Other than the shows I've posted reviews for, my Fringe has mainly been taken up with compliation shows. Some that I have seen include:
Pick of the Free Fringe
Hilarity Bites Comedy Showcase
Revill's Selection
Rik 'N' Mix
Sy+
Big Value Comedy Show
...and of course Shaggers
There are now hundreds of them.
Ten years ago, you had Late and Live, Spank, Big Value Comedy and that was about it. Now they are a dime a dozen. Often 2/3 new acts that don't have an hour of material each will get together and put on a show.
In later blogs I'll be doing a list of comics I've seen and enjoyed within these compilation shows, but before I do that I want to talk about the debate that keeps running and running and getting bigger and bigger and that is free shows versus paid shows.
If you are a regular reader of my blog (I'm not sure if many people are given that most of my hits come from people googling a particular performer that I have reviewed) then you will know a couple of things about me...
1. I don't have thousands of pounds to spend on shows so I spent my money wisely and rarely turn down a free ticket for a show, especially if it's nearby and about to start,
2. Through having a comedian staying at my house a few years ago that my brother knew from working in a venue, I have met a few performers, and also some of the people who run the Free Festival, so I feel I should mention that given the side I'm going to come down on.
I see a lot of free shows. If you want to go and see 7-8 shows a day, which I've been known to do, you can't avoid them, and more and more frequently, you're drawn to the compilation shows because you don't always want to take a risk and you know it'll be a safe bet - even if one comic is bad, the others will mean the show as a whole will be at least average, and sometimes you can get lucky and see three great acts one after the other.
I've also paid to see a lot of shows including the Chortle Fast Fringe and the Big Value Comedy Show.
What is quickly becoming apparent to me is that the difference between the paid compilation shows and free compilation shows in terms of quality is zero.
Looking at solo shows, whilst you can be fairly certain that an act in one of the bigger Pleasance venues is going to be better than a show in the Jekyll and Hyde at midday, the gap between free acts and paid acts is getting smaller.
When it comes to compliation shows it has already completely disappeared.
A quick example... The Big Value Comedy show that I saw was on Sunday. It was the 7.30pm showing. My friends had paid £5 at the half price hut. I had to pay £10 because I decided to go last minute. Not exactly big value but my fault I guess.
The show was in a venue that was fit for habitation only by a troll (the old fashioned kind). Damp, dark and hot and under a bridge. The "whale's vagina" as more than one of the comics called it (the second not realising that the joke had already been used that night and wondered why it never got a laugh).
Two of the three comedians were OK. One had a bad night. The first guy was black and did "If it wasn't for us your music would all sound like Eurovision" material. Standard fare for a black comedian. The final guy was from Yorkshire and most of his set was about his stereotypically tight Yorkshireman Dad. Again, hard to call it anything but hack. (I have googled the show to try and remind myself of their names but they don't appear to be listed anywhere and the Fringe listing only lists comedians who have done the show in previous years - presumably because they decide the line up after the deadline for listing the show).
Both comedians got laughs and they are competent open spots, but it was barely worth braving the heat for. The less said about the girl in the middle the better!
Afterwards I ventured over to the Pick of the Free Festival at Espionage, and saw 3 acts, all of whom have hour long shows at the fringe. I then went to Shaggers where I saw 5 comedians, four of whom have hour long shows and who have been doing the Fringe for years and one newer act who was outstanding.
The only show I paid for that day was the worst one.
On other days:
At Sy+ I saw Marcel Lucont - now getting TV gigs - for free. At Espionage I saw Ian Cognito, who has been gigging for 20 years or more - free. I also saw Bruce Fummey who is one of the top full time Edinburgh acts.
At Hilarity Bites I saw Diane Spencer, John Gavin (another local lad with a good reputation) and Diane Spencer's boyfriend Kevin Shepherd... for free. (It's great watching them do Shagging material one after the other and hearing both sides of the story).
The list goes on and on...
10 years ago the Big Value Comedy Show was exactly that £5 and good value... Now, it's £5/£10 more than you need to pay to see a show that is just as good if not better.
25% of shows at the Fringe are now free to get in, (whether it's through laughing Horse's Free Festival or PBH's Free Fringe) with a voluntary donation at the end and the free section is getting bigger every year (the main reason the total number of shows at the Fringe is on the increase too).
A lot of acts that pay thousands to one of the big venues to put on a show one year, are switching back to the Free Festival the following year because they are at least guaranteed the money in the bucket at the end of the night.
What will happen next? Those in the know seem to think that the bigger acts will switch to free shows, thus stopping the smaller/newer acts from getting slots at the Fringe at all.
I disagree. I think it will force the big paid venues to charge less for their performance spaces, which is a great thing. It'll mean performers have a chance of making money. Something that is near impossible at the moment.
Saturday, 17 August 2013
Friday, 16 August 2013
Diane Spencer - Hurricane Diane *****
Whilst I like to experiment and go and see new acts and people I have never heard of, my girlfriend prefers a safe bet... it doesn't have to be Live at the Apollo standard but she wants me to take her to a show that I know she'll like.
So after a few days by myself seeing random stuff, I took my girlfriend out to see a show or two and my first pick was one of my favourites from last year.
Now, let me start off by saying that a large number of blokes, say that they simply don't find women funny. I have a theory about that. Women can be funny - very funny, but they are at their best when they are a little bit filthy - as are men. When most people see a comedian for the first time it's usually on the telly (if that's not the case for you and you get out and support live comedy all year round then I doth my cap to you).
More often than not it's on the BBC on a Saturday night on McIntyre's show or the aforementioned LATA. As we all know, there are certain things you can't say on the BBC. I've never seen Sarah Millican live and from what I've seen of her on the TV she's not one of my favourite comedians but I'm smart enough to know that she can't have got where she is without performing successful gig after successful gig. I think the reason I don't like her is because I'm watching a diluted version of her on the BBC and I think that is why a lot of men don't find women funny.
Anyway, to the show. Thankfully, the version I saw of Diane Spencer was the uncut, uncensored version, back with material just as filthy as last year.
The set opened up with Spencer telling us all about her country upbringing in a little in a cottage with a smoking chimney and a big hedge, in a little English village where everyone knows everyone, with her half deaf Dad etc etc... at which point my girlfriend and I looked at each other because she was describing her parents and their house to a tee. Diane Spencer's upbringing is idential to Helen's. The only difference being Helen's house is a few hours further North and her Mum doesn't speak in double entendres.
I digress again... Diane quickly got the audience on side and spent the whole hour switching between filth, nostalgia, sex, heart warming stories, more filth... you get the idea until at the end the audience the audience were swooning!
To my left there was a big group of local older men in their 50's (that had to keep going in and out to the toilet/bar during the show) and after the show a couple of them were having a chat at the urinal, as you do.. One of them said something along the lines of:
"Brian says all women stand-up's are shite. He was tryin' no tae laugh, but he gave up aboot half way through and joined in wi' the rest of us. Fuckin' brilliant".
I have nothing more to add. If you think women can't be funny then I challenge you to go and see her.
Even if she does end up on the BBC minus the masturbation jokes (which she surely has to at some point - I thought it would have happened by now), I still think she has the charm and semi-clean material to prove a few doubters wrong.
(I'm talking about her stuff from last year about getting drunk at her sisters wedding and leaving herself surprises when she's drunk, along with this years material about parenting - just in case you've seen her shows and you are wondering what I am talking about).
Anil Desai's Another Night at the Movies ***
I saw Anil Desai at the Laughing Horse Launch Party and he absolutely tore the place up with his 3-4 minute set of quick fire movie impressions, so I made a decision there and then to go and see him and I managed to do so about a week later.
His material on the preview night centred around a story about a reply to a racist heckler which he took care of in character... well several characters. It was fantastic. The laughs just kept on coming.
In his hour long show you don't expect it to start that fast and keep going, you expect things to be a bit slower, building up to a big ending and that was the case when I saw his full show, with the first 15 minutes mainly introducing himself and getting to know the audience. Whilst he has a good degree of likeability, it did drag on a tad and it was relief when he got on to his impressions.
