Stage Magic... My Thoughts About Why It's Not That Impressive...

[Dylan P.]

Hey guys, here we go again. I was at work today and started to day dream and was wondering if I could go to any shows. What would they be? I would enjoy going to see David Copperfield, Lance Burton, Penn & Teller, Maybe the Criss Angel Cirque Du Solei. But that's not what this thread is about. So, later that day my dad picked me up from ork and I remembered that he had been out to Vegas on two different occasions. So I asked:

"Hey dad, when you went out to Vegas those times, did you see any shows."

"Um...yeah. I saw a comedian and an improv comedy show at some theater place."

"Any magic shows?"

"no."

"Why. You never wanted to see them or was it too expensive?"

After this happened my dad told me one of the strangest things I"ve ever heard, and it really got me thinking about Stage Magic vs. Street Magic. It is just such a controversial subject, but hey a little debate never hurts, so here was the reason my dad gave me:

"Well, no, they were expensive, but not too bad. It's just...Well, I can't get into that big stage stuff. I like the more up close, done at random stuff. You know? Like that David somethin' guy or that guy who wears all the Affliction shirts. Street entertainers, that's what I like. You know? It just makes it seem more magical."

So I got home and I started to think really hard about that, and soon I had a clear understanding of what he was saying, and I soon started to agree with him. He was right. When you get down to the guts of it, Stage stuf seems to be more showy and not too magical. but this, off-the-cuff magic, seems astonishing. Now, after a lot of thought today, I figured I would right my thoughts down, and let people see what I am thinking.

So here it is... I've already bored you so I'll make it quick... Well, think about it. There is no dubt about it. Pen & Tell, Burton, Seifried & Roy, and Copperfield are all very talented magicians, who have gotten very famous, and are extrordinary illusionists. But, could it be that the only people go to see them is because they lik,e magic, and are more famous, than say I guy who works outside a hotel for tips. Of course!!!

Now, when you go to a large theater type place, you are going into it knowing that everything has been rehearsed, and coreographed, etc. You know that everthing is in fact a trick and it has been all set up months or even years before hand. Now, when you know this, sure you still have fun and are amazed at the show. But you are asking yourself: "Wow! I wonder how he did that?" But what the ultimate goal is is to have the spectators go: "That couldn't of happened. Did I just see a miracle?"

However, what if you are walking down the street and a man walks up to you and says, "I want to show you something." , and he grabs a crushed soda can off of the side of the road. He then shakes it until it restores to the shape of a simple can. He then shows the top to be open, and then seals it. To make it better he opens it and pulls out a full can of soda. (Being Magicians, we wouldn't be amazed.) But if you were a layman, you might go: "What the hell. He just did a miracle. That could've been any soda can."

In reality it couldn't be any soda can, but to them it just blends into the suroundings and makes them think that you simply did something that was plain out of the ordinary. As far as they are concerned you were NOT set up, even though you realy were, but when you go and see a Stage Show ou know that everything is set up. But all the magic that's off the cuff is great, because it takes people off gaurd, and makes them break away from reality for a second or two. I believe that in a Stage show, that doesn't happen. You might not expect what happens, but you know that it was all rehearsed before, and the set was designed. But when a strabger approaches you and makes a credit card dissapear, or makes a cigarette dissapear, or restores a can, or even just makes your card vanish from the deck. That seems like, it just happened.

I am curious to see how many people understand what I'm saying. And I want to here replies. So please post. And if you need clarification, just ask and I'll be more specific.

 

[praetoritevong]

Hey guys, here we go again. I was at work today and started to day dream and was wondering if I could go to any shows. What would they be? I would enjoy going to see David Copperfield, Lance Burton, Penn & Teller, Maybe the Criss Angel Cirque Du Solei. But that's not what this thread is about. So, later that day my dad picked me up from ork and I remembered that he had been out to Vegas on two different occasions. So I asked:

"Hey dad, when you went out to Vegas those times, did you see any shows."

"Um...yeah. I saw a comedian and an improv comedy show at some theater place."

"Any magic shows?"

"no."

