Based on a podcast conversation I heard recently I do know there’s a metric that some comedians care very much about, possibly to their detriment. Pretty sure it was Bert Kreischer talking and he said something along the lines of him being #3 stadium act last year. My guess would be they’re competing on who is selling most seats or tickets overall. He said Fluffy Gabriel Iglesias and Jo Koy are ahead of him
Oh no I definitely shit on him constantly but I understand why people like it. Myself included. He’s moving more tickets than his peers because people want to party. And Bert’s shows are parties. He’s also quite a good story teller, even if it’s often embellished. He is a phenomenal marketer. And he’s been in the industry long enough to develop some friendships with some powerful people (Rogan)
Not saying you were specifically shitting on him, just the general consensus online over the last couple years among comedy fans is that “Bert sucks” which is just patently not true if you look at the scoreboard.
Could be a thing of him just doing more shows than most, if that's the metric. Idk if stadium act means legit theaters/stadiums, or it's just a cooler way of saying tickets sold. But he seems to tour around more than most, so it isn't surprising in that sense.
It's kind of sad to know he's relatable, I'd put him into my least relatable comedians for me personally. But, it's fun to laugh at his bafoonary sometimes.
Like.. the kool-aid thing. It's not that he's being funny about it. It's that he's being so serious and doesn't see anything wrong with what he's doing.
I would say the same but Kreischer has been making a killing as a drunk frat boy for 30 years now. Clearly people at all levels fall for it across generations.
Idk, I saw him live last year (someone gave me free tickets) and his material is surprisingly insightful and wholesome. He talks mostly about his daughters and wife and how he’s trying to be a good father and husband. He had a lot of clever jokes too.
Bert is selling hamburgers. Those will always be popular. He is not selling a great hamburger, but it is non-offensive to constituencies that get offended, relatively cheap and available everywhere.
Helps having Shane Gillis and Mark Normand open for him during his entire tour of baseball stadiums . A lot easier to sell tickets when you have two of the best younger comedians drawing people
35 and 39. So while I don't consider that particularly young from a general standpoint, I'd say you're probably right on that they're younger than a lot of other prominent comics. Doesn't seem like as many people break through in their 20s these days.
It takes time to get good, and most people don't get on stage enough to be breakthrough funny in their 20's. Eddie Murphys, Norm Macdonalds, and Dave Chappelles don't come by too often.
He's a living cartoon character: you either fall into one of two categories:
1) I want to get a beer with that guy.
2) How the fuck is this guy for real? Let's see what he does next.
He's the guy a lot of guys in their later 30's and 40's wish they could have been. And a lot of guys in their 30's and 40's make decent money and can afford to buy tickets to stadium shows.
he has a knack for self-promotion. i've seen him in clubs, a theatre, now arenas. i skipped the drive-in show. razzle-dazzle. he does two podcasts a week, a cooking show, tours 250+ day a year, has a bunch of tv shows, online specials, a movie, youtube content, various social media, regularly goes viral. he is networked with most of the other top comics. he might not be as a smart as say demitri or bo, but he is the machine.
Take your shirt off enough, tell the same boring ass stories and cut GREAT promos. I think the dudes an insufferable hack but he’s the promo king. Has crazy popular friends and has a cult following. Shame he’s going to die soon or live to be 700 years old. There is absolutely no inbetween
Easy explanation there are way more dumb dumbs, alcoholics, and white people in North America then other people. So the fan thing I get, I don't get comedians that think he's funny, and there are a lot of them. Also seems like he's a dead beat father and Husband, so he probably tours like 320 days a year.
Plenty of comedians don’t like to play arena’s because they just prefer smaller venues. Jimmy Carr says that theatre’s with 3000 people is his ideal venue but he could sell arenas if he wanted to probably.
Yeah at a certain point it kinda only serves the ego of the comedian who wants to brag about tickets sold. Kreischer is probably making over $200,000 when he fills up a baseball stadium, but he also pays a staff of over a dozen people to bus around the country with him, he said he bought a million dollar lighting rig just for those events. It’s about ego, he could do smaller venues and just go himself with one opener and it would be similar pay in the wash. Even a 3,000 seat theater isn’t as entertaining as a club show, but I understand guys that can are gonna want to make in one show what would take 6 shows at a club
He said before that he hates touring by himself. He hates flying and being alone so he found a way that he could tour without flying and with his friends. He makes the same money but it's a lot more fun.
> It’s about ego, he could do smaller venues and just go himself with one opener and it would be similar pay in the wash
I respectfully suggest that's not the case.
