's not that you're not telling the whole truth, or anything like that. i think it's purely that you reply like angst ridden teenagers when you could surely offer so much more.

>I'm certainly not siding with anyone associated with 11 O Cock Show intnetionally, but i think this strand highlights the problems i see in the delivery, if not the sentiment, of the material here. Replies are abrasive. It's not that you're not telling the whole truth, or anything like that. i think it's purely that you reply like angst ridden teenagers when you could surely offer so much more.

Oh whine whine whine whine whine... get to fuck, will you!

You wee radge.

Whine? Um. No.
Get to Fuck? Uhh... what does that mean... or what is it *supposed* to mean? Get the fuck out of here? is that what you were trying to say?

>Whine? Um. No.
>Get to Fuck? Uhh... what does that mean... or what is it *supposed* to mean? Get the fuck out of here? is that what you were trying to say?

It's a Scots phrase, you fucking ignoramus.

(NB "ignoramus" means ignorant person.)

Well, excuse me, but i'm not scottish, so in your parlance 'get the fuck' and in mine, and many others, 'fuck off you twat'.

>Well, excuse me, but i'm not scottish, so in your parlance 'get the fuck' and in mine, and many others, 'fuck off you twat'.

Yes, I'd be happy with either.

How would you feel about "Go and lick out your mum's fly-infested minge"? Would that be acceptible?

Um. I'd rather pass to be honest. I'm not into the whole Eritrean look.

Although i am a little worried by the detail you know... something you want to tell us O(edipus) hanraohanrahan?

Dave Gorman would be an excellent bloke to have adding to this forum. He knows about a lot of the stuff that you're guessing at and is honest enough to tell you, if he is treated with respect (eg it doesn't matter whether he's a big shot in the comedy world or not, does it. That's not a good reason not to reply to him. He certainly wouldn't regard himself as such. But the "unarrogant" Corpses didn't deem him worthy of a response. C'mon guys get a grip.)
I think he would also be able to take constructive criticism if you had treated him with respect. But now he isn't going to post (and don't go diddums - there's no need for him to do so. It's your loss. It really is)

Your hang up with PR is silly. Things get publicised. It's a way of letting people know that something is happening. There's hyperbole and selectivism in everyone's publicity. Sometimes there may be mistruths (often in case of stuff I've seen cos people who work in PR are generally too stupid to copy things out properly, rather than any evil purpose). But any amount of PR can't make a bad show funny. It's good to get people to watch (I wish we'd had some publicity for our last TV show), but then the public are clever enough to make up their own mind. The contempt for the audience again seems to be coming from you guys.
I'm only really saying it's a shame that another intelligent professional comedian has felt excluded from this site.
But maybe there is no way round it.

I think Richard had hit the nail on the head, and conveyed an element of what i was trying to say with an eloquence i have obviously failed to master. By insulting people, you really expect them to help you in any way?
You had an offer for information and you turned it down. It seems to me that some of the corpses carry grudges...
No one was ever saying you have to like everyone, no one was even saying that your opinions are wrong. what they are saying is, be less abrasive and you'll be a whole lot better.

Avalon artistes of the world - Unite! You have nothing to lose but your devoted fan base...

Rich, the last person who took the piss out of Dave Gorman on this forum, was BBC Producer Adam Bromley. As a result, he lost (and is continuing to lose) a lot of BBC work. Yet his parodies of Dave and Danny were funnier than ours and didn't even appear too disrespectful to those involved (apart from us in fact). I would remind you this is not a 'business', we are not selling anything and we have nothing to gain. I don't think you've ever understood this and Dave certainly doesn't. By the way, Dave only *suggested* a chat (and then, only the once, contrary to his misinformation above) and we decided not to bother. In fact, we didn't even *decide* as such, we just forgot about it. He didn't contact us again so we presumed he wasn't too bothered either. What's arrogant about this?

Incidentally, we've worked out what "direct action" to take. We're going to shave off Dave Gorman's beard and sideburns, thus effectively destroying his corporate logo.

Sorry, this is a long message but I want to try and make things clear.

I would like to relate more fully my recent conversation with Dave Gorman. It was at the first Edinburgh warm-ups Riverside gig and both Stewart Lee and Dave Gorman were due to be performing. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, the shows were both cancelled. (The gig Bent Halo mentioned earlier was the following week)

When I arrived and found this out, I want to try and ring my friends to let them know what was happening and it was as I was about to make these calls that Dave came up to me.

He started to ask me why the thread (from this forum) in which someone had pretended to be him was still up. This completely threw me because as far as I was aware the thread hadn't been on the site for quite sometime. I tried to explain how that could not be possible unless his machine was caching the pages so I asked him how many machines he had checked this on. After he told me he'd seen it on several machines (at the BBC, on his home PC, etc) I held my hand up and honestly swore I did not know how that could be. I tried to explain as best I could (I was pretty flustered as I wanted to contact my friends urgently) how the forum worked but I could see he did not believe me. He insisted that he had seen that thread that day.

He then moved on to talk about the Corpses and wanted to know why they hadn't contacted him after he emailed them. I repeatedly explained that I was not the corpses and could not tell him why they hadn't replied, but it is their decision. He was angry because, although he agreed comedians are publicly accountable, he claimed there were lies about him on the website. As the publisher he held me partially responsible (which is fair enough). I asked him to tell me what specific lies there were about him and he started to give me (what I consider to be) very vague replies and quoted the bulletin text about the Corpses being able to go thru L&H's dustbins. It was around this point of the conversation he asked me about what stuff of his the corpses had seen and the 11ocs show came up and he denied having anything to do with it, etc...

At the end of the conversation he was suggesting that as the publisher I bear some responsibility for the site, and that if there were lies about an individual I should take action to correct those lies. Now these are prinicipals I agree with, so when I agreed with him he replied with 'Fine, I've won the argument then'. He then started insisting that I make the Corpses contact him and at one point insisted I email him the next day and give him their phone numbers. I politely refused and told him I would tell them again that he wanted them to get in touch, but would do no more. At this point the conversation had gone on for 15 - 20 minutes and I was very keen to ring my friends.

Now after I got home, I did some checking on some of the points Dave had raised. Although I agreed with the principals he was suggesting, I found they had very little bearing with any mentions of him on this website. For starters, there was no way he could of seen the forum thread with the fake posts from him/DW on that particular day. The thread had been deleted from the server a few weeks beforehand and in fact I had recently had to restore the file from a backup in order to give it to the corpses.

Secondly, the only mention of Dave Gorman in the main site at the time was in one of the Funnee Talk parodies (anyone who's seen this weeks real FT will understand why) and a very brief mention in the 11ocs article (which is still there if you wish to check it out). He wasn't even mentioned in the first version of the Fringe Guide.

The suggestion that there was lies about him on the website was not only misleading, but untrue. Even the unedited version the thread where somebody had done a convincing parody of him and Danny Wallace contained several messages that explained it was clearly not them. So whilst I agree with the principals that Dave 'won the argument' with, I don't believe he always follows them himself & they had no relevancy to the mentions of him on this site.

Before all this happened, I had no feelings one way or the other towards Dave Gorman. I had seen his Edinburgh show last year and quite enjoyed it. But now I feel very differently, I don't think he's entirely truthful and is quite an arrogant, self-centred person. A quick visit to his website, http://www.davegorman.com/ , only served to confirm this. I also find it amusing his current Edinburgh show appears to be based on an Alan Partridge sketch.

I'm sorry Rich, but I certainly don't recognise the professional you describe and I don't think he would be a worthwhile contributor to this forum. I recognise this is only my version of events and therefore my view point but that is my honest opinion. I know we haven't agreed on things recently, but can you really see me sending out an abusive email?

*hug for frogger*

After visiting Dave Gorman's site I don't think he's got that much to offer. I thought his Celebrity Gallery was dire (the same stupid joke repeated.)

