|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-28 17:09, landmark wrote: Jack, I think it makes a difference at what stage of a performer's career we are talking about, and also what the goal of the performer is. I think that beginning magicians should not try to be original. They need to learn from copying and doing well-thought out and powerful routines by the masters. You don't hand a beginner a guitar and say make up your own chords and your own songs. Secondly, I think it is disrespectful for a neophyte to start changing a master's routine before he has learned it inside and out. If you can not perform it as written and get good results from it, then you are not competent to tamper with it. You don't blame a bad production of Hamlet on the script and seek a rewrite. Creativity is only highly prized among finished performers. I prefer a good cover band to a group of guys who are original but don't know how to play or write. A good copy is not only more salable and dependable, it is often artistically superior to an original that is created by an untrained talent. Magic conventions and clubs are largely responsible for foisting this ridiculous claptrap about originality on young magicians. There is little call for originality among beginning performers, and it almost always is at the expense of true learning in this very complex craft. I have a one-hour stage show consisting almost completely of original routines. Unfortunately, on the cruise ships I often have to do two completely different one hour shows. The second show is loaded with great routines by Billy McComb, Martin Lewis, Terry Seabrooke and others whose styles can be made to fit my on-stage persona, but often little is actually changed from the original routines and patter. If I keep doing these routines for another thirty years, I will probably gradually change them and fiddle with them until they all become original and very different variations. That is where my first hour of original routines came from. I have no shame, only gratittude, in being able to perform the brilliant published routines of the masters. It is the same with close-up. I may have close to a solid hour of my own original routines in close-up, but I have several hours of material that is from other performers whose work I admire and respect. I would like to improve everything I do, but frankly, some of the routines that I do by the masters of our craft just don't really seem to need much improvement, and any changes I made "for the sake of originality" would be "improving worse." |
|||||||||
saxmangeoff Veteran user Moscow, ID, USA 353 Posts |
One important point, I think, is that in magic seemingly insignificant details are often in fact extremely significant. It can be hard to tell which details are significant and which are not. Only by working the effect as written and finding out firsthand can we learn where it's safe to tweak and where it's not. (I suppose it's possible to be experienced enough to tell this upon reading or seeing the effect, but I'm not there yet, so I can't speak to that.)
Geoff
"You must practice your material until it becomes boring, then practice it until it becomes beautiful." -- Bill Palmer
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Whit et al,
Part of the problem is that the bits that make a script work are not always explicitly in the script but are passed on via tradition and mentoring. For example, during the murders in that Scottish play there is a comic performance by the doorkeep at the castle that starts "knock knock knock" and proceeds to some byplay with the wine flagon. Such is not in the script. Likewise, working from our literature one is forced to create a persona and set of mannerisms that serve the routine and the audience. All this without direction. What can one do BUT be original in one's conception of persona and mannerisms needed just to get through the routines?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Bill Ligon Inner circle A sure sign of a misspent youth: 6437 Posts |
I prefer to work out my own routines or, if I have to, adapt a published routine to my own way of working. I do agree that bits of business, details, are very important, but most often these can be worked out on one's own. Often these will be suggested by the theme of the routine or one's character, or both. Working with a routine as written, as suggested by saxmangeoff, to learn where it can be tweaked (or renovated) is certainly necessary, but it is perhaps best done in private or with a limited audience.
Author of THE HOLY ART: Bizarre Magick From Naljorpa's Cave. NOW IN HARDCOVER! VIEW: <BR>www.lulu.com/content/1399405 ORDER: http://stores.lulu.com/naljorpa
<BR>A TASSEL ON THE LUNATIC FRINGE |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Whit,
I am humbled by your response. There's much to think about there. One thing though--you wrote: "You don't blame a bad production of Hamlet on the script and seek a rewrite. " Exactly. Which is why I don't think it imperative that a performing artist also be a creative artist. There are many fine actors who are not playwrights. Also some fine actors who are lousy playwrights. As I said, I think it's rare to get a talented performer who is also a talented creator. However, the proper analogy it seems to me to playing Hamlet is this: as an actor, should one be studying tapes of Laurence Olivier's Hamlet trying to copy that performance gesture by gesture, intention by intention? Maybe as an exercise, but I don't think much of that for an actual performance. I think what we expect from an actor playing Hamlet is his/her interpretation of Hamlet--even while being true to the script. The performer seeks to find a congruence between what has been created and who the performer is. Otherwise, we can sit home and read the script in the comfort of our easy chair. Jack Shalom
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
In Chinese ink bruch painting there are, I believe 13 basic brush strokes. I student will study under a master painter for 10 years or more before becoming a copyist. During those 10 years, the first seven or so are spent JUST doing the basic brush strokes. The next three are spent learning how to put them together in combinations.
