|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
RealityOne Loyal user 227 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Jan 19, 2016, Karen Climer wrote: I disagree with David Kaye on that point. The journey and destination can BOTH be important. Why not combine strong presentation with strong magic? Why not focus the presentation to build the effect, rather than having the effect merely be a vehicle for a lot of silliness? I also disagree with the presentation of the performer's character as being an inept buffoon (excessive use of magician in trouble, look don't see and hackneyed gags). Why not explore the magician as the hero, storyteller the genius, the wizzard, the Rennassence man or the scientist? Quote:
On Jan 19, 2016, noland wrote: I got the sense that Bill was objecting to your "just do it" advice (i.e. perform without properly preparing). Or at least that was my reaction to your initial post. I think the preparation of a show is necessary for success. I think there is a vast difference between "adult" parlor magic and "adult" close-up magic and "adult" card tricks (let's specify that by saying "adult" I mean magic for grown ups, not effects like the Baffling Bra and Sponge Ding Dong). Let's go in reverse order. Adult card tricks are very often what Eugene Burger calls "adventures of the props in the magician's hands." Let's just say that magicians typically are more interested in their card tricks than the spectators. ("The magician asked if I like card tricks, I said no. He then showed me three.") This is more prevalent in amateurs than professionals. As you shift to other close up magic, it tends to be more stunts, with the emphasis on the impossibility of what is being done with the props (think Paul Harris's essay on Astonishment in Art of Astonishment). When you shift to parlor effects, I think the presentation becomes more engaging. The effects are longer (cups & balls, linking rings, sponge balls, miser's dream, etc.) and you need to have a presentational hook ( a great example of this is Steinmeyer's Conjuring Anthology and his columns). I think that "adult" needs good presentation as much as children's magic. Good magic can answer the question, "why should I care?" However, it is more than Fitzke's theory that you have to dress up magic with music, scantilly clad dancing girls and spectacle (reading Fitzke I'm always reminded of the Sound of Music in that he thinks "a spoonful of sugar makes the magic go down...." ). In many ways, I think the inept buffon character is the application of Fitzke's theories to children's magic. "The magic isn't entertaining, so let's dress it up with silliness." Now I'll agree that in the five and younger crowd, magic isn't enough to hold their attention. That is part because of their limited attention span and part because of their world-view (you need to understand what is possible before you recognize something is impossible). For the others, I think that the focus should be on starting with strong magic and coming up with a strong presentation. My test is whether the magic would intrigue an adult and whether both the magic and presentation will intrigue a child.
~David
Any perception of reality is a selection of reality which results in a distortion of reality. |
|||||||||
|
noland Veteran user 350 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, RealityOne wrote: I'd like to clarify one point. When I said "just do it," I meant that the originator of this thread could find out for himself, quickly enough, whether his close-up magic material and style of performing works for kids by simply testing the material out in a performance for kids. If it bombs, as I believe it will before an audience of younger children, then he'll realize that he needs to start looking for a different style of performance, and material, if he's going to succeed as a kids' performer. I didn't mean to imply that kids' magic doesn't require preparation. All my kids' routines, including the silliest gags, are as carefully researched, structured and rehearsed as any of my adult material. It's just different material, because different rules apply when performing for kids. Strong magic will not carry a show for younger children until it's infused with strong children's comedy--it's the comedy that carries it. The "strong" magic aspect is incidental. As an adult, I don't enjoy watching whacky children's cartoons. Children's cartoons employ immature, infantile, exaggerated, over-the-top cartoonish characters and actions. Which is why they work for their targeted audience--kids. And that's why performers for younger children use many of the same exaggerated mannerisms and gags in constructing children's routines. |
|||||||||
|
RealityOne Loyal user 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, noland wrote: OK, then we are in agreement on the preparation piece. I also agree that after putting the time in to develop a show, the best way to see if you are good at or like performing for kids, is to perform. I also don't think we are too far apart on the rest of your post. In my opinion, strong magic by itself cannot cary an adult show or a kids show (unfortunately, a lot of professionals that perform for adults seem to disagree). There needs to be presentational hooks that bring the audience in. Comedy does work for kids -- maybe too well. In my opinion, kids performers need to look to other presentational hooks -- storytellling, interaction, familiarity, suspense, adventure, etc. One of the things I like to think about as an anology is the Disney movie Cars (or Toy Story). Adults and children both loved that movie. It had humor, funny characters with funny voices, a significant suspension of disbelief (cars can talk?) but also suspense, drama, a plot that kids can follow and meaning. Shouldn't childrens' magic be like that? For kids routines, I don't start with the prepackaged routine out of the box. I start with classics -- strong magic and THEN adapt the presentation to childrens shows. It sounds like you do something similar. To me strong magic and strong presentation are both equally important and comedy is only one aspect of strong presentation.
~David
Any perception of reality is a selection of reality which results in a distortion of reality. |
|||||||||
|
noland Veteran user 350 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, RealityOne wrote: I still disagree with you about the importance of "strong magic" when entertaining younger kids. Allow me to give a hypothetical example. Assume you're doing a routine that requires a handkerchief to disappear. Many children's magicians would probably use a change bag for the vanish. I consider a change bag vanish to be a very weak piece of magic. A change bag screams of magic prop, doesn't look "ordinary" by any stretch of the imagination and is bulky, making the resultant vanish unsurprising. A "strong" way to vanish the handkerchief would be to use a pull and perform a seemingly bare-handed vanish of the handkerchief. Using a change bag is easy and practical, using a pull requires skill and is less practical, presenting some angles issues and requiring wearing a jacket. I don't think it matters one whit to a younger child which vanish you use however--both will get the same reaction. (Not true for older children and adults--a bare-handed vanish of a handkerchief will surprise and impress this group much more than a change-bag vanish.) Another area of "strong magic" is classic manipulations (balls, coins, cards). If you were to pit Lance Burton, performing his FISM act for a group of 5-6 year olds, against Silly Billy doing his children's schtick, I predict Burton--who is incredible--would bomb and Silly Billy would sweep the field. |
|||||||||
|
RealityOne Loyal user 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, noland wrote: I see your point about using a pull not being necessary for younger children because a change bag will work just as well. I guess my perspective is if you can do he bare hand vanish, it would have the same effect on the children but also impress the adults. I'll also agree on manipulation routines, to me those are too often a demonstration of skill rather than an engaging presentation. That said, I'm working on Alan Wakeling's Billiard Ball Routine to do to music for my show and I think that can be engaging for all ages. I also think the difference in your example between Lance Burton and David Kaye is one of presentation more than magic. I suspect if you took Jeff McBride's Miser's Dream and put it up against David Kaye's coloring book, the result would be different. Each one would entertain the children in a different way. I happen to like Jeff's character (more accurately his persona) better -- even for entertaining children. I also see a difference between "kids" effects like Run Rabbit Run, Joker Tube, Hippity Hoppity Rabbits and Magic Coloring Book and adult effects like Cups and Balls, Linking Rings, Six Card Repeat and Miser's Dream. The kids effects work themselves both from a method perspective and a presentation perspective. The adult effects take more effort on both. To me, the effort is worth having a completely original show.
~David
Any perception of reality is a selection of reality which results in a distortion of reality. |
|||||||||
|
noland Veteran user 350 Posts
|
I think it's possible to take classics, and put a spin on them that's entertaining for younger children. But it's not the magic but the spin that makes them viable for children. You said you are working on Alan Wakeling's billiard balls. I don't know what age you're targeting. But if you want to do billiard balls for young children, a better routine, in my view, is Keith Fields' in his book "If Ever a Wiz There Was." He really gets it. For Linking Rings, I think Kimmo's is a good adaptation for kids, as is Christopher T. Magician's in his book "Beyond Look Don't See." I think McBride's Miser's Dream is weak for kids (except for the one lucky kid who gets to assist McBride). I prefer Jolly Roger's routine and especially that part of Chris Capehart's where all the kids participate by throwing imaginary coins in the bucket while Chris admonishes them to stop.
I do agree that there can be value in including strong magic in a routine when you feel a need to target adults in addition to pleasing the kids with the other aspects of the routine, as long as you don't get carried away and allow the strong magic to get in the way of the fun stuff aimed at the kids. |
|||||||||
|
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts
|
Hi Noland!
Nicely said! I definitely agree regarding Wakeling's ball routine. It's beautiful, but, I don't THINK it would get much response from the little ones!. I learned the hard way, when I was a late teen and early twenties guy. When I finally realized that John Booth's routine, though very practical, was not nearly as strong as the Perpetual Ball bit, and, Williston's visible penetration of ball through a silk, I dropped the "xxxing" balls, My routine is on my DVD. It plays for ALL AGES, but, is especially strong for the little ones. I've used it for 50 years. Karrell Fox gave me his 3 ring routine about 45 years ago. It plays for all ages, too. I pretty much agree with your comments on Jeff McBrides' MD. Jay Marshall and I watched Chris Capeheart's ring routine at Abbott's about 20 years ago, It was STRONG! (Jay, turned to me, with his mouth wide open!!!) Chris does a nice job with the MD (here comes the but:) but, I think that he over does the kids tossing the imaginary coins bit. --I definitely do not like having a coin dropping from the teddy bear's butt. I haven't seen Jolly Roger's MD. My MD is on my DVD. It closes the show!!! I needed to produce a show that would play to ALL AGES. Kindergarten through high school, plus college and adults. I was booked solid for almost 50 years,all over the U.S.A. Yes! Classics with a "spin". "IT AINT W H A T YA DO, IT'S H O W YA DO IT!" Much of what I do, I learned from TARBELL! I just updated the presentations (AND, the patter!) It's all STRONG, VISUAL MAGIC. I just PRESENT it to appeal to all ages. You don't need to wear a "funny suit". See Bill Hegbli's comment, above! An old clown told me when I was a teenager: "The suit and the props will help, BUT, you must be funny in here!" --and, he pointed to his heart.
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
|||||||||
|
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts
|
Quote: On Jan 24, 2016, Dick Oslund wrote:
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
|||||||||
|
The Great Zucchini Inner circle 1347 Posts
|
I agree with Noland 100 percent. Yes, if you are doing an 11 year old show, then strong magic is imperative, and the destination isn't as important. However, if you do that same routine for a 5 or 6 year, the routines, and silly stuff are imperative for the younger audience. I don't think it's even a debate at that point. Well, it depends what you're looking for- if you're ok with blank stares, which I believe you'll get, then do it, but if you want to create a following with that age group, then you need to make them laugh. Also, just because someone does silly stuff, doesn't make them a clown. Noland, for instance is one of the best technically sound magicians around, but he also knows the difference between talking to a 5 year old and 11 year old, and there is a mega difference.
|
|||||||||
|
The Great Zucchini Inner circle 1347 Posts
|
I meant the destination for an 11 year old is important, the journey is more important for little kids
|
|||||||||
|
RealityOne Loyal user 227 Posts
|
I agree that a lot of our differences are based on who we perform for. I don't do children ages 5 and below. My audiences are typically 6 and up and include older kids and adults.
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, noland wrote: I think the "spin" is what makes magic interesting for adults too. I've never been one just to rely on the "trick." Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, noland wrote: What I like about Wakeling's routine is the way the billiard balls switch places without the magician seemingly intending it as well as the method used to accomplish it. For one phase, the magician has two balls in his right hand, one appears in his left hand and the magician looks to see only one ball in his right hand. He replaces the ball from his left hand into his right hand and then a third ball appears in his left hand and he looks to his right hand and there are two balls still there. I don't like a lot of the preliminary work with two balls. I'll take a look at those other routines to see if I can add some elements. I've also got Levent's DVDs on the billiard balls and will be adding elements from other routines The ultimate sense that I'm going for is sort of Mickey Mouse's "Magician's Aprentice" where it is the balls that are magical and the magician needs to learn how to control them. Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, noland wrote: With Jeff's routine, I was imagining more of a parlor routine where all of the kids get involved. What I like about that is Jeff's character seems like what most kids think a magician should be like and that inspires awe and wonder as well as laughs without saying a word. That style inspired my selected card to nested boxes routine where a child selects a card, I tear off a corner (which suprisingly gets quite a reaction from the kids), return it to the deck and the child then makes the card disappear from the deck and appear in a set of nested boxes. The routine is set to music and I don't say a word. The last time I performed it for a bunch of seven year olds there was rapt attention and murmurs of "where did the card go?" "no way its in the boxes", etc. I currently use David Regal's Clink. I actually show four coins, vanish them, hand them to a child and have them throw them to me so I can catch them in a large glass. The coins visibly and audiablly appear in the glass. I talk about the power of imagination. It has humor built in -- as I hand the invisible coin to the child, I say things like "now keep your eye on it, you don't want to lose it" or "show it to your parents" or I flip the invisible coin in the air and ask them to call heads or tails." Also, one of the inviisible coins misses the glass and falls on the floor becoming visible. Quote:
On Jan 23, 2016, noland wrote: To me it equal parts strong magic and strong presentation. Most of my presentation has multiple layers designed to appeal to different ages -- I find the use of a Shakespearian aside to be especially entertaining for the adults.
~David
Any perception of reality is a selection of reality which results in a distortion of reality. |
|||||||||
|
RealityOne Loyal user 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 24, 2016, Dick Oslund wrote: Dick, great advice. I'll look into the routines you mentioned. Your book is on my list to pick up - I love the in the trenches stories.
~David
Any perception of reality is a selection of reality which results in a distortion of reality. |
|||||||||
|
RealityOne Loyal user 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 24, 2016, The Great Zucchini wrote: Zuke: Agreed. The presentation has to change depending on your audience. Where I may disagree is that silliness is the only way to reach older children, say 6 and up. I've held kids that age's attention with just a story. Silliness is one way of getting them engaged. I thik there are other. In my original post in this thread, I mentioned Dora the Exporer which was based on Howard Gardner's Theories of Multiple Intelligences which talks about how kids learn. That show was designed to tell a longer story (as opposed to the short skits on Sesame Street) linked together by the Map. The show has a specific structure that ties the various segments together. The show also engages the kids on different levels based on Gardner's different ways of learning. It has them stand up, jump up and down, count, say catch phrases and even say Spanish words. It also applies the look don't see principle. It gives the feel that the kids are part of the adventure. My sense is that it is those methods of engagement that make a show work. Your style, David Ginn's style and David Kaye's style use silliness as the vehicle to apply those methodologies. And WHAT YOU DO WORKS... very well. However, I think that you can apply the same mehtods of engagement using different characters like the storyteller, the wizard or the human version of Figment (think Disney World).
~David
Any perception of reality is a selection of reality which results in a distortion of reality. |
|||||||||
|
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts
|
Hi David!
Thanks for your kind words! (I was in those "trenches" for "awhile"! PM me if I can help. Dick
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
|||||||||
|
The Great Zucchini Inner circle 1347 Posts
|
Hey Reality One, I'm not sure if I read your post right, but I'm not saying silliness is the way to reach older children(the magic is important for the older kids), but it's important for the younger kids. I don't do storytelling for younger kids, but absolutely, I agree with you, that you can reach the younger ones with great stories. I can totally see that going over well.
|
|||||||||
|
RealityOne Loyal user 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 25, 2016, The Great Zucchini wrote: Zuke: We're on the same page. I was limiting my statement to the 6 and up crowd because I don't perform for the 5 and under crowd and really can't speak with experience for those kids. Sorry for the confusion. Silliness does work with the six and over crowd, but as you said, the older they get the more important the magic becomes.
~David
Any perception of reality is a selection of reality which results in a distortion of reality. |
|||||||||
danfreed Inner circle West Chester PA 1354 Posts
|
Kids around 3 and up definately appreciate and love impressive magic. Of course for younger kids impressive magic can be something very simple such as pulling a streamer out of their ear with a TT (and often simple stuff is just as good for older kids and adults). With kids about 7 or 8 and under there usually needs to be a lot of comedy and silliness for a really effective show that holds their attention well, but difinately mix in strong magic for any age group. It shouldn't be all silliness if you call yourself a magician. The older the kids are, the more strong magic you should add in, generally. You can do strong magic and comedy at the same time if you want, it doesn't have to alternate.
Dan Freed
AKA The Amazing Spaghetti https://www.magiciandanfreed.com/birthday-party-magician-for-kids http://thecaricatureartist.com http://danieljayfreed.com |
|||||||||
|
penitentialarts New user 7 Posts
|
Only perform for kids if you love kids, are patient, and can deal with having a certain amount of chaos going on during the show (babies crying, kids hopping up and down, etc.).
There are big differences between performing at schools, public libraries, and birthday parties. Birthday parties are the roughest, in a lot of ways. I would recommend driving around your region this summer and going to some public library performances (magic or otherwise). That will give you an idea of what to expect. |
|||||||||
|
ProfessorMagicJMG Loyal user 257 Posts
|
I only do kid shows. You've got to really love kids and in your mind see them as fully formed human beings, in other words, talk to them and treat them as you would an adult, just kinder and gentler and with simpler language, and don't talk down to them. Always be as curious and interested in the magic as you want them to be, and as surprised and happy when it happens as they are. Share their wonder.
Kid show magic is ususally self-working magic; don't bother with card tricks or much sleight of hand, except sponge balls or Miser's Dream type coin magic. My most successful shows feature the Magic Drawing Board; I get a bunch of colored markers and I draw the eyes and mouth and let just about every kid draw one part of the face in their favorite color, before the face starts to move. Buy the big one with the tongue that sticks out. First the eyes move, then it sticks out its tongue, then it talks back when you say "that's rude," and the kids go nuts. It's a strong show closer but I use it in the middle of the show and close with a rabbit production, Bigger Wands, or a Houdini chain escape. Kids make wonderful audiences. Do yourself a favor and take the plunge! Start with Birthday shows. You can use the Buddha papers trick to produce a card from confetti or scraps of paper using them. Cheap trick but great effect.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Clarke's 3rd Law
"Any sufficiently primitive technology can mystify a postmodern audience." - JMG's Corollary to Clarke's 3rd Law |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The little darlings » » To kid show, or not to kid show.... (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Posted: Jan 23, 2016 11:50 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.14 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 < 
|