You, both have very good points. I DO feel it's important to be original but in my later years I think it's better to just be good.

(BTW- if you've got anything important to do, just skip ahead to the next post!)

There are 3 stages of enlightenment or growth in our lives... I use the abbreviation for them as PDQ.

The first stage when we're young is "Proportion". To stand out we just think that we want to do it bigger than anyone else. I'm going to produce a HUGE rabbit from an enormous top hat. Sadly some people get trapped in this phase and never escape it. It is the easiest phase to do as it really requires little talent, just money or time.

The next phase is "Differentiation". We're going to be more different, original, unique. I'm going to produce a black rabbit from a white top hat! Many times we create very different ideas that are very unique, just not any good. The entire fashion industry is about this fallacy. Each season they have to convince everyone what is in and out to spur sales of the latest clothing items. Are they really better? No... just different. We also see it in magic as more people are competing for the same market. The market is saturated with multiple versions of the same effect, each claiming to have an "original approach" to the same tired effect. Yes some of them could be great, we know that.... but really look around. More versions of the same thing... more twists on puzzle illusions,, card reveals, etc. Yes, they are the latest "thing" but are they really god or are they just different?

The last phase of growth is "Quality". I'm just going to do it better. Yes, many times this requires elements of the two stages above but the driver is very different.

We get blinded and trapped so many times in these vernal stages that we forget what really matters. Whit Haydn has a volume of thoughts on the "Originality" myth and it's an important read for everyone. The reality is that anyone can easily produce a 100% original act... if they don't care about how good it is.

Look at Lance's initial act that made him so successful. Yes, it had original elements in it. Yes, he produced a lot of doves... but it was just better than anything else around.

This can be a very frustrating discovery because we can change the first two stages ourselves... we can always be bigger and different, but being better is sometimes limited to our abilities. Yes, that's the reality of life... some people are just better at some things than others, regardless of dreams, desires or passion.

I don't allow people to get frustrated in my classes by their progress. Setting unrealistic goals is a frequent problem in all of us. The secret for me is to just focus on getting better to the limit of our abilities. Yes, we can reach beyond what we thought was possible, but we still just have to be realistic. I might "want" to be able to lift 2000 lbs. on a bench press... and I don't care how much I dreamed about it, or was passionate about it... maybe It's just never going to happen as I physically don't' and will never have the ability to do that. There is this myth that you can do anything you want if you just really try and are passionate about it. We tell our kids, we dream of it ourselves. We have to be unique, different...

I remember a very funny poster that was a spin on these motivational pictures in offices. It had a beautiful shot of floating snowflakes with the words... "Individuality - Always remember that you are special and unique... just like everybody else."

(BTW These are some very funny posters! - http://www.despair.com/viewall.html)


Maybe if we just tried to grow and be better. If that's original, that's great, too.

(OK... back to your regularly scheduled programming)

Wonderful summation of one of life's learning curves Ray!
The hardest concept for many to grasp is how to make and do things better. As you point out, some people just do things better than others, naturally. This is not a popular subject in some quarters of our 'egalitarian' society. But we can all (regardless of our natural abilities) work on genuine, albeit small' improvements' to our act and our selves.

I'd like to recommend a book on this subject to the forum readers : "Mastery" by George Leonard. It's not a book of new age mumbo jumbo, but practical lessons on the plateaus of leaning.

Nice post, Ray!

Sorry, I have to disagree that innovation is the key. I agree that it's important, but only secondarily. The key is the performer--Period. I think that if the right performer performed the most mundane classic of an illusion, they could elicit raves from the AGT judges and just about anyone else. The "I've seen it before" criticism vanishes when the right performer presents a classic effect in a brilliant and engaging manner. Take, for instance, David Blaine and the Invisible Deck. Far from innovative, but because of his style of presentation (love it or hate it) people react as if a miracle has been performed and there is no feeling that he's doing something that every other magician can do (even though they can). There are many very good perfomers in the world of magic, several of whom have had a shot on AGT. There are precious few great performers in the world of magic, and I dare say that none have appeared on AGT.

I think everything Ray has said is both honest, and enlightening. Great job Ray!! Going back to Jay Matiolli's performance there are a few things that I wanted to mention. 1.) I find it interesting that Sharon referred to Jay's 21st Century silk routine as "The silk trick we've seen a million times before". Can anyone honestly think of ONE time the 21st century silks were performed on AGT? I cannot. Also, the judges continuously mention that they are looking for the "next" David Copperfield. I wonder if they are aware that David currently performs a version of 21st Century silks, using women's panties?! 2.) The judges also continuously ask for HUGE illusions that will blow their minds. Well, there are a few problems with that. I'm sure Jay would have loved to show up on that stage and performed an appearing automobile illusion, followed by Willie Kennedy's Double levitation using himself and the automobile. That would DEFINITELY have blown the judges minds. I think what the judges do not understand is that magician's have it the worst when it comes to selecting material to perform on AGT. They have camera's consistently filming from backstage while the host is commenting on the current contestants performance. Which pretty much eliminates performing several types of illusions which rely on that angle never being seen. Also, the issue with lighting and utilizing the backstage. What I'm getting at is Magician's are forced to use only illusions which can be performed completely surrounded. There are only so many of those illusions. So the judges are presented with, what they feel is, the "same old tricks they have all seen before." Although I do feel that Jay's selection of material, in his second performance, was rather weak. I do feel he brings an energy to the stage that no other magician has, this season. And considering the fact that the judges put through a frisbee catching dog that dropped every frisbee. The fact that Jay has been eliminated makes me sort of nauseous. Also, I feel they ruined the show when they implemented the "Vegas Show" as a part of the winning prize. There are SO many contestants that I believe had legitimate talent this season and last. And the only reason they were not put through, is because the judges felt that their act would not last in a headlining Vegas show. But hey, what do you do? Just my thoughts on the situation...

When did it become acceptable that lots of energy can compensate for weak material?
I don't believe it has, except maybe in the eyes of some magicians.

Have you ever watched a comedian and thought his material was really weak but he made up for it with his energy? How about a singer with a poor voice but good energy?

Not to mention that 90% of Jay's "energy" emanated from his background music. I have absolutely nothing against Jay, he's a talented magician. As a dancer, he's a talented magician. But I would sincerely hope that it would require more than just energy to win a talent show of this nature.

I just believe that for magic to compete with other forms of entertainment, it's practitioners (i.e. magicians) need to be honest and realistic. That means occasionally having to call a spade a spade. Jay's first act on AGT was very professional but still weak IMO, his second act was both weak and amateurish. If his not being voted through made you feel nauseous then I feel you are not being honest about his act and apparently taking it as an insult against all magicians.

In order to rise beyond where we currently are on the entertainment ladder, I think we need to at least be honest about which point it is that we are starting from.

Bill
PS- the frisbee catching dog caught almost all of the frisbees thrown to him, watch it again, and it also had much more energy with a much higher skill level than Jay's act. I'm not happy that that is the case, I wish it wasn't, I'm simply being honest about it.

Bravo, Bill! What a great post, thanks for being frank and to the point!

I do not feel that Jay should have been put through on his energy alone. I certainly agree with you that his effects were weak. I recall stating that in my post.. I simply feel that other acts went through that were not nearly as good. Say what you will, I will continue to defend magicians getting put down on national television by fabricated talent television shows.

Jimmy,
Six paragraphs of rebuttal is hardly "Frank and to the point"

Also, it seems to me that you are judging Jay's act as a magician. By saying "Jay's first act on AGT was very professional but still weak IMO, his second act was both weak and amateurish". Is that a comment that a layperson would make? Do you really feel that the crowd felt his act was weak and "amateurish?" As Bill Malone has said "It's not what you do, it's how you do it." After all, when it comes to our fine art, what we feel truly does not matter, it's how the audience views our act. And IMHO, I feel the crowd enjoyed the effects, as well as the energy of Jay's performance, and in the end, that's truly all that matters.

As mentioned, I find this thread very enlightening. It's not negative toward Jay and brings forth some very important issues to our entertaining art. I've seen Jay's show and lecture and they are one of the best out there. Personally, I think Jay gambled, saving his best for the end and lost but that is not what's important.

What is important is how we come across to the viewing public. Here is a link to an act that would never appear on AGT, however, the act has all the element of perfect performance. The music, the lighting, the mood, the costume, the make-up, the scenery, the choice of song, the dance of a ballerina, the inter desire to float and fly, and then the magic, which is probably the best. The Perfect Routine (30MB)

There are many more acts that could be improved if one looks more than just the magic and patter. Add in music, costume, make-up, scenery, theme, and so forth. What you end up with is more than just magic, it is a theater one-act play.

Too long of a thread to read it all but...

My only comment is that I don't think the audience understood the 20th century silks, the way he presented it.

Too many other things to say about this topic, so I'll leave it at that

I'm not sure what was there to understand. It vanished and reappeared between the other two. Even if you can't comprehend the concept of a transposition... you can get that something vanished and something appeared. I really love the effect but I just didn't understand why he did it on this show.

I wish Jay would clear the air on this. Was it his choice to perform the material he did, or did the producers insist on it?
I know I have been critical of Jay for his material selection on his second appearance but maybe it was the producers who threw him under the bus.

Bill

I agree, it is always good to get any first hand account. Even if one sided it provides clues that are helpful for future performers. We know from the past that the producers have steered the performers towards specific routines, sometimes to help them, sometimes to guide the show in the direction they feel they want it to go. That's the nature of the beast. If you want a chance at their money, you have to play by their rules.

Is it fair? Many people ask that but I would say that since the contract states all of these things in writing... as long as you read it carefully, you know going in what the rules are so you accept them to take your chance at "stardom". They make the terms... if you accept them, you've made it "fair" or equitable.

The reason performers do sign and agree to their rules is that in the beginning you never know for sure if the producers may end up liking you and rallying behind you.
I doubt Terry Fator has any regrets in accepting their rules.

Many magicians have said that they believe AGT dislikes magicians and so consequently they would refuse to appear on the show, which of course is their right. However, next year just could be the year the producers are looking for a magic act and it could pay off big time for someone. People here get so upset with AGT but I feel it is just another reflection of the entertainment industry in general. It's just another example of business being the key word in show business.

Bill

I agree with you, Bill. It is also funny that people seem to have a propensity for turning down things that were never offered to them.

Just a quick note, if you watch the young guy (the dancer) that did Highschool musical, and then the judges started getting on his case after his performance, the young guy started to spill the beans by saying " I didn't want to do it, but the producers dealt me a hand and...." right when he said that, Piers cut him off and started babbling, and then Nick Cannon reiterated with saying "the performers are allowed to perform what they want......" Someone was talking in their earpiece to stop the kid from squeeling.
However, the contract does state that you have 'no say'. You will do what they want you to do. Its all in print that is signed. So, if you are willing to do as told, then you can compete. The contract only applies after your inital audition. Unfortunately, people do not read everything they sign, and have no recourse once the signature is on paper. They just want to 'be on TV'. There is a plus and minus to this. Exposure to people is great, but as a magician, don't plan on it any further than that unless you really put a lot on funds into it. The term "money makes money" is so true in this instance. Most have no clue whatsoever about magicians and what they perform and what it takes, they just want to be entertained in THEIR way, not the way we, as magicians, see it. They don't and wont get it, and its not our job to teach them that. Our job is to entertain them the best we know how. I think what we forget sometimes is that we aren't performing for ourselves (we are our worst critic), but rather we are performing for the ones watching us. Because WE think it looks good may have no effect on the majority.

Jay did a great job! He should be happy with what he did. He gave it his all, and that is all anyone can ask for. Jay said it right when he said "I don't have a million dollars, that is why I am here". He worked with what he had to work with, and I am sure his phone is ringing off the hook for performances. He got great exposure, didn't claim to be anything but what he was, and is a down to earth guy that is trying to make it in the world by carving his own path. Kudos to him for his great effort.

-Alpha

Alpha,

I was following you up until you said, "They just want to 'be on TV'". Honestly, after that you lost me.

A couple questions though, you make comments pretty specifically about the AGT contract, I don't doubt you on it but is that from first-hand knowledge or did you hear it from a friend of a friend of a friend who saw the contract?

Also, I'd be curious to know if Jay's phone is now ringing off the hook as you state. It very well may be, but that comment is made pretty often and I'd just be very curious to know if that really is generally the case. With the National exposure Jay received does that mean he is now sought after, or does he have to put forth the effort to turn these appearances into paid gigs?

Not sure what you mean exactly by stating that as a magician you really need to put a lot of funds into it. Are you saying that to win as a magician it requires expensive illusions? You may be right about that, I'm not sure.


As far as the young boy dancer "spilling the beans", I also noticed that on the following episode where he was not voted through, Nick Cannon brushed him off quicker than he normally would have. I wondered if he was being punished for mentioning that which they told him not to mention. Maybe it was just my imagination but I got the distinct impression they wanted very little attention on him and weren't going to give him another opportunity to "spill the beans" since he had already proven he couldn't be trusted. Very interesting.

Finally, if the contract states that producers have the final say in your performance (and I'm not sure it says that, I'm just repeating what I've often heard but I tend to agree) then why does that almost always seem to be looked upon as a bad thing?

In my opinion the producers are usually having to polish a turd with most of the acts, and I give them a lot of credit. Now I'm referring to ALL of the acts, not just magicians. For the most part the creative team makes great choices in costuming, music and choreography, and really embellishes the acts. They don't get it 100% right with every act of course, no one can bat a thousand (plus, I think they deliberately set out to sabotage certain acts). But overall I commend them and think they do a fantastic job. I feel that it is really a lesson in how much of a positive impact can be made from professional directors, choreographers, and creative people. Stage magicians and illusionists should really take note and see why it would behoove them to hire a talented director or choreographer to push their act to the next level. I mean some of the group dance acts are very mundane and ho-hum in the beginning and they really turn them into a Vegas caliber act in a fairly short time. Strangely, it always appears to me that they don't work with the magicians nearly as much. I know this certainly must have a lot to do with the fact that it is not as easy to re-stage a magic act, but still you'd think they would want to make Drew Thomas look at least as good as AcroDunk, and not have him do something where he spends the video package talking about his close relationship with his dauhter and then perform an effect that makes it appear that his beloved daughter is not sure who her real mother is. That was a really strange concept, and for being so "Copperfield-like" in some ways, wasn't really "Copperfield-like" at all in many other ways.

Oh well, I've rambled enough for now.
Bill

A young boy cannot sign a legal contract until he is of age. His parents could, but in a court, one would have a difficult time punishing a parent for an honest response of a child.

Can you imagine being told, you must be original and have an illusion? Even using the patriotic theme would a good thing. Most magicians could not come up with something on their own. Even Drew used classics with a different "face-look".

What they want appears to be fast paced opening illusions with fast 1-2-3 punch "Wows" which would blow an audience away. Even danger illusions with fire would impress them.

One needs to have set ready to fly, four 90 second acts well rehearsed. Audition, past the first round, the vegas round, the final round, and an alternative. Each act needs to play toward the judges with an appeal toward the audience.

What would impress the judges and audience?
We know silks are out, dove production are a dime a dozen, exposure (Pen & Teller's acts) are liked, Juggling flaming guitars/chain saws are liked. Jumping through flaming hoops are liked. There are no trap doors or ceiling attachments, which must be taking into consideration, as Peirs said, "We've seen producing people all the time" or something like that, Hmmmm, what can a magician do in 90 seconds that is fast paced, modern, new, original... Let me check my "Showman for Magicians Check list":

Audience Appeals:
1. Music
2. Rhythm
3. Movement
4. Sex Appeal
5. Youth
6. Personality
7. Color
8. Comedy
9. Harmony
10. Romance
11. Sentiment
12. Nostalgia
13. Pointing
14. Timing
15. Surprise
16. Situation
17. Character
18. Conflict
19. Proper costuming
20. Careful grooming
21. Physical action
22. Group coordination
23. Precise attack
24. Short turns or scenes
25. Efficient pacing
26. Punch
27. Careful routining
28. Tireless rehearsal
29. Special material
30. Grace
31. Effortless skill
32. Surefire material
33. Spectacle
34. Thrill
35. Emotion
36. Common problems
37. Escape from the humdrum
38. Unity
39. Up-to-date-ness

Check Chart - Act Idea
1. What is basic theme of act?
2. What character do you play? To crystallize your own concept, define character as to

• 1. Age
  
• 2. Education
  
• 3. Locale of birth
  
• 4. Ambitions
  
• 5. Virtues
  
• 6. Faults and weaknesses
  
• 7. Beliefs, etc.
  

3. Costume

• 1. Coat
  
• 2. Trousers
  
• 3. Shirt
  
• 4. Shoes
  
• 5. Accessories
  

4. What is character's purpose in action of act?
5. What tricks are to be used?
6. How are they tied to the act idea?
7. What is the principal audience appeal?
8. List all other appeals.
9. List music to accompany each trick.
10. Write down general theme or spoken part.
11. List all punches.
12. Which is the big punch for act's end?
13. How many audience appeals are at the climax?
14. Can you add more?
15. Can you add more audience appeals anywhere in the act?
16. What is your opening?
17. How will it "hook" audience interest?
18. For what type of audience is act intended?
19. What are that audience's chief interests?
20. What interest and attention appeals are incorporated in the act?
21. Can you add more?
22. Is your general idea of the act similar in framework to some outstanding act?
23. What is the general outline of the pattern act?
24. What is the general parallel outline of your act?
25. How long will your act run?
26. How long will each number run?
27. Can you cut the time?

• 1. By shortening the numbers
  
• 2. By eliminating unnecessary waits
  
• 3. By eliminating explanations or briefing them
  
• 4. By eliminating nonessential numbers
  

28. Are the technical requirements within your capacity?
29. Eliminate ALL MATERIAL intended only for killing time


If you don't understand this, then buy Fritzkee's "Showmanship for Magicians" and learn how each is important.

Look at Drew's acts, look at Jay's acts and think of what was missing or could have been different before you start to develop your own. Since singing seems to win, at least to the finals, analyze a singing routine using the above to see what it is every one likes about singing routines (Winners and Losers). Keep in mind the produces are going to want future acts to have the "Vegas Look" so plan for semi-finals to be "Vegas Acts" with the dancing show girls lighting, sound, etc. all pushed by the producers to enhance the act.

A Magican does have their work cut out for them.

Just FYI some one asked or commented about the phone ringing off the hook for Jay and well I can tell you that AGT served his purpose and has helped him in many ways.

Jay is a great freind of mine and he only had a week or so to put that act together and I thought he did a great job in that short time.

Jay brings a BUZZ to each of his performances and loves to entertain others.
Maybe AGT does not like him but in hte world of magic he is one of the top up and coming performers. especially his manipulation routines.

any who I agree with most that AGT seems to be a "fixed" compititon to a point but I am not at liberty to discuss what I know or do not know:)

good luck to all in all of your own shows

dennis - that was great listing you posted that's the stuff magicians need to hear and learn and not just another magic trick.

later
sam