Get the idea of how this might apply to magic? My father was an artist. He was a fine artist, a commercial artist and a cartoonist. He made a good living doing the latter two, with emphasis on the third. And the one thing he always said to me was that "to be an artist, in ANY art, you have to know the basics - the RULES - of how things work. Until you know them and can use them, you cannot go beyond them and become truly creative." Dad was nominated for at least one Pulitzer Prize that I am aware of and his work was featured in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago as well as numerous texts and a major Chicago newspaper, so I would imagine that he actually knew what he was talking about. He also put me through college, bought a house in Oak Park, IL and was able to feed a family of four, have 2 cars in the garage and a dog throughout my entire life. Not bad for an artist. But to be a creator, one must know the basics. And the basics include not only the techniques, the moves, but the psychology BEHIND the moves, before one can go on to be truly creative in this field. From where I am sitting, many of the newer magicians are not learning the basics, nor the history (which is part of the basics, in my opinion), nor especially the psychology behind the magic and there's where they fall down when they try to create because they miss the boat on one, or more, of those points. And if you miss one of those legs, the table of your magic won't be stable enough to support the trick - or you. My opinion - your mileage may vary, obviously. Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Something about dressing up as a mock Chinese magician and producing fishbowls just strikes me as wrong.
Likewise getting into blackface to sing "mammy" seems wrong. Somewhere we need to get some feedback about what works and what we need to change. I suggest finding a director and studying with an accomplished performer to learn some routines. In my field, Tony Slydini and Dai Vernon are gone, though David Roth and some of Slydini's students are around to teach those who wish to learn. As to original... um let's just say that my goals are artistic and I am not in any great rush to do "standard" magic. Were I want to quickly get together a repertoire however I would go directly to proven material starting with the Ken Brooke offerings. Really. When given the choice in performance where money and reputation is at stake in a career situation... go with proven material. The star of the show is YOU, not the material. How you come across THROUGH the material is what makes it for the audience.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
bishthemagish Inner circle 6013 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-30 07:11, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Jack Gwynne did that at the start. As did Chung Ling Soo and David Bamberg and his Dad were both Okito and Fu Manchu. And they both made money doing this. But today it would be considered wrong or perhaps not politically correct in this age of touchy feelings. They did it back then but that was a different time and a different performing age.
Glenn Bishop Cardician
Producer of the DVD Punch Deal Pro Publisher of Glenn Bishop's Ace Cutting And Block Transfer Triumphs |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-29 23:58, landmark wrote: Beginning actors do study established ones, but they do not try to copy them; instead, they look for things like how the actor got the point across, how he uses his body, how he uses his voice, and so on. They're interested in the technical details, not in being a clone of the other actor. Trying to copy an established actor is a no-no: it shows major naivete and a total lack of imagination and talent. On the other hand, most beginning actors start out by taking an acting class in college or at an acting school, working with an established teacher who serves as both a teacher and a director. Here they do "practice scenes," where they take a short scene from a play and create their own interpretation of it. They also study books on the craft. Sure, some beginners just go out and audition for a local play, and sometimes they get cast and are very good, but generally they do have some background in voice, dance, or other type of performance. Finally, when an actor goes on to play Hamlet or any other role, he works with a director throughout the entire rehearsal period -- often several weeks -- to develop the character in context with the production. It's the director's job to create the overall concept for the production and to make sure the whole play comes together.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6111 Posts |
Well stated Jonathan.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-30 09:43, georgefl38 wrote:...when an actor goes on to play Hamlet or any other role, he works with a director throughout the entire rehearsal period -- often several weeks -- to develop the character in context with the production. It's the director's job to create the overall concept for the production and to make sure the whole play comes together. And there folks, is the issue. Direction. While many vainly strike a pose, some are willing to take a note. Once upon a time, not so long ago, a guy took the stage under kleig lights and sang: ... She's an old time ambassador of street talking night walking games And she's known in the darkest clubs for pushing ahead of the dames ... She's so swishy in her satin and tat In her frock coat and bibbity bobbity hat Oh god I could do better than that...just watch me now. Amazing performance, and the guy was wearing black pants, a white shirt and a black vest. The crowd cheered. You can hear that performance if you want, it's available on RarestOne*****. The song is in print, and can be heard on as originally orchestrated on an album that is still in print. Somehow I doubt most here could pull off that number much less get the same result as you can hear on that recording from long ago (1976). Perhaps with some help you might find your own signature works though.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
kj3 New user Ireland 22 Posts |
Landmark - you da man!!
"You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star"
- Nietzsche |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-29 23:58, landmark wrote: In his autobiography, "On Acting," Olivier talks about how an actor upon seeing another actor doing something that strikes gold and reveals something new and true about a character, the first actor "must steal" that when he does the same character. Unless he can come up with a deeper or more significant take on the part, he "must" copy--for the other actor has come up with something of the truth of the character and the second actor must also use this discovery or do something lesser, something less "true." Here's some of what Olivier says: "Burbage, Garrick, Kean, Irving: four names that handed on the Shakespearean mantle to our generation. That's why today, performing Shakespeare, we can feel close to him; that his ink is still wet on the paper. Burbage did not know Garrick, Garrrick did not know Kean and Kean did not know Irving, but it is the little cogs in between that make it all work, make it fascinating. Burbage created Hamlet and then, some time after, rehearsed a young actor, Joseph Taylor, in the part. Taylor played for the King's Company at the Globe and Blackfriars theaters. Being the second Hamlet and taught by the first, he must have automatically retained some of Burbage's original performance. Thomas Betterton played Hamlet and had studied with Sir William D'Avenant, who had seen Taylor. Garrick studied and learned from some of the older members of Betterton's company, and then on to Irving. It all sounds very romantic, but looked at in this way it doesn't make William (Shakespeare) seem so very far away..." "My generation was brought up on the memory of Irving. To me he was a great idol, though I didn't see him, being born two years after his death. The hand touching continues. Actors mimicked him and then passed their mimiry on to us." Please don't confuse the mimicry of learning with the originality of the professional. By the time you are making a full-time living doing magic, you should certainly be developing your own tastes and original methods and presentations. But for those who are learning magic, copying is essential. I just watched John Carney's wonderful one-man production "Carney's Wonder Cabaret," and was mightily impressed by his presentation of Faucett Ross. He did a dead on impression of Faucett Ross talking and performing with a handkerchief. It was not only a wonderful recreation of Faucett's style and manner, it was a revelation of how, and how deeply Carney imbibed the knowledge of magic from his teacher. He knew him inside and out, and could imitate him to a "t". Then he went on to become a new creation, John Carney. I am not against originality in magic, just in favor of imitation and copying during the first five or ten years of the learning process. Performers and artists in many different fields will say the same thing. |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Some of this battle, when we use acting as an analogy, is that many modern actors shun the type of acting Olivier did. When he says we should copy or mimic, his rational is lost on many people today.
For my part, I support Olivier and Mr. Haydn. Reading Whit, here and in his manuscripts, he took away some of the fear and pressure of having to be creative. If you think that is not a real bugaboo on our shoulders, think again. Other than Whit, very few long time professionals on these forums advocate this position. But there are plenty who tell us that we are lesser mortals for daring to use other's routines. When I find a routine that is clearly scripted, and fits my basic style, like Whit's Ring routine, I am not embarrassed to do it like him. I can do the opening lines almost exactly. I watch the DVD over and over, learning when to say something, and when to pause. I even mimic some of his facial expressions. To me, it is a perfect routine for what Whit advocates. When I do one like Gazzo's, where much of the script is less clear, I find that I will adapt it more to my style, but it has taken me more than a year, of rehearsing every day, and performing it for crowds before I even began to really understand how I should do the routine. When I got his lecture DVD last month, and saw it performed, I improved my routine tremendously after watching it one time--because I finally understood what he meant in several places. I find that with the pressure off, I am developing a performing style that is consistent with my character and from one routine to another. I am slowing being more creative.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
If enough modern actors were to shun the type of acting that Olivier did, the chain that he so valued would be broken.
It is the same with magic. We need to preserve and protect the work that has gone before, but more than that, we need to understand and study it so that the chain continues. There is a problem with reinventing the wheel--all of the previous improvements and touches upon the original that have been made by all who followed the original are lost. |
|||||||||
bishthemagish Inner circle 6013 Posts |
Although I agree with what has been said as to learning from the masters. But one of the problems as I see it is that magic is sort of a self-learned art. That starts as a hobby and many that do it the goal is for self satisfaction.
As we get better with magic it becomes a very nice thing that we can do for people to entertain them during moments of the day. And at the same time it is ego gratifying because when we do this we get attention. Because it is self-learned and to learn it takes a self discipline students will skip important steps. My point on all this is that people should enjoy what they do or enjoy the ride because it is fun to be a magician. And I will add that the most original thing that they can add to any effect is THEMSELVES! Frank Van Hoven said this to Jack Gwynne while telling him that he did not have anything in his act that was really new or different for people to see. With the exception of Jack Gwynne - himself! Frank Van Hoven said that if Jack could stay young exciting and full of energy and present his magic in the Gwynne style - than that would be the something that would be new and different for people to see!
Glenn Bishop Cardician
Producer of the DVD Punch Deal Pro Publisher of Glenn Bishop's Ace Cutting And Block Transfer Triumphs |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Hmm . . . clever that, quoting Olivier's own words. Duly noted.
Don't have his auto by my side but I do remember Olivier describing how he and Gielgud--the other great stage actor of that era -- swapped performances of Romeo on alternating nights in the 1930s. The two performances couldn't be more different--and rightly so. The athletic, muscular Olivier had no interest in being the ethereal poet that Gielgud's Romeo was. Had they attempted to copy each other, it would have been ridiculous--and more importantly, the individual important truths that they knew about Romeo, because of who they were as individuals, would not have been coherently expressed. I'm all for history. I'm all for studying the classics. I'm all for dialogue-ing in one's performance with past performances and performers. But ultimately performance is about filtering this material through this person for this audience at this time. I think even beginners need to strive for this. They won't be successful a lot of the time, and yes they must practice their scales and technique relentlessly--but that's what happens in the practice room and at home, not on stage. Jack Shalom
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Something else to think about regarding this: If this were a music forum, nobody would be chiding anyone else because they play someone else's tunes. Compared to comedians, very few musicians compose their own material. Instead, they imitate what they hear or they play what is put before them. In some kinds of music, individuality is discouraged. For example, if you play in a symphony orchestra, you are obligated to follow the conductor. You can't just go off on a tangent or pause and deliver a one-liner. Basically, the larger the group, the more regimented it is.
But the "solo" magician does have the opportunity to work out his own versions of various plots. And that is a very good thing.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-06-30 18:21, landmark wrote: Just remember that by that time, both Gielgud and Olivier were successful and acclaimed talents. Neither of those men would have thought it right for a seasoned veteran to copy the work of others, even though both would encourage it in those learning. It is the beginning performer, the neophyte who has only been doing magic seriously for five or ten years who needs to copy in order to learn. My problem is with the silly advice and encouragement about originality that is given out at magic clubs and conventions, largely by incompetent amateurs, that everyone "be original." The highest marks are given for originality even in contests for young people and beginners. This is ridiculous and wrong, and encourages the kind of clever but incompetent magic that is so common today. If you have not gone through the process of studying and performing the great classic routines of magic, you are most likely not ready to create your own routines. There is a reason why so much of the magic around today is clever and different but doesn't really entertain or fool people. The disrespect to the creator you mentioned in an earlier post comes from the hubris of the beginner in attempting to change a finely crafted routine by a master. He should not change anything until he understands fully what the routine is about and why it is constructed the way it is. This won't happen until he has had the experience of performing the routine for people many times. Originality is not a goal. It is the ability to create a personal statement. You must be a decent craftsman with an understanding of the techniques and purposes of your art before you seek to make such a statement. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Performing "your" own routines??? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 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 < |