The show ambled along nicely, with an audience member shouting out random names from a deck of cards provided, and Desai obliging with a short impression most of which were well above average.
He had some fun stories about female reactions to his performances and his grand finale was well worth waiting for, he earned the cash I put in his bucket at the end!
There were two unfortunate things about the show though. The first was the slow start which I've mentioned. He could easily have squeezed more material in if he had it.
The second was that he made the classic movie mistake... putting all the best bits into the trailer.
I'm not sure if I would have rated the show differently had I not seen him use his big finish a few days earlier, but to me, if you have an hour long show and you do previews to promote that show, then you really should be confident enough in your other material to leave out the big finish, just in case people come and see you.
Anil Desai is a great performer and with a little more material he'll have the makings of a very good show in a year or two.
His material on the preview night centred around a story about a reply to a racist heckler which he took care of in character... well several characters. It was fantastic. The laughs just kept on coming.
In his hour long show you don't expect it to start that fast and keep going, you expect things to be a bit slower, building up to a big ending and that was the case when I saw his full show, with the first 15 minutes mainly introducing himself and getting to know the audience. Whilst he has a good degree of likeability, it did drag on a tad and it was relief when he got on to his impressions.
The show ambled along nicely, with an audience member shouting out random names from a deck of cards provided, and Desai obliging with a short impression most of which were well above average.
He had some fun stories about female reactions to his performances and his grand finale was well worth waiting for, he earned the cash I put in his bucket at the end!
There were two unfortunate things about the show though. The first was the slow start which I've mentioned. He could easily have squeezed more material in if he had it.
The second was that he made the classic movie mistake... putting all the best bits into the trailer.
I'm not sure if I would have rated the show differently had I not seen him use his big finish a few days earlier, but to me, if you have an hour long show and you do previews to promote that show, then you really should be confident enough in your other material to leave out the big finish, just in case people come and see you.
Anil Desai is a great performer and with a little more material he'll have the makings of a very good show in a year or two.
Friday, 9 August 2013
Sean McLoughlin ***
Sometimes a slightly awkward comedian can make the audience feel awkward too, and stifle the number of laughs and enjoyment of the show. If you say you are crap, then people will think you're crap unless it's blatantly obvious you're not.
Sean McLoughlin is capable of talking about his own poverty, and even his own sexual problems and how terrible he is at life in general without losing the audience at all.
Talking about America, working in a call centre, sex and being pessimistic in general are all well trodden paths and it can be pretty easy for comedians broaching these subjects to venture into narratives that will be familiar to most hardened comedy fans, but his material was not too unoriginal and mostly well observed.
For a comic doing his first Edinburgh Festival this is a very competent show.
Unfortunately when I was there he forgot his ending... which he owned up to on stage. If he hadn't I might not have noticed and just assumed that he hadn't thought up a very big ending...
If he had nailed the ending, his material and likeability was good enough that he could possibly have earned himself four stars... the potential is there and he has some great jokes, but unfortunately he did forget it, so I can only give him three for that reason.
I've certainly paid more to see a lot worse and with him being a Fringe newcomer, there is no reason why he can't do a lot better in the future.
Sean McLoughlin is capable of talking about his own poverty, and even his own sexual problems and how terrible he is at life in general without losing the audience at all.
Talking about America, working in a call centre, sex and being pessimistic in general are all well trodden paths and it can be pretty easy for comedians broaching these subjects to venture into narratives that will be familiar to most hardened comedy fans, but his material was not too unoriginal and mostly well observed.
For a comic doing his first Edinburgh Festival this is a very competent show.
Unfortunately when I was there he forgot his ending... which he owned up to on stage. If he hadn't I might not have noticed and just assumed that he hadn't thought up a very big ending...
If he had nailed the ending, his material and likeability was good enough that he could possibly have earned himself four stars... the potential is there and he has some great jokes, but unfortunately he did forget it, so I can only give him three for that reason.
I've certainly paid more to see a lot worse and with him being a Fringe newcomer, there is no reason why he can't do a lot better in the future.
Star Ratings
I have had a great run of four and five star shows!
Unlike reviewers in newspapers who often get told where to go, I do this for fun so I tend to pick shows I think/know I'm going to like and avoid things I'm going to hate. I also go back to see the same show twice if I really like it (like Doug Segal who I reviewed for the second time recently and Diane Spencer who is about to get another great review for me).
This means I am more likely to give four or five star reviews than most newspapers...
A lot of publications have recently felt the need to clarify what their star ratings mean. I think in general the problem is with a three star rating.
To most reviewers a three star review means it's a pretty good show and you should go and see it. To most people reading a review, a three star review means that it's two stars away from being amazing and one star away from being worth seeing.
To me if a show is better than "just all right" and falls within the "well worth seeing" category, I give it four stars, which takes away any doubt.
To me three stars is an average show, that I would not be bothered about missing, two stars is someone who is trying hard but not quite getting across to the audience and one star is someone who is so bad they piss me off, either because they are completely deluded or self absorbed that they fail to see how bad they are.
I also take into consideration the whole experience... I'm not going to give a show a lesser review if my enjoyment is spoiled by a heckler, but if the theatre space is completely inadequate or they pack in too many people to the point that it's completely uncomfortable then I may factor that in too.
Ultimately though, and this goes for all reviews, not just mine... The description of the show should give you a much better idea of the reviewer's thoughts than the star rating. If a reviewer hasn't got their thoughts over well within the body of the text then they have failed.
Unlike reviewers in newspapers who often get told where to go, I do this for fun so I tend to pick shows I think/know I'm going to like and avoid things I'm going to hate. I also go back to see the same show twice if I really like it (like Doug Segal who I reviewed for the second time recently and Diane Spencer who is about to get another great review for me).
This means I am more likely to give four or five star reviews than most newspapers...
A lot of publications have recently felt the need to clarify what their star ratings mean. I think in general the problem is with a three star rating.
To most reviewers a three star review means it's a pretty good show and you should go and see it. To most people reading a review, a three star review means that it's two stars away from being amazing and one star away from being worth seeing.
To me if a show is better than "just all right" and falls within the "well worth seeing" category, I give it four stars, which takes away any doubt.
To me three stars is an average show, that I would not be bothered about missing, two stars is someone who is trying hard but not quite getting across to the audience and one star is someone who is so bad they piss me off, either because they are completely deluded or self absorbed that they fail to see how bad they are.
I also take into consideration the whole experience... I'm not going to give a show a lesser review if my enjoyment is spoiled by a heckler, but if the theatre space is completely inadequate or they pack in too many people to the point that it's completely uncomfortable then I may factor that in too.
Ultimately though, and this goes for all reviews, not just mine... The description of the show should give you a much better idea of the reviewer's thoughts than the star rating. If a reviewer hasn't got their thoughts over well within the body of the text then they have failed.
Stella Graham - A Pint of Stella ****
My friend Nik Coppin suggested that I go and see Stella Graham, another act performing as part of the Free Festival, in his words, "because she does some good stuff".
So I took a trip away from the busiest part of town during the festival, over the Jekyll and Hyde pub to see this one hour solo show.
I quickly discovered why Nik liked her! She's basically a female version of him. Likeable, with a great hour of material, focusing on growing up, being mixed race, relationships, being a bit geeky etc...
It's a daytime slot so the crowd wasn't as lively as it could have been but she still managed to deliver a full hour of very competent stand up and kept the crowd engaged.
This is Stella Graham's second Fringe, so she had plenty of material and didn't have to spend 20 minutes at the start of the show bantering with the crowd just to fill the hour! The material flowed well for the entire show.
Conventional wisdom states that most comedians don't get any real recognition until their third Edinburgh Fringe. In my experience that's when they start to pick one theme and do a full hour of comedy that's connected to that theme and intertwine the narratives in a way that impresses reviewers and comedy aficionados.
Stella Graham's hour is still a mixed bag of material, she hasn't picked one topic and made most of her material relevant to that topic for the whole hour - which could see her do even better, but it's still a fantastic show and she's definitely worth seeing now, as well as being one to watch in the future!
So I took a trip away from the busiest part of town during the festival, over the Jekyll and Hyde pub to see this one hour solo show.
I quickly discovered why Nik liked her! She's basically a female version of him. Likeable, with a great hour of material, focusing on growing up, being mixed race, relationships, being a bit geeky etc...
It's a daytime slot so the crowd wasn't as lively as it could have been but she still managed to deliver a full hour of very competent stand up and kept the crowd engaged.
This is Stella Graham's second Fringe, so she had plenty of material and didn't have to spend 20 minutes at the start of the show bantering with the crowd just to fill the hour! The material flowed well for the entire show.
Conventional wisdom states that most comedians don't get any real recognition until their third Edinburgh Fringe. In my experience that's when they start to pick one theme and do a full hour of comedy that's connected to that theme and intertwine the narratives in a way that impresses reviewers and comedy aficionados.
Stella Graham's hour is still a mixed bag of material, she hasn't picked one topic and made most of her material relevant to that topic for the whole hour - which could see her do even better, but it's still a fantastic show and she's definitely worth seeing now, as well as being one to watch in the future!
Globophobia ****
After watching a fair bit of comedy I decided to take on some slightly more serious theatre on a recommendation from a friend.
Globophobia is a collection of monologues and two person dialogues that explore different fears which seem irrational to most people.
Throughout the hour we go between individuals, explaining how their fears manifested themselves, to couples who struggle to deal with the consequences of the irrational behaviours which result from these irrational fears.
I was particularly pleased to read in the notes that the play is written, directed and starring local talent and I was even more pleased to see how well they pulled it off.
The room is small, only 20 seats available (I counted) which works well for the intensity of the play - although I couldn't help thinking that they deserved at least a second row - I hope Sweet Venues are not charging them too much!
The acting from all the performers was top notch. They were all believable in their roles and didn't falter on what was their first performance (I'm a bit behind with my blog, I saw it last Thursday along which quite a few other shows).
I was particularly impressed by Des O'Gorman who played a slightly weird and disorganised husband, a role he's suited to if his stand up comedy which I have also seen before is anything to go by.
Since seeing the play I've noticed that they have picked up a couple of other four and five star reviews (there was at least two other reviewers taking notes when I saw it, meaning it's likely to sell out given the size of the performance space).
My only criticism, and this is personal preference more than anything else, is that I prefer scenes to be more connected than they were in this play. It really is more of a collection of short plays rather than one big performance and seems to have been written in a way that helps the actors showcase their talents more than to tell one big story.
But showcase their talents they did! As I said, the performances were great and the switching between scenes was smooth and professional. I expect they'll sell out for the rest of the run and everyone involved in the play will go on to bigger and better things.
Globophobia is a collection of monologues and two person dialogues that explore different fears which seem irrational to most people.
Throughout the hour we go between individuals, explaining how their fears manifested themselves, to couples who struggle to deal with the consequences of the irrational behaviours which result from these irrational fears.
I was particularly pleased to read in the notes that the play is written, directed and starring local talent and I was even more pleased to see how well they pulled it off.
The room is small, only 20 seats available (I counted) which works well for the intensity of the play - although I couldn't help thinking that they deserved at least a second row - I hope Sweet Venues are not charging them too much!
The acting from all the performers was top notch. They were all believable in their roles and didn't falter on what was their first performance (I'm a bit behind with my blog, I saw it last Thursday along which quite a few other shows).
I was particularly impressed by Des O'Gorman who played a slightly weird and disorganised husband, a role he's suited to if his stand up comedy which I have also seen before is anything to go by.
Since seeing the play I've noticed that they have picked up a couple of other four and five star reviews (there was at least two other reviewers taking notes when I saw it, meaning it's likely to sell out given the size of the performance space).
My only criticism, and this is personal preference more than anything else, is that I prefer scenes to be more connected than they were in this play. It really is more of a collection of short plays rather than one big performance and seems to have been written in a way that helps the actors showcase their talents more than to tell one big story.
But showcase their talents they did! As I said, the performances were great and the switching between scenes was smooth and professional. I expect they'll sell out for the rest of the run and everyone involved in the play will go on to bigger and better things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
