On Oct 1, 2017, Philemon Vanderbeck wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 29, 2017, Samuel Catoe wrote:
When I first saw the routine, I thought it was ok, but not terribly entertaining. It seemed overly long and tedious. There were several good lines that helped break the tedium to me. It was interesting but not compelling. As for methods, I saw several possibilities and methodologies at work. Do I think it would fool an audience? Certainly. Do I think it would entertain an audience? Not necessarily. I wouldn't use the routine, as it was performed, as a closer, but more of a filler routine in the middle. I feel that's a shame as that routine could definitely be a closer with some tweaking.

While Samuel was definitely being honest with his opinion, does this really constitute honest feedback? Certainly Samuel has the right to express his opinion that he was not entertained and that he felt the routine was "overly long and tedious." It is when he states that he does not think it would entertain an audience that he crosses the line from just expressing his personal opinion into venturing into territory that he has inadequate experience in.

As we can clearly hear and see from the P&TFU audience, they WERE entertained. Ran also states that the routine consistently entertains, and he would know from direct experience. If it didn't, I doubt that he would keep performing it. The fact that it won an award at FISM demonstrates that even his peers thought it bore merit.

I also found it curious that Samuel needed to state how he would and wouldn't use the routine. Um, it's not for anyone else but Ran to perform (until such time he decides to publish it or sell it). It is HIS routine, truly original, and no one should even think of performing it. As for whether it is better suited as a "filler" or a closer is likewise a ludicrous argument. As has been expressed by countless professionals in the past, no routine should be a "filler;" every routine should be viewed as a potential closer, otherwise it should be removed from the act. If it is so weak as to be thought of as a filler, then it has no place in a full act.

There's a fine distinction between "negative criticism" and simply tearing down another person's act. Criticism does have its place, but it should always be constructive, and should come from a place of well-informed opinion. And personally, I believe that criticism should only be given when it has been asked for by the creator. Ran shared his video so that we could watch and enjoy it. It's fine to not to like his routine, but then one should just move on. Ran should only be concerned about how his audiences react, not what a bunch of amateurs think. Not many of us are of the caliber to win an award at FISM or even be invited to perform on P&TFU. Until we have, then our opinions remain merely personal, and often are not well-informed.

On Oct 5, 2017, mentalran wrote:
Well in most cases I hand the bells to the first row, which means Im alone on the stage at the second climax