Draven,
I can't let this go because you continually miss the critical elements of the argument (confusing claasic/hack with rare, discovered). Perhaps it is my fault for being unclear. But I care about the future of magic and I would hate for someone to pass their actions on what has been built on a foundation of miscommunication/misinterpretation.
Also you, like our friend steerpike, suffer from an idealism that assumes that the world works according to the way you want it to work. It doesn't, and in many statements your inexperience shows.
Finally, you assume that when I give an example I speak of a single specific instance. These issues are much bigger and the concepts I speak of represent larger trends to which you may have yet to be exposed.
While I love the castle and perform there often, your opinion of it is baselessly innaccurate. The castle is a private club for magicians that caters to magicians. It is not indicitive of any other professional venue anywhere else in the world. Many of the acts there cannot and do not work in the real world (or at least not to any real degree of success). Of course you see stock material there. This isn't about stock material by the way - see, again you miss the point. The magic castle has a ton of time to feel and magicians like triumph variations. Lay people don't care.
also, you clearly have never been part of the discussions regarding the philosophies behind booking the castle. The various bookers over the year do know that some of the acts are hack, and they try to pick acts to avoid multiple performers doing the same tricks. (This does not always work.).
If your position were correct, it wouldn't matter if two acts each did sraightjackets on the same night. If their routines were different, it shouldn't matter.
But it does.
Which is why its considered to be a problem and to be avoided.
Talk to lovick about it. He has very strong and well founded opinions on this, honed in the real world of the theater and not magic shows for magicians.
Or talk to Max. He had very clear opinions about these issues. Or talk to Armstrong or some of the other members of the boards. I think you have a misunderstanding of what a lot of the people making decisions are thinking and drawing conclusions about the world from this fundamentally inncorrect misperception.
Audiences generalize. That's why when they see a bad magician they think 'magic doesn't work for our group' but a bad singer is just one bad singer.
Say next all you want. You'll be saying next a lot.
Your experiences may have yet to expose you to these attitudes, but that doesn't mean they aren't commonly held. You may not want to believe me, but I've been around this block a lot longer than you have. Was I happy with this revelation? No. But I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and yell na na na na.
Stick around another decade. Then get back to me.
And yes, sales can be about numbers, if all you are is a commodity. Nothing wrong with pumping out low dollar shows and making it up in volume.
But I don't think were selling widgets here. And while there are many hack and copyist acts who do a lot of shows - they often do them just once. Stand on a corner screaming loud enough, long enough and people will pay just to shut you up. Doesn't mean your an artist, a good craftsman, or doing any good for the perception of magic.
But again, this misses the point. If -I- want to try to set myself apart as different, should we encourage people to jeopardize my efforts WHEN THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD THEY _NEED_ TO BE DOING ANY OF MY UNIQUE MATERIAL (ORIGINAL OR DISCOVERED). There's enough already out there. Why do you have to take what I'd discovered?
None of this has anything to do with anything, other than you sharing your process.
The straight jacket is a classic and something people will discover in there most rudimentary research. No one is saying you can't do a classic.
My point regards obscure material unearthed by a performer NOT in the magic mainstream.
Having said that there ARE two issues with the jacket. 1) it is so overdone that, while a classic, it is also hack. Bookers feel this way. The reason they feel this way happened to underscore my point which is most people assume that changing a line here and there, or combining lines from a dozen other performers makes them original, unique, or commercially 'different'. We may think so, they don't. (Ala your copperfield/angel analogy). To bookers straight jackets escapes are interchangeable. You may want to believe yours isn't, but that the naivity and passion of your relative youth and experience.
The second point the jacket makes is that performers canabalizing other peoples choices leads people to think of what was once a showstopping headlining act as 'just another guy who went to a magic shop.'
Can a talented person work to try to overcome this.
Of course.
But WHY are we encouraging a community to make choices which force those who did the work in the first place to work even harder? Why do you insist on punishing the people that set the trends. Why can't we encourage people to make choices that sets them apart from others? Is reading a book really so much of an investment we can't do it? Are we so lazy we have to take the work of others and screw them in return?
Here's the problem, draven, you have more experience than many on these boards, but a lot of the advice you have given in various threads belies an immature understanding of some of the bigger issues and realities with which one contends. I appreciate that you want to help. And I wish there was a nicer way to say it, but your advice suggests your experiences are far more limited than you might be aware.
I can't let this go because you continually miss the critical elements of the argument (confusing claasic/hack with rare, discovered). Perhaps it is my fault for being unclear. But I care about the future of magic and I would hate for someone to pass their actions on what has been built on a foundation of miscommunication/misinterpretation.
Also you, like our friend steerpike, suffer from an idealism that assumes that the world works according to the way you want it to work. It doesn't, and in many statements your inexperience shows.
Finally, you assume that when I give an example I speak of a single specific instance. These issues are much bigger and the concepts I speak of represent larger trends to which you may have yet to be exposed.
I would like to first go on record to say that I've NEVER needed two posts back to back to respond to a single person. Congratulations Brad. You're a first. I feel like I either need an aspirin now, or a stiff rum and coke, without the coke.
I think most of the working magic force would disagree. I can't recall how many cards across, ambitious cards, strait jackets, box illusions, or "botched" comedy magic acts I've seen take the stage at the Magic Castle, and that's suppose to be one of the highest places to perform night club wise.
While I love the castle and perform there often, your opinion of it is baselessly innaccurate. The castle is a private club for magicians that caters to magicians. It is not indicitive of any other professional venue anywhere else in the world. Many of the acts there cannot and do not work in the real world (or at least not to any real degree of success). Of course you see stock material there. This isn't about stock material by the way - see, again you miss the point. The magic castle has a ton of time to feel and magicians like triumph variations. Lay people don't care.
also, you clearly have never been part of the discussions regarding the philosophies behind booking the castle. The various bookers over the year do know that some of the acts are hack, and they try to pick acts to avoid multiple performers doing the same tricks. (This does not always work.).
If your position were correct, it wouldn't matter if two acts each did sraightjackets on the same night. If their routines were different, it shouldn't matter.
But it does.
Which is why its considered to be a problem and to be avoided.
Talk to lovick about it. He has very strong and well founded opinions on this, honed in the real world of the theater and not magic shows for magicians.
Or talk to Max. He had very clear opinions about these issues. Or talk to Armstrong or some of the other members of the boards. I think you have a misunderstanding of what a lot of the people making decisions are thinking and drawing conclusions about the world from this fundamentally inncorrect misperception.
The booker in the story is indicitive of the attitude many people in show biz have regarding magicians.So that's one douche booker, for one cruise line. You get them. Just like you get diva magicians who are convinced that their crap doesn't stink. Getting booked in magic is a marketing and sales game. And sales Brad is about numbers. My only reply to this booker is "next".
Audiences generalize. That's why when they see a bad magician they think 'magic doesn't work for our group' but a bad singer is just one bad singer.
Say next all you want. You'll be saying next a lot.
Your experiences may have yet to expose you to these attitudes, but that doesn't mean they aren't commonly held. You may not want to believe me, but I've been around this block a lot longer than you have. Was I happy with this revelation? No. But I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and yell na na na na.
Stick around another decade. Then get back to me.
And yes, sales can be about numbers, if all you are is a commodity. Nothing wrong with pumping out low dollar shows and making it up in volume.
But I don't think were selling widgets here. And while there are many hack and copyist acts who do a lot of shows - they often do them just once. Stand on a corner screaming loud enough, long enough and people will pay just to shut you up. Doesn't mean your an artist, a good craftsman, or doing any good for the perception of magic.
But again, this misses the point. If -I- want to try to set myself apart as different, should we encourage people to jeopardize my efforts WHEN THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD THEY _NEED_ TO BE DOING ANY OF MY UNIQUE MATERIAL (ORIGINAL OR DISCOVERED). There's enough already out there. Why do you have to take what I'd discovered?
I don't think anyone should not perform a strait jacket JUST because someone else did it first. That's assinine. Buy your jacket, perform it, and grow with it as you find a way to alter, change, or create your own presentation and character.
If I perform a strait jacket escape as is. An escape, am I original? No. I'm not. But I'm not pulling ducks out of the jacket, That belongs to Andrew Goldenhersh, Nor am I escaping it while balancing on a surf board balanced on top of a cylinder drum. That belongs to Farrell Dillan. As I've performed it, I've evolved it into the video you see in the misc section where I do a trust fall with the spectator with them blind folded. Which I am very glad to say I've never seen done by anyone else. Now I'm in position to make a claim (after doing some research to validate) that this is MY personal handling of the classic escape.
If some one see's me do a strait jacket and adds one to their show. Great. More power to them. I don't care. But if they start doing trust falls, then I of course would be pissed. If they started to produce ducks, then Andrew would be upset, and if they started to escape balanced on a surf board then I'm sure Farrell would have something to say to them. I am not wrong for my opinion as you were quick to make note in a previous post. It is after all just an opinion.
None of this has anything to do with anything, other than you sharing your process.
The straight jacket is a classic and something people will discover in there most rudimentary research. No one is saying you can't do a classic.
My point regards obscure material unearthed by a performer NOT in the magic mainstream.
Having said that there ARE two issues with the jacket. 1) it is so overdone that, while a classic, it is also hack. Bookers feel this way. The reason they feel this way happened to underscore my point which is most people assume that changing a line here and there, or combining lines from a dozen other performers makes them original, unique, or commercially 'different'. We may think so, they don't. (Ala your copperfield/angel analogy). To bookers straight jackets escapes are interchangeable. You may want to believe yours isn't, but that the naivity and passion of your relative youth and experience.
The second point the jacket makes is that performers canabalizing other peoples choices leads people to think of what was once a showstopping headlining act as 'just another guy who went to a magic shop.'
Can a talented person work to try to overcome this.
Of course.
But WHY are we encouraging a community to make choices which force those who did the work in the first place to work even harder? Why do you insist on punishing the people that set the trends. Why can't we encourage people to make choices that sets them apart from others? Is reading a book really so much of an investment we can't do it? Are we so lazy we have to take the work of others and screw them in return?
Here's the problem, draven, you have more experience than many on these boards, but a lot of the advice you have given in various threads belies an immature understanding of some of the bigger issues and realities with which one contends. I appreciate that you want to help. And I wish there was a nicer way to say it, but your advice suggests your experiences are far more limited than you might be aware.