Response to the Response

As I said it was all bit TL;DR and a mature person would have left that last blog post at that but I'm petty and frankly I've been fighting with people about comedy since I was 14, I'm not going to stop now.

Assuming you read it all; it seems Jacques isn't all that good at judging brief, nor is he that good at judging audience responses to jokes that come across as playground homophobia but this isn't about me kicking down Barrett. In all honesty I think he is too busy to be getting fighty and angry with someone who isn't using the blog in the way it should be used. Firstly, f*ck him, I will use my blog how I like and when (I can be arsed to) like and secondly responding to any criticism with "Why don't you do it" never looks good. In fact I'm tempted to take him up on it. I couldn't be any worse than him and maybe we could do a role swap?

In all seriousness, perhaps I was too hard on him. I should have mentioned that joke that went slightly better than the others because it was only a bit misogynistic but to be honest I had to dig deep into my brain to remember that, however it did get laughs and I shouldn't take that or the fact other comics were really nice to him, no mention of audience members though but who cares about them when you are performer.

I will end it at this; Jacques knows where the comment box is if he wants a final say but his response was a pathetic as I hoped it would be when I asked him about publishing. He didn't want a discussion and still doesn't so I won't engage in one. He wanted to rant & boohoo about a blog, that has been up less than a month and barely registering on search engines, that had criticised him. I understand that, as I suspected Barrett is a teeny bit insecure and a blog confirming what you already knew (it didn't work and it clearly hurt Barrett that it didn't work) but his defensive alongside poor material will be his downfall.

Perhaps mine too if I keep upsetting comics with this blog.

A response to "Wishy Washy Liberals" A night at Old Rope 25th July 2011

This is exciting, it is very easy to assume as a no mark blogger that anyone reads this. Turns out no mark comics do too. You are in ace company.

I had a comment waiting for me to approve yesterday night and when I checked it contained the email of Jacques Barrett. I had used his act as a lead off for a post about why some offensive comedy is simply bad when it doesn't have to be. I won't publish his email and I do feel he has a right to reply, though why he couldn't have put this in the comment section (without his email) I don't know.

So my email to Jacques first, then his response

Hello Jacques,I hope you don't mind I've decided not to publish your comment as it had your email and I didn't want you getting any spam (I get some weird traffic from Russia and Pakistan and I refuse to believe anyone from there cares about my opinions on comedy)
I also hope I didn't offend with my blog; I posted it because I saw you looking shell-shocked by the bar (perhaps I read your face wrong) and I wanted to analyse why mine (and other audience reaction) wasn't as positive to you as it could have been.
If you would like the chance to have your reply published let me know. I don't want it to be one-sided if you have something you want to say in response.

Hi, I'll keep this brief.  I've listened back to my set, every punchline except for the set up to an ironic rape law premise got a decent response.  That patch I am the first to admit was dodgy, and in the moment I was immediately unhappy with those words, I then went on to recover and finished well.  I wasn't shell-shocked in a negative way, I did a completely new 9 minute set on a stage where some of my idols have also frequented and the intensity of which took a few minutes to process.  I was congratulated by several other comics and was told by the booker that I'll be up again when they return from Edinburgh.   After a weekend of tough gigs I had some new premises I wanted to trial in an environment where there is an understanding among the crowd and your peers that there will be no judgement. I was and still am very happy with my set, I polished all that material and trialed it again last night and tonight and it is now strong.  

This email is no longer about my comedy it's actually your reviewing technique that i'd like to impart some advice upon, it's pointed, constructive and comes from a good place.  Although you said it wasn't a review, like someone starting a sentence by saying I'm not racist but... you then proceeded to review a 60 second period of my set at a new material night. I respect opinion within the subjectively appreciated performing arts but when you publish facts about a performance which err on falsity you are in News of the World territory.  The topic of getting bummed by big scary Aussie blokes is sad and cringe worthy on it's own, but to use it as a starting point to highlight a ridiculous and ironic law about sexual assault in Australian mining settlements contextualises and justifies it well and finished with a good response from the crowd.  You failed to mention where the premise went and instead I believe you heard the set up of a brand new concept about the brave comedy topic of sexual assault and then switched off.  Perhaps you wrote a blog title memo in your own mental notebook and then made inferences about my emotional reaction based purely on face value at the end.   All your readers have relied on your accurate recollection of events to hopefully align with your point of view but you have grossly exaggerated your opinion of the gig and then spread that blanket over the rest of the crowd who according to you all hated me.  
If you are to improve as a reviewer and be respected by readers and comics alike your honesty and focus must never faulter and you must objectively report the response of all others in the crowd.  In this case it would have been better to say that you didn't like it, you thought it was disgusting and here's why.... but the rest of the crowd liked it because they're shit or dumb or too tolerant of subject matter etc.  The most important thing in a review is that the right people see that show or person in the future and the wrong fitted crowd know to steer clear.  The people reading your review have received an incorrect report of my set and may avoid a performer whom they would have actually enjoyed.  That is unfair to all involved.
If you want to publish this response you're more than welcome, I don't mind either way, but if you do it must be in full and not cherry picked. If you continue to pass off your opinions in angry rant form you must remove the 'review' title from your site and replace it with 'blog', or furthermore hit the open mic scene and rant away.  People don't go to comedy for facts, they go for the funny, which was always my intention and motive, to make people laugh.
Piece out,

It is already a bit TL;DR so I will publish my response to the response in my next post.

"Wishy Washy Liberals" A night at Old Rope 25th July 2011

I've been on hiatus, my apologies. I was always planning to come back though I wasn't sure what with. You see EVERYBODY is going to Edinburgh without me this year. A combination of bad planning and poverty meant 2011's Edinburgh Fringe wasn't going to be my first *violin* but there are still previews to be seen and I will do some Camden Fringe 2011 reviews whilst everyone else is in Edinburgh.

This isn't really a review. For those unfamiliar with Old Rope I'll give a brief overview and then explain why I'm not reviewing it. Old Rope is held every Monday (except Edinburghs and major winter holidays) at The Phoenix, Cavendish Square. Old Rope does well for a number of reasons; it is cheap, it is central and all the acts are established, if not household name, comics. Why is it so cheap, I hear you cry (okay...just pretend) well it is a new material night. This isn't as hideous as it sounds but in other ways is and thus I wouldn't feel right reviewing new material, some of which doesn't work and will never be used again. Plus @jaykayell_ said that would be cruel and I know in my heart he's right.

A night at Old Rope

 There were nine acts on tonight and it was a mixed bunch; Sarah Kendall and Tiffany Stevenson did the stand up equivalent of what I hate in sketches: good ideas that go nowhere, but no bother this is new material and they will smooth it out/throw it in the bin.Tony Law was also on. I love Tony Law. I think I might want his children or at least to see him do a whole hour. He's kind of shouty but is brilliant with accents, even though his own voice is so great he doesn't need to do accents. Richard Herring headlined. I used to adore him and Lee together during Fist of Fun and TMWRNJ but to be honest I mainly watched because I fancied Lee. Herring's solo show this year seems like I something I would see the whole hour of but I'm still not sure I like him. Personalities come into play a lot more in stand up than it does in sketch. To be honest the other acts didn't really stand out though I was pleasantly surprised by Dave Gorman.

Sarah Kendall

None of that really relates to the point of my blog post title. I'll explain now. One comedian, who I had never heard of before but was established in Australia faced a particular hostile crowd. Poor Jacques Barrett. Actually not "Poor Jacques Barrett" the impression I got from our compere, James Dowdswell, was that Barrett had come all the way from Down Under to find his comedy pot of gold on the London and Edinburgh comedy scene. I've never seen an experienced performer misjudge a group. His material *SPOILERS* basically consisted of being bummed by big scary men. Barrett has issues and the audience responded with the contempt the material deserved. My sympathy lies in the crestfallen look Barrett had until he left, a man on the verge of tears at how badly it had gone.

Jacques Barrett

I think the London comedy scene is a rather tolerant bunch, we will politely clap and everything but the moment we sense there may be some unsavoury intolerance we switch off; we officially hate you. Are all jokes that may seem homophobic, racist, sexist, transphobic all bad? Personally I don't think so. I should you be able to joke about ANYTHING. Why? Because people will never be happy, so do what you like. You can do those kind of jokes but there has to be the right intention, the right motive, the sense that if anybody said that seriously you'd find it as disgusting as the rest of us would.

Comedians' material play on their insecurities, I believe. They also play on other people's fears; if those fears and insecurities don't meet up with the audiences' (Barrett worries about being done up the arse by big scary Aussie blokes, I worry if I can get away with eyeliner...) then you've lost them and don't even bother to try and make a joke out of it. We hate you now, go away.