|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
I think just for a change it might be a good idea to talk about stage hypnosis rather than hypnotherapy and "close up" or "street hypnosis". Lately I have noticed a trend for younger hypnotists to want to do what is known as instant inductions on stage. Or if not too instant then two or three minutes at the very most. The argument for this is that the more relaxed, longer traditional inductions are allegedly "boring".
I believe this to be absolute claptrap. I do believe in the longer induction process and in fact I think it is fairly important. I personally believe that it doesn't actually hypnotise anyone but it is very important from a theatrical and prestige point of view. It adds to your credibility. I am very much against the present trend of new hypnotists doing fast or instant inductions. Or three minute inductions etc; I advocate a fairly lengthy induction lasting around 7 minutes or so. And of course a good lengthy induction does actually delude a few daft people to think they are actually hypnotised and if you want to call this self delusion "hypnosis" be my guest. Still, this is a discussion for another time and all I really want to focus on here is the length of the induction. The excuse often trotted out that long inductions are boring is absolute baloney. I still remember the first time I saw a stage hypnotist At the time I believed in hypnosis. He did the long induction and I was utterly fascinated to see people slowly and gradually going into hypnosis. I found it utterly spine chilling. You can do instant inductions but they should be done way into the show once you have gained credibility with the audience with the more standard longer inductions. I wake them up halfway into the show and use an instant induction to make them go under straight away. The audience literally gasps with astonishment over this. But it wouldn't be half as effective if I hadn't gained credibility first with the longer inductions. The trouble with doing fast inductions on their own without the longer procedure is that audiences think it is fake and plain don't believe it. And they come out of "hypnosis" very fast when you do it this way. Fast in, fast out. Far from being boring the audience sit there spellbound in absolute awe of what is going on if you do things the traditional way. They pay a lot of attention if you have a good voice and are a half decent showman. And of course you have an excellent excuse to demand quiet from the audience. Of course it can even be done without an induction. That is what Kreskin does. But he is a special case with prestige already built up and he does not present what he does as hypnotism and in fact he tells the audience he does not believe in it. But just because it can be done does not mean it should be. You could certainly do it with a school or college audience. In truth a bunch of students are the easiest ones to hypnotise and you can almost mail the show in. If for example, for some reason you have only half an hour to do a show then it may well be the only way you can do things. And with college students you can get away with it. But try this two minute crap with a corporate audience full of stuffed shirts. Even the younger employees will be hesitant because they don't want to make a fool of themselves in front of their bosses. You HAVE to do a longer induction and also other things which I have no space to describe if you want a successful show with a group like this. On television you may need to do instant inductions because you are very restricted with time and they will not allow the longer inductions on TV in case people at home allegedly go under and sue the TV station because they walk under a bus while hypnotised. College showcases limit stage hypnotists to half an hour but what you don't know is that they take selected subjects into another room before the showcase and do all the palaver there. Then they can put the subjects under very fast once they are on stage. I had to do a 15 minute showcase with hypnotism once and this is exactly what I did. However for most venues it is a bad mistake to do this flash-harry-bang-and-you're-under business. Hypnosis should be presented in a dignified manner. You don't just go for laughs although that is essential. You go for the spine chilling effect. That is what made people all over Ireland talk about Paul Goldin in hushed tones. And the best way to achieve that is to do things the slow, steady way. Trust me on this. I know what I am talking about. This is what the best established hypnotists do. And this is what I do. Absolutely essential except in special cases which we have discussed. I think the only reason I am posting this is that if I see another post about hypnotherapy or street hypnosis I will go up the wall. |
|||||||||
Mindpro Eternal Order 10587 Posts |
I couldn't agree more. Stage hypnosis (gee it is really nice to actually discuss it here) is about entertainment, entertainment is about engaging the audience, and I believe engaging the audience is about creating believability. In a good stage hypnosis show that comes about by allowing them so "see and experience the process", which is what a full induction can beautifully create.
