Explaining juggling to non-jugglers
Juggling fool
get the option to explore in depth topics that they wouldn't during
school. So, naturally, I chose juggling. As a requirement of the program,
I have to give a presentation at the middle of the year on my topic. I've
got most of what i'm going to say about my juggling in particular covered,
but I was looking for some inspiration on explaining juggling to the
non-juggling public, with an emphasis on its versatility, skill (with
maybe building a trick like backcrosses or a blind catch from the ground
up) and dispelling of the common myths (juggling with torches or chainsaws
or plungers = juggling with clubs, juggling exists thrivingly outside and
inside of the circus). Does anyone have any videos of this sort of
presentation or advice on the subject? Keep in mind that I get to choose
part of a reviewing committee which will be composed of generally
intelligent, patient people, not some drunk heckler on the street.
Thanks in advance,
Adam
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
IeuanMaiden
A lot of people talk about siteswap and "communicating juggling" when it
comes to these sort of things.
I spoke a bit about siteswap in a maths/computing presentation at
university about recursion, about how one would learn an n-ball 97531 type
trick (i.e. throw the nth odd number height and then do the n-1th version
underneath it)
As for a video, have a look at Luke Burrages into to his 3 ball +
projector routine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGDoLNIouhM
Have fun researching, I hope you and your audience will learn a lot.
IM
Dave Altman
>
> Juggling fool wrote:
> >
> > Okay, so in my school there's an independent study program, where students
> > get the option to explore in depth topics that they wouldn't during
> > school. So, naturally, I chose juggling. As a requirement of the program,
> > I have to give a presentation at the middle of the year on my topic. I've
> > got most of what i'm going to say about my juggling in particular covered,
> > but I was looking for some inspiration on explaining juggling to the
> > non-juggling public, with an emphasis on its versatility, skill (with
> > maybe building a trick like backcrosses or a blind catch from the ground
> > up) and dispelling of the common myths (juggling with torches or chainsaws
> > or plungers = juggling with clubs, juggling exists thrivingly outside and
> > inside of the circus). Does anyone have any videos of this sort of
> > presentation or advice on the subject? Keep in mind that I get to choose
> > part of a reviewing committee which will be composed of generally
> > intelligent, patient people, not some drunk heckler on the street.
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Adam
I wouldn't go out of my way to throw my fellow jugglers under the bus,
that happen to juggle torches, chainsaws, or plungers, as hacks and not
worth watching. Some of those jugglers may be your friends, now, in the
future, or it may even be you.
Don't try to over-educate them. If you spend too much time explaining that
some jugglers are horrible, the audience will walk away, lumping all
jugglers as hacks and tricksters. Spending a lot of time explaining
siteswaps will certainly bore the sh*t out of them, unless they are the
nerdy, geek-types. A general audience only wants to know the highlights of
the technical aspect.
Pick what your overall goal is. Do you want to excite them to possibly
becoming jugglers themselves? Do you want them to be a part of
appreciative audiences of juggling and other circus arts? Do you want them
to know the history of juggling and how it came to be the way it is today?
Or do want them to think you are a jerk for thinking that your style of
juggling is the only valid type of juggling there is?
Dave "Thinks you should read whatever you want to between the lines."
Altman
David Cherepov
Garfield does stuff like that in a performance, when he explains for a
long time. Also look at Michael Moschen's long video on youtube. You could
also
explain that there are many different props for juggling and object
manipulation. I really wish I could do a project like this in school.
Juggling fool
> that happen to juggle torches, chainsaws, or plungers, as hacks and not
> worth watching. Some of those jugglers may be your friends, now, in the
> future, or it may even be you.
>
> Don't try to over-educate them. If you spend too much time explaining that
> some jugglers are horrible, the audience will walk away, lumping all
> jugglers as hacks and tricksters.
simply because It has been noted to be one of the most tiresome questions
asked to jugglers, including myself. While I certainly wasn't planning on
being a jerk about it, more of "It is certainly a possible performance
option, but the juggling of torches and the like is not the portion of
juggling that has held my interest, and that more performance and visual
oriented style is certainly one of the many equally valid interpretations
of juggling (to take a line out of garfield's book)."
> siteswaps will certainly bore the sh*t out of them, unless they are the
> nerdy, geek-types. A general audience only wants to know the highlights of
> the technical aspect.
as you are right, it would only serve to turn off an audience that is not
math oriented. I was planning on doing something just saying that the
numbers represent the height of the throw, and maybe a 97531 (which I
can't do) as an example.
