Talk:Ventriloquism Information & Talk:Ventriloquism Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)

	v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Circus. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Requirements

What are the requirements for adding a page to Wikipedia about a specific ventriloquist? (ApostleJoe (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)) In 1938, the Mercury Theater of the Air, directed by Orson Welles, aired weekly dramas, such as Treasure Island, Dracula and Julius Caesar, over the CBS network every Sunday night at 8 pm.. On October 30th 1938, it aired H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds rendered in the style of a radio news story with bulletins from reporters played by actors in the Mercury Theater. Ten minutes into the program, the announcer said: “Ladies and gentlemen, I have a grave announcement to make. Incredible as it may seem, strange beings who landed in New Jersey tonight are the vanguard of an invading army from Mars.” Then reporters announced snake-like monsters emerging from space ships and slaughtering Americans with their ray guns in Grovers Mill, New Jersey.

Although it had identified itself as a fictional drama at the beginning of the program, listeners who tuned it later understandably were confused by the mock news bulletins. Consequently, their were many calls to CBS stations and newspapers. 832 people called the New York Times. Although this represented only a minute fraction of the radio audience, the Times turned it into a front page story.

Thus, 1938 is the correct year.

[edit] How the Art is Produced

Information should be added on how the art is produced. -DSC

Agreed; that was the main reason I came to the article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Double-agreed. The majority of this article is about ventriloquists, which is technically a separate issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.140.195 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be interesting to add?

http://www.brownielocks.com/ventriloquism.html

213.93.102.208 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims concerning tribesmen/diviners/religions/oracles/etc.

I have deleted the second and third paragraphs of the first section, because the comments made there concerning tribesmen/diviners/religions/oracles/etc. were unreferenced and sounded to me like prejudiced guesswork on the part of the author. If these claims had any basis in research findings, then they should be so referenced.--Gloster 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I have added in a section on its origins and its connections to necromancy with references. The one I can't track down is "The Magic Arts of Necromancy and Ventriloquism as Cited in the First Byzantine Period Sources" seemingly reprinted in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift but I can't track it down in the online catalogues but someone who speaks Greek might be able to shed more light on that. (Emperor 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

I have removed references to necromancy and to "the spirits of the dead"-type deception because, again, there are no references. In the absence of reference material which ties back to primary sources, especially on topics such as these that cross cultural paradigms, it's way too easy to inject one's own biases into these articles. (Gloster 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

The references for this are in the reference section so I have added it back in. (Emperor 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

The remaining paragraph is basically gobbledygook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.140.195 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that it developed in the 16th century? and where did this happen? Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Wells

(By the way, what does the Orson Wells material above have to do with ventriloquism?)

Somebody please add information on how throwing of the voice is accomplished. 69.61.145.153 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The voice is not THROWN as such, the ventriloquist merely speaks without moving his (or her) lips.

[edit] Suggested Related Topics for Ventriloquism

There are several unanswered questions surrounding ventriliquists and their craft that could become interesting topics:

1) Movies and television shows suggest that ventriliquists have some sort of multiple personality syndrome, is this really true? 2) Why do ventriliquists still have to move their lips? 3) Bergen and his puppet achieved fame and wide-spread exposure through radio, a medium that does not especially showcase a ventriliquist's unique talent: what was it about the American public that allowed this strange paradox to occur? 4)Where does one go to see and hear a ventriliquist? Why would one go?

Easy: they liked the humor and characters. The Americans weren't the only people with a radio ventriloquist: the British had Archie_Andrews.70.239.89.160 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Sounds far fetched to me, with a touch of absurd.

2) You either move your lips to produce sounds that that can only produced by using the lips or you don't move your lips and replace these sounds with other, similar sounding ones or with unclear, muddy versions. The article describes this well.

4) Why do people go the movies? To sports games? To concerts? I reckon they like to be entertained. 62.152.162.107 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ventriloquism techniques

This article currently claims that "Ventriloquism is an act of stagecraft in which a person (a ventriloquist) manipulates his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere."

As far as I have always understood, "throwing your voice" is actually a myth. I read a library book on ventriloquism in high school, and the book claimed that learning ventriloquism does NOT involve making your voice sound like it's coming from elsewhere. Human perception of sound position is not very good anyway, and so if you talk without moving your lips while another character lip syncs the same words, it LOOKS like the other character is talking and that's good enough -- especially on stage or TV, where no one could tell the difference.

So basically ventriloquism is not really about voice manipulation at all, so much as it is about performance and misdirection, as well as practicing making certain sounds without moving your lips.

On a related note, I've watched Edgar Bergen on old video clips, and I was surprised to see that his mouth moves and he makes very little effort to disguise it. this video, for example -- Bergen's mouth moves a lot compared to more recent ventriloquists such as Ronn Lucas.

Not editing the article yet because I wonder how much of this is appropriate to put in.--Kazim27 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my understanding. It is misdirection through cunning stagecraft that is a combination of skill (not moving your mouth obviously), acting (making the doll move as if it were a real talking person - notice in that clip how he exagerates the movements of the doll) and psychology (largely through Conversation analysis, non-verbal cues, etc. so we actually swap out attention to the doll when it is their turn - he does this in various ways the most obious is just turning towards them as ou would with a real person). You'd probably need a good source for it but it seems legitimate to say - this says as much. [1] (Emperor 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Removed paragraph

An IP address dropped this in the middle of the modern-day ventriloquism paragraph and then User:Kennnyw editted it including adding inappropriate block capitals. It is out of place, of dubious relevance and origin, unsupported by references, etc. so I am taking it out and putting it here.

ACADEMIC WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF VENTRILOQUISM: The late Edgar Bergen personally signed a highly regarded Masters Thesis entitled "The Revival of Ventriloquism in America" written by Kenneth Warren (popular stage/TV ventriloquist KENNY WARREN) at the University of Mississippi. The story of Bergen's career influence was a considerable portion of the thesis, comprising an entire chapter. Writes Bergen: "This is the most complete treatise on ventriloquism I have ever read." The thesis contains one of the most detailed and concentrated ACADEMIC studies of the history of ventriloquism ever written. Interestingly, it is Kenny Warren's ventriloquist figure "Joey O'Leary" that maintains the distinction of having appeared in more television commercials than any other ventriloquist puppet. "Joey's" American Tourister Luggage television commercial (his ventriloquist partner did "his" technical operation unseen, behind-the-scenes) was nominated for the advertising industry's prestigious Clio award. The commercial remains a classic within the ventriloquial community and currently may be viewed on various Internet web sites.

Some of it may be possibly worth editting into relevant places (with reliable sources) although if Kenny Warren and KennyW have any connection then conflict of interet issues surface so it'd be best for them to suggest edits here and some other editor add them in if they seem relevant and well supported. (Emperor 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Mallory Lewis?

So what about this lady? Is she a ventriloquist herself - as suggested by the photograph - or just a daughter? If she's known for being an artist she should be mentioned as such. --134.2.167.9 09:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doll, Dummy, Puppet

What is considered the "proper" word? and isn't there a specific type of puppet that they use? 208.53.104.68 (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000

I've never personally heard "doll" used, but I've heard it been said "dummy" and "ventriloquist puppet". Either of those I would think should be OK. (ApostleJoe (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

I have seen (American) people using primarily "puppet", but also "doll". panglossa (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hearing / Vision

While the lengthy paragraph about aural location being dominated by visual location certainly makes a valid point, I think it could be moved to a less prominent place in the article as it is not essential to understand what Ventriloquism is. Besides, at least today, the psycho-acoustic location of the source of the voice hardly plays a role when the ventriloquist sits at a distance to the audience and is being heard over speakers only and there is no discrepancy between aural and visual location in the sense that the named paragraph describes. 62.152.162.107 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Contents