I don't know, if it wasn't in defence of his own character then maybe. Lee would rather not to have had to write that I imagine.
Michael McIntyre vs Stewart Lee
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I don't know, if it wasn't in defence of his own character then maybe. Lee would rather not to have had to write that I imagine.
It wasn't McIntyre who attacked his character though.
No, but it does add balance to the scenario the Mail portray of both of them.
Excellent response and if you can't take a bit of flack then stand up comedy isn't for you.
Lee comes across as a genuine cnut but I did like his response there. The first article was classic Daily Mail - utter, unjustified, out of context shite.
I don't know him either so I can't judge. Is it him or his comic personal or are they the same?
To be honest mate, Lee comes across as nearly as much of a smug, pretentious prick in that article as he does on stage. If it was some other fecker dropping in that line about all the charity work he does then he'd absolutely rip the piss out of them for doing it.
That article is written for a stand-up comedy website and the 'doing 60 charity gigs a year' line is a reference to his last act where throughout the show he would talk about his charity work and each time the number of gigs would increase. Like a fisherman saying how big his catch was.
The intended audience of the article (i.e. Chortle readers) would have got the reference.
The intended audience of the article (i.e. Chortle readers) would have got the reference.
I did not know McIntyre has so many haters here in the cafe.
Ah, fair enough then. Still don't like the fecker, mind.
Stewart Lee bores me to tears.
He certainly didn't come across that way from meeting him briefly after a show but admittedly that was only for a few minutes midway through a 1440 minute day so I can't entirely rule it out.
Mike is correct about the charity gigs reference. He does about 70/75 charity gigs a year.
Like I've said though, I can entirely understand people disliking Stewart Lee. That's not my issue. What I can't understand is how anyone could ever find Michael McIntyre funny.
He certainly didn't come across that way from meeting him briefly after a show but admittedly that was only for a few minutes midway through a 1440 minute day so I can't entirely rule it out.
Mike is correct about the charity gigs reference. He does about 70/75 charity gigs a year.
Like I've said though, I can entirely understand people disliking Stewart Lee. That's not my issue. What I can't understand is how anyone could ever find Michael McIntyre funny.
I'm with you on McIntyre not being very funny, I just find the level of hate he seems to arouse a bit baffling. He's just bland MOR pap, it's not like he's ever done anything much to offend anyone.
True. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a degree of jealousy amongst some sections of the comedy circuit but perhaps that anger would be better directed at the public who lap it up.
I think comedians are fairly damaged individuals. Most of them seem have grown up making people laugh in an attempt to avoid being bullied. This, in turn, makes them much more likely to behave like bullies themselves. Mix that in with the ego that comes from being famous, a healthy consumption of cocaine and it's no wonder they're a bunch of nasty feckers who turn on anyone that stands out from the herd.
Michael McIntyre puts my teeth on edge though. He's incredibly annoying. Even more annoying than Stewart Lee. Who seems to be deliberately annoying, as part of his shtick.
Michael McIntyre puts my teeth on edge though. He's incredibly annoying. Even more annoying than Stewart Lee. Who seems to be deliberately annoying, as part of his shtick.
Lee seems to me to be one of those people that likes to make a point by boring their target audience into agreement.
I've never quite 'gotten' Lee. He's clearly a capable comedian and he has some great lines but too much of what he does seems self-regarding and smug to me. McIntyre is just a gimp. I remember reading Peter Kay and Frank Skinner's books and thinking that all of these books by comedians must be really funny. It was basically a study in being an arrogant cnut with constant neediness and self-doubt. I barely laughed right the way through it.
So the charity gigs thing is not real and yet he's still happy to have a dig at McIntyre for not doing these fictional gigs, happy to leave the impression with people not familiar with his act that McIntyre is uncharitable. That's even more cnuty and not even mildly funny.
The older I get, the less amusing I find comedians in general. Every time I see a stand-up doing his routine I can't see past the air of quiet desperation that hangs round them like a cloak. Look at me. Laugh. Please.
It's weird, though. I still find old clips of Bill Hicks or Richard Pryor (or even early Eddy Murphy) funny but nothing from the more recent past. I don't know if stand-up comedy has disappeared up it's own arse or I've lost the ability to appreciate it. Probably a bit of both.
Dylan Moran is fantastic, IMO. Chris Rock has moments of brilliance, though those seem to be fading.
I know quite a few people who go to see Lee, simply in order to witness his famed 'deconstruction of comedy', not because they actually enjoy his act. It's as if these people are seeking validation of their intelligence, and their supposed superiority to the 'common' people. Sad but true...
Lee's act is, ironically, along the same lines as the worst of observational comics, those he criticises - this 'knowing' type of comedy is low, no matter what form it takes.
Lee's act is, ironically, along the same lines as the worst of observational comics, those he criticises - this 'knowing' type of comedy is low, no matter what form it takes.
In this case it is real. He does about 90/95 benefit gigs a year.
In context the whole routine it's pulled from is him basically slating the likes of Russell Howard & Adrian Chiles for not doing enough for charity but then realising that even one charity bike ride from Howard raises a 1000 times more money than he does and thus the twisted logic is that Howard is 1000 times better than he'll ever be.
Thats been my experience of most Stewart Lee fans too.... 'I like Stewart Lee, therefore I'm highbrow'
Even that piece he wrote above, its directed at an audience that wont have read the mail and the audience that read the mail wont read that, so whats the point in deconstructing the article is such great detail?