I'm not saying you sent an offensive e mail. I'm sure you didn't Rob. And I know this isn't a commercial site. I'm just saying that many of the people you are talking about are willing to visit the site and post messages and you (that's not just the Corpses, other people in the forum) seem intent on being rude to them and essentially calling them liars (I've had this a lot on here, but I have always only told the truth as I see it, from a position of having been there, rather than one of guessing what people's motives might have been)
I have no interest in sticking up for other Avalon acts (though many of their acts are my favourite comedians- I think Jon Thoday etc have shown excellent taste and judgement in who they represent). As I always have in my career and on here I have said what I think.
I just know that most comedians I respect are not driven by money or self promotion, but by a desire to produce the best work they can. Sometimes they will fail.

i hate PR, especially when it intrudes into my personal life, but see it as necessary to get info through to potential viewers etc. This is in turn necessary as in my job what I do is judged (wrongly) by the execs by how many people watch the show.
I think your attitude is very cynical towards this (again not just the Corpses).If you listened to the actual comics who you are talking about (assuming they are not jsut lying- I think it's unlikely they are. If they come on a site like this it is cos they are interested in what the fans think) you might get a better idea of what the truth is
I think Dave was very upset by what happened on here. Personally I have not been lastingly offended by anything. But I am fairly thick skinned.
I'd just ask you to think about all this. Everyone seems to argue from very set ideas and not listen to anyone. I can hardly think of an occasion when somebody has admitted to being mistaken or taken another person's POV on board.
And whatever you say Corpses your writing style is very arrogant - I was objecting to your dismissal of DG in the last posting, and you are now claiming you just forgot. I think you need to keep your feet on the ground.

You don't have to do comedy in order to comment on comedy, but I think you do if you want to change it. I think the point is that when you've worked your arses off getting somewhere then you can start to make decisions about how things should be done. So Jane Berthould has every right to do something the way she did, even though someone in the audience suggested she might do it another way.
Much of your site is incredibly insightful and you have good inside info on a lot of subjects. But much of it is speculative and I can tell you for sure that some of your speculation is wrong. Do you want to listen? Or do you just want to claim I'm sticking up for friends (don't know DG very well at all) or lying for my own ends?
When have I ever lied to you guys?

(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.

> You don't have to do comedy in order to comment on comedy, but I think you do if you want to change it.

Couldn't agree more. Because how else *are* you going to change it, Corpses? How?

The thing is Rich, in this particular case I *know* Dave Gorman was dishonest to me on more than one occasion, yet he still felt justified in attempting to force me to change the content on this site, give him the Corpses phone numbers, etc and generally being quite aggressive. To give you another example, when he contacted me about the thread with the parodies, he did not repeat the request for the Corpses to get back in touch, yet this is what he is claiming in this very thread (just before suggesting I might of sent him an abusive email). I honestly don't believe he is here because he is interested in what his fans think.

The Corpses do listen to what people have to say. If there is something which is a genuine factual error, then it is corrected with a note to say so. If you look at the 99p Challenge & Jam articles you'll see other people's responses (to the original article) attached.

If you know some of the speculation is wrong, then email it to us. It will be used in someway, even if the Corpses just consider it to be a difference of opinion. It's no good saying something is factually inaccurate and then not explaining why.

Rich, people who want to correct factual errors tend to mail us directly and automatically. We've always been very open and inviting about this. People who disagree with our *opinions*, on the other hand, tend to ask us to meet with them or come on the forum and claim there are errors but never actually specify them. Call me paranoid if you like ("You're Paranoid!" - Graeme Garden and Tim Brook-Taylor) but it's always come across as a means to change our viewpoint rather than correct anything factual.

Dave Gorman could have mailed us a big bag of errors at any time and we would have used his comments as appropriate. Same with Charlie Brooker. Same with everybody. To claim that we are unapproachable makes a mockery of the benefits of the information age! (Many thanks to Rob for allowing me to dictate this to you down an expensive phone line, as I don't have email access)

My point it that people like Simon Pegg and Al Murray will not want to correct mistakes because so much of the site slags them off. For example the ridiculous speculation that Simon Pegg had me thrown off 99p - why would he want to send you his views. He is under no obligation.
But if you were welcoming and you stuck to what was fact ( a lot of this on the site, I would argue that it is spoiled by the occasional slightly paranoid speculation as well as possibly some stuff said for effect)

You know, as a comedy fan I think the site is great and that's why I keep coming back ( along with the fact that arguing the toss is a good way of avoiding the issue that I'm meant to be working). I think the forum would be improved by more contributions from professionals (and might give you more genuine inside info). That's all.

You seem to miss the point Richard, most of the professionals aren't any bleeding good.

