These are the frequently asked questions for the UK comedy mailing list. As well as simple information on how to post, manage, and treat the UK comedy mailing list, there are references to discussion threads that get frequently restarted.

These FAQs are not sanctioned by Chinwag or anybody affiliated with the list. If you don’t agree with any of these FAQs or think they should be edited / removed / burned, please email ;

I’d also appreciate any contributions to the same address!

Because so many of these questions are asked… frequently. This should be a pointer for starters to the list and a reference for others.

"A mailing list is a method of discussing a subject on the internet purely via email. What happens is that if you send an email to "the list" (of subscribers), a copy of that email is sent to everyone on that mailing list. They can all read the mail, and have the option of replying to the mail either via the list again (so everyone can read the reply), or in some cases, privately.

Because perhaps hundreds of people might read the emails posted to the list, replies from other people are

inevitable, and discussion results. It has the advantage over other systems that you do not have to be "on line" to take part. Your mail is delivered to you whenever you check your regular email."

An open mailing list is different in the fact that anyone can subscribe to it and anyone can contribute to it – the list is not moderated (i.e. noone edits or sanctions your postings). Therefore it is totally uncensored. It relies totally on the people posting to make it what it is.

No one. I’ve got no authority – nobody here has. Webmedia reserve the right to remove offensive or inappropriate material from the mailing list but to the best of my knowledge they’ve never done that.

Of course! The subject is UK comedy but discussion is open to all. There are a few regular stateside (and a couple of aussie) contributors and everyone’s welcome.

No specific reason – it’s just got that way. Due to the fact that comedians are spread around all over the place and tend to keep funny hours, an email mailing list is a good way for them to chat and discuss things in an open forum. The appeal is quite large and the number of list subscribers has steadily increased over the years.

There are a huge number of people on the mailing list who are subscribed (and therefore receive the list) but never post anything. These people are known as lurkers. Some of the bigger industry names are said to be lurking on this list – hence the paranoia of many that when an opinion or piece of gossip gets posted here, it doesn’t stay secret for long.

You’re doing it wrong. Wash them face down and rinse them sideways.

I’ve been posting to it for over three years. Does anyone know when it was born?

I’m not sure but they are definitely private. I’ve never heard of them being sold off or junk mail going to the same addresses. However, I don’t know. You’d have to ask them directly.

Ouagadougou.

These were discussed in a UK comedy digest numbered prior to 276. If anyone has these, please can they forward them to me.

Not really. But the answers to it were very funny!

UK laws on intercepting email means that anything written could theoretically be intercepted by police or government officials. You could set up a secure email site outside the UK, but the mailing list is hosted in the UK – and comes under UK jurisdiction.

Apart from that, UK comedy mailing list postings and digests are no more or less secure than ordinary email.

Ask around! Local papers usually have them in their listings. In London god of all things comedy listings is Time Out. (In Manchester, it’s City Life). Check some of the club directories available on line.

Also the Guardian Guide has good listings, and Channel 4 teletext pg 457 has some of the more arts centre and festival based comedy events you may have missed.

The UK comedy mailing list is available in both ‘digest’ and ‘individual’ mode. In ‘individual’ mode, every email sent to the UK comedy mailing list will be delivered AS IS to you, as if they had emailed you directly.

In digest mode, the emails sent to the mailing list are bundled together and sent as one long text file of all the postings concatenated. This significantly reduces the amount of emails you receive but may mean that when the list is quiet there can be a large gap between receiving emails. The digested mailing is usually around 32K… approximately 15 to 20 postings on average.

Please check the FAQ for what form to email in and the netiquette. Basically, please no mime/uuencoded attachments, plain text (not html), and don’t include the entire reply message in your response – especially if replying to an entire digest.

How long is a piece of string? This is down to the amount of postings sent to the list. Obviously if you are in individual mode expect 10 – 15 times as much mail than in digest mode. During quite times, a digest once or twice a week is about average. When some of the conversations start hotting up though… two or three digests a day are not uncommon.