> Pick what your overall goal is. Do you want to excite them to possibly
> becoming jugglers themselves? Do you want them to be a part of
> appreciative audiences of juggling and other circus arts? Do you want them
> to know the history of juggling and how it came to be the way it is today?
> Or do want them to think you are a jerk for thinking that your style of
> juggling is the only valid type of juggling there is?
>
would be interested in the same thing that is slowly devouring my life,
and is an unrealistic goal to acheive. However, I think that the constant
reminder while creating a routine of "Well this is only interesting to
jugglers, non-jugglers would never understand how hard any of this is" to
be highly limiting, and unnecessary. I think my main goal would really be
to create a more appreciative and understanding audience, which really
shouldn't be that difficult. I mean, we all know that juggling has been
appealing on some level, and I think it would be wasteful of me to not
give my audience a more general appreciative audience. (something similar
to the final judge in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbi3pKXwcJM which starts at around 4:34).
Also, I'm not sure if I was clear enough about this in my original post,
but I think one of the worst things you can do for a non-juggling audience
is to only expose them to one type of juggling. I think it should be the
goal to show the non-juggling audience how incredibly versatile of a
skill/sport/art/hobby etc. that juggling is, then you can only take away
from their appreciation of it. A basketball player probably wouldn't like
a michael menes routine or tangram as much as a poet or writer or dancer,
but might be more attracted to a WJF style approach. A mathematically
oriented person might enjoy the siteswap possibilities. Personally, I
enjoy all approaches to juggling (other than hack routines lacking skill
or creativity, but maybe that doesn't need to be expressed so heavily),
and I can't wait to share my passion with others.
Thanks for the input,
Adam "thinking about making a montage to encompass all of juggling" Kaps.
P.S I wish I was as entertaining of a human as luke.
Poor-
Maybe you could mention the sport side of juggling. Talk about
competitions. Maybe even compare it to skateboarding, noting that while
they both can be a hobby, there is also a competitive side and that
juggling has its own set of legendary tricks.
Mike Moore
From what I read, Adam wasn't trying to bash chainsaw/torch/plunger
jugglers too hard, just saying that using those props is not often a
juggler's ultimate goal (as many non-jugglers think).
Mike
Dave Altman
> From what I read, Adam wasn't trying to bash chainsaw/torch/plunger
> jugglers too hard, just saying that using those props is not often a
> juggler's ultimate goal (as many non-jugglers think).
Yeah, my words were just ramblings of a non-sport juggler. I am not a
chainsaw/torch/plunger, either. I have never even tried to juggle
chainsaws. It looks too awkward and hard to do, to me. I used to do
torches, but I like the new light-up props much better. When I first saw
the Plunger Guy, I was very impressed. I have always been impressed with
the manipulation of everyday objects. Throwing a water bottle to a head
balance, tennis ball and can, balancing a bicycle on the forehead, etc.;
just seems amazing to me. I think audiences can relate to the objects
better, too.
I have a masters in education and I do shows/workshops that are basically
just demonstrating a few types of juggling I can do. I don't bother to say
what kind of juggling is bad. I'll leave that to Jason Garfield and his
followers. That is his thing. I'm not threatened, insulted, or feel the
need to inform the general public what is proper juggling. Although there
might be other people that do feel the need, I think it's a waste of time.
Are there good singers, dancers, skate boarders, that have made it their
life's mission to single out people that don't live up to their standards
in those activities?
I think dismissing certain props does limit juggling and jugglers. If
juggling three chainsaws in a cascade is being a hack, why not take it to
a higher level. Five chainsaws with back crosses, anyone? 3-up with a 360,
perhaps?
Dave Altman
Nico Alfonso
>
>*snip*
>
> Are there good singers, dancers, skate boarders, that have made it their
> life's mission to single out people that don't live up to their standards
> in those activities?
>
>
Yes.
Dave Altman
>
> Dave Altman wrote:
> >
> >*snip*
> >
> > Are there good singers, dancers, skate boarders, that have made it their
> > life's mission to single out people that don't live up to their standards
> > in those activities?
Who?
I was thinking this today for a bit. Telling other jugglers what makes a
good juggler or bad juggler seems okay, but telling the general public,
just doesn't seem right to me. It's like you are telling the public what
they can or can not like. Using the obvious example of Chris Bliss. For
some strange reason, people liked his video. It was okay, but I didn't
understand all the hype about it. Was it the Beatles' music, that is
seemed to be really into it? Who knows, exactly, but regardless, I was
happy for him and that a juggler was getting some positive attention.
