STAGE TIME Magazine: Dane Cook, Five Comics We Love

NEW RELEASES
DVDs
Alex Borstein
Drop Dead Gorgeous

Comedy Jump Off
Mark Demayo,
Smokey, Mike Shawn,
Ruperto Vanderpool
and Antman

Pablo Francisco
Ouch! Live From San
Jose

Ralphie May
Girth of a Nation

Carlos Mencia
No Strings Attached

Latin Legends of
Comedy
Joey Vega, Angel
Salazar and JJ Ramirez

Paul Lynde
An Evening With

Lewis Black
Red, White & Screwed

Katt Williams
Live

Michele Balan Live!
(Just Barely)

Bob & Tom Radio:
The Comedy Tour
Drew Hastings, Bob
Zany, Greg Hahn and
Mark Armstrong

Kevin Hart
Live From the Laff
House

Neil Hamburger
The World's Funnyman

CDs
Wanda Sykes
Sick & Tired

Doug Powell
Doug the Helicopter
Pilot

Greg Giraldo
Good Day to Cross a
River

Christian Finnegan
Two For Flinching

Whitest Kids You Know

Russell Peters
Outsourced

George Lopez
El Mas Chingon

Demetri Martin
These Are Jokes

Norm MacDonald
Ridculous

Greg Behrendt
Greg Behrendt Is
Uncool

Blaine Smithson
Live at Club Flamingo

Books
The Book on Hosting
How Not to Suck As An
Emcee
Dan Rosenberg

Backstage at The
Tonight Show: From
Johnny Carson to Jay
Leno

Getting the Joke: The
Inner Workings of
Stand Up Comedy
Oliver Double

Live From Middle
America: Rants From a
Red-State Comedian
Brad Stine

There are essentially two kinds of successful comedians today: The "fan’s comedian" and the
"comedian’s comedian." Don’t get me wrong, the "comedian’s comedian" will still have plenty of
non-comedian fans, and the "fan’s comedian" will certainly have plenty of comedian fans. But
generally speaking, there is a discernible difference in style between the two. Both are talented.
Both deserve success. But they have different strengths.

The "comedian’s comedian" will often have spent more time as a comedy writer, behind the
scenes, and will not usually have any explosive mainstream success or reach a level of
stardom. Obviously I’m talking about guys like Patton Oswalt and Louis CK. And let's not forget
the "Godfather of Comedian’s Comedians," Bill Hicks, who given his relatively modest level of
stardom, inspired an entire generation of comics that we love today (appropriately, most of
them are probably the "comedian’s comedian" as well).

The "fan’s comedians" will primarily have a different talent: delivery. There’s nothing wrong with
their material, but it’s never going to be as noticeable as the manner in which the material is
delivered. Guys in this group are going to be Cook, Lewis Black and Brian Regan (the latter of
which has a delivery so funny that he has won the heart of every comic to whom I have spoke.)
It’s the age old style vs. substance, content vs. form. XTC vs. Adam Ant. And by the way, if
there’s only one great comic whose material and delivery were equal in genius, which earned
him abundant adoration by fans and fellow comics alike, it would be the late Mitch Hedberg.

As demonstrated in the entertainment industry,
style is going to win the crowd. Does this mean
that other comics criticize Cook because they are
jealous elitists? Yes. Are they wrong to feel the way
they do? No.

The reality is that nobody would criticize Cook if he
had not reached stardom. If he was still a local
open-miker/emcee at the Comedy Connection in
Boston, other comics wouldn't make such a fuss.
They would admire his perseverance and probably
wouldn't mind being seen laughing at some of his
bits. But when comics see other comics garner
unbelievable levels of fanfare whom they feel they
are more talented, it makes people feel like their
hard work isn’t appreciated.

The other reality is because of Cook's huge
success with hordes of fanatics, the overall quality
of his writing has waned a good deal. It definitely
doesn't help his creative process when trying out
new material to have 150 people scream with
delight at every word he says. I know it’s bold of
me to say a comic isn’t as good as he used to be,
but I have done the research.

During the late 90s and early 00s, I followed Cook
around like the Grateful Dead. I may have been
the first of his fanatical cultists (which today can
hardly be called a cult). And I watched as his
writing has become less compelling over the years.

Whoa! I’m definitely in trouble with some 13 year-
old girls now! (that’s another reason comics have
turned against Cook; if you need another example
of fans turning their back on acts whose popularity
exploded out of proportion, especially in the
teenage girl demographic, all you have to do is
look at Dave Matthews Band, Taking Back Sunday,
and John Cena to know that the culturally elite do
not like sharing their interests with little Chatty
Cathy).