It’s mainly adults on this mailing list, but as an open mailing list, anyone can join in (including kiddies) so the ‘recommendation’ is to try and keep it cleanish. Watershedwise think Channel 4 between 9pm and midnight. Of course, as an open mailing list you can do what you like – but most people would appreciate if on-list discussions were kept presentable enough.

Firstly, don’t include the whole email in the reply! People who get the mailing list in digest mode get disappointed when 90% of their mailing is the previous one they got. Try and keep the sections you are replying to only in the message, not the headers and the footers etc. For that reason also, please don’t send your email in anything other than plain text – not everyone can read Word files and if sent in HTML (which is the default in Outlook Express, so please turn that off [menu:Tools/Options/Send/Plain Text]) it doesn’t appear correctly in digest form.

It’s not your fault! But sometimes you can join the UK comedy mailing list when it’s ‘mid conversation’ and people are focussed elsewhere. Most people here though are friendly and are happy to chat. But even by the hosts definition (see first FAQs), the UK comedy mailing list is mainly stand up. People do talk about TV/films but not in the majority. However, people may join in and no one will flame you – the UK comedy digest is for the discussion of all things comedy in the UK (by definition!).

If you aren’t getting enough feedback, you may want to try one of the usenet groups – check the FAQs on where else you can discuss UK comedy.

There is alt.comedy.standup – but this can be unbelievably poor.

For UK comedy - check newsgroups first and foremost. For those of you who don’t have newsgroup access, you can use the Deja service – listed below.

alt.comedy.british can be found here

Ultimately, there isn’t a newsgroup (yet) that matches the UK comedy mailing list for content. See the posting below…

Stephen said

> Toby
>
> Do you think the comedy digest would work as a newsgroup? We have enough
> [active] contributors here to make one... alt.comedy.standup.uk ?

Yes, I do think alt.comedy.standup.uk would be a good idea, I was discussing
just such a thing privately with Ruth. The current comedy newsgroups that I
read are alt.comedy.standup, which is hugely American, and
rec.arts.tv.uk.comedy which tends to have 3 month threads about how good Ali
G is. This list would work well as a ng. However, I would not like to see a
ng replace this list. I like the fact that on here we get longer mails, and
that most people seem to trust each other enough to speak openly. A
newsgroup would attract loads of "I want to be a stand up, how do i.." and
"Did you here the one about.." messages, but that's fine, that's what
newsgroups are for. On here, posts like the ones from you, Dave and Al about
the methodology behind your various writing styles have been interesting,
and I don't know if we would get that kind of frankness in such an open
forum as a newsgroup. I may be wrong, you tell me.

Every once in a while (but not very often) the list goes down or slows up. Be patient, it’ll get to you eventually. However, if you are in digest mode, it may well be that not enough mailings have accrued to send you a digest. One way to force it would be to send an email to the list yourself. However, if everyone did that they’d all end up with a digest full of test messages. Not what anyone wants!

Someone has left mime encoding or uuencoding on and are sending attachments. These can’t be decoded by most mail clients when in digest mode. Basically they’re sending files. Alternatively, they have left HTML coding on – which is also problematic for people receiving the mailing list in digest mode.

If it’s not causing you any problems then you should simply ignore it – it’s not doing any damage.

There are a lot of performers, promoters, and people involved in the comedy business on the mailing list. Basically, if everyone was constantly advertising what they were doing there’d be no space left for any other discussions! From time to time people will talk about what they’re doing – but gratuitous plugging is frowned upon.

Nobody.

There are countless places on the Internet for reading, writing, and swapping jokes. The UK comedy mailing list is a discussion area and it’s the only place where people can discuss comedy – whereas there are a thousand places for ‘jokes’. This is a personal opinion though and if you want to send jokes – no one’s gonna stop you.

There’s nothing stopping you but apply a quality filter to it at the least!

