Truthteller, what you are really saying - and what David meant to imply, I think, is that there are loads of hack magicians out there. I don't deny that. But, there are also thousands of working performers who carry off these effects with aplomb. A magician who embarrasses his audiences won't last ten minutes in resorts, hotels, ships and other establishments which demand a high standard of entertainment.
Personally, I don't regard most of the items on David's list as particularly difficult to perform well. But, I agree that the list contains items that are regularly performed badly. As I said, just about every magic effect is murdered by a good number of performers - both professional and amateur. I don't agree that it would take Penn and Teller to present the guillotine well. Admittedly, there are very bad versions of the guillotine out there, which are less than miraculous. Then, there are some (such as my Tilford Guillotine) which really do look impossible. It's all about creating a roller-coaster ride of fun, and drawing your audience in.
I think the intent behind the article has some merit. If David had been more specific, I may well have agreed wholeheartedly. In my opinion, there should be several caveats:
"In my area, these effects are over-exposed and frequently performed badly." This would be a fair comment, and a very good reason to avoid them. Until those hacks fade back into obscurity, and once again, it would be reasonable to consider including them in a show.
"I dislike certain effects, because I don't feel they fit MY style of performing." Again, if this had been David's angle, it would be perfectly fair and understandable. Linking Rings generally bores me, and yes, I've seen it done very badly. Certain "elite" members of the Magic Circle immediately spring to mind. But, I've also seen performances of "Ninja Rings" which blew me away.....and I know other Magic Café members who swear by this effect.
I just feel that David is doing a dis-service to the many, many talented and experienced performers out there who use these effects, and carry them off quite brilliantly.
I really don't agree that the list contains items which are "challenging to the modern performer". To me, they appear to be no more or less challenging than most other magic effects. If David is referring to the low-grade amateur-level performers who use the effects, then he should be more clear. He seems to be unaware that performers who are "exceptions" to his ideas are all over the World. To such an extent that I feel his comments are inaccurate and unworthy.
There are several effects which I refrain from using - even though I have good, solid presentations for them. The reason is that IN MY AREA these routines and effects are performed badly so often. That's not to say that in the Phillipines, the islands of the Mediterranean, and zillions of other places, these effects are also played to death.
Certain items on David's list are really surprising - for instance, I agree that most modern audiences comprise a majority who don't smoke. That doesn't mean they won't enjoy a good cigarette manipulation routine. I know one local chap who performs an EXCELLENT "smoking routine". It's all based on his desire to quit smoking - so he's made it contemporary - as well as being simply hysterical to watch, not to mention, amazing.
I hapily use underwear in my shows, even for kids. There is NO problem here, so long as you understand the sensibilities of modern audiences.
And as I said, I really can't get my head around his dismissal of silk magic. Perhaps he'd like to elaborate, and give good reasons why magicians shouldn't perform magic with silks? I do regularly, and some of my silk routines are incredibly engaging for my audiences.
Following David's logic, we should also dismiss: Ambitious Card, Card to Wallet, anything involving weapons, any sponge ball routines, Confabulation, Magic Squares, Multiplying Billiard Balls, and a whole load of other effects. In the realm of kids' magic, you can also find many examples: Hippity-Hop routines, Run Rabbit routines, Coloring Book, Breakaway Wand, cut & restored rope, along with most other rope routines, many effects using a box, etc. All regularly performed badly, yet all capable of being highly entertaining in the right hands.
I see this as tunnel vision, imagining that because so many folks don't know how to put over an effect, that there are just a handful of performers who can.
The World is full of amateur magicians, and so there will always be a great number of poor performances. Likewise, there are a huge number of talented performers whose performance is exemplary. They may not all be household names - realistically, there are almost NO magicians who are. But, the majority of professionals I've encountered - who are contracted to work at high-class establishments - offer a great show, which is perfect for the environment they work in.
Finally, I'd like to offer one suggestion for consideration: "Spiked", or many of it's variants. This one really is a dangerous trick: most of us have seen the horrific videos of performers impaling their hand - or worse - a spectator's hand - with a huge and nasty metal spike. Considering that there are versions which are 100% safe, I feel it's rather irresponsible to use a variant of the effect which can genuinely cause severe injury. Yet, I know of several magicians who swear by it, and of course, it's up to them if they feel confident that they will NEVER get it wrong. In my opinion, there will be times when a performer is under-par, ill, etc. At these times, performing dangerous effects like this can, and do, go horribly wrong!
Potty
[/quote]

Nope. There are a lot of hack magicians out there. But that's not the issue.

You claim these tricks are not flawed. Then why do we see the same flaws in the super duper great vast majority of performances of these tricks? You say (see below) there are thousands of magicians who do these tricks well. We can name the one or two exceptions, but thousands? Really?

I'm sure you'll post some examples for us to consider - not just that one guy who does something smart - but at least hundreds. I mean - if there is no problem inherent in the trick itself, then everyone should have interesting, relevant, artistic and engaging routines for it.

Waiting . . .



Allow me to quote myself:



Waiting . . . .

I see.

Let's continue then:



Fun for whom? The child who is crying when they see their parents forced into the guillotine? I have seen that happen twice - both magicians, working pros. Or the lady who clearly has a hard time getting down and up from her kneeling position? Or the man whose neck is too thick and has his skin pinched when the stocks are closed?

Fun for those people?

