talkmagic.co.uk

johnnyryanUK wrote:For those out there that consider yourselves professional in our art, how long did it take you from beginning magic learning studying performing to actually saying do ya know what I'm good enough now to do this full time/part time.

I got my first magic book in 1978 when I was a child and studied and practiced various magic obsessively since then. I did my first professional gig in 2008. So I guess that's 30 years, but I'm generally quite slow at getting myself organised so maybe not such a good comparison. Also like a lot of people there was a space of nearly 8 years when I reached a certain age when I didn't do any magic due to sex and alcohol.

Tony,

I do agree with you on certain points, just not on others. My original comments and opinions were in general (as I have mentioned) and not aimed at any specific case. There are always exceptions to any rule and I'm sure in rare cases folk will be producing quality magic performances within 3 months. But my point is that this is far from the norm. More often than not the performance is not good enough.

Your point about amateurs being able to pick and choose when and where they perform is spot on. I think I actually mentioned this on one of my previous posts. This is a position I enjoy. I know only too well the feeling of having to perform when were not particularly in the mood.

Now, I'm not sure how I come across on here but I sincerely hope I don't give the impression of being superior to anyone - professional, amateur or novice. If I have appeared to be looking down on anyone I offer my apologies - this was not my intention at all.

Jim

Part-Timer wrote:I remember the Faking It episode where there got a science student up to scratch in four weeks.

And like so many who have dabbled in our art, that same postgrad physicist has left all of that behind and gone on to have a successful career as a pro magician, running the Edinburgh International Magic Festival, is currently in the middle of what looks to be a sell-out run at the Edinburgh Fringe (with The Colour Ham) and is now an AIMC. Well and truly bitten by the bug, and almost as soon as he got back to his desk at the university decided that he wanted to be a pro magician instead of a PhD.

(I have no desire to perform magic professionally but looking at Kevin's early days I can't help but think that even my incurable nerves could be conquered - an inspiration for any time I show anyone some magic.)

Moving back on topic - you certainly don't need to have the best technical skills to make it as a magician. If your skills are good enough (there will be some with good careers built on self-working tricks and those where a prop or gimmick does all of the magic), and can get yourself out of a hole if something goes wrong. If you approach the whole thing with a professional attitude, put on a good show for your spectators and give them what they want there's no reason you couldn't turn pro after a few months.

Note that my advice comes mainly from a musical background rather than a magical one - there are many parallels. I know my numerous limitations as an instrumentalist, but I approach any musical work I do with a professional attitude (whether paid or for charity) and give my audience what they want. I know that I am perfectly capable of playing what I do though I would never make it as a concert pianist. I also know how to make bum notes sound like a deliberately unusual harmony - an "out" if ever there was one!

Ian

Everyone should read everything Jim Ferguson says in this thread and take it in, he speaks a lot of sense

Jim, you did not appear to have any superior attitude on this thread. Some did, but not you. There is a sort of hobbiest who does very good work within the range they are happy to inhabit, and I respect that. I dabble in journalism as a hobby, but would never consider doing it full time again. I can match the work of the pros, but would never be tempted to try earning my living at it. So in a way I inhabit that zone, just not as a magician.

My issue is with those who feel that they must work obsessively on slights, learn an increasingly unnecessary number of tricks, have an encyclopedic knowledge, and bore the socks off people. We all know that magic is full of them. Particularly in the clubs.

I am not sure of this, but I suspect that if you were to poll pros - as opposed to semi-pros and talented amateurs who take the occasional gig - we would all have a similar story. The time between developing a serious interest in magic and turning pro is far shorter than you would expect. It is because of the attitude that is needed to be a pro. We say yes to all gigs, and actively seek them out. That accelerates the learning curve steeply.

I would agree with mostly everything TonyB has said. Magic is entertainment. If you are confident that you're ready to entertain, then you're ready to entertain. I set up my magic business nearly a year ago. I've been getting steady work and I'm reducing my hours in my full time job. I have a restaurant residency which I get regular bookings from. This confirms to me I'm good at what I do. People see me perform, take my business card, and go on to book me. I must be doing something right. I'm certain I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of magic, and there are way better sleight experts out there than me.

For me personally, I just got to a stage with my magic where I thought, 'I'm ready.' I've now hired a venue and I'm running a ticketed event, rather than being hired. If it goes well then I'll book more venues and hopefully at some point, I can make the full transition and quit my day job. It's certainly true that performing in the real world is a steep learning curve. The more you do it, the better at it you'll become.

In answer to the original question, there is no time limit. If you can entertain people, irrespective of your magical ability, then you're ready. After all, Tommy Cooper was a skilled magician, but he entertained millions by getting all the tricks wrong!! No-one ever seemed to care about that!!

K

kevmundo wrote: If you can entertain people, irrespective of your magical ability, then you're ready

See now this is what I cannot agree with. It is basically saying that the quality of the magic content isn't important as long as you can entertain. If this is the case then why bother with the magic at all ?

The word entertaining is ambiguous - what would you call entertainment in the context of a magic performance ?


Jim

kevmundo wrote:I've now hired a venue and I'm running a ticketed event, rather than being hired.

Wow, please please write this up for us after, the logistics side? It sounds scarey and fascinating!

Jim, as a pro all that counts is the quality of the entertainment. Tommy Cooper has already been cited. I remember sitting in the Magic Circle while a legendary British close-up worker performed for us. His technique was flawless, but I would have got as much value out of watching paint dry on a wall.

There is nothing wrong with good magic. In fact as magicians we should probably strive for it. But it is not the only part of the equation. As a pro the entertainment has to come first. After all, we need to be rebooked.

As to the question, why magic? We are entertainers. We need a hook to hang our entertainment on. It can be magic, but it could just as easily be comedy, hypnosis, circus. I have even met people who think they can entertain by singing. Some get paid very well for it. It doesn't matter what you do. It is a tool of your trade as an entertainer.

I have done straight acting, magic, stand-up, hypnotism, storytelling, puppetry and circus stuff. Magic just happens to be how I connect best with an audience. Nothing more. It has no intrinsic worth to me beyond that. And since it is how I make my living, I do try and do it well. Everyone who wants to succeed does try to ply their trade to the best of their ability.

Thank you for your reply.

I still think the sentence I quoted above is wrong. It is like saying as long as a group is entertaining it doesn't matter if their quality of music is pants - the entertainment is all that matters. I do not agree with the idea that if you can entertain, then that means you are ready for a career as a magician. By the same logic you could say that if you can entertain that means you are ready for a career as an actor, a musician or any other performance based profession.

The term "entertaining" means something different to everyone and when used on here can mean a multitude of things - more often than not comedy/gags are what's meant. I have opinions on this as well but that is not for this thread.

I do agree with some of the points raised on here, there are just some that I don't. I stand by every post I have written in this thread. I also realise that my views as an amateur differ from those of some pros - I am not relying on magic to feed my family, and if I were then perhaps my view would be different, I don't know.

I still don't agree with some of the statements though.


Jim

fiftytwo wrote:

kevmundo wrote:I've now hired a venue and I'm running a ticketed event, rather than being hired.

Wow, please please write this up for us after, the logistics side? It sounds scarey and fascinating!

Will do! Tickets should go on sale on Friday for a performance date of 29th September. I'll post any success or failure, warts and all!!

As for the other posts, I can see where Jim is coming from. I regard myself as an entertainer first and a magician second. The intrinsic value of any trick being in its entertainment. Or rather my performance of it. That said, I still practice like crazy and try to advance my magical knowledge a little bit more every day. I think the decision as to wether you're a pro magician or not probably rests solely with your audience. If they buy it, then you've sold it!


K

jim ferguson wrote: It is like saying as long as a group is entertaining it doesn't matter if their quality of music is pants - the entertainment is all that matters. I do not agree with the idea that if you can entertain, then that means you are ready for a career as a magician. By the same logic you could say that if you can entertain that means you are ready for a career as an actor, a musician or any other performance based profession.
Jim

Though you disagree with me, you have got my point completely. I believe that entertainment - and I don't just mean gags and comedy, I mean wonder, mystery, pathos, all the skills of a good entertainer - is of primary importance.

As in music - think of Boyzone, Westlife, Take That, Cheeky Girls, Spice Girls, Wham, all the X-Factor winners. Quite clearly the public value entertainment over technical ability.

That is the world of the pro - in every aspect of the entertainment industry. We are not always the best at what we do, but we can consistently (by that I mean always) make it entertaining, and we can master the business side of the equation. We are not artists, we are craftsmen.

TonyB wrote:As in music - think of Boyzone, Westlife, Take That, Cheeky Girls, Spice Girls, Wham, all the X-Factor winners. Quite clearly the public value entertainment over technical ability.

Which brings me back to "what is entertainment". What you said above is absolutely true, which makes me think that we were perhaps slightly different pages - thinking from the perspective of different styles.

I agree with the quote above but there is also another side to this - there are many very successful folk such as the Eagles, Eric Clapton, the Beatles and currently guys like Ed Shearan for whom the performance of the piece IS the entertainment. There are no fillers or add ons, the music speaks for its self. There might not be much of a "show" as such, but I'll bet their audiences come away feeling every bit as entertained as the Boyzone fans. We all have different tastes and there are clearly markets for both approaches.

The same is true in magic.

The groups you mentioned above would probably see themselves as entertainers first and foremost, the ones I mentioned would probably describe themselves as musicians.


Jim

Reading this thread what I get from it is that if you want to make enough money to have your primary source of income be performing magic the entertainment/rebookability aspect is more important than the "art" of magic. Whether that pleases the aesthetics of magi or not the general public see being entertained as more important than displays of excellence.
Have I got that right?
i.e. pro= making a living from magic
pro/= being an excellent technician (although one can be a pro an and excellent technician)

Being a professional magician doesn't necessarily mean you are any good at magic. It just means that you have figured out how to make a living at it which isn't quite the same thing. I have seen some pretty atrocious performers who make a living and in some cases a good one. It is certainly a very positive factor indeed to be actually very good at what you do but sadly it isn't always the case.

There are many reasons a performer is a busy professional and talent isn't necessarily one of them. For example the magician may be good at business, he may be working cheap, he may have important connections, he may be a very gregarious person who can make friends easily with the right people, he may be excellent at garnering publicity or he may be very good at selling himself on the phone. If he is talented then so much the better but alas there are many brilliant performers who are scratching a living and many mediocre ones who are doing well.

And of course a lot depends on the venue that you are working in. In some places you would not be considered entertaining in any way, shape or form but with exactly the same act in other places you would be considered wonderful.