A 7 minute inducting does not have to be boring. It can be absolutely fascinating. Yes, I believe the pretalk is important in establishing yourself and getting the audience with you, but a good visual and emotional induction really creates the foundation for which the rest of the show is based upon. If it is boring that is because of the performer. It can be very serious or mysterious, or it can be comedic, but it must be entertaining. In reality a good induction should have many of the key components of good theater - drama, comedy, suspense, amazement, believability and more, while establishing you as the performer, your style and credibility. In my opinion, while rapid inductions can save time, they often leave audiences to immediately believe it's "not real", "it's fake" or "unbelievable". If they think this early on in your performance, everything after that becomes suspect as well. Most of these guys that do rapid inductions seem to only to it to impress themselves. By doing rapid inductions, the audience is being cheated out of the process that gets the subjects from the same everyday position as the rest of the audience to that "something special and unique" as part of the performance. It also cheats the audience out of the theater that has made stage hypnosis and hypnosis in general so fascinating for generations. From a business sense it is also the thing that is the starting point for the press and media in their coverage, that sells merchandise or BOR following the performance, and that creates the "legend" that they will be talking about long after the performance. To me the entire process of a full induction is a key component to the credibility, believability and actual demonstration of hypnosis as seen by the audience. The skits and bits are just what happens after this is achieved. There is so much more to a good hypnosis performance, but it's is actually refreshing to talk about real performance hypnosis here, the way this forum was actually created for and to be featured. Even though it seems were being baited, it was fun. |
|||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
I apologise for the length of my earlier post. I didn't realise it was going to be as long as my inductions! Still, anything is better than chattering about street hypnosis or hypnotherapy. Perhaps that stuff has it's place but you can have too much of a good thing. If it is a good thing, that is.
I really don't like those instant inductions unless they are done later in the show when you do the longer induction first, do your stuff, wake them up and rehypnotise them by the fast inductions. Then is is valid and even astonishing because you have established yourself first with the slower method. I seem to remember that Paul McKenna wrote something about this in his memoirs or someplace. He said that he first started with the fast inductions but he found out through audience feedback that people were sceptical and thought it was faked. When he went to do things the longer way the problem was eliminated. No. The longer way is definitely the best way. I am utterly convinced of it. Granted you need to be a good showman to do it this way but you need this anyway if you are going to do stage hypnosis. I don't want to be hypercritical but I have noticed that the young hot shots that do this "Bang-you're out" kind of thing seem to have a vary crass, pleased-with-myself, undignified style which makes hypnosis look trivial rather than the awe inspiring event emphasising the phenomena itself as well as the entertainment producing said phenomena. And the longer induction gives you an excellent opportunity to achieve this because it is virtually the only part of the show where comedy has to be eliminated so you can focus on the spine chilling mysterious effect. To sum it up, I agree 100 percent with Mindpro over this matter. |
|||||||||
Mindpro Eternal Order 10587 Posts |
To take it one step farther, I have on many occasions seen stage hypnotists who have used a rapid induction on a group of volunteers to find out minutes later when trying to get to the routines that more of them (subjects) are not responding to the suggestion, begin to laugh or giggle or simple are obviously not "under". They of course are dismissed. But the number of these people and their frequency seem much greater with a rapid induction than with a progressive induction. To me understandably so, but it doesn't fare well with the audience.
By doing a progressive induction it allows the performer more observational and decisive time with the subjects to dismiss any non-compliant subjects BEFORE getting them to the skits and bits section where their non-response is much more crucial, notable and impressionable to the audience. This can also play a huge key in both the believability and entertainment factors to an audience. It also to me gives the performer much greater control over the committee and allows for better positioning and the right person selection for the right routines or desired outcomes. |
|||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
Yes indeed. It does give you more time to figure things out. I never thought of that. Mind you, I did think of the "laughing and giggling" aspect and I meant to mention it. You get a lot more of that when you operate the fast way.
|
|||||||||
Jesse Lewis Loyal user 227 Posts |
I have seen both and I perfer a longer induction. Around 7-9 minutes is perfect for most places that I have been. To me the only thing I use instants for is reinducing. The Induction is as much part of the show as the actuall skits groups want and dare I say "need" to see the process. It is all about what the audience and volunteers need not what feeds the hypnotists ego.
Jesse
Learn how to build a bigger business at www.showbizsuccesssecrets.com
|
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
First, I want to point out one of the basic rules of this forum:
" No ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE "REALITY" OF HYPNOSIS, please. Hypnosis, AS A FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT, is most certainly REAL as many of the participants in this forum actively practice this form of theater to earn their livings. Any arguments as to whether hypnosis is "real" or not are best left to other forums outside of the Café'. In deference to the members who are practicing professional stage hypnotists in this forum, please refrain from starting any threads about whether hypnosis is "real" or not. Any posts on this topic will be deleted starting now. This is NOT negotiable." White Rodent's claim, "I do believe in the longer induction process and in fact I think it is fairly important. I personally believe that it doesn't actually hypnotise anyone…a good lengthy induction does actually delude a few daft people to think they are actually hypnotised and if you want to call this self delusion "hypnosis" be my guest. Still, this is a discussion for another time" appears to be in direct violation of this rule as well as an insult to participants in hypnosis shows. No, the discussion is not for "another time." Per the rules of this forum it's for another place completely. White Rodent writes, 'The excuse often trotted out that long inductions are boring is absolute baloney. I still remember the first time I saw a stage hypnotist At the time I believed in hypnosis. He did the long induction and I was utterly fascinated to see people slowly and gradually going into hypnosis. I found it utterly spine chilling." Well, that's great. I glad you liked it. I have no problem with that. The problem, however, is with the (il)logic that results from your statement. You moves from the specific (you found it "utterly spine chilling") to the general ("the audience sit there spellbound in absolute awe of what is going on if you do things the traditional way") with absolutely NO REASON OR PROOF to make the jump. This is followed by one of the most incredible cases of dogmatism I've seen on these pages: "However for most venues it is a bad mistake to do this flash-harry-bang-and-you're-under business". "Hypnosis should be presented in a dignified manner." "You don't just go for laughs although that is essential. You go for the spine chilling effect." "And the best way to achieve that is to do things the slow, steady way. Trust me on this. I know what I am talking about." "And this is what I do. Absolutely essential…" I'm very glad your system works for you. In fact, I agree that in stage shows, instant inductions are better limited not because "audiences think it is fake and plain don't believe it," but because it's a stunt, and after you've done it once or twice before an audience it's boring. White Rodent writes that his instant inductions "wouldn't be half as effective if I hadn't gained credibility first with the longer inductions." Actually, you had better have had credibility before ANY induction. Without credibility, part of rapport, the success of inductions of any kind decreases dramatically. That's why the introduction before you appear and your opening talk are so important. One thing about stage hypnosis I find so freeing, exhilarating, and wonderful is that you can mesmerize (no pun intended) a large audience without boxes, wires, mirrors, trap doors, and a raft of assistants. Instead, IMO, a stage hypnotist requires broad understanding of hypnosis and the ability to rapidly change to what best fits any particular audience. Sure, pros have set techniques and skits, but not being able to improvise on the fly puts you in the same category as the magician who watches in horror as a box breaks revealing a hidden assistant or a wire breaks and a "floating" object falls to the floor. Twenty years ago, limiting oneself to a typical agonizingly-long induction would have worked with most audiences. Thirty years ago it would have worked with almost all audiences. Today, after two generations of MTV and film and TV filled with fast cuts and rapidly diminishing attention spans, a new approach for many audiences is demanded. Is this true for all audiences? No. Are there ways to do longer inductions that keep short attention span audiences involved? Absolutely. Should hypnotists live in a world where we should blindly listen to what one person says as if it were law written in stone? I don't think so. |
|||||||||
quicknotist Special user 888 Posts |
Dmkraig has said it all really, in what is easily the best post of this thread.
I'd just like to add that almost every other form of live stage entertainment has seen the need to adapt and evolve in these changing times. Why not stage hypnosis? Venues have changed to accommodate these changing tastes too. It's not just that audiences are used to and drawn to more intimate venues. Generally speaking, many larger spaces are also often lit and laid out differently these days. Quote:
On 2013-05-29 12:12, dmkraig wrote: |
|||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
With all due respect to dmkraig he is talking absolute rubbish. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he has stage hypnotism experience therefore he is not qualified to comment. I will accept that he has hypnotherapy experience but that is not what we are here to discuss. He will no doubt claim that he has lots of stage hypnosis experience. I do not wish to be rude but if he does say that I will frankly state that I don't believe it.
I haven't the slightest intention of discussing the possibility of the reality of hypnosis as I implied strongly in my post so I require no lectures from the inexperienced on the matter. I will merely say that one's attitude to this affects the way you do your show. No. Stage hypnotism does NOT have to move with the times if that supposed getting up to date makes for an inferior show. That clip I showed of Barry Sinclair doing a two hour show (probably in the eighties is an example of a superior show that I doubt any of the modern workers can match. Or at least I haven't seen an example of it. There is either a right way or a wrong way to do stage hypnosis. The methods I advocate are not my methods. They have been used by the greatest hypnotists in the business. If you are a showman a 7 minute induction is not "agonisingly long" Or at least not as agonisingly long as the posts normally made by dmkraig who is a professional writer rather than a stage hypnotist. And if you research the things he writes about you will realise that he does not live in the real world. All I have to do is tell you who his publisher is. Llewellyn Publications who produce books about angels, dreams, spirit guides and other metaphysical nonsense. And those are the sole things they publish. And the stuff he liked to believe in. Sorry. I have to operate in the real world and part of that real world is knowing how to entertain people in the correct manner. And the correct manner is NOT to come on stage in your street clothes, make crude remarks, act in a look-at-me manner and do ridiculously short inductions which look fake as hell. I require no lessons from dkraig about having credibility before the induction. Indeed if he were to read my post carefully instead of admiring his own verbosity so much he would see that I alluded to it momentarily without dwelling on it. In my work I have my potential subjects half hypnotised before I even start the induction. My introduction and pre talk is second to none and in fact is more entertaining than most. If "adapting and evolving" means the inferior and sleazy shows that I see around nowadays then I shall be content to live in a time warp of class, building up the importance of the phenomena, getting gasps of amazement as well as laughs and having people talk about the show in way that uplifts the art. You can keep your sleazy, jack-the-lad supposedly "hip" shows where they go home saying, "Oh that was funny! That was great! Did you see Charlie acting stupid on the stage? But of course we know he was acting. Did you see him trying to stifle a smile? Did you see that woman faking? What about that guy on the end showing off? Of course I have seen him before in my local bar. He does stuff like that even when he is not hypnotised" No. That is NOT the correct way. The way I advocate may not be the only way. But it is nevertheless THE RIGHT WAY. |
|||||||||
kevinuncanny Loyal user 264 Posts |
I'm not sure why people are trying to call each other out. That isn't the point of any of these topics.
Length of induction is a great topic. My normal induction runs under 5 min and I regularly keep 60%+. I know a lot people are trying "new" instant techniques. I just don't see them as being anymore effective then what I am doing. In my 80min show there is about 15min of stand-up comedy based around hypnosis, then I call for volunteers, I make sure they are seated properly then a 4.5-5min induction. I also attempt to explain to my audience what is happening and why. Is there too short of an induction? Not if it works consistantly for you. Is there too long of an induction? Not if you find a way to make it interesting.
Kevin Lepine
Hypnosis Unleashed-THE Vegas Hypnosis Show www.Kevinlepine.com www.VegasHypnosisShow.com |
|||||||||
Jesse Lewis Loyal user 227 Posts |
Kevin: that is one of the most sensible things I have seen on the Café in a long time. Which is why I do not post very often.
White Rodent: 2 hour show yep I have done them and they were great. It is all about presence and knowing what you are doing. (I only do clean shows by the way) The reason most do not do them is simple their audiences do not actually want a two hour hyp show. I have found 90 minutes max is about right and if I have the chance 45 minutes is just fine too. Also I am not attacking you in any way but consider that everyone elses way is also "THE RIGHT WAY" in their own experience. I prefer a longer induction to a short one as it suits my show and it is truly what my audiences expect from me. I prefer a clean show because I think dirty ones are not for me personally. I also share a lot of your other beliefs but am still open to others opinions because if we close ourselves off we stop learning. As the old saying goes " when you are green you grow when you are ripe you rot" Have a wonderful day everyone. Forever green Jesse
Learn how to build a bigger business at www.showbizsuccesssecrets.com
|
|||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
Don't be silly Jesse. I am WHITE RODENT and naturally my opinions on these matters are gospel. There is only ONE right way and that is mine. I am the way, the truth and the light on all hypnotic matters. No other opinion is of any consequence whatsoever, Oh, except Mindpro of course.
I am always amused at what people say on this section. They actually think their opinions matter. I find that quite hilarious. |
|||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
And a message to Kevin. 5 minutes is not bad but under that is a tiny bit short. And it seems to be reflected in your stated percentage of subjects going under. 60% is not bad but also a tiny bit short. I think I can tell you how to get 70% under instead of 60%. Just add another minute to your induction. Try it and see. I know these things.
|
|||||||||
kevinuncanny Loyal user 264 Posts |
White Rodent: I average out between my audience response and my ability to keep volunteers in that state of hypnosis. I do shows 6 nights a week every week and won Best of Las Vegas. There have been nights where I have added a bit more to the induction and there are nights my induction has gone three minutes and kept 70%. It's about the volunteers as much, if not more then, the technique.