"Why. You never wanted to see them or was it too expensive?"

After this happened my dad told me one of the strangest things I"ve ever heard, and it really got me thinking about Stage Magic vs. Street Magic. It is just such a controversial subject, but hey a little debate never hurts, so here was the reason my dad gave me:

"Well, no, they were expensive, but not too bad. It's just...Well, I can't get into that big stage stuff. I like the more up close, done at random stuff. You know? Like that David somethin' guy or that guy who wears all the Affliction shirts. Street entertainers, that's what I like. You know? It just makes it seem more magical."

So I got home and I started to think really hard about that, and soon I had a clear understanding of what he was saying, and I soon started to agree with him. He was right. When you get down to the guts of it, Stage stuf seems to be more showy and not too magical. but this, off-the-cuff magic, seems astonishing. Now, after a lot of thought today, I figured I would right my thoughts down, and let people see what I am thinking.

So here it is... I've already bored you so I'll make it quick... Well, think about it. There is no dubt about it. Pen & Tell, Burton, Seifried & Roy, and Copperfield are all very talented magicians, who have gotten very famous, and are extrordinary illusionists. But, could it be that the only people go to see them is because they lik,e magic, and are more famous, than say I guy who works outside a hotel for tips. Of course!!!

Now, when you go to a large theater type place, you are going into it knowing that everything has been rehearsed, and coreographed, etc. You know that everthing is in fact a trick and it has been all set up months or even years before hand. Now, when you know this, sure you still have fun and are amazed at the show. But you are asking yourself: "Wow! I wonder how he did that?" But what the ultimate goal is is to have the spectators go: "That couldn't of happened. Did I just see a miracle?"

However, what if you are walking down the street and a man walks up to you and says, "I want to show you something." , and he grabs a crushed soda can off of the side of the road. He then shakes it until it restores to the shape of a simple can. He then shows the top to be open, and then seals it. To make it better he opens it and pulls out a full can of soda. (Being Magicians, we wouldn't be amazed.) But if you were a layman, you might go: "What the hell. He just did a miracle. That could've been any soda can."

In reality it couldn't be any soda can, but to them it just blends into the suroundings and makes them think that you simply did something that was plain out of the ordinary. As far as they are concerned you were NOT set up, even though you realy were, but when you go and see a Stage Show ou know that everything is set up. But all the magic that's off the cuff is great, because it takes people off gaurd, and makes them break away from reality for a second or two. I believe that in a Stage show, that doesn't happen. You might not expect what happens, but you know that it was all rehearsed before, and the set was designed. But when a strabger approaches you and makes a credit card dissapear, or makes a cigarette dissapear, or restores a can, or even just makes your card vanish from the deck. That seems like, it just happened.

I am curious to see how many people understand what I'm saying. And I want to here replies. So please post. And if you need clarification, just ask and I'll be more specific.

Interesting thoughts Dylan. I disagree, but let me first summarise what you've said to make sure I understand exactly what your points are - if I am off, please feel free to correct me.

1) Stage magic is more showy than close up magic and not very magical.

i'd be interested to see if you would still say this after you went to see Copperfield perform live. I personally feel that that is a rather severe generalisation based on a not very informed point of view (not taking a jab at you by the way, just an observation). My reaction to this though is that it points to a misconception these days with magic, an issue that we all face really, no matter where we end up. Without ever seeing a professional stage act, we can come to the conclusion that it's not very magical? That seems to me to be an issue with image. And part of that it seems is this: the image that stage magic must be done with precisely engineered saws and boxes and beautiful ladies. That stage magic is more a feat of engineering, rather than an experience of magic. And that I think is certainly a fallacy, if you've ever seen, for example, Lance Burton's dove act or Derren Brown's Evening of Wonders (if you haven't, they are both on YouTube, and are very good, and in my opinion neither of them give off this stereotype).

2) Because of the setting, stage magic intrinsically lends itself to rehearsal and hence a sense of fabrication.

Well, again, I think it a very harsh criticism to imply that stage magic cannot produce the sense of impossibility. I won't say much here except again to simply encourage you to see a real show.