Er... you seem to have missed the point of criticism, Gee, which is that it is subjective. For example, I thought 'Spaced' was superb, apparently in total disagreement with many people here. Hence I've nothing against whats-his-face-from-Spaced and I definitely think this forum would benefit from his input. How are you going to judge the quality of a given person's input if you've already slagged them off enough that they don't bother giving you a taster?

indeed... no comedian who's made it is gonna sit and be insulted by four critics who haven't. or five. or three. or one. even if she is attractive. unless you're neil morrisey. or les dennis.

I liked Spaced too. As Richard Herring use to say: "It's only banter."

I've just heard that I'm going to get my tickets for Time Gentlemen Please. My girlfriend was a bit disappointed when I told her Mr Herring won't be acting in it. I think she's got a thing for him.

A thing? what from one of those special shops in Soho?

You dirty minded sod. No, she fancies him.

>Your hang up with PR is silly. Things get publicised. It's a way of letting people know that something is happening. There's hyperbole and selectivism in everyone's publicity.

There's nothing wrong with publicising a product of which you are proud. In fact, most comedians, in our experience, aren't keen to do this nearly enough - the 'Absolutely' team, for example, adamantly refuse to realise how fantastic they were. We don't think all comedians should be success-shirking types who shun PR across the board. Most great radio and TV shows would have benefitted from a few more press releases.

All we ask is that it's done with honesty, doesn't treat the audience like idiots, and isn't just there to enable journalists to hop on a convenient bandwagon. Take the new series of Edinburgh Or Bust, starting this Friday on C4 - it purports to be a documenarty about hopefuls at the Edinburgh fringe, but in fact it's a six-week advert for the Gilded Balloon...who happen to be sponsored by C4, as you may know. The worse thing is, they think we can't see this.

And my earlier question remains unanswered: if Al Murray has become successful purely through word of mouth and being good, why did Avalon give a toss whether he was nominated for the Perrier? Said award only exists as a publicity exercise, after all.

I'm not saying awards aren't about publicity. Just that Al was already very successful in Edinburgh terms with or without the Perrier. Why should he be wrongly excluded from the award when other people more successful hadn't been? I think that's what the argument was about. But if he's good and by winning an award more people hear about him then that can only be a good thing.
I hate the Perrier award with all my heart. It is against everything that Edinburgh is about and it's ridiculous for a committee to decide what is funny. But given it exists and can help generate interest in a show (something I would dearly have loved for my non-sell out early edinburgh shows, which apparently came close to nomination- Rasputin and Fat) A mere nomination would have ensured that these shows got more audience and quite possibly would have been put on elsewhere - a good thing surely. Unfortunatly on both occasions I made it to the last 10 (or so I'm told) and the shows were never heard of again.
I would still prefer it that the Perrier didn't exist. It gives execs a cahcne to be lazy and only go and see the 6 things that have been nominated and it means loads of things don't get the recognition they deserve (but then maybe it means that 5 or 6 things at least get a recognition - however random and unfair the process) Fat and Rasputin would not have been any more successful had the Perrier not existed.
So to possible go over what I've just said, Al was unfairly removed from the Perrier award and then was forced to be reinstated because of Avalon's correct objestions but also through public and newspaper pressure. Obviously Avalon used the opportunity to garner publicity, but I don't think this is a bad thing. The more people who know about something good the better (I'm not if the fan opinion that something is only good while I am the only person liking it - that's sixth form and pathetic. Entertainment should be for everyone and if lots of people like it then that's a good thing)
Again I think If Al was just a publicity creation then audiences are not so stupid that they would fall for it. That might get you to go and see something. But not to enjoy it. I guess this is where we differ.
The critic in me and the comedy expert in me might dismiss some comics for being unoriginal or lazy or boring, but I don't think this applies to Al at all. But lets not get into that.
I hope you think that answers your question now. I won't go into the number of points I've raised that you've failed to address.

"Fat and Rasputin would not have been any more successful had the Perrier not existed."

Are they a double act? Do they have a show up there this year?

>"Fat and Rasputin would not have been any more successful had the Perrier not existed."
>
>Are they a double act? Do they have a show up there this year?

Isn't "Fat and Rasputin" just a description of Lee and Herring anyway...?

>I'm not if the fan opinion that something is only good while I am the only person liking it - that's sixth form and pathetic. Entertainment should be for everyone and if lots of people like it then that's a good thing.