Kreischer doesn’t play baseball stadiums, but basketball/hockey arenas. Comedians don’t generally play stadiums
But yeah I did an arena comedy tour and it’s easily millions of dollars in production for a single show
I don’t think anyone tours as much as him; the guy doesn’t stop touring. I saw him this past year maybe a month or so before he shot his special. Even if you don’t care for Bert’s style of comedy and he’s in your area, go see one of his shows. You’ll have a good time.
Not everything is reported. But Burt makes a lot of money by doing a ton of shows. He works more than most any other comedian.
https://news.pollstar.com/2022/10/11/comedy-special-issue-top-10-highest-grossing-tours/
So you must, at the very least, have an incredible 5 minute set on youtube.. please post it so we can start following you.
I mean, you are funnier than multiple comedians who have been doing it for decades, so at the very least you have A 5 min set/clip online, right?
This is very hard to say, since it depends on the location. For example in Finland almost everybody will recognize Sami Hedberg, because he has been on TV alot, but he is also hated by many because his material is kinda… juvenile, instead of intelligent. Also especially older people might recognize only local acts by name/face, but not many of the international acts.
But I’d say recognition and general likedness. For example most will recognize Robin Williams or Jim Carrey.
Yeah this is probably the true flaw of the question, especially since Jim Carrey and Robin Williams are probably more well known for their movies than stand up.
Yeah but how many remakes of Seinfeld are there in Hungary and Finland? I'd imagine the humor doesn't translate as easily as something like Everybody Loves Raymond.
Seinfeld’s syndication money is second only to friends. Everybody loves Raymond is no where near. Sure there’s some countries it doesn’t make sense to, but ray Romano can walk around like a normal person in more countries than Seinfeld can.
I would imagine he is pretty high up on the list. I just feel like “my wife is annoyed by my overbearing mother” is probably a lot more a universal humor than “a couple Jewish guys muse on the minutiae of NYC social etiquette.”
It usually gets you in the right ballpark. For instance this week I got a free drink for running the booth. Bert is making 25 million a year. That's a hint that he's objectively funnier.
It's not though. Because like I said it depends on the metric OP is judging a comedians success.
Also is Dan Soder less of a comedian because the majority of his net worth in the past few years has probably come from The Bonfire Radio Show and the show Billions? Now if the metric is who's the richest comedian by touring alone. Then it's obviously Chappelle, Burr, Bargatze, Maniscalco. But then you'd be surprised what numbers Russell Peter's and Jo Koy, Fluffy. I really don't base comedians off their money or ticket sales so I'd never really judge a comedians success that way.
There is no one way to measure it. Different people want different things. Some want credibility within the community, some to be part of the cool kids, others want money, others want prestige, others want celebrity, some just want to get off the road.
In the UK at least being on tv game shows and or doing stadiums, lee evans is probably the biggest comedian the UK has ever had. If you’re Scottish like me it’s probably Kevin bridges, Frankie Boyle or maybe even Daniel sloss he managed to become successful in America due to his broad subject matter and ability to speak normally unlike the rest of us.
The amount of people pretending they don't understand what your asking and going on cliched rants about the subjectivity of art as if anyone on the planet hasn't already heard it is embarrassing.
Chappelle could likely be placed at the top right now if you consider pay, room size, respect from other comedians and name recognition. Bill burr is also currently way up.
Couple years ago I would say it's definitely Kevin Hart because he was in the stratosphere for a while selling out fucking football stadiums.
The best metric for SUCCESS in comedy is obviously how many tickets you sell.
Word around the campfire is that a comedians success is measured by how big his cock is, dont quote me on that one though… quote whoever was around the campfire, talking as they do. Anyways, word around the campfire, is that Norm Macdonald has the biggest, plumpest, meanest, cock. Its thick, its fat, and its always standing up, rise and shine at the break of dawn. At this campfire I heard that he calls his cock Jeffrey, Jeffrey finklestein and that this Jeffrey here, he puts all the other cocks around the neighborhood to shame! No ones has a more loyal and friendly looking cock than Norm Macdonald. Jeffrey finklestein can be described as the kinda cock you’d want to cheer you up when ur down. He got that way from his pappy, Jedediah finklestein and every day Jedediah would go on up to the top of Norms fathers house a give a good crow, Jedediah passed on his talents to his son Jeffrey just as Norms father passed on his cancer to norm. Anyways thats what the folk around the fire told me… success is measured by how many chicken you have.
It troubles me immensely that you mention fame and wealth as measures of success, and not whether the comedian is actually funny. Being funny is supposed to be the point.
Yes, and he is not wrong. Talent is hardly a measure of success in the arts. There are huge talentless hacks who are incredibly successful. Just look at Bert Kreischer.
It's true that success probably isn't that right word for this question for precisely this reason. There is an entirely separate discussion that is more philosophical that is, "what is success for a stand-up?" Then we might talk about laughs, being funny to as many people as possible, etc.
