Peter Kay was great when he first came on the scene - a real breath of fresh air. Phoenix Nights was genius, and his early stand-up was brilliant, but he seems to have rested on his laurels since then. Max and Paddy was awful (they were always the least likeable characters in PN anyway), and this recent show, whilst it had one or two funny moments, felt like he was just going over old ground. It must have set a record for the number of cutaway shots to the audience. Oh, and the 'song lyrics' bit was a rehash of a rountine I saw him do at Leeds Festival 12 years ago.
I thought Max & Paddy was brilliant. His stand up is similar to his old stand up but considering how popular it is it looks like he was right to keep it the same.
Comedy is different things to different people. Fine if you don't like a particular comedian, but to suggest that those who do are somehow below you in intelligence or comic appreciation is, quite frankly, egotistical claptrap of the highest order.
I already said my opinion was contentious and likely to wind people up. Kay epitomises middle of the road, safe, boring, predictable so-called "comedy" for the masses. I am egotistical, because I know I'm right.
Besides which, am I somehow deemed less worthy to comment on Kay just because my opinion isn't like the majority of people here who seem to hang on his every word?
To use the analogy of comparing TV drama: Coronation Street is popular, so therefore does it make it a better show than The Wire? Of course not.
I already said my opinion was contentious and likely to wind people up. Kay epitomises middle of the road, safe, boring, predictable so-called "comedy" for the masses. I am egotistical, because I know I'm right.
Besides which, am I somehow deemed less worthy to comment on Kay just because my opinion isn't like the majority of people here who seem to hang on his every word?
To use the analogy of comparing TV drama: Coronation Street is popular, so therefore does it make it a better show than The Wire? Of course not.
No but neither does it make it a worse show just because it's deemed by some to be middle of the road, safe, boring, predictable entertainment for the "masses".
Phoenix Nights had a scene in which they brilliantly portrayed "alternative" comedy for what it was - totally bizarre and seemingly designed to shock and offend (strange that considering alternative "comedians" were the ones calling the older generation offensive). On seeing a man in underpants stomping across the stage in his underpants like something let loose out of an asylum, "he used to teach me metal work". Comedy appeals to the masses more often than not because it's normal (for want of a better word) and most people prefer "normal".
I already said my opinion was contentious and likely to wind people up. Kay epitomises middle of the road, safe, boring, predictable so-called "comedy" for the masses. I am egotistical, because I know I'm right.
Besides which, am I somehow deemed less worthy to comment on Kay just because my opinion isn't like the majority of people here who seem to hang on his every word?
To use the analogy of comparing TV drama: Coronation Street is popular, so therefore does it make it a better show than The Wire? Of course not.
And?
Kay epitomises the most successful comedian in Britain by some way. You need to get over the fact that you don't like him and stop criticising people who do.
I've watched the Wire and think it's terrible, who says it's better than Coronation Street?
I enjoyed it, made me laugh a lot. I like his stand-up but I am not so keen on the X Factor etc mickey takes. I like observational humour. I also like Lee Evans, but last night his Road Runner didn't make me laugh as much as I am used to laughing at his shows.
I don't like a lot of the newer comedians, John Bishop or Michael McIntyre. Sometimes I like Russell Brand and sometimes I like the edgier comedians too, but mostly when I can identify with their humour. And I can identify with Peter Kaye's humour. I had never heard any comedians before who knew about the 'big shop' and the 'big light' from my childhood. He reminds me so much of my Dad and his humour and sayings. 2 hours of great nostalgia for me.
Had to throw in my tuppence. Some posts in this thread do seem to be heading down a slightly futile path as they are arguing their case as “right” or the definitive answer. It’s comedy, and therefore highly subjective. I happened to watch most of the Kay show on Friday and it made me laugh – I’m not ashamed of that fact. Popularist comedy it may be, but if you find something funny, you find it funny and there’s not really a great deal you can do about that, I find. By the same token, I love many comedians that would be termed “alternative”, like Stewart Lee. I don’t like all alternative comedians – not a fan of Jerry Sadowitz, for example – but I don’t like all “mainstream” comedians either, e.g. I don’t find Micky Flanagan funny.