Is it really a roller coaster when "one two . . . three days ago" you drug out an already uninteresting routine with the same gags they saw the other magician do at the party for the Jones's? Does the guillotine really produce the same thrill as a roller coaster? Are there any surprises in the routine? Does an adult audience ever feel real suspense or are they just thinking "thank god that's not me!" Or is this just the type of thing one uses to threaten harm on credulous childrens' parents?

Who exactly has designed a guillotine roller coaster? You say there are thousands. I have yet to see one. I've asked for four. Will you deliver?



Such as?

And remember, David clearly stated that there are and will be exceptions to the rule. It's easy to spout the one or two guys who do such and such trick well - but if the tricks are not flawed in some way, why can't we name the thousands of successful magicians you speak of?

Do hundreds of magicians have subtle work on the break away wand? Usually it consists of just handing it to a kid and making him look stupid - or taking it oneself and making oneself look stupid.

Is that the goal of magic - to make people look stupid?

How many of these thousands of unnamed "artistically relevant working pros" you speak of know what a change bag is? I mean - what it REALLY is. Do you?

If so - would you advocate using an offering plate in a kiddie show? What about dressing the kids in pontifical robes?

That would make as much sense as using a change bag - wouldn't it?



In reading your post it is obvious you have taken this personally. You use many of the items David has called into question. It's normal to act defensively when this happens.

Some people refuse to acknowledge what was actually written, some people try to take the argument to absurdest conclusions, some might make statements they can't back up.

You have done all three.

It's ok.

But let's not forget - if a Hollywood director wants to portray someone who is socially inept, culturally irrelevant, and personally unaware - they make him a magician. A feather flower pulling, silk scarf toting, guillotine chopping, top hat and coiled cane sporting magician.

This is what people think when you make these choices.

You might be cool "dancin and singin" for a pat on the head and the chance to visit the master's parlour - but (to a 21st century human) none of those things are magic, let alone modern.

There are magicians and there are people with magic acts. There are artists and there are craftsman.

You can sell a lot of McDonald's hamburgers and "hang on it's almost friday" kitten posters and consider yourself successful, I suppose. But "artistic" and "relevant" you are not.

And the sad thing is, with just the tiniest bit of effort you could be different. Which I realize, is not guaranteed to be either artistic or relevant, but it's a first step.

So - do you move forward, or stay still?

I vote we move forward.

Potty votes we stay still.

Problem is - most of us haven't taken a step since 1948.

Viva la change bag!

That was a great article..
it also drives me mental to see magicians in top hats, with silks and canes..
(jeff McBride might be the exception)

Well said truthteller. Again.

But these props are here to stay.

Magic Shops still have so many in stock!

And they're making new ones!

Meanwhile, I'll quote Gandhi...

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

Truthteller, I assure you, I don't take it personally. I just find David's argument way off base. You keep asking for names, well firstly, if I listed the names of some of those entertainers I've worked with, you wouldn't know them, so what good would it do? Also, they may or may not be happy to be mentioned here at the Magic Café. Quite possibly, they won't want loads of other magicians checking out their website. From your comments, clearly you believe that the majority of magicians are hacks. So, of all the tens of thousands of working magicians in the World, you are quite certain that virtually all fall below your standards. I find it amusing that you can judge unseen acts by their choice of props!
The stories you tell of the guillotine sound as if they are performed by absolute beginners. What experienced entetainer would have a child who is crying when they see their parents forced into the guillotine? Or the lady who clearly has a hard time getting down and up from her kneeling position? Or the man whose neck is too thick and has his skin pinched when the stocks are closed? The problem in these cases in nothing to do with the guillotine - it is to do with the performer.
It seems to me that you've seen a lot of "bad workmen", but you're blaming their choice of tools, instead of realising that they are simply bad at what they do. You've witnessed the performances of many hacks, and your judgement is badly impaired.
Are you so arrogant to believe that only you and a handful of others can actually entertain their audiences? The very fact that you don't know how you might use a breakaway wand, change bag, or the items on David's list, tells me that you're not so great as you might think! Tommy Cooper would get a laugh with an empty shopping bag. The quality of entertainment is NOT inherent in the prop, it is in the PERFORMER, and how he incorporates his props into his show.
Potty

And Tommy never thought for a second he was fooling anyone with his paper sack. Yet many magicians believe the change bag deceives anyone other than children or dullards.

If a magician does not deceive he is not a magician. He may be a comedian. He may be some type of visual artist, but unless the laws of nature are defied he is not a magician.

The change bag does not deceive. And yes. When they think 'that bag which fails to resemble anything ive ever seen in my life must be switching those objects or hiding those obviously squishy fake flowers' they are not deceived.

And it's ok to blame a tool. If you have a broken screw driver or a dull circular saw, then unless you are an extraordinarily skilled artist of craftsman, your work will suffer. If you read david's post you know he states clearly that there can and will be exceptions, but the problem is every magician thinks he is the exception. Many magicians are using old and broken tools and think their skills make up for it.

They don't.

If they did, the media would not associate such negative stereotypes with those choices. Heck, magicians wouldnt associate such negative stereotypes with those choices. But we do and for good reason.

Likewise. I know there are craftsman who do interesting work using tools from the last century. And if you want a seemingly authentic yet still fake antique, going that route might make sense. But if you read davids post you know that it concerns the modern magician.

