I have to question the validity of an average LPM score. If I did a comedy routine for half my show and was dead serious for the other half then I would still get a good LPM but have a rubbish show. Numbers such as these are redundant because they are not context specific enough. If your aim is to blind your potential customer with science then you could easily do this by surveying the kids at all the shows you really rocked at (and leaving out all the ones where you bombed). Then again my audience tends to arrive either through word of mouth or agent so I don't need to use numbers to sell myself.

Videoing yourself and then going through counting the laughs seems to me to miss the point. You want to know where the show went wrong and if you are performing a show that you know works (which I assume is true for most of us who have been doing shows for a while) then the enviroment, the audience and our own feelings at the time are most often the factors that make or break a show.

This is not to say that I think that a show can't be improved and that humour won't help to improve it but that laughs per se are only one aspect of your show and there are many other ways to improve your show. You might want to consider for example :-

Use of costume
Which tricks
What order of tricks
Segues
Stance
Position on stage
Volume
Quality of sound
Position of props
A slight change in your character

None of which are specifically to do with comedy but all of which can affect your show (there are more). Also none of these are particularly susceptible to numerical analysis.

The best way to improving your show is to get a very honest entertainer to watch and criticise and to really listen to what they say (and then ignore half of it because it won't work for you but it's knowing which half to ignore)

Nigel

btw I have a degree in maths

Nigel,

Math is a finite science, a language in its own right. Psychology is another science which, time and time again trys to place behaviors in quanatiitave terms, and I might say not to accurately, at times, however, it an on going changing science, without it we might still be in the dark ages.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could quantitavely define what we do as children magicians. Schenk and Sondermeyer in their book "Performing Magic for Children" and Kaye in "Kids Show Kliff Notes: The Psychology of Performing Magic for Children", and Kaye's recent book "Seriously Silly" all focused on the make-up of entertaining children from a psychological stand point.

I believe David Kaye was the first to introduce and publish Laughs Per Minute and Interactions Per Minute to the children entertainment industry. (From what I read on the internet, this has been in the Stand-up Comedy industry for quite some time.)

In the above post Nigel points out numberous presentation methods which also clearly define the level of entertainment from a Showmanship and Presentation point of view. (See Fitzkee's Showmanship And Presesentation for a complete list as well as detailed information)

I disagree with what can be susceptible to numerical analysis. Words and statements can be placed into 128 sylogistic forms for analayis, of which a majority of them can be proven false. The science of Logic.

In the Docorate degrees, and circles as well as thier journals, they are constantantly arguing the finer points of their craft. LPM and IPM for the children industry is something to really study. Something that one can concretely say, it makes a difference. True, all the other theater crafts add to the development of our craft.

No single item stands above another, however, even though the LPM and IPM concept has been around for years, applying it to one's performance for kids really elevates the playing field of children entertainer. Until David Kaye introduced it to me in his "Seriously Silly" book, a sledge hammer hit me. The light bulb turned on and my mind raced wildly. I went back to my notes and saw this concept in quantative terms. Skip Way, started filling in the blank spots, and I revised my notes to refect this concept.

There are two methods of learning, trial by error, and concrete solid workable methods. I could easily show one how to tie a square knot, but to teach someone how to tie a square knot is another matter. This applies to entertaining children.

The above list is growing each time I buy an item. Now one can have a starting point for their show in routine development and gauge how it works on an audience. Add the routines and an act is developed, add the theater componets, of music, sound, lighting, backdrop, and the stage presence, link them together intertwined with a story telling theme and what do you have. A CHILDREN's PLAY. charge $125 per performce and go into the poor house, charge $2,000 and rarely work.

Where is that alusive quantative line? I don't think there is one specifically, its infinate. Add in comedy. It is so different from drama, it is culture definable, it is personality defineable, it is age defineable, etc. and you have a questionable routine that is specific to the definable terms. What we have here is adult analysis; the sharing of ideas and concepts that can make what is clarly a poor performace into something of value, something sellable, something worthy of striving towards.

David Kaye points out in the very front pages of his book "Seriously Silly", the children of today are no different than the children of yesteryear, and quotes an example. What makes the shows different? Look ath the old videos, Mark Wilson videos, laughter is a key element and cannot be ignored. Keeping the kids involved, the Interactions per minute, Laughs per Minute, is a long time tested axiom. It is only now we are talking in terms we can understand why we do the things we do.

We can do more then "Show how to entertain children", we can now "Teach another how to entertain children", using Audience Management Techniques, LPM, IPM, with comedy.

Dennis.

I would feel happier with this approach if it weren't for two things.

1) The people who have been taught audience management techniques with regards to LPM, IPM etc. tend to come out as clones. How many conferences have we all been to where you can see this process at work? Deliver this message in this way, put joke in here etc. I already see many magicians as being far too similar and I really don't want them to have another excuse for them to get more so.

2) Over analysis will kill the comedy in your show. The best shows are developed through the experiences of the performer and their own inherent abilities. I don't think you can teach comedy or the comedy clubs wouldn't be filled with so many poor comedians.

Compare comedy with art. What makes a great artist? Is it the techniques that he was taught by his art teacher or what is inside him which allows him to break the mould and develop new techniques. Yes you can analyse to painting in terms of strokes per minute, different colours, firmness of stroke or whatever. At the end of the day will any of this analysis make you a great artist? It might let you replicate the artist but a copy is never as good as the original.

Nigel

Nigel, I agree with that point of view for entertaining adults in comedy clubs, but not for first exposure to magic from a childs point of view.

For instance, the coloring book. There are many different methods to do this, many variations, "Whats, My Job", "Sketch Pad", "Stamp Collections", "Mother Goose" and many self made books for the seasons and holidays as well as theme shows.

Here's a book flip it one way say something, flip it another and say something else and so forth. More skilled entertainers make their own version of the coloring book. No clones here. The delivery can be funny in LPM or the delivery can be informative and educational such as in Steve Taylor's "Lewis and Clark Journal." A straight instructional delivery is boring, and interactive delivery is exciting, add in the LPM you can produce and you have a solid children's routine.

A show for kids with zero LPM compared to a show where 30% is laughter (3-LPM) a big difference. "Silly Billy" costume looks clownish, his glasses look silly, his actions are silly and his character protrays silliness. He strives for a high LPM and IPM defining and reinforcing his character. On the other hand, I don't look silly (unless fat is silly) I dress in the classic magician's tux, and I goof off, make mistakes, use funny props, and interact with the children. My LPM is lower than Silly Billys and IPM may be closer to his, however, there is no cloning here. Is there room for improvement absolutely now there is a guage to consider.

We are talking about entertaining children in a funny way, not striving for adult comedy club performance. Entertaining adults is a whole other thread where in my opinion, there may be validation in what you say, it is not my area of expertise.

Compare kids with kids, they laugh at things adults don't they are different and as such one must recognize this.

Under analysis your children's show will definated kill your show. Knowledge is powerful when it comes to entertaining children. From my perspective, a lot harder than entertaining adults.

Geees, you've made me really concious of the laughs I get in my show at the moment I'm working to get a whole one at least very halfhour.
lol it did actually work out (yes I counted them) over a 50 minute show I averaged 4 - 5 lpm
I'm well chuffed with that
nut now I'm paranoid ill be counting every show I do now - thanks a lot - ive gone all OCD

Loved the links for the big stuff and the foam products.. I have sent in orders already.. thanks

Great Stuff...makes me a better performer already.


Wanlu

Thanks for the post (don't know what 'butt stuff' is?)

"Butt Stuff" Clowns are know to use the Slapper Paddle, and the act of Shaking your butt is funny. If you were to sit on something white and turn around, that would be funny.

I don't do "butt stuff" but others do. The point here is to recognized that kids do laught ant things that involve "the butt". They are known to call others "butthead" because they think it is funny as well as gross.

If one sits in a chair and falls half way through, and his butt is hanging under, this is funny.

As I said, in clowning, lots can be created, however, I don't do it.

In one of Silly Billy's routines, he uses a diaper for some laughs, this for example is "butt stuff".

The point is there are many ways to make one laugh and visually, is only one way.

I read all of your post above. I understand there are some disagreements. I put all the pieces together. It all adds up to you are all professional magicians for kids shows. We need more magicians like you. The kids don't want every magician doing/saying the same thing as others. The kids want to see different charactors. So let me re-read your post again so I can collect some more tips for my next show.

Dynamike

I think I agree more with Silly Billy in the notion that it is not laughs/minute that count most, but interactions/minute that really count. If you can get the laughs, that is awesome, but at least shoot for 3-4 interactions/minute. By interactions he means shouting, laughing, pointing, talking to the magician etc. I think it is theoretically possible to have an unbelievable and engaging show with interactions largely in place of laughs, though I would admit that laughs are probably the best interaction. Just my two cents...