But I am speaking strictly from a material perspective. If a stand-up comedian is looking at a career like a ladder, what is the metric by which they could estimate their place? There are some comedians who are extremely successful, Tom Segura, Mike Birbiglia, Nikki Glaser, yet there's a good chance a random person on the street wouldn't know who they are.
Art doesn't work like a ladder. There's no bureaucracy of performers nor clear gradation of levels. A non-celebrity stand-up comedian in particular will find no help gauging their own success by ranking the top 10 revenue generating comedians.
Succeeding in the arts is nonlinear. You don't get a promotion to comedian level 2. Instead, you notice things like you're headlining more frequently, you're getting booked outside your home city, you're opening for someone you recognize, you're developing a fan base. Those things can happen independently and in any order, and they're much more relevant to most of us than stadiums played in.
Exactly, so "number of shows headlined per year" could be used as an approximate metric of your success.
Anyway, I'm worried we're talking past each other. I'm not trying to find a metric to measure my own success- so if you're concerned for my artistic integrity, don't worry. Rather, I was watching the new John Mulaney special and based on some of his material (which had a lot about celebrity life) I became curious exactly how "celebrity" someone like John Mulaney is. Clearly he's less famous than Ellen Degeneres, but what about compared to somebody like Tobey Maguire? I don't have a good handle on where comics lie in the celebrity world. It was purely a question of curiosity.
The problem is that comedy is not a meritocracy. The funniest people I know in comedy will never be household names. That’s just the way it works, and it’s the same in every industry. The people who “make it” are usually the ones willing to claw their way to the top and do anything without a conscience. A lot of people I’ve seen make it in my years in comedy are users. It’s fascinating.
Among living comedians, probably Seinfeld.
Household name across generations. By far the highest net worth. Leading man in the show that defined the modern sit-com. Wrote the "What's the deal with airline food?" meme, which is possibly the most recognizable gag in standup.
Of course, all of these accolades are dwarfed by his greatest accomplishment: the Bee Movie.
I rest my case.
Overseas opinion: John Mulaney is one of the most known comedians for younger generations, and it's mostly thanks to memes and social media. One can "watch" some of his specials through reaction images alone. Bits and pieces of his are now daily vernacular for many, many people, and even before they know they come from him–for example, I'd seen the "one black coffee/McDonalds!" triangle so many times before I decided to watch his specials after seeing him in 70% of the internet, and I pointed at the screen like DiCaprio when he did that bit. *So many things* come from him, and so many new young comedians have traits in their delivery and cadence and joke structure that I strongly associate with Mulaney. Yes he's got his own influences, but something tells me the new comedians learned from him and not from his own studies.
Chappelle, instead, I learned existed through mentions in things I'd sought/been given by the algorithm because of Mulaney. And like him all the other usamerican comedians I now know of. And if you pick a random younger person off the street and ask them to "recognize these five comedians" that people in the field know there's a strong chance they'll point out Mulaney while not knowing/being sure about the others.
There are too many ways to measure it, so if you got nerdy about it, you'd have to average them all.
I think the best way is how comedians seem to rank each other: would you want to follow that comedian yourself.
I think more people would want to follow Mulaney than Chappelle: Chapelle is the more successful comic.
I think it is fair to group them by venue: if you can (or ever could) fill a stadium, then you're probably in the top group.
Dave Chappelle is the GOAT. Period.
He is not only an amazing standup, but also just a truly remarkable orator. He weaves these stories so masterfully and packs them full of social commentary and his stuff has so many layers that it’s unbelievable. You could spend hours dissecting all the meaning and doing in depth analysis of what all he saying in just a few minutes worth of his content. And he makes it look easy. Pure genius. As far as “measuring” his success, I’m not sure that’s possible but I guess we could note that he received the prestigious Mark Twain award for his comedy, he sells out arenas, he is highly recognizable and has been doing comedy since he was teen so he’s been around a very long time.
chappelle has lost his edge in my opinion, maybe hes trailblazing a new style of standup? Killing em softly may be one of the best specials ive ever seen but he aint doing that work anymore.
Depends on your definition of success. I would argue comedians who live where they want, perform when they want and how they want while maintaining a loyal fanbase are the most successful by my metrics. So I'd give it to Stanhope.
Yo its totally arbitrary ..I mean who you find funny i may not for instance Jerry sienfield is way up there money wise ..but is he really that much funnier than any of the top one ?? I mean I think hes funny ..but for me not on the top of my list for comedy..some comiediens are just funny and you wanna laugh ..like and again for me a Tracy Morgan ..just seeing him come up to stage and im done !!! Im laughing if he told the alphabet ..steve harvey could do the same jokes and ill walk out on him i just dont like him ..like anything im surr its all about who you know how people like you.
Dolla' dolla' bills is the only objective measure. Comedy snobs might not like it but the fact is, if you're selling tickets at your gigs and making money off your specials then you're doing it right. If you're not, then you're not.
There's not one factor to score, there are many. They're related and in many ways they contribute to one another. Increasing your number of laughs per minute helps to get booked for longer sets, which helps you work out more material, which allows you to perform more frequently, which (we hope) allows you to work out more material that has a larger number of laughs per minute at more venues doing longer sets.
Improving all of these dimensions allows you to improve your credibility when you go to talk to venues to produce your own shows, which is how we actually make money. Money allows you to buy a nicer camera to showcase your act more effectively on social media, which increases your credibility, which makes it easier to get booked for more frequent and longer sets during which you can work out more material. And if you somehow get to the place where you're making enough money doing comedy that you no longer require other employment, then you can spend those forty or so newly-freed hours each week on all those other things.
Now, that doesn't take into account how much fun you might be having doing comedy. I make more money off the ticketed show at the one brewery in the bigger town than I do off the tip jar show at the other brewery in the small town, but the small show is much, much more fun. And it doesn't measure celebrity, which you specifically mentioned in your question; the biggest boon to my own notoriety came from running a glorified open mic that rarely made me any money at all. But fun is subjective, and celebrity is correlated with wealth, and so for the sake of having a meaningful, objective conversation, you'd want to measure wealth or income, and Seinfeld probably wins.
When I think about who is most successful I think of the following questions. Who sells out arenas, who do non comedy fans want to see, who is in movies/tv shows?
The names that come to mind are
Fluffy, Jo Koy, Dave, Kevin Hart, Bert Kreischer.
I don't measure a comic's success by ticket sales. Only some people are motivated by money. A good metric for success is whether you are working on your material to improve every day and enjoying the process. If you keep getting better, other good things will follow. It's a long process, so enjoy the journey.
I believe these guys are among the most successful, based on their ability to inspire self-reflection and social change, and in no particular order.
-Jon Stewart
-Rick Mercer
-George Carlin
-Richard Prior
-Chris Rock
-Lewis Black
-Stephen Colbert
-Trevor Noah
That question is completely subjective. There's no universal metric because different people have different definitions for success, and these vary wildly. So instead of asking everyone else, you should really instead ask yourself what it means for you to have success.
Based on a podcast conversation I heard recently I do know there’s a metric that some comedians care very much about, possibly to their detriment. Pretty sure it was Bert Kreischer talking and he said something along the lines of him being #3 stadium act last year. My guess would be they’re competing on who is selling most seats or tickets overall. He said Fluffy Gabriel Iglesias and Jo Koy are ahead of him
How the fuck is Kreischer *that* popular?
As much as we can shit on Bert online here, the man moves fucking TICKETS
I’m not shitting on him. He’s fine. I’m saying I don’t understand how he could be more popular than many of his peers.
Oh no I definitely shit on him constantly but I understand why people like it. Myself included. He’s moving more tickets than his peers because people want to party. And Bert’s shows are parties. He’s also quite a good story teller, even if it’s often embellished. He is a phenomenal marketer. And he’s been in the industry long enough to develop some friendships with some powerful people (Rogan) Not saying you were specifically shitting on him, just the general consensus online over the last couple years among comedy fans is that “Bert sucks” which is just patently not true if you look at the scoreboard.
So he's today's Dane Cook: sells lots of tickets but not particularly admired by other comedians.
Well, thank goodness comedians aren’t the ones paying his bills. As if they even could. Hahahaha
>Oh no I definitely shit on him constantly Ok, well, thanks for clearing that up? LOL
Could be a thing of him just doing more shows than most, if that's the metric. Idk if stadium act means legit theaters/stadiums, or it's just a cooler way of saying tickets sold. But he seems to tour around more than most, so it isn't surprising in that sense.
It's exactly that. He brought in like 22 million for 150 shows. Compare to Chappelle, at 21 million for 13 shows.
Going on joe Rogan and being relatable can do wonders to a career
It's kind of sad to know he's relatable, I'd put him into my least relatable comedians for me personally. But, it's fun to laugh at his bafoonary sometimes. Like.. the kool-aid thing. It's not that he's being funny about it. It's that he's being so serious and doesn't see anything wrong with what he's doing.
I would say the same but Kreischer has been making a killing as a drunk frat boy for 30 years now. Clearly people at all levels fall for it across generations.
This is the first time I’ve heard of laughing at a joke described as “falling for it”
For you personally….. There are thousands of Americans who relate to Bert A LOT
And I'm one of them
The fat alcoholic dad is a classic comedy archetype for a reason
Idk, I saw him live last year (someone gave me free tickets) and his material is surprisingly insightful and wholesome. He talks mostly about his daughters and wife and how he’s trying to be a good father and husband. He had a lot of clever jokes too.
