Shayne-Michael.COMedy

Comedy Is Censorship - by Shayne Michael

The best comics I know are avid censors. They look at the material they have written carefully and censor out each line that isn't funny. Then they censor un-needed words to get to the funny quicker. The worst comics I know don't. And this goes for bookers too.

I realize art is subjective. However, bad art isn't. Bad art is shocking while it makes no clear point or punchline. And the place for bad comedy is not a booked show; it's an open mic. That's where we sort out the good from the bad. And with good reason.

Audiences who watch bad performances don't come back. Have you ever performed to an empty room? Any booker who isn't willing to control the content of the show in the name of the first amendment is saying, "The audience paid to see this show. But, I don't care if they like it or not; They already paid and this is art." Remember the last truly bad movie you saw with an actor you hadn't decided if you liked or not? Did you go to see that actor's next movie? What about after two or three bad movies in a row?

The debate on censorship comes down to who is censoring who. Is the booker censoring you? Or, are you censoring yourself? And is the point you're trying to make truly worth fighting for? In most cases, a comic is being shocking for no other reason than being shocking and the answer is "no". The artistic content of the joke isn't worth turning away a room full of audience members. But even if it is, what booker is so cowardly not put the audience first? Here's something bookers had better keep in mind.

The customer paid to be at the show. The customer paid to laugh. The customer did not pay to be turned off or offended. Now I know some people are offended by anything. I know there are great jokes that are offensive; I do some myself. But any booker who can't see the difference between those jokes with artistic merit and those without, isn't capable of producing a good show. And bad shows are not worth producing.

Who am I to define artistic merit? I'm a comic who has been in the business for twelve years. And my definition is simple. Does the shocking material have a point beyond being shocking? Yes. Give it a chance. No. Shut up. Do you want the audience to come back? Last I checked no booker in Los Angeles was selling out any venue on a regular basis without falling into an eventual lull after his entire mailing list ran out of friends. How can you afford to put together a show that guarantees one-by-one audience members start to search out other venues?

Bookers who blindly tout the first amendment and say "I can't censor anyone" are really unwilling to judge comics by the standard "Are they funny?" And any booker unwilling to consider crucial asset in any comedy show will eventually fail.

Who am I to decide what's funny?

I'm the guy who gets up at 8:30am and sends the Daily Joke to as many people as I can. I'm the person who writes all of LS (Fans) and my own newsletter just for the name exposure. When I choose which shows I'm going to direct my fans to, why will it be yours? If I'm not the only person in that show, I have to consider the effect other booked comics will have on me drawing out my fans. If I know they'll feel uncomfortable with the type of show you produce I'm not inviting them. Why wouldn't anyone else?

But it's usually just one offended person.

One thing I've leaned in twelve years of writing and producing shayne-michael.com is offended people talk. They talk often and they talk loud. If you think they won't slam your product more than the people who love you, you are fooling yourself. The first rule of marketing is to look at the product itself. In comedy, (no matter how much you want to focus on promotion) the core of that product is the quality of the booked comics. Can they deliver the laughs? Would those audience come back and see every comic you booked, not just the comic they came to see?

No?

Well then you have NO product to sell and you will eventually run out of customers.

Bookers who call censorship a violation of the first amendment almost never put any consideration this reality: Comedy is censorship. If you get a spot on NBC, do you think you'll be doing the goat raping jokes? Are you so blindly tied to your values you're willing to pass up the opportunity? If you are no worries, there's enough competition in this business anyway.

Comedy is censorship. It's censoring the funny from the un-funny. It's about censoring what makes you likeable on stage from what makes the audience think your an ass. If you don't have that skill I promise you I will run you over without looking back.

But more than anything comedy is about appeasing the customer. And no matter what your views are on censorship the customer is the audience not the comic himself. And it you can't see the simple clarity in that statement. If you can't see the obvious underlying truth then you're just doing comedy to please yourself and you might as well deliver your next joke to a mirror.