I am about to compare Dane Cook to jazz legend Louis Armstrong. Brace yourselves. This week in my Legendary Performers class (Music 206), we have been discussing Louis Armstrong. Mike Leckrone, UW band director and class lecturer, said Armstrong was often condemned as a jazz musician due to his enormous popularity. At the time, being popular may have hurt his credibility, but now critics and music lovers regard him as an innovator. Since I find it hard to pay attention in any class, this got me thinking about comedians. Specifically, it got me thinking about Dane Cook. Cook is arguably the most popular stand-up comedian today. Conversely, Cook is one of the most despised stand-up comedians today. Is this a result of his popularity or is he just not that good? It's a little of both. I first heard of Cook around the turn of the century (I've always wanted to say that). Soon after, I saw his "Comedy Central Presents." I was impressed. He was funny and energetic. His jokes were generally creative and well-delivered. When he released his debut album Harmful If Swallowed in 2003, I was first in line (not literally, of course, but I picked it up on the first day. I don't recall there being a line). As I listened to the album and watched the accompanying DVD, which featured the unedited "Comedy Central Presents," Cook continued to impress me. My friends and I watched the DVD at parties and quoted Cook to a nauseating degree. Soon, even friends of mine who had no interest in stand-up comedy liked Cook. This is when I began to question his technique. Like jazz purists who condemned Armstrong, I began to tire of Cook simply because so many others loved him. Nevertheless, I respected what he was doing for comedy and decided to purchase his sophomore effort. Coming out almost exactly two years after his first, the second album was called Retaliation. This album blew. It blew hard. It blew harder than Dizzy Gillespie (sorry, blame the music class). In addition, with its lack of any new stand-up, the bonus DVD blew even harder. The CD has its moments, but overall it was laden with unfunny acronyms and catchphrases (e.g. "BAMF," "The Wall"), brainless word alterations (e.g. "chicken sangwich") and easy references to old jokes (e.g. "cash and prizes," "By a round of applause, how do you feel?"). I realize the first two problems also existed on his first album, but at that time it seemed new and different. By Retaliation, it was stale and stupid. Plus he relied on them a lot more. Although it was mediocre at best, Retaliation was a huge commercial success. The album debuted at No. 4 on the Billboard 200, making it the most successful comedy debut since 1978 when Steve Martin released A Wild and Crazy Guy. (A piece of trivia is that Steve Martin performs a satirical version of "I'm in the Mood for Love" on this album, a song once recorded by Louis Armstrong. It's all coming together.) This remarkable popular success makes me wonder: Does popularity cause mediocrity, or does mediocrity cause popularity? Again, I think it's a little of both. Broad humor, as the expression implies, appeals to a wide audience despite usually being mediocre. Furthermore, once popularity is achieved, comedians often feel unmotivated to outdo themselves and, instead, continue doing more of the same. Eventually, quality diminishes or the original audience tires of the lack of improvement. Both concepts, the use of broad humor and the reliance on popularity, have affected Cook as a comedian. However, even if you hate Cook, you can't deny that his popularity makes stand-up in general more popular. In fact, he was an early advocate of MySpace, and now MySpace has become one of the main methods of stand-up comedy promotion. I'm not saying he is solely responsible for stand-up comedy's recent rise in popularity, but he certainly hasn't stunted it. Brace yourselves — now I'm going to compare Cook to Steve Martin. I wonder what comedy enthusiasts thought of Martin back in the late '70s. He was a huge commercial success then, and looking back now, I consider him hilarious and innovative. Would I have held this same opinion during his heyday? Would hearing constant references to "A wild and crazy guy" and "Well, excuse me!" have annoyed me as much as "BAMF" and "Su-Fi?" These are little more than rhetorical questions, because I honestly have no idea. To Martin's credit, he does mock himself on "A Wild and Crazy Guy" for the catchphrase "Well, excuse me!" I find self-deprecation to be a redeeming quality of Martin that Cook sorely lacks. Simply put, Cook is cocky. Finally, I'll bring this back to Louis Armstrong. To defy academia and quote the Louis Armstrong Wikipedia article, Armstrong was "a charismatic, innovative performer whose musical skills and bright personality transformed jazz from a rough regional dance music into a popular art form." As much as it pains me to admit it, I think it'd be fair to say that if I replaced the words "musical" and "jazz" with "stand-up comedy" and "a rough regional dance music" with "an underground form of entertainment," the sentence would describe Dane Cook's career up to Retaliation. Now the question is: Will we look back on Dane Cook with the same reverence, or any reverence at all? If Cook wants respect (and for all I know, he doesn't), he's going to have to change it up soon. Either he can reinvigorate his style or he can continue to get cheap laughs by mundanely modifying words and referencing classic jokes. Either way, Cook may not be a great comedian, but he's here, he's popular and we're just going to have to get used to it. And if you don't agree, well excuuuuuuse meeeeee! Damn, that is kind of annoying. Mike Peters is a senior focusing on communication arts, film and business. Want to fill his mailbox with annoying acronyms and catchphrases? E-mail Mike at [email protected].