Is that really how we come across? It's not the case anyway, and I agree with you. If anything, what frustrates us most is the number of excellent shows/comedians which get overlooked, not the other side of that coin. There's nothing cool or virtuous about liking something before anyone else got into it.

Having said that, it's also true that this attitude is conditional on whether the early stuff is actually *better*...and it often is. Many comedians seem in their element when they have no job security and are writing jokes for their supper, since they have no laurels on which to rest - they have to be good to survive and prove themselves. (Compare the first series of French & Saunders with the last, for example.) The appeal of many comedy shows is also in their cult identity - most comedy fans would rather eavesdrop on a hidden world which they've discovered themselves than watch something because it's the latest fad.

It comes back to the same thing - broadcasters treating us like plebs who will watch what we're given, rather than cast our nets wide. Case in point - Nick Hancock, right? One of the best stand-ups Britain has ever produced whose greatest recorded work has been gathering dust for years, but known to most people as the bloke off They Think It's All Over. Now who's fault's this - the audience's, or the BBC's? Suffice to say, when we suggested to the BBC Radio Collection that they could release the radio series of Room 101 on cassette, their response was 'No, they'll all be confused that it doesn't feature Paul Merton as host...'

I didn't specifically mean you guys. Sorry if that's how it came across. I'm just jamming these comments as I haven't got the time to really be on here at all (but it's an excellent displacement activity).
Although I agree that many comics go down hill I think fans can be overly sentimental about earlier stuff - also years of viewing will help you see the actual flaws in an act. Sadly it is very hard to keep coming up with the goods too. But personally I am working harder than ever at the moment (and I used to work very hard)

Some comics end up doing rubbish cos they are too lazy to push themselves and it's hard to be bothered when you're making millions of pounds. It's very easy just to turn up on the day and do something, rather than struggle with the writing. I think this has more to do with middle age than anything though. No-one can be expected to carry on having the ambition and drive of a 20 year old. I find that when I work til mid night and get up at 5 to write nowadays that I get really tired. Not something that happened in 1993!
Personally I still have the desire to create good work, but my idea of what is good is very different than when I was on the radio.

>When we suggested to the BBC Radio >Collection that they could release the >radio series of Room 101 on cassette, their >response was 'No, they'll all be confused >that it doesn't feature Paul Merton as >host...'

Quite unlike all those re-releases that never ever confuse people by including the exact same episodes of Only Fools And Horses and Absolutely Fabulous again and again and again, only with a slightly different cover?

Typical BBC.

<Case in point - Nick Hancock, right? One of the best stand-ups Britain has ever produced whose greatest recorded work has been gathering dust for years, but known to most people as the bloke off They Think It's All Over. Now who's fault's this - the audience's, or the BBC's?


Nick Hancock's. Nick's doing OK taking the money for the sports quiz.

This one's to Rich again. Not dictated this time, but sent via the Royal Mail on a floppy to Rob. Wow, this information age is really smashing...

Just a few more words on the subject of comedians and this site really. You're suggesting that it would be a great thing if loads of them graced the forum with their viewpoints and stuff but we've driven them all away with our arrogant opinions.

All comedians are welcomed, in so much as the forum is there if they want to use it. We neither deliberately encourage or discourage anybody. If comedians visit then that's cool. If they don't then that's no skin off our collective virtual noses.

We'd be doomed from the start anyway. If we address forum contributions by famous comedians we get accused of being sycophants; if we criticise their work we get called arrogant cunts. One kind soul (a big fan / defender / mate of Dave Gorman) even once suggested that this alone was a good reason for us closing down the site.

Dave Gorman doesn't even count as a viable argument - he was just out to cause trouble. His deliberate, spiteful 'outing' of our names says it all. And if you really don't believe that this was done deliberately then you're an innocent arse, Rich. His 'examples' of why we know nothing about the way broadcasting works were ridiculously random and suggested that these were the only bits of the site he'd actually read. Dave Gorman doesn't read SOTCAA. He just gets told about it every so often by his protective fans - 'look what they've written about you now'. We don't have a vendetta against Dave Gorman. We don't even think he's a good enough illustration of why the comedy world is in a limp state. We just think he's a nonentity. And this isn't even a criticism. It's a dismissal. We could call Dave Gorman all the cunting bastard twats under the sun, but it wouldn't upset him as much as us saying he's nobody.