Also, did you ask why I keep 60% + instead of aiming for 70-80%? With the size of my stage I know how many I want to keep comfortably and safely up there. I firmly believe different inductions work for different people. I could never do the induction Jim Hoke did as his phsyical presence was part of his induction. Nor could I Terry Stokes induction as I don't appear like your trusted Uncle. Length doesn't mean quality but neither does brevity. Jesse: Thanks! I try to add what I can!
Kevin Lepine
Hypnosis Unleashed-THE Vegas Hypnosis Show www.Kevinlepine.com www.VegasHypnosisShow.com |
|||||||||
Mindpro Eternal Order 10587 Posts |
Whether up or down under, I appreciate White Rodent's sentiments. Also I always thought length matters !?! (and rapid was frustrating to the recipient)
|
|||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
Yes Kevin. I have seen your work and studied it carefully. Vegas or no Vegas there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. It is possible to do things 6 nights a week in the wrong way and the bad habits become embedded. I am not saying this is the case with you of course. I do say that three minutes is far too short.
I still think 60% is a bit on the low side. If I have 10 people on stage I don't like to lose more than two of them. It can happen of course even to the best hypnotists but it should average out no more than that. Losing a couple adds credence to the genuineness of the phenomena. Losing more than that can start to look like incompetence. And losing say, 8 looks absolutely dreadful. If I have a really bad night I will not allow the number of people I keep on stage to be less than three. It is still awful but I can get by. However, all this is very rare indeed. Most of the time I only lose one or none at all. Sometimes two. But rarely more than that. You are young, Kevin. You still have time to grow. Keep at it. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Hypnotists always amaze me at the silly measuring contests they engage in.
I prefer without doubt a more theatrical opening and induction. Doesn't make it right. It makes it my preference. Fact is as for retension rate almost regardless of what type of induction you use you will keep the exact same percentage. Most of that is deceided before they ever hit the chairs. Do what is right for you. Who cares what percentage of who you keep? Nobody but hypnotists that is who. It is about the show and if your show won't be good with onoy 50% of them up there you have other problems. The audience does not think of it as your failure. Well not when it is done right anyhow. It is just how your show works. So can we put away the measuring contest school yard crap and not get caught up in the usual nonsense? I ask Mr. RODENT not to do this. Show that you really do want to last past 50 posts. Your insights are most welcom. But they come at a terrible cost of the same bs every time.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
White Rodent New user Australia 84 Posts |
Danny. Mindpro brought up the vulgar measuring in the context you are referring to. Most disgraceful and I cannot possibly approve. I have seen various hypnotism shows which indulge in unseemly blue material and of course in Australia we are known for propriety and decorum.
As for the school yard excretia as you term it that was started by dmkraig without having been given my formal permission to do so. Besides everyone argues and abuses each other on this section even when I am not here. As for the same bovine excretia that you refer to I must advise that repetition is an excellent way for the message to finally sink in. It may take several centuries before it does on this section, of course, but I can but try. Nevertheless in light of your plea I will attempt to be nice to the younger generation for at least three more posts. And even to the rather impertinent metaphysical writer chap who is under the delusion he is a stage hypnotist. After all I am renowned for my courtesy and diplomatic nature. And incidentally, this is the 54th post so I have succeeded in your hopes for me. |
|||||||||
kevinuncanny Loyal user 264 Posts |
Danny: I totally agree. The show is the key. Whatever amount of people onstage you have is what you will make a show out of. It's more about bringing the best out of the people you have with you.
This topic is about induction length. The reason I brought up percentage is because I have to balance length of induction, entertainment of my audience and amount of time available to do a show together to figure out what length works for me. In the end the question is what works best for you, the audience and the volunteers as a unit.
Kevin Lepine
Hypnosis Unleashed-THE Vegas Hypnosis Show www.Kevinlepine.com www.VegasHypnosisShow.com |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Rodent youn miss the point.
Kevin. Exactly
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » You are getting sleepy...very sleepy... » » Length of hypnotic inductions (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |