Now before I start I want to tell everyone who is reading the thread to LOOK OUT FOR REPEAETED POINTS!!
I'm trying to understand your reasoning, Keo. It's not unheard of to try and rephrase a viewpoint in clearer terms to understand it. My apologies if it was off base.
Stop trying to understand step back and read all of my post as a whole and DO understand it. Ontop of that, don't post something if you are unclear about the points being posted.
You said
"Magic is better being performed live argument is obviously not a sound or solid argument if you consider the impact that television magicians has had on the lay person audience as a whole"
which doesn't really make a counter argument. I'm still waiting to hear why magic on TV is better than seeing it performed live.
Well if you are waiting, you already missed it. In the same post I went on to say this:
Magic is better being performed live argument is obviously not a sound or solid argument if you consider the impact that television magicians has had on the lay person audience as a whole. Television magicians such as Mark Wilson going to Doug Henning, David Copperfield, David Blaine, Criss Angel, Cyril, Barry and Stuart, Derren Brown etc. have all proved that the magic doesn't have to be performed live in person to be a fun and entertaining not to mention view changing.
The argument being that there is no one performance media that is better then the other! It also introduced a new point that for the most part I was addressing in the rest of my post. Televised magic shows give the general public access to what a magic show is like and what to expect when they go to see a magician. I then go on to explain the difference between each generation of magician focused around one central image of that time period. Furthermore, in the most recent post I added more examples of how television magicians have influenced the laymen community as a whole.
...which is true (and something I agreed with in my previous post), but does not mean that it's better than a live performance, nor does it expose the flaw in my opinion. Is your starw man that you think I'm arguing against TV and YouTube? It's not the case.
No I do not think that at all bud, I was talking about that in general and not directly at you. You are arguing Live vs Recorded magic. NOW to continue the conversation, I've given my points on the pros of live magic Vs recorded magic. Let me sum it all up for you:
Before I continue I am throwing these pros and cons through the eyes of a laymen.
Pros of Live performances:
You enjoy it with everyone else “ If I were to go see a live performance however, I'd be doing it mostly for the interaction with the crowd”
Maybe a one time chance in a lifetime
You got a good story, (That is debatable depending on who you see.)
Cons of a Live performance:
Not every seat in the house is the best seat to view magic.
Generally no food or drink is aloud in formal seating arrangements.
Social pressures keep you in your seat. (Bathroom, refreshment, etc)
You have to battle for a parking
You have to brave the road ways
You have to leave the parking lot
Pros of a recorder (youtube, television) performance of a magic show/set/trick
It's convenient, watch on your own time.
It can be viewed many times without having to go buy a ticket to see it again.
It's captured memories
Comfort, Viewing a magic special with the family can be an entirely better experience then going out and watching a show.
Cons:
You don't get the same spark when an audience is present.
You can view it over and over
Could be taken away and lost forever
As you can see, this isn't a complete list and is biased toward me since most of this is based off of my experience. But to say live is better then not is silly because they each have their own Cons.
I'm trying to understand your opinion. I stated that I think that magic is a better experience when it's seen live, and you've said that it's been entertaining when it's on TV, and it's more convenient (points with which I have agreed). But you haven't said why it's a bad opinion.
You know I just reread over the entire post and I just realized I wasn't singling you out at all. However, I was criticizing the entire part of the community that recorded magic=Bad and live performance=BEST.
I feel it is a bad idea because once again, there are good points to both forms of entertainment. Youtube is like a television, which is why I brought up television magicians in the first place. Then I continued to list out major television magicians. Lets talk about David Blaine, he's had emotional impact with people that have actually possibly changed laymen's personal view points. When, I ask, has a live MAGIC performance effect people in that way? Now I say magic because I understand some cults and religions may have been based around magical trickery tactics. That is another can of worms that I personally do not feel confident enough to open.
There is no one way that is better to view magic.
FINALLY!
We weren't talking about "impact" or "fame" or "convenience" or any of the other things you've thrown into the conversation.
You continued on to say "If you were a smart professional and want a way to get your name out there, yotube is the best way to go! Cyril wasn't widely known here in the states until YOUTUBE"
-which still does nothing to address if magic is better experienced live or on tv.
Gosh darn it, I retract my finally. If you don't factor in impact and convenience, I didn't include fame because I don't like that word, into why you feel one is better then the other then what is the point? What would be the point of performing a magic show if you aren't doing it for entertainment impact? What would be the point of putting yourself on youtube if it wasn't a convenient way to get your name recognized?
All I've said is that it's a better experience live, and you've said TV gets more viewers, YouTube is a way to get your name out, and that TV is more convenient. Still waiting for why magic is not a better experience when seen live, rather than on TV, and why it's an unsound position.
Because it isn't a strong argument because it could be dispelled for all the reasons that I've posted above! Furthermore, all of my reasons are in all of my posts.
[quoe]Then you said "I am not dealing with THE STUPID argument that live magic is better then magic viewed at home" - so why is it stupid? Will you finally say why it is not better when seen live? Isn't this an ad hominem? It's at least poisoning the well.[/quote]
I've already stated why live isn't superior to recorded...
Would you really pass on tickets to see Cyril perform live in your hometown and just watch him on YouTube?
No and that is a silly example and also supports my points onto why recorded video on youtube is better then seeing it live. Let me explain.
If Cyril came to my town and I had no flipping idea what a Cyril was, ie there were no youtube videos or promo videos, I would not buy a ticket. Why? I've never heard of them, since he hasn't been to the town before no one knows if his show is worth the money and time, ie there is no word of mouth reviews.
If there was no online videos, reviews, nothing on Cyril other then a website, yeah I'd pass on him.
Now if it was David Copperfield, I'd buy a ticket I a heart beat because, even though I was geographically cut off from the mainland at a young age. I heard about his show and what he could do like fly over the grand canyon. Hell I wanted to figure out a way to fly over the Grand Canyon of the pacific on my home island.
I'm willing to change...In terms of convenience, audience size and as a promotional tool, of YouTube and the rest have enormous advantages - who couldn't agree with that? But in terms of an experience, I believe that magic is a better experience live....Visually, people can only really focus on an area the size of a grapefruit...That makes things like a top change almost impossible, when the viewer can concentrate on a much larger area, or can view it frame by frame to dissect what had happened.
If a spectator is burning your hands, a top change is near impossible. I don't understand if you are finally throwing a different point into the mix or trying to do something else.
I really don't care about your opinion because it is quite meaningless to me nor am I trying to change your views. In fact if you'll notice I wasn't really talking to one person to begin with. You however decided to question my position and I tried to explain it further. Your answers that you seek will come faster when you realize, I don't give to ****s about this debate. I was neutral in my original posts and still am neutral on why Live is better then Recorded You're not going to get a satisfaction of a straight answer when way or the other because I do not care.
And speaking of straw man arguments, I never said that YouTube, or magic on TV was bad, or wasn't good - just that it's not quite as good as magic seen live. It might be best to start a thread if you want to discuss the impact of new media on magic, rather than continue to hijack this one.
“Just a thought, but why not perform for your friends and forget about putting videos online? Magic is best seen in person, anyway. “
This suggests to me that you have that kind of mentality. Then you opened your mouth and confirmed it. You aren't the only one I've heard say it, which is why ORIGINALLY I didn't single you out. Anyway, Nah, I think this tangent was more informative then what the originally posted. I am not going to clutter the forum with another thread whose use is only between you and I. Furthermore, because I don't care about the subject, why would I start a thread when I am ending it here.