talkmagic.co.uk

cartorious wrote:

magicrob wrote:and am just not down wiv da krew no more blud

.....Please.....NEVER speak like this again.

magicrob wrote:Errr.....okay then......innit?

Ste Porterfield wrote:Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrap!

russpie wrote:My views are elsewhere on here in one of the many Dynamo threads so I won't repeat. Sorry to drag this kicking & screaming back on topic but did anyone actually watch Buzzcocks? Didn't even realise that his tshirt had changed but I did watch it over breakfast. The polo thing must've been done 10 times now on british mainstream tv shows ( ireckon it looks better without stubble too but just my opinion), i'd like to see him toppit something instead, just as visual.

Grimshaw wrote:Surely my post signifies that I did watch the show.

Lee Smith wrote:Like it or not Dynamo and others have done a lot for magic.

If laymen like what they see then great! stooge or no stooge, it will make no difference what someone like Dynamo is doing other than the fact that people are talking about magic again.

The moment a lay person see's great magic performed in front of them everything else goes out the window no matter what or who it is. Remember he mainly does marketed effects so anyone can do these things.

If someone says something like how did Dynamo put the phone in the bottle? or what do you think about Dynamo, Derren or Blaine.? Just say they are great? And have all helped keep magic popular Now check this out.

Then proceed to warp the muggles mind.

Point is, it doesn't matter who performs what as long as its done well and lay people enjoy it then magic will continue to exist. These people just help us to keep it interesting on massive scale. We need to worry when they stop asking or are bored with the concept of TV magic.


I dont think anyone in this country will will ever have the TV success or career of someone like Daniels again. But if they do it will be good for all of us.

Lee.

Part-Timer wrote:I thought Dynamo did all right on the show. As Grimshaw says, he doesn't have the right persona to shine on the comedy front, but he got some good reactions with his magic. A bit like Derren Brown's lottery trick getting discussed on Mock the Week (and the newspapers - "Magician does trick" - read all about it), it's good to get magicians on, or mentioned on, other types of show. We don't really have variety shows any more, apart from BGT, and that's horribly skewed against magicians.

Dealing with some of other the points raised:

You can be a great magician and not have your own TV show, or even make that much money from it. Some professional magicians don't have good business skills or nous. Some very talented amateurs never go professional, or even wish to do so. You are not a failure or a bad magician simply because you are not on the goggle box.

The corollary of this is that, just because you are making a lot of money from magic, have your own series or whatever does not automatically mean you are good as a "technical" magician. It does, however, probably mean you are doing something right. If someone is in the public eye who isn't a "magician's magician", they might have a knack of connecting with audiences, have a sellable image, come up with intriguing presentations, be skilled at marketing or have good contacts (either because of who they happen to know, or because they've worked to make them).

If you look at Derren (who admittedly probably is a "magician's magician", even if not loved by absolutely everyone), he is not only a skilled technical performer, but also puts a lot of effort into presentation, image and making his material relevant to audiences. These skills and the contacts he'd made eventually led to his C4 series.

People seem to get very confused about art. Magic is a performing art. A performance may also have artistic qualities, but this is not essential. It might not always be desirable. Sometimes, people are perfectly happy to see a tribute band or a covers band, because they enjoy the performance. Sometimes, people want a frothy rom-com, not a three hour epic about how someone's budgie died, but they are too emotionally repressed to talk about it, so instead paint artichokes on the walls. As I recall, Ron Howard once commented that the way to save the British film industry was to make some action films. The critically-acclaimed stuff is great, but you need audiences. Entertain people with your magic. If you can do that and push the artistic envelope too (should you wish), then all power to you.

For what it's worth, I didn't think Piff's act is at all childish. It's actually quite the opposite. It's taking a popular preconception of a magician (silly costume and a "gimmick" - like a kids' magician), then subverting the audience's expectations. It's a bit like some of the stuff Banksy does, or maybe Warhol. Oh, and John is funny with it too.

cc100 wrote:I don't think you can seriously compare Piff with people in other arts like Banksy or T.S. Eliot.