Alright, I'm taking bets. Which experimental juggler is going to utilize these babies first?
Sorry for the delay in posting. I've spent the last week all over the eastern seaboard touring with FoodPlay, in addition to spending two fun-filled days in Busch Gardens Europe! FoodPlay, after nine months, is now officially over. I can't believe it - I clocked out at 234 shows. If you add those performances to my Smiling Sam shows last summer (440) and add in freelance juggling gigs, I've been in about 700 performances since I graduated college a year ago. Not bad for a first year out of school.
Anyway, today there was an article in the New York Times about my friend Vova Galchenko. Check it out here:
I encourage you to read the article first and then return to my blog for commentary.
First of all, I have to say that as a juggler who is interested in seeing my friends succeed and do well, I was super stoked to see Vova in a long detailed article in the Times. However, I'd be curious to see how many non-jugglers would find it engaging enough to read. I'll get into that a little more later.
Here's the thing - I really like Vova. And the fact that he has somewhat of a self-deprecating personality is one of his trademarks. He is actually very humble whenever I've talked to him. People can be at his feet gushing over a performance he just did (see TurboFest) and Vova will politely nod and thank them. He has a way of diverting attention away from his amazing achievements, possibly because he isn't full of himself and doesn't always feel comfortable the way some people worship him.
However, I'm not sure if this humble, unsure attitude works to promote Vova or juggling in general in this New York Times article.
The title alone contains an apology. "As Seen on YouTube (and pretty much only on YouTube). Again, to jugglers in the know, this phrase makes sense. We know Vova is not into "gay" [expletive] like comedy juggling and typical American cruise-ship style hack juggling. But the road to promoting Vova is not by having the big print say "On YouTube (and pretty much only on YouTube". Again, we in the know know that he has performed in Russian circuses, has won multiple awards at international conventions, and has appeared in commercials and on several national talk shows. The man deserves a better first impression, especially if non-jugglers are even to get past the title.
Again, I'm trying not to find any major fault in Vova, so I'm going to direct most of my frustration with the writer, Jason Fagone. Like I said, the article's title is bland and unimpressive. The article's first sentence paints Vova in a bad light by using the term gay, outlined in apostrophes. So already the gay population is offended and we haven't even hit the meat of the article yet. Heck, I'm not gay and I'm a bit perturbed that Vova would use the term "gay" to describe things circusy and French. The French reference is even funnier because we see Vova happily appearing in a classic French comedy while eating apples near the bottom of the article.
Once again, it seems nary a paragraph can go by without painting Vova in a bad light. In the second, we see Vova getting angry and throwing clubs at the walls. To reiterate once again, this sentence makes me and other jugglers relate with understanding. Other people see jugglers as violent, angry people. Again, not promoting the sport well.
I really enjoy the third and fourth paragraphs. Here the writing is more engaging and we also get a Penn Jillette name drop which is really great for Vova. I sense that things are picking up - phew.
Then we hit the fifth paragraph. It reads like a really interesting novel, not a image-enhancing expose. It's sentence after sentence of Vova dropping, scowling, and biting his lips. Does anyone even care about this guy anymore? Well, yeah, I do. I keep reading.
The article again redeems itself with its discussion of Vova's sport juggling philosophy as well as an explanation of the article's poor title - the fact that YouTube has helped create a sub-culture of jugglers who study his moves and then re-create them on their own videos.
Then of course we run into Vova's "problem" as the article states: "Galchenko isn't well-suited to this world", meaning the world of juggling showbiz. Then out of nowhere Jay Gilligan enters the picture. Really? Jay gave them permission to use his name to bash Vova? Jay apparently says, "Put Vova in Cirque [du Soleil] and he'd die." For someone as intelligent and articulate as Jay, this seems a little harsh.
The paragraph ends with Vova's concerns about performing - I knew he got nervous, but not this nervous. Hell, I'm still with him, if not more. I often get nervous myself before juggling shows so to me, this article is beginning to make me feel like I'm bonding with Vova. Even the great Galchenko suffers from stage fright. However, I'm still wondering whether this is the best way for him to market himself - as a nervous, shaky handed YouTuber.