The point is that I’m willing to find certain things funny and certain other things unfunny, and I don’t hold a grudge against anyone that does find something funny when I don’t – and I certainly wouldn’t a) deny a comedian from performing a show simply because The Great Comedy Committee On High has deemed it (as they believe) “unfunny” or b) tar all types of comedy in either camp with the same brush. (Yes, I fully appreciate the irony of maintaining the two “comedy camps” for the purposes of this argument.) For example, you could classify someone like Dave Allen as a comedian who would appeal to the masses: very popular; observational humour; nothing avant-garde or particularly alternative. But he can’t be graded on the same scale as Paddy McGuinness, who also does observational humour and nothing avant-garde or particularly alternative. They’re two very different comedians. As another example, someone here cited the example of the “alternative comedian” bit in Phoenix Nights, stating that it “brilliantly portrayed "alternative" comedy for what it was”. No - it was certainly a ribbing of some alternative comedy but I doubt it was intended to be a sweeping statement on alternative comedy as a whole; not when you consider that people like Daniel Kitson were in that cast. It’s certainly representative of some alternative comedy, but not all of it. (For what it’s worth, I loved Phoenix Nights.)
This weekend I was at the Edinburgh Fringe and thought it was brilliant that there are so many different types of comedy out there. There is something to cater to virtually every taste, and why would you ever want to stop or censor something like that? Don’t like musical cabaret comedy? Fine, don’t go and see it. Don’t like avant-garde comedians? Fine, don’t go and see them. Don’t like observational, mainstream comedy? Fine, don’t go and see it. But don’t begrudge people the opportunity to go and see what THEY find funny because you’ve proclaimed it as “not comedy”. Again, it's all about subjectivity.
And if you’re interested, I went to see Stewart Lee at the Fringe. In my opinion, his show was like a masterclass in stand-up; carefully structured, clever and above all hilarious, but also running a whole gamut of different emotions. Yes, Peter Kay made me laugh, but Stewart Lee made me laugh on a whole number of different levels – I was stunned by how clever his show was, and that’s something I can’t say of Kay. And you know what? That IS just my opinion!!
I already said my opinion was contentious and likely to wind people up. Kay epitomises middle of the road, safe, boring, predictable so-called "comedy" for the masses. I am egotistical, because I know I'm right.
Besides which, am I somehow deemed less worthy to comment on Kay just because my opinion isn't like the majority of people here who seem to hang on his every word?
To use the analogy of comparing TV drama: Coronation Street is popular, so therefore does it make it a better show than The Wire? Of course not.
Nobody is saying you are "less worthy" to comment on Kay himself, it's when you criticise the intelligence of the people that actually like him and insinuate that your choice in comedian is somehow better or more highbrow than others that there is a problem, IMO.
Had to throw in my tuppence. Some posts in this thread do seem to be heading down a slightly futile path as they are arguing their case as “right” or the definitive answer. It’s comedy, and therefore highly subjective. I happened to watch most of the Kay show on Friday and it made me laugh – I’m not ashamed of that fact. Popularist comedy it may be, but if you find something funny, you find it funny and there’s not really a great deal you can do about that, I find. By the same token, I love many comedians that would be termed “alternative”, like Stewart Lee. I don’t like all alternative comedians – not a fan of Jerry Sadowitz, for example – but I don’t like all “mainstream” comedians either, e.g. I don’t find Micky Flanagan funny.
The point is that I’m willing to find certain things funny and certain other things unfunny, and I don’t hold a grudge against anyone that does find something funny when I don’t – and I certainly wouldn’t a) deny a comedian from performing a show simply because The Great Comedy Committee On High has deemed it (as they believe) “unfunny” or b) tar all types of comedy in either camp with the same brush. (Yes, I fully appreciate the irony of maintaining the two “comedy camps” for the purposes of this argument.) For example, you could classify someone like Dave Allen as a comedian who would appeal to the masses: very popular; observational humour; nothing avant-garde or particularly alternative. But he can’t be graded on the same scale as Paddy McGuinness, who also does observational humour and nothing avant-garde or particularly alternative. They’re two very different comedians. As another example, someone here cited the example of the “alternative comedian” bit in Phoenix Nights, stating that it “brilliantly portrayed "alternative" comedy for what it was”. No - it was certainly a ribbing of some alternative comedy but I doubt it was intended to be a sweeping statement on alternative comedy as a whole; not when you consider that people like Daniel Kitson were in that cast. It’s certainly representative of some alternative comedy, but not all of it. (For what it’s worth, I loved Phoenix Nights.)
