04 February 2007
Chocfest 2007
Most people seem to suggest that Chocfest is the best one-dayer of the year and I have to admit it's certainly up in the top three for me. We got there relatively early this year, despite having to wait for Darren to finish his crumpets. The young lad on the registration desk irritated me. But then young lads who frequent juggling conventions are apt to do that to me. And everyone cheered me up quite quickly after that. Barnesy sported a terribly fetching new 'do. Greg let me have a bit of a rummage through his stock 'cause he keeps providing me with duff clubs. Not that the quality of Beard merchandise is anything other than superb.
Alan and I hunted out and occupied the small gym with the intention of gettting stuck into seven club ultimates and/or eight clubs. And we didn't do badly. The ultimates clicked for the first time, even if it didn't look particularly pretty. It's quite a difficult pattern for someone who has trouble with the concept of 'floaty' throws. I prefer wanging 'em, personally. We had some of our better runs at eight through the day too which put Alan in a good enough mood to attempt six clubs back to back. I only wet myself a little bit.
Byjoty cleaned up in the games and provided me with chocolate buttons off the floor (albeit with a look of disgust), we had yummy fish and chips from down the road, and got to enjoy Dr Helen ranting around the theme of ethnicity.
I've decided to have a bash at scoring convention shows this year in an effort to provide myself with a reason to attend them. Observe:
- Good compere. New what he was doing. Didn't feel the need to fall back on clapping games. Was quick and efficient and funny. (+1)
- Digestive magic. Made me laugh. (+1)
- The Yorkie Bar Shits. Yet again their bit was well paced and entertaining for what it was (+1) but it was the same act they did last year plus a couple of pallets. I can't believe that kids that talented haven't progressed further in a whole year and I kinda wanted more. (-1) Unfortunately for them, I personally don't like them. They're young and tend to get under foot.(-1)
- Devil Stick Matt had a good bash but went on too long with stuff that wasn't all that thrilling to watch (-1). But he did do a couple of neat things and I took pity on him a bit. (+1)
- Dave Kelly had mad skillz, innit. (+1) And he managed to make his three ball stuff mildly entertaining. (+1)
- Jon Udry was the first person on the stage who actually looked like he was having fun. (+1) Plus, his hair makes him look like a golden retriever (+1). Poor music choice. (-1)
- The convention plugs were superb. Bungay was mentioned and I quivered with excitement (+1), and Miark was just Miark. (+1)
- The cake competition I'm never keen on. I could have forgiven it however if it hadn't been for the fact that it was supposedly a quick announcement. It wasnt. (-1) Personally, I'd be more than happy for them to dish the cake out with little signs to say who's is who's, announce the 3,2,1 places and have done with it. I don't really care what the judges thought of a cake some random I've never heard of made.
- The raffle was relatively quick but really, you should have a cake competition *or* a raffle. Not both. (-1)
- Dan was a skinny white man in a black vest playing with white bounce balls to vaguely European sounding music. (-1) It was a very 'meh' routine for me. (-1)
- Maxlastix was doing something I've never seen before (+1) and it happened to be stuff that was both entertaining and cringingly wrong. (+1)
- Tom started off his routine with no music again which makes him either arrogant or stupid after the reaction he got last time. Either way it put me immediately in mind of his Leeds act and I lost all impetus to be impressed. (-1) On the other hand, it was mercifully short. (+1) I really was bored by it though. (-1)
- Dave had the best music of the night (+1) and has perfected the art of looking to the audience for affirmation. (+1) He touched his nose/is my friend. (+1)
- Sean Blue is a white man in a black vest with three white balls. (-1) My initial reaction to his ball spinning, however, was "Shit!". (+1) Unfortunately, I hate shows to finish on ring acts just because I can't get excited about them and I like to leave a show feeling impressed. He should have done the ring stuff first and ended with the spinning three balls on one hand thing. (-1) His ring bit was long and arduous and I don't take pleasure from watching grown men make shapes with circles (-1)
Chocfest's show scores +4.
Very impressive to be that far into positive figures. The bar has certainly been set for the year.
12:35 Posted in Conventions, Happy, Juggling | Permalink | Comments (11) | Email this
Comments
See! I get called harsh you know. It's unbelievable!