But a decline in writing is to be expected with the
"fan’s comedian," because the "fan’s comedian’s"
real talent is in delivery, which does not have as
much growth opportunity over the years as a talent
for writing. They have a sort of an artistic glass
ceiling as far as the material is concerned. And
honestly, it’s not their fault.

Look at Lewis Black (whom I still love). His first
Comedy Central Special was brilliant. I used to
recite it after school to keep kids entertained on
the late bus. His material was perfect to set up his
delivery style which a nation of The Daily Show fans
have come to adore.

His second special was also enjoyable, the
material wasn’t bad, but the success of the special
was due to the fact that he plays to the crowd’s
need for those Lewis Black moments of pure freak-
out magic. Now he’s gotten to a level where
through no fault of his own, he’s going to be hard
pressed to write jokes as genius as the ones he
wrote 10 years ago because now he’s an act.

Even though his material is intellectually
stimulating, people don’t see him to enjoy
intellectually challenging comedy. They want to see
if his head will finally explode like a Gallagher
melon from all the country’s asininity.

Louis CK, on the other hand, who’s always relied
on the power of his joke writing alone, is maybe
more brilliant than ever and he’s not even talking
about anything new or interesting. He tells jokes
about his wife and kids. Since when was that a
fresh topic? Patton Oswalt? Probably 10 times as
funny as he was 10 years ago.

Why are these guys succeeding artistically by leaps
and bounds? Simple. Because nobody gives a shit.
These are guys that are visually unimpressive and
have barely enough charisma for people to pay
attention while they talk about stuff the same way
they would shoot the shit at a diner.

And just like always, they rely entirely on the
creative power of their joke writing to achieve
excellence. And achieve it they do, because while
delivery style is a kind of creativity that at some
point will repeat itself, whereas creativity in writing
is always moving forward.

However, what they don’t achieve is the hordes of
adoring fans. It’s not cogent to say that things are
the way they are because Cook ''sold out'' and
David Cross did not. It’s just two different things.

One act that is like a summer blockbuster, and the
other is like an independent film that might be
trying to make a statement or achieve laughter
through ambiance or subtlety. But it’s two different
things, and entertainment has always been more
lucrative than art.

I don’t think we should hold it against Cook just
because he’s not trying to push the boundaries of
creativity. We all have different talents and
different callings, with different possibilities for
achievement. There’s nothing wrong with simply
claiming you’re not a Dane Cook fan.

It’s certainly a free country. But we have to
remember that funny’s funny, and Cook certainly
didn’t get to where he is now by being unfunny and
not working hard.

On a side note, Dane Cook is definitely bringing
positive attention to the comedy industry that will
hopefully benefit all of us. I’m not saying he’s
going to be the Christ martyr who carries the
industry on his back while his own people deny him
three times. I’m just saying maybe there is
underlying genius in giant middle fingers.

Excellent observation Ryan! I've been in stand-up comedy for a while on and off with my share
of major successes (comedian-writer, comedy show producer, commercials and international
tours) under my belt. I mention a few of my accomplishments only as a gauge of where I have
been in my career. And please let me preface this with saying that I'm not jealous or even
"hatin" on Dane, but I knew in the first few minutes that what he was doing was not for me.

I forced myself to watch Dane's Tourgasm and stared at the screen like a confused puppy. The
whole time I'm asking myself, "what the fuck is he talking about?" But the entrepreneurial part
of myself understood it. He is the "Britany Spears of Comedy." A vehicle for many to attach
themselves to and his audience are the mall rats with tons of disposable income. You can
attach him to just about anything and he'll be fine.

I've been on the same show as Robert Kelly (Tourgasm) a few times and he's the real deal;
he cracks me up. But I've always noticed that comics with the huge fan base always pad their
shows with one solid comic who is not a threat to their success, a comic that is seasoned
enough to carry the show, but lacks something that will put them over the top. For example,
someone who not as visible or that doesn't look appealing enough to get groupies. (Groupies
are a big asset to the rise of anyone looking for fame because it's the perception that you are
desired.)

But your observation answers why I liked some comics and can't bear to watch others. I came
up on the urban comedy circuit but oddly enough, unless you've know me for years nobody
thought I was from NYC. I don't fit the mold of the urban comic. I 've always refused to "dumb
down" my comedy for the masses and because of that I left a lot (holding back the tears) of
money on the table. I've always been a funny person and resented when a fellow comedian
(whom I bring to tears with my stories) told me I should leave stand up alone and just write.

That is a great example of "delivery" giving "substance" advice in comedy. We can go on for
days, but I think that Dane is reaching an audience that does not encompass my demographic,
black male in his 30's. So he's not talking about anything of interest to me and I'm fine with
that. He may also be performing to an audience that other comics may not even like to play to.
My advice to comics would be to find your niche market, work it, then expand it. And stop
worrying about Dane because he damn sure is not worried about you!

- John Smooth