There's never been a Rowan Atkinson backlash. And I don't think anyone has ever had a go at Peter Sellars, although some of his stuff was seen as poor (The Party).

I suppose it depends if the performer is seen as representative of an age or trend, and so their fortunes vary relative to how that is perceived. Ben Elton and David Baddiel went in and out of fashion because of their attitudes. Equally, Spike Milligan is a totem for what was innovative in the 50s and 60s, and he gets dismissed by younger people who see that as irrelevant or unimpressive. Whereas performers like Atkinson and Sellars aren't of their time, and can hold their reputations.

Brooks went out of fashion because he made dud films, simple as that. The most interesting thing about him is that he once admitted he saw 'Death Of A Salesman' in its original run, was stunned by it, but then wrote a spoof sketch, and he later wished he'd tried to write something equivalent to it instead.

I wonder how long before we get people who proclaim their view that 'The Day Today' was a load of clever-clever shite and that they reject everything associated with Morris.

I think some of TDT was unfunny shite, but it was embedded in stuff that was brilliant. All great shows are like that, Python and The Young Ones especially.

I suppose tastes change and you get used to what once seemed new and innovative. I still like Harry Hill but don't think he's as good as he used to be. I couldn't say if that's because I'm used to his style, and thus it doesn't seem as fresh, or if he's genuinely gone off the boil/heading for the mainstream.

Vic Reeves falls into the latter, for certain. His stuff used to be wonderfully entertaining and bizarre.

Same with Rik Mayall

I suppose that's why comics head for overseas markets. Once you get used to their style - especially a distinct and innovative style - then their impact upon you lessens.
It isn't so much that they have lost it, but that they're not new and exciting to you anymore.
I remember seeing John Hegley with a London friend.
"He's such an amazing performer!" I enthused, excited because I'd only ever heard recorded Hegley.
"Ah, I've seen it all before. He's been doing some of that stuff for years." he replied.
The fact remains that Hegley WAS/IS an excellent performer who definitely hasn't lost it. My friend was just used to him.




Oh, and anybody who has a go at Hegley, I'll bite back!

like Hegley.
Ooh overseas comics, good chance to plug- I mean mention my darling again:
Boothby Graffoe.

What about Billy Connolly then? Started off patchy and regional (ish), became possibly the funniest person on the planet between 1987 and 1994, then world tour of australia came out and bang! (to me anyway) what ever he had just wasn't there anymore. Same with everything since. Is it just that he's totally lost touch with whatever connected him with that comic sense, or is he just too rich and removed from the 'real' world?

Lenny Henry was crap when I saw him on the Loud tour, as well. Elton etc. being a product of the time is probably true, but I guess there's also the fact that by 1996 most people were sick to the back teeth of him...

All subjective, of course...

>What about Billy Connolly then? Started >off patchy and regional (ish), became >possibly the funniest person on the planet >between 1987 and 1994, then world tour of >australia came out and bang! (to me anyway) >what ever he had just wasn't there >anymore. Same with everything since. Is >it just that he's totally lost touch with >whatever connected him with that comic >sense, or is he just too rich and removed >from the 'real' world?

I still thinks he's funny, although he doesn't seem to try very hard anymore. He seems more interested in acting these days.

>>What about Billy Connolly then? Started >off patchy and regional (ish), became >possibly the funniest person on the planet >between 1987 and 1994, then world tour of >australia came out and bang! (to me anyway) >what ever he had just wasn't there >anymore. Same with everything since. Is >it just that he's totally lost touch with >whatever connected him with that comic >sense, or is he just too rich and removed >from the 'real' world?
>
>I still thinks he's funny, although he doesn't seem to try very hard anymore. He seems more interested in acting these days.
>

I don't normally like him that much, but there was something on TV a couple of years ago where he toured remote parts of Scotland. One episode saw him visit some natural stone steps somewhere or other, which almost literally drove him to tears with their beauty. Later that night, he did a show in the locality, which he opened by saying something like "I had a look around your town, I saw these bloody big steps. You can go up them... and THEN... you can go back down again", and the audience were having genuine hysterics. "Hmmm", thought I, "he's quite a performer".
>

>I think some of TDT was unfunny shite, but it was embedded in stuff that was brilliant. All great shows are like that, Python and The Young Ones especially.

I think you miss the point on TDT, some of it had to be run of the mill to support the funny stuff, i.e. reality with an abnormal twist to it, only the abnormal bits are funny.

>I don't normally like him that much, but there was something on TV a couple of years ago where he toured remote parts of Scotland. One episode saw him visit some natural stone steps somewhere or other, which almost literally drove him to tears with their beauty. Later that night, he did a show in the locality, which he opened by saying something like "I had a look around your town, I saw these bloody big steps. You can go up them... and THEN... you can go back down again", and the audience were having genuine hysterics. "Hmmm", thought I, "he's quite a performer".

