He's taking the exact role Shaffer had in Letterman's show. Stoned, band leader with off screen laughs and jibes who just says 'yes' a lot to the host's conversation attempts.
I see no difference between the performance of Batiste and Shaffer in fulfillment of their sidekick duties.
Criticism of religion is not racism...
I completely agree. Paul was even more nonsensical, stopping the show dead on its tracks many times with a random comment. And I liked Paul.
shareI always cringe when Stephen talks to Jon, Jon really looks like he doesn't want to talk or doesn't know what to say it just makes the conversation awkward.I like Jons music and his talent. Atleast with Paul and David they can have a conversation flowing.
sharePaul couldn't keep a conversation flowing. Every week I watch an episode of Letterman going backwards from the last episode and Paul is really bad at the interactions. He just makes sounds like he's at the dinner table and not really paying attention to his wife as she recalls her day.
Criticism of religion is not racism...
[deleted]
I see no difference between the performance of Batiste and Shaffer in fulfillment of their sidekick duties.I'm not clear on your point but seriously doubt anyone could explain the difference to your satisfaction so I'm reluctant to try.
Go back and watch some episodes of Letterman from 2015.
Once Letterman sits down and is doing things like the Top 10, it sometimes seems like Paul is there for Letterman to make fun of for always getting his guesses wrong. You can still sense that they are old friends though and have a long relationship. Maybe Stephen and Jon just aren't hanging out enough off set.
Paul does use his music as counterpoint to Letterman's punch lines. He's also doing a better job of spontaneous pop music choices that are relevant to the comedy bit (like the Price is Right theme song when Letterman mentions it).
He's no Ed McMahon when it comes to laughing at Letterman's jokes. I'm watching an episode now and at some point just wishing Paul would shut up with the "yeahs" and "rights" because they are coming too late and destroying the flow of the monologue.
Criticism of religion is not racism...
It was great when Letterman and Shaffer would hug at the beginning of most of the Late Shows, remember that?
shareI've watched backwards to Don Cheedle episode (2/19/2015) and they haven't hugged.
Letterman comes running out and goes into his monologue then heads to his desk.
Criticism of religion is not racism...
That's my point. I doubt Letterman and Shaffer hugged on camera, not that touchy-feely (a clear difference in relationship versus the one on the new Late Show).
shareHis band is the best in late night show. High quality music. And since when the late night show started depending on the band leader for the laughs and to carry the show?
shareWhile I understand what you're saying, as a fan of Late Night with David Letterman ~ right from the very beginning (1982) - I see things differently. Dave and Paul are long time friends who have a special rapport. Stephen doesn't have such a rapport with John, most likely because they haven't been friends for decades. That said, Paul was NEVER as annoying as Batiste. Batiste can't seem to shut his mouth, even during the theme song. Throughout the entire show you can hear him in the background vocalizing such intelligent words as "yeah, uh huh, ha ha, alright, etc.); he seems to think he's in a Baptist church ... ???? Also, Paul never danced around like a "ham" every time the camera was on him.
I don't think people on this board are expressing hatred; it's more about annoyance.
I also watched Letterman for years starting in 1982 and Paul always was saying annoying things and clearly was not that bright and David played off of that many times.
Go back and watch episodes from the Letterman Show and you'll hear Paul making just as many vocalizations of the yes-man role. Like I said in another post, I'm watching Letterman episodes backwards through 2015 (nearing December 2014 now) and Paul talks way more than Batiste.
I like the dancing.
Criticism of religion is not racism...
I also watched Letterman for years starting in 1982 and Paul always was saying annoying things and clearly was not that bright and David played off of that many times.
and never will.
A great deal of funniness comes from sarcasm, from being mean.
Please, there is no comparison between Paul and Batiste. Paul was literate and could tell his own amusing stories. He was the perfect 2nd banana--and by that I mean his responses to Dave's jokes, be it just his laugh or a one- or two-word retort, made the joke funnier, as the cherry on the pie. Not only that but his interaction with Dave during his post-monologue spiel always helped clarify and amplify whatever point Dave was making, and not in a pedantic, but a humorous way. And Paul was a dependable fall guy in many a silly sketch. Not to forget, he also had a dead-on impression of Ed McMahon's laugh, which was hilarious and so apt since he was the 1st incarnation of EM.
Batiste is very young yet, so I would not expect him to be at Paul's level for a long time, but hopefully he can get there.
Paul was literate
I don't know how familiar you are with Julliard, but their programs are way more performance-centric than academic. I've known a few people that have trained there who were about as far as from literate as you can get- great actors, great dancers, great musicians, but not literate in the slightest.
shareMaybe that is true. My assertion was based possibly on an incorrect assumption about the school.
That interview they had with John's previous teacher showed his current persona as being something he developed and not how he always was.
Criticism of religion is not racism...
I like John Batiste as a musician, but that "happiness" composition they've been playing the last couple weeks has got to go!
sharebut that "happiness" composition they've been playing the last couple weeks has got to go!