We've criticised TGP. You've defended it. We've had a public exchange-of-views on equal terms. And you got the full support of pretty much all of the regular forum contributors over the issue. All that is aside from Kinder Surprise whose viewpoint you appeared to dismiss totally and yet whose only crime seems to have been to say 'people, people, can't we all just get on with each other?'. That was a bit odd. No, that was very odd. Telling a bunch of people who all agreed with you that you were interested in their opinion, but insulting one who just found the whole thing silly and amusing. Was that a joke?

Yet *we* are the ones being called arrogant. I really don't get this at all. I am perplexed, I am undone, etc. You're accusing us of not listening to your arguments. Of course we've listened. That's why we started the thread. You in turn have accused us of being jaded comedy fans (an accusation you've defended us against in the past), of being cynical (ditto) and accused us of having ulterior motives (revenge for Avalon being slow with payments for artwork - a joke which Al used in a private email to the editors several months ago).

I can't really see that anybody's accused you of being a liar, apart from that bloke Malcolm who refused to believe your side of the story over the way Lee and Herring were initially marketed. We've never called you a liar. We firmly believe that you do believe TGP to be the best thing you've ever written. We're just surprised you believe this, that's all. But the open letter was answered. And the answers were perfectly satisfactory - at least in the sense that you were honest about what you were doing.

We've always said that the opinions on this site are from a 'comedy fan' perspective. Your experience of being an 'insider' is totally valid of course (and the forum doesn't censor your - or anybody else's - contributions unless they deliberately and spitefully try to cause trouble). But your viewpoint shouldn't be taken as 'gospel' any more than ours should. They are both just 'viewpoints', from whatever angle and both are subject to occasional enforced blindness. You shouldn't be regarded as a 'special visitor' to the forum. I'm sure you don't regard yourself as such. But some comedians might. Could it be that if comedians aren't visiting the forum then it's maybe because they're a bit too used to fan-sites fawning over them? They see our forum as a bit scary. More likely though they just find it boring. 'A load of cliques shouting each other down', as one emailer (who otherwise adores the site) eloquently put it.

Here's a good one though. Suck on this. Why is 'Late & Live' (at the Edinburgh Fringe) respected by comedy insiders as a good and worthy thing even though the audience are a mass of vicious, sneering bastards (and that's just Sean Hughes, aaahh) but our own criticism is seen as unnecessary or hurtful? Where's *our* fucking Jenny �clair voiceover - 'It's Saturday night and the SOTCAA forum contributors are out in force - if a comedian can survive this then they can survive anything'. Why does an illiterate heckling Loaded-style 'what a bunch of arse' critique of a comedy act raise no fury, while an opinionated deconstruction of someone's work (which might say much the same thing but some with nice long words and joined-up writing) gets accused of being arrogant and self-important?

Mark Lamarr, Phill Jupitus and Sean Hughes ganging up on a teenage female pop star and upsetting her. That's arrogant. A heckler deliberately spoiling a comedian's joke because they like calling attention to themselves. That's arrogant. Yet both cases seem fine in most people's eyes, despite being spiteful and self-serving - making themselves look good while dissing the 'losers'. And us? I've always thought we were the losers. We're questioning the media environment because we'd like a few answers. We're not doing it to make ourselves look good or big or clever. But the SOTCAA banner at least makes us look like we're somebody to contend with.

Our 'arrogance' is a personality we've created for the site as two people disappointed and suspicious about what's happening to the current comedy scene. It displays our irritation at the media environment rather than at individuals. Of course we can't illustrate what we think is going wrong without using certain people as examples, but whatever. We don't criticise a show or a comedian without mentioning our reasons why and putting it into some sort of historical context. This is of course completely at odds with most criticism based on received opinion or safety in numbers - for instance 'Ben Elton is shit' / 'Simon Pegg is a genius'. We've explained this time and time again.

For heaven's sakes, Rich, let's not forget that you've used your position in comedy to slag off pet hates in the past - Punt & Dennis, Tim Vine, Patrick Marber, Lee Hurst, Smith & Jones, Stephen Fry, etc, etc, etc. They've all been massacred in the name of a throwaway comedy routine from the perspective of comedy 'insiders'. You and Stewart also have a reputation for being arrogant. But of course you can always turn around and say 'Oh, this is more of a joke about ourselves really'. Fair enough, I say, but those opinions still come through, untested, unchallenged. Often totally misdirected too.

An illustration: Your joke about Smith & Jones handing their enormous fees back and apologising after making 'Morons From Outer Space'? Would it surprise you to learn that Smith & Jones have actually made (much funnier) jokes themselves about how awful it was? Did you ever consider that perhaps they didn't even receive 'enormous fees' anyway due to it just being a crappy little low-budget British film made decades ago? I would doubt it. The joke was totally misdirected and based on prejudices which you'd probably find difficult to back up, faced with a bunch of comedy fans with actual videotapes of their best work ('Impersonating chickens and behaving like a twat', eh, Justin?). The Lee and Herring critique has always been 'Everything Smith and Jones have done since Not The Nine O'Clock News has been shit'. Demonstrably untrue - and not even an opinion you've researched or anything. But if anybody from this site had accused you of arrogance and self-importance you'd have thought we were barmy. 'Aah, you mad comedy fans take everything too seriously', you would have said, munching on a volauvent, studying the arse of a passing BBC runner...

Truth is, you've never really taken our views seriously. I don't know why you are now in fact. I'm deeply puzzled. Makes no odds to you if we sink or swim. Makes even less odds to us as we've nothing to lose. Nobody takes our opinions seriously, least of all most of the forum contributors.

John Thoday? Lovely bloke. Always smiling and happy, socially, but a slightly ridiculous self-parodical figure in business whom everyone takes the piss out of anyway (including a lot of his acts, though not to his face, obviously). We really only have the right to discuss Avalon's foibles in fan terms - suppressed comedy releases, fucked up deals, badly-judged PR-spins, etc. That's business, I guess. All comedy agencies tend to be bastards. Avalon's special take on it is to denounce the others for being bastards, but then use exactly the same tactics as them, claiming that they're doing it 'for the good of the people'. I think that's hilarious, personally.

Funnier than that joke in the Harry Hill Xmas special which referred to Avalon as the Death Agency (with accompanying logo parody) anyway. Was this the reason why Avalon thought Stewart Lee had written the Fringe parody?

We've never said that Thoday's choice of signings is at fault. He's signed some scorchers. We don't like some Avalon acts, but then some Avalon acts don't like other Avalon acts either. It's hardly a valid argument. I can recall a time when you didn't think much of The Boosh. As you've mentioned, your viewpoint was changed after last Edinburgh. Fair enough. Maybe our viewpoint will be changed at some point too.

PR? Well now. We've nothing against advertising. In fact we don't even buy into the idiotic received Hicks-bore opinion that comedians shouldn't do adverts (we've seen enough instances where such a combination can be fantastic. I feel a new thread coming on)... We're not saying that PR is unnecessary but it can be used insidiously and blatantly. And self-promotion always looks unpleasant and horrid. One thing we decided when creating this site was that we wouldn't do it the way other people would. Comedian Ivor Dembina recently mailed to suggest that we ditch the forum and stick up a 'feedback' page instead so that we could edit the responses the way in a way which makes us look great. Yeah, we could do that. We could even litter the site with all the ridiculously positive feedback we've had from comedians and producers and make ourselves look well-tasty (privately emailed comments tend to be 99% positive we've noticed). But we've avoided doing this because we wanted people to make up their own minds, not to be influenced be what an 'insider' says. That's all. Anybody got a problem with that?

Other boring stuff - Re: Jane Berthoud - she's a great producer. I've met her a couple of times and I think she's tops. We just disagree over this one instance, that's all. It's not an issue and never has been. I only wrote all that stuff in response to Dave Gorman's attempts to discredit us as idiots who didn't understand how radio was made, that's all. Just an illustration of the illustration. We weren't 'backtracking' over the issue of meeting up with Dave incidentally, Rich. We did genuinely forget that he'd contacted us. In the sense that we didn't consider it a top priority and just let it go. We were getting mails from loads of people at the time. But it also coincided with some fans of his making spurious hyperbolic claims about us as individuals on another site, so we probably tarred him with the same attitude-brush. Correctly, if his initial message in this thread is anything to go by. He appears to have used much the same tactics (deliberately naming us, twisting our words, claiming to have been victimised, etc), and probably influenced that twat in the Bermondsey cybercafe who attempted to name us in every single thread.

Sorry if I've sounded confused in these mails. It's difficult defending myself via dictation, especially when I've only heard your many arguments read to me once down a phone line when I'm half-asleep. Things are bound to get confusing. Please don't resort to trying to deliberately discredit us by picking semantic holes in things that really aren't that important at the end of the day.

In fact, I don't even know why I'm having to explain all this to you on an internet forum. Why don't you just wake me up with a phone call and tell me a lazy ugly fat Welsh cunt. Like you used to before this site went up. Aah, the good old days, eh, Rich?

You know I love you (name removed). And I love the other (name removed) also.
I'm just enjoying the argument!

It was a joke about kinder surprise. Youn know, the way it totally defeated my argument.

Too much else to reply to their boys or girls. I really like the site. I really like you telling it how it is (and sometimes how you imagine it might be - often correctly)

I was just concerned you were taking yourselves a bit seriously. And I'm also writing to you at all hours in the middle of one of the most stressful years of my life.

You know I'll support you whatever you say about me. But I'll continue to say what I think about me. And the truth will be somewhere in between what we think no doubt.

I rarely eat vol au vants. (this is a joke based on the fact that I have not denied the other half of the sentence)

I hope there aren't some dark hints that the site will close down. That would be a shame.

I also think it is possible to be critical without being (too) offensive. Yes, we've been very rude about people ourselves, all the time. I kind of regret a lot of it. But my only defence is that it was always meant to be a joke. Stuff on here is meant to be serious (admittedly you are allowed to joke. And I get the jokes. I think DG has been a bit knee jerk in reaction to your knee jerks. And maybe missed the point a little (due to the sprawling mass of stuff you've created). I also think he is an incredibly funny bloke with some marvellous ideas. I saw his last Edinburgh show 4 times and loved it every time (it's funny cos it's true). I wish I could see his new show too. It sounds very funny, whether or not it's an Alan Partridge idea. Even if he copied it from there (which I don't think he did). He knows a lot about comedy and he's been on both sides of the camera and stuff, so he'd be a useful connection for you to find stuff out. But yeah, I'm not expecting you to fawn to anyone. What would be the point of that.
I think that a couple of weeks ago there were just a few statements from here and there that smacked of arrogance (again recently Rob S's view that Dave G's view wasn't worth having- bit arrogant Rob, but fair play if it's what you really think)

I'm going (on and on). And my message is. Keep it up. And hurry up and put more stuff up so I don't just have to read the forum (mmm more cartoons comparing me to mass murderers would be good)

re: DG
> It sounds very funny, whether or not it's an Alan Partridge idea. Even if he copied it from there (which I don't think he did).

Without wanting to sound like I'm quoting your old material back at you Rich, this is, for me, what makes it funny - he's probably blissfully unaware of the AP reference.

>I think that a couple of weeks ago there were just a few statements from here and there that smacked of arrogance (again recently Rob S's view that Dave G's view wasn't worth having- bit arrogant Rob, but fair play if it's what you really think)

Well (and this is why I'm replying to this bit) it is what I think... I'm dismissive of Dave's views because I know he has lied to me (if this was speculation I wouldn't say it in a public forum) - If you can't trust something someone says then their opinion really isn't worth hearing. Ok, this is all from my (very) personal perspective, but I did try to make a point of that...

It could well be a knee-jerk response to try and protect himself, but it's still not the right way to go about things... he can be perfectly pissed off with this site without having to be dishonest in order to defend himself.

>All that is aside from Kinder Surprise whose viewpoint you appeared to dismiss totally

Thankyou Corpses. I'm glad someone appreciates my viewpoints even if they are afraid to reveal their identity.

In fact I suspect that is probably why they remain anonymous.

>Thankyou Corpses. I'm glad someone appreciates my viewpoints even if they are afraid to reveal their identity.
>
>In fact I suspect that is probably why they remain anonymous.

That your real name, then?

>Mark Lamarr, Phill Jupitus and Sean Hughes ganging up on a teenage female pop star and upsetting her. That's arrogant.

I can picture your little muscles flexing with protective urges.

Hey Justin, I don't like to rock the boat. I've made a name for myself with this pseudonym. It's bothering me less now that people like to recognise me as a novelty piece of confectionery.

It's really time for the obligatory "sweet and sticky" question.