To address your example of soda can magic. Sure, if you perform it right, that would be amazing. But so is, to my mind, a mentalist standing on stage and correctly divining the ideal holiday location of a randomly selected spectator. It appears to me that you might have a slightly misguided image of what stage magic is, and I can only assume you haven't performed stage magic, or even parlour magic for that matter (again, not a jab at you Dylan, merely a guess?).

But essentially, I think that you're saying that -

3) The appearance of performing impromptu gives close up magic a strength that stage magic doesn't.

And again, I would beg to differ here. Well, I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of impromptu magic. However, it is not difficult to avoid what you describe as a somewhat laborious and extensive setup, or at least the appearance therein, within a stage routine. Similarly, I would think that, given the chance to consider the close up magician, many laymen would wonder about the practice needed to acquire such skills - "where do you learn magic?" being a common question, and for me, an indication that laymen are similarly aware that there is a long process that leads up to the experience of magic.

In conclusion, I hope I have understood your points correctly but I do feel that they are based on a certain level of ignorance or misconception is perhaps a kinder word of the true nature and potential of stage magic.

 

[cm763]

I see what you're saying, it takes away one of the avenues of explanation (things being set up). And that's totally a valid reason for some people to not like stage shows.

Then again, there are some shows (Derren Brown, I'm looking at you) that offer a stage show where lots of it seems pretty unbelievable, given how much of it involves the audience. Again, stooges could come to mind, but that's taken away by the method of choosing audience members (Derren used a Frisbee, I believe, in the shows I've seen; David Copperfield uses big inflatable balls).

So, I suppose it depends not only on what type of show you're going to watch, but also what you're expecting going into it, seeing as not all shows are as set-up seeming as we typically think. It's like a stereotype most people have of magicians, because they only know what they're exposed to (often on TV).

I'll have more to add tomorrow, when I'm not half asleep, but that gets my general point across, I hope, heh.

 

[Chrisfecto]

I feel as if this is a valid debate but i'm not sure if you are fully qualified to spark it. I feel as if you do not have all the information on both sides of it.

Let me explain...
First, i think that there is no such thing as "street magic" but thats a different debate. I believe the heart of this, and almost resolution is to just compartmentalize the different genres, and respect them equally, instead of comparing them. The audience's attitude towards the magic is completely different in each venue.

Secondly the reasoning behind me thinking you may not have the full information for this debate because, forgive me if I misinterpreted this, but you have never seen a magic show. You say that "stage stuff" is "too showy and not magical" those statements alone tell me you have never been to Penn and Teller. End of story.

Finally I must say that this is a growing almost problem I am seeing in our community. A vast majority of magicians, and you know if you are not in that majority, have never seen any kind of magic show. It's almost as if they can sit there on the webcams filming their so called "new thing they are working on" but they can not for the life of them bring them selves to see a show. I feel as though the thought is so foreign to them that they aren't even thinking that they would be supporting their own art.

Forgive me for my rant as it wasn't directed at you, it was directed en masse, but I do highly stress going to see any kind of reputable show at all costs.

 

[KeoSilver]

Personally I like the formal appeal of walking into a theatre and expecting to be amazed, then having some creep of a person ask if I want to see their little red balls. Now you need to know that there are stage magicians then there are Illusionists, I firmly believe that the two are completely different. Derren Brown, Bizarro, William Draven I would consider stage acts because they lack big ol box illusions. Box illusions seem more like a puzzle to me and I suspect the audience as well. Now illusionists on the other hand or paw (cheese bomb on that pun) are all about the box, pretty girls or not, smoke, and in Copperfield’s case a Fan.

 

[Dylan P.]

Interesting thoughts Dylan. I disagree, but let me first summarise what you've said to make sure I understand exactly what your points are - if I am off, please feel free to correct me.

