In the end what I think it boils down to is not so much what we teach, not so much that the doctrine of “yes, and” be followed to the T, but rather that we remember that improv is a theater of poverty. What I mean is that we have no pre-made script, so we have a scarcity of resources when we walk onto a stage as an improviser. That automatically makes everything that is said potentially very important, and if we don't explore, as you said, what we improvisers give to each other, then we're wasting the few resources we've been given. That's why it's so important to not destroy the realities that our fellow improvisers create with hasty, albeit funny, denials.

Another thing I hear a lot is that experienced improv'ers can use no, but beginners shouldn't. But that's like teaching a child that a saw is bad just because he may not understand it yet. I would love to see two groups of actors trained in improv–one taught “yes and”, and the other taught nothing but to use their imaginations. Would the differences be at all perceptible? If so, my money would be on the latter group being the more interesting to watch.

The kinds of denials improvisers try to avoid are denials of what's already been established in a scene, especially for no good reason. Here's a fairly common example: A man and a woman are playing a couple arguing, where the woman wants a divorce. The man says “But, honey, what about the kids?” and the woman says “We don't have any kids.” Yes, that's funny, and it got a laugh, but it was a cheap laugh, and it made the man look like an idiot.

Like somebody else about this article has said, an improv team is only as good as its weakest link. If you are making other improvisers look bad, you're making your whole performance worse.

I say this because one of the things that makes improv so insufferable is a certain systemic tone of positivity in most of the scenes I have to watch. There is a kind of “improv voice” that just grates on my nerves; it's giddy and frenetic and happy, and I'm convinced that it's a by-product of all those 'yesses” flying around the stage. Whenever I see another wretched improv scene about cheerleaders, or people on the moon, or aerobics instructors doing silly things, I wish to god that Lewis Black would walk onstage and start knocking heads together. But that would be so NEGATIVE!

Without the freedom to say no in improv, there is nothing to tether a scene to anything resembling reality. “Yesses” grow a scene, but “no's” root it. And certain comedians who are by nature dark or pessimistic, must abandon their comedic instincts to do improv if only yes is permitted in a scene. And that is what makes the form so hard to bear. After so much syrup, will somebody please make me some strong, black coffee?

I say this because one of the things that makes improv so insufferable is a certain systemic tone of positivity in most of the scenes I have to watch. There is a kind of “improv voice” that just grates on my nerves; it's giddy and frenetic and happy, and I'm convinced that it's a by-product of all those 'yesses” flying around the stage. Whenever I see another wretched improv scene about cheerleaders, or people on the moon, or aerobics instructors doing silly things, I wish to god that Lewis Black would walk onstage and start knocking heads together. But that would be so NEGATIVE!

Without the freedom to say no in improv, there is nothing to tether a scene to anything resembling reality. “Yesses” grow a scene, but “no's” root it. And certain comedians who are by nature dark or pessimistic, must abandon their comedic instincts to do improv if only yes is permitted in a scene. And that is what makes the form so hard to bear. After so much syrup, will somebody please make me some strong, black coffee?

Thanks. Glad you liked it. I must say thought that you do have to “listen” for effective improv in that the whole point is to play off of what the other person is doing and not be a bull in a china shop trying to do what you want to do.

As much as I was annoyed by the experience, I still do see the value of improv. It is a great training experience. It’s just forcing us to view as a performance mechanism can be sheer torture.

BTW, very recently on an episode of Family Guy they did some really funny gags about how lame improv is. I don’t remember the name of the episode, but take a look on Hulu for some recent episodes and you’ll find it.

I am the “weirdo” in the class. I dont like all the listening you have to do… listening to things that i would usually tune out.

Yes, I am self centered and feel the stage isnt big enough for me with all those other people.

You saved the day. Thank you.

I was involved in the improv scene in Toronto on and off for about 15 years. I’m a slow learner though, it took me that long to realize that it is just not funny. I believe it to be a great scene development tool and rehearsal tool, but as a medium in itself it is inferior to stand-up.

I don’t dislike Improv, nor am I jaded. I still enjoy performing from time to time. It is odd though that when you express this opinion, improvisors go balistic defending improv as a comedic vehicle. You never get that from stand-ups. You never read how people believe that stand-up is an inferior form of comedy. Jokes aside you just don`t.

I became tired of the scene because I started to realize that the only people watching Improv are other Improvisors. I also found training that I took not only at Second City, but other organizations to be somewhat limiting. I have decided to start going to some open mics to give stand-up a go as I feel it offers a greater challenge with a great deal more of artistic freedom.(for lack of a better phrase)

That’s my opinion anyway and I am sure I will get shot down by many improvisors out there. But if they were true to improv philosophy they should just, “yes and” me and agree with what I am saying.