Including more performances would have been great, but the tape was already an hour long, and would have cost quite a bit more to produce to add another 10 or fifteen minute performance.

David Copperfield used my original ring presentation bit in which the spectator is supposedly keeping up with the performer in his cut and restored rope routine on The Orient Express special. He did this with permission, and as you may have noticed, he listed me in the ending credits as a consultant.

My good friend Chuck Fayne has a brilliant "You Do As I Do" color-changing handkerchief routine based on my plot, and he also asked permission to use the bit.

Actually, the whole bit is published, and from my point of view, is in the public domain now. Anyone is welcome to use it however they find it helpful.

I can't really comment on the particular link Frank is talking about, because that line isn't even in my routine. I suspect I was having a hard time keeping control of the situation with the indomitable Meredith, and fighting to keep her from showing me her rings were not apart.

In the tape, the explanations and demos cover the way the spectator is normally handled, and we have several bits of different routines with different types of spectators at the end.

At any rate, Frank, wait until you see me in a live performance, you will see how it is supposed to look. When someone is trying urgently to tell you something (Mine didn't come apart!), it is very dangerous to pause. The first link and unlink of the routine are the most magical, and the most emphasized and where the real magic appears, the rest are there mostly for the comedy and to make clear the fact that the spectator can't separate the rings, and the performer can easily.

Then all the rings are linked in various ways, and unlinked one by one--very magically--to prove that all the rings, including the spectators, both link and unlink the same.

By the way, Frank, I never mind criticism, and never take it personally. A performer has to separate himself from his work if he is going to improve, and I guarantee I am a much harsher critic of my own work than anyone.

My grandmother was a well-known abstract painter in Virginia, and my grandfather a country born, self-educated man who owned a furniture store and was in construction. Whenever she asked him his opinion of one of her paintings, he would study it, and then say "I think it needs a little more red in this corner." She would get mad and throw him out of the studio. Then she would study the painting and realize that a triangle, or some other little design element was needed in the area he had pointed to. She told me, "You know, even people who haven't got a clue about the art, often point to the weak spot that needs improvement. If it was perfect, they couldn't point there. You should always listen to criticism, but rarely take advice, because very few understand enough to know what you are trying to accomplish. Just go to the spots in the work that they point out, and study them again."

Thanks for the input on your routine Whit. I do really like it a lot. It's just making me think a lot about it.

Is there a set of rings that you recommend for the routine? As well as size?

The magic store down the street offers a few different sets and I have no idea what to get.

Thanks,
Frank


p.s. I used to want to learn Daryl's rope routine because I just loved it (and I still do) but I've never put the time into it for one very important reason.... As good as it is, one day I realized that there is little or no spectator interaction.

I learned from my own performances that getting the props into the spectators hands is key for high impact magic.

Your routine does this to a huge degree and is precicely why I'm wanting to learn it and why I'm asking questions.

Thanks for you work.

Frank Starsinic

I use a ten-inch set of solid stainless steel Merv Taylor rings. They are my favorites. I also have a set of 12 inch rings, also solid and heavy. I prefer the feeling of the heavy rings, and think that spectators can sense the solidity and innocence of the rings when they handle them.

But it is really just a matter of preference. Some people find the heavy rings difficult to manipulate smoothly. If you like the light weight of hollow rings, get good ones. Owens are great.

The main thing is that the rings should be able to withstand a great deal of abuse. You can't believe what spectators can put them through. The Taylor "Orbs Eternal" are just that. They are seemingly invulnerable. I have heard the same thing about the Owen hollow rings.

But to start out, almost any decent set of 10 to 12 inch rings will be fine.

Unless in a huge arena, ten inch rings handle best. The Owen hollows are great, but Joe Porper is now making beautiful rings.

Check ebay for possible bargains. What you don't want are SKINNY, TINNY rings.

Porper's rings are great. I highly recommend them. He also makes the "Splitting Ring" as used by Jason Latimer, and a great locking key.

I'm on my way to Joe's today or tomorrow to pick up a set of his rings. See latest Genii for a great story on Porper's work.

Hi Guys,

Can anyone tell me if this can be done up close with a set of 4 inch rings? If not, why not?

Magically

Aus

Hi Aus,

If your intent is to perform Whit's routine 'as is' with the smaller rings in a close up setting, I think that you would sacrifice a lot of what makes Whit's routine effective.
(And you would need to re-engineer some moves that become physically impossible with four inchers.)

It is a Do-As-I-Do routine aided by a volunteer from the audience, and it plays to the audience (think Slydini's Paper Balls OTH).

The size of your audience will be limited in a close-up situation, and it might be difficult for anyone to see what's happening in the volunteer's hands, since (the rings) could be mostly obscured.

And then there is the potential problem of the volunteer viewing it as a piece of one-upmanship achieved at his/her expense: something that isn't a problem in a less intimate setting, due to the pacing and the structure of the routine.

There is a lot to be learned here about proper people management though, and careful study of this will probably allow you to put something together that will work similarly in a close up situation.

Plus it's just fun to watch. Pick it up; you won't be sorry.

I think with people management, as mentioned above, your personality, and a few changes to the moves, you can do a WhitLike routine up close.

I have been playing with this idea myself using the Ninja Rings set.

*******

Then again, you could work out your own routine and be "WhitLess."

Worked with Whit, yesterday, on a new project. He did his fantastic ring routine. When he was finished, I polled the audience and found that the "Rings" were the favorite items of the day.

When the magic is memorable, you've said it all!

Regards,

Paul Green

PS He is a nice guy!

Hi everyone,

This is my first post! I am an Australian magician working in Japan. I love the linking rings. It was Cellini's routine that I first fell in love with. It is a great routine, but there are some angle problems.

I worked on Whit's routine and have had some great success. In fact I have just come home from doing it at a hoel lobby. I find that when I do it with an adult it goes down really well and the understad the comical element. However, when I do it with a kid they don't seem to get it. The first link gets a reaction and when they link the rings get a good reaction but after that it doesn't seem to have as great an impact...

Am I doing something wrong? Anyone experienced something similar?

I would appreciate some feedback.
Thanks

Simon

My suggestion is to buy "Seriously Silly" from your local magic shop
and read about how you need to modify routines to fit different age groups, etc.

I think Whit's routine has a lot of potential with kids and it's
method of invoking comedy can be applied to other types of effects.

I do something similar with my rope routine.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't buy the DVD if it had a less than optimal performance on it. When I purchase video it is most often to see someone whom I enjoy whenever I wish... not to learn a trick, or tricks.

If there is value in seeing things NOT go well for Whit, I can agree it would be valuable to have it on the DVD, but not at the expense of having a good performance of what I consider to be the best linking ring routine around.

I first saw it perhaps twenty years ago and I haven't seen any better since...

Are you working for Japanese kids? Or kids raised in Japan? The might not find the situation you're putting the volunteer in funny. Or it may be that it's not funny that an Australian magician and a Japanese volunteer aren't quite understanding eachother.

It works for Japanese magicians with Japanese adults. Shigeo Takagi's rope routine used the same gag, and I've seen it work for Japanese adults. (when he did it) No idea whether it works for kids, tho.

I've found that Whit's routine plays flat when I haven't set up the moment properly. When the audience, and the volunteer, thinks that the magic is supposed to work for the volunteer, and it's his fault--rather than mine--that it doesn't, then the whole thing can just play like a cruel joke. This is true of American audiences, even. If you hear the audience laughing AT the volunteer when he can't unlink the rings, you're in the wrong groove.

Take a look at Shigeo Takagi's ring routine. (Amazing Miracles of Shigeo Takagi, Kaufman)He had a volunteer link and unlink the rings, but he avoided the prolonged period of potential embarrasment. Shoot Ogawa's (second) routine does about the same.

These approaches are safe, but they're second best. The optimal presentation successfully communicates your (Whit's) idea, that the volunteer rises to the occaision, as planned. Once you can guide the audience through a potentially uncomfortable experience, with everyone feeling like a winner at the end, you've tapped the full potential of Whit's creation.

An approach that Steve Bedwell uses in his killer rope routine allows for the spectator to receive applause at certain moments in his routine by use of an applause cue, repeated several times. Buy the manuscript for more detail, I did.

Clearly this can be added to Whit's great routine. The audience is told that when the routine gets to a certain point, (which could be as simple as holding the 2 rings up at chest level, using both hands and smiling, or displaying the linked rings with one hand and gesturing like Vanna White) that they should applaud wildly for the spectataor. This cue is repeated after each "link".

Given this, the spectator is constantly receiving wild applause during the routine. This technique might deflate the potential for the "cruel joke".

This is the point of spinning the rings after each segment. That is the applause cue for the assistant. The joke, "It's show business--like parsly on fish," sets up the cue for applause for both the assistant and the audience.

It also enables you to cue the spectator if he does not catch on to the bit, and is in the wrong position with the rings when you turn around--still trying to get them apart or trying to be funny by putting them over his head, etc.

You take his rings and put them in position and say "No, give them a spin, like this..." and turn immediately to the audience and gesture for applause for the spectator.

Correct. I had forgotten.
You win!

"...like parsley on fish." I like that.
Do you grow your own?

That's what had bugged me about the routine at the beginning, that I wouldn't have the character to pull it off (i.e. making the volunteer a hero versus a cruel joke). Also, I'm glad that Whit mentioned that it was an atypical performance in the DVD... that may have contributed to my thoughts... too bad I haven't had the chance to see this routine live. It sure was good to see old footage though!

If you're unsure of yourself, tell the audience specifically, "when she displays and spins the rings everyone give her a rousing round of applause. make her feel good. it could be you up here!"

In my opinion, there's nothing with coming right out and telling them what to do.

Frank, that telegraphs the wrong message: "It could be you up here having a hard time." You want the audience to think that you think the assistant is doing great!

The spectator is making a fool of the performer, who is obviously out of the loop, and not aware that the assistant isn't keeping up. The audience is forced into playing a role of mischievous students laughing at the teacher. They have to pretend that the teacher doesn't know what is going on in order to laugh at him. This forced role play of the assistant and the audience is the heart of the theatricality of the routine.

In fact, at one point I berate the audience, "See if you were paying attention, you could be learning something! (Turning and beaming with pride to my assistant) Like Debbie..."

It is better simply to react with delight and pride at what the spectator has done, and demand applause for him/her. "Perfect! That is great!"

Use the patter as written until you understand. Most people have a hard time with the routine because they make up their own patter before they understand what needs to be said and done and when.

You should always learn routines the way they are written first, and perform them that way before you start monkeying around with them.

I have done this routine for thousands and thousands of performances in front of every kind of audience over more than thirty-five years. Everything is there for a reason. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

Once you can kill with the routine as written, then you can consider making any changes you think would be an improvement.