How would you rate magicians of the past with today's magicians? Is a comparison even possible? It's like asking who is a better home run hitter...Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds?

Vinny

I personally don't think that a comparison is possible. Present day magicians have the culmination of the past knowledge as well as the technology to present bigger and bigger effects. However, magicians from the past have their share of secrets that were taken to the grave. It is interesting to speculate about the past versus the present, but it will ultimately be a matter of opinion.

Anthony got it right with his answer.

There's a similar argument amongst musicians - is Hendrix as good as Joe Satriani etc. Bands like KISS are competent musicians but superlative entertainers, whilst Allan Holdsworth impresses the mind, but can't write a decent tune to save his life!

If we could see guys like Malini or Hofzinzer in their prime, we might be disappointed at their chops. Yet their skills with people are brilliant.

So what if today's magicians know 234 ways of palming a card. Malini knew one and entertained royalty. The underground guy knows 234 ways, but only impresses mom!

At the end of the day, it's whether we entertain the audience with quality magic!

The magicians may have changed.
But the audiences have changed more!
Does anyone really think that any audience today would sit and wait for two hours while someone got out of some form of restraint, as they did for Houdini?
Tommy Downs is known for coins today but he did mostly comedy; however, his patter was so timely (and, therefore, dated) that most of it doesn't even exist today! And today's audience would hoot anyone off the stage who tried to use it.
Plus the fact that closeup magic, as we know it today, was totally unknown 100 years ago.
It's truly a case of comparing apples and oranges!

Point taken. However, I think that the greats of yesteryear were great because they understood what the public wanted and they gave it to them. Therefore, I believe they would be just as successful today.

I agree with Scott . A magician of yesterday would be just as sucessful today, and maybe even more .I was very fortunate to see John Scarne, Bruce Elliot, Frank Garcia, and Dia Vernon. To the young people today, these greats are only names of the past. Without them we would not have the Ray Kosbys and Greg Wilsons, and the too many other young magicians to mention.........
vinny

Agreed. It has always been the great arrogance of the living that attempts to compare what cannot be compared.

If da Vinci had a PC, perhaps his output would have been more substantial? Hardly Leonardo's fault he was born in 1452!

There are only a certain number of magicians alive today. They are greatly outnumbered by dead magicians, and we can't meet any future magicians- so to answer the question, the past magicians are better. Sure there are some great ones today- a couple of whom are regulars on the Café- but the following magicians are dead: Vernon, Marlo, Houdini, Cardini, Slydini, Goshman, Houdin, Blackstone,etc., etc., etc.
The answer is easy really.

Rodney Massey writes: "there are only a certain number of magicians alive today. They are greatly outnumbered by dead magicians."

I don't think so.

There are more people alive today than the aggregate of all who have ever lived and are now dead.

Extrapolating, the same would apply to magicians. Therefore, there are more magicians alive today than have ever lived.

Yes, the answer is easy -- but not for the reason mentioned!

Peter, the key word here is Magician. Not hundreds of thousands of pesky pranksters down at the shop looking for "that one that David Blaine did on T.V."
This is a fun topic. I think that if most good magicians{including yourself} are asked, they will agree that more of the greats are deceased than living.

Rodney, right on. Point well taken.

vinny

Good point, Rodney.
And I just LOVE the phrase "pesky pranksters".
Yes, given that, you are probably right.

Hello Peter,

Please name them.

YES! I do. They waited two days to watch Blaine jump from a pole in a park. They waited three days to see him get out of a port-a-potty of ice. They waited a week to see him rise from his burial.

"If" they will watch has not changed. "What" they will watch and "how" they will watch it has changed. But don't go selling the old attention span short. No, No!

'Tis the intellect which requires greater stimulation. We are more "learned" in modern times. 'Tis the lazy artist who relies on quick, jarring, meaningless imagery to attract the intellect but, in the end, starve it of its desire...true, meaningful thought.

And as for comparing apples and oranges, it is time to put that fallacy to rest. For enlightenment and a touch of merriment visit:
http://www.inno-vet.com/articles/1999/0599/52.htm


Enjoy

No. For that, we must blame his parents; if only they had waited.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

Tom, you waited two days to see David Blaine jump off a tower. So how long would you have waited to see one of Houdini's escapes?
vinny

I did no such thing, Vinny. The audience there did.

Point being, the standing around was some sort of drama to those who came to watch...just like Houdini's two hours of escaping from a straightjacket. But the attention span has lengthened not shortened.

Randy wrote:

"If da Vinci had a PC, perhaps his output would have been more substantial? Hardly Leonardo's fault he was born in 1452!"

I doubt it - especially if he was wasting time on magic bulletin boards! But I appreciate the point you're making, lol.

Someone made a point early on that, while today's underground guys know hundreds of ways to palm a card, the past masters may have known but a few. I think you'll find today that the same is generally true. The great magicians who work for real audiences also tend to use a limited range of moves. At least that's my observation. It's the dilettantes who work primarily for magician audiences who master a myriad of moves to make up for performance material.

Nothing wrong with that - just saying that I think there would be more similarities than differences between today's top magicians and the masters of the past.

'GD'

PS. To the guy who posed the question "is Hendrix as good as Satriani": I think you have the names the wrong way around. In any case the answer is obvious: Hendrix was a pioneer, a genius and an innovative technician. Satriani is a flawless technician who had the fortune to stand on the shoulders of a giant - but his strength is his weakness - he's too clinical and thus his music just fails to speak to the masses...

Sorry to get off track here.

And if you find Satriani too clinical, give a listen sometime to Yngwie Malmsteem. Unbelievably brilliant playing -- almost completely unlistenable.

(we now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...)


TCR

Tom, I misread your post. I stand corrected. Point, there was only one Houdini. If the crowds waited several days for Blaine to perform his effect , how long do you think the crowd of today would have waited to see Houdini?
vinny