Hacker News Reader

Comment by prateekj | Hacker News Reader

"Getting a joke to work best often requires A/B testing" - So true! We all do that in real life without realizing it.

Deleted comment

In this case I think it means "trying out versions that isn't your optimal estimate a priori". If I were a comedian, I probably wouldn't dare do that, I would live for each performance and try to do each one optimally. Although I've heard from my comedian friends that to get really good, you need to bomb once in a while.

Most of the time comedians are performing at open mics. Unless you're in LA or NYC, this will be in front of the same people every time (other comics who are notoriously difficult to make laugh) and maybe 1 or 2 "civilians" (non-comedians). This is the place to experiment. You can think of it as a code kata or a prototype or something. It always sucks to bomb, but it's better to do in front of a few peers than a crowd of 300 civilians. Plus, no harm done, you have another chance tomorrow. It's not like you screwed up a system in production. The open mics are where you practice and figure out what works and what doesn't and what can work better.

Once you figure that out, then you go to booked shows (shows where you are specifically selected to perform) in front of big audiences like at the Improv or the Comedy Store. This is where you use your best jokes. But you can't know your best jokes before you try them out. You never know if something will be funny until you try it.

These are the fuzzy rules. Some people use improvisation at booked shows and some people perform the same jokes over and over again at open mics without experimenting but I'd say this is the standard path to take.

> This is the place to experiment. You can think of it as a code kata or a prototype or something. It always sucks to bomb, but it's better to do in front of a few peers than a crowd of 300 civilians. Plus, no harm done, you have another chance tomorrow.

True, but becoming less true in these days of ubiquitous high-res cameraphones. Used to be that if you tried out some risky or potentially offensive new material in front of ten drunks, the worst-case scenario was that you pissed off the ten drunks. Now you have to worry about pissing off the whole world, because any one of the ten drunks can record you and upload the video to YouTube for the world to see. Which makes it harder to "A/B test" new material than it used to be.

Yep, that's a valid concern, especially if you're already famous. (As far as I know) that was never an issue to me. It's good to be the peasant.

I don't know of a solution to this. No one wants to hear the same jokes for a decade. To get new "best stuff" you have to experiment. When you experiment, it may not be funny/ready. And with today's technology, it can be recorded at any time.

Here, our ground-rules were recently posted. https://www.facebook.com/notes/seattle-clown-jam/clown-jam-g.... This is one potential model where performers can do challenging things in an environment that allows mistakes.

Similarly, we have a Circus Open Mic in Seattle (https://www.facebook.com/events/533760116677373/) where ground rules are that admission is free and open to the public but it's generally a supportive and in-community audience. We've had comedians, magicians, aerialists, acrobats, jugglers, extremely weird people, clowns, and strip history lessons.

I present both of these as ideas for ways to develop and grow without being subject to eternal Google search indexing and YouTubing by random civilians. I think both of these seem to come down to controlling the venue and rules. If you experiment in a bar or club, you're in the wild.

We do these in theatres, black boxes, and dance/performance spaces. This allows us to control the door.

We solve this problem in Clown Jam by essentially just being audience for each other. It's open to anyone who wants to come practice but no one is a "civilian" and there are reasonable person ground rules about posting pictures and video.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com