The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Defining a "Good" Magician.... (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
Lee Darrow
View Profile
V.I.P.
Chicago, IL USA
3588 Posts

Profile of Lee Darrow
Quote:
On 2006-01-21 18:43, JackScratch wrote:
I guess that settles it then. I vote we elect Speilberg as president of both IBM and SAM as he is clearly the greatest magician in all of history. That would be using your definition, of course.


No, it would not be using my definition at all. Speilberg uses special effects in movies, not in live performances, which is not the same thing at all. He may be a great "movie magician" but not a good magician" in terms of a performance magician before a live audience in real time, which is part and parcel of my definition. Sorry, Mr. Scratch, but the definition has to fall into the category of performing before live audiences in real time, not on film.

Quote:
By the way Lee, I would have to say that the Masked Guy hod a bigger impact on public opinion of magic than DB, was he a great magician? Your perspective on this is realy simplistic. I don't feel like it does any justice to our industry. Not to mention the Machiavelian nature of it. Do the ends realy justify the means? Not to me they don't. If one of the rest of you elevates yourself to the status of Godhood, but magic is reduced to one effect for years, that doesn't help me any at all.

Again, you fail to note the words "for the good of magic" in my definition. The Masked Moron did nothing for the Good of Magic, whatsoever and, frankly, if you asked the average person on the street about him these days, you would get a bewildered stare for a moment while they searched their memories about who he was and what he did - if they even saw him at all.

While Blaine's later shows did, indeed reduce themselves to single effects that were not magic, his first special was more than "one effect" as you seem to indicate, and it was that special that caused all of the interest.

This is not a simplistic stance on my part at all. Blaine did something that no other magician since, arguably Houdini, did - aroused intense interest in the minds of the public in magic as a performance art, especially close up magic.

Not Sigfried and Roy, not Penn & Teller, not Doug Henning, not Lance Burton, nor any one else since him can say that. I am not particluarly a fan of Mr. Blaine's, I admit, but I cannot fail but to give him the applause he deserves for bringing magic to such a wide level of interest and awareness in the minds of the public.

And the uniform response that I have heard from the people who wtched his magic specials (not the stunt ones) has been "That's SO cool!"

If that's not good for magic, then what is?

You note that my view is "Machiavelian", yet your last comment: "If one of the rest of you elevates yourself to the status of Godhood, but magic is reduced to one effect for years, that doesn't help me any at all," seems far more so to me.

I hate to say it, but you can't have it both ways. Your view, as shown in your last statement, is far more "Machiavelian" than mine was by quite a bit - or should I say, relevatory of the self-serving focus of your point of view on the topic?

No flame intended, as you obviously feel passionately about this issue, but you DO state a very personal agenda with that last sentence.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!"
JackScratch
View Profile
Inner circle
2151 Posts

Profile of JackScratch
Machiaveli wrote "the ends justify the means". KRZ4kardz wrote "He also will resort to any method that will enable him to do his magic better, efficient and entertaining." That would be the Machiavellian attitude to which I refer.

Quote Lee Darrow
"No, it would not be using my definition at all. Speilberg uses special effects in movies, not in live performances, which is not the same thing at all. He may be a great "movie magician" but not a good magician" in terms of a PERFORMANCE magician before a live audience in real time, which is part and parcel of my definition. Sorry, Mr. Scratch, but the definition has to fall into the category of performing before live audiences in real time, not on film."End Quote

So you are saying that this giant mass of people who dearly love DB have all seen him live? Or are you trying to tell me that you've actualy seen his Balducci performed in his television show exactly as you would have seen it, had you been there at the time? If you are saying either of those then you are very very nieve'. If you are not saying that, then your arguement doesn't hold water. Be very careful, you are trying to mix my arguement with your belief. Had DB done his show and not used editing to create effects that he did not actualy perform, then by all means I would agree that he delivered a great blow for magic. That not being the case, I say he delivered a great blow TO magic. That goes for anyone else out there trying to pass off special effects as magic. Not to mention that after his first special, the only thing I heard about was DB's levitation, the one they didn't actualy see him do. That's the kind of crap I'm having a real problem with. The Balducci was not the only effect in his first show that took full advantage of editing, but it was, in my opinion, the most blatant.
stormchaser
View Profile
Regular user
Calgary, AB
200 Posts

Profile of stormchaser
A good magician is a memorable one. Sure, you can see incredible magicians, but if you've seen their effects before, you don't remember them. It's COMPLETELY in the presentation. When I was about six or seven, I saw about three magicians at a children's festival. One I don't remember at all. Another I remember for his spitting cards ending. The one I remember COMPLETELY? Bill Abbot. He levitated and animated a piece of cloth. He did acting "the wise fool" and folded a tiny piece of paper into a whole hat. He showed a wet piece of paper, then made it turn into streamers that shot right into the audience. You can buy that at magic shops for twenty bucks, bu the way he presented it was memorable.

Also, at the Magic and Illusion tour, the ones I remember are the unique ones. My second favourite(next to Murray Hatfield was Chipper Lowell. He didn't even do magic, he just did completely unique comedy. If you can dramatize Nickels to Dimes, you're a better magician than if you can completely emotionlessly make the sun burn out.
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice.

A magician is an actor playing the part of a magician.

Don't run when no-one's chasing you.
jack_is_dead
View Profile
Regular user
japan
173 Posts

Profile of jack_is_dead
There are always speculations over david blaine and his magic..he has done a great job and he has stirred hundreds of people to be interested in magic..probably he is the next best thing after Copperfield..i disagree of the verdict that he could be the best thing since houdini..just by attracting people into magic will not earn high credits for me..i care for the art and if it is true what people say about blaine that he never rose more than 3 inches in his real levitation footage and had it edited and done some funky stuff inside a studio, that doent impress me..if it is true that blaine sometimes use actors as audience and slide in into his specials to create impossibility illusion...hmmmmm...thats not so good..but again only if it is true..if none of them were true than I will be happy..anyway I still respect him and I think that there are many magicians hate him because they are jealous..well to admit the truth I am jealous of him..but camera editting for magic should be stopped..when everyone finds out and they always find out, it will be bad for the art..these are just my opinions and I really tried hard not to hurt anyones feeling..all put together I hate blaine..
one eyed man is the king in the blind land
kdb424
View Profile
Regular user
Pittsburg PA
120 Posts

Profile of kdb424
I personally think a good magician is tring there hardest, even if they mess up. That's my kind of magician! (me to sometimes)
Genghis
View Profile
Regular user
Derby UK
180 Posts

Profile of Genghis
I like David Blaine but can't forgive him for making such a big deal over his levitation. Now everyone knows the Balducci levitation is and I can't scare people with it any more!

:)
JackScratch
View Profile
Inner circle
2151 Posts

Profile of JackScratch
Don't blame Blaine for that Genghis, they haven't ever seen him do it.
Eirik
View Profile
Special user
Oslo
879 Posts

Profile of Eirik
Defenition of a good magician: David Williamson!
He's got it all: the skills, humour, persona, charm etc....

-e-
...As long as i`m not a world-champion at anything, the great reactions of doin` magic will do just fine.....
Lee Darrow
View Profile
V.I.P.
Chicago, IL USA
3588 Posts

Profile of Lee Darrow
Quote:
On 2006-01-22 21:48, JackScratch wrote:
Machiaveli wrote "the ends justify the means". KRZ4kardz wrote "He also will resort to any method that will enable him to do his magic better, efficient and entertaining." That would be the Machiavellian attitude to which I refer.

Quote Lee Darrow
"No, it would not be using my definition at all. Speilberg uses special effects in movies, not in live performances, which is not the same thing at all. He may be a great "movie magician" but not a good magician" in terms of a PERFORMANCE magician before a live audience in real time, which is part and parcel of my definition. Sorry, Mr. Scratch, but the definition has to fall into the category of performing before live audiences in real time, not on film."End Quote

So you are saying that this giant mass of people who dearly love DB have all seen him live? Or are you trying to tell me that you've actualy seen his Balducci performed in his television show exactly as you would have seen it, had you been there at the time? If you are saying either of those then you are very very nieve'. If you are not saying that, then your arguement doesn't hold water. Be very careful, you are trying to mix my arguement with your belief. Had DB done his show and not used editing to create effects that he did not actualy perform, then by all means I would agree that he delivered a great blow for magic. That not being the case, I say he delivered a great blow TO magic. That goes for anyone else out there trying to pass off special effects as magic. Not to mention that after his first special, the only thing I heard about was DB's levitation, the one they didn't actualy see him do. That's the kind of crap I'm having a real problem with. The Balducci was not the only effect in his first show that took full advantage of editing, but it was, in my opinion, the most blatant.


The fact that Blaine performs the majority OF his effects LIVE for REAL people on TV makes him a performing magician. Would you make the same argument regarding Copperfield's levitation outside the theater after his "Flying" special, because the same logic holds there? I doubt it.

One effect is not the acid test, but the bulk of the work done, which was live, in the hands close up magic of a very workable sort.

Splitting hairs is only for those who do hair tricks, my friend. Smile

The fact remains that Blaine, like him or not, has raised public interest in PERFORMANCE magic, especially close up magic, more than anyone, arguably, in modern history. For that, he deserves respect, at least.

The bottom line is what he did FOR magic in the eyes of the PUBLIC, which was to incite GREAT INTEREST and to elevate it from being viewed as simply something to entertain children to something that can seriously blow a person's mind, right on the street.

Prior to Blaine, magical street entertainers were viewed as something less than nice in many quarters. after Blaine, magical street entertainers are far better respected by audiences and it's one heck of a lot easier to book close up magic into corporate venues than it was, I assure you.

I'm living proof of that! And I was doing fairly well prior to his coming on the scene!

Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!"
JackScratch
View Profile
Inner circle
2151 Posts

Profile of JackScratch
All that is very nice, though I thought I made it perfectly clear that his Balducci was far from his only editing offence. As for Copperfield, hell, if he's guilty, lets string him up as well, though in your example I would site a few differences, not the least of which is, was the audience lead to believe that what they were seeing was a live performance at that moment? DB has used editing to create mentalism effects that are flat out impossible in the real world, by editing out the dirty work. That is wrong. That does not represent magic at all, it represent special effects. It represents movie makeing. If he could acomplish all the things you say, without using editing to do it, I would be right there with you, defending him, but he can't and he hasn't.
bobbyk
View Profile
Special user
Tennessee
698 Posts

Profile of bobbyk
A good magician to me is one that captures his or her audience and has them in the palm of their hand. One that leaves them talking, repeating the effects to neighbors and friends the next day. (the replay in their minds is usually better than the actual effect). A good/great magician can do the simplist of effects and get a wonderufl response because they have worked as hard on the presentation as they have on the effect.

I've seen many magicians who have mastered sleights beyond anything I could ever hope to do... but it's mechanical in performance and they often do not captivate their audience. On the other hand I've seen magicians who can take selfworking card tricks and make them look like miracles to their audience. The audience believes that performer to be a good magician. Who am I to argue with them?

Bobby
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Defining a "Good" Magician.... (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.17 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL