Recently I had the opportunity to view footage of a few big name Vegas performers. Please note these did not include Marc Savard or Justin Tranz.

What stood out was that they solely did group routines. Never used amnesia. I was told that they do not like risks or any failure.

This seemed very odd to me as I assumed much of the value in stage hypnosis was allowing the real stars to shine and individually at times.

What are your thoughts on shows that only do group routines?

Anthony

I've always felt that a good stage hypnosis show should start with several good group routines, then progress on to some individual routines with the standout "superstars", and for me, then end with my strongest group routines (and of course featuring the "superstars"). I believe there are several good reasons for this as among other things, it allows you to find the best responders (not just necessarily hypnotically, but personality-wise as well). To me this allows for the best performance possible featuring the best of both worlds.

Funny you mentioned this as I just saw one of the current popular stage hypnotists in Vegas, and this one one of my main observations as well.

I agree with Mindpro completely. I do some basic group routines at first. This is a warm up to see who is really with me. I then break it up using selective and group routines through the course of the show.

It seems people, Americans in general, like to see those that stand out above the rest. It gives them something more to talk about. -Shane

Keith Barry uses only group routines here in Ireland. It is the one mistake he is making. You need to step out of your comfort zone and take a risk. Let individuals shine.

To be honest, I would get bored doing an all group routine. I would get bored watching an all group routine. Of course, I have also been diagnosed with Attention Defi....oooohhh...SHINEY!!!-Shane

I certainly agree with what has been said. When you do group routines you are generally working with the lowest performer and bringing them along. Using group routines to dismiss non-performers and find the real superstars is, IMO, the way to go.

I also want to agree strongly with Tony's last sentences, "Let individuals shine." The first stage hypnosis training I ever "took" (via videotape) had someone who seemed to make lots of sense. The final tape consisted of his show. It featured him standing center stage repeating suggestions over and over, while people were performing. It made him the center of attention and it appeared as if he feared they might stop if he shut up for a second.

Horrible. Horrible.

I think it depends on the size of the venue and audience. A group routines only show could work very well for large venues and audiences. There's also less "dead air" time in between routines. For venues and audiences sizes in settings like a parlour or a smaller auditorium, a mix of group and individual routines in my opinion is a better balance since in those situations one would achieve greater impact by performing more intimate individual routines.

The reason "all group" routines get boring is that hypnotists keep FAR too many people on stage. They keep people who are doing absolutely NOTHING, just to be able to say that they have a high number retained. (some sort of wierd measuring contest)

But if you have taken the number of people on stage down to ONLY those who are going to shine, then those boring group routines, become raucus fun. The eye is drawn to the unusual. People in a hypnosis show NOT doing something is unusual. Get rid of the dead weight and don't worry about how many are left and what you get is a "group" of people who respond very very well. It is infectious.

Now that being said I do not like an all group routine show either. I do not do one. BUT I am telling you that the very idea that "group routines" are in some way boring is totally the fault of the hypnotist themself. It is the equivilant of saying "card tricks are boring".

The routines in the show are simply the tools in your tool box. It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools for a poor job.

As for the idea of "taking risks"? Not to smart an idea if you have to do the job 6 nights a week. The idea is to make the show bullet proof. The idea is NOT to take risks. While as a "performer" this may not make you happy, as an audience member (the vast majority of whom have NEVER SEEN a hypnosis show) it gives them the best bang for the buck. The idea that you have to take a "risk" of some sort or what not is really not a professional viewpoint.

The show is not about whether you get bored or not. It is about giving the audience the best show possible.

Keith is an incredible position. He is still really learning stage hypnosis but because of who he is getting large audiences.

I think all shows have some risk to them since it isn't a scripted show. You really depend upon your volunteers. Sometimes you have to take risks to get the best responses. In my view.

I also think the best shows allow for the individual trance personalities to develop. Some of the funniest things I've ever saw came from the lips and actions of volunteers that were funnier than most professional comedians.

A show that has some organic development is usually a lot funnier and amazing than one that doesn't.

I think if you do hypno shows you take risks by default since you depend upon volunteers.

Good points. Common to all the clips I saw was dead wood. It still struck me as risk averse behaviour to not isolate any individual in some kind of pass or fail suggestion. That should not imply that giving a pass or fail suggestion such as amnesia is inherently risky. There is only a small chance it will not stick at that stage after all.

I don't know why I expected more of Vegas but I look forward to seeing the top performers.

Safe is risky. A Purple Cow told me that.

The biggest risks come from trying to get reactions from individuals. You have maybe three great prospects that have hyper responses. If you are doing a two hour show do you just use them or do you try and get others to respond. The worst thing that can happen is that they don't and you just move on.

Sometimes the "dead wood" can be used in group routines very effectively but not individually.

It really depends and to some extent it is all a risk since you don't know how a group will react to a certain routine. You could be throwing away a hilarious combination.

I tend to keep them and try them in between the shining stars. Some nights it pays off big. Others not so much. Ocasionally someone who is a slow starter will blossom into a star.

Although I can see Danny's point of view. If I were doing it six nights a week I might subscribe to his way of thinking.