talkmagic.co.uk

After watching an episode of America's Got Talent last night and seeing several magicians, I've come to two conclusions.

1. In the matter of what the average layperson wants from magic is the same thing they've seen over and over again. My proof for this is how the audience on AGT responded to several magicians. Those who performed sleight of hand, vanishes, and even a magi who performed the stunning headless dove trick, were booed from the stage and deprived of a great opportunity. However, when a magician and his wife (both who must have been in showbusiness for at least thirty years) performed their only effect, Metamorphosis, the crowd went wild. Now this is not me putting down the magicians, but rather their choice of performance. This brings me to my second point.

2. Those of you who know me well know my opinion of classic stage magic. I find it to be too pandering and cliche at this point. Metamorphosis, body levitations, traditional escapes (straight jackets, sealed water tanks, etc.), and productions and vanishes of impossibly large objects seem so inevitable when you go to a magic show that you might as well not go as you've seen it twenty times before.

So here I am, begging the magical community on bended knee, create a new effect. I myself have proposed a new effect in the Miscellaneous forum and I would be more than willing to provide the details to anyone who could put it to good use.

I am also asking anyone out there: Does anybody perform new stage magic anymore? Aren't there any fresh ideas coming out?

We get AGT on one of the satellite channels and although I've only seen a few programmes, it seems to me that the standard of magician appearing on it is much higher than on the UK version. The US magicians tend to be established performers whereas the UK ones are, with one or two exceptions, perhaps not quite so established hence their reason for appearing on the show. As for the type of magic, I'd assume that stage always needs big magic, no point on doing small scale stuff as it won't be seen. On the other hand, the small stuff would probably cry out for close-up situations, 'parlour magic' shows, that type of thing.

As for new stage magic, perhaps the cost of developing and producing it is too high for all but the big names with oodles of money to invest?

well.
lets first deal with the sub trunk.

it was the pendragons.

the reaction was for them, not the trick.

and its the same for all the other performers.If you give good solid exciting entertainment value, your going to have the audience stand.

manipulation acts, in general are just not whatthe audiences want to see these days.Even Lance Burton has changed his classic act. he does it fast, and short, mainly because the audiences are sitting there waiting for the next big box, or sharp blades to be produced.

daleshrimpton wrote:it was the pendragons

Says it all for me!

I just read the Michelangelo collumn on Online-visions - http://www.online-visions.com/stagesofi ... erica.html - an understandable viewpoint.

With the exception of the gentleman who performed the headless dove sequence (and the Pendragons), the problem wasn't tired old magic, the problem was BAD magic.

My biggest problem with America's Got Talent is the opera singer. It's such an obvious attempt by Simon Cowell and the producers to cash in on the Paul Potts phenomenon that took place on Britain's Got Talent.

I agree I dont think it was tired old magic as much as a bad performance.

Which of your creations are you speaking of. I seem to find two of them.

I am working on combining a cups and balls routine with a sponge ball routine where after the basic cups and balls routine, the balls change size or the 3 little balls morph into one and then it is ripped into 3 sponge balls. Not sure yet, still working on it.

Does anyone know if this has been done before?

Big D

lets not forget, the dove decapitation, is actually a trick that can lay claim to being the second oldest magic trick, after the cups and balls.

First of all - nice to see you back on TM Dale - it's been some time!

Secondly Monker wrote:

Those of you who know me well know my opinion of classic stage magic. I find it to be too pandering and cliche at this point. Metamorphosis, body levitations, traditional escapes (straight jackets, sealed water tanks, etc.), and productions and vanishes of impossibly large objects seem so inevitable when you go to a magic show that you might as well not go as you've seen it twenty times before.

Maybe the answer to your question is within what you have written.

Magic is not about performing what the magician likes or wants to perform, it's all about performing routines that work for the audience.

To a lay audience, they view illusions such as metamorphosis as a wonder. The grand illusion is what most lay people will perceive magic as being and look at card routines more as trickery. The fact that these large illusions have stood the test of time and have had thousands of hours dedicated to performing them perfectly is testament to this.

That's why I believe that grand scale illusions will be around for a long time to come.

Part of the problem with creating something new is, as Craig Browning often points out, is that magicians steal other people's work and ideas which sadly means that there's little or no profit in it.

Our old friend the Masked Magician allegedly had the intention of forcing new magic to be created and performed as a result of his exposure shows. They didn't do anything of the kind, of course and the latest news, according to the current issue of MagicSeen Magazine, is that Fox are planning more MM shows in the very near future......

From an audience point of view, grand illusions are "what magicians do", and cards and coins are "what my Uncle Bob does". This guy might handle cards better than Uncle Bob, but it's all the same sort of stuff, innit?

TV talent shows are automatically biased against magic, anyway, since the performers only get a few minutes each. About the only thing worse would be trying to do some acting.