Holy fuck! (For Bill Hicks fans only...)

[ThunderPeel2001]

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0663405/

[DanJW]

Awesome!

Here's betting that they fudge the reasons for it not being aired at the time, and somehow try to make out that it's not their fault and so on.

My guess is that Hicks made jokes about Bush (Sr). They can safely show it now that the Bush dynasty is finally over.

[Roderick]

It may sound like heresy, but when I saw a few of Hicks' shows a few years back, they were painfully dated and unfunny. I particularly recall him really squeezing a few jokes when they had long since ceased to be funny. Sad how comedians can sometimes become really outdated, real fast.

Right now I'm really enjoying the standup work of David Cross.

[DanJW]

BANNED!

:cens0red:

[ThunderPeel2001]

BANNED!

:cens0red:

I concur

I knew there'd at least be one 'hater'

Just kidding, Rodi. Not sure what you mean about outdated though. His routines are still as fresh and as shocking as they ever were, if you ask me. Each to their own.

[SignorSuperdouche]

For what it's worth I've never found Bill Hicks funny either. Seemed like a nice enough chap though.

[Ginger]

I think that is a common feeling for any cultural phenomenon that you don't see at the time, Hicks influenced a generation of comedians so much of his essence has been rehashed by others over the past 15 years, this means that when u go back and see what he did having been inadvertently exposed his comedy its impact can be greatly reduced.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Yeah, that's actually very probably true. I was "there", as it were. There's only three people that I remember where I was when I heard they died, and Bill Hicks is one of them.

If you've not done so already, you should give Rant in E Minor a go.

[Scrobbs]

...and he appears in Preacher. 'Nuff said.

[MrHoatzin]

Bill Hicks, like Citizen Kane, is sadly cursed by the incessant, "why was that great?" questions.

[SignorSuperdouche]

I think that is a common feeling for any cultural phenomenon that you don't see at the time, Hicks influenced a generation of comedians so much of his essence has been rehashed by others over the past 15 years, this means that when u go back and see what he did having been inadvertently exposed his comedy its impact can be greatly reduced.

This may well be the case for me. The first time I heard of Bill Hicks was about three years when I friend lent me a dvd of his stand up and I just didn't get it.

[DanJW]

Ahem, the thread is clearly marked 'For Bill Hicks Fans Only'. Do we need a doorman or something..?

I kid. Related to Ginger's point, a lot of Hick's observations are now taken for granted, whereas no-one had jokes about them out before (pointing out the obvious being one of the major functions of the stand-up comic).

Personally I still find Hicks utterly inspirational. If I could borrow just a tenth of his passion and insight for my amateur stand-up attempts, I'd stop doing anything else.

[syntheticgerbil]

Just to level it out a little bit, I always like reading Bill Hicks quotes or listening to him talk, and I think he was very bright and someone to look up to, but I don't think he was that hilarious.

Kiss my mouf.

[Roderick]

Well, now I feel obliged to explain this a bit more, before I get branded as a Hicks-Hater I too only saw him first a couple of years ago, and I've seen good things from him, and less good things (the thing I was recalling earlier was something to do with 'goatboy', or something(?), and I remember him milking it to the point of unfunniness). On the other hand, I have a comedy routine of his on my computer that does make me chuckle ever so often. And some of his bits are indeed nicely passionate.

What I was expressing wasn't informed by me trying to be contrary or going against the stream. I was merely comparing Bill Hicks as I would listen to him now to other comedians I tend to listen to. From a historical perspective, of course I can appreciate what he did. But personally, I just don't find him very consistently hilarious. I'll take Patton Oswalt or Brian Posehn (or David Cross as I mentioned above) over Hicks any day.

---

ADDITION THOUGHTS: It occurs to me that Hicks might be suffering from what I'd like to call 'Final Fantasy 7 Syndrome'. FF7 was the first Japanese RPG that I played, a few years back, and obviously it made me absolutely furious. All the horrible genre tropes, the unreasonable, illogical game design choices like random battles with invisible monsters, thousands of ill-conceived minigames, grinding art styles, almost non-interactive backgrounds... I still hate the game for it. But being genre tropes, you learn to appreciate (some of) them, and now I can occasionally enjoy a JRPG. Final Fantasy 7, however, was the sacrificial lamb that had to die in the process of acquainting me with the genre. Hicks might be in a similar position. He was one of the first American standups I saw. Before that I only knew Dutch comedians, who have all-night shows that are often very different in concept: they have much more of a tight theme, incorporate song and take on a more theatrical quality. So at first, American standup seemed quick, cheap and vulgar: just a string of randomly put-together jokes without any thought going into thematics. Obviously, I learned to appreciate all the 'genre tropes' (like comedians rehashing earlier bits into newer shows, the iterative nature of their routines (some of which they will do the rest of their lives, which to me seemed very strange, but that might be just a neophilic streak in me) and often quite predictable set of topics). But Hicks might have been too much of a different thing for me to like, then.

[gdf]

I've been a fan for about three years now, I absolutely worship that man. Anyone else read "The American Scream"? It's fairly well written, but the content is incredible, he was simply an amazing person. I read about Mary's interview a few days ago, thanks for the reminder. Here's the first part on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUbB_D-dYp8

[Nachimir]

I enjoy his stuff, especially the bootleg with the heckler.

The biggest Hicks fan I've known ended up saying "The more I think about it, the more I think most of what he did was a bunch of cutesy bullshit".

[Nick]

Woo, it was good to see that clip. I always found I enjoyed Bill a lot more when intoxicated - not that I don't love him anyway, but I think his comedy definitely lends itself to the condition.

[DanJW]

The biggest Hicks fan I've known ended up saying "The more I think about it, the more I think most of what he did was a bunch of cutesy bullshit".

Really? Really? He was one of the first American comedians to get really political. Before hicks, politics was mostly taboo for US stand-up.

Sure he had some 'cute' stuff. But almost everything goes towards making a point, or supports something else making a point.

Your Hicks fan friend is an idiot

'genre tropes' (like comedians rehashing earlier bits into newer shows, the iterative nature of their routines

That's pretty much required for being a jobbing stand-up. Routines evolve, they don't appear out of thin air. Every gag has to be tested and then refined and then tested again. As for thematic linking, that is down to the style of individual comics (although you do get geographic groups with stuff in common, since comics influence other comics they know). I don't know how they do it in the Netherlands, but the only way round this is to have a team of writers working for you.

I highly recommend Agent of Evolution, by Philip Booth - Booth was Hicks' friend since school, so I consider it probably the best Hicks biography. It's very warts-and-all, with accounts of the gang's drug experiments and trips to brothels and so on. It also makes it clear that Hicks had a natural talent from a very young age, but that he still had to work hard, and that he really believed in the points he tried to make.

[Roderick]

Well of course comedy has to be tested, but what I mean is that I see Pablo Francesco doing the same things year after year -his successful routines he keeps doing, instead of coming up with new stuff for every new show he does.

As for the second point, I don't understand what you mean about having a team of writers to come up with a thematically strong show. Dutch shows usually center around a certain topic, like the decay of society, or a political event, or the loss of your parents, anything really. And then the comedian builds a suit of acts or songs around that, that are strongly tied together with a build-up of concepts and layers. Often there's also a story weaving everything together. The whole thing feels more connected, having a 'point'. In contrast with that are true 'stand-up' shows, whose last act is usually no different in intensity or tone than the first act, if you know what I mean. It's all just a random collection of funny topics. It's not necessarily a criticism, but an illustration of what I grew up watching and why I had some difficulty coming to terms with American standup.

Oh, and none of the Dutch comedians really have a team of writers. They all build up a theatrical show by themselves (obviously they get input by others and everything, but you know what I mean).

[DanJW]

Nonono, the team of writers was about throwing out brand new material at a crazy rate, not about thematic writing.

It occurs to me that it might be a case of televization (real word?). American comics get televised a lot more. Compare that to acts like Eddie Izzard, who will only allow their routine to be filmed when they're almost finished with doing it live. The reason being, getting broadcast 'kills' a routine, because more people will have seen bits of it before. If you're on the live comedy circuit you can redo your best gags for a long time before anyone sees it twice. Then there is the American appetite for repeats. Some comics get requests for peoples favourite bit of their old routine. Of course you're right in that occasionally you get an act who keeps doing the same exact routine for a bit too long.

Anyone can make a thematic stand-up routine, if that is their personal style. In fact what I've seen of American stand-ups, the big acts do tend to be at least slightly thematic. One-liners acts like Jimmy Carr seem to be more common in Britain. One is not more 'true' stand-up than the other, they are just different styles (and there are other styles too like character acts). Fashions come and go, so one style will be more popular than another at any given time.

If anyone gets a chance to do a comedy workshop (or even if you're brave enough to dive right in without any preparation) I urge you to give it a go. It's a great experience. To me it's like an extreme sport - the same adrenaline buzz and heightened senses you get from something like bungee jumping or rock climbing. Plus you get the opportunity to meet and make friends and sometimes get drunk with some very friendly, interesting and talented people.

[Nachimir]

Your Hicks fan friend is an idiot

He's definitely not that, but he did develop a taste for more extreme humour.

[Jake]

Rodi I think this might be another case of you wanting a very specific thing, and then holding that fact against anything that isn't what you were looking for ahead of time. You often seem disappointed that something doesn't match up with "the version you would have made" or "the version they should have made" or "what it should be," which you carry around in your head the moment you hear about a concept. I do the same thing to a degree, but from reading your reactions to things on Thumb, I think sometimes that your own imagined version of what someone else's work should be clouds your appreciation for what someone else's work is. I think it's also why you sometimes come across as self-important sounding to me -- it often appears to me that you're claiming that your own purely-hypothetical version of something is always superior to whatever real world achievement you're comparing it against.

Again, I do it as well, and I imagine everyone does -- it's fun and often invigorating to look at a piece of work and ask yourself how you'd improve it, or what you would have done -- but I've found it can be easy to take that a step too far, where you end up closing your mind to some great things, because you've confused your own ideas as the best ones, or in and of themselves as great guidelines or rules.

[Roderick]

That's an interesting thought and you're probably right to a certain extent. In my own defence, I have tried to be a lot more objective of late, and what you're saying isn't the case in this specific topic. If you read the posts I made here, you'll notice how I stress that what I'm saying isn't criticism or a judgement, but either observations or the way things came across to me when I first looked upon them (without preconceptions). I'm certainly a lot less judgemental now than I was before.

Still, it's a very classic thing; the clash of expectations versus what reality holds. I appreciate you telling me this, I'm always trying to be conscious of what I do.