talkmagic.co.uk

The more I think about it, the more I think Brad C would be selling "cool" in some other field if he hadn't stumbled upon magic as a market with strong impulse demand. The common factor here is that he sells things. The things themselves don't matter. They're just stock items which in turn need to be as cheap as possible to create margin, hence recycling the old work of others. It feels very ugly.

Anyone who refers to Blaine as ' The BIG man himself ' or ' The Main Main ' needs his head pounded in with a brick!! or just a loose fist would do..

Brad is a businessman.. a successful one.. but he has no morals when it comes to churning out dvd's for profit regardless of the originality of the effect.

You're right Tomo.. if Brad found that there was a market out there for guys wearing eyeliner and that it might possibly be 'street' or 'cool' he'd be marketing that too!! hhmm.. I think he already does try..

Who here hasnt bought an E item be it branded cards or silver dream then? Or used some heavly hyped on E such as the raven?

I bought a few Ghost stripper decks. I though they were very well cut (I even posted a review) until I got a "normal" USPCC stripper deck and my world shifted.

[quote="Tomo"]What I don't agree with is the idea that only the people mentioned are making a living from street magic. Derren Brown, for instance, has never been a street performer. He was a table worker nee hypnotist, and would have to take a break from putting together his TV series (another one of which starts next Friday), and from touring his award winning stage show to piddle about on the pavement for coins. quote]

On this minor point, I think you've misinterpreted Swiss's comment. He means Derren Brown does a form of street magic ON his shows, in so much as he performs quite a lot of his TV work in the street with a camera crew.

Besides that, typically enjoyable JIS piece and many thanks to the original poster for linking it here.

I read the post.

I clicked the link.

Will read the article later....

DaveWise wrote:BUT-- all those negative aspects aside-- those single click downloads allowed me to easily turn my interest into a hobby.

*no i never bought one... i looked around on limewire for a little while and downloaded a bunch for free... don't tell brad*

The article was so good, I didn't notice this until my second time reading this thread.

trickyricky wrote:I read the post.

I clicked the link.

Will read the article later....

That's exactly what I did. But then I read it and it was actually very interesting. Held my attention.

First, I disagree that Blaine paved the way for Derren Brown. While aspects of Blaine's specials may have affected Brown's format on the television, there is not doubt in my mind that Brown would have still come through on the television without the existence of Blaine. As Johny Carson once said, "You can't hold down talent."

Next, Swiss uses four specific aspects as to why "street magic" doesn't exist (then, of course, goes on to explain why those four aspects directly prove "street magic's" non-existence). I want to delve into those four aspects, but before I do that I'd like to suggest that "street magic" is a misnomer for this particular form of magic and further explain that I will be calling it "hit and run" magic instead (because that, in essence, is really what it is - hit and run).

1) Performers

Swiss makes the assumption that to be a "performer" of hit and run, you have to be on the television. This whole idea precludes that anyone else exists. Because Swiss has not seen it with his own eyes, then certainly these performers are not out there, doing their hit and run style of magic.

To take it one step further, I don't exist because Swiss has never seen me perform. I don't believe that I need to say anything further on this since the logic behind this particular argument is already proved wrong, based on that simple statement above.

In fact, I'd go one step further and say that Swiss doesn't quite grasp the fact that anything exists outside of his own, little world.

2) Audience

Swiss makes the assumption that if the magician goes out and finds an audience rather than the audience coming to the magician, that magic cannot exist in such an environment. I would suggest that magic exists regardless of how an audience comes into being for the magician in question.

His main argument is that if you walk up to a person on the street and attempt to show a trick to them that you will get punched in the face. I further suggest that just because Swiss is incapable of walking up to someone and trying to ply his trade without getting punched that this doesn't mean that someone else cannot do this without panache, skill and grace. While I personally would be apprehensive to thrust my magic on someone right out the blue, this doesn't mean that it can't be done or that it is not being done by someone, somewhere.

Magic exists in the mind of the spectator and nowhere else. I say this because without the spectator, you don't really have magic, you have the lonely guy in the mirror. Magic requires at least one spectator to exist, but one spectator is all that it takes; no more, no less. Therefore, if you walk up to someone on the street and get them to give you a moment of their time and you show them a trick, you do, in fact, have an audience and you have the capability of having magic.

3) Material

The crux of this argument is that the material is mainly one off stuff, or as Burger calls it, "Magic as stunts." No theatrical build, no routining, no real pay off. Again, this is dependent on what the spectator sees or how they are personally affected by what they see.

I find it highly arrogant to decide that since I personally could take no real pleasure in a hit and run performance that this means that nobody on the face of this earth could, either. Again, this goes to the spectator himself/herself as to what the affect of the magic is on them. Magic exists in their mind and therefore it is highly subjective. Swiss apparently has started to believe his own press in that he thinks that he can read their minds.

By way of example, not too long ago I was hired to do a street style peformance. This was in the venue of a fair style area where a lot of people were walking past going to various places. Between my performances I had to build an audience. So it went that three young ladies passed my table as I was preparing to start another show, but I was working at getting things back together. They were having a great time and I pulled out a deck of cards and asked them if they'd be interested in seeing something that wasn't quite right...

I went into an informal showing of an ACR. Have you ever seen the TV footage where people fall to the ground and roll around like idiots, upon seeing a magic trick? Looks pretty stupid and contrived, doesn't it? Yet, one of the girls actually did this. No joke here, I'm not making this up. And, yet, all it really was was hit and run style magic.

Am I to assume that since Swiss did not see this that it did not happen? Am I further to assume that since I was just playing with these girls and that I had no real theatrical build up that magic wasn't happening for them or that the one girl was rolling around on the ground just to look like an idiot? Did magic not happen for these girls? I would suggest that magic did, in fact, happen for them, even though certain factors were not in existance, which Swiss expects to be there for magic to take place.

4) Venue

Swiss states that without a definable venue that magic cannot happen. Bar magicians have a bar, restaurant magicians a restaurant, etc.

But, what about the impromptu magician? What about the guy who simply shows stuff to his friends and family, anywhere, anytime, with no discernable venue? Is he not doing magic? Does he not exist? Well, according to Swiss, I guess he doesn't. This is a hard pill for me to swallow since I honestly believed that he did exist for (somewhere around) 40 years.

Sorry, Swiss, I disagree with you on this one.

Swiss's article reflects his opinion and he is stead fast in his belief. I can appreciate and respect that. Swiss himself, though, is an opinionated and aloof man and I have little respect for him specifically. And, truth be told, he is just another guy with an opinion and not the end all and final arbiter as to what magic is. He is a guy with an opinion and a platform with which to state that opinion. Is his opinion more valid than anyone else's? No, I honestly don't think that it is.

For my own part, I think hit and run style magic sucks. I would probably agree with Swiss if he wasn't such a putz. But, to my way of thinking, his arguments hold no water simply because they can be debated and are, in essence, naught more than opinion, subject to debate.

Mike.

Michael Jay wrote:I will be calling it "hit and run" magic instead.

I think the term "guerilla magic" best suits the practice (and I don't mean the hairy type that make bananas vanish).

Excellent post Michael! I agree 100% with the points you make. I was left with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth after reading the somewhat bloated essay and couldn't immediately put my finger on the reason why. Whilst I believe some valid points were made, such as the sheer volume of 'kids' to be found practicing in front of a camera on You Tube (and the detrimental affect that has), there was also a lot of supposition.

An interesting article.

Anyone raised this on the 'Ellusionist' forums?

Thank you Strep.

Guerilla magic would be a good name as any...But, in the end game it is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Guerilla warfare is hit and run. Hit and run is guerilla warfare. However, I agree that guerilla magic has a better sound to it; a nicer polish, as it were.

Mike.

I agree... an interesting article with some very good points... HOWEVER, this guy is not the authoritative source on all things magic, and not EVERYTHING on sites like Ellusionist is garbage. As with all other things in this world, there is good, and there is bad. There are some very good one-trick-wonder DVD downloads, and there are some bad ones. The only thing I will completely agree with is that all of the one-trick-wonder downloads are BAD VALUE.

That said, I will continue to purchase these items anyways, because, bad value or not, some of them are well done and are great effects witch achieve great reactions.

I don't understand why there is so much anti-Brad going around. I learned a lot from a lot of his videos. Some of them are in fact good. I just feel like an idiot NOW after reading through RRTCM and other really old books that most of the "cool new tricks" on the DVD's are actually age-old tricks that has been around for many years - with the EXACT same patter and everything. So as I said it's a bad value. But if the information contained in a book like RRTCM is so good, surely a DVD that uses some of the same material is also good, no? Just that it was a waste to spend all that money. (But I'll admit that it would have been REAL easy to offer just a little more valuable info along with some of his [rather vague] explanations).

...and even Swiss' comments about the branded "cool" cards are a liitle harsh. For the love of God don't ever used GIMMICKED versions of the branded cards (IMHO that's a little risky) but in the right setting the cards are exactly what they are marketed as - cool. You can hand them out to spectators who will admire the nice artwork and assure themselves that they are legit. He's right that in the "street" setting, these branded cards do attract too much suspicion. If a spectator even THINKS that the cards are rigged, the effect will not be as appreciated. All this is to say that just because Ellusionist sells branded cards, they are not junk. THey are nice and they are "cool" in the right settings.

Ellusionist does churn out a high percentage of instant download c*** (not the best) but so does Penguin Magic. Both of these sites are geared towards adolescents.
If you want to buy online you might as well get a good price for the item. Penguin Magic is always cheaper not to mention their free shipping.
The only thing I can imagine myself buying from Brad Christian are his decks.

In response to one of the earlier comments: I'm not a David Blaine fan myself, but I've read Derren Brown himself say that he doubted his show would exist without Blaine's.

misterblack wrote:In response to one of the earlier comments: I'm not a David Blaine fan myself, but I've read Derren Brown himself say that he doubted his show would exist without Blaine's.

The comment is here:
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html