I see the problem -

Tom - please keep up with the entire conversation. Picking out one sentence fails to help the discussion move forward.

We were talking specifically about performers who recycle the same tired ideas. I have no desire to pay to see someone rehash ground that others have already explored - more thoroughly and more creatively.

Does that clarify my position for you?

That's amazing, that'a exactly where it was!

Okay I realize I said I would butt out but this comment confused me - what about theater? If you're not into theater I can understand it, but if you are, doesn't this sort of fall into the same category? Other people performing someone else's work? Not trying to argue a point, just wondering what your position would be on that?

Brad, you clearly don't see the problem. I have kept up with the conversation. The problem is when someone makes a definitive statement, it is just that. A definitive statement.

Specifically, the statement you made is quite clear in that it refers to not paying to hear a joke again. What you appear to have meant to say is that you would not pay to hear a hack rehash someone else's joke. Later you infer that you might listen to the originator tell that joke again, or you might listen to another artistic rendition of the joke.

The problem is your inaccurate communication of your thoughts. That is why some here are asking for clarification.

Yes, Tom.

I would have hoped the context of my original statement, in terms of what we were discussing made that clear.

Andrew,

This has nothing to do with someone performing someone else's script or words.

Like I said, that's the problem. Inaccurate communication you "hope" gets your meaning across, rather than accurately doing so.

Is it clear now?

Andrewzuber's comment is surely spot-on? The VAST MAJORITY of theatrical performances are simply "rehashing" a previously-performed piece. The script of MOST theatre shows is repeated VERBATIM in every single performance. Here in the UK, Gilbert & Sullivan are still surprisingly popular. Though TT would evidently have no interest in seeing such a show, as the lines are all the same, and many of the gags too....thousands of folk flock to see G&S shows, both professional and amateur. I've seen "Mikado" many times, and performed in it myself on several occasions. The same old gags STILL make me laugh. Why? Because although the gags may be the same, every performer has a different take, dynamic, and style.
An interesting character is "Mountararat" in "Iolanthe". When I played this role many years ago, I realised that I could camp up the role, and suggest that Mountararat and his counterpart were gay. This may have been done before, I don't know - but it gave the role a VASTLY different angle; and many of the one-liners in the script took on new, much more hilarious meanings.
My point being that it's not just the script, but the presentation, that makes a show enjoyable and entertaining.
Potty

I think (therefore I am) expressing one's opinion does not necessitate attacking the person who differs with you. Okay perhaps sometimes it does, but it really does nothing to further the discussion.

Experience, market, culture, personal bias and yes geographical local will effect the opinions on this topic. I also think the target audience of the performer (kids, adults, "magic virgins", or "magic wh***s") will also vary the opinion and experience of performer and subsequently the opinion of the performer.

There are people who see linking rings and say "Oh, I love this!"
There are people who see linking rings and say "Oh, I know this one!"
There are people who see linking rings and say "Oh, not this one again!"

I know that anecdotal stories are only valid for the particular event that they relate to, so:
After performing the linking rings for a crowd. I was approached by an amateur magician who asked "Where did you get those rings? I have a set but the gap in the *** is about an inch and it's really hard to hide. Are you using one of those locking *** rings?"
I proceeded to show him the two inch gap I use. He had been fooled by my handling of the rings and for a moment I felt good about this; but he wasn't mystified by the magic. He knew that there was a ***. I guess that's the point when someone says the rings are "dead" isn't it? Too many people know the secret.

Now, imagine if I had handed out 6 separate seamless rings for the audience to examine and then proceeded to perform my routine? Through performance you can create that impression with a standard set of rings, but it requires careful attention to handling and script, and anyone really knowing what they're looking for will still know the secret, but if you consider the premise it may be better than many of the standard demonstration type stage routines.

With boxes, bags, rings, sticks and other apparatus the thought always goes through the audiences mind that there's something there but they just can't see it and if they had THAT box, bag, ring or stick they could duplicate the feat.

I think that it's important, in addition to being entertaining, to create not only of wonder, but to use invisible, deep, method. I'm not proclaiming that this cannot be done with props, but that it requires special thought and effort; and sometimes it requires abandonment of a prop that just suffers from too much public domain or requires a herculean justification.

Of course if you're act is a theatrical historic representation of a Victorian age conjurer, tails and top hat and strange boxes and apparatus may be perfectly at home in your act but the focus of the act is not necessarily to mystify but to bring the audience on journey to another time.

If you're performing strictly for children under 6 or 7 you might also have more leeway with props and actually benefit from colorful props and boxes (but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're actually amazing the adults with anything other than your ability to hold the kid's attention)

In my opinion vanishing a rag with a "tt" only works for a broad audience if you can prove to those aware of the existence of the "tt" that it would be impossible for you to be using a "tt".

In a two part article in the July and September issues of MUM, Larry Hass, wrote an article called Deep Method & Deep Method: Part Two. In it Larry discusses the importance of the method used to achieving the effect not be too close to the surface. It's a good read, pertinent to this discussion and something to think on.

I appreciate TT's challenge of the status quo. I may not agree on every level but I think, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that one of his points is that we ought to strive as performers to create magic as close to the real thing as we can. If you're pulling "silks" out of brightly colored boxes and think you're creating a magical experience for a large segment of the population over the age of six, you might just be fooling yourself.

I do believe though that depth of method may become harder and harder to achieve as information become more prolific and accessible, but that's a different discussion.

I think I'll go perform magic for primitive cultures.

Carlo-

A very thought-provoking post.

I am not sure by "deep method" if you mean very hard to dis-believe method, destruction of reverse-engineering, or something totally other.

Certainly, I have seen top professionals use techniques I could never hope to accomplish, and thereby make it very difficult for specs to figure out the method.

Penn & Teller, whom I have been critical of for what I feel is exposure, are really genius for how they use it to befuddle the audience for their follow-up effect. They show how is "has been" done, and so make it almost impossible for the specs to ferret out what has "just been" done.

Whit Haydn has a lot of really brilliant material floating around the Café about the "dilemma" that needs be created in the minds of the audience. Most practicing magicians eventually come to realize that there is such a thing as doing an effect so well that there is only one answer to how it was done- the correct answer! I am grappling with that now with Hindu Thread. It is so clean, it is too clean.

To another point you make, I don't at all object to TT's challenge of the status quo. I only wish we could all realize we are in the same boat, and beating each other with our oars just creates pain and animosity. This comment is not at all directed at TT, we have all been guilty of sniping, myself included. The sad thing is there are really pearls hidden in these posts, but if they are too painful to read...

Jim

Jim,

Thanks.

"Deep Method" was the title of Larry Hass' article in MUM July 2010. "Deep Method, Part Two" was in September 2010.

The meaning I derived from Dr. Hass' article was a method or technique that is beyond the obvious, invisible and thus nearly impossible for an observer, even a skilled observer to discern. It is so clean, so fair, so "deep", that there is never a moment where the observer ever says I'm not sure what he did but he did something. The idea is to create magic experiences and not "Oh, he tricked me!" moments.

I know this may not be worth the effort for everyone or even practical in all circumstances, but it is certainly worthy of consideration.

I really suggest reading the articles if you can get access to them.

For another media depiction of magicians, the cleveland show two weeks ago picture two top hat wearing, tuxedo clad conjurers and refered to them as 'rape vibe magicians.'

Try this: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......m=218&24