6 ms·

Lessons from Dave Chappelle

74 points by zwieback 6y ago

thraway12 6y ago
My goodness. This is professional writing? The organization is terrible. The intro paragraph is about the blog, not the headline. The second paragraph is ponderous and useless: Chappelle = extraordinary. Seriously: that's a four line paragraph that's basically an emoji with a higher word count. The third paragraph is more of the same. Get to the point! I basically checked out when I got to the topic sentence for point 3: "What is noteworthy about Chappelle’s argument is that he is quite ready to admit that everyone involved is acting legally." You can just hear the annoying Grammarly ad woman saying "this is sentence IS grammatically correct . . . " (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH8CWdy-_2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH8CWdy-_2A)
- nashashmi 6y ago
  I just watched the clips. Dave is awesome. Article is saying that he lays out the reason for owning the streaming rights.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    He walked away from the show which presumably triggered a breach of contract. What happened to the rights may not be so clear.
    - toyg 6y ago
      Nah, it’s more likely that the contract was a Work For Hire setup, so the network owns the IP. His point about getting paid only as long as he was working there seems to indicate that. He doesn’t get royalties and he can’t touch the characters. I’ve long said WFH in the arts has to die, but last time I wrote it in a HN thread I was accused to be a communist terrorist out to destroy the American way of life...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- codemac 6y ago
  Yes, this writer desperately needs to read and consider the masterpiece: "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace".
  - cutenewt 6y ago
    Stratechery surfaces some interesting insights from time-to-time. But yes, the author's writing style consistently comes across as overly pedantic.
- JeremyBanks 6y ago
  Yes, this is professional writing, which a lot of people pay for, because they appreciate his frequently very-insightful analysis. The intro paragraph is basically an ad because the free articles drive subscriptions for the paid ones. If you can't get past that, move on.
  - thraway12 6y ago
    >"if you can't get past that, move on." What a nonsense attempt to shut down valid criticism. If you can't "get past" the fact that Hacker News enables comments, move on. >"The intro paragraph is basically an ad because the free articles drive subscriptions for the paid ones" He uses ", though," four separate times in a single post. Is that by design, because it's a free article?
ilamont 6y ago
Aggregators (even weak ones like Netflix), are inherently a better bet for the individual creator than middlemen like the networks ever were. On Netflix, every show is equally accessible relative to every other show; there is no fighting for prime time slots or seasons. It’s the same dynamic on Google or Facebook: all content is treated the same ... Really? Netflix is not a content meritocracy, and neither are Google, Facebook, Amazon, Spotify, or any other Internet-based media distribution service. In Netflix's case, there may be some personalization when people are scrolling through the home screen or search, but I suspect these algorithms strongly favor certain studios and releases (including its own) and home screen placement is a valuable negotiating tool in Sarandos' arsenal. That's where the fighting takes place, and individual creators are at a distinct disadvantage in this arena.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  This just reminded me of my own experience with the app stores. If Google or Apple put you on one of their "top whatever" lists, it's an incredible difference in number of downloads. It's not even comparable to word of mouth or third party advertising for your app. That "front page" real estate is gold.
nooyurrsdey 6y ago
I can't fault Dave Chapellle for being angry at the emotional fatigue they've made him endure. I can't be mad that he wants his money either. However comedy has one rule - you can say anything you want as long as it's funny. You can literally spout anything, just make sure the audience is laughing while you're doing it. I just spent 18 minutes watching a therapy session with minimal jokes. I would have thought someone as clever as Chapelle would have weaved a better narrative (although he is a talented storyteller). I hope he gets what he's looking for, I really do. But I'm also annoyed with the recent trend of comedians just...complaining. Complaining constantly, with slightly more anger than humor. Bill Burr dedicated 20 mins of his recent standup to how "sensitive" the modern generation is. Seinfeld's entire "Comedians in Cars" has numerous bits about him just complaining without being funny while doing it. Sebastian Maniscalco's earlier specieals were relatable humor, and now his recent bits are just slightly angrier versions of "can you believe people these days"? And now I just watched what seemed like a semi coherent rant that wouldn't end.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  I think the fact that so many comedians are complaining should be seen as a huge early warning sign. They're canaries in coal mines.
  - colpabar 6y ago
    A warning sign of what?
    - sporkologist 6y ago
      Less-funny people complaining
- touisteur 6y ago
  Ricky Gervais gave a mocking lesson-giving turn on this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dxMGzt5mU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dxMGzt5mU , and I think there's comedy in their twitter/social-media reach that we don't get to experience. They are on the other side of the firehose, and their experience doesn't relate to ours. It really must be demoralising to see how frail our ears have become. Or have always been? I mean listening to some Carlin's stand-up can be a bit hard for younger generations (I sometimes wince) and some of his jokes might not be tell-able today... Especially not at work. Or on the bus. Or on the street. Or in front of your mum. Or that friend that doesn't want to hear /some/ words (and you know the words)... Well OK you might still want to tell the joke without believing any of its content. Except, someone might be recording. Filming. OK so no more racist/sexist/transphobe/fatshaming/flatearthmocking jokes. I deeply regret the validation we give to 'just transgression without humor' humor when we rage about it. The best solution to bad jokes is just no one laughing. Silence is a powerful motivator for a comedian to improve... And the people you want to reach are the ones laughing, not the ones making the joke. And making them feel horrible about a laugh they had might not be the way to reach social justice.
throwaway201606 6y ago
[ edited to address a ton of grammatical and formatting mistakes ] Lots of comments about how Dave Chapelle presents his position and the context in which he presents his position. The emotion quality of it all. The is very little commentary about the core message of his rant - and Ben's comments. Truth told, it should not be surprising. The issues at hand are emotional ones about morals, justice and doing the right thing. They are difficult issue to tackle and require taking subjective positions. They do not lend themselves to a logical, intellectual and quantitative data-driven dissection. He does however makes an excellent point from moral, social and justice-based perspective. He is holding media distribution companies at-large to account, and he is doing it from a qualitative perspective. I suspect we will see more and more of this happening in the corporate world. Whether companies have, or will acquire, the capacity and fortitude to tackle these issues is now up to them. The idea that profit cannot be the primary and only motive. Those that do will likely find it a rewarding approach in the long run. What Dave is doing here is linking 'qualitative' issues to 'quantitative' results (money) in a very specific and effective way by, in his words "getting between a man and his paper".
- comeondude 6y ago
  Interesting ... I think it’s just a matter of respect. We have the ability to shape and build any system we want. I’ve worked in the arts and people running the system don’t give a shit about the human factor, it’s like a machine run amok. Maybe it’s a matter of not being greedy and trusting that there’s enough to go around. Decision makers have conscious choice to figure out how to make things better for everybody. A tale as old as humanity.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  I think there are also some points brought up by Chapelle that deserve quantitative legal scrutiny. Coercion can invalidate a contract. Also, contracts that are extremely one sided can be legally challenged or that require no consideration from one of the parties. Additionally, contracts based on false information can be invalidated. If I'm starving and I sign a contract to pay all of my future earnings for a plate of food, no court is going to hold up that contract. Obviously, the methods used by these big companies are a higher and more complex level of coercion. But I think they deserve some scrutiny in this regard.
zuhayeer 6y ago
“I’m coming to my real boss, I’m coming to you”
ortusdux 6y ago
I still cannot get over the fact that Chappelle workshopped some bits on his most recent SNL opening monologue.
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
The entertainment industry is notorious for not paying 'The Artist' their due. And in many cases, they can get away with owning the artist because the artists are typically approached when they are very young and have not developed acumen for business. In many cases, artists even hired business managers to look out for them, and those persons simply took another share and ensured that The Artist had plenty of sex, drugs and rock 'n roll so they'd feel they were being successful while everyone else made the money. The primary lever, as I understand it, is that the production company, whether it be movies, music or comedy would tally up all the expenses related to the production and then require that those expenses be paid back, with profit, before The Artist got more than enough to live on. Then, they'd inflate the expenses in any number of creative ways so that in most cases, their accountants could show that the production was a net loss, even when box office and record sales were excellent. It's a highly exploitative 'monster' and Chapelle is not the only one taking them on. Kanye West has also gotten to work on the record industry [0]. I wonder if sports has a similar problem. Young, talented persons enabling huge industries... it seems that it's ripe for exploitation as well. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/kanye-west-universal-masters-war-1064225/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/kanye-west-univers...
- toyg 6y ago
  > wonder if sports has a similar problem. Not as much, because those careers have an expiration date and there is no real reselling value in performances after the first broadcast (with very rare exceptions). Players' agents make a large cut (and it's historically increasing) out of signed contracts, but the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the actual athletes (who then proceed to squander it, typically, since they often come from unprivileged background with no familiarity with long-term wealth management). There is some distortion (agents are more interested in brokering newer and larger contracts than renewing on same terms year after year, regardless of how settled the player is) but it's not really exploitation. This said, South American and African football are plagued by "third-party ownership" arrangements: investment companies literally buy footballers when young and then take massive cuts from any contract they sign, in perpetuity, in exchange for promotion and rights management. The governing body FIFA has officially banned the practice, but it remains widespread in the poorest regions like Africa.
toyg 6y ago
Damn, Dave, did you spend all that sweet Netflix money already...? /s More seriously: artist screwed out of the money his art attracts - it must be a Monday! A few years before Chappelle signed The Contract, Courtney Hole had already “done the math” in a famous piece [0]. She wasn’t even the first - Steve Albini had gone on record (eh) in 1993 [1]. There are many more examples from previous decades, both in music, cinema, TV, novels, comic books... these are just the first ones that spring to mind. The commonality being: established producers and distributors exist precisely to squeeze every once of value out of one’s art, and pay it the bare minimum they can get away with it. My bet is that Netflix will soon be like that too, there is no intrinsic reason they won’t (once they become as utterly dominant as tv networks were). But I think (I hope) the real beef here is not about the money, but rather the name and characters. He cannot call anything “The Dave Chapelle’s Show” and he cannot touch those characters. He’s done plenty of work with his name on since then (“DC’s Bloc Party”, his comedy specials...), so maybe it’s just the characters he’s after? And what about “I’ll just take it”, is it a threat to reprise those characters and dare the network to sue him...? [0] https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ [1] https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music
- caseyf7 6y ago
  That Courtney Love article is a must-read. Another good take on this is the Jared Leto documentary about his band.
teleforce 6y ago
This is a very interesting lessons on how the internet changed the many lives of talents creating contents. For the perspective of former entertainment lawyer on Chappelle's contract situation please check this video: https://youtu.be/dl7T_vV3dkY https://youtu.be/dl7T_vV3dkY

74 points by zwieback 6y ago

My goodness. This is professional writing? The organization is terrible. The intro paragraph is about the blog, not the headline. The second paragraph is ponderous and useless: Chappelle = extraordinary. Seriously: that's a four line paragraph that's basically an emoji with a higher word count. The third paragraph is more of the same. Get to the point! I basically checked out when I got to the topic sentence for point 3: "What is noteworthy about Chappelle’s argument is that he is quite ready to admit that everyone involved is acting legally." You can just hear the annoying Grammarly ad woman saying "this is sentence IS grammatically correct . . . " (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH8CWdy-_2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH8CWdy-_2A)

nashashmi 6y ago
I just watched the clips. Dave is awesome. Article is saying that he lays out the reason for owning the streaming rights.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  He walked away from the show which presumably triggered a breach of contract. What happened to the rights may not be so clear.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Nah, it’s more likely that the contract was a Work For Hire setup, so the network owns the IP. His point about getting paid only as long as he was working there seems to indicate that. He doesn’t get royalties and he can’t touch the characters. I’ve long said WFH in the arts has to die, but last time I wrote it in a HN thread I was accused to be a communist terrorist out to destroy the American way of life...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
codemac 6y ago
Yes, this writer desperately needs to read and consider the masterpiece: "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace".
- cutenewt 6y ago
  Stratechery surfaces some interesting insights from time-to-time. But yes, the author's writing style consistently comes across as overly pedantic.
JeremyBanks 6y ago
Yes, this is professional writing, which a lot of people pay for, because they appreciate his frequently very-insightful analysis. The intro paragraph is basically an ad because the free articles drive subscriptions for the paid ones. If you can't get past that, move on.
- thraway12 6y ago
  >"if you can't get past that, move on." What a nonsense attempt to shut down valid criticism. If you can't "get past" the fact that Hacker News enables comments, move on. >"The intro paragraph is basically an ad because the free articles drive subscriptions for the paid ones" He uses ", though," four separate times in a single post. Is that by design, because it's a free article?

ilamont 6y ago

Aggregators (even weak ones like Netflix), are inherently a better bet for the individual creator than middlemen like the networks ever were. On Netflix, every show is equally accessible relative to every other show; there is no fighting for prime time slots or seasons. It’s the same dynamic on Google or Facebook: all content is treated the same ... Really? Netflix is not a content meritocracy, and neither are Google, Facebook, Amazon, Spotify, or any other Internet-based media distribution service. In Netflix's case, there may be some personalization when people are scrolling through the home screen or search, but I suspect these algorithms strongly favor certain studios and releases (including its own) and home screen placement is a valuable negotiating tool in Sarandos' arsenal. That's where the fighting takes place, and individual creators are at a distinct disadvantage in this arena.

Consultant32452 6y ago
This just reminded me of my own experience with the app stores. If Google or Apple put you on one of their "top whatever" lists, it's an incredible difference in number of downloads. It's not even comparable to word of mouth or third party advertising for your app. That "front page" real estate is gold.

nooyurrsdey 6y ago

I can't fault Dave Chapellle for being angry at the emotional fatigue they've made him endure. I can't be mad that he wants his money either. However comedy has one rule - you can say anything you want as long as it's funny. You can literally spout anything, just make sure the audience is laughing while you're doing it. I just spent 18 minutes watching a therapy session with minimal jokes. I would have thought someone as clever as Chapelle would have weaved a better narrative (although he is a talented storyteller). I hope he gets what he's looking for, I really do. But I'm also annoyed with the recent trend of comedians just...complaining. Complaining constantly, with slightly more anger than humor. Bill Burr dedicated 20 mins of his recent standup to how "sensitive" the modern generation is. Seinfeld's entire "Comedians in Cars" has numerous bits about him just complaining without being funny while doing it. Sebastian Maniscalco's earlier specieals were relatable humor, and now his recent bits are just slightly angrier versions of "can you believe people these days"? And now I just watched what seemed like a semi coherent rant that wouldn't end.

fartcannon 6y ago
I think the fact that so many comedians are complaining should be seen as a huge early warning sign. They're canaries in coal mines.
- colpabar 6y ago
  A warning sign of what?
  - sporkologist 6y ago
    Less-funny people complaining
touisteur 6y ago
Ricky Gervais gave a mocking lesson-giving turn on this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dxMGzt5mU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dxMGzt5mU , and I think there's comedy in their twitter/social-media reach that we don't get to experience. They are on the other side of the firehose, and their experience doesn't relate to ours. It really must be demoralising to see how frail our ears have become. Or have always been? I mean listening to some Carlin's stand-up can be a bit hard for younger generations (I sometimes wince) and some of his jokes might not be tell-able today... Especially not at work. Or on the bus. Or on the street. Or in front of your mum. Or that friend that doesn't want to hear /some/ words (and you know the words)... Well OK you might still want to tell the joke without believing any of its content. Except, someone might be recording. Filming. OK so no more racist/sexist/transphobe/fatshaming/flatearthmocking jokes. I deeply regret the validation we give to 'just transgression without humor' humor when we rage about it. The best solution to bad jokes is just no one laughing. Silence is a powerful motivator for a comedian to improve... And the people you want to reach are the ones laughing, not the ones making the joke. And making them feel horrible about a laugh they had might not be the way to reach social justice.

throwaway201606 6y ago

[ edited to address a ton of grammatical and formatting mistakes ] Lots of comments about how Dave Chapelle presents his position and the context in which he presents his position. The emotion quality of it all. The is very little commentary about the core message of his rant - and Ben's comments. Truth told, it should not be surprising. The issues at hand are emotional ones about morals, justice and doing the right thing. They are difficult issue to tackle and require taking subjective positions. They do not lend themselves to a logical, intellectual and quantitative data-driven dissection. He does however makes an excellent point from moral, social and justice-based perspective. He is holding media distribution companies at-large to account, and he is doing it from a qualitative perspective. I suspect we will see more and more of this happening in the corporate world. Whether companies have, or will acquire, the capacity and fortitude to tackle these issues is now up to them. The idea that profit cannot be the primary and only motive. Those that do will likely find it a rewarding approach in the long run. What Dave is doing here is linking 'qualitative' issues to 'quantitative' results (money) in a very specific and effective way by, in his words "getting between a man and his paper".

comeondude 6y ago
Interesting ... I think it’s just a matter of respect. We have the ability to shape and build any system we want. I’ve worked in the arts and people running the system don’t give a shit about the human factor, it’s like a machine run amok. Maybe it’s a matter of not being greedy and trusting that there’s enough to go around. Decision makers have conscious choice to figure out how to make things better for everybody. A tale as old as humanity.
jjeaff 6y ago
I think there are also some points brought up by Chapelle that deserve quantitative legal scrutiny. Coercion can invalidate a contract. Also, contracts that are extremely one sided can be legally challenged or that require no consideration from one of the parties. Additionally, contracts based on false information can be invalidated. If I'm starving and I sign a contract to pay all of my future earnings for a plate of food, no court is going to hold up that contract. Obviously, the methods used by these big companies are a higher and more complex level of coercion. But I think they deserve some scrutiny in this regard.

zuhayeer 6y ago

“I’m coming to my real boss, I’m coming to you”

ortusdux 6y ago

I still cannot get over the fact that Chappelle workshopped some bits on his most recent SNL opening monologue.

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

The entertainment industry is notorious for not paying 'The Artist' their due. And in many cases, they can get away with owning the artist because the artists are typically approached when they are very young and have not developed acumen for business. In many cases, artists even hired business managers to look out for them, and those persons simply took another share and ensured that The Artist had plenty of sex, drugs and rock 'n roll so they'd feel they were being successful while everyone else made the money. The primary lever, as I understand it, is that the production company, whether it be movies, music or comedy would tally up all the expenses related to the production and then require that those expenses be paid back, with profit, before The Artist got more than enough to live on. Then, they'd inflate the expenses in any number of creative ways so that in most cases, their accountants could show that the production was a net loss, even when box office and record sales were excellent. It's a highly exploitative 'monster' and Chapelle is not the only one taking them on. Kanye West has also gotten to work on the record industry [0]. I wonder if sports has a similar problem. Young, talented persons enabling huge industries... it seems that it's ripe for exploitation as well. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/kanye-west-universal-masters-war-1064225/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/kanye-west-univers...

toyg 6y ago
> wonder if sports has a similar problem. Not as much, because those careers have an expiration date and there is no real reselling value in performances after the first broadcast (with very rare exceptions). Players' agents make a large cut (and it's historically increasing) out of signed contracts, but the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the actual athletes (who then proceed to squander it, typically, since they often come from unprivileged background with no familiarity with long-term wealth management). There is some distortion (agents are more interested in brokering newer and larger contracts than renewing on same terms year after year, regardless of how settled the player is) but it's not really exploitation. This said, South American and African football are plagued by "third-party ownership" arrangements: investment companies literally buy footballers when young and then take massive cuts from any contract they sign, in perpetuity, in exchange for promotion and rights management. The governing body FIFA has officially banned the practice, but it remains widespread in the poorest regions like Africa.

toyg 6y ago

Damn, Dave, did you spend all that sweet Netflix money already...? /s More seriously: artist screwed out of the money his art attracts - it must be a Monday! A few years before Chappelle signed The Contract, Courtney Hole had already “done the math” in a famous piece [0]. She wasn’t even the first - Steve Albini had gone on record (eh) in 1993 [1]. There are many more examples from previous decades, both in music, cinema, TV, novels, comic books... these are just the first ones that spring to mind. The commonality being: established producers and distributors exist precisely to squeeze every once of value out of one’s art, and pay it the bare minimum they can get away with it. My bet is that Netflix will soon be like that too, there is no intrinsic reason they won’t (once they become as utterly dominant as tv networks were). But I think (I hope) the real beef here is not about the money, but rather the name and characters. He cannot call anything “The Dave Chapelle’s Show” and he cannot touch those characters. He’s done plenty of work with his name on since then (“DC’s Bloc Party”, his comedy specials...), so maybe it’s just the characters he’s after? And what about “I’ll just take it”, is it a threat to reprise those characters and dare the network to sue him...? [0] https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ [1] https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music

caseyf7 6y ago
That Courtney Love article is a must-read. Another good take on this is the Jared Leto documentary about his band.

teleforce 6y ago

This is a very interesting lessons on how the internet changed the many lives of talents creating contents. For the perspective of former entertainment lawyer on Chappelle's contract situation please check this video: https://youtu.be/dl7T_vV3dkY https://youtu.be/dl7T_vV3dkY