That’s purely historical… there’s just a lot of stand ups here. No one really knows! If 100 Ali G fans descended on the site and talked about what his favourite ‘slammin’ joke would be (or similar) then it would change.

Please don’t put them in your postings – because of the number of people who read the mailing list in digest form. For them it appears as garbage.

I don’t think so. If you do get an email with an attachment, scan it first!

No… and no.

No.

Like all mailing lists, a lot of conversations start public and move to private email. As an open list, assume its full of nutters. It’s very good netiquette to make sure that personal phone numbers, VERY libellous opinions, and home addresses are kept off it.

I think so – technically – but as an open list it’s next to impossible to stop somebody posting to it. I don’t think it’s happened yet.

This list is for everybody who’s interested in UK comedy! There are a lot of people here but they aren’t always regular contributors.

Not that I’m aware of!

Feel free to join in!

The replying subscriber is in individual mode, and has sent the reply shortly afterwards. As you are in digest mode, you see both the mailings in the one digest. Please see the FAQ on individual mode / digest mode.

This is probably the most asked question… and takes pride of place in the FAQs.

Firstly, pretty much the only fast track to comedy stardom in the world of stand up is the competitions, which are arguably a double edged sword. The vast majority of people do it through the tried and trusted route of doing open spots, which aren’t as demeaning as they sound.

With open spots, you offer to do 5 – 7 minutes at a comedy club for free. Sometimes this will be on a bill full of open spots, other times you will be on a bill with more established comedians. It’s a good idea to go and watch some of these nights before you take part, if you have that opportunity. If your only experience of live stand up is Jongleurs or the Comedy Store then get out to a smaller gig – they’re everywhere and the atmosphere will be much different.

If you live in London or nearby, Time Out is the central point of information for comedy listings. Outside of London – check the local press. City Life in Manchester is good, and the Guardian guide covers the whole country. Also check Channel 4 Teletext page 457. Some of these clubs will give phone numbers of the promoters. Phone them and ask (politely!) for an open spot. Some clubs won’t do them and others will only take open spots who have had a small amount of experience. This is an opinion but one that is held by the majority… DON’T go straight to the big clubs immediately – get a little bit of invaluable experience first.

Getting open spots can be very difficult – don’t be surprised when they put you in for a date over 6 months away. This is normal. Also, most promoters have answerphones. Just leave your name and phone number saying you’d like to do an open spot, and expect on average a call back of about 1 in every 30 messages you leave. When you start doing Open Spots, you’ll pick up loads from the other acts and from the performing itself.

These mailing excerpts recently appeared on the subject…

Arnold wrote:

>i am totally new to this, i am currently looking
at where i can open mic sessions in london....

Buy Time Out *every* week - look in there for the
telephone numbers of places which do open mic
gigs. You will almost certainly have to wait for
months for a spot - particularly as many places
are closing for the Summer and won't re-open until
the Students return in September/October.
Don't hassle the bookers too much - they have to
deal with hundreds of wannabes every day.
Do not be tempted to get yourself an open spot at
the Comedy Store, Jongleurs or other "big" venues
until you have a lot of experience.

…When I was a lad I just turned up to alot of new-act nights, and got on most
of the time. I don't know if this is still the case (there's millions of
em!) but worth a try if you don't want to wait. It's good to get alot of
gigs booked up though, however far in advance; make you get back on stage
and do it. Tell them you were part of a big comedy Cluedo team in the early
eighties. That may open some doors.

There are arguments both for and against them.

>Comedy courses?
>
> Do they help, or do they just give you a blue-print act of eveyone >
>who's ever done that course?

Comedy courses _can_ help, but they can also give you a blue-print, you just
have to decide what you want to take from them. I did Jill Edward's course
before I ever did any gigs and it helped me immensely, it gave me the
confidence to do comedy in front of strangers and five to ten minutes of
usable material to do it with. It helped me avoid getting up and mumbling
my stuff while looking at the floor. But that's as far as it went, and
that's all you should expect to take from it. Don't think you'll be Jack
Dee or Bill Bailey at the end of the course, you'll just have a bit of a
head start over the other guys who _are_ mumbling their material into the
floor. As you carry on doing gigs and writing new stuff you're going to
change anyway, but doing a course can be a good jumping off point.

The thing about Jill's course, is that it seemed (to me) that there were
three kinds of student. There were the ones who thought everything Jill
said was Gospel, the ones who thought Jill was full of it and left, and the
ones that fell somewhere in between. If you go into the course trying to be
one of the last type, you'll be fine. Don't be afraid to disagree, and
don't think that because you disagree with one thing that everything else is
rubbish. Jill knows her stuff and makes a hell of a lot of sense most of
the time, but she's just a person. Think of it in that way. You're _still_
going to end up having to learn from experience at the end of the day, and
god knows I'm still learning a couple of years after dong the course, but I
got a good foundation to build on from it, and I'm glad I did it. That's
all.

>Comedy courses _can_ help, but they can also give you a blue-print, you just
>have to decide what you want to take from them. I did Jill Edward's course
>before I ever did any gigs and it helped me immensely, it gave me the
>confidence to do comedy in front of strangers and five to ten minutes of
>usable material to do it with.

Yes, but doing some gigs would also have taught you this. Doing it for real
is like doing a course... only doing it properly.

> It helped me avoid getting up and mumbling
>my stuff while looking at the floor. But that's as far as it went, and
>that's all you should expect to take from it. Don't think you'll be Jack
>Dee or Bill Bailey at the end of the course, you'll just have a bit of a
>head start over the other guys who _are_ mumbling their material into the
>floor.

Or... the person who started doing gigs at the same time as you started the
course will have a head start on you. I've seen people from courses doing
their first gig and freaking a bit because it wasn't how they thought it
would be. It never is. You might as well just do it.

There are definitely a few comics who have gone backwards after a course
because they've had to un-learn stuff before they can begin to get it right.
Doing a course might well have taught you that mumbling into the floor was
bad. But then mumbling into the floor doesn't happen because new acts think
it's a good idea. It happens because they're nervous. And, believe me, if
you start gigging you will learn the lesson much quicker. You *will* learn
more from doing 3 gigs than doing 3 weeks on a course.

Bill Hicks (aged 15) once attended a workshop given by Jay leno and told him
what a crock of shit he was talking and stormed out. So maybe successful
comics aren't the best to give the courses. Who knows?

If you would like to do a course, there’s no hard and fast starting points as they change from year to year. Post a message to the mailing list and anybody who knows of any current courses could help you. Some are advertised in Time Out.

>Anyway, I might as well come out of lurk mode now I'm writing this thing and
>pose a question. Having done the grand total of 1 (one!) gig in my local,
>and having got two more coming up, I'm a bit short on experience, but I want
>to do the best I possibly can so I've bought a book. Yes, a book. On stand
>up comedy. To try and pick up some tips and pointers on how to do it right.
>No doubt this post will lead to many replies along the lines of "No
>substitute for doing it" or "best way to learn how is to get out there and
>do it", which is ok but you have to get enough under your belt to be able to
>do it until experience starts to kick in don't you.

Yes you do. But the people who will give you that advice have done exactly
that and found it to be true. Did you think they were making it up? The
being shit phase that people go through isn't just about being shit. It's
also about learning. This is an art that ought to value originality so
surely a 'how to' book is anathema. They're inevitably 'how to do it a bit
like the way other people do it' books.

>Anyway the book is Zen
>and the Art of Stand-up by Jay Sankey, and to me it seems ok and full of
>good stuff, apart from the obvious US bias. Any comments on this particular
>book. Any bit's to ignore, or pay close attention to?

I've skimmed through the Jay Sankey book and, in my humble opinion, it is a
load of wank. I don't own a copy so I can't quote directly - but I think
there is a section that says something along the lines of "talk about what
people know. There's no point writing a routine about nuclear physics, try
writing about fast food restaurants instead".

