talkmagic.co.uk

whats better stage magic or close up magic?

magicians tend to say close up as it requires more skill time and practise, stage magic anybody whos got money can can do the trick

spectators usually assosiate magic with stage stuff so dismiss close up!

dosn't evey magician start out with close up, evey day household items made miraculouse
then finances permitting graduate to stage / parlour (oops showing my age) magic safe in the knowledge that they have paid there dues, crimped endles packets of cards, developed hands of steel.
not thease days when you can pick up a plastic version of a classic ilussion that not so long ago you would of had to engineer from scratch, following some text handed down from mag to mag, dog eared and coffee stained and bearly ledgerble.
I'm not saying that we should go back to those days of answer my question's three.
but i have progressed to the stage where i can just about afford stage props of quality, which now allow me to express my art in a better, more impressive way (comercialy that is).
i still enjoy close up but find clients thease days fuled with masked magician envy grabby and intent on debunking you.
so i think for the imediate future i will control the distance and amount in my personal space.
its true anyone with a personality and bottomless wallet can be a stage magician, the box jumpers do most of the work.
but its the middle ground, the palour magician im aiming for where skill meets quality crafted boxes and special tables.
so in conclusion i think you have missed out a big chunk of people that are more than close up but less than that pretty boy (head) on stage.

i think both styles are invaluble to magic but lets not forget all the other styles.. the darker gothic style of people like simon drake.. the storytelling magic http://www.dragonskull.co.uk, the street magician, the parlour magician, the PK , mental etc etc.. the list is endless(kinda) but all im saying is dont classify magic as either stage or close up. there are many shades of grey in between

Well, if you look at the vote - over 70% seem to prefer close up - no miracle, is it ? as you said before - you`d need a pretty bottomless wallet for stage magic - i think, people (and us included) see the likes of copperfield, siegfried and roy (my fellow countrymen....) and others as typical "stage magician" and everything else, smaller, not-so-damn-perfect-and-sophisticated as more or less close up, as you are simply physically closer to it, whenever performed - but thats only my point of view....

fair point sometime i tend to rant, as a carer i dont get out much except to parties thease days
people start out with close up because it esiaer to write magic book useing household items, so your more likely to be exposed to that style.
poll not withstanding perhaps we should just say its all good, especialy if it pays the rent.

I think we're getting close here! Stage magic with big boxes and sets is big, bold - and expensive. On that basis, only the serious, the professional, or the rich can hope to do it. OK, some smaller stuff can be 'enlarged' for the stage but, at best, you'd be in the 'Cabaret Magic' area where large-scale stuff physically isn't suitable but the use of Jumbo cards & props is an advantage.

Close up tends to be more personal - usually with 5 or 6 in the immediate audience and the performer can establish a better relationship than from the stage. Also it’s how most of us start off – the odd trick or two performed for family and friends and we move on from there. Or, in my case, we stay there!

This is perhaps one area where size doesn’t really matter - it’s only part of the effect!

absolutely.

(moderaters please do not count htis post in my 50 it s to small)

im not cheep I'm reasureingly expensive

OK, I have the final answer. Definitely Stage Magic - as long as I can get up there and watch closely.

maybe close up from a mile away with binoculers

well close up is winning but i dont think its a true reflection on what people realy think as only 4 people have voted. close up tends to be better as the audience or spectators a more part of the performance

i think john's our winner

It depends. If you like magic there and then ( I feel sometimes more impressive) obviously close up. But if you prefer a more visual and spectacular image then break the piggy bank and go for stage. I personnaly prefer close up because it involves skill and catching people off their guard where as stage magic (sometimes) can be a battle of the wallets and/or props. Magic becomes acting when the props do all the work. It especially annoys me when you see famous magicians getting richer for being rich in the first place and getting good props when there are skilled magicians out there doing there damndest to impress on the streets.

On similar previous postings I think we decided that close up was more personal, was likely to be less expensive, and involved a lot of hard work. Stage was obviously going to cost a lot and, because of the increased distance between magician and audience, was less personal and meant more work in communicating.

I have to admit I love seeing close up stuff but still get a thrill from the big stage stuff - if seen live. TV specials are probably the main way these big shows are seem and financed but there's definitley something missing compared to a live performance.

I prefer Close- up. I get my main enjoyment from the art by watching their jaw drop open at the end as they gasp" How did you do that?". I think if you do stage magic you would loose that feeling as their only watching you from a distance, they didn't see an effect happening in their own living room or in their own hands. I don't think it looks as magical. Peolpe see it more as an illusion as they know its not possible, it tends to be too impossible if you know what I mean. It opens more plausible explinations like, that guy must have crept of in the smoke or she slipped out a trapdoor. Close-up often takes those ideas and throws them out the window and makes it magic.