Anyway I find it interesting that we can find the same routines so variedly entertaining. I think this is what people forget when they get all defensive about reviews you know.
But +4 is good for a start.
Posted by: Alby | 04 February 2007
so a show with dave kelly and dave barnes only would get +5, I see your convention shows gonner be pretty short and reigonally biased :-)
Posted by: rob | 06 February 2007
I thought that too. We can't expect Daves to be performing in every show.
Still it's an intersesting question: Is it better to have a really short but excellent show or a long and varied quality show?
Posted by: Alby | 06 February 2007
It's really all terribly simple.
Canvas my opinion on the day of the convention as to who I like and who I'm feeling a bit grumpy with and base the show around that.
And no flouncing about with rings.
Posted by: Clurb | 06 February 2007
I would rather see a show with 2 very good acts than 20 mediocre acts.
In Ireland for EJC the best show in MY opinion was the first show with only 2 acts (KUKA and Kris Kremo). I waited for an hour and a half to see that show and it was over in half an hour and I still think it was worth the wait.
Last year at Bullring, I walked in just before the show and wish I had been 2 hours later and missed it because it was so bad (drunk clown compere and no-one lined up for the renegade)
Quality not quantity, that is what counts.
Plumsie
Posted by: plumsie | 06 February 2007
Points well made Pete.
Posted by: Roger | 08 February 2007
Playing Devil's Advocate here:
There are other reasons for shows.
1 - the majority of people going will want to see a variety of acts or at least may not want to bother with one of the acts - you can't please all the people all the time and having more acts acts like a sort of spread bet against disappointment.
2 - More spots gives some less experienced people a good place to learn some stage craft - no doubt one of the points given to the Arts Council by those nice BJC orgs.
3 - There is no point 3.
Posted by: Alby | 09 February 2007
I might be too late for people to notice this...but what the hell:
Alby's point about a variety of acts makes me wonder how you all feel about novelty in shows? Not cheesy novelty, but new stuff; I always knock myself out with the shows that I produce to get people or routines that we haven't seen before. I do it becasue I think it makes it the show much more interesting. But it's risky, becasue I'm normally booking based on a person's skill or reputation rather than the act they're going to do this time. So far I think it's worked, I can only think of a couple of people who've fallen flat (and no, I'm not going to name names in public) but it'd be loads easier to ring Barnesy, Dave Kelly, Owen, The Void, Robin, Haggis, Norbi, Jon Udry, Zyllan, Grant Goldie and Yella Fever every year and get a pretty spiffy show. I reckon it'd even score pretty highly in the Grumpy Bear classification, but would you get bored with it every year? Especailly as you're likely to see some of those people at every other convention too.
-Mike
Posted by: Mike Armstrong | 13 February 2007
New is good. We like new.
I'm sure I'd look more favourably on a show that gave me new things to think about than one that rattled out the same old stuff, even if I walked out at the end thinking that Barnesy would have been more entertaining (or whatever).
And if it was all shit, so much the better. It wouldn't be a show if there was nothing to complain about ;)
Posted by: Clurb | 13 February 2007
It is a good point Mike,
I have seen a number of the shows you have produced and they are of a high standard. I would always rather see somone new than see an old tired act.
I respect the fact that you do work so hard to put on such a good show, I wish more people would do the same. It would be easy for anyone to put on a show of the usual suspects but I don't think that it would score highly on the grumpy bear scale. the problem with booking a lot of the people you listed is that we have seen them all before, there was a phase a year or two back where I had seen most of the routines that were being done on the convention circuit and was tired of seeing them.
New is good and if more convention organisers are reading this then please follow Mike's lead, book acts that have not been booked for five other conventions in the 4 months before yours, a booking based on reputatation may be a risk but the chances of the audience remaining interested for the whole show are much higher. I would rather see someone drop a couple of times doing something I haven't seen before than see a dropless routine for the 5th time.
Plumsie.
Posted by: Plumsie | 13 February 2007
I think new acts are worth the risk that you don't necessarily know how well they're going to do. It's better for the community as well, surely, as it exposes more people to more ideas.
Cheers,
Roger
Posted by: Roger | 13 February 2007
The comments are closed.