History, history, fine, fine...wait!!! WTF? They write in this article that Vova would sometimes SCREAM at his sister during practices? God, what a jerk. I don't care if it's true, this article is just not making sense to me. Did Vova really approve this? I'm so confused. The paragraph ends with a failing street show.
After some convention talk (in which I was pleased to see siteswaps treated nicely), Freddy Sheed comes to the rescue with some compliments (for once) for Vova. Thanks Freddy - we knew you could do it!! I'm pretty happy with the WJF section but the IJA section again finds Vova having "prepared nothing". He's lazy too? That's the impression I'd get. He's once again in "the gayest costume ever" - whatever, I'm numb to it by now.
There's even some good Peden insults in this article, haha. Why, God, why? He's a born -again Christian with a stylish yet sloppy performance, heavy on drops. Really? Sure, it wasn't perfect, but I watched the 2007 video and I don't think Wes really dropped that much, did he? We're nearing the end of the article now and Vova's routine is painted pretty much as a disaster.
But wait! Lots of movies and novels are filled with disaster. But the reason we like them is because our hero triumphs in the end!! Maybe Vova will triumph on the 6th (online) page.
Here's what we learn about one of the best juggler in the world on the last page:
1) He wishes he were something other than a juggler.
2) He posesses an "unsentimental temperament."
3) Never surprised by failure.
4) He's trying to "redeem" himself.
5) He feels lame and has self-mortification.
6) He rather enjoyed being a thespian. (Yay, go Vova!!)
What's best, the article's grand finale is a Vova quote:
"I'm a thespian, and I'm very proud of that."
The final impression you want to leave with the nation's most popular newspaper is that you're proud to be an actor!!??
I pray that if and when I am ever interviewed as a juggler, I don't choose Mr. Jason Fa[r]gone as my mouthpiece.
Vova, I am truly sorry.
You deserve so much better.
So, as of today, I have 400 subscribers on the most popular video site in the world - YouTube.
Wait! Don't stop reading. Because if someone else started a blog post like this one, I probably would throw up a little. I really hate people who even give a shit about how many stupid subscribers they have. I could care less - whenever someone subscribes to my channel (which is about one person every day), I don't waste my time by writing stupid cyber jargon like "Thanks for subbin'" on their channel page.
So the fact that I have 400 subscribers is a pure accident. And don't think that I'm going to release a super secret juggling video when I hit 500 subscribers because I'm not...okay, well maybe I am.
Anyway, the whole 400 subscribers bull-crap is simply a transition into what I really want to talk about today - how artistic (oh no, there's that word!) jugglers choose (or not) to showcase themselves on the world wide webamadoodle.
Let's talk about Luke Burrage, creatore of Burke's...nevermind. Luke (I believe) considers himself an artistic juggler. If not, at least everyone can admit that he's a novelty juggler. Almost all his acts have something novel in them, some sort of creative thread that is usually creative. Case in point - the "441 441 cross" routine, the jacket 3b routine, and the video backdrop with a "twin". Pola has admitted on podcasts that Luke is not as business-minded as he should be. I forget which one it was, but it had something to do with the fact that Luke loves putting himself and his work out there for free, forgetting all the hard work and time that go into his creations. Like him or not, no one can deny that Luke Burrage has put thousands of hours into creating material for us jugglers to peruse online.
My point is not to critique Luke - it's to give an example of a juggler who has continually and consistently made his body of work available via multimedia on the internet. For the longest time, I followed his practices. On my website, for the LONGEST time, I made a comparison on the home page between juggling and magic, citing juggling as being better because we as jugglers don't try to keep secrets from one another. There is no Masked Juggler show on FOX.
However, there are also a large amount of jugglers whom I very much respect whose body of work on the internet is almost nonexistent. These are the jugglers that people like Jay and Erik tell you about at conventions in America where you sigh because you've never heard of them. Morgan Cosquer was like this a few years ago although more and more video footage has leaked of him, especially because of ADDICTED. Jouni Temonen had the same invisible buzz a few years before 9-1 and SITESWAPS DVD.
Now some of these people aren't publicly available to watch on the internet because of their location and the fact that they haven't decided to make themselves public with their work. I'm not concerned with that issue. The issue I'm concerned with talking about is what I would call the anti-Burrage. The juggler who is creative and inspirational but consciously decides to keep ideas and research from the internet in an effort to maintain creative privacy.
SAY WHAT?? That was a mouthful. Stay with me.
Over the years as I have:
a)become a professional juggler
b)seen more amazing live performances
c)talked to more amazing creative jugglers
d)amassed more and more incredibly exciting juggling ideas
I've realized that, shit, magic may have more in common with juggling than I originally thought. For example, you want to know about true MAGIC? True magic is seeing Erik Aberg's new three club routine LIVE for the first time. He uses a technique barely explored by any other juggler in the world and guess what? It's based on a simple 1 club move and I'm NOT going to tell you what it is. Erik, if you're reading, your secret is safe. WHY? Because I respect your work and research and history and why should someone who has made no more effort than to log on to rec.juggling to see if there are any new posts with [VIDEO] in the title get to witness your innovative piece? Make some effort - come out to RIT 2008. Oh wait, you missed it.
Of course Erik is only one example. You want more? Well, let's just say that I wish Florent Lestage's club act weren't available online to see. Its magic exists purely in live performance. Sean Blue's 5 ring "flipbook" act (Juggle This 07). Thanks Sean for not making your stuff readily available online. Jay Gilligan's complete body of work - yes, available on DVD (if you punks are willing to spend money) but not online for just anyone to peruse with a few spare minutes.
My point (although I'm being a bit harsh) is that I'm realizing that it's important to protect your art. Right now I'm working with an engineer on a really cool idea that I've been mulling over for almost a year. We're currently sending video footage back and forth (privately) working on prototypes. I love what I see so far and in the past, I would have told everybody! But, all of a sudden, I don't want to. I want someone to be sitting in an audience at some random juggling festival or performance and when the curtain is drawn, they see something they never expected to see. There are no pre-conceived notions.
A live routine will never be as "PERFECT" as it is on video. And by "PERFECT", I mean flawless. Video can create a flawless routine but flawless is boring. Raw, live, juggling is electric. Don't believe me? Go to the WJF and watch Thomas Dietz perform.
I saw Tony Gonzales's three club routine on video and really enjoyed it. Then when he did it at RIT, I wasn't very moved. Not because it was droppy. It was disappointing because I knew it already. I had watched the video multiple times and therefore I felt like I was seeing a video being replayed in front of me, but less flawless. I couldn't snap out of it and realize that I was witnessing LIVE juggling, a gift that I think we all take for granted.
So, jugglers all, please protect your art. Siteswap all over YouTube's hard drives, I don't care. There's so much boring predictable juggling out there that it's tempting for us jugglers with something exciting and new to share to want to post it all over the internet for free. Don't. Wes Peden is right to charge for his videos. People wonder why I don't release more videos online lately - it isn't because I haven't been juggling as much. It's because I've been juggling more, much more, and have tons of new pieces that you haven't seen. If you want to see some of them, come check out the Shoebox Tour in September - I promise to fill my set chock full of new stuff.
I guess turning 400 has taught me a lot. I promise that I'm not trying to be snobby. I'm not trying to be elitist. I'm just realizing that, as a professional, I have a right to creative control when it comes to my ideas. And in this day of cyber-everything, if we're to maintain juggling as a vibrant LIVE art, then we may want to think twice before revealing our life's work to the world.
Of course, after re-reading this entire post, I feel like arguing with myself. I mean, look at Greg Kennedy. All his kinetic wonders are up on YouTube and he got a GEICO commercial deal out of it. And which one of us didn't curl up with a warm meal to gush over Michael Moschen's TED talk a week or two ago?
Ahhh!! As Bernie Mac says, "help me out America!"
Today during a production of FoodPlay I was an idiot and literally fell off the stage. It's actually really embarrassing. The show went on as planned and luckily I am basically unhurt. Either I am really lucky, have really good instincts, or am so well trained (thanks movement instructors) that i fell in a way that minimalized bodily harm. I fell about four feet in a position where (my co-actor told me) my feet were higher than my head. I landed on my back and then reached around with my left hand to break the rest of my fall. I didn't hit my head and the only pain I have is in my left wrist.
Suffice it to say that I am going to take a day or two off of juggling until I feel 100% again. This is definitely one for the books - falling off stage. I could've sworn there was floor there when I put all my weight on thin air. Ugh.
Anyway, legally download "Men of Station" by 13 & God. It's an oldie but a goodie from Erik Aberg's Springtime Manipulation. The original - the good one. Who knows if you can still find it anywhere?
Skateboarding owns juggling. American Sports Data (2002) estimates that there are 18.5 million skateboarders worldwide. I'm no census, but I find it hard to believe that there are 18.5 million jugglers in the world. I do find it possible to believe that 18.5 million people in the world know how to toss juggle three beanbags or at least three scarves. Like riding a bicycle, thousands of adults have repressed grade school kinesthetics that would probably enable them to manipulate three scarves. But most of these people do not consider themselves jugglers. And of course I don't count the people who can only "dwo two".
So yeah, juggling is a "subculture", a "niche", a "sideline hobby". Wow, Michael, great discovery. We all know that juggling is not on the radar screen of most people. Our ugly word is mostly known to the human race as a way to describe having too much to do. I simultaneously beam and shudder every time I see it used in a magazine article to describe the busy lives of celebrity moms.
Then we have skateboarding. Phenomenon. The lifeblood of the X Games and the only reason I care to watch ESPN ever. In middle school, you either hung with the yo-yo crowd, the Pokemon crowd, or the skateboarding crowd. I tried each one. Unfortunately I seemed to like the people in the Pokemon and yo-yo crowds best but the girls simply flocked to the skateboarding crowd. It's a sexy hobby. In many ways I think it's like juggling but we'll get to that later. Anyway, skateboarding is mainstream. Cities now fund the building of skate parks. Tons of video games are devoted to the sport. Tony Hawk has a legit clothing line. Reality shows and movies are successful just by having skateboarders in them - they don't even have to skate! (Viva La Bam and Jackass).
And yet skateboarding is brand new. The Beni Hassan tomb of skateboarding is a newspaper article in 1893 warning New Yorkers of a dangerous coasting device being used on a slope in Brooklyn. And a little more than 100 years later, skateboarders are able to make a luxurious living off of purely doing what they love in front of gigantic crowds of adoring fans.
Juggling is not there. A small percentage of jugglers make a living from their art and an even smaller percentage make anywhere near the living that skaters like Tony Hawk and Bam Margera make. Clearly, in the eyes of America, skateboarding > juggling.
The question is, are we jealous?
My first thought is yes. Why is juggling so restricted to the sidelines? Shouldn't Anthony Gatto be a household name like Tony Hawk? Shouldn't Jay Gilligan have his own clothing line? Shouldn't Dube pay Wes Peden $3,000 a month just to be the best juggler he can be and to rock their equipment? Shouldn't we have a reality show about Jason Garfield, Albert Lucas, and Chris Bliss living in a house together? Hell, I'd watch it and I bet a lot of other people would too. Juggling has so much potential but for some reason, there's just no sex appeal in it. The reality shows go to stuff like skateboarding and the UFC (ultimate fighting). What do these have that juggling doesn't? Easy - violence and death-defiance. Why do you think people always ask if you can juggle chainsaws? Sure, it's an annoying question but it bites at an eternal truth. People are more entertained if you're in potential danger. Most people aren't like us. They don't enjoy the inherent beauty and art in kinetics and movement. A five club cascade isn't worth anything unless you drop it. If you don't drop it, it pales in comparison to what they're sure a 6 club fountain will look like.
But, and here's the difficult part, we have to be careful what we wish for. What if juggling did blow up? Let's pretend it did instantly overnight become the next big thing. Would it really be good for the art as a whole? I suppose, it depends on how it fared under the lime light. In other words, it depends who makes it popular.
In the movie "Being John Malkovich" (highly recommended), there is an interesting plot twist - at the height of his career, John Malkovich decides to quit acting and instead devote all of his time and energy to puppetry. In 2008, the person to do this would have to be McDreamy - good old Patrick Dempsey. If McDreamy all of a sudden decided to become McJuggley, we might see the possibility of a whole generation of actors deciding to learn how to juggle not only to fill up resume space but to pursue it simultaneously as an art and as a physical discipline. A celebrity endoresement is extremely powerful and Patrick Dempsey is in a position where he could initiate a possible Renaissance in juggling interest.
Of course there's also the possibility that juggling could become popular through the WJF. In this case, people would be so used to seeing juggling presented as technical, competitive, and sportlike in nature that they'd see anything else as archaic and not quite as cool. This isn't my ideal situation but others might really hope to see the WJF succeed in attaining this popularity. I certainly applaud the WJF for bringing juggling to television. I'm not sure of their future plans for broadcasting, but I hope they have plans to air juggling on TV in the future and I hope that someday, because of these efforts or others, we can see juggling in the Olympics.
In the worst case scenario, someone could drag juggling into the limelight by using "danger" as the bait. I'm certain people would flock to this. Chainsaws, knives, fire, and more. Juggling's fifteen minutes of fame could involve a juggler who so wows the world with his control of (supposedly) "dangerous" props that our lives as "normal" jugglers could be scarred forever.
So, at the end of the day, although I'd love to see juggling significantly rise in popularity, it's important to consider the pros and cons of said "blowing up". It's going to take the right person at the right time and under the right circumstances to really make it stick like skateboarding. Otherwise it will be a flash in the pan that could actually have a detrimental effect on our hobby/art/sport.
So I think this will be my first sort of messy post. Up until now, I've picked a topic and for the most part, stuck to it. I think it's okay for a blog to not always be so essay-like. In fact, my guess is that variety will keep people interested more than a constant string of essays. So, here goes - what's on my mind, juggling wise, this Monday, May 12.
First of all, happy birthday to Wes Peden. He's finally 18. I always joked about how he seemed to be 17 forever - well, he's finally gained a +1 Age UpGrade which makes him able to vote for Vova here in the US! Seriously, though, happy birthday Wes! We in the juggling world are so lucky that he is so good at 18. I can't wait to see his skills post-Sweden. And his performances, as I'm sure he's working equally hard on both.
Does anyone know that on YouTube you can subscribe not only to people but to TAGS? That's right. For those of you who don't know (THE SOURCE HAS A WHITE OWNER!!!), you can subscribe to words on YouTube. Don't ask me how - I figured it out like a year ago. Anyway, I've subscribed to the word "juggl" without the "e" because that means that "juggle", "juggling", and "juggler" all get sent to my daily subscription page.
Anyway, I guess it's easier to criticize than to create, but honestly, there are so many juggling videos online these days that it's hard not to complain. I'm no Oskar Wrango when it comes to film knowledge, but I'm getting seriously tired with the lack of creativity. Screw creativity - just do something new. Like Wes said in "what the duck", he doesn't even care if it's bad - just do something new. I'm probably preaching to the choir in this blog but here are some quick guidelines to all of you juggling video-makers out there. I'll keep it simple:
1)Don't use music by Paramore or Daft Punk. Nuff said. Also, please don't use juggling music that has been on another juggling video. This pisses me off to no end. Especially if the juggler who used the music first made a much better video than you.
2) If you're using Windows Movie Maker, do not use the default blue background with white text for your intro.
3)Do not number your freaking videos. Thomas Dietz is the only exception. If you are not Thomas Dietz or are not making your videos as part of a series (ala Tricks of the Day, Karas Kwickies, etc.) do not put a number after your freaking name. This will guarantee I will not watch them.
4) Trailers? Really? Like I said, there are exceptions. I've been excited by trailers from the following people - Brett Sheets, Wes Peden, Thomas Dietz, Anthony Gatto. Hypocrite? Yes, I made a trailer to "Normal Like You" but it was mostly dancing. If I haven't heard of you (believe me, I do my research), you do not need a trailer. Just release the video.
5)No more 744. I don't care if you want to show the world you can do it. So can everyone else.
6)Fill the frame. If you're doing a low three club trick, what do you need all the space above your head for? I'm watching a video for the juggling, not for the sky.
7)Don't say "thanks for watching" at the end of your videos. It just screams amateur. Put it in the description box or something.
I guess that's it. I'm doing my best not to sound conceited. I'm really not. And I doubt this will have any effect on YouTube juggling videos. I just wish that so much hard drive space wasn't wasted by the exact SAME juggling video, the only difference being, quite frankly, the juggler.
On a final note, adding to the long list of inspiration I received while attending the JAQ Montreal Fest: I've decided to switch to Russians. I know. This is a big thing for me. I've been a diehard beanbagger for seven years now. I've had my affairs with MMX and even stage balls, but I've always come back to beanbags.
However, after seeing so much beautiful BBB stuff both at Montreal and in Japan Tricks Peden, I've realized that russians are the way to go. Emmanuel had given me seven back in January at TurboFest and I finally shook the dust off them and learned BBB. It's so much freaking fun, I'm a bit giddy. Also, I've been mad experimenting with chin trap stuff and have a lot of new stuff that I've never seen anybody else do before. Much of it is Japan and Aoki inspired. So yeah, this may be another affair, but I agree with Julien that russians have so much "life" in them compared to beanbags and I love the fact that they do maintain their shape. Also, they roll but not as fast as stage balls. I've been able to do my 4b leg roll trick much easier with Russians. I suppose in many ways, they're like cheating :-)
And last but not least,here's a Chassidic Juggling Show! Enjoy, my Jewish friends:
First of all, kudos to the first person able to tell me who said the lyric in this post's title.
What is style and how do we find our own? Sometimes I think others tell you what your style is, and often it's not what you want. Even in the small community that we call juggling, everyone's known for a certain 'thing'. For Thomas Dietz to stop being the amazing numbers juggler that he is and switch to creative three club manipulation would shock us. That's not what he does. It's not his "style". But like I said, people have often told me that I have a "style" or that my style has become more "developed" and honestly I'm not sure what they mean. It could just be a comment that they think I want to hear. Or it could mean that they have some idea of Michael Karas brand juggling that I haven't quite hit yet.
However, it's not like I'm clueless. I do realize that many of my performances have common elements. More than 50% of my pieces have been set to hip-hop music. And almost 100% of my pieces have been tightly (and I mean tightly) choreographed to the music, so much so that a drop means the audience misses a boxcar or two while I try to hop back onto the train.
I really enjoy this style and I think my audiences do too. But like Stevenson, I've reached a fork in the road, and I'm thinking about switching directions for a little bit. Let me explain why.
I am really a mystery to myself. If you watch any Michael Karas videos, you will notice that I have a minor obsession with PATTERNS. I think all jugglers do, sure, but only on one video - Kineticut - have I bothered to attempt anything like a "sequence" on film. I love symmetry. I love ambidexterity. I like clutter. By "clutter", I mean that there's not a lot of air in my patterns. To illustrate, 97531 has very little air whereas 94444 has a lot of air. Siteswap "3" is so my friend that I've considered making a DVD completely dedicated to the exhaustive study of the cascade in all its forms.
However, if you've watched my work onstage, especially my ball work which is the most advanced of all three major props, you'll notice that pattern is almost absent. Especially in my latest 3b work in progress (Kiss Kiss) I spend very little time with recognizable patterns, instead focusing on using the objects to visually enhance the lyrics. You can find this routine here:
I focused so much on enhancing the lyrics in building this piece that I repeated the chorus sequence every time the chorus was sung. This obviously made choreography go by quicker because I only had to choreograph the chorus once. I have been very surprised to hear multiple (more than 5) people come up to me at conventions and tell me that my "idea" to repeat the chorus section was brilliant. This has surprised me, but also makes me realize that I may be a pioneer in this idea.
Anyway, no one ever sees the hours of grueling work and discarded choreography that go into finally publishing a work like "kiss kiss" on stage. I usually love the end product, but the choreography is such a pain-stakingingly slow process.
So here is my conundrum: in practice and in making videos, I absolutely love working on patterns - repeatable, lovely little 'creatures' (as Sean Gandini calls them) that tickle my brain. When it comes to making a routine though, I focus so much on illustrating music/lyrics that years of pattern research go out the window and I end up with a cool albeit totally different product that relies on sequences more than patterns.
Some jugglers do exactly as I don't. They have a piece of music that is 8-10 minutes long. They have about 7 minutes of material. The music is such that it can be faded at any time. Therefore they drop and then try the same trick again. Novel idea, ain't it? I'm sure this is actually probably the majority. Usually when you see a juggler drop, they pick up and try the same trick again in order to "defeat" it.
I've never built a piece like this, except when I'm improvising on stage but that's a whole different beast. While talking with Francis Julien in Montreal, he told me that my "sort" of piece is one that allows no breathing room. It's basically true. As he described, you get out there, you do your 3-4 minutes right to the music, you drop once or twice, curse silently in your head, and then get off stage, breathing heavily and wondering what just happened.
How much greater to create a piece that has breath? That has room for error? I've never really tried it before. Perhaps then, with a piece like this, I could focus on what my body tells me that I truly love - patterns and shapes! Not that I want to create a piece that is literally a list of patterns that I show to the audience one after another. But - that is a side of me (Pattern Boy!) that people see and love in my videos that is sorely missing from my stage appearances. There's a real discrepancy between the two mediums in my opinion at this point, and I am considering trying to be consistently pattern-based, at least for a while.
Or, more importantly, even if I create a routine based very much on sequences, I want to try to allow myself some breathing room. As Francis says, every routine can for the most part be divided up into counts of eight, like in dance. These can then be applied to any song at any point within the song. Just keep the beat of the song going constantly in your head and you can pick up from anywhere. I must admit that hip-hop may not be the best music for this new direction.
Don't get me wrong - I'll always love creating airtight 3 ball sequences to beats that I love, but I can't get stuck into a "style" at the age of 23. Not yet. I can juggle a lot better than most people think, but I need to give myself some stage time. Time for error. Time for breath. Time for surprise. Time for recognition of the audience. A race car ride instead of a rollercoaster. Something without tracks.
On the first day, Mr. Babache created rings and they were very mediumy.
Then on the second day, Mr. Babache created other new rings and they were both smallish and biggier than the rings he created on the first day.
Then on the third day, Oskar bought one of each from Mr. Babache and thought to himself, let me make something fun and spunky using these smallish, mediumy, and biggier rings.
On the fourth day, Jay met Oskar and liked very much the fun and spunkiness emitting from this new technique. He thought that America would like this spunkiness and imported it into our culture, adding his own flair and tips of the hat. Many liked this new technique and Jay was happy. Many called him an angel when the smallish ring was on his head and Jay was angry.
On the fifth day, Sean Blue and Jay Gilligan discovered that they could throw smallish and biggier rings together, creating a six ring layered cascade that looked very incrediblam and yet was ease-tastic. The mediumy rings became sad and confused.
On the sixth day, all the other animals saw this incrediblam pattern and thought it was good. They all flocked to In the Spin Juggling to buy their own sets of biggier and smallish rings so they too could be cool like Jay and Sean. Few in America knew of Oskar or his invention. Oskar didn't care. He only likes Trilobite anyway.
On the seventh day, Francis Julien was in Montreal doing the six smallish/biggier ring pattern and dropping a lot. He liked the pattern and wanted to perfect its superbaru qualities. Michael Karas showed him that it was actually ease-tastic with his own set of Mr. Babache equipment. Francis Julien called the pattern "bubbles" and Michael thought this was the perfect name. He didn't care if Oskar or Sean or Jay called the trick "the bubbles" because Francis did and he thought it the perfect name for this incrediblam trick.
So on the seventh day Michael Karas wrote a blog so that everyone would know and love that this cascade of three smallish and three biggier rings is called "the bubbles" and it was good. Mr. Babache rested because his business was booming.
The Bubbles are here now, like it or not. Accept the bubbles. Buy the bubbles. Learn the bubbles.
Then get over the bubbles and go and make something new.
Creative stuff happens. Hit yourself for not making it up first, then learn it, and get back to work.
*UPDATE* I was informed that Denis Paumier was the first person to use the three different sized rings. Whether this was for manipulation or for bubbles, I'm not sure. Thanks Jay! *End Update*