Most magicians have never asked themselves if they are a throw back or culturally relevant. Do you know what a change bag is? Can you explain why that design still exists in the 21st century magician's catalog? Same for the dove pan or the entire genre of tube items. I'm sure dekoltas spring flowers looked amazing under the gas lamps. But in a brightly lit living room?

In what other branch of entertainment do they cling so forcefully to premises, formats, and philosophies of the past? Sure, there will always be hack comedians talking about women and their toilet paper, but when you compare George burns to the comics of the early eighties to the comics of today you evolution and growth.

Magicians still think a wand breaking in a kids hand is funny or threatening bodily harm on an audience member is the fodder for entertainment.

Other arts evolve. Why not us?

Finally I do not accept your cop out re four magi who do something interesting with the guillotine. Yes I do believe the vast majority of magicians are hacks ( just look at their tricks and listen to their lines and you will see too) but that is not the point. The point is that these items are flawed and unless someone can come along and over come their flaws, perhaps they should go the way of 'hello larry' and the edsel. Could a super smart Magi transcend the problems. Yes they would be the exception. Are you the exception? You do a monster guillotine. It says so on your site.

Breaking Wands are hack and may have been funny when it was genuinely unexpected. Now it is a joke the punchline to which everyone expects. Magicians are the only people I know who as a group like to tell jokes they know everyone already knows. Perhaps the sound of their own laughter prevents them from realizing no one else is laughing.

Potty, keep doing the tired stuff. You can even do it in a tired way. You and others seem bent on clinging to out dated and out mixed ways of thinking.

That's cool

But those who want their magic to fit and have a chance of being relevant to modern audiences would do well to contemplate davids post. He hasn't answered the hard questions of what do you do and what do people care about, but has has shown a light down some paths that have been so well trod as to be interesting only to hack magicians and very young children.

Pick your path. Just do it with both eyes open.

"The Change Bag does not deceive". Yes, it absolutely does - kids of up to five years of age have no idea how it works. Most older folks don't know how it works, but admittedly are likely to have seen it before, and have some inkling. One of my favourite uses for the change bag (the only time I ever use it for older kids or family audiences) is in my Bill to Lemon routine. It's a red herring, as I don't use the bag in the usual way.
"In what other branch of entertainment do they cling so forcefully to premises, formats, and philosophies of the past?" Er....just about EVERY branch of entertainment involves the study of classic routines/music/dance moves etc. I've never suggested that using "classic props" means your show has to appear dated. Most of my props are modern pieces, and most of the magicians I've seen have plenty of "modern" routines, though many include at least one or two items on David's list.
You have stated that hundreds of choppers have been sold over the years; and also argue that it's unlikely that there are FOUR performers out of them all, who can actually deliver a skilled performance of the guillotine. You really believe that most of the working magicians out there are hacks? That all those agents who place entertainers on cruise ships, in hotels, shopping malls, holiday camps, etc, are satisfied with performers who embarrass and cause discomfort to their audiences? Of course, you're quite wrong, and your argument seems to be based entirely on your own experiences - which, I assume, are limited. In reality, if a performer were to present shows like this - in a venue where high-end entertainment is required, they would be out of there as quick as a flash.
I've just been working with some very talented youngsters this year. I think we're going to see some awesome new talent emerging in the next few years, as the drama and performing arts colleges are turning out ever more competent performers. These youngsters don't have the prejudices you and David have shown towards certain effects, magicians and entertainers. They simply concentrate on creating great shows, using whatever routines and effects they feel are right for their show.
I believe in a positive approach to creating shows, I don't assume that certain effects are inherently flawed. Perhaps they are flawed for MY purposes, but that doesn't mean - by any stretch of the imagination - that they are likewise flawed for EVERYONE.
Entertaining with magic is just that - entertaining. Too many magicians think that if they present something inexplicable, they will be entertaining. In my experience, those who learn to amaze, but lack the ability to amuse, are the real hacks. As I said, a good entertainer knows how to present standard items like the breakaway wand - and to make it fresh, funny and original. Of course, you still should consider what ages you will present certain effects for - just as the breakaway wand would be unlikely to work in an adult show, so a Monster Guillotine would be inappropriate for a kid show.
You tell me to "keep doing the tired stuff". Whether or not that is the case (I have 20 shows, and they include many "old classics", as well as many original routines) it's about the response I get. My clients are more than happy with my work, as are my audiences. That's because I concentrate on presentation, creating dynamic shows with plenty of magic, puppets, music, variety and participation. No doubt, the actual effects I choose are secondary to my style and character, which are the driving factors. I bet you detest "Strat-O-Sphere", as it's another old chestnut. But, when I perform it, the kids howl with laughter, and I'm often begged to "do it again". It's not difficult, just a question of presenting it in a funny, original and entertaining way.
Potty

So. Give me the names of four people who do the guillotine well.

Should be easy.

What is a guillotine? It's a 18th century execution device. What does using one say about a performer and his relationship to his audience. Would you find it amusing to but a parent in an electric chair or stand him in front of a firing squad, flip the switch or give the order, and then expect applause when the person didn't die? Because that's essentially what you are doing.

You may protest that no one takes the guillotine seriously. They know it's a put on. Which begs the question, then why use it? If there is no suspense or risk you have no drama - only a distasteful decision to use the threat of harm as a vehicle for comedy. And if there is drama you are kind of a creep.

Which is why the guillotine today is a flawed trick. Most magicians never think about what they really say to their audiences. Which is why they use a change bag - hey potty, do you know what a change bag really is? - when with one half hour of thought they could come up with ten alternative switching devices which would go unnoticed (something you want from a device doing secret things) by 21 at century audiences.

As to arts growing: You're wrong or being obtuse. When you watch a comedy show filmed in the eighties and one today you can see differences. When you watch a sitcom from the seventies and one today you see differences. But when we watch most "working pro magicians" from today, do we see differences? Or do we see the same tricks done the same way with the same premises and structure and format and costumes?

Sure all arts study the past in order to grow. You seem bent on studying the past so nothing ever changes.

Viva la change bag.

And no one doubts the babies and people who think like babies aren't fooled by the change bag. But is that the bar we should set for ourselves - I want to amaze only people who think like four year olds.

Apparently, when you consider the number of botanias and change bags out there, it is.

And you are taking this personally, as I suspected, Mr 20 shows. Like many, you see tricks you do and feel as if you are being called a lesser magician. I am sure kids love your act. Funny songs, silly costumes, goofy voices. I've seen the videos on your site.

But davids post is about being a modern MAGICIAN - not a baby sitter or even a kid show entertainer. It goes without saying that a good entertainer/magician must engage their Audiences. (there is more to engagement than laughter and applause). But a magician must also deceive. And a modern magician must be relevant to his audiences tastes.

Putting people into century old execution devices is only engaging if there is drama, and never modern. (which is why most people don't get more offended by what you are actually doing; it is so irrelevant that people don't even know why there should be drama). So we are left with (yet another) guy with contrived items using audience members as a prop to attempt to get decades old laughs. They may be funny if you never heard them before - but again, is that the bar we should set for ourselves?

And we have sequined clowns using decommissioned church furniture in order to call attention to the fact that this thing their grandparents used to put their offerings into will blatantly switch things.

But the kids scream. Who cares what the parents think as long as the cheque cashes. Maybe they'll even let us get a bit o cake. Why trouble our head with these questions? Who cares if the media continually portrays our art as filled with out of touch, socially clueless hacks.

We got paid!

Viva la change bag.

Brad

Ps. Don't see anything wrong with stratospheres. Why would you suggest something like that, silly pirate

Ofcourse TT your really off topic.

Because basically what you are really arguing is that the guillotine is * inherently* a weak illusion and always was. I'm not sure if I agree or not, its a bit on the edge for me. I actually think the fact that it is outside of people's daily experience may *save* it. That it would be too gruesome to be believable if we were living in the middle of the French Revolution.

My favorite weak illusion of this kind actually is the naked-backed buzz-saw. I hated it when I saw Blackstone Jr do it and he did it about as well as anyone can. It IS too close to everyday experience and too gruesome to be believable, IMHO.

Truthteller, you can sit up there with your high-and-mighty ideals and concepts. Luckily for the rest of the World, audiences are quite happy to suspend their disbelief as they witness the miracle of the Monster Guillotine. Or, as they see a young fop prancing on stage and performing hilarious antics with silk handkerchieves, top hats, canes and cigarettes. They are not all as jaded as you. I have never argued that we shouldn't strive to be contemporary, but that has nothing to do with throwing out tradition.
Your argument really boils down to: "Traditional magic sucks, but modern innovative magic rules!" My opinion is that it is in the PRESENTATION of your material that you can choose to be modern or otherwise. Simply substituting a cellphone for a dollar bill, a Pizza for a Rabbit, or a paintball gun for a real pistol moves our art forward. Without any prejudices, but simply developing modern presentations for old material. It has, and always will be done. Which is why all the items on David's list will remain solid working pieces, in one form or another, as long as entertainment exists.
I can't be bothered to argue all your points - but, for instance, in what way does your prejudice against the guillotine differ from your opinions of the bullet catch, Electric Sawing in Half, "Spiked"? Seems you've opened the gates - where are you going to draw your line? Or don't you have one?
;)

Cyber, it is you who are off topic.

The guillotine at one time was probably a strong illusion. Today - for modern audiences - it isn't. That was David's point. There are items which no longer fit into the notion of "modern magic." Now, we can always present these items as historical relics, and that approach can be interesting and viable - but that requires taking time to consider why one might want to present it that way. Most magicians simply do what has always been done - sure their blade may be jaged and not straight, sure they may wear a patch instead of a cowboy hat, but they still fail to address the three question Regina Reynolds poses of every illusion she sees:
"what happened, who cares, and how else?"

You argue that the guillotine being irrelevant is it's saving grace. SO I ask, if the gruesomeness is gone - why do people care? I know that most magicians think it is funny to place spectators in uncomfortable situations in the attempt to get laughs, but what does that say about us? Does that make us the kind of person others would want to be around?

Potty,

What do you think audiences feel when they see a child fail on stage? What does that child's parents think? What do they think? Sure they laugh, but people laugh when they are uncomfortable.

Why is it that magicians have such a hard time getting adults to come on stage to help them?

Is this because they know they will be treated with respect and intelligence? Or is it because they know from experience that bad things will happen?

Potty,

I have no problem with people doing dramatic things on stage. You just need to be aware of what you are doing and how it reads. If a performer wants to legitimately risk harm for a stunt, and is ok producing that feelingful response in his audience, then that's great. HEck, even if they want to put an audience member in danger - as long as they know that they are going to engender the feelingful response they will create and will take the consequences - then that is their choice.

But how many performers think that through? Did Martin Cox think about that before he smashed Julie's hand onto the spike? By his joking manner and way he treated her during the routine, obviously not. She was a prop.

If you want to stand someone in front of a firing squad and call fire, go ahead. Just make sure you know what you are putting out there to be experienced by the audience.

How many magicians know what a change bag is, or stop to consider what a guillotine is?

Then, once we realize that, how many think for a moment - does it make sense to do this for a modern audience?

I can't think of any, can you? If you can, please point them out. I would love to hear why they think these tricks should be done. Perhaps you will ask any one of the thousands you claim to exist to come here and answer.

Do contemporary audiences enjoy seeing the fob and his silks? Ever stand outside the showrooms at the magic castle and listen to the laymen talk? Have you been standing with a theater manager when several people came up to complain that a performer lit a cigarette onstage?

I think you hear what you want to hear. Which is praise. I prefer to listen to what they say when you haven't asked their opinion. Laymen aren't stupid. The change bag fools no one.

Finally, please do not put words into my mouth. I never said traditional magic sucks. I do think innovative magic rules, but that's part and parcel of the definition.

There is nothing wrong with using classic material. But there is something wrong with using hackneyed material. There is nothing wrong with using old material. But there is something wrong with using bad material - regardless of it's birthdate. Simply because something is new does not make it good. And just because something is old does not make it bad.

But sometimes, ideas grow stale. Artists and thoughtful craftsmen abandon the weak in favor of the strong. Except in magic, apparently.

Viva la change bag.

"What do you think audiences feel when they see a child fail on stage? What does that child's parents think? What do they think? Sure they laugh, but people laugh when they are uncomfortable.
Why is it that magicians have such a hard time getting adults to come on stage to help them?
Is this because they know they will be treated with respect and intelligence? Or is it because they know from experience that bad things will happen?"
Er....you must be watching some lousy magicians! What kids' entertainer allows a child to fail on stage? I can't think of any. And do you really have trouble getting adults to help you on stage? That's your problem as a performer, not a general rule. If your style and persona is what it should be, you should never have any issues like this.
"I have no problem with people doing dramatic things on stage. You just need to be aware of what you are doing and how it reads. If a performer wants to legitimately risk harm for a stunt, and is ok producing that feelingful response in his audience, then that's great. HEck, even if they want to put an audience member in danger - as long as they know that they are going to engender the feelingful response they will create and will take the consequences - then that is their choice."
Wow! What a remarkable statement. I do NOT condone in any way, shape or form, the endangering of ANY spectator. If a magician wants to put himself at risk, that's one thing...but to put a spectator at risk is quite another, and beyond amateurish.
I don't think you understand that a "modern performance" is far more about style and delivery, than having prejudices against tradition. Again, I'd like to know where you draw the line - surely there are a mountain of additional effects that should be added to the list...why pick out the guillotine, when Electric Sawing in Half is even more "hackneyed"?
Anyhoo, you go ahead with your blinkered vision. You've seen a lot of lousy magicians, you believe that most of the Worlds' Magicians are hacks, you don't believe that an audience member might WANT to participate in the guillotine illusion. And clearly, you don't understand that MOST modern audiences comprise folks who see very little magic. I'm sure the Magic Castle has a tough job finding an endless supply of quality magicians. And I'm sure many of the "laymen" who go to the shows are hobbyist magicians and wannabes.
:)

Ditto to Potty the Pirate

I don't think anything is really 'dated' if the performer is creative and has a meaningful, logical and entertaining routine. Most laymen have never seen magic 'live' and will respond if they are amazed. It all boils down to PRESENTATION, PRESENTATION, PRESENTATION!

Then what IS a change bag?

Can no one answer that question.

Potty it is you with the blinkers. You believe people have a naturally positive perception toward magic. I guess you've never seen a sitcom, a movie, a cartoon, or read any of the social commentators such as the cintra wilson or the columnists for details magazine, just to name two.

I ask again, you see a stage littered with silk scares, a child is holding a broken wand, a man stands in a tux and hat in the middle of someone's living room, and there is a guillotine in the background. What thoughts would a modern citizen of the western world think about that person?

If you don't know the answer, just watch some movies. You'll see that scene - when they want to make fun of magic or portray a socially inept person

But hey, if that's what you want to be - be it.

Just don't be sad when people point and laugh at you. But what do you care - you gotz paid!

Second, you clearly don't know anything about the audiences at the magic castle and once again demonstrate a lack of appreciation for the tastes of modern audiences. Even people who do t watch a lot of magic know stereotypes. If you want to be a stereotype, more power to it. Just don't be surprised when people point and laugh. But what do you care, right - you gotz paid!

Finally, you have no compunction calling a magicians choice with whom you disagree with to be amateurish, yet feel that yours should be above reproach.

And you wonder why I say magician simply don't think about what they say or do.

But what do you care -

Viva la change bag

Hey- anyone know 4 magi who do dramatically viable or non hackneyed guillotine routines in which the audience members discomfort a key element of the magicians routine?

Anyone?

Anyone?

A change bag is a bag with a handle on it. It's easy to see what it is. What is a guillotine? A scary scaffold housing a menacing blade. A hole for someone's head. Everyone knows what it is. But what is an "Origami Illusion", "Zig Zag", or "Modern Art"?
You think I believe people have a positive attitude to magic - but you're wrong. I'm aware than in most audiences, there are a significant number who detest magic. And yes, this is almost certainly because they have seen some of the hacks you have mentioned - I admit there are a lot of them, but I personally love that there are lots of lousy magic shows. There is a time and a place for them, and people get what they pay for. I DO believe that modern audiences have a positive attitude towards being ENTERTAINED. And, if you are keeping your audiences happy, they will be eating out of your hands, and eager to participate in your antics. A young 30-something bloke will be happy to play along with a guillotine illusion, showing off his bravado to his mates, family, etc.
I've never suggested following stereotypes - as a pirate, I was keen to be far from the West Country, bearded and bejewelled, one-eyed maniac as I could.So, I chose to be a Caribbean, clean shaven, no piercings (too scared) maniac instead. The choice of effects in a show has little to do with stereotypes - but if you can find a way to update the props or presentation for a certain effect, all the better.
You say I don't appreciate the tastes of modern audiences - and I guess you suggest that you do? Every time I perform, I consider the audience that I'm about to meet. And every audience is different, unique. Connect with your audience first, then everything else is secondary. Is your audience sophisticated? Or are you about to perform before a herd of cattle? Perhaps these people all know each other, perhaps they don't.
I still maintain that this whole thread is about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". You don't like the PRESENTATION of these effects, as you've seen so many times poorly executed performances. You then PRESUME that this must be true of EVERY performer, with the exception of a very talented few. Ergo, the EFFECTS must be in some way flawed.
Well, perhaps one day you'll see why this is a flawed argument. But, hey, it's almost like we're arguing over semantics.
Potty

No, it's a century's old collection receptacle as used in Catholic Churches. It was a familiar object to those who were living when the change bag was created. It was a smart decision to use a common object as a secret magical device.

Today, it is a contrived item, resembling nothing, that obviously exists for the purpose of doing something to make the magic happen.

Is that your definition of deception?

why do you insist on clinging to an object of the past? Would you recommend doing tricks with 8 track tapes for an audience today?

Would it be better or worse for an object whose role is to secretly switch or hide items to look like a) it was something made to secretly switch or hide items or b) something that you could find in every home and that people knew to be normal and above reproach.

The change bag, as it is sold today, is flawed.

So, Potty, why do you insist on defending an item which has lost its functional value (common object used to do secret things) decades ago?



and I suppose the sculpture of the black fellow holding a lantern on the southern homes front yard is just a piece of ceramic and paint. Everyone knows what it is.



deceptive



Why is bravado required? Does the guillotine require bravery? Is it meant to be menacing? Are you suggesting that we imply harm could befall our volunteer? And if not, then why be brave? What's the pay off?

What are you really saying when you do the guillotine? That's a question I would love to see answered.



But yet you see no problem with using props and material that has become so associated with stereotypical doofus magician that they have become standard tools of the hollywood media.



so I was right, this really is about you.



And that's David's point. The change bag should be retired because it resembles nothing on earth anymore. If you update it, it's no longer the change bag. But yet you seem bent on defending it.

The guillotine routines we see lack drama, use tired jokes, and follow the format of using an audience member's discomfort as an attempt to generate laughs.

I have asked repeatedly for you to give me the name of four people whose guillotine work does not suffer from this.

You CAN'T!!!!!!

So either ALL magicians are idiots, or there is something wrong with the trick. Of course that one guy might come along and do something, but clearly there is something keeping everyone else from doing it.

NAME NAMES



No - it's about realizing that the bath water has poo in it and trying to figure out how it got there. Sometimes the right answer is to remove the poo ing baby from the bath. Maybe the right answer is to clean it up. Maybe, put it through toilet training. But there is poo in the water and the audience smells it.



If you remove the patch from your eye, you might actually read ALL the words I have written.

There will always be exceptions. But the exceptions prove the rule. If we can only think of one or two people who really do something intelligent, interesting, or relevant for modern, educated, adult audiences then it proves that there must be something that keeps these items from being naturally resonate.

I have written REPEATEDLY that it is wonderful when someone takes one of these tired, undeceptive, irrelevant ideas and makes them so,

The thing is, these items are sold in the thousands and are staples in the reps of "working pros."

Yet we can only name the one or two guys that do something interesting with them.

Either all the other magicians are idiots, or these tricks are flawed. There are hundreds of tricks idiot magicians do and aren't insulting, undeceptive, or irrelevant to their audiences.

So, the problem isn't the magician.

And yes, a great magician might be able to overcome the limitations of ANY trick or prop.

but that requires being able to understand what a tricks strengths and weaknesses are.

which is exactly what David's post is about.

Look, Potty, you keep making those wands break in those kids hands. I am sure parents are thrilled that you keep the kids busy for an hour or so.

But people who care about being perceived as a MODERN MAGICIAN who earns the respect of intelligent adults will do well to consider David's words.

Viva la change bag

You're just arguing in circles, TT. What about the many variants of the change bag? Are they too fundamentally flawed? You don't know how to use these props yourself, you've watched loads of hacks, and so you place the blame on the props. This is something that workers realise is a flawed approach, usually very early on in their careers.
To insist that the PERFORMERS have nothing to do with poor presentations of these effects is frankly, daft. YOU have only witnessed these effects done well by a very small number of entertainers. You've also given dreadful examples of the most amateurish errors, which tells me that you're spending a lot of time watching below-average performers. It's remarkably arrogant to suggest this, especially since you clearly have very little understanding of the types of audiences around the World, and their expectations.
You say: "these items are sold in the thousands and are staples in the reps of "working pros.....Either all the other magicians are idiots, or these tricks are flawed."
Well, the tricks are NOT flawed...so, you're really saying that all the other magicians are idiots. But, you're choosing to hide behind the idea that it's not the performers, but the props. As I implied before, IF it were true that all the thousands of magicians who regularly performed these effects were good performers, yet they still appear to be hacks due to a bad choice of material....welll....that makes them....hacks. A good performer will not include material that makes him appear to be a hack.
YOu like the Illusions I've mentioned, because they're deceptive. So is the guillotine. Yet, what exactly ARE these illusions? If it's so important that folks know what things are, by your own argument, these props should be immediately binned. Again, where do you draw the line? I think it's just YOUR idea of what YOU don't like. Which is meaningless.
You really are insulting a great number of performers, and ASSUME that you know the quality and abilities of folks who you don't even know, and have never heard of.
I'm a great believer in offering contemporary shows. And, guess what? Being contemporary does NOT mean you have to have tunnel vision. Rather, look at ALL the choices open to you. Likely, you may choose not to perform Linking Rings, use underwear for laughs or to shock, or include routines with lots of colourful silks. That's YOUR choice as a performer. To look down at those who DO find a motivation for these effects is childish, and arrogant.
Just about every item on David's list has many variants, some contemporary and virtually unseen by modern audiences. But, go ahead with your stubborn claim that you know better. You consider yourself superior to the vast majority of magicians, fine. You're also happy for magicians to endanger their spectators, fine. You'd like others to share your poorly thought-out opinions, and no doubt some will.
Potty

I am with truthteller on this one.

Many people laugh at us for that "socially inept-nerd" stereotype.

Most of us think they're laughing with us.

The very fact that Magic is reduced to "secrets" by the Masked Magician says a lot about how people perceive Magicians and the art of Magic itself.

Sad really.

But hey... To each his own I guess.

Potty,
You say any of these tricks can be changed or handled in a manner that would make them successful. To which I would like to point out:

If the tricks weren't flawed, they wouldn't require a performer to change or update them

You say: "Just about every item on David's list has many variants, some contemporary and virtually unseen by modern audiences."

Great.

But when it is no longer a change bag, guess what buddy, it's NO LONGER A CHANGE BAG!

That's the point.

And if the change bag were not flawed then why must these smart successful magicians you keep talking about change it in the first place. If they were smart - and it wasn't flawed - they would have kept it the same, no?

To your specific question, I have no issue with the use of a device to secretly switch one object for another. However, if this device resembles something familiar in our world, it is no longer A CHANGE BAG.

THE CHANGE BAG is flawed. Why? Two reasons: One it no longer resembles anything familiar; two the method is (often) the effect.

When a person looks at any trick where the magician places an object inside the bag and it changes, the person concludes "oh, the bag switches objects." There is no deception. The method is the effect. Further, people KNOW the bag switches the object because it is clearly designed for nothing else on earth. If a device is meant to do something secret, then that device should be labeled "this is the device which will do something secret."

Compare that to modern art or the zig zag. Sure the audience knows these are devices meant to make magic, but at the end of the zig zag the most a layperson can muster is "ok, that box has something to do with it. It lets those blades go through and him to take out her middle."

They know the box has something to do with it, but that does not explain what happened. Knowing the box played a role does not explain what happen.

A change bag is a device which, even to lay people, is used to switch or hide objects.

But that's not to say Modern Art and The Zig Zag are not flawed. They are. For the reason mentioned above - it is obviously contributor to the effect, which is why Harbin advocated "talking away the box." Copperfield has taken it a step further in his work to eliminate the box. But do not misrepresent my words - which you are awfully fond of doing - I have no problem with a magic box. But if that magic box looks like a gas chamber, then people will think of death and executions. I'm cool with that - as long as that's what the performer intends.


For example: the guillotine. A guillotine is a tool for execution. That's what it IS. And when you bring that on stage, you are conjuring forth the symbols and meanings underlying it.

Remember when the videos of the beheadings in Iraq were circulating? Head choppers suddenly got a little "grimmer" did they not?

That's because we were reminded about what we are really saying to the audience - I am going to threaten you with the idea that I might cut off your head. Why? So they audience can laugh about it.

That's what you are saying when you do a guillotine routine.

The second problem with the guillotine is that there is no surprise. Does the audience think for a moment that anything other than what happens will happen? That's bad theater. They know exactly how the trick will end, there is no drama or suspense in getting there, and when the blade comes down - no one cares. Find me an audience member who thinks that the person may actually die, and I will show you a blooming idiot.

third, since there is no real suspense in the guillotine, everyone piles on gag after gag, almost none original, and even fewer clever. So, what we have is a situation where the performer uses the discomfort of an audience member for comedic purposes.

Is this the kind of thing a socially kind person would do to a fellow human being?

The guillotine illusion for contemporary audiences is flawed.

A smart performer looks at his tools and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. All tricks, all props, have strengths and weaknesses.

I'll write that again, "All tricks, all props, have strengths and weaknesses."

A smart performer plays up the strengths, and fixes the weaknesses.