Maybe an 18 year old aspiring comedian is reading Jay Sankey's book. Maybe
he was going to write a beautiful, awe inspiring routine about nuclear
physics. Maybe he's decided not to and written the worlds 3,456th routine
about burgers instead. Hurrah, so the world of comedy gains another hack.
One extra comedian, no extra comedy.

This is a never ending thread. The following postings discuss different aspects of this.

As it stands now, the 'alternative ' comedy world has reached something of an impasse. Time has passed since alternative comedy was born, largely as a reaction to the forms of entertainment then on offer, and as a result many of the things that it sought to overthrow have been replaced with things as dull/monstrous or worse still, second hand and lazy.

Besides, we have a problem of definition here. I do not think of myself as an alternative comic. To me alternative comedy is the seemingly tight knit group that came out of the early eighties: The Young Ones, Ben Elton [though he rapidly enough hooked up with the Oxbridge thing in the form of Rowan Atkinson], French and Saunders - now the UK's premier light entertainers, and Alexei Sayle. Alternative comedy is not the Store, nor is it The King's Head either - it is an outmoded and unhelpful label that is more often used in a pejorative sense by those who consider themselves not to be 'alternative'.

The simple fact that there was a documentary by the BBC shows how establishment the whole thing is. And surely the whole point was that it existed outside the establishment? Or do entertainers necessarily get subsumed by the establishment? This is how you get the embarrassing spectacle of your Rory Bremners going to dinner with their best mate Gordon Brown and then not really knowing what to do when Labour wins an election.

Of course, having dissed the common definition I will nevertheless carry on using it. However, if what is now called 'alternative' comedy has one defining characteristic it is this: it is an essentially liberal [small l] middle class 'art form'. Performers are [largely] middle class, audiences are [largely] middle class, the values paraded [and parading of values is a very middle class thing to do] are essentially middle class. There are of course a billion exceptions to this, and I expect a list from everyone of their coal mining forebears, this is after all the danger of generalisation, but when you compare the number of bums on seats there are in Blackpool for some of the most supremely dull/monstrous or worse still, second hand and lazy acts in the country, with the most daring innovative bla bla bla stuff on in la-di-da rarefied air if only we'd admit it Edinburgh, you've got to admit I'm onto something. Ars gratia artis is all very well, but is it funny? is the question that has reduced everyone to doing ginger jokes, then I got off the bus routines and dad what are you doing here rib ticklers, or grown men in their 30's banging on and on about what it was like at their school - how fascinating [as if they can really remember]. An impasse.

Personally I think the current obsession with things being young and/or sexy is precisely the opposite direction in which things should be heading - that's a fine cocktail until the audience grow up and want to spend their pocket money on something else - if 'alternative' comedy really is to be all embracing maybe a few less jokes about old folks by sexy young things would be a step forward [it'll get them too, or has no one told them that?]. I don't know. The shock for its own sake 'solution' [and again this is a very 'young' thing to do - and the act I wrote when I was 21 was easily the most offensive callous thing imaginable] is a similarly hollow solution - there are plenty of young comics saying shocking things who end up looking like naughty little boys and little else [and if they use the 'irony' or 'I hate political correctness' arguments then the devil take them].

The 'Alternative' circuit has just grown to cover everything from the truely alternative to the modern-day thinly disguised Bernard Mannings. Certainly down south, (as far as middle-class me can see,) there's no 'Mainstream' circuit anymore (short of Jethro doing his one hour "Combine-Harvester-My-Lord, Combine-Harvester" show). The people who would have gone to that now go to Jongleurs when they want to 'do comedy' for a night. I don't know if anyone's noticed, but is this the first week that Cannon and Ball have been listed in Time Out? 'Alternative Comedy' now just means 'comedy', and it spans from liberal-love-one-another-stuff to some stuff which is getting really quite mesogenistic/homophobic/racist.