Didn't come across that way on Phoenix Nights - it was billed as an "alternative comedy night" and not one act came across as anything worth watching. Dave Spikey when asked about alternative comedy a few years ago simply said "well they have an agenda don't they".
And even though Daniel Kitson sprang from the alternative comedy circuit, it doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't think, in retrospect, that it was all a bag of shite. Had they wanted to show that some alternative comedy was worth listening to they could have put something in to that effect - but they didn't!
This weekend I was at the Edinburgh Fringe and thought it was brilliant that there are so many different types of comedy out there. There is something to cater to virtually every taste, and why would you ever want to stop or censor something like that? Don’t like musical cabaret comedy? Fine, don’t go and see it. Don’t like avant-garde comedians? Fine, don’t go and see them. Don’t like observational, mainstream comedy? Fine, don’t go and see it. But don’t begrudge people the opportunity to go and see what THEY find funny because you’ve proclaimed it as “not comedy”. Again, it's all about subjectivity.
True but it doesn't help when you have the likes of Steve Punt making snide comments on national radio about Peter Kay "comedy genius". It's the snobbery among performers and fans that annoy me which is why I class anything that isn't mainstream as crap because they started the sniping in the first place with their digs at anyone that was mainstream. Personally I prefer sitcom to stand-up anyhow.
I saw Peter Kaye live on this tour in Manchester only to come away pretty underwhelmed, he really didnt work hard at all, some of the jokes were the sort of stuff you would hear down the pub, and now to find he's seemed to have saved his good stuff for the night the DVD was filmed which is hardly recognisable to the show I was at does disappoint a tad..or am I being naive and this isnt unusual.
I saw Peter Kaye live on this tour in Manchester only to come away pretty underwhelmed, he really didnt work hard at all, some of the jokes were the sort of stuff you would hear down the pub, and now to find he's seemed to have saved his good stuff for the night the DVD was filmed which is hardly recognisable to the show I was at does disappoint a tad..or am I being naive and this isnt unusual.
I remember having the same feeling when I went to see Les Dennis years ago - never been to a live comedy show since. Best to wait for the dvd as it always seems better but then maybe expectations are much higher when you've paid more money to see someone live?
"Years later picking names for your children - no not Theresa (snot bubble)."
And this notion of staying up late watching episode after episode of a dvd collection - I'm getting the same feeling now watching youtube and posting on ds. "It's quarter to four. Covered in piss and shit here". :D
I remember having the same feeling when I went to see Les Dennis years ago - never been to a live comedy show since. Best to wait for the dvd as it always seems better but then maybe expectations are much higher when you've paid more money to see someone live?
I also think you're better seeing comedians when they're up and coming and hungry for it as they work harder, once theyve made it they can become lazy I reckon Unless youre doddy of course who does a 4 hour show and people take their sandwiches and blankets
I also think you're better seeing comedians when they're up and coming and hungry for it as they work harder, once theyve made it they can become lazy I reckon Unless youre doddy of course who does a 4 hour show and people take their sandwiches and blankets
Yes because they know that a 4 hour show is more likely to be a 14 hour show! Makes it difficult if you have a last bus to catch though! But then the sun's usually rising and the first bus of the next day is on hand by the time you leave anyway!
There's a very funny quote from Ken Dodd on Blackpool prom - something along the lines of "if you don't laugh,I'll follow you home and shout jokes through your letterbox" Takes the idea of the captive audience one step further!
p.s. I don't think it necessarily follows that established acts get lazy. But then I wouldn't really know as I dont go and see live stand-up anymore and I don't buy dvds unless I've seen them on TV first so I know that what I'm buying is worth watching. Some comedians may do similar routines because it's a case of if it ain't broke why fix it. But I do wonder sometimes whether Peter Kay is still going to be doing his 'when we were kids' routine in his 80s!
He's a stand up comedian. What do you want him to do? Juggle, sing, circus acts?
You have misunderstood what I mean by one trick pony (even though I quantified it in the next sentence) - I mean his material is always the same (talking about his poor northern upringing) funny the first time then wears thin.
You have misunderstood what I mean by one trick pony (even though I quantified it in the next sentence) - I mean his material is always the same (talking about his poor northern upringing) funny the first time then wears thin.
My daughter & fiancé had tickets, went to the show & left. Apparently they had ( not knowingly) booked the seats known as 'suicide seats'. They were so so high & angled they both left. Not like my daughter, so must have been weird.
I really liked it, - the only bit which p'ed me off was in between each joke they'd cut to a set-up shot of people in the audience point at each other and mouthing something along the lines of "you do that"
I saw Peter Kaye live on this tour in Manchester only to come away pretty underwhelmed, he really didnt work hard at all, some of the jokes were the sort of stuff you would hear down the pub, and now to find he's seemed to have saved his good stuff for the night the DVD was filmed which is hardly recognisable to the show I was at does disappoint a tad..or am I being naive and this isnt unusual.
Just been thinking about this "stuff you would hear down the pub" comment. Sometimes the "stuff you would hear down the pub" is more entertaining than the sort of "stuff" a professional comedian might say because it's about everyday things that people can identify with. Imagine a comedian telling you what a bind it is when the butler doesn't turn in for work and you have to answer the door yourself. That's why the audience turned on Al Reid who gave his man of the people act when in reality he was quite well-to-do. We don't want our comedians too removed from the way we live else how can we find anything they say funny? That's why Billy Connolly was so successful too when he talked about the shipyards and having to clock out at a certain time and not before (being in a job where every second is monitored myself I can still see the funny side).
Comments
would love a new series of Phoenix Nights, or Max and Paddy
nice to see some stand up on tv
Paddy McGuinness was ok too, on Comedy Central, Mickey Flanagan was hilarious
and tonight, there's Lee Evans Roadrunner on Channel 4 9pm
I thought Max & Paddy was brilliant. His stand up is similar to his old stand up but considering how popular it is it looks like he was right to keep it the same.
Did I say I liked Hound?
I already said my opinion was contentious and likely to wind people up. Kay epitomises middle of the road, safe, boring, predictable so-called "comedy" for the masses. I am egotistical, because I know I'm right.
Besides which, am I somehow deemed less worthy to comment on Kay just because my opinion isn't like the majority of people here who seem to hang on his every word?
To use the analogy of comparing TV drama: Coronation Street is popular, so therefore does it make it a better show than The Wire? Of course not.
And?
No but neither does it make it a worse show just because it's deemed by some to be middle of the road, safe, boring, predictable entertainment for the "masses".
Phoenix Nights had a scene in which they brilliantly portrayed "alternative" comedy for what it was - totally bizarre and seemingly designed to shock and offend (strange that considering alternative "comedians" were the ones calling the older generation offensive). On seeing a man in underpants stomping across the stage in his underpants like something let loose out of an asylum, "he used to teach me metal work". Comedy appeals to the masses more often than not because it's normal (for want of a better word) and most people prefer "normal".
Kay epitomises the most successful comedian in Britain by some way. You need to get over the fact that you don't like him and stop criticising people who do.
I've watched the Wire and think it's terrible, who says it's better than Coronation Street?
But I get people's point about it being a bit repetitive.
I LOVED the mickey-take of Peter Kay that Vic and Bob did on Shooting Stars.
Youtube link here, for anyone who's interested.
I don't like a lot of the newer comedians, John Bishop or Michael McIntyre. Sometimes I like Russell Brand and sometimes I like the edgier comedians too, but mostly when I can identify with their humour. And I can identify with Peter Kaye's humour. I had never heard any comedians before who knew about the 'big shop' and the 'big light' from my childhood. He reminds me so much of my Dad and his humour and sayings. 2 hours of great nostalgia for me.
The point is that I’m willing to find certain things funny and certain other things unfunny, and I don’t hold a grudge against anyone that does find something funny when I don’t – and I certainly wouldn’t a) deny a comedian from performing a show simply because The Great Comedy Committee On High has deemed it (as they believe) “unfunny” or b) tar all types of comedy in either camp with the same brush. (Yes, I fully appreciate the irony of maintaining the two “comedy camps” for the purposes of this argument.) For example, you could classify someone like Dave Allen as a comedian who would appeal to the masses: very popular; observational humour; nothing avant-garde or particularly alternative. But he can’t be graded on the same scale as Paddy McGuinness, who also does observational humour and nothing avant-garde or particularly alternative. They’re two very different comedians. As another example, someone here cited the example of the “alternative comedian” bit in Phoenix Nights, stating that it “brilliantly portrayed "alternative" comedy for what it was”. No - it was certainly a ribbing of some alternative comedy but I doubt it was intended to be a sweeping statement on alternative comedy as a whole; not when you consider that people like Daniel Kitson were in that cast. It’s certainly representative of some alternative comedy, but not all of it. (For what it’s worth, I loved Phoenix Nights.)