Yeah but Stewart Lee is very good.
In yer face.
In yer face.
Highbrow? he tells gags for a living. I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. he does take odd approaches but his routines on the last series were brilliant, the bit on the IRA was amazing as was the section on emigrants; and yes the 'non comedy/boring' sections are off kilter, but it's a limited genre of expression so any deviation is welcome by me. I'm a little bit tired of high energy high vexation based 'antics'. He makes me laugh, how is that some sort of pretention?
As for that response, it was a stand up magazine, his audience, the mail aren't going to print his response, and he is entitled to one surely.
Of course, he's a stand up comedian, it can be clever, and use different angles of approach, but ffs he's a comic!
feck sake, he puts the mail in their place for some basically scurrillous accusations and gets called out as a pretentious twat for doing it. You contrary young men.
I'm sure there are. When I saw him last year there were a fair few 'intellectual' types in the crowd.
Disagree with the second part I'm afraid. You might be able to say that about the 'Milder Comedian' show (which was pretty much a deconstruction of comedy) and parts of the last series of comedy vehicle (which I thought was very hit and miss) but in all of his other live shows Lee takes a theme and milks it for all it's worth (90's Comedian being the absolute standout IMO).
His style isn't to fire off quick fire gags but rather to build on a theme that he stretches to often ridiculous lengths for comic effect. Sure, it is a bit more 'high brow' than 'my mother in law' jokes but what's wrong with having something to think about as well?
That was from the 90's comedian show some years ago. A must see.
I noticed that he re-used a fair few bits from old shows in this series which is probably why I didn't enjoy it so much.
And yeah, any different approach to comedy should surely be welcomed. Otherwise we'll be left with a load more McIntyre clones.
I'm not saying he's highbrow or pretentious, its just been my experience that lots of his fans are, that they tend to be very self congratulatory for liking Stewart Lee.
I just find him extremely boring in the most part.
Of course he is, again, the response is just incredibly boring, its the Daily Mail for gods sake, who cares, his audience wont take it seriously, and the Mails audience wont read the response so whats the point of the 2000 word essay when and equally effective response aimed at his audience would be 'meh, the Mail'.
I dont mean to slate him, if people find him funny, great... I just find him boring and lots his fans very irksome...... (like iPhone users to whom everything only exists in relation to the iPhone).
Oh, and moses, olives and Stewart Lee, next you'll be telling me you wear a beret and sunglasses as night time
I can't believe the amount of dislike Lee seems to generate. He's a massive breath of fresh air to me as far as comedy goes. That anybody can say he's as bad as any observationalist, or that he seems to be desperate for validation, seems to me to be utterly off the mark. For one he's stated that he prefers it when his audience isn't just lapping it up, he likes a tough room.
Most comedians these days seem to be McIntyresque... meaning they're really loud and animated and are desperately looking to find something to make an observational point about. Lee's partially reacting against that, which is handy as people love to be united against something they dislike, but why is it that he's perceived as so smug? Everybody has points of dislike and things that they deem beneath them. Why on earth shouldn't trite comedians be included in that without it being seen as a tremendous affront?
Most comedians these days seem to be McIntyresque... meaning they're really loud and animated and are desperately looking to find something to make an observational point about. Lee's partially reacting against that, which is handy as people love to be united against something they dislike, but why is it that he's perceived as so smug? Everybody has points of dislike and things that they deem beneath them. Why on earth shouldn't trite comedians be included in that without it being seen as a tremendous affront?
Oh, and moses, olives and Stewart Lee, next you'll be telling me you wear a beret and sunglasses as night time
I might be adding to the I want your pics thread soon!
Getting back to the topic on hand for a sec - The problem I have with McIntyre is that I don't find him challenging at all. If I pay money to watch a comedian I want him to be saying things and exploring ideas I haven't thought of.
His 'Sex On Fire' gag for instance is probably something that pretty much all of us have on here have thought at some point (the title doesn't make any sense) but not something I'd expect to pay money to watch.
I don't know. Perhaps that's his appeal. Maybe he makes people think "yeah, I was thinking that too" and sends them all home comforted in the knowledge that they're amateur comedians in the making.
Jerry Sadowitz once described McIntyre as the Tony Blair of comedy. I don't know the guy personally but I do get the impression that his smile is painted on.
His 'Sex On Fire' gag for instance is probably something that pretty much all of us have on here have thought at some point (the title doesn't make any sense) but not something I'd expect to pay money to watch.
I don't know. Perhaps that's his appeal. Maybe he makes people think "yeah, I was thinking that too" and sends them all home comforted in the knowledge that they're amateur comedians in the making.
Jerry Sadowitz once described McIntyre as the Tony Blair of comedy. I don't know the guy personally but I do get the impression that his smile is painted on.
Aye, but if he doesn't then fair enough, as Lee said, the wide appeal of some of the newer comics does allow an actual 'alternative' to exist.
True. You can't have one without the other.
That'd be my only gripe with Lee, just ignore McIntyre, because if you don't it makes it hard for me to ignore him. But I have to say I fully agree with calling the Mail out on their massive leaps and complete inventions.
If that's what his routines consist of I'll stick to Michael McIntyre.
Such a sad sight... Another individual that can't divorce the notion of formulaicity (yes, might be made up but it should make a bit of sense) from stand-up.
Fair play to Lee for finding the time to write such an intelligent rebuttal in between doing 100/105 charity gigs a year.