I was rather young at the time this was on, but I have very fond memories of this show. Even then I realized the distinction between "wholesome" and "risque" humour based on this show. It's rare and treasured for a punchline to serve both simultaneously. Adult innuendo for the adults watching and innocent jokes for tender-young ears.

I also learned the comedic value of sarcasm.

I don't know how well this show would work for an audience today, but it does hold a warm place in my heart for a good time in my life.

Thanks for the reminder SmackToward. I'm going to go get a tissue while I miss my father.

The Smothers Brothers were one of the few "adult" comedy shows my parents let me watch in my preteen years (it was the 1988-1989 revival). Some of the jokes flew right over my head, but there was enough funny stuff in there that I did get that it left an impression.

Here is the segment they talk about, in which Keith Moon blows up his drum kit with too much gunpowder, supposedly leaving Pete Townshend permanently deaf in one ear:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiSKu7SbGNQ#t=20

It's worth watching the whole thing because the intro shows how subtle Tommy Smothers was with his deadpan, neurotic character.

That was a nice read, and I'm especially pleased to read Steve Martin's comments.

Martin is awesome-- besides being a great writer, actor, and comedian he's also a world-class banjo player. Amazingly accomplished.

I would love to hear the album he did with Edie Brickell.

I'm really surprised to see this here, I wouldn't think the typical HNer would be old enough to remember the show. Those guys were brilliant.

Plenty of us old farts here.

I remember it when it first aired. I'd watch it with my parents, who didn't censor much of anything I saw.

I came along well after this show ended, but my dad had a CD of them that we listened to as he took me with him on computer repair service calls. Those trips were why I'm in CS now, so this brings back fond memories. Thanks for sharing!

My parents had an LP of Mom Always Liked You Best, and we listened to it countless times when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s. I just played it for my 13-year-old, who found it exactly as hilarious and relatable as I did. (Even when I was a kid I had no idea who Frank Gorshin was; the pop cultural references were old back then when I listened to it!)

Highly recommend listening to them.

This is a good article too (2010): https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130569...

Thanks for this -- I've added the Dangerously Funny book to my to-read list!

Dear HN: I see you have changed the title of this submission from the article's actual title, "'The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour' at 50: The Rise and Fall of a Groundbreaking Variety Show."

I would argue that this changes it for the worse. The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour really was a groundbreaking show; it was a significant part of the revolution in comedy and culture that was happening in the late '60s. But if you aren't old enough to know that from experience, the name of the show itself won't tell you that; it'll just sound like one more old TV show. You won't have any idea why you should bother clicking through to read the article.

I understand the desire to de-linkbaitify headlines, but the way that's done currently ends up doing lots of submissions a disservice. It completely removes any indication of why the submission is actually interesting.

I'm not old enough to have watched it, but know it was a groundbreaking show. No doubt that's true of many readers here. I think it's good for HN to err on the side of assuming literacy.

Not every title should explain itself. It's good for curiosity if readers have to work a little (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). Being on HN's front page, given the unusual topic, indicates something that might be worth clicking on. By the way, the article is on the front page because moderators saw that it had been overlooked and put it in the second-chance pool (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380).

I don't think we changed this title because the submitted title was linkbaity. It was because we needed to squeeze in "(2017)". That requires 7 chars and the submitted title was already running up against the 80 char limit. I'll take another crack at it above.