To me being a little bit different than the others doing magic WAS and IS part of the goal. Because being different is part of what gets me booked. A point about being different. My Dad made a reputation with the canvas covered box.

He performed this effect since he subbed for Lee Grable doing a string of school shows. On this tour of shows Lee showed him how to do this effect. So he did it for about forty years. So when he did it was a miracle and it became his trademark effect for many years.

He retired it when the kids in the hood started to do the sub trunk. One year I counted up how many kids were doing the sub trunk in Chicago and it was 18. So we had 18 magicians in Chicago doing a trunk trick substitution all charging less than my Father did for his miracle. So my Dad retired the trunk.

To many magicians in the same place doing the same effects makes us all look like we are doing the same kind of a show. I think being different and original is a good thing in magic. Magicians starting out don't have to be original but if they want to make it in magic it helps to be different and original.

[quote]On 2005-06-29 13:39, Whit Haydn wrote:


Glenn:

I don't think you are saying anything that is much different from what I said in the beginning. I don't disagree with your point at all, but we are talking here about people performing for a living.

By the time you are able to make a living doing magic, I would at least hope that you have already mastered the basics of the craft and know how to perform.

But what you are talking about--the need to be different--is not the same as the need for originality.

Being the only magician in a performing area to do the linking rings could be good, it doesn't make you original.

Originality is absolutely required of those aspiring to be considered artists. But at this point, the performer has already subsumed the lessons of the masters, and has something new and different to add.

With respect - I thought entertainment was the goal.

When I wanted to start learning the cups and balls I liked the Dai Vernon routine but TO many magicians were using it. So I never sat down and learned the routine move for move and word for word.

I did learn some of the Jim Ryan routine but I did not like using the sponge balls so I used pom poms and used some of the Vernon routine moves to take up the slack. So how I came up with the routine that I do was I took a move here and a move there never really learning the complete routine of anyone.

Then I took all the moves I liked and put them together and did it in front of an audience and then asked them. What did you like. So by the audience reaction I cut it down until it became the routine I do.

I do that will all the routines I do.

In other words I have rarely learned a routine in the way of mimic or trying to do it as an exact copy of another performer. Being dyslexic if it is in print the most reading I have ever done on any routine was to skim read it.

So what most people talk about to learning a complete routine from the masters including the psychology of the routine - I have never done that. I also do not think that it is disrespectful to change routines - without learning the complete routine. Because that is what I have done since I was eight.

By the way the cups and balls routine was worked out by me when I was in high school just after I started to work in the magic shop in 1975. I wasn't a pro back then - but back then I thought I was.

But to each their own.

[quote]On 2005-07-03 19:33, bishthemagish wrote:


I think that doing that would have made you an even better magician.

Perhaps - but I feel one can look at things many ways. There is a psychology of the routine. But also one must apply it to the psychology of the audience. Like in the shell game routine I do.

One of the reasons that I do not have many people say that the pea is in my hand is that I prove it is under the shells for more than half the routine. And that my hands are empty.

Then later when I steal it out and it is under none of the shells. They don't say - its in the hand. To me that is applying psychology of the routine on an audience by staying one step ahead or two steps ahead in the audience thinking. Vernon does this with his cups and balls. Just watching Vernon do this on video is a real treat.

But I don't think I learned a lot of this kind of thinking until the I learned it from the audience through the performance of the effects. Because after I started performing I was able to really notice the way other magicians use psychology of a routine on an audience. This of course was at a very young age.

And this is why I feel that DOING shows is the most important education anyone can have if they want to be a magician. Because when they do shows original ideas and bits of business will just come to them. And I feel that the audiences that I have performed for have been my best magic teachers!

I read that coins seemed to melt away in John Ramsay's hands. Why, or more importantly how could this be? It took some time to realize that what melted was the perception and conviction that a coin was in his hand. This done in parallel to some gesture or conventional action to signal the vanish yields that remarkable perception in the mind of the audience. Okay, how did I learn this? I studied. I don't have stocky fingers or look anything like the guy, or move like the guy. What to do? Now we come to the problem of adapting the material to suit the performer on the most basic level. How then to know what must be kept intact and what may be altered? Such knowledge comes from learning the material as written. In the case of Ramsay's routines you can see where most who've altered the material may have also lost that magic he was known for. Clever is not the same as magical.

This is not to suggest that any routine is perfect as written or perfect for the inventor as written. That knowledge also comes from much reading, studying performing and then a good amount of experimenting.

I doubt many would care to do Olivier's Richard the Third, even though the singer of the Sex Pistols did a novel interpretation in his stage persona. Likewise I doubt Olivier ever took that character's mannerisms to the sage when performing a different character. Hamlet done as Oliviers's Richard? It helps to know the material and well enough have a feeling for what informs and moves a character's actions.

These are really words of wisdom!
One can't point out more strongly the truth of the above 'tip' of Glenn!

The only way to become a good and routined performer is by doing ones stuff in front of diff. audiences as often as possible and all the time.

That is what does give inspiration and does correct what's wrong and what plays!

Gregory Wilson f.ex. is one he** of an example re this!
He's as smooth and polished as anybody can get because of he's performing all the time..
Gazzo is another example..

One can't stand in front of a mirror and *learn*..one has to have a 'responce', diff. responces, from diff. pll whilst performing and one has to watch their reaction as much as they watch ones performance..

Watching them and talking to them/interacting with them, ALSO automatically makes ones performance more interesting for THEM, as well as one gets used to how they react and in what way they react at certain stages and so one also learns how to throw back lines/answers/questions.
Many of the best lines often came from a member of the audience..

I recall, way back in around 1958 or so, I asked a spec in a restaurant to *Think of a card, any card at all* and he said:
*What about the menucard?*.

I used that line for quite some time afterwards..
*Think of a card, any card at all* and when talking to a rather voluminous guy, I added :
*NOT the menucard please*..
This actually always gave a good laugh...
This might not fit in the States, but here in Europe, a *Menu* is called a *menucard*

Anyway, what Glenn mentioned IS the way to become a better and more smooth performer, the only way!

Glenn also had the wonderful luck of growing up around great magicians. For someone like me, I need to start somewhere, and do not have a built in mentoring system. Werner is right though, you learn through experience. We learn through feedback, but it has to be a feedback loop. In other words, I have to receive the feedback and use that feedback to enhance my performance. If I receive feedback that is not to my liking, there is no guarantee that it will lead to better performances if I have no base of what constitutes a classic routine. And knowing a classic routine intellectually is not the same as being able to perform that routine perfectly under performance conditions. I might just study the classic routine in a book and then make my own changes and see what happens in the real world. If it doesn't lead to what I want, I can muck around with it some more and reread the book. Or I can study the classic routine, learn to perform it perfectly as written in front of spectators. If something goes wrong, I can compare what I am doing with the classic, and make changes to make mine closer to the original. It helps of course to pick routines that are closer to my abilities and style of performing.

Feedback from your spectators is ALWAYS the *right* feedback, but of course it's not a single feedback that is representative..therefor I mentioned *diff. ppl * and *diff. performances*..

The feedback is always right, true, but that does not guarantee I will use the feedback properly. If I finish a cups routine and someone says that they were confused, I need to know that, but it does not follow that I will be able to fix the problem. Plus there is the problem of habit. If I develop my own routine and include 20 moves that make no sense, rehearse it to death, and then find it does not work, it may be hard to overcome that habit. I would rather be in the habit of doing things right, which come from the close study and practice of routines that are classic.

That is true in a way but the fact is that I grew up in a family of six kids that also grew up around the same people. We all did magic.

But the difference was between me and the rest of my family was that I got out there and worked and did shows. None of them ever gave me any formal education in magic. What I did was sit and listened when they talked. I also learned by watching them work and how they would handle a crowd or an audience. Not to copy their effects or their act.

And when I got older and started I was good enough to swap magic and session with some of them. But I started booking my own birthday party shows when I was eight years old and I have not stopped booking since.

My Dad saw me do two shows in his life.

Anne Gwynne saw me do 8 shows.

My Mom 9 but that wasn't until two years ago.

If someone sits down and learns the Vernon routine of the cups and balls and then they work on it for months. Then they decide that they will do it in a show for the first time. It will take them many, many, many performances until that routine will set in and become part of them.

And most likely it will change over time if performed because that is what happens.

So it doesn't matter if it is a routine by the masters, your own routine, or parts of many routines. The performance will change them and that is part of the education in magic that is really lacking in the magic world in both young and the older magicians.

And I did not learn that because my dad was a magician because we did not talk that much magic - I learned that because I do shows - lots of shows.

A tip on using audience feedback. Find small effects that depend entirely upon the item you want to test. Do those effects when you can as setpieces and ASK for feedback. Most people are helpful when you engage them in the process.

After you have the item working properly, you can put it into routine context and move forward with your studies.

I think there are a couple of ideas being tossed around here that are being treated as the same one.

First off, Mr. Haydn speaks of magic clubs and conventions being the ones to speak the most about originality. That is interesting to me, having somehow formed the conception that such groups were the areas in which the most outright copying was done. I cannot argue the point, however, never having been around them, myself.

It is important to remember that there is a very large distinction between those that decide to be original, and so learn nothing that has gone before, and those that are truly original. The former group will often be re-inventing things, and has little foundation for creation. In order to truly become an original Artist, one must certainly be well versed in what has gone before.

It is wrong to assume, however, that because someone speaks of originality, they are supporting and unhealthy approach to the Art.

As far as exactly copying to the gesture and word a routine of a master when starting out, well, I did my share of that, and I think it was helpful, but quickly a number of problems surfaced. Especially before one is working professional gigs, it is extremely hard to be 'natural', or work in a conversational manner if your routines are honed perfectly to someone else's personality, and that personality is a different one everytime you do something different. The Vernon books, I beleive, often speak of magicians getting 'caught' in casual situations because people that know them can immediately tell that they are acting unusually.

What I'm saying is that I believe it a decent idea to start by copying, as one does in every other Art, but it can be dangerous if left unchecked for too long, because as Jonathan says on the last page, it seems that we have little choice but to make some nearly automatic adjustments. It seems the nature of the Art.

As long as one can keep perspective however, there is no danger in almost any approach. It is valuable to try many, many different things. Many people seem to lose perspective, though.

It seems that most here though are probably beyond the beginner phase where one would want to be copying everything, though, perhaps if they’ve never done it they should at least once, as discussed.

There are many distinctions, however…I can see how a professional doing adapted, partially original, or original material might purchase a routine and script as are being sold in some places today, and perform the thing as written…like many even famous bands may do with things from songwriters, old songs, etc.

I guess what I’m driving at here is that while certainly there is a necessity and usefulness to copying in Art, my impression has been that it is being overdone in Magic. I haven’t seen enough magicians live to say that for with one hundred percent accuracy, but I do believe that there is a public perception that one magician is interchangeable for another. I actually feel the Mr. Haydn has some wonderful insight on how we as magicians need to form public perceptions of magicians, and it is likely that most of the public has never seen a magician perform at all. However, in the absence of a live performance to base it on, there seems to be something of a stereotype out there, or at least I often hear magicians complaining about this idea. A ‘name’ magician recently told me that I had an attitude that sounded like someone headed to the ‘bottom of the ladder’, because I feel that my main competition comes from other Art forms. This fellow seemed to feel that I should be selling to people who want magicians, and taking fairly drastic steps to make sure other magicians didn’t take my job…seemingly based on the idea that in the bosses eyes, ‘we’ are much alike.

I have my reasons for fearing little from the body of other Magicians, and they run far deeper than simple youthful insolence.

It is difficult I think, to run a broad brush over any Art form. I have a hard time feeling that listening to French opera on the headphones watching a sunrise, having my hairs prickle to Samba Para Ti at a Santana concert, letting Dido fill out the background while making love, dancing to some new-age-and-yet-disco-like thing while clubbing, and sitting down and playing the Moonlight Sonata on the Piano are all in fact the same basic experience. And yet, I suppose, it can all be called music.

In my opinion Magic is even more of a personal and personalized form of expression. It draws very heavily on our natural body language, and on our powers of conversation, and less tangible (to most people) social mechanics. I do not think it too far of a stretch to attempt to create an experience for people that they cannot quite compare to anything they’ve ever been a part of before. This does not by default mean that it is profound, grand, weighty, or particularly important…those things take time and delicacy, as well as deliberation...but to me unique seems like something within all our grasps, and it is memorable. Of course some forms of uniqueness, as mentioned above, cause bad memories. Instead of remedying this with the work of others, I suggest these people find something into which they may pour a sense of self.

Just this past Saturday night, I was rather forcefully introduced (it seems my employers were excited to finally utilize my English) to some nondescript fellows from the U.S. embassy, their native chief of security, and a few assorted family members. The wife of the main American told me that they’d been in Vegas several times and ‘seen it all’ before I began. Nonetheless, things seemed to go very well, and (by request), I returned to them several times. The main fellow’s mother happened to be turning eighty years old that evening, and at the end of the night, she surprised me by being the most lucid member of the entire party. Of their compliments, hers was the one I enjoyed most, shaking her head several times, she said simply, “thank you. I-I’ve never seen anything quite like this in my whole life.”

Copying may be the beginning of something…but for me the above is the beginning of something else, something which I seek to create for people…magic?

Apologies in advance for the indignation caused by arrogance, general statements, personal anecdote, and unseemly focus on everyone’s collective self. .

This line really cracks me up. When I was little my parents were gone all the time. When I was older I lugged his canvas covered box all over three states. I get this from time to time - duh your good because your Dad was a magician and duh he showed you everything.

Here is where to start. Buy books, buy DVD's, Go to lectures, Meet other magicians and session. Watch other magicians not to learn their effects but to learn how they handle an audience. Remember the words of John Ramsay. If the magician is good you will be glad you saw them. If he is bad you will be pleased with yourself.

And the most important part - DO SHOWS! LOTS OF SHOWS!

If I had a mentoring system it was THE AUDIENCE! AT THE SHOWS I DID!

Whit's comments brought back memories of my mentor.

He was a stickler for the fundamentals, the basics. He would show me a routine and have me work on it. I remember once I changed the a sponge ball routine and with great pride showed it to him. He slapped the sponge balls from my hand and asked me if I would rewirte Jules Vern, (I was not sure where it was going yet, but I was smart enough to answer "no"), Would you repaint the Mona Lisa, would you change the "Nutcracker"? No, no, no,

Then why do you think you can change this sponge ball routine? You first must understand how and why it works. Perfect the moves, script, and gestures. Then later you can develop your own routines. First practice with your audience routines that are proven.

That was a lesson that stuck with me for many years.

I was in Europe about 5 years ago chatting with a FISM winner. He told me he had three mentors that developed his entire routine. He said his imput to the routine was about 5%. It was a lesson he was still very happy to have. He said he learned so much by keeping his mouth shut and his mind open.

Many people develope their own material for purly ego reasons and has nothing to do with making it a better product.

D

Well, Glenn, I am glad I crack you up; I did not mean too. I was only saying that it might be easier to be creative and original if you are developing ideas with a lot of professionals around to guide you. If they did not guide you, then at the least you got to watch them live a lot of the time. That is something to be proud of. If you learned all of it on your own, then that says something very nice about you.

I didn’t have this. I did not and do not currently have access to top-level pros to help me develop routines, or even for me to watch perform real magic shows. I have lots of books and DVDs and I study them. But, Glenn, don't worry about me. I am just a 44-year-old teacher who dabbles in magic. Under the best of circumstances, I will never be able to perform as much as I would like. Magic will never be my major source of income, since it will be impossible for me to match my current income and benefits.

Whit is talking about how new magicians ought to learn those routines that they will eventually use as a basis for a professional act. He is merely saying new magicians should start with the classics, or at least start with great routines, and learn and perform them well, exactly as written, if possible. I think he is right. This is perfect for someone like me and for most magicians. In any case, he is not talking about long time professionals or those who strive for artistic integrity or something. And there are always exceptions to the rules, of course. But people don't have to take his advice so personally. Just because he suggests a different path then some have taken, is not a critique. If you are happy, then don't worry about it. Definitely, don't worry about me.

What I am saying that there were some professionals around once in a great while. But they were never there to see me.

One of the great stories that Ed Marlo said on a video is about a Slydini student that came to him to learn something at a convention. Marlo showed him the move he wanted to learn and the guy said he was taking lessons from Slydini. And asked Marlo if he wanted to see some magic.

Marlo said yes and suddenly this guy turned into Slydini. Mannerisms, accent an exact copy word for word he mimicked Slydini's every move - every glance etc. Then when he was done he became himself and then asked in his weak little voice. - Did you like it?

Marlo laughed about this for years and even talked about this on a video.

One of the reason Slydini's magic was so strong for Slydini was because his magic included his own personality. He took his magic almost to a spiritual art form. So when people took lessons many had to BECOME Slydini in order to do it. And I have seen this happen to a lot of Slydini students.

Now if people in magic want to do this as mimic or a tribute to the masters. Fine. Rock on and see how much success this will get you as a performer of magic. Because if they just mimic and don't put themselves into the routines and invest the time to work in their own movements, body language, mannerisms etc - like Slydini did. Then they most likely will not be a successful performer - unless their goal is to mimic the one that they chose to copy!

The most important part of any performance is NOT THE MAGIC.

It IS the performer.

It is the YOU that IS the most original and different thing that YOU can show an audience. The effects are just the excuse I use to get up in front of people and entertain them!

THE MAGIC IS IN THE MAGICIAN and the EFFECT OF MAGIC is experienced by the AUDIENCE!

I will let someone who knows more about Slydini's teaching method comment. I also don't know whom this person is that Marlo laughed about for years after. I do not know if he was a beginner, or near beginner. I had heard that this was part of Slydini's teaching method, at least at the beginning. If I were in the phase of my learning where I was mimicking someone else as part of my education, first of all, I would not show my routine to someone else not part of the program, and two, I would not perform professionally.

It is a little hard to be judged by someone of Marlo's stature. But Marlo finding humor in this magician’s choice of learning has no bearing on Mr. Haydn's argument. The question is, what is the best path for a magician not filled with artistic creativity to take and who still wants to be a competent, local, professional magician?

If someone does mimic someone and does a great job, who cares? The spectator won't. The spec doesn’t know Slydini. I am not suggesting that a person use a foreign accent professionally, but why do people assume that a magician is automatically better doing his own stuff than someone else’s or using his own style as opposed to someone else’s? Beginners rarely have their own style. Some more creative ones may quickly develop their own style quicker than others, but still it is usually after close observation of other’s work. Some hold a mythical idea that the audience will only appreciate you if you are original and will see you as fake if you do someone else's routines. But, just being you is not necessarily entertaining.

But this argument is running to ground. I think mimicry is playing too large a part in it anyway. Mimicry is at best an early learning tool, not something a professional should strive for; certainly not a long time pro should strive for. Also true mimicry is hard, and should be avoided as much as possible unless you have a teacher to guide you. I too would find it annoying if someone with little natural comedy skill started mimicking Bill Malone after watching one of his DVDs once or twice. But it would be annoying, to me, not because it was a copy of Malone, but because the performance might well be done badly. My problem is not with too many Triumphs being done exactly like Vernon, but too many done poorly, pretending to be like Vernon.

Find the magic that you want to do and learn it. Don't be THEM be YOU when performing it.

Don't do their mannerisms, lines, gags etc. Do YOUR mannerisms and develop YOUR lines and gags by doing shows lots of shows.

Because this is the only way that the their routines and ideas can become YOUR routines and that IS from the education and bits of business that you will get through YOUR LIVE performance of any performing material. NO MATTER HOW YOU LEARNED IT. Through mimic OR through your OWN INVENTION!

Do shows lots and lots of shows.

I am just a 48 year old magician and a stage hypnotist. That has had between 20 to 30 years of performing shows for audiences of all kinds and in all sorts of venues.

This includes 87 different restaurants and night clubs. Fairs and festivals. Block parties, birthday parties, circus, TV etc.

All booked and promoted by me...

Basically, I have an act (more than one) and my own success. I’m there! And what I give to the Café are some points of - how I got there. Use them or don't.

What I don't buy into in this thread is any excuse or justification used to perform someone else’s work - to carbon copy someone else and then do it at a show!