Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 21st February 2015, 7:50 AM GMTMost comics go through some middle class making device, is that what you mean?
Not sure. I think if you wander about music etc festivals, you are going to find quite a lot of individuality in various small tents and when generally meandering around. I am not saying that most of them are hilarious, or anything akin to it, but there is likely to be more originality. Many are not constrained by being successful - or feeling they have to be - in the formal system. They have more scope to roam, wherever that may be.
Actually, I reckon it is possible to go further than that point and to say that large amounts of the funniest things in life come from people who are not aiming to identify as comics. Some of that is individual and some of it is situational. Same as it ever was to that extent - and it applies to almost everything rather than simply being about comedy. I guess the best flower arrangers - the ones who not only do it extremely well but convey genuine passion with charm and personality are likely to be unknowns rather than on television.
But the formal position has changed and it's across the board from comedy to music etc. In a nutshell, it is big money largely driving content and narrowing it, just as when one type of trifle sells then everyone ends up doing almost the same trifle. It isn't that they think it is the best but it will be the most popular given the relevant presentation and backing. And it's meritocracy which suffers. The ones who do have merit and succeed do so almost in spite of the system rather than because of it. My reading of the situation would be that an emphasis on meritocracy rather than sales would be more likely to encourage spontaneous and diverse creativity. But the modern boss class - economic and newly governing - will always choke that off.
It is not wholly deliberate. It is inherent in that system. It is the way in which the mechanics work. There will be diversity but that will be on its terms and most will be encouraged by the pound signs to conform with the prevailing conventions. And that is where weirdly there is little difference between modern western capitalism and Soviet style management. The processes may be interpreted as completely different but the outcomes are pretty much the same. There is irony in other aspects too. We now have You Tube and all the rest. Masses of media outlets. The funnel of entry is not anywhere near as narrow as it was in the 60s and the 70s in terms of the numbers of people who can gain access. But the narrowing is in the types who do - and in the content. Both managers and players conspire almost inadvertently to narrow that themselves.
(....here's a point. I have used the word "diversity" several times. What I mean by it is, erm, diversity. Diversity was at its most diverse when no one had any real concept of it. Now it is a massive concept. It is very much in the public consciousness. And it has a very specific meaning about sensitivities in types of people and that's not a terrible thing. BUT it ain't diversity. It is a narrow, managed, distorted definition of it with which material must comply in order to sell. And the same tick box mentality is in most other areas).