For some reason, Jason Garfield was not happy for Chris Bliss getting some
attention. Was he pissed that he wasn't getting that much attention?
Probably. Is Jason a better juggler? Technically, yes.
Not to rehash all this over again. I am already getting bored with it in
this post, but it is telling that Chris Bliss's video got way more viewing
than Jason's. I think Jason's video road the coattails of Chris's video.
If it was a stand alone video, it probably wouldn't have gotten as many
views as it did.
Personally, I am not going to single out any juggler or any type of
juggler and go around talking to non-jugglers how crappy they are and by
inference or directly saying that I am better by comparison, even if I
felt like I was.
Dave Altman
Juggling fool
I trying to tell the public that they can or can not like something. I
really was just trying to show that torches or non-juggling objects are
not the end-all be-all of juggling, but only one section of juggling. Just
like contact juggling, or the wjf competitions, or artistic creations, or
karas-style experimentations, or siteswap theory, and the list goes on and
on. The only difference between them is that the only change between
juggling objects designed for it and objects not designed for it is an
aesthetic one, not the difficulty or danger change that most of the public
seems to think there is. In fact one of the things that I most like about
juggling and most want to show the public is just how many different
routes can be taken with it. I have even been working with tennis ball and
can along with ping-pong ball and paddle recently, because you get totally
different kinds of difficult and potentially creative of juggling style
manipulation. Literally the only message I'm sending that is anything more
negative than a cake made out of rainbows and happiness is that juggling
torches and knives does not make one godly. I'm not trying to be
tyrannical in my presentation, just honest. How does that warrant any
hostility?
The Void
> P.S I wish I was as entertaining of a human as luke.
I find that sentence very entertaining. Does that help?
The Void
.....................
There is no Royal Road to entertainment
Mike Moore
I came to a realization at Turbofest this year, actually: there aren't
really props I dislike, instead I dislike using obscurity or a
misalignment between an audience's perspective and performer perspective's
[1] to mask a lack of difficulty/creativity. I'd enjoy a 4 chainsaw Mills
Mess or the like!
Mike
[1] Obscurity: look what I can do with this pylon[2]! It took me 20
minutes to figure out based on club moves I saw on a basic instructional
DVD, but since the prop is obscure I can get away with not being any good
at it[3]!
Perceived versus actual example: juggling a three knife cascade.
[2] I use a pylon as an example because it was the first thing I thought
of (there is one beside me, don't ask why). Not a shot at all those
hardcore pylon manipulators.
[3] But I have massive respect for those who develop a new prop and put
thought and energy into it.
Juggling fool
>
> Juggling fool wrote:
> > P.S I wish I was as entertaining of a human as luke.
>
> I find that sentence very entertaining. Does that help?
>
> The Void
> .....................
> There is no Royal Road to entertainment
>
It helped more than a slap in the face, but less than apple pie.
Adam "funnier on the internet than in real life" Kaps.
Dave Altman
> I'm not trying to be tyrannical in my presentation, just honest. How does
that warrant any hostility?
Okay, but I was mainly talking about Jason Garfield, not you, Adam. I
wasn't trying to be hostile toward anyone, though.
Dave "Is a different tone of gray." Altman
Nico Alfonso
>
> Nico Alfonso wrote:
> >
> > Dave Altman wrote:
> > >
> > >*snip*
> > >
> > > Are there good singers, dancers, skate boarders, that have made it their
> > > life's mission to single out people that don't live up to their standards
> > > in those activities?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Who?
>
>
>
I'm not implying that I think that it's okay to publicly call out another
performer for being "not as talented" as any other. I just thought that it
should be brought up that not only jugglers are prone to dissing others.
While not all of the following have made it their "life's mission" to call
out others based on their perceived "lack of talent", many performers are
still quick to publicly defame their peers. Some notable examples of
people who insult others talent in the following performance categories
include:
Singing/Songwriting:
--Basically every rapper (Kanye West, Eminem, Mike Jones, Fabolous, etc.)
