Juggling Data Set.
I have created a juggling data set. It consists of several videos of different juggling patterns, graphs, and .csv (spreadsheet) files. Some of the data is visualized in this Youtube video: Juggling Pattern Waveforms.
To create the dataset, I first took video of myself juggling. Next, using computer vision, I recorded the locations of the juggling balls in a spreadsheet. Once the data is captured in a spreadsheet, it can be easily analyzed. For example, this is the data for the pattern 423:
Collecting the data (the positions of the balls) from the video and recording it in a spreadsheet requires specialization in computer vision, particularly object recognition and tracking. Now that the data has been taken from the video and put in a spreadsheet, it is much easier to analyze!
The data can also be analyzed using Python (with the help of packages Pandas and Matplotlib). This short Python script shows how to load and graph the data.
One of the applications of this dataset is to compare two different jugglers who are juggling the same pattern. But, for this, I need your help! I would like to include juggling from other jugglers in this data set. If you could supply me with a high-quality short video clip of juggling, I could track the locations of the balls and add it to the data set.
I'm a new juggling website and would love some suggestions about what you think about my website and any possibilities you see with it. I'm not going to stop, so good suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
My honest opinion is that you're heading in too many directions at the same time. The name Juggler Share is good for a blog, forum, how-to guides... But I fail to see how the shop side of it can be incorporated too.
When I shop for juggling props, I either travel to an actual walk-in juggling store, or go to a very large reputable online store that supply the very wide range of products, that maybe the shop I have been to can't supply, and this is just my situation... but at no point have I ever considered visiting Amazon for my props. I think that the shop page is quite intrusive, I don't think I have ever bought something from a website that also doubles as something else, in this case a blog (This is all my personal opinion).
The blog side of it is going to be quite interesting, many like to just have an insight of another person's life.
I quite like the featured juggler part. But my question is: Are you only going to show professionals, and those who can be considered "very good jugglers" or are you also going to include those who are still getting to grips with juggling?
For example a young person, after learning how to do doubles with 3 clubs, wanting to share it with the world, and their favourite prop is beach style clubs. I would love to see a positive attitude towards those learning new tricks.
So overall I think you have parts of multiple goals, and mixing them together may not be the best way forward, don't dive too deep. Keep going, you can have something great.
Thank you for the feedback! I will look into if I should keep my juggling shop embedded into my main website. I'm also constantly expanding my juggling store's inventory. Currently I've only posted my favorite Amazon deals, but I also have access to EBay listings as well as the jugglegear store. I'll be adding my favorite products at the best prices to every update of my website. I would absolutely like to cater more to less experienced jugglers and I will look into creating a featured page geared toward more amateur jugglers than professional. Thanks again for your suggestions and insight. I appreciate it.
I'm always interested in reading quality juggling related articles but they have to be that: quality. When there is ejuggle from IJA, classic magazines like Kascade for free etc there is plenty of choice. I have no problem with adverts being included on pages but I think calling what you have a 'shop' is a little bit disingenuous and a bit of a turn off. I have bought plenty of stuff through affiliate links that matches a specific article's content so I think removing the shop and just using the affiliate links carefully placed around the site will be more successful. Not plastered everywhere but placed near the content.
Top tip: don't try continuous back crosses near a dish of oil and balsamic vinegar! I now have one very messy juggling ball :(
Alternatively, you've got a healthy, tasty snack! Maybe a little chewy, but plenty of fibre...
Let me tell you a short story...
I was a recipient of a medium sized parcel, one containing some brand-spanking new juggling props, which included a lovely set of white juggling balls (uglies). My excitement was through the roof, and I couldn't wait any longer than the few seconds it took me to remove them from their individual wrappers until I started their maiden 5b cascade. Within moments they were happily flying through the air from hand to hand. Until... I made a rookie error, I got too excited, I was enjoying them a little bit too much, which inevitably caused a rogue throw... As I chased the ball through the air with my eyes, I knew I had no hope in catching this ball, it was doomed to hit the floor. But not in my case...
Well, to cut a short story long. My hot beverage of the day tasted a little like juggling ball, and I now have an off-white ball which now smells of coffee.
Ooo, I like what this thread is turning into.
My tip: when you a ball rolls away, and you find it covered in cobwebs...check for the spider.
Top tip #2: if you want catch a mouse, leave your uglies in the floor. They love them.
I just recently joined the forum and I have few questions about record logging.
Hope you can help me :)
So the thing I'm confused with, is order of throws in siteswap notation.
Lets say I want to record 56 throws of 12345 (we all know this trick, and there is no questions that it is called 12345)
So I record 56 3b 12345.
My actual throws started with 3. Like 3451234512... So why do I record 12345 instead of 34512 then ?
12345 and 34512 considered different tricks by site engine, but they actually are the same one.
And how would I record this trick with additional 6 throw ? Is it 1234560 or 0123456 ?
Do we have any rules of resolving situations like this ?
Also, do you count 2 and 0 as a catch ?
And is there a way to tag people in posts ?
The convention among jugglers is to typically write down or say a siteswap starting with the highest value. Sure, you might get into the pattern with different throws, or start the loop at a different place, but for clear and easy communication, it's nice if everyone sticks to the same order for the same pattern.
This means 97531 is always easy to recognise, rather than each time the reader having to decode that 31975 and 19753 and 75319 are all the same pattern.
In your case, you are wrong that there is no question that your pattern is called 12345, as you yourself then explain. The convention is to call it 51234.
As for counting catches, with running a siteswap pattern it's often easier to count the cycles of the pattern. For example, here is a video of the b97531 record. Catches aren't mentioned, but "151 rounds" is:
I've never heard of this convention. 51234 sounds strange. Why not start a siteswap at its easiest point of entry? If it is a ground state siteswap, it's always obvious. 45123 makes much more sense to me than 51234. Obviously it's going to be 97531 and not 19753
Besides, how do you solve for siteswaps with recurring high numbers? 777171 could be written in 4 correct ways then?
I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?
"and there is no questions that it is called 12345" I think siteswap wise it should be called 45123, but 12345 is the obvious style choice. Which indeed makes counting tricky. You could link 45123 to the 12345 trick in the record section, claim that your version is the correct one and ask the current record holders for clarification of their counting method.
For myself I would also count cycles, not catches, but I understand that in the record section that doesn't work... I'm sure someone who uses the record section actively can comment on this?
The convention is actually to write the siteswap in numerical order. So 777171 would be the only correct way to write it. I assume that the reason is that it was convenient for early siteswap generators to write them in that format without having to work out the states. Writing them with highest values first is most likely to result in a low state start, unless you work out the states.
Well, Peter already answered this. It's the highest numerical value if converted into a single number. 777171 starts with 777 which is higher than 771, 717, 171 or 717.
As for this: "I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?"
Let's write those down.
Into 891 is 778? So that's 778891891891...
Into 918 is 7788? So that's 778891891891...
Yeah, you've just come up with the same thing!
Of course they're both the same thing! But that still doesn't tell you whether you should write 891 or 918, right? And my generator & jugglewiki do call it 891, not 918...
I've never heard of that convention either. I've only ever heard 12345 called 12345. Searching for 12345 vs the other permutations on rec.juggling & the Edge (both the forum & the records section), 12345 is by far the most prevalent.
If two siteswap records are entered into the Edge records system that are a rotation of each other & provided you have built up enough 'experience' by entering records you will have the option to merge those two tricks together. Once merged you can enter the trick whichever way you like but they will be listed & compared together.
At present no-one has entered a permutation of 12345 to link to.
I have heard of that convention, and I would certainly write any 4-handed siteswaps that way (I believe that most of the passers do that).
When logging my juggling practice, however, I usually write ground-state siteswaps in the order I do them, so 51234 would be written as 45123, since that way I can say that I did 4 rounds and back to cascade or something like that. (While if I wrote it as 12345 or 51234, the same number of actual throws and catches would only contain 3 rounds and the first and last throws would count as transition throws...).
I don't log siteswap records so it doesn't matter in that case, but if I did, I'd feel that doing for example ...3333345123451234512333333.... would be 15 catches of 45123, but only 13 catches of 12345. (If I do active 2s, otherwise I would not count them.)
Someone might also have noticed that I sometimes log both 55050 and 50505 in the same practice session... Or 552 and 525. In that case, it's just different starts and has little to do with how to write siteswaps and more to do with me wanting to see in my log entry that I actually did two different starts, but being too lazy to use a lot of words. (55050 would be starting with one club in one hand and two in the other, and throwing from the hand with one club first. 50505 would be starting with 3 in the same hand.)
Same here .. heard of that convention and use it for logging records, but in a given context write them as then makes more sense.
I've heard of that convention and yet also commonly heard patterns referred to in ascending order, eg 12345. (Also the convention for writing multiplex throws also follows the "highest possible number" convention. eg , not . I learned that from Sean Gandini.)
In the single case of the pattern 12345, yes, that order is the most common by far. It feels like the natural way of saying it. However, it's in a class of patterns where throw values increase by one until it drops to the first number again, and in most other cases, the higher number is said first. Examples:
423 not 234
534 not 345
645 not 456
It's only because it feels natural to say the number 1 first that people do so! And it *is* so satisfying to say it that way! In conversation, I've no problem with saying 12345. I think it's more important to have clear communication between two people than to follow strict rules.
But in the case of making a list or database entry, I think it's best to stick with the convention. And if there's any confusion, explain the convention, not make exceptions for something that just happens to scratch a weird cognitive itch.
What if others (like me) find it easier to start it with the 3 ? i.e. 34512
There are many patterns that people don't start the same way, so the easy way for you isn't necessarily the easy way for others, hence the need for the convention as discussed by Peter and Luke to help everyone recognise a given siteswap from all it's possible cycles.
Yes, this is the whole point. When ordering lists, the person reading it should know where to look, and also not think they are missing anything, and also not worrying that two things in different places are duplicates. This is why bookshops and libraries have settled on (within sections) ordering books by the author's second name, and then the first name, and then by book title/series title and number. If you went into a bookshop, and some books were ordered by the title, and some by the author name, and some by the colour of the spine, everyone would be super annoyed.
In the case of siteswaps in a list, or in a database like the records section, the obvious thing to do is order them by A: object number and then by B: numerical value.
This is important because, just looking at the siteswap out of context, it's impossible for most people to know the state of the pattern, or how they would transition into it from the cascade or fountain, or any number of other things.
And it's really important not to have 777171, 771717, 717177, 171777, 717771 an 177717 ALL listed in different places, or else the list would be unmanageable! You'd also have to have 441, 414 and 144 listed. And every other iteration of every other pattern, just in case another juggler liked starting on a different beat or had a different transition into the patter,
If someone is confused, it's much better to explain the convention to that person (eg. "in the book shop we order by author surname") than it is to accommodate their preference at the expense of making the system more complicated and confusing for everyone else.
With regards to counting numbers. Don't count 0s, & only count 2s if they are active (thrown); if you are just holding the prop don't count it as a catch.
There currently isn't a way to tag people in a post, I don't think traffic is really high enough to warrant the feature? If you just type someone's name in all capitals I'm sure they'll get the message.
Thank you, Orinoco.
Not counting 0 makes and passive 2's makes sense. I just realized than I counted number of cycles and multiplied it by number of digits in siteswap. But it turned out to be wrong.
Taging people look nice. As I see it. Just Highlighted name makes it clear to random reader that message has direct recipient. It also would allow to send emails to tagged people if they want it, for example. I don't think everyone read forum from end to end. But it is minor.
I'm much more interested in resolving my siteswap issue.
You mentioned an option to merge two tricks together. I have not found info about it anywhere, could you please comment on it ?
If there is a possibility to merge tricks and make two different entries behave like one trick would really solve it.
But also may be i't is possible to pre process siteswaps programmatically to make all versions of one trick recorded with same string. (like if you enter 315 it is still shows up as 531)
I'm not sure if it is a right way.
Go to any trick in the records section and look at the bottom of the page for "Is this trick the same as another? Link them together". However, based on what Orin said earlier it may not be available unless you've added a lot of records.
...& that link will appear if you've logged more than 10 records. This is just an arbitrary threshold so that linking is only handled by people who are at least a little familiar with the records system. I couldn't remember what the threshold was when I posted earlier so just had to look up the code!
Glad to join your community, hope to find and share some value on juggling edge.
Now you have one more juggler from Russia here along with Ilia Poliakov.
Hi & welcome!
find and share some value .. care to specify (or do you mean "in general") ?
[ Ilya Poliakov .. yeah, I saw his admirably huge repertoire and records, and sometimes he smalltalks :o] ]
Does anyone know anything about Annual Juggling Convention Ltd? It was the company that the cheques (remember them?) were made payable to for the BJCs in 1993, 1994 & 1995. This was a bit before my time in the community.
The company was created 1992-11-09 & dissolved 1998-12-01 according to Companies house (can't deep link so company number is 02763385). When I first saw the dissolution date I thought it might've been related to the 1997 festival making a financial loss, but it turns out the company was not used for that event.
With the regular clamour for a persistent company to run the BJC through I think it's interesting that it has already been done for a limited time & wondered if there is any story behind it.
If you Google the company number you can find out a lot more (there are various services that give you more free info than Companies House, I often use these to check out if my company's clients are real or chancers or both): https://companycheck.co.uk/company/02763385/THE-ANNUAL-JUGGLING-CONVENTION-LIMITED/companies-house-data . I recognise a few of these names: Ken (Pretentious) Farquhar who is Norwich-based, Winston of the Curious Eyebrows (was Manchester) and Will Chamberlain who went on to run Belfast Community Circus. You can also see that the company itself was incorporated in 1970 which may seem odd but it may be a 'shelf' company created specifically to be used (and renamed) in the future via an incorporation service (or it could just be a date record issue, 1st Jan 1970 being zero in some date numbering systems). This seems to agree with the timings of the BJCs in 1994 (Manchester) and 1995 (Norwich). You could ask them if you ever meet them (Ken has been known to drop into Bungay occasionally) but I'd guess someone created a company for a BJC and passed it on to the next organisers for a couple of years before whoever organised the next one decided they wanted their own, for whatever reason.
AFAIK the rationale for *not* having a continued company structure is that if BJC X makes a massive loss then it can go bankrupt without passing on the debt to BJC X+1. Not great for any suppliers of course, but then that's between them and the organisers of BJC X, and it's nothing to do with the organisers of BJC X+1 assuming they're a completely different bunch of people. Having never been foolish/brave enough to organise a BJC I don't really know!
That argument for not having a company seems reasonable, but why not keep a company until it makes a loss? Having a company that you need to shut down after 5 years sounds better than having to create a company every year. But then again, I don't have a clue how these things work in the UK.
In the Netherlands we've had our own foundation company since 20 years now, and that seems to work fine...
In the case of the French Juggling Convention losing money one year and going bankrupt, the following year had problems setting up a new company with the same product and many of the same people. Their problem was that the convention returned to the same city regularly (Toulouse) and it was hard for them to pretend the new convention company had nothing to do with the previous one that lost money.
For the BJC and EJC where a new team, country or city is in charge each year it's less of a problem setting up a short term company. If a BJC company operates nationally for years and many different cities, it's hard to pretend that a new company set up to do the same thing after the old one lost money isn't the same thing.
...& as the history builds up over time keeping up the 'pretense' is only going to get harder. There are now 3 sites that the BJC has visited more than once. However, I'm not sure whether a history of short term companies is a bad thing these days, or has ever been a bad thing for that matter. The BJC is certainly not unique in this practice, the film industry for example seems to set up new companies on a per film basis too. Where I work we often have fun trying to match the sometimes cryptic company name to a film currently in production.
I've been doing a lot of BJC research recently. Risky in Pink were a trio of club jugglers/table divers from NoFit State Circus who performed at the BJC in 1991. You can see a bit of their act in this old video which amused me greatly.
Saw that routine live at NFS HQ in Splott :)
Did you know it was choreographed/devised/consulted on by Johnny Hutch?
Ah there's a name to conjure with - an acrobat of the old school who was apparently spotted by a passing troupe doing a handstand on a chimney where he was working as a builder...could still do backflips at the age of 70 I believe.
I have come to the conclusion, I'm not a choreographer.
I have been juggling for quite some time now... But I would consider myself as a sports juggler. I feel that it's time to take my skill, make it into something more entertaining and engaging for myself and others.
Long story short... I want to be more of a performer.
So, this is where I stand
3b Many tricks very smooth and consistent, including: Box, 3up 360 pirouette, Factory, Mill's-Mess, and eyes closed.
4b Many tricks smooth and consistent, including: Full Shower, Wide Columns, 534 and 7531.
5b Few tricks smooth and consistent, including: 1up-4up, (6x,4)*, 3up 360 pirouette, and Half Shower
6b Fountain consistent 24+ catches
3c Few tricks smooth and consistent, including: Mill's-Mess, Flats, Flair with both hands, and Kick-up into 4c
4c Few tricks smooth and consistent, including: 53, 534, Sync, A-Sync, Singles and Tripples.
I juggle to music every time I practice, I have the feel of what tricks I can do and when I should do them depending on the song that's playing... But I find I just improvise every time. If I drop, I leave the song play on, then I join in with the music when I feel like it. There is absolutely no structure with what I do.
So, the thing is that I have a song that I wish to perform to, it has a changing tempo, is just over three minutes long, and it's very catchy... But I am hopeless at choreographing what I want to do. I write down the tricks that I think I should include. I try to perform what I have written, execute the first trick then immediately forget the list and start improvising again. I then take a glance at my list, and then realise that almost half of the song has passed already, and I'm flapping around like a chicken.
The other thing is, I believe that I should include a few little breaks in the middle of the act to either give the audience a time to reflect and appreciate what I have just completed, or give me time to change props, but I have no idea when I should have them: After a big trick? After a series of little tricks? A different fancy finish every time?
So basically, I'm asking for any advice from you performers out there. How can I develop my routine, how can I make a show out of what I can do?
Much love to you all,
Who do you want to be performing for? That will affect what direction you need to go in. If you are performing for other jugglers your approach needs to be very different to if you are performing for non-jugglers.
I've seen every trick you've listed before & can do most of them myself. What makes you unique? What can you do that makes your 3b box different from everybody else's 3b box? If the answer's nothing then I'm probably not going to be interested. The only one trick that jumps out at me on your list is 4b wide columns. How wide? If it's more than 'one step' I'm interested!
If you are performing to non-jugglers any one of those tricks (even just a 3-ball cascade) could be something they have never seen before making you the most unique juggler they've ever seen. That certainly doesn't mean performing for non-jugglers is easier. Jugglers are quite happy to watch juggling. Non-jugglers want to see entertainment which is not the same thing.
I'm going to try to explain why you should choreograph your routine which is not going to help you to break out of the improvising habit, but might help encourage you to put in the effort required to do so.
If you are improvising & doing something different each time, you have no real way to identify what an audience appreciates. Was it the pattern, the transition into or out of the trick that got that gasp? Think of it like designing a science experiment. Your routine should be almost identical, just make one change at a time. If that change consistently gets a better reaction keep it in.
If you watch a seasoned street performer. That witty one-liner that they used to put down a heckle? The timing, the phrasing, the intonation will almost certainly have been crafted to perfection through many years of repetition. The build up to, the execution, the reaction after that finale trick will have gone through thousands of iterations in front of audience.
You have a list of tricks. Well done, that's more of a start than most people ever make. Memorise it without juggling it, then practise juggling it. Then find an audience & perform it, pay attention to their reactions - did someone try to applaud a trick but gave up because there was no pause in the action? Those audience reactions are the hints that tell you what changes to make.
All that said though, improvisation is a useful skill to have there will always be a situation that you can't account for or something you haven't thought of.
Oh, & a quick note about choreographing to music. One of my first performances was a diabolo routine at a TWJC Christmas show. I had started with some music & a list of tricks just like you have. After the show a chap named Phil came up to me & asked, "How did you choreograph all those tricks to be in time with the music?" I hadn't. Any connection between the timing of my tricks & the music was entirely coincidental but his perception that I had was what mattered!
Thank you very much for the advice!
Yes, I suppose I didn't specify who I was going to be performing for and where. I want to perform mainly for non jugglers, more of a busking role. I have multiple costume ideas, multiple song genres, and multiple prop styles.
So, my next step is going to be reform the list I have drafted up, and I'll memorise the order of the tricks. But what I'll also start to draft up a list of the styles I could use... Whether it is skipping around the stage, over emphasising a "big" trick, or flashing a cheeky wink at someone in the audience.
I understand that patter and wit will take years to master, and I am more than willing to accept that my first performance isn't going to be perfect, but I'm dying to find out.
Drop the music, bin it completely. Busking is all about making a connection with the individuals in the crowd, making them gasp/laugh/react in any way other than walking off. Doing that without talking is *harder* than doing it with words.
Go watch a load of street shows, try not to copy whole bits, but pay attention to and copy the show structure. There are phases to a street show, gathering a crowd, building, filling, final trick, hatting. The structure is there because it works.
That structure makes choreography easier, because it gives you bones to hang the tricks off.
You will suck
Performance is a skill in itself, it has to be learned and practiced. Unfortunately that has to be done infrint of an audience.
You will suck, but every show will have a glimmer of not sucking in it - take that, fan it into a flame, fan that flame into an inferno and you're golden :)
Furthermore busking may not be your thing. It requires a particular mindset to be a busker. You have to build a show around continuously asking for money, to be successful. You can't just have one hat line unless you want to starve. There is a ton of information on the internet about this http://www.buskercentral.com/how_to.php being a good start but there are a load of sites.
