Different humour for different audiences

Hi all,

I'm new to stand-up and new to this forum so sorry if this is a stupid question and has been done before.

I have a routine that I've done 4 times recently at different venues, that got very different results at each one.

Two performances got tonnes of laughs. One got a few laughs. One got no laughs at all.

So my question is, are their different categories of jokes that you can define, and can you identify that one particular audience will love a style of jokes but not others (and if so how)?

This is also a summary of the demographics of the venues I performed at (to the best of my memory):

1 - An actual comedy club where people had to pay to see the event. The individual people ranged from 17 - 70 (one competitor brought his grandparents). Average person there had at least average IQ and from the dress everyone was middle or upper class. Got lots of laughs - had to wait for people to stop laughing at one point before I could move on.

2 - Free to attend Standup comedy competition held at a performing arts school. Majority of Audience between 17 and 25 years old. (skewed at the lower end as most of them have just left school (and were studying at this performing arts school). Got lots of laughs - had to wait several times for people to stop laughing.

3 - Part of the entertainment at a fundraising dinner. Paid ticketing. Audience most middle age (30-40). Not trying to be mean, but this is what I noticed most of the audience were lower class people. I also noticed the audience responded really well to another comedian who mostly did smut jokes. I got a few laughs and giggles at this one.

4 - Open mic comedy night in a pub on a Sunday night. Free entry. Audience ranged from patches of 19-25 year olds to patches of 30-40 year olds, and a few couples between 50-60. I'm gonna say about a third of low IQ people in this audience, especially that guy that physically assaulted a comedian after the show, because the comedian bagged his haircut when the guy heckled him. I didn't get one laugh at all at this one.

So again, I would really like to know if (and how) people define their jokes into different classes, and if (and how) they can identify that an audience will respond well to particular types of jokes and not others.

I've already posted the routine I did in the introduction forum, and didn't really want to come across as spamming but I think it makes sense to post it again here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_HFAGZCFpM (This was taken at venue number two)

I also have another spot coming up that's gonna take place on a temporary built stage in a market place. It's pretty much and experimental show where people a free to take a seat and watch what happens on stage, so this will be a very random audience.

Thanks in advance,

ubertyce

Well first of all you were lucky with the audience you had.

They seemed in a good mood and were laughing generously. You weren't very funny, your timing was off and the jokes were of the offensive, yet cliched variety that one would imagine have featured in Hitler's Christmas crackers.

Honestly your focussing on audience IQ reflects what I suspect is a fairly deep seated arrogance. You get audiences who like your jokes, you get audiences who don't.

I'd focus on building a more engaging persona and some more original jokes, you believe in more and can tell better.

You've probably answered your own question. But taste and IQ are two slightly different things I'd say and don't always go hand in hand imo.

Comedians like Jimmy Carr would be a good example of how some cerebral comedians can be vulgar or tasteless and Roy Brown and Tom O'Connor good examples of how bright blue collar comics often are in real life. It's a trade, you choose your style and you choose your market, so it looks like the top two may be your best bets.

And some can tell you that the more upmarket audiences are more polite and respectful, it doesn't mean they find you that funny. You could get a warm audience response but be savaged by a reviewer and many old style comedians benefited from the honesty of a drunk working class audience in Blackpool to master their craft. I'm not an expert or a fan of stand up BTW.

Quote: sootyj @ 22nd March 2015, 12:28 PM GMT

Well first of all you were lucky with the audience you had.

They seemed in a good mood and were laughing generously. You weren't very funny, your timing was off and the jokes were of the offensive, yet cliched variety that one would imagine have featured in Hitler's Christmas crackers.

Honestly your focussing on audience IQ reflects what I suspect is a fairly deep seated arrogance. You get audiences who like your jokes, you get audiences who don't.

I'd focus on building a more engaging persona and some more original jokes, you believe in more and can tell better.

View original

Hey,

thanks for repeating everything I said, followed by going on a pointless rant.

I do believe believe that some audiences are 'smarter' than others and will get my jokes, but it's people people like you I want to be able to make laugh as well. I can see you don't like the offensive style of humour, which (and sorry if this comes as a surprise to to you) some people actually like. (PS are you religious (PPS after some research you are apparently Jewish))

I believe the actual question I asked was 'do people have a way of categorising jokes and sussing out what type of jokes a particular audience will like'.

Also, when I say upfront that I'm new to stand up comedy (thus inexperienced), does berating my inexperience make you feel good? Or do the reviews to your 'self published stand-up writing book' that suggest you are racist towards black people (link here http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2SRYCIZ2ZGT9P/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2SRYCIZ2ZGT9P) actually have merit?

Anyways, for someone that has made as many posts as yourself, I think you should know by now to stay relevant to the actualy forum topic? Also, my jokes are 100% original, just the things I'm joking about may not be.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 22nd March 2015, 12:57 PM GMT

You've probably answered your own question. But taste and IQ are two slightly different things I'd say and don't always go hand in hand imo.

Comedians like Jimmy Carr would be a good example of how some cerebral comedians can be vulgar or tasteless and Roy Brown and Benny Hill good examples of how bright blue collar comics often are in real life. It's a trade, you choose your style and you choose your market, so it looks like the top two may be your best bets.

And some can tell you that the more upmarket audiences are more polite and respectful, it doesn't mean they find you that funny. You could get a warm audience response but be savaged by a reviewer and many old style comedians benefited from the honesty of a drunk working class audience in Blackpool to master their craft. I'm not an expert or a fan of stand up BTW.

View original

Hey,

thanks for the feedback. I confess I am a huge Jimmy Carr fan. I understand how people who go to his shows already know what to expect. I'll look up some of the material from the other two you mentioned. Basically, I am aware that my type of humour won't sit well with everyone, but I am wanting to write stuff that will be funny to people that are not me as well. I'd really like to be able to measure an audience at the beginning of an act and then switch to something they like if the original planned material doesn't sit will with them.

You're a newbie, so......

Can I just say that Sooty knows what he's talking about and he's really experienced. He's also a really nice guy in real life (although I'm not quite sure what he's like on 'second life'?

It's ok but seriously no rant, twas feedback.

If you really want to slate my works I can give some links to unsuccesful standup gigs I've done or some shitty stuff I've got in critique.

As it is here's some more detailed feedback.

1 You're timing is too predictable and unnaturalistic.

e.g. pause-feederliner-pause-punchline-pause-feederline-pause-punchline.

So each time I'm thinking, "what's the punchline going to be?" never "hey what a surprising funny I'm laughing!"

2
Most of your jokes are the same format, e.g. a set up line followed by a twist on expectation. It's fine but each time you show the same joke you substantially lower impact.
You'd really benefit from converting some of your oneliners to something more story like. With funny lines to take you to the punchline.

3
Once you start thinking the audience are too stupid to get my jokes, or I'm better than them. Then you're denying yourself the chance to improve.

For example the cross joke isn't a bad set of jokes (although that kind of material will always lose some of the audience.)
Problem is it feels like that,a set of jokes with predictable timing.

If you wrote it as a more story telling routine, based around the same jokes but just linking them more.

You might be surprised how much better it works, even with a low IQ audience.

Have to say, as a one-liner comic myself, I agree with Sootyj, your material and stage presence are not bad (especially for a newer act) but your delivery is too formulaic, you're clearly signposting punch lines and then, in what can seem an arrogant way, clearly waiting for a laugh, which might alienate an audience if they've not totally warmed to you.

Comedy is mostly about surprise, you need to try to catch the audience out with the punch lines, pull the rug out from under them when they are least expecting it, if you do a lot of similarly formatted jokes with a metronomic delivery then the audience will start predicting the punch lines (or at least know exactly when the punch line is coming) making it harder and harder to get laughs.

As an aside, was that gig filmed in the middle of the day? It's the most brightly lit gig I've ever seen, did they not think to turn the house lights off and get a spotlight?

Oh and in answer to your actual question you have two choices.

1) try to predict what sort of material a particular audience will go for and adapt your set accordingly, which means you are being led by the audience, or at least what you think the audience want.

2) do what you do, deliver it with total conviction and hope that the audience will come to you.

The problem with approach 1) is that you will sometimes misjudge an audience, you will think they look a bit "thick" and try to spoon feed them more accessible material which might come across as patronising or infantile. It also put you on the back foot and makes you more reactive. However, sometimes it's an approach which can pay dividends, especially if you are able to change your approach midway through a gig, once you've managed to get a handle on what you think they expect and want.

Approach 2) works well when you have a very distinctive style, you effectively say to the audience "This is what I do, I'm confident that I'm funny, so get on board". If you do it with enough confidence, charm and chutzpah then it will work 9 times out of 10, however be prepared for the occasional horrific death when a belligerent audience just refuses to come on board.

Personally I think you come across as a bit of a dick trying to categorise people by class status or IQ based on whether they found you funny or not, or how they looked to you.

Audiences at a comedy gig are there for comedy & often far more likely to laugh along with a set regardless of quality. People at a fundraiser however probably aren't there specifically for the comedy so you need to work a bit harder to gauge what the audience wants.

I am not at all from a religious background but dip into a wide range of media culture. It's a habitual broadening of the pallet and I will take in anything that isn't right on out of interest and probably also to be challenging and bloody minded. Consequently, I have recently found interest in some of the more liberal Christian stuff. It offers a different - and sometimes fresh - perspective on topics which generally feel as if they are so well-known that all the standard lines are just repeated and reinforced.

Hence, I was listening on the weekend to a radio interview with Paul Kerensa who is apparently, erm, religious but compartmentalised the career in such a way that he could still do risque stuff for specific audiences. He spoke of one such gig in which a vicar and his wife were unexpectedly in the hall to see what he was like. They had booked him in for a church event later that week. I thought the dilemma was quite interesting - and amusing - and what I like about these things is you don't have to be ever so happy clappy to carry the issues across into more ordinary contexts. It's thinking outside the box.

http://www.eauk.org/culture/forum-for-change/culture-footprint/paul-kerensa-scriptwriter.cfm

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/does.god.have.a.sense.of.humour/36380.htm