--Cobra Starship's Gabe Saporta
--My Chemical Romance's Gerard Way
--Justin Beiber
--Ke$ha
--Katy Perry
--Black Crowes's Chris Robinson
Dancing:
--Britney Spears
--Lots of celebs on "Dancing with the Stars"
--Pretty much the majority of working dancers who actively audition for
roles (based off of my own personal experience--dancers don't really get
too much publicity)
Sports:
--Shaquille O'Neil
--Ray Lewis
--Joey Porter
--Chad Johnson/Ochocinco
--Alex Ferguson
--Brandon Marshall
Actors:
--Alex Meraz
--Rupert Everett
--Bob Hope
--Joan Rivers
--Heda Hopper
--Ronald Reagan
Authors:
--Mark Twain
--George Bernard Shaw
--Lord Byron
--Gore Vidal
--Nathaniel Hawthorne
--Harold Bloom
--Charlotte Bronte
--William Faulkner
Bottom line: Entertainment is harsh and competitive. Everyone should be
able to accept that and deal with it, even though it's not a nice thing
for someone to do.
Dave Altman
>
> Dave Altman wrote:
> >
[stuff]
Good post, I stand corrected. There are pricks in lots of areas of
entertainment.
Dave Altman
It's Him
history of juggling (and other manipulative miscellania). My lecture
touched on the vast array of different skills that have come from
different parts of the world and how these have been incorporated into
modern circus and street shows. When I mentioned siteswap I gave a brief
demonstration of different throw heights (up to 5) and performed a couple
of 3 ball siteswaps and 4 ball siteswaps. Enough to show how different
numbers create different patterns and also how the same numbers can have
different patterns.
Again when talking about knives/clubs/chain saws etc. it's worthwhile to
give a brief demonstration to show that they are the same throwing
technique and mention that pictorial evidence suggests knives came first
(and how unreliable that evidence is).
The impact of the internet (in particular rec.juggling and youtube), the
gap year (poi), modern manufacturing techniques and distribution methods
saw a vast growth in juggling both in numbers (especially 1990 onwards)
and in technique (cf. diabolo circa 1991 and now). As has alternative life
styles (rave culture, exercise fads).
Nigel
hope that helps
Scott Seltzer
> Interestingly enough I have been doing some evening lectures on the
> history of juggling (and other manipulative miscellania). My lecture
> touched on the vast array of different skills that have come from
> different parts of the world and how these have been incorporated into
> modern circus and street shows. When I mentioned siteswap I gave a brief
> demonstration of different throw heights (up to 5) and performed a couple
> of 3 ball siteswaps and 4 ball siteswaps. Enough to show how different
> numbers create different patterns and also how the same numbers can have
> different patterns.
>
> Again when talking about knives/clubs/chain saws etc. it's worthwhile to
> give a brief demonstration to show that they are the same throwing
> technique and mention that pictorial evidence suggests knives came first
> (and how unreliable that evidence is).
>
> The impact of the internet (in particular rec.juggling and youtube), the
> gap year (poi), modern manufacturing techniques and distribution methods
> saw a vast growth in juggling both in numbers (especially 1990 onwards)
> and in technique (cf. diabolo circa 1991 and now). As has alternative life
> styles (rave culture, exercise fads).
>
> Nigel
>
> hope that helps
Very interesting stuff. I'd love to see that in essay form (if you don't
mind giving away your research, especially to plagiarizing students).
-Scott
Juggling fool
Ditto to scott. I'd especially like to hear some more about the
manufacutring and distribution, along with the gap year as I can't logic
out how that would work other than some vague connection between hippies,
nature and poi, which I hope is not the actual connection.
Todd
wrote:
bunch of stuff snipped
> [2] I use a pylon as an example because it was the first thing I thought
> of (there is one beside me, don't ask why). Not a shot at all those
> hardcore pylon manipulators.
Can't help but wonder if you are you posting on a highway with enough
construction to re-route traffic.
As for Jugglingfool's original request, you may find something
worthwhile here:
http://www.toddstrong.com/personalthoughts/jugglingandmagic.php
The article on that page discusses some differences and similarities
between juggling and magic. Essentially, jugglers manipulate objects
covertly; magicians manipulate objects overtly. (article first
appeared in JUGGLE magazine)
Todd Strong
Kelhoon
> I certainly wasn't planning on overdoing siteswap during the presentation,
> as you are right, it would only serve to turn off an audience that is not
> math oriented. I was planning on doing something just saying that the
> numbers represent the height of the throw, and maybe a 97531 (which I
> can't do) as an example.
Someone has to say it, may as well be me. The numbers do NOT represent
the height. Do more(/better) research :-)
You could, however, point out that siteswap led to the discovery of
previously unknown patterns like 441 (which you probably can do or learn
before you have to give your talk).
If you want to dispel some juggling myths for them, you could mention that
the standard cartoon image of jugglers throwing a lot of objects in a
perfect circle is false and why it is.
Maybe explain why the base pattern for odd numbers is different from the
base pattern for even numbers.
Maybe also mention how many objects people can actually juggle and how
only a small percentage of jugglers can do the higher numbers.
Kelhoon - stopping now before he writes your talk for you.
Juggle on !
Dave Cheetham
>
> Luke Burrage's video would be good near the end of the presentation. Jason
> Garfield does stuff like that in a performance, when he explains for a
> long time. Also look at Michael Moschen's long video on youtube. You could
> also
> explain that there are many different props for juggling and object
> manipulation. I really wish I could do a project like this in school.
>
If you're thinking about something like this, don't forget about David
Cain's multi-prop videos.
Dave
Juggling fool
>
> Juggling fool wrote:
> > I certainly wasn't planning on overdoing siteswap during the presentation,
> > as you are right, it would only serve to turn off an audience that is not
> > math oriented. I was planning on doing something just saying that the
> > numbers represent the height of the throw, and maybe a 97531 (which I
> > can't do) as an example.
>
> Someone has to say it, may as well be me. The numbers do NOT represent
> the height. Do more(/better) research :-)
>
>
to how many beats later said object is ret-hrown, from which can be
derived why even numbers cross and odd numbers do. This is really designed
to be the most easily accessible presentation of siteswap to the public,
though maybe it's worth presenting it's base definition then and there.
I'm saving the more complicated stuff for my science fair project :-)
Boppo
wrote:
I'm not sure my reason ("inspiration") for juggling falls within any
of your emphases, namely that it is meditative, although admittedly a
somewhat hectic form of meditation. But it's a right-brained,
relaxing, shapes-and-patterns activity. I think that might go some
way to explaining it to a non-juggling audience. (If this is even
what you're asking for.)
-boppo
Juggling fool
etymological standpoint, and this could be a very nice way of
differentiating magicians and jugglers. Thanks for the article
thegoheads
> Someone has to say it, may as well be me. The numbers do NOT represent
> the height. Do more(/better) research :-)
I've explained siteswap to a lot of non-jugglers and beginners, and more
often than not they are confused if I explain that the numbers represent
how many beats before an object is thrown/manipulated again. I like to
start by saying "higher number = higher throw" immediately following that
up by making it clear that the actual throw heights will vary based on the
speed of the pattern. It is also very easy to visually demonstrate this.
It's incredibly rare to ever see people juggling siteswaps while
frantically alternating the tempo, making 6s lower than 4s, or 3s higher
than 5s, etc.etc. The "higher number = higher throw" is almost always
the case when anyone is juggling any given siteswap. Even though "higher
number = higher throw" is not technically correct, it is true in most
cases and is the most simplistic way to explain siteswap to beginners.
...
...
...
Adam, I think it would be great to explain siteswaps in your presentation.
From my experience, most average non-jugglers find it at least somewhat
interesting that there is a simple mathematical notation system that can
be used to generate infinite patterns. Maybe just offer a quick
explanation, and then juggle a few basic sample patterns, like 3, 441,
531, and maybe some 4 ball patterns too.
I also think you should explain that juggling chainsaws/knives/etc are
just gimmicks used for entertainment purposes[1], and maybe make a point
that although sometimes clowns juggle, clowns and jugglers can be two
completely separate things[2]. It definitely seems that the average
non-juggler immediately associates juggling with either "circus clowns" or
"chainsaws and fire". I think it would be important to clear up that
misconception up front by explaining that those are forms of entertainment
involving juggling, but there are also lots of ordinary people who juggle
for recreation. It could make for a good introduction to the
presentation. Good luck!
-Steve
[1] not that there's anything wrong with that.
[2] and there's nothing wrong with clowns either.
Juggling fool
>
> Kelhoon wrote:
> > Someone has to say it, may as well be me. The numbers do NOT represent
> > the height. Do more(/better) research :-)
>
> I've explained siteswap to a lot of non-jugglers and beginners, and more
> often than not they are confused if I explain that the numbers represent
> how many beats before an object is thrown/manipulated again. I like to
> start by saying "higher number = higher throw" immediately following that
> up by making it clear that the actual throw heights will vary based on the
> speed of the pattern. It is also very easy to visually demonstrate this.
>
> It's incredibly rare to ever see people juggling siteswaps while
> frantically alternating the tempo, making 6s lower than 4s, or 3s higher
> than 5s, etc.etc. The "higher number = higher throw" is almost always
> the case when anyone is juggling any given siteswap. Even though "higher
> number = higher throw" is not technically correct, it is true in most
> cases and is the most simplistic way to explain siteswap to beginners.
vast experience in explaining siteswap to non-jugglers.