1) Stage magic is more showy than close up magic and not very magical.

i'd be interested to see if you would still say this after you went to see Copperfield perform live. I personally feel that that is a rather severe generalisation based on a not very informed point of view (not taking a jab at you by the way, just an observation). My reaction to this though is that it points to a misconception these days with magic, an issue that we all face really, no matter where we end up. Without ever seeing a professional stage act, we can come to the conclusion that it's not very magical? That seems to me to be an issue with image. And part of that it seems is this: the image that stage magic must be done with precisely engineered saws and boxes and beautiful ladies. That stage magic is more a feat of engineering, rather than an experience of magic. And that I think is certainly a fallacy, if you've ever seen, for example, Lance Burton's dove act or Derren Brown's Evening of Wonders (if you haven't, they are both on YouTube, and are very good, and in my opinion neither of them give off this stereotype).

2) Because of the setting, stage magic intrinsically lends itself to rehearsal and hence a sense of fabrication.

Well, again, I think it a very harsh criticism to imply that stage magic cannot produce the sense of impossibility. I won't say much here except again to simply encourage you to see a real show.

To address your example of soda can magic. Sure, if you perform it right, that would be amazing. But so is, to my mind, a mentalist standing on stage and correctly divining the ideal holiday location of a randomly selected spectator. It appears to me that you might have a slightly misguided image of what stage magic is, and I can only assume you haven't performed stage magic, or even parlour magic for that matter (again, not a jab at you Dylan, merely a guess?).

But essentially, I think that you're saying that -

3) The appearance of performing impromptu gives close up magic a strength that stage magic doesn't.

And again, I would beg to differ here. Well, I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of impromptu magic. However, it is not difficult to avoid what you describe as a somewhat laborious and extensive setup, or at least the appearance therein, within a stage routine. Similarly, I would think that, given the chance to consider the close up magician, many laymen would wonder about the practice needed to acquire such skills - "where do you learn magic?" being a common question, and for me, an indication that laymen are similarly aware that there is a long process that leads up to the experience of magic.

In conclusion, I hope I have understood your points correctly but I do feel that they are based on a certain level of ignorance or misconception is perhaps a kinder word of the true nature and potential of stage magic.

Because of the detailed reply I will reply to you and hopefully it will answer other questions. First off, I have seen David Copperfield, I meant that I would want to see him again. He went to Boston, surprisingly I didn't really like him. I prefered the old David. And yes, it was magical, but you go into it knowing that it has been rehearsed for weeks, it's not just random and sp0ontaneous, it has been planned. and it is understood that there is a trick to everything.

It does have it's sense of immpossibility, in the sense that people don't know exactly how it was done. But the point is, that it isn't impossible in respect that everyone realizes that it was all set up, and planned, and engineered before.

I group mentalism in a category away from magic, but can cross over into magic, but that does have immpossibility to it, but for simplicity let's leave it out.

I do magic shows, not on a stage, but in front of au=diances of 50-100 kids, and I performed in front of 750 people at my school at a talent show. Although, it was Grandpa's Ace's, well, my version of it.

I am trying to say that when you come out of the blue on the streets and let someone look at their watch. and then you stop it, that's absolutley crazy. That is magic to them. But in a stage, there isn't a super strong feeling of one on one magic with a spectator. I mean on the street they go "Oh my god! I saw that soda can. It wasjust there. He just grabbed it by chance. What the heck?" in a stage setting it's: "Hmmmm...I wonder why that cage is so close to the back of the stage."

People do ask where you learned magic, but it is easier to play off as if it were real with a spectator on the road, rasther than to an entire 500 person crowd. Because the crowd is going, well, That's cool. Copperfield is flying, but why only over the stage, and not over the crowd. where is the wire?"

 

[Steven Henriquez]

Jonathan Bayme had a massive stage act for a year. With not just 1, but many girls, and boxes. And it was AWESOME as i got to see it once way back when.

But back to the topic at hand.

First off, Street Magic is Close Up Magic. Street Performers however are very different.
You stated that, walking into a theater, you know that the acts have been rehearsed and performed for months or years before. Gazzo, an amazing street magician, all of his acts have been throughly rehearsed and performed for years. Its truly no different then a stage act rehearsing there material.