A while ago a night of drunken whimsy with friends led us to invent a new game called 'Joe Pasquale Bingo'. These are the rules: The players are all circuit comedians. We buy every ticket for a Joe Pasquale gig. Then, when the squeaky voiced thief does one of your jokes you leave. The last man in the room is the winner. (or Bradley Walsh)

I mention this because it illustrates the point that there are still two distinct circuits. And while that's the case they need to have names. Alternative and Mainstream are the names given for what basically amount to historical reasons. Don't bother troubling yourself with what the words mean they are just names. It's like with politics. Conservative with a big C doesn't mean conservative with a little c. Labour doesn't mean labour and Liberal doesn't mean liberal. It's just a tad more sophisticated than saying the blue team the red team and the yellow team.

So instead of debating the semantics of now meaningless words - look at what the actual differences are. I don't think it comes down to the isms. Racism, sexism and homophobia are bad things. But they are not the difference. Just as there are a worrying number of alt. comedians displaying these traits there were mainstream comics who did not. The difference is (and should be) about ownership of material. Alternative comedians write their own material, mainstream comics dip into a big bag of old gags and more and more often into the circuit.

Most old school comics were racist because most people were racist. It's only when society moved on that they became exposed. But, as they didn't write their own material and only had a supply of old racist shit to dip into, there was nowhere else to go. Nowadays, the new 'mainstream' acts tend not to be racist and are certainly no more sexist than the 'alternative'. But does that mean that everything's alright? I don't think so. If it did, there still wouldn't be two teams.

Trying to stop someone expressing their opinion is censorship. My namby pamby middle class liberal self worries about that. Personally, I don't want to share a dressing room with a racist. I'd choose not to share a bill with a racist on that basis. I'd hope that punters wouldn't want to see him either. None of that is censorship. People don't have to buy a product, but the producer has every right to make it available.

But, stealing material is wrong. It's theft plain and simple. Stopping someone using other people's material is not censorship. But, theft still goes on. That's why there are still two circuits. What's worrying is the number of people who are supposed to be on 'our' team, who are using the morals that belong in 'theirs'.

I've read with increasing interest the thread developing on alternative comedy. I have to admit to the fact that I find most people read too much into the title of 'alternative' - it's relevance in a literal sense is about as relevant as the word 'fringe' in 'Edinburgh Festival Fringe' (where the fringe is exponentially larger than the festival itself. But you all knew that.)

I find that categorising is both a good and bad thing - and when people talk about 'alternative' they start by saying what they perceive the difference to 'straight' comedy being. I like to think that the style of delivery and material maketh the comedy more than that of a top level 'blood group'. I.e. Deadpan, sarcastic, storytelling, gagtelling, character, physical, impression, musical, conversational, are all styles that you could attempt to categorise up to say 50% of the working stand ups, and aren't radio, TV and book writers who do comedy comedians in some shape or form? This is meandering somewhat, but the point I'm trying to make is that, to follow what I perceive to be Al's and Howard's inferences, the difference is surely 'and there was my Dad' type comics and truely imaginative inventive comics, not straight and alternative. In the same vein - the difference between Peter Kay and Les Dawson is a lot smaller than Peter Kay and Paul Foot, and yet Peter and Paul would be considered very 'now' and 'alternative' comics - but to me, the difference is huge.

…As far as I can see, there is no such thing any longer as alternative comedy. The people I work with are the ones now doing the tv ads, the corporate gigs, the sketch shows, the radio 4 shows. Alternative to what? Or, more to the point, "Alternative - Why?".

Every act I speak to these days is working on a screenplay, show, treatment, audition etc. Most have agents and accountants. Tours are being arranged, ads pay for holidays, and EVERYONE has done UKPlay. The alternative is now the mainstream, fact. Before you disagree, bear in mind that we now have as our foremost satirists Iain Lee and Charlie Cheese. That noise you hear is Peter Cook spinning in his grave.

But hey, so what? Maybe, we've just moved on. Maybe satire used to be important, but these days, with faceless twats on all sides, it has no bearing. Maybe alternative comedy used to be important, but these days with very few "isms" getting a public airing, it has no bearing. Remember that Friday Night Live was nearly twenty years ago. When Ben Elton appeared in his spangly suits using words like "coloured" and "gay", Alf Garnett was still on prime time saying "blackie" and "poof".

The following Edinburgh based competitions happen every year:

The Daily Telegraph Open Mic Awards

So You Think You’re Funny

BBC new comedy awards

Various other new act competitions happen in London – including the Comedy Store new act, Ha bloody Ha gagster of the year, Hackney Empire New Act and Jongleurs new act competitions.

Check Time Out for details of all of these – the competitions start heats in the Autumn ready for the finals the following summer, so that’s about the time you should start looking, if you are interested.

Another hotly argued thread.

Don't worry about it. New act competitions are the devil, as another comedian once said. They leave one person happy and about five hundred, or however many entrants there were, gutted. Plus they're often fixed.

And people often win through bending rules, over-running being the most common way of doing so.

I've seen many suggestions that the competitions are fixed which seem to float by uncontested. I don't think they are.

<snip>

Who rigs these things and how? What's in it for the judges to make Mark Haynes win? Isn't it easier to believe that the judges just thought he was better.

I don't really see that any of the competitions are rigged. They're not fair. But they're not rigged. At the end of the day a gig isn't a level playing field. The running order has an effect etc. If you just have a clapometer there is nothing to stop somebody winning all the competitions with 10 minutes of Connolly material. So it makes sense that there ought to be some judges who, in theory, bring some expert knowledge to bear. But every individual brings their own agenda.

You might argue that the bigger name acts can end up quite removed from the circuit and might not be best placed to provide that expertise. But the closer the judges are to the circuit, the more likely they are to already know some of the acts and that always leads to accusations of favouritism also.

At the end of the day - it doesn't matter. Too many people place too much importance on the competitions. Winning one probably advances your career by about 6 months. Which at close of play after 40 years might not seem too important. Stand-up comedy should be played with a long term view. Lots of people have won competitions. Some have gone on to greater things some haven't. It seems to me that those with real merit have made something of the situation and those that have none have not.

Odd that - almost exactly the same can be said of the people who have not won competitions. You could be forgiven for thinking it's a meritocracy.

I don't think they're rigged. I don't think they're fair. I don't think they're important.

I do think that comps can give an unrealistic view of the business. Whereas only 5 or 6 years ago people were footslogging round doing open spots all over the country and building a solid act and experience, these days the first line of attack seems to be to enter a comp, pick up 2 grand and start doing the network. All well and good for those that win, but for the losers it seems to be unfair that after coming so close, they are back to open mics in front of 30 students in a pub in Durham.

I think one of the main problems with competitions like that is that we all know that sometimes you storm and sometimes you have a shit night - even the geniuses of the circuit who have cracking material, loads of experience and stage charisma have their off nights. Sometimes you might be the better act usually, but that night, perhaps due to nerves or the particular tastes of the audience, you come off worse.

>I spoke to one of the supposedly independent judges afterwards - a friend of mine - and asked why that act >didn't win. And he said that the other judges, the organizers, had insisted on another act going through. And, >surprise surprise, it turned out that organizers later offered to represent the winning act.

Hello. As one of the supposedly independent judges on last year's Daily Telegraph semi-finals (at the gig that led, in fact, to Marc Haynes deservedly getting into the final) I just thought I'd give you a view from the other side of the coin.

Yep, running orders are undoubtedly important. But if you know your comedy, you know what to look for. Like Dave says, what would stop someone from nicking *your* material, storming it in front of people who, y'know, Don't See Much Comedy, and then winning the heat? That's not fair, and that's why judges who know the circuit are needed (I have to admit, though, that Haynes' opening line at the Telegraph final - *not at the semi* - was a rip-off).

Plus, I'd say that being able to look past audience reaction and make your own mind up is A Good Thing.

>I once saw such a competition - an early round of one of the big ones, in which one act shone above the others, >yet didn't win

New Act competitions are about being a New Act... as I understand it, it's about having the most potential, not about being the shiniest, or even necessarily the funniest. The funniest on the night, should they win, *may* go on to become yet another tedious addition to a circuit already overloaded with people doing similar stuff. Someone with *potential*, on the other hand...

>The judges are made up chiefly of the organizers themselves, or their cronies.

Nope. Where do you get this from? Unless 'chiefly' means a freelance journalist, someone from the Independent, someone from the university's Ents department, and *one bloke* from Avalon (and I think it's fair enough to allow the organisers some say in the matter).

Responsible journos know when they're being led on, or when they're being forced to act like sheep. Avalon told me so.

This subject just won't lay down and die - I think it's been discussed more than anything else on this digest. If this were a uk-comedy-competition digest that might be understandable etcetera. My feeling is if you think they really are as fixed as all that then don't enter them [and usually the 'fixed' accusations are based on that most reliable of witnesses - hindsight, the sight of one's hind-quarters].

Anyway, my experience of competitions is not of being a disgruntled entrant but as a judge. This was last year in Melbourne. There was a clear winner, and all the other comedians were furious [the grapes were awful sour that night - they all went on about the material being nicked but none of them could really say where from, or say it to his face...]. But he was the clear winner, and it was nothing to do with the running order, or anything else [and while we're on the subject there was far too much swirling chaos around the big event for anyone to stop and consider fixing the running order]. Then we went through a hilariously shabby charade while the audience waited of pretending to judge and not just give it to the guy.

What was the point I wondered? Well, it was about getting some excitement around comedy [and we're all for that], sniffing out new talent - though the lightning strikes thing is clearly very dangerous and backfires all to easily. Competitions are easy to judge in terms of 'he's good for someone who doesn't know what he's doing'. But is this the best way of people getting started [not sure]?

I'm rueful about the whole thing, and really don't think they serve any long term purpose - if you're good you'll make yourself known anyway, and if you're good and win a competition then you'll end up accused of being the recipient of a 'fixed' award and despised by everyone else. I suppose what I'm saying is thank God I can't enter any competitions any more.

This was a thread prior to UK comedy digests numbered 275. Any help gratefully received!

No – The winner of 1999’s BBC new comedy award was 17. And Ashleigh Storrie has been doing standup since she was 12.

No – ‘Grandad from Hell’ Norby West started doing comedy in his late 60’s.

Goodbye.

By most accounts, ‘very’ if you want to make a name for yourself.

So far Lee and Herring have only attacked one joke - the classic pull back and reveal. "I was 28", "Then I got off the bus", and "that was just the teachers" are all essentially the same joke.

Personally I'd like it if they moved on to some of the other easy options.

Just imagine if....etc,etc.

I read a pretty good guide a while back called the Hack's Guide To Comedy about how to avoid doing easy, hackneyed material. It was written by Steve Rosenthal and can be found at

It's Americanised, but you'll get the general gist.

I will put threads on this subject here soon.

Not easily. Stories abound of people having to pay to do open spots – or buy at least a minimum number of drinks. Your best source of information is TONY (Time Out New York) – and a very good rate for international calls on your home phone number.

This is a FUQ – frequently unanswered question.

There are no set ‘rates’ but established clubs like Jongleurs pay approximately £150 for a full support set. Rates tend to vary between £40 and £200 for full slots depending on location and day of the week, and half spots and the most half of that range.

It does vary hugely and for smaller gigs fees will vary from comic to comic, based on how far they are coming for the gig, how funny the booker thinks they are (or aren’t), what day of the week it is, what direction the wind was blowing in, etc etc. Many times comedians are on door splits, which can give them as little as a fiver.

No one knows. The beauty of comedy is in the lack of rules. (IMHO)