>
> ...
> ...
> ...
>
> Adam, I think it would be great to explain siteswaps in your presentation.
> From my experience, most average non-jugglers find it at least somewhat
> interesting that there is a simple mathematical notation system that can
> be used to generate infinite patterns. Maybe just offer a quick
> explanation, and then juggle a few basic sample patterns, like 3, 441,
> 531, and maybe some 4 ball patterns too.
>
understandable level as well as a mathematically simple level. As a side
note, I am absolutely adoring 742741641 and 7441742741641 right now, 4
ball siteswap is fantastic.
> I also think you should explain that juggling chainsaws/knives/etc are
> just gimmicks used for entertainment purposes[1], and maybe make a point
> that although sometimes clowns juggle, clowns and jugglers can be two
> completely separate things[2]. It definitely seems that the average
> non-juggler immediately associates juggling with either "circus clowns" or
> "chainsaws and fire". I think it would be important to clear up that
> misconception up front by explaining that those are forms of entertainment
> involving juggling, but there are also lots of ordinary people who juggle
> for recreation. It could make for a good introduction to the
> presentation. Good luck!
>
clowns and jugglers pretty quickly, as I am in fact in a youth circus (I'm
absolutely terrible at everything except juggling), a fact that i'd say is
fairly publicly well known, probably one of the first things I wanted to
say was a quote i stole and slightly altered from the passing zone that
while clowns may juggle, jugglers are not inherently clowns. The fact that
juggling can be so many different things for so many different people,
including hobby or performance art or sport or a meditative process or
stress relief or a creative outlet etc. is one of the most interesting
things to me about juggling and something I intend to make as clear as I
can in my presentation.
> -Steve
>
>
> [1] not that there's anything wrong with that.
>
> [2] and there's nothing wrong with clowns either.
>
The Void
>
> Essentially, jugglers manipulate objects
> covertly; magicians manipulate objects overtly.
I think you made a slip-up, and got that the wrong way round. If not, then
I disagree (or spectacularly misunderstand!).
The Void
...................
But objectivity is subjective!
Little Paul
> The main reason I was planning on demystifying torches and the like was
> simply because It has been noted to be one of the most tiresome questions
> asked to jugglers, including myself.
Given how awesome juggling is, and how many areas of it are really
interesting from a historical, social, artistic and atheletic point
of view - why do you need to demistify anything at all?
Why not just ignore that side of it and talk about some other area
of juggling entirely? I could probably fill a 2 hour talk with
enthusiasm about juggling (including photos[1] and video of tricks
I'm not even sure are possible, yet were performed two shows a day 60
years ago) without ever needing to mention a chainsaw!
So nix the negativity altogether, avoid the subject of what Jason thinks
is Hack juggling widen your scope. That leaves you more space to be really
enthusiastic about how interesting juggling and jugglers are.
-Paul
[1] Hell, I could probably fill an hour with gushing about cool pictures
found in "Virtuosos of Juggling" by Karl-Heinz Ziethen and Alessandro
Serena. If you cant find a second hand copy, you can get it new for not
much money from www.renegadejuggling.com
--
http://paulseward.com
pumpkineater23
Same here exactly. Dancing with gravity was an expression I seem to
remember from somewhere.
pete
Dave Altman
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > Essentially, jugglers manipulate objects
> > covertly; magicians manipulate objects overtly.
>
> I think you made a slip-up, and got that the wrong way round. If not, then
> I disagree (or spectacularly misunderstand!).
Void, you are just not sneaky enough as a juggler. Do you think Instant
Jugglers are actually doing what it looks like they are doing? You must be
old school.
Dave Altman
The Void
> > > Essentially, jugglers manipulate objects
> > > covertly; magicians manipulate objects overtly.
> >
> > I think you made a slip-up, and got that the wrong way round. If not, then
> > I disagree (or spectacularly misunderstand!).
>
> Void, you are just not sneaky enough as a juggler. Do you think Instant
> Jugglers are actually doing what it looks like they are doing? You must be
> old school.
Thank you! Some [1] would say I'm the old school instant juggler.
[1] Meaning LP: http://juggling.tv/1834
The Void
..................
Seriously old's cool? http://juggling.tv/4170
--
TLMB tees & hoodies: www.tlmb.net/tees : 18 designs