Tom,

Actually we're on the same page. I agree with you that it's the audience and repeat gigs that matter. I'm on board 100%.

I was just answering Lem's question that started the post. The question was "are we too clueless to know that we're clueless?"

I was offering an argument for "yes" and an argument for "no."

I think Lems post is one of the most thought provoking I have read here at the Café. Are we so clueless to know we are clueless? Genius!

I think their are clueless magicians and magicians who get it. Which brings on another question of How do you tell the difference?

Chad

Chad,

Good question. Thinking it through, it almost requires some better clarification as to what is meant by "clueless." Is clueless someone who does not understand an audience and what works for them? I think that's a decent definition.

If that's the definition then we will find two types of clueless: performers and hobbyist. If a hobbyist is clueless, that's probably cool. If a performer is clueless that's bad.

The real problem is when a performer is clueless, but he still has a decent audience that sort is courteous and "humors" him. That's the worst kind of clueless because he thinks that his audience loved him.

I'm reminded of the old cliche that if you are sane, you will constantly question your sanity, but if your are NOT sane, you always think that you are.

So applying that to magic: If you are constantly trying to improve, video tape yourself, get feedback and watch and learn from your audience then I would say that you are not clueless.

It's the guy who thinks his act is resolved and done and perfected who is clueless. Your thoughts?

Well said, and the most accurate description I have heard on this subject. I feel the two comics trying to win over an American comic in her own home state was a huge disadvantage for them. I feel the clueless assumption is so true in this case. As I watched the show I felt as if the two guys really did not understand an American audience very well. Clearly the girl comedian was able to relate to the audience on a different level. I truly feel demographics plays a huge roll in your performance. I also feel the other performers back stage, were A. Joking and trying to make up for picking on footie so much or B. thought his material was fresh and new where the other two recycled some bits in and out.
Great topic Lem.

Just for the record, there were several sets of votes/guesses by the non-performing comedians:

1.) Prior to vote for performers while playing pool, correctly identified contestants AND winner. By 2 comedians only.

2.) Prior to performances, by all non-performers.

3.) AFTER performances, by all comedians.

The only one I am concerned with is point 3, points 1 and 2 are guesses while 3 was made AFTER performances.

Thanks though, some might not remember or might be confused.

I'd love to put us all to the test, esp. those who think they have a good gauge of audience response.


So, for those who watch LCS
On Thursday night (or Friday morning), please post who you think the winners would be, in order. If you want to add additional information of who you liked personally, that is fine, but not what I am asking for. I am asking for who the American audience will vote for. We will all have the same information (the performance, audience response, etc.).

This will really make us put our money where our mouths are. If I had known that last week's was a vote, I'd have put it out a week earlier.

Seriously, I'm going to do it and I would love to see everybody else do it. This is not a "prediction", this is your evaluation of a comedic performance and gauging the overall response in a large audience (nationally distributed TV program). I can see several people using excuses, including the unprovable/un-disprovable "fixed" argument, so if that is all you are going to offer, please don't waste your, and our, time.

So, again, rank the performances as soon as you watch the episode. Let's actually see:
1.) How clueless we are
2.) Who is brave enough to see how clueless they are
3.) Who talks a lot of game yet doesn't put up when there is a real opportunity

I'm really excited. I think that many of us will be close but it is the misses that will be the most educational.

Finally, on a different aspect of this topic, did anybody else get the vibe from some of the posts of blaming the audience when your set doesn't go over well? I did, and it, literally, made me sick to my stomach. Maybe it wasn't meant that way but, seriously people, if only 10 people (example ONLY, don't try to be clever and put words into my mouth), if only 10 people liked/"got" the act, then, IMHO, you performed the wrong material in the wrong venue at the wrong time (any or all of the above). Period. If you performed the same set in the same place and it didn't go over well, I'd look at your performance being stale. Well, truth be told, IF it happened to me, I'd look at my performance, you can all do whatever you want.

I love your idea for this week's 'Last Comic Standing' and will try to remember to participate. I do, however, suspect that the above isn't the best use of the word 'literally' that you have ever made

Lol

For those that know me, it's in honor of a show called "How I Met Your Mother". In honor of that show because I got a chance to briefly chat with Neil Patrick Harris this weekend down in Comic-Con.

Aaaaah. I love that show but didn't spot the reference.

The only thing or few things I would say is:

It is very difficult to gage an audiences response because responses vary from audience to audience.

The idea of last comic standing doesn't appeal to me. It's a bit like the x factor. I think real art is not about compitition. So therefore another type of audience may respond differently.

Another thing is. Most comedy is created by the comedian as his view of life. In other words they please themselves first not the audience. If it clicks they become rich if not they starve I would imagine. I think its the same with the majority of mentalists and magicians. They perform or rate what they like. The latest trend or newest method and not what the audience will respond to.

Quite often their focus is to impress other mentalists. Perhaps something similar has happened here. And the more experienced comedians voted based upon their cultured taste around comedy. What they admired rather than a "last standing comic" audience. I can think of a few very successful comics who wouldn't dream of competing with others in such away. And they have thousands of loyal fans who sell out their shows. I expect these types of audiences would respond differently to the latter..

I know when I was performing full time audience reaction would vary from show to show. Sometimes dramatically so.

I think this is an example of where the viewing public pay no attention to the programme's instruction. ie: they didn't necessarily vote for the funniest - but rather who they liked, or sympathised with, or felt sorry for, or even were attracted to. Or even felt they were being picked on due to their gender in this situation.
I've won many talent contests simnply because I'm very good looking. Very masculine whilst carrying a certain softness, somehow appealing to both sexes. Although I would have probably won them anyway.

bobser

Lem,

I'm in...this should be a fun learning experience.

Nathan

This is probably true. In my own experience I am very shocked when I ask people to name their top three films of all times. I usually say, "You know, a film that even though you've seen it a hundred times you'll watch it again if it starts to play on TV."
Most of the times I do get some classic films or just really well-made films, but I can't count the number of times I'll get stuff like "Dude, Where's My Car?", "Legally Blonde", "Spice Girls", etc. So it's all about someone's taste. If you get one audience that is a "Dude, Where's My Car?" crowd then I wouldn't expect you to get great reactions when you do some heady mentalism routine and vice-versa.

Greg

Yeah, I'm actually pretty excited about this. Based on a couple PMs, I should be clear:

While I personally think there is probably a correlation somewhere in this discussion, it would be misleading for me to say that I think there is a definable relationship between success on gauging audience response to comics and entertainment ability. In other words, if we don't do well evaluating who will win the LCS competition, I don't necessarily think it reflects badly on us as performers. The comics who voted and got it wrong after that performance a couple weeks ago, for example, are all great performers, after all. This is more a gauge of where we are at in reading the audience.

Also, and this is was I was referring to earlier, it will be interesting to see who, among those who have already contributed to this thread, will NOT put themselves out there and offer up their evaluations. It may not actually be interesting in the end but it would be spectacular if there was some kind of relationship between what people said before this challenge and their response to the challenge.

I'll leave with one more thought, from another arena (so to speak). I've been a boxing fan all my life, as well as an MMA fan since its inception (I'm talking BEFORE the very first UFC, just so we establish I am no "Johnny Come Lately"). I took kickboxing in high school and toyed with brazilian jiu jitsu while I was at college (this is all background for the following statement): I am pretty well-educated when it comes to boxing and mma sports.

As anybody who watches the sports can attest, it is almost a certainty that, at the end of a long fight that seems destined to go to the decision, that the corners tell both boxers they have the match won. Even if one fighter has completely dominated the other fighter, MOST of the time, his corner will be telling him he has it in the bag. I always wondered why. I mean, if you know you are going to lose the decision, why not go all out those last couple rounds? Now, I know the answers people give, so don't bother thinking about it. The point is, once I knew people who were actually fighting in amateur fights, many times they really actually thought they were winning when they were losing. I'm not talking about "from this angle he is winning, from that he isn't", I am talking about getting completely dominated from "every angle".

