Laugh Track - Legacy and Support

Legacy and Support

Si Rose, executive producer for Sid and Marty Krofft, convinced the Kroffts to use laugh tracks on their puppet shows, such as H.R. Pufnstuf, The Bugaloos, and Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. Rose stated, "The laugh track was a big debate, they (the Kroffts) said they didn't want to do it, but with my experience with night-timers, night-time started using laugh tracks, and it becomes a staple, because the viewer watches the program and there's a big laugh every time because of the laugh track, and then when you see a show that's funny and there's no laugh because of no laugh track, it becomes a handicap, so I convinced them of that. Good or bad." Sid Krofft commented "We were sort of against that, but Si Rose—being in sitcoms—he felt that when the show was put together that the children would not know when to laugh." Marty Krofft added "the bottom line—it's sad—you gotta tell them when it's funny. And the laugh track, was right. It was necessary, as much as we were always looking to have a real laugh track, a real audience. In comedies, if you don't have them, you're in big trouble, because if you don't hear a laugh track, it's not funny. And that's the way the audience was programmed to view these shows."

In a 2007 DVD interview, Filmation producer/founder Lou Scheimer praised the laugh track for its usage on The Archie Show. "Why a laugh track?" Scheimer asked. "Because you feel that you are watching the program with a group of people instead of being alone." Scheimer confirmed that The Archie Show was the first Saturday morning cartoon to utilize a laugh track.

Television historian Ben Glenn, II once commented that the laugh tracks used today are radically different than the "carefree" quality of the laughter of past:

"Today’s sitcoms are based mostly on witty reparté and no longer rely on outlandish situations or sight gags, such as you would see in an episode of Mister Ed, The Munsters or Bewitched, and today’s muted laughs reflect that. Generally, laughs are now much less aggressive and more subdued; you no longer hear unbridled belly laughs or guffaws. It's 'intelligent' laughter—more genteel, more sophisticated. But definitely not as much fun. There was an optimism and carefree quality in those old laugh tracks. Today, the reactions are largely 'droll' just the way in which they sound. In the past, if the audience was really having a good time, it shone through. Audience members seemed less self-conscious and they felt free to laugh as loudly as they wanted. Maybe that's a reflection of contemporary culture. In the 1950s, the laughs were generally buoyant and uproarious, although somewhat generic, because Douglass hadn’t yet refined his structured laugh technique. In the 60s, however, you could hear more individual responses—chortles, cackles from both men and women. The reactions were much more orderly and organized. I can actually tell you the exact year that a show was produced, just by listening to its laugh track."

Several months after the 2003 passing of Charley Douglass, his son Bob commented on the pros and cons of his father's invention:

"On some of the shows it was abused. They wanted to keep adding more and more laughs, and it would go way overboard. They thought it was going to be funnier, and it wasn't. A lot of producers would have the laughter almost louder than the dialogue, and that ruins it. It's a tool. Like music is, like sound effects, like dialogue. It's everything combined together to make a show flow along and have a nice pace to it. It's all timing. With skill, and a little luck, a well-executed laugh track can be a work of art contributing to a larger work of art. We've been around a long time, and it fills a need in the industry. We don't expect to be the main ingredient in a show. It's just part of the puzzle that puts together the shows that make for great television."

Karal Ann Marling, professor of American studies and art history at the University of Minnesota, voiced concerns about Douglass' invention:

"Most critics think that the laugh track is the worst thing that ever happened to the medium, because it treats the audience as though they were sheep who need to be told when something is funny— even if, in fact, it's not very funny. It's probably changed comedy, particularly situation comedy. I mean, anything can be passed off as hilariously funny, at least for the first two or three go-rounds, if you've got people laughing like maniacs in the background. It's as though during a drama show, suddenly a voice in the background goes, 'Ooohh, this is scary!' or 'Oh, he looks guilty!' It seems like the next logical step if you're going to have laugh tracks. For proof of the intelligent power of a non-laugh-track show, look no further than The Simpsons. It's wonderfully written. They work for their laughs. And audiences sit there and wet their pants. That's a great example of why not to have a laugh track. Let me be the laugh track."

Marling added she was concerned more about canned laughter as a symptom of a larger social willingness to accept things uncritically, which included political messages as well as commercial messages. "It's a kind of decline in American feistiness and an ability to think for yourself," she said. "It certainly is embedded, but that doesn't make it a good thing. There are a lot of things that we do every day of the week that aren't good things. And this is one of them."

In 2011, critic James Parker bemoaned the absence of laugh tracks in many popular sitcoms of the time, feeling that the idea of not having an audience had become an overused gimmick:

"Silence now encases the sitcom, the lovely, corny crackle of the laugh track having vaporized into little bathetic air pockets and farts of anticlimax. Enough, I say. This burlesque of naturalism has depleted us. Give me the honest joinery of The George Lopez Show, the fat gags and the cackles on demand, over Parks and Recreation or NBC's ghastly version of The Office. Who knew irony could be so cloying?"

He conceded that Modern Family was one of the few shows which benefited from not having one.

A study was done as recently as 2011 to gauge the necessity of the laugh track, particularly on U.S. sitcoms. Dartmouth College Psychology professor Bill Kelley's continued study of the human brain's response to humor stated "we're much more likely to laugh at something funny in the presence of other people. Hearing others laugh — even if it's prerecorded — can encourage us to chuckle and enjoy ourselves more." Kelley's research compared student's reactions to an episode of Seinfeld, which utilizes a laugh track, to those watching The Simpsons which does not. Brain scans suggested that viewers found the same things funny and the same regions of their brain lit up whether or not they heard others laughing.

Despite this, Kelley still found immense value in the laugh track. "When done well," Kelley commented, "they can give people pointers about what's funny and help them along. But when done poorly, you notice a laugh track and it seems unnatural and out of place."