Did not vote; could not choose.
So the only way to win this thread is not to post?
Carlin. Vastly prefer Carlin’s brand of humor, which is not surprising since my sense of humor is very similar to his. He made the same kind of cutting sarcastic observational comments I do. I actually liked him better when he was “old and bitter.” I only really discovered him in the late 90s, but went back and found some of his older stuff later. He had the same style back then, but with much less of an edge. I like the edge.
Carlin has HBO specials for years. I always looked forward to them. They were different thematically, and always funny. He was a great, thoughtful comedian for many ,many years. His body of work is far ahead of Pryor.
That was Carlin’s MO. He worked on material for the HBO special all year. When the special was over, he would chuck the old material and start working for next year’s special.
I voted Carlin because I am simply more familiar with his work and I greatly enjoyed it. I liked the Pryor I’ve seen, but not enough to actively seek it out.
Bingo. Carlin knew the language so well, he could use it as he pleased to elicit laughs. His timing was perfect; and coupled with his knowledge of language, he could always get me to laugh.
Pryor, on the other hand, not so much. Oh, he was good; that should not be in doubt. But Pryor just didn’t have the command of the language that Carlin did, and it was how Carlin used the language that worked for me.
Carlin seemed to me to be a much more studied comedian - meaning his act was planned out to the letter, well rehearsed, and his intonation and delivery was always very practiced, almost like a one-man play.
Pryor was a lot looser, more of an ad-lib storyteller, which I’ve never really been a big fan of - Pryor, Cosby, Robert Klein, etc. The only “anecdotal” sort of comic I’ve ever liked has been Billy Connelly.
And frankly, a lot of Pryor’s material falls flat to me because it involves a cultural experience that I just never understood until I was older - being raised in a rural, whitebread town, I never got the point of a lot of his bits, and every time I hear Pryor use the n-word, it turns me off even more.
This is actually the problem for me. If it sounds planned out, I get annoyed. His patter was just too pat. He might as well have been reading off cue cards.
Then you get guys like Eddie Izzard who have their acts scripted out and rehearsed completely, but still sound like they’re speaking extemporaneously. That appeals to me far more.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I prefer the well rehearsed bit over the meandering bit with a diminishing payoff any day - and Carlin certainly could make some of his stuff sound like he was just riffing. “Seven Words” comes to mind, as does the bit about “all kids are special” on one of his more recent albums.
But Eddie Izzard? He has a mushmouthed delivery, very weak timing, and seems entirely too pleased with himself when he delivers a punchline - IMO.
I didn’t used to like George Carlin all that much but then I saw “It’s Bad For Ya”; Funniest stand-up I’ve ever seen.
Yep.
I concur.
If you think Pryor’s humor was all about the swearing, you weren’t listening. The swearing was just his idiom - the jokes were a whole other thing entirely.
“Well, that’s a pretty blue…”
Yeah, no worries. De gustibus and all that. I’m not trying to say I’m right and you’re wrong.
I come from a (basically) white, small town/rural background and I guess I was just born with a wild hair. I never thought the kid who stuck the straw up his nose was funny. But the kid who pulled it out and then sucked on it cracked me up.
I have some friends doing stand-up and we have this type of conversation frequently. To me, most stand-ups are foremost writers - they work on clever statements, observations, turns of phrase. When it comes to delivery, they work on timing, mostly, but are essentially “telling” you the story or joke. Louis C.K. is an example.
Carlin was primarily a writer, but he had a vocal style that elevated his delivery above just the “telling”, so there was some performance element. But the reason so many people can remember and repeat his material is in the writing.
Pryor, however, was an actor, in addition to a unique observer. He could make a story about something simple and mundane into a funny bit with vocal inflection, facial expressions, and body movement. To me this is better. It adds a lot of dimensions to the comedy performance.
There are really very few comics who do this, it’s surprisingly rare. Back when Jim Carrey was doing stand-up he brought a lot of it - and, like him or not, look where he ended up.
Carlin and Pryor - while both comic geniuses - practiced very different types of standup. If you accept the premise that each is at the head of his respective class, which most do, then the discussion really comes down to which type of comedy you prefer.
With that said, I don’t think anyone or anything has consistently made me laugh over the years as much as Carlin has.
mmm
Incredibly funny stuff, even the early Pryor material is quite good. Carlin gets points for being so prolific, but he never made me laugh as hard, as loud, or for as long as Pryor.
Carlin, definitely. Pure genius. I can remember exactly one bit by Pryor (“Snakes make you run into trees…”), but I can quote a lot of Carlin’ stuff.
As several others have commented, it’s Carlin’s command of language and the fact that his style of humour is so much like mine that make me like him so much.
Yeah, saying something clever about pointless things isn’t that hard. Even occasionally saying something really clever.
But candidly showing all your failings and pain and weaknesses in a way that is both entertaining and life-changing; that’s something almost nobody can do.
Of course, **silenus **sums it up in a way that I think that Pryor himself would be proud of :
I voted for a 3rd opinion because it really depended on which bit each was performing. Both Carlin and Pryor made me laugh out loud at times and both had moments where I just shrugged my shoulders and said ‘meh’.