Why do the corners still sometimes think they won? Most common answer I got was that their fighter stuck to his plan, constant jabs to tire/frustrate opponent, etc. This is how I think entertainers can run into the same altered sense of reality: "Oh, that little move went well, I hit all my cues and didn't forget any lines" is some people's view of success. Obviously, the big component missing from that phrase is the audience. Maybe you hit all your lines, but did you talk with the audience or "at" the audience. Did your lines make a connection?

So, this brings up the question again about criteria for success, doesn't it? The wrong criteria can make you think you are success when, in fact, you are not. For those of you who have it, and this just came to mind, check out the introduction to Paul Brook's Alchemical Tools. Pretty much the best example I thought of. Until the audience voted on who they liked better, one of the performers thought he had rocked the party, based on every criteria for success he had. He was, by the way, utterly and completely wrong, but never would have known it except for a vote.

How do you know???

Therefore success is just a label with which we put our individual meanings to.

Think about it fighters have to believe they are winning or they will automatically lose. A fight is not over till its over. One punch can win a boxing match and elminate everything that went before it. Also a boxer than knows hes being beat will be judged more easily as being so.

I think the main reason corners tell their fighters they have it in the bag regardless is because it keeps them in the fight with a chance. Belief is a strong force. Ive seen boxers come back from total defeat with one or two punches and win.

Fair enough, but is not forgetting your lines what success should be defined as? It's easy to wax poetical about what success means but what is YOUR criteria for success?

That's the question. I didn't ask for a definition of succes, I asked CRITERIA for success for each person. Here, I'll even cut to the chase, I've been trying to leave my personal feelings as to not influence but I think you'll find most people's criteria is mechanical. Did the trick go off without a hitch? Did I make all my canned jokes? Did people laugh or applaud after "X"?

I believe from the bottom of my heart, literally if you will, that at least 95% of answers, had I gotten them from a decent number of people, would have been of that sort.

As expected, however, despite asking repeatedly, people got hung up in answering questions they think they know the answers to. The whole boxing thing is a clear example. I don't need you to tell me why they do it, I know, I went through great pains to explain I have a pretty extensive background. I even said I knew the answers people give. Yet that NON-question is the only one answered. That is, of course, unless you really don't know how to tell whether your act was a success or not.

I'm not picking on anybody individually, but that "type" of answer is exactly that which 1.) does no good for anybody, 2.) avoids the hard question this whole thread is about, 3.) it ignores the fact of who is ahead on the cards, which is what the example was about (of course a single punch can change the match, that is ALWAYS the case and, as such, is pointless to "point out"), and 4.) is clearly based on non-firsthand knowledge. As I said, I actually ASKED people and they really thought they were winning. They really did. There wasn't an attempt to try to "trick" the athelete into winning. And THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT ANYWAY, the point was many of the actual corner people believe, when they are absolutely wrong.

So, I'll try this again: I used an example to try to show that people in every field have demonstrated a distinct disconnect between reality and their opinion. I think has to do with the criteria they set for success. I know it will be difficult for many to stay on topic, but I implore you to try. Don't let the easy answers to examples make you think you are contributing.

Of course, if you want to talk boxing, go for it, threads have gone down in flames in much more boring ways.

Now, again, just for the record, you gave an answer I really didn't want but, the Café being what it is, I did forsee it and tried to avert it, to no avail:

I most definitely do NOT want to get into the discussion of boxers, hence the whole:

I feel there is a difference in being successful and having a successful show.
So let me try and define this as to how I feel about success.
For me success is measured by how well I feel inside after doing a show, if I know I have related well to my audience and we formed a bond I then feel the show was a success. I have had shows where the effects were performed successfully and everything went well without any mess ups, and the show in my opinion was not very successful because the bond and connection with the audience was merely there and not fully as I like.
Your question is loaded and I do not feel there is a 100% sure fire answer to it. Each person will make the assumption of what success is and what it is not for them.

Louis Ramey
Jeff Dye
Iliza
Marcus
Jim

In that order.

I will watch it in a little bit and post my thoughts...

Nathan

1 - Iliza
2 - Jeff
3 - Marcus
4 - Louis
5 - Jim

I think the audience wants a lady this year...and vets don't fare well on this show...

Nathan