This weekend I was at the Edinburgh Fringe and thought it was brilliant that there are so many different types of comedy out there. There is something to cater to virtually every taste, and why would you ever want to stop or censor something like that? Don’t like musical cabaret comedy? Fine, don’t go and see it. Don’t like avant-garde comedians? Fine, don’t go and see them. Don’t like observational, mainstream comedy? Fine, don’t go and see it. But don’t begrudge people the opportunity to go and see what THEY find funny because you’ve proclaimed it as “not comedy”. Again, it's all about subjectivity.
And if you’re interested, I went to see Stewart Lee at the Fringe. In my opinion, his show was like a masterclass in stand-up; carefully structured, clever and above all hilarious, but also running a whole gamut of different emotions. Yes, Peter Kay made me laugh, but Stewart Lee made me laugh on a whole number of different levels – I was stunned by how clever his show was, and that’s something I can’t say of Kay. And you know what? That IS just my opinion!!
Nobody is saying you are "less worthy" to comment on Kay himself, it's when you criticise the intelligence of the people that actually like him and insinuate that your choice in comedian is somehow better or more highbrow than others that there is a problem, IMO.
Didn't come across that way on Phoenix Nights - it was billed as an "alternative comedy night" and not one act came across as anything worth watching. Dave Spikey when asked about alternative comedy a few years ago simply said "well they have an agenda don't they".
And even though Daniel Kitson sprang from the alternative comedy circuit, it doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't think, in retrospect, that it was all a bag of shite. Had they wanted to show that some alternative comedy was worth listening to they could have put something in to that effect - but they didn't!
True but it doesn't help when you have the likes of Steve Punt making snide comments on national radio about Peter Kay "comedy genius". It's the snobbery among performers and fans that annoy me which is why I class anything that isn't mainstream as crap because they started the sniping in the first place with their digs at anyone that was mainstream. Personally I prefer sitcom to stand-up anyhow.
I remember having the same feeling when I went to see Les Dennis years ago - never been to a live comedy show since. Best to wait for the dvd as it always seems better but then maybe expectations are much higher when you've paid more money to see someone live?
"Years later picking names for your children - no not Theresa (snot bubble)."
And this notion of staying up late watching episode after episode of a dvd collection - I'm getting the same feeling now watching youtube and posting on ds. "It's quarter to four. Covered in piss and shit here".
I also think you're better seeing comedians when they're up and coming and hungry for it as they work harder, once theyve made it they can become lazy I reckon Unless youre doddy of course who does a 4 hour show and people take their sandwiches and blankets
Yes because they know that a 4 hour show is more likely to be a 14 hour show!
There's a very funny quote from Ken Dodd on Blackpool prom - something along the lines of "if you don't laugh,I'll follow you home and shout jokes through your letterbox"
p.s. I don't think it necessarily follows that established acts get lazy. But then I wouldn't really know as I dont go and see live stand-up anymore and I don't buy dvds unless I've seen them on TV first so I know that what I'm buying is worth watching. Some comedians may do similar routines because it's a case of if it ain't broke why fix it. But I do wonder sometimes whether Peter Kay is still going to be doing his 'when we were kids' routine in his 80s!
You have misunderstood what I mean by one trick pony (even though I quantified it in the next sentence) - I mean his material is always the same (talking about his poor northern upringing) funny the first time then wears thin.
He does ok for a one trick pony.
Indeed.
Incredibly annoying
Was it really 2 hours? Seemed less than half that time to me.
Just been thinking about this "stuff you would hear down the pub" comment. Sometimes the "stuff you would hear down the pub" is more entertaining than the sort of "stuff" a professional comedian might say because it's about everyday things that people can identify with. Imagine a comedian telling you what a bind it is when the butler doesn't turn in for work and you have to answer the door yourself. That's why the audience turned on Al Reid who gave his man of the people act when in reality he was quite well-to-do. We don't want our comedians too removed from the way we live else how can we find anything they say funny? That's why Billy Connolly was so successful too when he talked about the shipyards and having to clock out at a certain time and not before (being in a job where every second is monitored myself I can still see the funny side).