There are many other outlets for performing jugglers but very few require just your juggling skills. Professional jugglers are business people first and finding the niche that earns you money is an ongoing task.
Good luck busking! Out of all the performance styles/venues that are available, busking is the one for which actual juggling skills are the least important. It all comes to your ability to sell those 3 tricks that you're going to do. This challenge would teach you to perform for sure
If you do want to juggle, but want to be on the street, I can recommend traffic lights. A clean sequence of tricks works fine here, and as a bonus it is not a requirement to consider sound and costume etc ;)
Someone tried traffic lights in Sweden and got told off by the police, who apparently had never heard of anyone performing at traffic lights before. (It was in the newspaper.)
Is there really time to both perform and collect money before the lights turn green? I think that was the main issue with the one who tried it "here", that he was still collecting money and thus slowing down the cars when it was green.
When I did it, I had a traffic light with a 1.5 minute cycle. I would perform for about 30 seconds, collect for 30 seconds, and then the cars would drive for 30 seconds. However, often I would still be stuck on the road while people started driving, and then someone would have to slow down for me in order for me to make it to the shoulder. That would happen like one out of 5 times or so.
Also, every now and then I would be really lucky and there would be many cars trying to give me money, if those cars were willing to slow down the traffic behind them, yes you'd slow down traffic. But often these cars weren't willing, so if you would reach them too late they would drive anyway.
But sure, you're on the road where you're not supposed to be, you're standing in relatively dangerous positions... If I were a cop and had never seen this practise, I would tell people off too...
The best places to start doing this are places that are already used to beggars or window washers. They have come to "accept" people walking along the traffic light, but then being the juggler you are the fun and original version, not the annoying one. Everybody happy.
I haven't dared to try here in the Netherlands. In Rotterdam I know of one spot where a beggar walks, but I'm still convinced that people would be too baffled to get out money in time. Plus, I find it scarier to pretend I'm the quirky guy when I'm not a non-native/traveler. Being outside your own country gives you some bonus points.
Busking is a good way to learn a lot about performing very fast, but having done it, I'd recommend against anyone spending much time on it, aiming to do it long term or even put the effort into getting good at it. I have never met a more miserable crowd than a group of long time street performing jugglers. It's a creatively deadening form of entertainment mixed with cut-throat competition for pitches, material, and promotion. Know what you are getting yourself in to!
Thank you all, for all of the advice you have been able to provide me.
An additional note:
I am not looking to make juggling a reliable source of income, nor am I looking to make it a full-time major commitment. I am in a position where I work away on a ship for 4 months (With plenty of juggle practice time), then it's followed by 3 months paid leave, so I wouldnt need it to be a great money-maker.
In my three months paid leave I love to travel, I find myself in cities, on beaches, and in places where I barely know the language. So what I am actually looking to do is just create an eye-catching routine that brings smiles to the people around me. I wouldn't need anything in return, I would be doing it purely for the entertainment of others (and myself of course).
Sounds like a good life! I love the idea of not having to do stuff for money, and then not having to follow the normal rules or guidelines in that direction.
If you just want to juggle some nice routines, but aren't asking for money or even perform in a traditional sense, why not just learn the routine of someone else? In doing so you'll learn a lot about choreography from inside someone else's head.
It's a good life for a 23 year old with no family commitments, but it's not for everyone.
I thought the number one unwritten rule of a performer was never to use someone else's performance routine? Or have I got this completely wrong?
i don't mean you should perform someone else's routine, but learn the choreography. Once you get a feel of what kind of things flow together by copying the masters, you'll know much better what you can develop yourself.
Welcome to the world of performing :).
Keep in mind that any (juggling) performance is more than a list of tricks being executed! Other things to consider choreographing:
Position and movement on stage, movement and position of body, music, acting, costume, props, colors, events, jokes, etc.
I've seen enough juggling to not care for a routine of common tricks. But if you have a good/fun/untested idea for one of the things mentioned above, and let that influence your juggling (for example, put on 30 t-shirts as your costume and see what you can still do, or skip around in circles on stage and bring that movement in harmony with your juggling), and you've got yourself an interesting performance.
Now, if you've never performed much, those things may seem hard and it sounds much easier to "hide" behind the juggling you already know... But if you're serious about learnig performing you'll have to accept that the juggling you do in training might not directly be interesting on stage.
Once you've got this extra thing in your act that makes your performance interesting, the tricks will hopefully soon fall into place and order.
View older threads
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports