I've been known for my technical & resource skills for decades and have worked with several award winning teams on top end grand illusions as well as some smaller effects (some of which get stolen by well known Tv jerks. . . not that I'd ever refer to an ego with a bad haircut a jerk). Truth of the matter is, you can't design effective magic unless you perform. There are far too many variables involved so you either have to have three or four solid performers on hand that you trust with your life & livellihood or you must perform yourself in order to field test your brain children.
Over the past decade or so I've seen hundreds of things come onto the market that simply stunk and in most instances, were extreme ripp-offs because they were known methods that were being repackaged. Two in particular came out of Paper Crane which got scathing reviews by some of Mentalism's top people their "theft" and "rewording" (scooting along the edge of honesty) was so rampant. I was quite disappointed given what seemed to be a promising resource, but again, seeing my material with someone eles's name on it kind of ticked me off.
THIS IS THE BANE OF BEING A CREATOR, HOWEVER. This and the fact that 95% of what you come up with has been done. Great minds like Harary, Stinemeyer, Wakling, etc. will all tell you that less than 10% of what they come up with is viable in the real world and of that one one in ten things becomes a hit; the sort of sensation that everyone wants in their act.
Are Magic Mechanic's Magicians?
You Bet! We create a different kind of magic and gain a different sort of pleasure but even Bill Smith & John Gaughan perform as do most publishers of magic magazines.
I've found that the majority of those calling themselves a 'developer' aren't. They don't have a reference library for starters, which means they have no way of researching a concept, move, method, etc. which comes with a long list of other issues, such as not being able to show the history and evolution of their effect and what makes it so different and so special. . . and of course, giving credit where it is due and in so doing, having permission to publish methods that don't belong to you so as to reveal comparisons and improvements. A great example of this is a thing called a Bubble Peek that's currently on the market -- it's a cheap knock-off of Millard Longman's Acidus Novus and isn't nearly as clean. . . and yes, I've confronted the "innovator" on this point as have (are) other reviewers. The lack of integrity on the "developer's" end is shameful enough but the distributors of that technique are just as liable when it comes to putting out something that's not legitimately "new" for lack of a better term.
Being a "Creator" of magic ain't easy but I can assure you, those that EARN the accolades over time, are generally worthy of the title "Magician". There is one other point of distinction that must be made however; creating a new dress for an old effect doesn't make one an innovator. While there are dozens of variants to things like OOTW, each one unique, it's still the same effect using the same exact principles; the only thing "new" is the theme or storyline and this is something many gloss over. Similarly, we have a lot of fantastic artists out there that create a new look for an old piece but they have little to no knowledge when it comes to developing a prop that's deceptive by way of sight and in some cases, touch. Sometimes taking that extra step or three makes a huge difference between having a neat trick vs. a super nice, well thought out effect. . . a few years ago I bought a $300.00 spirit bell that I had to throw nearly $200.00 more into because the developers didn't take the steps required for making the thing more deceptive and logical -- removing the obvious, as it were. Though all magic that we buy is just a foundation piece, this was an extreme, one that the developers should be ashamed of in that "cheap" wasn't the route to take.
Enough of my ranting and examples, I hope I've made some sense.
