Tell you what though, I'm a bit worried about series two. Like a regular band who put all the songs they've been hawking around for years on their debut album and then suddenly have to come up with all new ones for the follow-up, in series two they'll have to . . . well, they'll have to do what I just said there. Although that is why series two has been delayed until the new year, so perhaps it'll be OK.

Yeah, if they'd made it in the UK they'd have squeezed two series out of that first season.

I expected good songs punctuated by half-arsed filler before I watched it properly, Mumpo, but stick with it - it's pretty gentle, but with the accumulative compulsion that that, at its best, brings.

Thinking about musical comedy, perhaps some forms are just more of a gift than others. French 60s pop is full of audio tickles (those perky bossa nova rhythms; whatever those squeezy, voice-like instruments are on Serge Gainsbourg's "Bonnie And Clyde" ) and linguistic confusion. Dancehall reggae means trying to boast about your over-the-top macho prowess using a monster voice, while ridiculously bolshy rhythms contort your body in unfamiliar ways. (I'm sure the Conchords have only heard Shaggy's "Boombastic" and passing car soundsystems, but Boom is great, even though it doesn't sound like any real dancehall music.) Funk is perfect: loverman low vox and falsettos; intricate rhythms doing something you can neither fathom nor escape down below. With all those, I think you're ultimately laughing at the extremely silliness of being human: why should acting and dancing so daftly make us feel so good?

Having said that, I recently watched some old Fast Shows, and I think Jazz Club only works because they obviously know their shit. I would never have guessed it had any basis in reality ten years ago, and just laughed at the silliness; now that I recognise a lot of what they're taking off, it works as parody too. But I don't think you'd get such precision if you thought jazz was just wank; you'd miss your marks. I think hip hop's similar.

That actually is a straight parody of jazz, though.

I'm talking about musical comedy in general there, not that rhymeceratops song, so it doesn't matter.

My conclusion is: hip hop and jazz don't work in musical comedy (whether as parody or stand-alone comedy work) unless the executors really know their shit. And I haven't got a fucking clue why.

QUOTE:
I'm talking about musical comedy in general there, not that rhymeceratops song, so it doesn't matter.

It does, because Hiplodocus is supposed to be the characters' approximation of hip-hop, whereas Jazz Club is a straight parody. They're both musical comedy but have that key difference. Rhymociraptor would be diminished if McKenzie and Clement displayed an indepth mastery of the genre. All their "parodies" are rough, because they're not really parodies at all.

Yes, but I'M TALKING ABOUT MUSICAL COMEDY IN GENERAL THERE - whether as parody or stand-alone comedy work - AND NOT THAT RHYMECERATOPS SONG.

So it doesn't matter. You could attempt a character's approximation of jazz, or a parody of jazz, and if you didn't really know your shit it wouldn't work. Same goes for hip hop - but not for French 60s pop, funk or dancehall.

QUOTE:
You could attempt a character's approximation of jazz, or a parody of jazz, and if you didn't really know your shit it wouldn't work. Same goes for hip hop

Sorry, I don't know what this is based on, and I can't see how you're getting round the point about Conchords and Jazz Club being fundamentally different types of musical comedy.

OK, let's use specific examples. The Conchords don't know shit about dancehall reggae, and they don't know shit about hip hop. Their dancehall and hip hop songs are both character-based comedy rather than parody. The hip hop one isn't funny but the dancehall one is. This suggests that non-initiates can make a funny dancehall song, but not a funny hip hop song.

QUOTE:
The hip hop one isn't funny but the dancehall one is.

That's not argument, that's bare assertion!

(I don't like Boom! so much - it's a bit one-paced. The lyrics hardly have any jokes and the music doesn't develop.)

Of course it's bare assertion! You can't be funny in theory but not in fact!

I know hip hop and dancehall well enough that bad comedy versions should be equally unpalatable to me. Yet I love their dancehall one and dislike their hip hop one. The point I'm ultimately making us, your comedy rules don't work in practice.

QUOTE:
The point I'm ultimately making us, your comedy rules don't work.

<speechless with shock and upset>

Jesus, I'm not even remotely having a go, just wondering out loud why certain forms of music seem better suited to comedy than others. What an odd response.

They were filming some new Flight of the Conchords stuff in my street a few weeks back.

QUOTE:
Jesus, I'm not even remotely having a go, just wondering out loud why certain forms of music seem better suited to comedy than others. What an odd response.

Oh, sorry, I thought I was playing along with a gag there. Er, to get back on track, I don't think bare assertion is inevitable at all. I think there are specific reasons why Rhymnoceros works and Boom! doesn't. I'm not looking to impose general rules - I thought you were doing that.

The Horse wrote:

QUOTE:
Tell you what though, I'm a bit worried about series two. Like a regular band who put all the songs they've been hawking around for years on their debut album and then suddenly have to come up with all new ones for the follow-up, in series two they'll have to . . . well, they'll have to do what I just said there. Although that is why series two has been delayed until the new year, so perhaps it'll be OK.

My prediction is that I'll love it and you'll think it's rubbish.

I'm with the Horse on Boom as well; for my money, it works less well.

So where does that lave yer?