The two are vastly different. Would you compare a Rock Electric Guitar Player to an Elegant Pianist? Both are amazing performers... but cannot be compared to each other.
When entering a stage act, you know what your going to see... A show that has been perfected through years of performance (usually), and a polished well lit show. You pay because you know that is what you are going to get.
However, it is the same with a "Close Up" show. Take Steve Cohen, $70 a ticket for a Close Up show. You know that entering there you are going to get a show that has been performed and perfected for years prior. Its everything a stage show is... simply smaller.

If people pay to see a full blown illusion stage show, it is because they want to see it. People know that magic is not real. They know that somehow the assistant sneaks out of the box before the magician saws her in half... Just like they know that a street magician "Close Up" is a master of sleight of hand... But when they walk out of BOTH style shows, they should be left with a "Wow how did that happened, a miracle?" expression... but that is based on the performer.

Lastly, just because a show is a Big Stage Show does not mean that it is going to consist of Large Boxes, Sexy Assistants, and Dancing.
There are sooo many magicians who have huge stage shows that are not like that. Penn & Teller, Jonathan Levit (To an extent), Sam Eaton... etc.

Stage Magic Is Very Impressive. I think you should see a few shows and then reassess your argument. I think you will see a different side of things. But we all have our opinions on topics, i am simply playing my role.

- Steven H.

 

[Dylan P.]

Stage Magic Is Very Impressive. I think you should see a few shows and then reassess your argument. I think you will see a different side of things. But we all have our opinions on topics, i am simply playing my role.

- Steven H.

I've seen copperfield live. I didn't realy care for him, as I like the old copperfield. And it's hard to see others, as magic shows aren't in Boston a lot, and being fifteen, I cann't just fly out to Vegas.

 

[Steven Henriquez]

I've seen copperfield live. I didn't realy care for him, as I like the old copperfield. And it's hard to see others, as magic shows aren't in Boston a lot, and being fifteen, I cann't just fly out to Vegas.

Theres a ton of shows in Boston however. And incredible performers in the area. Or New York City is not that far and has huge shows.
If you ever want a list or anything let me know. I would be glad to share info of some guys i know.

 

[DLeerium]

I think this all comes down to preference.

Some people may prefer grand illusions, while others prefer up close and personal illusions. Both are different in their own respect and hence will attract different audiences based on their own preferences.

 

[William Draven]

Hold thy tongue and speak no more of this blashamy. I can see that you have the early stages of card elitism. With the prognoses being that grim I recomend you watch two Lance Burton shows and call me in the morning.

with that being said more to follow tomorrow when im back from vegas

 

[ZachMueller]

Interesting thoughts Dylan,

I feel that I like both Stage and Street equally. They both have their advantages, and disadvantages.

However, when people go into a stage show, some of them will be magicians, or even just die hard magic fans. However the people who go to see shows who are not in the previous categories, laymen, don't think exactly how you say they think.

I think that the majority of laymen who go to stage shows, are not going to think
"I am going to a show were everything has been rehearsed, preset, and prepared beforehand, and therefor it is not as magical"

I believe it's more along the lines of:
"Wow this is exciting. I get the see a live magician do his act. I am here to be entertained, and have fun"

So basically, what I am trying to point out is that people go to shows to be entertained. To have a moment to sit back, relax and watch an entertaining act. I don't think they really process the whole idea of everything being pre-prepared. They just want to go and have fun, and I think that is what magic is all about, whether your doing stage, close-up, or any other type of the art.

These are just my thoughts, and the way I look at things. Very good thread topic, I think there is a lot that can be taken away from different people's opinions

Thanks,

~Zach

 

[Andy.Boss.Glass]

im going to go ahead and put this out there: WHO CARES? Seriously, card or coin magic, boxes, illusions. We are magicians. We are biased in what we like. To some magicians, illusions are more magicial. To others, a deck color change is more magical. But to the laymen, its almost always percieved as the same. We shouldnt be the ones arguing (debating for those that cant handle the word argue) about which ones are better. If anyone argue, it should be the laymen. They are the ones that watch what we are debating about. We can say all we want about either side, but in the end, the layman decides.

 

[ZacEckstein]

http://vimeo.com/5760999

That's what I think.

 

[Andy.Boss.Glass]

http://vimeo.com/5760999

That's what I think.

hahahaha man what you think? Mostly simplistic, with a touch of ignorance. Thats what you think man. Really? thats not helping at all, its just making it funny.

 

[ZacEckstein]

hahahaha man what you think? Mostly simplistic, with a touch of ignorance. Thats what you think man. Really? thats not helping at all, its just making it funny.

Explain?

 

[Randy]

So wait, because your dad didn't really like stage magic.. You decide that all stage magic sucks?

Man you have not seen a David Copperfield show or a Lance Burton Show or even a Penn and Teller show.

I have a lot of respect for stage guys because it takes a lot more and i mean A LOT more guts to get up on stage and perform for an audience of 50-maybe 500 or more people. Street magic is fine and all but you are basically just performing for 2-5 people at the most. And then with the stage magic. There is the maintenance and prep work that goes into maintaining all of the effects. Which are things that you CANNOT do with street magic. Not to mention the rehearsal as well. Yes, a lot of stage guy's often will do dress rehearsal and rehearse and have to practice on the stage as well. I have also heard stories were their sets have gone wrong and they either have to continue the show or learn how to be a really good stage manager. There is so much that goes into Stage magic that you wouldn't believe.

Like I said, Street magic or whatever is OK. But at the end of the day, it's normally not what brings in the money. You make more money for doing stage shows then you do for Close up stuff.

 

[praetoritevong]

Explain?

He's saying that your views on Stage magic are simplistic and ignorant to the point of being funny. I'm pretty sure.

 

[Toby]

So wait, because your dad didn't really like stage magic.. You decide that all stage magic sucks?

Man you have not seen a David Copperfield show or a Lance Burton Show or even a Penn and Teller show.

I think he said that he HAS seen David Copperfield show LIVE. And I think the rest of your post has nothing to do with the subject, but that is not my place to decide.

I HAVEN'T seen any stage show live. Not because I don't care, or because I don't like it, but because there aren't any in my country. I would LOVE to see some of those magicians perform live, but it would cost me about 2500$ to go to USA and see one show. I also haven't seen much of a close up magic live either, so I guess my opinion will be equal from that side.

I think the BIGGEST factor of "Street Magic" is a factor of SURPRISE. When you go to a stage show, you know you are going to see a magician and some Illusions and what not. You dress nicely, you buy ticket, basically your whole day is about that evening event. But with street magic it's like "Excuse me sir, did you drop this coin? No? Than I guess we don't need it." (that is the most lamest way to approach, but you get the picture) and *puf* the coin is GONE. They didn't expect to see ANY magic, they didn't even think about it, and than it just HAPPENED. That element of surprise can massively built their reaction. Also, the anonymity of YOU can be a factor to. You are not Copperfield, Burton, Brown, you are anonymous. Again, that can be connected to the element of surprise.
They will go home and say "Hey honey, you won't believe what just happened to me. There was this guy who asked me if I dropped a coin, and than the coin just VANISHED, in front of my eyes. It was so magical."
And after Copperfield show, it may sound like "Hey honey, just got back from Copperfield show. He made the train disappear. It was a great Illusion, I didn't see the cords or anything."

So yeah, that element of surprise can be the thing that can bring one point for the "Street Magic".

Also, EVERYONE on this forums are talking about importance of connection with your audience, how magic should have some emotional hook, how it should touch EVERY spectator. Well, if you agree, that is more easy with close up magic than with stage magic. In close up magic, you can focus more on EVERY audience member, because there are always only 2-3 (10) people at most. You can get to know them, to connect with them etc. hence make that experience more magical for them. As oppose to stage magic, where you have 500 people in the audience, and you can only call so many people on stage (10 at most, if you are doing mentalism act). Even if you somehow manage to influence 50% (that's 250 people), you still can't affect every single member of the audience. Yeah yeah, I know, you can't do that in close up either, but the percentage is way over 50%.

 

[Steerpike]

I had a roommate who said he preferred stage magic because of the grandiose nature and the sheer spectacle of it all.

Make of that what you will.