Norm Macdonald

Norm Macdonald is my favourite comedian.  Norm has the greatest talent for delivery of any comedian... "... it says here on this card."

His talent seems to be almost 100% just his comedic timing and delivery.  The content of what he says is almost meaningless.  He often uses old standard jokes from other comedians, or just tells long, pointless anecdotes, but is able to make them funny.  In this sense he's the purest comedian there ever was.

For me, what engrosses me most about studying Norm Macdonald's career is that I want to understand why he's so underappreciated.  Despite his evident brilliance he's never had a consistent, successful starring vehicle.  Here's a chart graphing each episode of TV and TV talk-show appearance he's made:

(I'm missing data for Dennis Miller Live and any radio appearances:)

Source: epguides.com

Source: Google Trends

His best chance for a long-running TV gig might have been the Late Late Show, which he's been up for several times:

http://splitsider.com/2014/05/could-norm-macdonald-really-pull-off-being-cbss-next-late-night-star/

One of the most brilliant comics in the world deserves a consistent TV gig!  Fortunately he's been putting on the brilliant Norm Macdonald Live on YouTube, but the production values are low and the audience is about a tenth of what it would be if it was on a major network.

In the late-night universe, there are TWO kinds of comedy:

• NBC: straight, obsequious: Leno, Fallon, Meyers
• CBS: offbeat, crazy, stream of consciousness, awkward: Letterman, Ferguson

Conan was the oddball being on NBC, and that's why eventually he had to be let go and moved over to TBS.

Norm definitely fits into the second category.

Norm has never been on Fallon's or Meyers' shows, and had been on Leno just a few times.  In contrast, he's one of Letterman and O'Brien's favourite guests:

Source: epguides.com

At this point in Norm's career, it seems unlikely he'll be given a coveted network talk show position.  This is a tragedy.  But it's also understandable from a business perspective: he's independent and uncontrollable.  He has shown again and again to be unwilling to take feedback or criticism from network executives.  However, I think he rightly understands that the foundation of his comedy is that rebellious streak, and if he ever neutered himself, he wouldn't be funny, and therefore it would be pointless for him to give in.  After all, a huge part of his comedy is doing or saying outrageous things that make everyone uncomfortable.

In fact, I'd argue that the quality of his comedy increased after his firing from SNL.  He's said to Conan that he's been "worn down by years of failure" whereas Conan has known "only success".  He's right, and I think Norm has come to realize this has only made him a better comedian.  In the early 1990s he had a smarmy cockiness that did not serve his comedy well.  Now that he's more bitter or just doesn't care about looking good or seeming "cool" anymore, his comedy is more raw, and more real.  Basically, his 1998 firing, and later setbacks, made Norm humble, and more real, and even funnier.

I'd be okay if he settled into a comfortable pattern of 2-3 network talk show appearances per year, a 13-episode season of Norm Macdonald Live, and then going out on the road doing standup for the balance of the year.  He's done that for the past two years, and if he keeps that up for the next five I'd be happy for him.  Still, the brilliance of Sports Show with Norm Macdonald, which was cancelled after just 8 episodes in 2011, shows how much more he could do if given the chance.  The show pulled in about 1 million viewers a week, but that was about 25% too little for Comedy Central to keep the show going.

Still, unlike standups who enjoy having a rigourous schedule of shows like Leno or Seinfeld (likely because they get to travel in private jets), Norm would likely prefer not to have to be subjected to a brutal road schedule each year.  On 9 Feb 1996 on Letterman, using an anecdote from early in his career about a show "outside of Red Deer, Alberta", he mentioned how much he dislikes the standup  road schedule:

Another option might be if someone took him on as a permanent sidekick.  Conan is the obvious choice here, but of course he already has the excellent but far less ascerbic Andy Richter.  Andy has a sweetness about him that Norm completely lacks.  Norm's favourite thing to do is to utterly eviscerate someone with comedy, and then sarcastically say "naw, you're a great guy".  Despite their differences, both Andy and Norm work great as Conan's sidekick.

Questions for Norm

Having compiled a lot of data on Norm Macdonald, I have a few questions for him.  Maybe someday I'll get an answer.

Question 1: The Lost Conan Years

You were on Conan 12 times from 1995-97, ending with the infamous Courtney Thorne-Smith appearance.  But then other than once in 1999 to promote Norm Show, once in 2003 to promote a Minute with Stan Hooper, you didn't appear on Conan's show again until 2009, during his Tonight Show days, when he fought to get you on the show 3 times despite you having nothing to promote except local comedy appearances:

“Macdonald became a frequent guest on The Tonight Show With Conan O’Brien during its 2009 and 2010 run. Norm was among the first guests on O’Brien’s Tonight Show, and appeared also during the show’s final week. Initially, The Tonight Show faced network opposition to bringing Norm on so early in the show’s run, and Norm having nothing but local stand-up appearances to promote on-air. Despite this, O’Brien’s insistence prevailed and Norm’s first and subsequent appearances were highlights of O’Brien’s brief Tonight Show run.”

— Wikipedia

Source: epguides.com

So, why didn't you appear on Conan's show more in the years 1998-2009?  Were you blacklisted on NBC during that time because you publicly spoke out against Don Olmeyer on Letterman, on 7 Jan 1998?  You did appear on Leno in 2003, 2005, and 2008, though.

Was it because you lived in LA?  Was it because from 1995-97, it was convenient for you to drop in on Conan since you were in the building anyway for SNL?  Or was it because at the time Conan was starting out and couldn't find "big name" guests?  That doesn't make sense because Letterman had you on 4 times in 1998.

Question 2: The Lost Homeless Man Joke

What is the ending to this joke you started about the homeless man on Letterman, 21 May 1996?

Also, what's the story about why Letterman wouldn't let you finish the story?  You were clearly on good terms with him he had you on the show 10 times from 1996-1998.

Question 3: Your Late Thirties

What did you do in your late 30s?  (2001-2003).  Your son was young (8-11), were you raising him?  You had a 2.5 year gap between the end of the Norm Show and A Minute with Stan Hooper where you had no mass-media appearances.

Question 4: Personal Life

When did you get married, when did you get divorced?  Are you currently seeing anyone?  Did you raise your son, or did your wife?  From what it appears in recent appearances and tweets, you seem close with your son.

Question 5: Vices

Do you still smoke?  You used to smoke, when did you quit?  How bad of a smoker were you?

You say you've only drank 3 times in your life, but people have commented on reviews of your standup that you sometimes seem incoherent and slurred in your speech.  Are you taking drugs of some kind?  You gave some drugs to Roseanne Barr when she appeared on Norm MacDonald Live, is that because you take them regularily?

Question 6: Carrot Top

What does Carrot Top think of the classic moment you had on Conan on 15 May 1997?

Here are some further resources on this wonderful comedian:

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2zh2bd/norm_macdonalds_logic_story_on_conan/

Great article on the infamous Carrot Top interview from 15 May 1997:
https://thedissolve.com/features/one-and-done/617-carrot-top-got-to-star-in-a-movie-once/

On Norm Macdonald, the Greatest Talk Show Guest Ever

http://splitsider.com/2011/03/on-norm-macdonald-the-greatest-talk-show-guest-ever/

Norm MacDonald Live reviews:
http://www.ifc.com/fix/2013/03/norm-macdonald-live-review
http://www.straight.com/arts/739776/comedian-norm-macdonald-plays-it-unsafe
"His producers were toying with the idea of charging two bucks per program, but Macdonald is a man of the people. He thinks the idea is “ridiculous”. Ditto soliciting donations “like you’re a communist or something”. So it will remain free for all."

“They wanted young guys, so they got this guy from The Big Bang Theory,” he says of actor Simon Helberg. “He was nice enough but completely uninteresting. And then no one watched it! Like, no one cared. My idea was to get guys as old as possible, like before they died. Because I find those old guys will say anything because they’re not in show business anymore.”

2010 Norm Onion A.V. club interview
http://www.avclub.com/article/norm-macdonald-54380

SNL norm as letterman:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/96/96nletterman.phtml

Norm on Anti-Comedy
http://thecomicscomic.com/2014/05/12/norm-macdonald-neither-anti-comic-nor-comics-comic-simply-a-comic/

First appearance on Letterman, 9 May 1990:

An anecdote Norm told in August 2014 after Robin Williams' death about what happened after that appearance first appearance:
http://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/robin-williams-norm-macdonald-david-letterman-twitter/223940

Thanks to epguides.com for Norm's talk show appearance information dating back into the 1990s.

Here's a link to the underlying data used for the charts in this post.

Robot companions

It has been found that horses alone in their stalls are often comforted by the presence of a mirror, since they perceive there to be another horse with them that is very much like them, in appearance and temperament.  Humans are not so easily fooled, but in the future we may have an analogous option available in the form of robot mates.  It seems that our future mates may be "mirrors" of ourselves, in the guise of AI companions that speak to us and/or that embody robots that are tailored to share our interests, to laugh at our jokes, and to give us just the right amount of disagreement that we won't so they don't seem annoyingly sycophantic.  With robot bodies of sufficient verisimilitude, it seems possible for them to be able to cross the uncanny valley and for us even to be sexually attracted to their forms, who have the further advantages of remaining forever young and healthy.  So, our descendants, unless they carry the banner of Ludd, will pair off with robots instead of with each other.  Reproduction can still take place via artificial insemination.

Many today might find this picture of the future dystopian.  But think of how many features of our modern world - such as drones, surveillance, childhood obesity, spam - that might seem dystopian to an audience from years past.  Perhaps this will seem completely normal to us by the time it becomes possible.

John Lennon vs. Paul McCartney: A Quantitative Analysis

A friendly debate has long raged between Beatles fans on the subject of which of the Fab Four was the better songwriter, John Lennon or Paul McCartney.  I decided to try to find an objective answer this question by using quantitative techniques.

Background

The Beatles, of course, had four members, John Lennon, and Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr.  From 1963 to 1970 they released 210 songs, of which 185 were released on their 14 studio albums, with the balance (2010 – 185 = 25) released but not as part of an album.

Of the four members, Lennon and McCartney were the most prolific songwriters.  The two agreed to officially share credit as “Lennon/McCartney” on all songs either of them authored as part of the Beatles, but through various secondary sources such as interviews we know that many of the songs were not collaborations and instead were written principally by one or the other.  In fact, across the 210 songs in the Beatles discography, 72 were written principally by Lennon and 70 principally by McCartney.  A further 18 songs attributed to Lennon/McCartney (e.g. “Wait”) were written in genuine collaboration and not principally by one or the other.

I obtained the above information on authorship of Beatles songs from fan Per Myrsten’s Beatles Discography.

Approach

I decided to cross-reference the song authors with a ranking of the Beatles’ songs.  Rankings are available from the crowd-sourced ranking site ranker.com as well as from professional critics at Rolling Stone Magazine.  Of the two I decided to use the ranker.com rankings.

To scrape the rankings from the webpage I wrote a Python script that uses a scraping library from Leonard Richardson called Beautiful Soup.  Click here for the source code of my scraping code.

I then set up an Excel spreadsheet with the rankings and the author of the song on one tab, and the cumulative songs for each other and rank of the second.  The formula for Column B is =COUNTIF($I:$I, "<="&$A3) and the formula for column D is =B3/SUM($B3:$C3) (at least on the first row).

Here are the first 20 rows:

	Cumulative Songs		Proportion of Cumulative Songs
Top X	Lennon	McCartney	Lennon	McCartney
1	0	1	0%	100%
2	0	1	0%	100%
3	1	1	50%	50%
4	1	2	33%	67%
5	1	2	33%	67%
6	1	3	25%	75%
7	2	3	40%	60%
8	2	3	40%	60%
9	2	4	33%	67%
10	2	4	33%	67%
11	3	4	43%	57%
12	3	4	43%	57%
13	3	4	43%	57%
14	4	4	50%	50%
15	5	4	56%	44%
16	6	4	60%	40%
17	7	4	64%	36%
18	8	4	67%	33%
19	8	5	62%	38%
20	9	5	64%	36%

Then I charted columns D and E:

Conclusions

Notice that since McCartney wrote the top-ranked Lennon or McCartney song (Hey Jude) at the #1 rank he has 100% of the songs.  The second-ranked song is Strawberry Fields Forever, by Lennon, so of the top 2 songs, so McCartney’s share has dropped to 50%.

McCartney actually has 67% of the top 10 McCartney / Lennon songs.  But by the time we get to the top 20 songs, it is Lennon who is ahead, with 64% of the songs.  Lennon appears to have authored more of the bottom-ranked songs, so McCartney did author a higher-than-50% share of the middle-ranked songs.

These figures leave the final answer of who was better undecided.  It appears that both men were quite evenly matched.  This seems to validate the conclusion of many fans that both men were very nearly equally talented.

It would be interesting to perform this same analysis using the Rolling Stone rankings.  If anyone does this, please let me know in the comments.

History is written by the historians

History doesn't get written by the victors, it gets written by the historians.  So it is possible to significantly influence people's understanding of history simply  by being the one who records it.  I often am probably the only one who has written of a party attended by people, and so 50 years from now my record will be the only thing anyone knows of the event.  In a sense by caring enough to write it down, I have elevated the historical importance of my perspective on the event, since mine is the only perspective people will see.

History tends to be thought of as the chronicle of very large, important events, like the battle of hastings or world war II.  But for individual people, the history of their own lives, their immediate ancestors, or the neighbourhood in which they live can be even more fascinating and also useful to future planning.

How Some Groups Can Fail

It's fascinating how groups of people who are all friendly people, who all want the same thing and don't even disagree about what is to be accomplished, can end up accomplishing nothing and even bitter and angry at one another!  In my experience, this happens when people err in one of two ways:

1.       One or more individuals do not respect the boundaries of their commitments, committing and then not following through on that commitment.  Notice that is perfectly okay to not commit to something, if you are busy, etc., but the problem comes when a commitment to have something done is made and then the deadline passes without any acknowledgement or conversation about fixing it.

2.       There are unspoken differences in assumptions about who is to be working on what.

Now, (1) is likely a general problem in that individual's life.  The harder, more complex problem is (2), since it is a problem of group dynamics.  What can allow (2) to happen is if one person makes themselves unavailable, i.e. will not respond to calls or emails.

The job of a leader is essentially to resolve these two issues.  If a group lacks a strong leader, these two issues can fester and cause bitterness and resentment, as well as the failure of the original goal of the group.