Thats total mince, he wasn't at-all moved to tears by the natural beauty of a set of stone steps. He was actually taking the piss a little bit when he was there! I've seen that series many times and it's all in your head. Anyroad, it's all part of his act to kick off by gently dissing the audience's home town as a good guage of how far he can go on a night.
And he's still bloody funny too! Not without his bad patches, admittedly, but he ain't fake that's for sure!

I think with comedy (unlike music) familiarity breedsw contempt. You start to see how a comic works, spot their tricks and they then start to become annoying.
Also it's difficult to keep coming up with new material for decades - I think Woody Allen has managed it - largely by moving on every few years to pastures new, but undoubtedly some would argue he's had less funny patches or is not as funny as he was.
More importantly I think you change yourself. Find different things funny as your life and opinions and concerns change. A comedian's opinions and concerns may move a t a different rate.
Especially as the comics of our generation tend to be in their 20s when we're in our teens. We aspire to be like them. Then they get into their 30s or 40s while we're still "young" and we can';t understand why their perspective has shifted.
Comedians are naturally lazy people also, so it's hard for them to keep going. The most successful ones are the ones who work hard and don't rest on their laurels, but we're bound to find them funnier when they were new to us and surprising. IUt's very difficult (and possibly counter productive) to attempt to be surprising all your life
I could go on. But I'm not going to. Because I have already.

Yeah, but Fist Of Fun was better on the radio.

Fist of Fun was better when they repeated it. Oh, they didn't...

Question: When do people who are quite funny suddenly lose it and become lazy and unfunny..?

Answer: www.notbbc.co.uk/corpses

>Question: When do people who are quite funny suddenly lose it and become lazy and unfunny..?

Answer: Lee and Herring

Name one thing Stewart Lee has done that you did not like, Steven.

Script editing does not count for this arguement.

Or, indeed, for this argument.

Did I mention that my job involves proofreading?

>Name one thing Stewart Lee has done that you did not like, Steven.
>
>Script editing does not count for this arguement.

I think it does, and I think saying stupid things like calling an obvious classic like Red Dwarf complete shit when it is obviously a classic series even if it did turn into mostly vulgar humour after the first few series and the last two series after one of the writers left turned to complete shit, it is still a fuck load better than anything Time Gentlemen Please can manage. Which incidentally Stewart praises, like he's not biased or anything being a script editor on the show and the fact it is written by his best mate. And to quote Stewart Lee "I don't use the internet because I don't like Red Dwarf or child pornography." As we can see Stewart now does use the internet, and he obviously is still not a fan of Red Dwarf, so...

>>Name one thing Stewart Lee has done that you did not like, Steven.
>>
>>Script editing does not count for this arguement.
>
>"I think it does, and I think saying stupid things like calling an obvious classic like Red Dwarf complete shit when it is obviously a classic series"

This is a big problem Steven. Personally, not liking Red Dwarf, it is not "obviously, a classic series" to me. Try and relate your points of view to those of other people, and discuss accordingly.

That dance music, eh? What a bag of shit.

So Red Dwarf is "an obvious classic" and anyone who says otherwise (there are lots of us) is just stupid?

My word, Steven, another brilliant "argument" you've come up with. Hope you don't mind if I duck this one - your chains of logic are too subtle for me.

>>Name one thing Stewart Lee has done that you did not like, Steven.
>>
>>Script editing does not count for this arguement.
>
>I think it does, and I think saying stupid things like calling an obvious classic like Red Dwarf complete

Oh dear. Red Dwarf was always dreadful. Lee & Herring were always dreadful. Am I between two stools?

>I think some of TDT was unfunny shite, but it was embedded in stuff that was brilliant. All great shows are like that, Python and The Young Ones especially.

Not so long ago I would have said of the Young Ones "Well it was very funny to a 12 year old, but just doesn't stand up today". Then I happened across 'Cash' on UK Gold the other day and was pissing myself. So ignore me.

Well if you read the book and watch the first couple of series, that are pretty faithfull I think anybody can agree it is very good, and similar to the Hitchhikers Guide, which I'm sure if I had said was an obvious classic instead that most people wouldn't be giving me their sarcastic shit over. All I am writing is an opinion, and you all point the holes in whatever I say even though it is pretty obvious anything you say is open to question and is obviously subjective, but of course since we're actually having a scornful argument you have to use this against me instead of realising what hypocrits everybody is. I have no animosity to Stewart Lee or Richard Herring, I think they are both great comedians and writers, but it doesn't mean I think everything they do or say is worthy of worship, and though it pains me to say, TGP is just dreadful and I would much rather watch Game On to it, which I think is far more subtle believe it or not. This is all obviously an opinion and subjective so I'm waiting for a nice load of hypocritical posts about how I'm wrong now, even though every post you've ever made is open to enormous questioning if they relate to anything as subjective as comedy art or music.

Steven, let it go.

Red Dwarf?

Sorry. Must dash.