talkmagic.co.uk

i've seen many debates on here regarding the subject but i was curious what you guys thought.... old or new.

old
patter for everything
incredibly complex sleights for great ending.
tuxs with 400 pockets incluing those in the tails
billiard ball routine
dove minipulations
torturing a lady in a box(stabbing with swords, cutting in half, twisting)
practice til perfection
books books books
true magic
40-3000$ props

new
very quiet
incredibly clean handlings for everything
hi tech (uses phones, ipods, exct.)
little practice, chances of mistakes
learn on youtube from the guy who illegally stole his copy of the unreleased work of art
not real magic, more deception
many bill/money routines (hundy 500, fraud....)
10$ props you can make at home
close up magic only

Many debates that usually conclude the same thing. Learning the time honoured techniques will set you in best stead to develop your own style and adaptations... Everyone starts with old school and ultimately all things come from old school.

*cough* false *cough* dichotomy.

There is no old or new. Steal everything; throw away what you do not use.

Although your list is terribly flawed , i presume you mean what would probably be termed 'old school' and 'new school'. Id definetely go for 'old school'. A traditional style performance, performed with neatness and precission, is my idea of 'magic'.

jim ferguson wrote:Although your list is terribly flawed , i presume you mean what would probably be termed 'old school' and 'new school'. Id definetely go for 'old school'. A traditional style performance, performed with neatness and precission, is my idea of 'magic'.

yes its flawed it would have taken way!!!!! to long to get everything, i was going for a basic idea odf each trying to get both pros and cons of both.

I voted Old School for one reason, the old school greats are great for a reason, and the new school greats are all influenced by them

I'd sit on the fence on this one because depending on the circumstances I'd enjoy either.

I recently attended a Magic Gala and took some non magic people with me. The whole show was 'new school' and too much of it wasn't, in my opinion, suitable for the stage (too much 'close up').

For example someone sitting near the back wouldn't have appreciated that a sheet of paper was turned into a rose and then was set alight to become a piece or jewelry - it was impossible to make out in the audience what he had created....it just looked like a thin rolled up piece of paper.

It was still fun from my perspective but in this set of circumstances (on stage)I'd have preferred 'old school' - certainly the people i took thought here would be some big staged illusions. Whilst they may have seen someone cut in half on the TV they would still have loved to see it in front of their own eyes.

Walking down the street and being approached by 'new school' is unbeatable too in that situation.

You're not comparing old and new at all. You are largely comparing stage magic and close up magic, irrespective of era. Clothing, cost of props, type of act, all of those things relate only to the size of performance, not the age.

I hate to break it to you, but routines with very little talking are oldschool. Think of Cardini. So are money routines - Miser's Dream? Also Chung Ling Soo had an effect where he produced a giant bank note. That was almost a hundred years ago. So, in fact, are home made props, seeing as back in the day there were far fewer magic dealers. Also, magic has become less high-tech as it has approached the modern day - during the industrial revolution magicians were always on the forefront of technology the audiences hadn't seen in order to amaze.

And every magician worth their salt, no matter what style of performance they have, practises to the point of monotony to get things right. Lack of practise isn't a matter of style, it's one of laziness.

Basically, without meaning to sound harsh, you appear to have listed everything you don't like about magic in the old column, and everything you do in the new column. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Serendipity wrote:You're not comparing old and new at all. You are largely comparing stage magic and close up magic, irrespective of era. Clothing, cost of props, type of act, all of those things relate only to the size of performance, not the age.

I hate to break it to you, but routines with very little talking are oldschool. Think of Cardini. So are money routines - Miser's Dream? Also Chung Ling Soo had an effect where he produced a giant bank note. That was almost a hundred years ago. So, in fact, are home made props, seeing as back in the day there were far fewer magic dealers. Also, magic has become less high-tech as it has approached the modern day - during the industrial revolution magicians were always on the forefront of technology the audiences hadn't seen in order to amaze.

And every magician worth their salt, no matter what style of performance they have, practises to the point of monotony to get things right. Lack of practise isn't a matter of style, it's one of laziness.

Basically, without meaning to sound harsh, you appear to have listed everything you don't like about magic in the old column, and everything you do in the new column. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Exactly what i meant by my post. When i mentioned it the young man seemed to think i meant the list was incomplete I dont know about anyone else but when i say 'old school' or 'new school' it has nothing to do with illusions or wearing a tuxedo. It is the style of the performance. The way i present my effects is decidedly 'old school' and i only do close-up (and i dont wear a tux either)

Either have their strength and weaknesses but the most appalling issues with the "New" side of magic we've seen crawl out from under various inner-city crags is the lack of respect it displays;

Little to no respect when it comes to the craft as a while
Little to no respect for Magic History, let alone traditions
Little to no respect for other performers (unless they're some kind of VIP)
Little to no respect for the effects & knowledge one is allowed to know
Little to no respect for one's audience
Little to no respect for one's self -- how you look, speak, and project yourself in person and on line.
Little to no respect for the older, more experienced veterans of the craft (again, other than "known" VIP types folks suck up to).

This is a list that could be grown significantly but the real point to it, is how selfish and ego-driven today's new magicians seem to be; buying into the myth that they must rush out and get an eBook, Video, etc. on the market within their first two years of cutting their teeth on just base material -- we're not all Luke Jermay's or Jason Latimere's let alone some of the other phenomenal young people that have come up through the ranks in the past decade. But then we also have those that are pseudo-celebrities in one or two forums that think themselves VIPs because they have pumped out a few commercial books that appeal to the less experienced. . . not that we have such types on this forums

We also have a huge misconception in play with today's magic world (the newbies) when it comes to the idea of "Busking" and doing street styled work -- It's NEVER been something to aspire to but rather an area of work one did either when climbing up the ladder or simply to survive, doing what it is we do. The misrepresentation by various TV Actors doing "street ____" (magic, hypnosis, mentalism, etc. ) has created a very dangerous fantasy in the minds of many who think that such work is "legit" and will make them famous. Where a quasi-legitimate side exists, it is not generally a thing conducive to "celebrity" let alone an income base that goes outside common poverty parameters... not without some serious augmentations.

Hit & Run styled "ambushes" on the laity is just one point that reveals the loss of respect for both, the public and the craft itself. It's rude and akin to a high pressure salesman (a.k.a. con-man) forcing people to buy something they really don't want or need... again, rude and disrespectful to the level of being unethical in many a case.

Understand, there are some amazing young people that represent the "New" course of things, a few I've mentioned. They are the exceptions and not the rule! Such people/talent is exceptionally rare, composing less than 3% (probably closer to 1%) of everyone involved with magic in ways that run just outside the hobby scope of things.... which is a very narrow margin; like the music industry, the odds of being "that guy"(gal) are grossly stacked against you... even when your only aspiration is to simply make a comfortable living doing what you love; for to do so, one must "play the game" as it were, and comply to how the world actually works vs. the horse pucky and hype we have been lead to believe by the advocates of this "New" way of doing magic and the related money mongering attitude is seems to likewise encourage... but that's another issue altogether

As I've said, good & bad with either camp, but the New approach seems to have far more negatives surrounding it than the traditional course of making magic happen and being a "Magician" vs. some clown that does shock effects.

This is ridiculous. Everything on the old-school list still exists, and everything on the new-school list - with the exception of iPods etc. - certainly was around a hundred years ago, it just wasn't well documented because almost everything you've listed on the new school list is negative. There's always been bad magicians, tricks in books and psychopaths who vent their sexual frustration with an assistant, a lacquered box and a sword.

Every once in a while, there come about some performers of an art form who enjoy the spotlight, bask in it for a few months, or probably years and move on. I keep looking at random books becoming NY Times Bestsellers - and I did pick up some of them and they are what I had thought to be - BS .

Getting back, as I read more about the history of magic, the performers and their ideas, their performances, and even their secrets which they unwillingly let out, you can see the pillars of magic ( and mentalism ) - all set right into the ground to support the foundation that would come about in the future.

I don't know if I make any sense, but according to me, many ideas of today's *new* performers have already been published, discussed, mentioned, thought of, or probably just discarded by performers in the past. Now does this mean that they were foolish enough to throw out ideas like that ? I prefer to see their brilliance in having come up with the idea in the first place. I've heard a lot about Marlo and the publishing of his discarded works, and I remain an ardent fan of his - his thinking, the way he constantly fooled other cardicians, and so on.. I say this after just being into magic for less than 18 months probably ( including a 6 month hiatus ) and I'm sure other senior performers can pitch in..

To say it in a simple way, I am a budding computer scientist planning to pursue my graduate studies in a specific field. I look around at the hi-tech gadgets available - and do I ask myself which ones are better - the humongous slow machines of the 1950s or the sleek and fast MacBooks of today ? How can I ever make a comparison ? Because the MacBooks of today wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the ENIACS and EDVACS.

I hope you get the point - because you, today can consider yourself to have the luxury of being OLD or NEW.. well even the OLD were NEW at a time because there was an OLDER. So, in a few decades, today's magic may be considered as OLD.

But it really doesn't matter if you see. It is just a means to an end - which is NOT JUST entertainment - but also respect towards the art form of magic itself. You wouldn't be performing magic today if it weren't for the countless famous and other unsung heroes in this wonderful art. Do not consider them as OLD, full of patter, and so many other things in your list. Respect them for all their worth - because they deserve much more than the claps of the spectators - who probably go home and forget them after a few weeks or months. We, as a community of magicians, can respect them by performing effects in the right way.

Instead of trying to divide OLD and NEW, apply fuzzy logic .. aka the gray area. Life needn't be all black and white.. There is always a gray. Don't take it in the literal way - develop your own style with pointers from everywhere - OLD and NEW.

madvillainy wrote: almost everything you've listed on the new school list is negative.

um... its funny your not the first person to say that the old school things were negative. there not, im a dove worker with 400 hundred pockets who loves to read. the fact that everyone is pointing out that these are negative is a subconcious addmitence to truer feelings. just because you flaunt around saying that I have made the old school list negative , is a way for you to pass blame of truer feeling ont someone else.

jordini101 wrote:

madvillainy wrote: almost everything you've listed on the new school list is negative.

um... its funny your not the first person to say that the old school things were negative. there not, im a dove worker with 400 hundred pockets who loves to read. the fact that everyone is pointing out that these are negative is a subconcious addmitence to truer feelings. just because you flaunt around saying that I have made the old school list negative , is a way for you to pass blame of truer feeling ont someone else.

You might want to reread what you quoted...

no i did, im a mojority of the things described in fact the only big thing on there that i dont do is a billiard ball routine...