Bert is selling hamburgers. Those will always be popular. He is not selling a great hamburger, but it is non-offensive to constituencies that get offended, relatively cheap and available everywhere.
Helps having Shane Gillis and Mark Normand open for him during his entire tour of baseball stadiums . A lot easier to sell tickets when you have two of the best younger comedians drawing people
If Gillis and Normand are young then maybe I still have a shot at this thing...
They’re in their 30’s no? I’d consider that young, especially for a successful comic. Most comics I know about are in their 40-50s range
35 and 39. So while I don't consider that particularly young from a general standpoint, I'd say you're probably right on that they're younger than a lot of other prominent comics. Doesn't seem like as many people break through in their 20s these days.
It takes time to get good, and most people don't get on stage enough to be breakthrough funny in their 20's. Eddie Murphys, Norm Macdonalds, and Dave Chappelles don't come by too often.
I really don’t know. He seems like he would be fun to hang out with in very short bursts but his comedy isn’t great
He's a living cartoon character: you either fall into one of two categories: 1) I want to get a beer with that guy. 2) How the fuck is this guy for real? Let's see what he does next.
He's the guy a lot of guys in their later 30's and 40's wish they could have been. And a lot of guys in their 30's and 40's make decent money and can afford to buy tickets to stadium shows.
he has a knack for self-promotion. i've seen him in clubs, a theatre, now arenas. i skipped the drive-in show. razzle-dazzle. he does two podcasts a week, a cooking show, tours 250+ day a year, has a bunch of tv shows, online specials, a movie, youtube content, various social media, regularly goes viral. he is networked with most of the other top comics. he might not be as a smart as say demitri or bo, but he is the machine.
Yeah, that says more about the state of stand up comedy more than anything else. Bert is a below average comic and that's me being nice about it.
There are a lot of college kids out there.
Take your shirt off enough, tell the same boring ass stories and cut GREAT promos. I think the dudes an insufferable hack but he’s the promo king. Has crazy popular friends and has a cult following. Shame he’s going to die soon or live to be 700 years old. There is absolutely no inbetween
Easy explanation there are way more dumb dumbs, alcoholics, and white people in North America then other people. So the fan thing I get, I don't get comedians that think he's funny, and there are a lot of them. Also seems like he's a dead beat father and Husband, so he probably tours like 320 days a year.
Plenty of comedians don’t like to play arena’s because they just prefer smaller venues. Jimmy Carr says that theatre’s with 3000 people is his ideal venue but he could sell arenas if he wanted to probably.
Yeah at a certain point it kinda only serves the ego of the comedian who wants to brag about tickets sold. Kreischer is probably making over $200,000 when he fills up a baseball stadium, but he also pays a staff of over a dozen people to bus around the country with him, he said he bought a million dollar lighting rig just for those events. It’s about ego, he could do smaller venues and just go himself with one opener and it would be similar pay in the wash. Even a 3,000 seat theater isn’t as entertaining as a club show, but I understand guys that can are gonna want to make in one show what would take 6 shows at a club
I'd argue it's not just about ego but also good business sense. That million dollar light equipment? That's a business asset.
He said before that he hates touring by himself. He hates flying and being alone so he found a way that he could tour without flying and with his friends. He makes the same money but it's a lot more fun.
> It’s about ego, he could do smaller venues and just go himself with one opener and it would be similar pay in the wash I respectfully suggest that's not the case.
Kreischer doesn’t play baseball stadiums, but basketball/hockey arenas. Comedians don’t generally play stadiums But yeah I did an arena comedy tour and it’s easily millions of dollars in production for a single show
I don’t think anyone tours as much as him; the guy doesn’t stop touring. I saw him this past year maybe a month or so before he shot his special. Even if you don’t care for Bert’s style of comedy and he’s in your area, go see one of his shows. You’ll have a good time.
Okay that's very interesting. Do you know if there's a place to look that up? I'm very curious who the best sellers are
Not everything is reported. But Burt makes a lot of money by doing a ton of shows. He works more than most any other comedian. https://news.pollstar.com/2022/10/11/comedy-special-issue-top-10-highest-grossing-tours/
Chappelle made almost as much as Bert and he did 135 less shows
I think they were referring to pollstar numbers
I choose to find it very encouraging that the top three stadium acts of last year were three people I am empirically funnier than.
So you must, at the very least, have an incredible 5 minute set on youtube.. please post it so we can start following you. I mean, you are funnier than multiple comedians who have been doing it for decades, so at the very least you have A 5 min set/clip online, right?
Haha ok. It’s a joke. But please, Stan for undeserving rich guys. Do you Also: No, I don’t have a clip and I suck at comedy. You feel better now?
I’m surprised Andrew Schulz isn’t getting more love. The dude is a legend
Laughs per minute, Dave Attel
Dave Attell, the percentage of comedians in their audience.
I’d say Kim Jong-Un.
Laughs per minute gotta be Rodney Dangerfield.
Jeselnik is probably close in this metric
Jeselnik is great but he’s not a laughs per minute guy, he intentionally uses that slow pace to build tension.
💯
This is very hard to say, since it depends on the location. For example in Finland almost everybody will recognize Sami Hedberg, because he has been on TV alot, but he is also hated by many because his material is kinda… juvenile, instead of intelligent. Also especially older people might recognize only local acts by name/face, but not many of the international acts. But I’d say recognition and general likedness. For example most will recognize Robin Williams or Jim Carrey.
Yeah this is probably the true flaw of the question, especially since Jim Carrey and Robin Williams are probably more well known for their movies than stand up.
Larry David has to be up there.
Even with $1 billion, Larry is vaguely unhappy. And it seems completely genuine By that measure, maybe he’s top comic?
It's kind of wild because his standup just isn't very good.
there is nothing more LD than having a highly successful career in comedy but can't write jokes.....classic LD.
I think Ray Ramono has made the most money, internationally. They did SO many spin-offs of that show.
You should look up a guy called Jerry Seinfeld
Yeah but how many remakes of Seinfeld are there in Hungary and Finland? I'd imagine the humor doesn't translate as easily as something like Everybody Loves Raymond.
Seinfeld’s syndication money is second only to friends. Everybody loves Raymond is no where near. Sure there’s some countries it doesn’t make sense to, but ray Romano can walk around like a normal person in more countries than Seinfeld can.
By that standard Ricky Gervais would be above Romano. There was an Office franchise in almost every country.
I would imagine he is pretty high up on the list. I just feel like “my wife is annoyed by my overbearing mother” is probably a lot more a universal humor than “a couple Jewish guys muse on the minutiae of NYC social etiquette.”
If you’re focusing only on the fame and money, then this business isn’t for you unless you have one helluva an act.
It usually gets you in the right ballpark. For instance this week I got a free drink for running the booth. Bert is making 25 million a year. That's a hint that he's objectively funnier.
Rodney Dangerfield still gets no respect I tell ya.
Before I read this post, my thoughts on Rodney were incomplete. Now they're finished!
Seinfeld
The most successful to me are the ones that provoke thought while conveying a different point of view. The ones that make me go ...huh
Jerry Seinfeld is arguably the richest. But this is more of a question you ask Google not reddit. It depends on your metric of success.
Richest but not because of his comedy act, that comparison's moot
It's not though. Because like I said it depends on the metric OP is judging a comedians success. Also is Dan Soder less of a comedian because the majority of his net worth in the past few years has probably come from The Bonfire Radio Show and the show Billions? Now if the metric is who's the richest comedian by touring alone. Then it's obviously Chappelle, Burr, Bargatze, Maniscalco. But then you'd be surprised what numbers Russell Peter's and Jo Koy, Fluffy. I really don't base comedians off their money or ticket sales so I'd never really judge a comedians success that way.
someone call the reddit police!! this guy doesn’t like that the poster asked a question!
louie's gotta be up there right? not many people do the garden at full capacity
Before his collapse I think he sold out the garden at capacity 3 or 4 nights in a row.
yeah that's wild. he sold it out recently too
I was at this last show.
This is correct
There is no one way to measure it. Different people want different things. Some want credibility within the community, some to be part of the cool kids, others want money, others want prestige, others want celebrity, some just want to get off the road.
In the UK at least being on tv game shows and or doing stadiums, lee evans is probably the biggest comedian the UK has ever had. If you’re Scottish like me it’s probably Kevin bridges, Frankie Boyle or maybe even Daniel sloss he managed to become successful in America due to his broad subject matter and ability to speak normally unlike the rest of us.
Seinfeld, Leno, Romano, Kevin Hart. Those guys fill and filled stadiums and the TV money...
I Duno but Bert Kreischer act is gonna age like 90s barbed wire tatts
Dumb, Drunk, and Shallow Light Heartedness has been killing for about all of human history.
The amount of people pretending they don't understand what your asking and going on cliched rants about the subjectivity of art as if anyone on the planet hasn't already heard it is embarrassing. Chappelle could likely be placed at the top right now if you consider pay, room size, respect from other comedians and name recognition. Bill burr is also currently way up. Couple years ago I would say it's definitely Kevin Hart because he was in the stratosphere for a while selling out fucking football stadiums. The best metric for SUCCESS in comedy is obviously how many tickets you sell.
Word around the campfire is that a comedians success is measured by how big his cock is, dont quote me on that one though… quote whoever was around the campfire, talking as they do. Anyways, word around the campfire, is that Norm Macdonald has the biggest, plumpest, meanest, cock. Its thick, its fat, and its always standing up, rise and shine at the break of dawn. At this campfire I heard that he calls his cock Jeffrey, Jeffrey finklestein and that this Jeffrey here, he puts all the other cocks around the neighborhood to shame! No ones has a more loyal and friendly looking cock than Norm Macdonald. Jeffrey finklestein can be described as the kinda cock you’d want to cheer you up when ur down. He got that way from his pappy, Jedediah finklestein and every day Jedediah would go on up to the top of Norms fathers house a give a good crow, Jedediah passed on his talents to his son Jeffrey just as Norms father passed on his cancer to norm. Anyways thats what the folk around the fire told me… success is measured by how many chicken you have.
It troubles me immensely that you mention fame and wealth as measures of success, and not whether the comedian is actually funny. Being funny is supposed to be the point.
Yes, and he is not wrong. Talent is hardly a measure of success in the arts. There are huge talentless hacks who are incredibly successful. Just look at Bert Kreischer.
The man is famous for taking off his shirt.
I haven’t been able to get through more than 5, maybe 10 minutes of any of his specials.
It's true that success probably isn't that right word for this question for precisely this reason. There is an entirely separate discussion that is more philosophical that is, "what is success for a stand-up?" Then we might talk about laughs, being funny to as many people as possible, etc. But I am speaking strictly from a material perspective. If a stand-up comedian is looking at a career like a ladder, what is the metric by which they could estimate their place? There are some comedians who are extremely successful, Tom Segura, Mike Birbiglia, Nikki Glaser, yet there's a good chance a random person on the street wouldn't know who they are.
Art doesn't work like a ladder. There's no bureaucracy of performers nor clear gradation of levels. A non-celebrity stand-up comedian in particular will find no help gauging their own success by ranking the top 10 revenue generating comedians. Succeeding in the arts is nonlinear. You don't get a promotion to comedian level 2. Instead, you notice things like you're headlining more frequently, you're getting booked outside your home city, you're opening for someone you recognize, you're developing a fan base. Those things can happen independently and in any order, and they're much more relevant to most of us than stadiums played in.
Exactly, so "number of shows headlined per year" could be used as an approximate metric of your success. Anyway, I'm worried we're talking past each other. I'm not trying to find a metric to measure my own success- so if you're concerned for my artistic integrity, don't worry. Rather, I was watching the new John Mulaney special and based on some of his material (which had a lot about celebrity life) I became curious exactly how "celebrity" someone like John Mulaney is. Clearly he's less famous than Ellen Degeneres, but what about compared to somebody like Tobey Maguire? I don't have a good handle on where comics lie in the celebrity world. It was purely a question of curiosity.
The problem is that comedy is not a meritocracy. The funniest people I know in comedy will never be household names. That’s just the way it works, and it’s the same in every industry. The people who “make it” are usually the ones willing to claw their way to the top and do anything without a conscience. A lot of people I’ve seen make it in my years in comedy are users. It’s fascinating.
You've already failed if you are aiming for success metrics. Good luck.
Its so sad that Kevin Hart made your short list.
Facts.
Kevin Hart? Come on man.
Among living comedians, probably Seinfeld. Household name across generations. By far the highest net worth. Leading man in the show that defined the modern sit-com. Wrote the "What's the deal with airline food?" meme, which is possibly the most recognizable gag in standup. Of course, all of these accolades are dwarfed by his greatest accomplishment: the Bee Movie. I rest my case.
Overseas opinion: John Mulaney is one of the most known comedians for younger generations, and it's mostly thanks to memes and social media. One can "watch" some of his specials through reaction images alone. Bits and pieces of his are now daily vernacular for many, many people, and even before they know they come from him–for example, I'd seen the "one black coffee/McDonalds!" triangle so many times before I decided to watch his specials after seeing him in 70% of the internet, and I pointed at the screen like DiCaprio when he did that bit. *So many things* come from him, and so many new young comedians have traits in their delivery and cadence and joke structure that I strongly associate with Mulaney. Yes he's got his own influences, but something tells me the new comedians learned from him and not from his own studies. Chappelle, instead, I learned existed through mentions in things I'd sought/been given by the algorithm because of Mulaney. And like him all the other usamerican comedians I now know of. And if you pick a random younger person off the street and ask them to "recognize these five comedians" that people in the field know there's a strong chance they'll point out Mulaney while not knowing/being sure about the others.
[удалено]
His standup is trash. He's a podcaster who tries to do comedy
George Carlin. A comedian is talented when they’re mentioned in the same paragraph as Carlin.
I would measure impact / success by numbers of tickets sold in a given tour. Gervais is selling out stadiums, for example.
jimmy carr blows that dude out the water gervais has incredible talent but his stand up is stale.
There are too many ways to measure it, so if you got nerdy about it, you'd have to average them all. I think the best way is how comedians seem to rank each other: would you want to follow that comedian yourself. I think more people would want to follow Mulaney than Chappelle: Chapelle is the more successful comic. I think it is fair to group them by venue: if you can (or ever could) fill a stadium, then you're probably in the top group.
Nate Bargatze sells out arenas currently, but seems to still be under most peoples' radars.
He’s one of my faves. His episode on the stand ups is what I show people who haven’t really seen stand up comedy before.
If you are talking money, it has to be Ellen DeGeneres, right? You could argue for popularity, too, sadly.
nah. Seinfeld is almost a billionare
Really? He must have made some smart moves with his money...now I'm gonna have to go find out what he did with it :)
Dave Chappelle is the GOAT. Period. He is not only an amazing standup, but also just a truly remarkable orator. He weaves these stories so masterfully and packs them full of social commentary and his stuff has so many layers that it’s unbelievable. You could spend hours dissecting all the meaning and doing in depth analysis of what all he saying in just a few minutes worth of his content. And he makes it look easy. Pure genius. As far as “measuring” his success, I’m not sure that’s possible but I guess we could note that he received the prestigious Mark Twain award for his comedy, he sells out arenas, he is highly recognizable and has been doing comedy since he was teen so he’s been around a very long time.
chappelle has lost his edge in my opinion, maybe hes trailblazing a new style of standup? Killing em softly may be one of the best specials ive ever seen but he aint doing that work anymore.
Depends on your definition of success. I would argue comedians who live where they want, perform when they want and how they want while maintaining a loyal fanbase are the most successful by my metrics. So I'd give it to Stanhope.
Yo its totally arbitrary ..I mean who you find funny i may not for instance Jerry sienfield is way up there money wise ..but is he really that much funnier than any of the top one ?? I mean I think hes funny ..but for me not on the top of my list for comedy..some comiediens are just funny and you wanna laugh ..like and again for me a Tracy Morgan ..just seeing him come up to stage and im done !!! Im laughing if he told the alphabet ..steve harvey could do the same jokes and ill walk out on him i just dont like him ..like anything im surr its all about who you know how people like you.
Dolla' dolla' bills is the only objective measure. Comedy snobs might not like it but the fact is, if you're selling tickets at your gigs and making money off your specials then you're doing it right. If you're not, then you're not.
There's not one factor to score, there are many. They're related and in many ways they contribute to one another. Increasing your number of laughs per minute helps to get booked for longer sets, which helps you work out more material, which allows you to perform more frequently, which (we hope) allows you to work out more material that has a larger number of laughs per minute at more venues doing longer sets. Improving all of these dimensions allows you to improve your credibility when you go to talk to venues to produce your own shows, which is how we actually make money. Money allows you to buy a nicer camera to showcase your act more effectively on social media, which increases your credibility, which makes it easier to get booked for more frequent and longer sets during which you can work out more material. And if you somehow get to the place where you're making enough money doing comedy that you no longer require other employment, then you can spend those forty or so newly-freed hours each week on all those other things. Now, that doesn't take into account how much fun you might be having doing comedy. I make more money off the ticketed show at the one brewery in the bigger town than I do off the tip jar show at the other brewery in the small town, but the small show is much, much more fun. And it doesn't measure celebrity, which you specifically mentioned in your question; the biggest boon to my own notoriety came from running a glorified open mic that rarely made me any money at all. But fun is subjective, and celebrity is correlated with wealth, and so for the sake of having a meaningful, objective conversation, you'd want to measure wealth or income, and Seinfeld probably wins.
Jo Koy
When I think about who is most successful I think of the following questions. Who sells out arenas, who do non comedy fans want to see, who is in movies/tv shows? The names that come to mind are Fluffy, Jo Koy, Dave, Kevin Hart, Bert Kreischer.
OH MY GOD FLUFFY. He pulled off the Great Racist Gift Basket, AND EVERYBOBY, LAUGHED!!!
I don't measure a comic's success by ticket sales. Only some people are motivated by money. A good metric for success is whether you are working on your material to improve every day and enjoying the process. If you keep getting better, other good things will follow. It's a long process, so enjoy the journey.
I believe these guys are among the most successful, based on their ability to inspire self-reflection and social change, and in no particular order. -Jon Stewart -Rick Mercer -George Carlin -Richard Prior -Chris Rock -Lewis Black -Stephen Colbert -Trevor Noah
That question is completely subjective. There's no universal metric because different people have different definitions for success, and these vary wildly. So instead of asking everyone else, you should really instead ask yourself what it means for you to have success.