|
|
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
I recently purchased a DVD by a man whose work I onced to collect passionately but recently stopped buying because I found his new works a little repetative and less to my tastes.
However, on recommednation, I picked up his latest work and found it to be quite good. However, one of the effects was a effect that involved creating a s**** of cards with random symbols on them. In order to remember the stack, the magician had a crib sheet which he justified the use of. He mentions on the DVD that the crib sheet is easier then memory. I created the effect with the crib sheet before realising that it was quite simple to create a s**** that, with a little work, could be memorised by using alphabetised symbols. (A = Arrow, B + bottle etc.) When I tried the effect with this presentation I found it far easier to do (less props) and far more amazing. This lead me to think, why would this man put out a product that could be superior with a TINY bit of extra work but instead takes the soft option? They only reason I could think is that, as a business man, he wants to create products that people can learn easily and start performing straight away. In other words, he wants to meet the market demand for people wanting EASY magic. And there are plenty of examples of products where the economic imperative causes the magic to suffer. 1) A prop that was originally intended to made out of wood, paint and hinges and sold for $500 but instead was rushed out using materials that cost $5 at the hardware store. ( I met the guy who did this ) 2) Magicians who, instead of creating new and exciting effects, rehash old classic effects with new branding. These effects can be learnt elsewhere for cheaper. 3) The magician who doesn't release an effect because the prop also requires the magician to learn a new sleight. |
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
I've seen a lot of this. It has nothing to do with art.
For example, magician #1 is not thinking things through. What will happen to someone like that is they will find their cheap product being improved by someone else. After all, a person who purchases the prop does have the right to rebuild it so that it will work better. He doesn't have the right to sell it, though. But this maker is not being artistic. This is an example of poorly executed building. Magician #2 -- I could name dozens of these guys. I get stuff to review all the time. Some of it is rehashed junk. Some of it is excellent. I actually contacted one dealer who sent me several pieces of admitted copies of other people's stuff. I tried to get them to explain how they justified it. They said to review it as I saw fit. I did. Magician #3 is under no obligation to release any effect for any reason. He may be the only artist in the bunch. There are some people who produce magic that is inteded for themselves only.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
Zion Naobi New user The Netherlands 30 Posts |
Hi, Nick. I cannot reply to your post in the form of the intended points, because I don't have the necessary knowledge and experience, although what Bill said seems spot on.
I do want to say the following though, and I don't know if it applies to magic. I remember from when I was still in the business of hunting down my dreams as a rap artist, that the commercial business side of it was tough. And one of the things that struck me as tough was the amount of influence the record label or production company wanted in the product which you consider your art. They of course couldn't care less about art, they care about moving product and making money. They care about how your product fits in their entire arsenal of products. I do not know of course if this applies to the magic business, however I can definately imagine that when presented with the choice the production company would prefer the method that is easiest (with their minds on targeting a larger targetaudience, maybe knowing how demotivated people seem to get when memorizing is involved). Just some speculation of course, but I would not be surprised if as a general rule one could state that in a commercial undertaking the influence of the author/performer/artist is overestimated. Especially (is my experience, and it still hurts in places) if the artist is inexperienced.
Best,
Leroy |
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
Can I just apologise for the terrible spelling and grammar in my original post!
It is truly awful! |
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Nicholas
I think it is great that you used your own head to find a good tool. Mauves ovriers ne trovera ja bon hostill. [A bad workman will never find a good tool.] (French proverb, late 13th C. )
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
Josh the Superfluous Inner circle The man of 1881 Posts |
Someone at the Café (I think Jonathan Townsend) said something to the effect: Think of a purchased trick as the basic idea for accomplishing an effect. And the included prop as a way to immediately put the idea into practice. And use that as a starting point for the effect you build for yourself.
As far as memorizing: Whenever an effect involves it, I see it mentioned early on in the description. Often with assurances that it can be done. I have a terrible memory, and avoid those tricks.
What do you want in a site? "Honesty, integrity and decency." -Mike Doogan
"I hate it, I hate my ironic lovechild. I didn't even have anything to do with it" Josh #2 |
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts |
Memorizing a more simplified stack may have just eluded the creator at the time. I see that as a real possibility.
Magician #1 -- This seems to be a marketing decision, above anything else. The product was intended to be sold in huge quantities to those who only buy cheap. there are many of them. This is commonly known as selling out. Magician #2 -- This is why I ended up selling all of my Kaufman books. With few exceptions, I came to see the material within as mostly someone else's renditions of classic plots. They were nicely produced, and certainly nice documentations of history, but I felt a need to think for myself. Magician #3 -- There are many other reasons why an effect is not practical for release. I have a deck that I gaffed that 15 years ago cost me over a hundred dollars just to produce. It does exactly what I want it to do, but it would likely be priced out of the market. Too much financial risk to release some effects.
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Let me give you an example of a magician who is exactly the opposite of magician #1. This is Lou Leventhal.
Lou recently released his Ring in Racquetball routine. The props are flawless. They are made of hardwoods and brass, they look great, and they are built solidly without being overbuilt. They have a satin finish, so there is no glare when used on the stage. They come with everything you need to do the trick, except for a knife to cut the racquetball open with. Those are plentiful, so it's not a problem. There is also a DVD with the performance and the setup on it. It's a well-made, professional piece of apparatus. It also "costs a bump," as Ted Lesley says. Compare this to the gaudy junk MAK Magic produces. Only the finest masonite, rolled tin, PVC pipe and cardboard are used. The color schemes are such that If you have three different props from the company on your stage, at least two of them are bound to clash with one another. There is no consistency of design, other than gaudy. The designs seem to have been executed by someone who has no training of any kind in art. Often, the props fall apart after a few performances. But they have some good ideas. When I bought my French Arm Chopper from them, I spent two weeks reinforcing the joints with epoxy, repainting the prop and redecorating it. (Note: if Jimmy King or anyone else from MAK-Magic has any issues with this, contact me. I'll tell you in succinct detail precisely what is wrong with your props.) Their chief motivating force is getting lots of props out there for as little money as possible. The closest thing, concept-wise, to the Ring in the Racquetball that they make is the Potato Box. It's ugly. But brightly colored props do not have to be ugly, clash with one another, or be shoddily built. Take a look at the props from Chance Wolf. His kid show props work well together. His skill as a designer is spot on. You won't be disappointed in his work. So, there are three different producers of magic with three different approaches. They have three different markets. Actually two different markets. One is a mass producer of magic. The other two produce magic for professionals. Basically, it boils down to understanding what you are purchasing, and preparing to pay for the good stuff.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
David Todd Inner circle 2328 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-09-12 13:05, Bill Palmer wrote: This is so true. Some of the U.F. Grant material that MAK still makes is clever enough that it's worth getting (preferably used on eBay) but knowing full well that you're going to have to put in some time to redecorate the props. (and/or rebuild the props or at least modify them, like the French Arm Chopper reinforcement you mentioned). Magic Café member Ron Reid has some nice examples of MAK Magic props that he has salvaged shown on this web site: http://members.cox.net/ronreid/ MAK Magic should take a look at Ron's page for some ideas about consistent, appealing and elegant (simple) color schemes. |
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
When Grant produced some of his props, the country was going through the depression. I believe that he may have used material that he salvaged for a lot of his products. I've been told by people who used to work in Colon, Michigan, that it was not uncommon for orange crates and other wooden shipping materials to be planed down, sanded and made into props by Abbott's, as well. Some of Grant's color schemes make one think that he used whatever paint he could purchase cheaply.
The stencils they use for some of their designs can be improved by simply taking a marker and connecting the segments of the stencil pattern. Posted: Sep 12, 2006 3:22pm ------------------------------------------ One of my friends was the late Gene de Jean. When I was in high school, Gene helped me build a temple screen that was really neat. We used the basic Grant pattern, but increased the size so that the short edge of the panels was 12 inches. The panels were proportionately tall. We used cloth bookbinders tape for the hinges. The panels were made of 1/8" hardwood plywood. One side was jade green with a large black question mark on it. The other side was red-orange with a large black exclamation point. I showed the question mark side first, then formed the triangle with the exclamation point side and did the production from that. The gaffus was a triangular cage with a stuffed parrot in it. I produced almost 40 yards of silk from it! It was a neat prop, but a really overdone silk production. I wonder what ever happened to that screen.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
Josh the Superfluous Inner circle The man of 1881 Posts |
Ron's refinishes really drive home the less is more concept. I have some props from when I was a kid, that would benefit from such simplification. Thanks for the link David!
What do you want in a site? "Honesty, integrity and decency." -Mike Doogan
"I hate it, I hate my ironic lovechild. I didn't even have anything to do with it" Josh #2 |
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Some of us tend to equate the props with the magic. They are not the same.
The props are tools. They are simply aids to creating the effect. The magic is what the spectator experiences. In a way, it is similar to music. For example, look at a $15,000.00 guitar. Then look at a $200.00 guitar. It is possible to make a playable guitar that sells for $200. The finish might not be perfect and the inlay work might not be the best in the world, but it would be sufficient for a beginner to learn on. But that $15,000.00 guitar will have qualities about it that would be lost on the novice. It might also be a bit more difficult to care for. After all, if you were using a $15,000.00 guitar in a show, you would want to have a really good case to keep it and transport it in when you were not playing it. You might want to have a less expensive, less sensitive instrument for road work. Sometimes when you buy props, you buy an inexpensive one to work with until the routine is properly finished. Then you build the working version. Sometimes the unseen props are not pretty, but they are sturdy and stable.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » The business of creating magic vs. the art of magic (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |