Oh, goodness, Steve, I apologize. I automatically assumed that you would agree with that sentiment, seeing as how, in the following two threads, you cited Tommy Wonder as a magician who would agree with a point you were making, and judging from some of the other names on those lists, you'd placed him in pretty good company.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/searc......=6068230

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/searc......=5691773

Since, by your own admission, you've never familiarized yourself with Tommy Wonder's work, it seemed to me that you were including his name because of the fact that he was recognized as one of the greatest in our fold. So again, I apologize for assuming too much.

But we've probably digressed enough. Sure, let's agree to disagree.

Its not what you think it is. I don't have Wonder's material but I extensively studied his performances on youtube and he does interacts with the audience. Personally, purely from me studying Wonder's performances, I disagree with Andrew's point being his magic is none-interactive (i.e turing on the auto-pilot,the performance is almost robot-like ..close up obviously ). Unless Wonder talks about none-interaction in his own words in his own books/DVDs ( of so I'd love to learn the source ), I think Andrew misinterpreted his performances.

An extremely important distinction is made (which I think Andrew misses ) and made ironically by someone in Andrew's list of less-interactive performers, is something Eugene Burger said, ( and I'm NOT quoting, I read that 4 years ago) that many magicians treat the spectators as simply part of their tricks instead of actually doing the trick for them. Huge difference.

Keep in mind that having a script doesn't mean the performance isn't interactive. As obvious as it sounds this is a misconception many magicians have. A beautiful analogy is made by Eugene Burger(again,not quoting): You script is like a road, you deviate from it depending on the circumstances (improving your performance), and go back to the road.

On a side note: I personally would love to see a magician performing without any form of audience interaction, and not give the feeling that he's performing for himself. I genuinely mean that as it'll be a very nice learning experience for me.

~ Feras
P.S, Reading my post I realize the tone might sound offending, I assure everyone (especially Andrew ) that its not, and I apologize in advance for any remark that seem offensive.

Feras,

I wasn't offended by your post, but you misinterpreted my point, and in building an argument based solely on the performances you're working with incomplete information.

Originally, the question was raised asking if part of being a good showman is adapting to the audience rather than having them adapt to you.

My response was to consider Tommy Wonder, who has a rigid script with considerations made to avoid random variances. In essence, that's an example of somebody who compels the audience to adjust to him, whether they realize it or not. And yet, at the same time, he's a good showman.

If you take another look at Wonder's work, including his discussions with Max Maven, paying particular attention to the explanations for The Magic Ranch, The Nest of Boxes, and Socked Coins, and if you look at the L&L performance of him doing Deja Reverse, you'll see what I mean about him being a performer who liked to keep things on a strict path. This is not the same as saying he has no interaction. What it is saying is that he manages the interaction heavily to make sure it turns out a certain way. This is a valid theatrical approach.

Yes, Tommy Wonder's magic does come across as seeming natural. His scripting, though, is very precise.

Andrew-- It is apparent from your sarcasm and attitude that you are looking for a fight. I simply disagree with you. I respect Mr. Wonder. I've seen some of his material. I've read some of his works. This does not make me an expert or even what I would call "familiar" with his material. Does disagreeing with someone on a particular issue mean that you can't agree with him on anything else? Does not thinking someone is "the greatest whatever" in the 20th Century mean that you don't respect his work? Sure, I said I'd avoid his work like the plague. I never read anything of his that implied he wanted to avoid interaction with the audience. That's because I haven't read as much about him or by him as you have, I guess. I relied on your knowledge to make a decision not to study his work. So what?

The personal attacks you've made on me on your blog; your need to go search other threads in attempts to bait me and the filth you've used towards me in other places on the net is so telling as to your actual motives that no further comment is necessary. In fact, a great deal of what you've written about me is incorrect. Your obsession is obvious and your character transparent.

So troll on little fisherman-- this trout is ignoring you from this point on.

SEY

I agree with this, and its how I do my magic, and it really doesn't contradict anything I mentioned above. I'd also I add that in doing the above I apply a concept of Steve Youell's, which helped me a lot in the process.

I never looked at it from "who's adopting to who" viewpoint, but thinking about it now, I think a certain dose of both is necessary:

They're adopting to you: You have to manage the audience & control of the performance, which directly relevant in doing your effects properly and for them to perceive it properly. Also, (a point irrelevant to this thread but still valid) because you are a performer with an identity, its part of what sets you apart from others. People react to your personality as a performer. Also, I don't see Darwin Ortiz doing sponge balls. ( I know its an extreme case, but how many magicians "kids parties, corporate trade shows" in their business cards? )

You adopt to them: in manner that they walk away thinking that the performance was tailored to them. You were performing for them, rather than yourself (note that this includes patter, interacting and ,other things such as not being robotic, the performer's general attitude). I'm saying this because it exists in Wonder's performances and even in Lennert Green's, but not in R. Paul Wilson's performance, This is where the flaw is.

The youtube video posted showing Paul's Challenge Aces, its obvious that Paul is trying to build up the outcome. To me it appears its done in a contrived way and while it did lead to a good reaction, it could lead to a far better one if they were more emotionally hooked into the whole idea. This particular point, the emotional hook and setting up the spectator, is something Tommy Wonder excelled at. Its them adopting to you, but doing it well demands that you adpot to them to a certain degree.

S***, I just read my post and if it made any sense, I'm a happy man.

Unfortunatly I don't own Tommy Wonder's DVDs so can't see the discussions with Maven. As I mentioned before, my information came from extensively studying his performances from youtube.

~ Feras
P.S English isn't my 1st language, frankly it was very difficult for me to write the above, I hope I delivered my points effectively.

Well again, I apologize, Steven. I find it difficult sometimes trying to decipher your arguments, and as such I rely on pointed rebuttals in an attempt to elicit clarity. A failing on my part, I'm sure.

And, to the rest of the readers of this thread, I apologize for my part in this thread getting off track in discussing Tommy Wonder's performing strategies. To get back to Wilson, I'd just like to reiterate -- there is definitely an audience for Wilson's deadpan style, and I don't think that's made clear by the L&L DVDs.

I'll shut up now.

I believe that was Bruce Lee from Enter the Dragon who said: "It is like a finga, pointing away to the moon." (The kid looks at Bruce's finger, then Bruce smacks him on top of his head and says "Don't look at the finga, or you will miss all da heavenly glory."

Mike

Wow ths post is getting deep,, now we ring in Bruce Lee, Well how about Darwin Ortiz. propably the best cardician on the planet,I consider his teaching along with Harrys' are the very best
yet for me his performance style is so boaring he puts me to sleep..
vinny

Apology accepted, Andrew. I'm sure everyone will realize it is sincere and heartfelt.

SEY

It brought a tear to my eye!

MMc

There seems to be a misunderstanding of "adapting to the spectators". Several posts seem to liken that to losing control of the performance. You can keep the spectators under control while at the same time adapting your performance to them.

KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.

If I'm performing in a bar for a bunch of half-drunken frat boys, my presentation is quite different than when I'm at a formal cocktail party. Not only will I pick different effects, but I will adapt to the emotional tides of the room. At the cocktail party it might be reserved, elegant, cerebral. The frat boys will be... umm... something quite different.

So, I adapt to them. This does NOT mean that I lose control of the performance or the audience. In both cases, I'm in control of the performance but I let the room determine the TYPE of performance I will be offering.

That is EXACTLY right.

Not only that-- there is an extreme advantage in doing so. If you know what you're doing, spectator interactions can strengthen the performance.

SEY

Vinny, be careful what you say. You wouldn't want to upset the folks around these hills.

Back to sleep. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

DJ right on..... any how its only a opinion nothing more

Steven,

I honestly don't know if it's this straightforward.

If magician T (for theater) is doing a show in a theater, and the audience has bought tickets to his show, when they show up, does the magician need to figure out how to adjust to the audience every night? After all, it's a different audience, a different mindset, each time, right? In that situation, I believe it's in the best interest of the performer to just play the heck out of his best material. I don't think showmanship in that venue will necessarily be measured by his ability to adapt.

Now, if magician B (for bar) is working in a run-down bar strolling around with customers who are in various states of inebriation, and he's expected to perform for all of them, is he in the same position as magician T? I don't think so. In this case, since he's doing close-up for people and not all of them are in the same headspace, then evaluating his success as a performer is going to be more closely tied to being able to entertain each and every person he comes across. In this case, showmanship will likely be measured by his ability to adapt.

But what about magician R (for restaurant) who does strolling work, but only goes to a table when they've requested him, and makes sure that the waiter announces him, and even has a chair waiting for him when he arrives. Even though there's always going to be a base uncertainty in play, is this an audience that's going to be willing to adapt to the performer, or are they going to expect them to adapt to him?

If I'm buying a ticket for a movie or a play, I don't go there expecting that it will change its outcome according to my headspace going into it. Rather, I'm conditioned to going in there with a somewhat open mind and waiting to see how it'll turn out. The success of the drama is based largely upon the strength and integrity of its internal artistic logic. Legolas doesn't whip out a chainsaw to deal with the hordes of orcs charging him just because some kid in the front row thinks that would be cool. Or, to put it another way, if Legolas did whip out that chainsaw, then that kid in the front row would lose his mind, but the rest of the audience would probably be left thinking "WTF"?

This translates to a certain degree to some (not all) magic acts. Some people are lucky enough to work in a venue where the prestige is high -- the audience is coming to him, wanting to see him do his best work, and willing to give him a shot at it. For close-up strollers, on the other hand, it's a completely different scenario. If I'm at a party and some guy comes up to me and he's obviously working from a script and feeding me canned lines, I'm going to be less receptive to it. It's just him and me. Why is he just throwing stuff at me?

As a performer, I've been fortunate enough in my brief career thus far to have worked two different venues -- parlour for groups of a dozen kids at a time (did about 250 such shows over a four month span), and close-up for smaller groups of adults at corporate functions (my current gig). While I don't know that my parlour experiences are indicative of the way all parlour experiences should be, or that my close-up is indicative of the way all close-up experiences should be, I can say that the measure of success for each has been drastically different.

For the parlour act, its success lay in being able to find the right act, working the hell out of it to get all the kinks, and then fulfilling the promise of that act each and every single time. I found myself wanting things to go as Tommy Wonder might, in minimizing distractions and variances because I know that, if they can stay focused on the effect, when the effect unfolds as it should, they'll be happy. The magic was chosen, designed, and scripted for that aim.

For the close-up stuff, though, it's been completely different. While I've still got a script, I stray off every single chance I've got, since I'm trying to get as much interaction as possible. Every time I perform I try to figure out exactly what it is that'll make them lose their gasket, and if I can figure that out, I go for it. It's a much less rigidly structured working environment. I find myself wanting things to go completely different than when I was working parlour.

Despite the differences between the two, I've had outcomes that would have shaped the audience's perceptions of me as a showman. I've had parlour gigs go incredibly well that would have left them with the impression of me being a great showman. (I also had failures, too, but moving right along...) I've had close-up performances go incredibly well that would have left them with the impression of me being a great showman. (Again, there's also been failures, but moving right along...) In both cases, in the successes, I fulfilled the promise of the show and came off a great showman and magician, but how I got there was completely different. And I'm highly doubtful that those two modes described are the only two available.

How does this relate to Wilson? Dunno. I liken performance styles in magic (manipulation acts, comedy acts, bizarrism, etc.) to genres in movies (science fiction, action, thriller). We don't expect a lover of romance movies to enjoy Blade Runner, and if somebody who's a romance movie junkie hates Blade Runner, we don't necessarily use that as proof that Blade Runner is a bad movie, because it's simply a case of a bad match -- what the audience member was looking for and what the movie provided were just too different for there to be an enjoyable experience. I personally believe that what happened with Wilson on the L&L DVD set was basically that. It seemed like they were fine with what he was doing, but a more aggressive, playful audience would have gotten more out of him, where his dry, somewhat coy nature could be used to play with the crowd, and build up each and every effect.

Since this thread seems to have devolved from the silly (bashing Paul Wilson) to the ridiculous (questioning if Tommy Wonder was a great magician or not) I’ll just offer my worthless two cents:

ONE: You can’t study Tommy Wonder’s work by watching YouTube videos. There is ZERO chance you will gain the smallest understanding of his work, or his thinking, by watching him perform. The Books of Wonder are a wealth of complex reasoning based on a lifetime of creating entertaining magic that fooled both intelligent laymen and very well studied magicians. You can’t get that from simply watching him perform for the same reason looking at a Rembrandt won’t make you a painter.
The Visions of Wonder DVDs have the same detailed information on methods, because Tommy discusses the material and the philosophy behind the work in detail with Max Maven.

TWO: A magician who hasn’t studied Tommy Wonder’s work is like a card guy who hasn’t read Vernon; you can do it, but who would want to be that guy?




Oh, and not for nothin’ -- Paul Wilson’s a lot of fun to watch. Particularly the couple’s card trick with the Heart… I don’t know what SteveP was thinking when he picked that clip for the promo video. It’s not representative of the material on the set at all.

Steve is a good friend of mine. I do know that he doesn't just "pick" what clip is shown as the promo for each D.V.D. set. Some times Steve is told what is wanted as a promo clip. It may not be the best selection at times but a lot of factors are weighed in. I know that what is chosen is also in most cases something that is not going to be easily reconstructed by some boob watching You Tube.

Andrew,

Magician T isn't particularly relevant to the discussion since there is minimal interaction with the spectators (even if you bring up a spectator or two during the show). You simply do the show as scripted just like a play.

Here's where we disagree, I say magicians B and R are in exactly the same situation. Even if R is requested and sits down, you still need to assess the audience. If they are out celebrating and having a loud and fun time then you will (or should) respond differently than if they are subdued and only want to passively watch a few minutes of magic.

Yes, if they are quiet and you tend to be more lively and animated, you can try to get them to come out of their shell a bit, but the ultimate success of your performance hinges on how well you can match their emotional pulse.

Andrew,

For once I agree with you on the ground that Tommy who I knew well would stick to his script scrupulously. I don't remember what he said to Max Maven on the DVDs but what you are saying is factual. I could even add that anybody who watches Whit Haydn's Chicago surprise on Youtube can notice that when he gets interrupted by a lady, he addresses the interruption and then rsume his patter word for word where he had left off.

Now from the friendship and discussions that I had with Tommy Wonder, I must add that if DURING PERFORMANCES, he wouldn't change a word of his script, he would very carefully listen to the reactions and comments and let his pater slowly evolve between performances. Tommy was a cool perfectionist and he was never satisfied with his tricks: we have had exchanges of faxes (no emails at the time) where he would use me (I'm sure not exclusively) to chisel his scripts and attitudes. He knew however that his patter was the best tuning he had been able to make at the time of each performance. For Tommy the moto was Intent + Emotion + Conflict + Skill = Pure Magical Impact (I cannot tell how many time he would repeat this). This cannot be improvised.

Now what I don't understand is what the debate is about. Aren't we suppose to care for our scripts that are a vital ingredient of the creation of the magic and the ultimate issuing dilemma?

You defintiely get my vote on this Andrew

OK, look. It is apparent that a few of you simply did not read my posts carefully.
I was hoping that this ****ing match was dead in the water, but since it was dredged up again, I'll correct some of the inaccuracies.

1) I never once said that Tommy Wonder was not a great magician. What I did imply was an opinion that he was not "One of the Greatest Magicians of the 20th Century." That is my opinion and I am entitled to express it.

In order to compare/contrast my opinion with an opposing opinion, it would be necessary to first decide on exactly how that category is defined. Are we talking about a list composed of 10 magicians? 50 Magicians? 100 Magicians? Certainly the number on the list would be essential to deciding WHO is on the list.

So Mr. Duncan's accusations (which I'm guessing were directed at me) are ridiculously inaccurate.

While I did not check the entire thread, I assume Mr. Duncan's comment regarding YouTube Videos was also shot in my general direction. If that's the case, then this comment was also inaccurate. In fact, I've never seen a YouTube video of Mr. Wonder. What I have done is peruse some of his material and theories in several of his books. This, in my opinion, does not make me intimately familiar with his work and I stated so.

Regarding Cardmen who have not studied Mr. Wonder-- how many are we talking about? I can assure you that I can list at least six top World Famous Cardmen who have not studied Mr. Wonder's work with anything more than casual reading. Rather than drag them into this mud hole, if Mr. Duncan wants to PM me, I'll be glad to provide him with the names.

2) Not once did I say that Mr. Wonder's idea of scripting was not a legitimate approach. I expressed my opinion that it differs from my concept of what Close Up Magic is-- I DID NOT say or imply that Mr. Wonder or anyone's opinion was therefore invalid. What I did imply was that my performing style differs so greatly from Mr. Wonder's that I would avoid studying his work. What's wrong with that? If our performance styles are at opposite ends of the spectrum, why would I want to spend the time studying his work when I could use that time to study the work of individuals who would assist me in my type of performing style? Of course, my opinion was based on a statement by Mr. Musgrave and perhaps if I got more information my opinion would change.

To come up with an arbitrary list of people one needs to study in order to become an excellent Card Man is nothing more than attempting to force your opinion on others. Something that I believe inhibits the development of the Art.

3) Finally, in terms of scripts. Not once did I say they weren't important. But has anyone here actually defined a script? I can find a few definitions in Magic Literature as well as Literature on Acting. The definitions range from silent mental scripts, to scripts that cannot be deviated from. I personally use a combination that allows a large amount of interaction with the audience. It allows my to stick to my presentation as well as adjust to a wide range of audience interaction. I did not just "fall into" this style. I picked it on purpose after discussing the idea with more than a few well known Comedians, Acting Coaches and my mentors-- including Ron Bauer who is well known for producing--- Scripts for Magic!

I think I've done OK with it so far.

Could we please now close the Tommy Wonder issue?

Please?

SEY