But some tricks have weaknesses that go to their core - like the method being the effect. Or having to talk away the box so much that the effect gets lost. Or that the item is no longer culturally relevant. Or that the technology behind the secret is now commonplace and transparent. Or that the prop has become so pervasive that all surprise and drama are lost from expectation and familiarity. Or social sensibilities change and actions and objects which were once tolerated are now stigmatized.


you say there are magicians out there who have solved these problems. I have never seen one. So, I defer to you, give me some names. Show me some tapes. you say there is a bigfoot. I say he doesn't exist. Show me the footprints.

Tricks have problems. That's why they are tricks and not Magic. You seem to be suggesting either that we ignore these problems (there's nothing wrong with the trick) while saying a smart performer will solve these problems (which begs the question, why solve something that doesn't need fixing.)

David has merely pointed out items whose flaws perhaps over shadow the value one might receive from using them as is.

Finally, please do not assume you have any idea about how much magic I know or have seen. I have performed all over the world and know that different cultures respond to different styles. I regularly seek out magicians so that I can expand my pool of resources as an event consultant. I have seen a lot of magic shows. And I will say, yes, most of them do not reach the level that I would consider adequate let alone worthy of my consideration. You can consider this arrogance - I consider it looking out for my clients' investment.

And I suspect this is what this all boils down to. Several times you have placed this into "us v them" language - repudiating the people who go to the castle, calling in to question magicians who get booked for conventions. You go out there every day and do tricks and make money, but it get's frustrating when you feel that people think less of you because you're not flinging fingers or winning contests.

I get it.

How dare someone like me criticize the working guys.

Well, get over it.

Just because someone is working doesn't mean they are doing quality work. McDonald's makes money. Milli Vanilli made money. Reality TV makes money.

And if all you want is money, then go sing your songs and do your shows.

But if you want to be a MODERN MAGICIAN who is accorded respect by intelligent, adult audiences you would do well to consider what David has written.

Viva la Change Bag,

Brad

I've never suggested that SOME effects may be susceptible to the changes in our times, and therefore become redundant. But, I believe it's very few, and I didn't recognise those on David's list. The Chair Suspension (basic effect with one chair removed) is mirrored in the ubiquitous wine-bottle holders which "miraculously" support the bottle in mid-air. This has really blown the lid on the effect, as so many people have seen these, at least in the shops. Now, the rather unlikely result of physics has been seen, so the effect no longer looks amazing.
I have never said that we should adhere to stereotypes. Merely that effects do not create stereotypes, but the performer can.
You keep on about the change bag and guillotine. If you have decided that a hat, plastic bag, other other similar recepticle, which does exactly the same as a change bag, is not a change bag, then you're really arguing against the whole original article. In other words, Terry Seabrooke's barbed wire Linking Rings are NOT linking rings. And if someone wears a bright pink tail coat and matching top hat, they're not "top hat and tails" because they're not black and traditional. And what about the whole genre of silk magic? If I used a different type of cloth, would that become acceptable?
As for the guillotine - well, I will say this - that those performers who I've witnessed carrying this off with aplomb have one thing in common - they have the audience with them 100%. Most of those I've ever seen called up from the audience have thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I regularly encourage the ladies to get their cellphones out, and to film the proceedings as I proceed to "humiliate" one of the gentlemen present. But, it's all done in harmless fun, and the hapless victim is usually only too happy to play along with falsetto voices, silly walks, and other business. Getting the guillotine right is all about presentation, of course. I encourage the ladies to put forward their men friends as I demonstrate the next event that occurred on my pirate adventure. It's easy to spot the guy whose partner would LOVE to see him up on stage, and who himself is (ideally) somewhat reluctant, but is quick to stand up, and evidently secretly eager to take part in the show. As for the conclusion of the Guillotine - well, I think it's a real puzzler. Especially when the huge, solid blade is lifted back up.....HOW could that have NOT cut the guy's head off? Also, my unit at least, makes a terrifying noise as it descends, and as it reaches the stocks, there is an almighty great SMASH! which sounds just like steel going through something solid. I think there is quite a shock factor at this point.
If it's true that you have really seen so many shows, and your standards are really so high, then indeed, you are expressing a rather arrogant notion that the World is full of hacks, and there are only a handful of worthy magicians. Arrogant, because it is, simply, wrong. Of course, the Penn and Teller's of the World will be rare, but that doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of quality performers out there in the trenches. I find it incredible that anyone who is really working the very high end of our market would be so ignorant. And what about the agencies who supply magicians for cruise ships? Their standards are much lower than yours? Or for resorts, hotels and holiday camps? For public events? Do you believe that all these other agencies are happy with hacks, and you employ only an elite few can really entertain?
You're just wrong, and it's a shame that wherever you have seen so many magic shows, it clearly wasn't in the right places.
Good luck with your agency.

Posted: Nov 8, 2010 9:59am
To look at the matter in another way: let's say there are 50,000 full time magicians in the World. Of these, a % are hacks. Let's make it easy, and say 50% (purely arbitrary figure). So, there are 25,000 hacks, and 25,000 non-hacks. David's article is taken to heart by the entire Magic Community, and NO ONE ever uses any of the items on his list. Now, how many hacks and how many non-hacks? Er, 25,000 hacks, and 25,000 non-hacks. Simply not using an effect will have NO effect on your "hack rating".
So, if you don't want to be a hack, I suggest you look a whole lot further than David's article.