Just a few more ramblings. There is no doubt age grouping has a lot to do with likes and dislikes of entertainers.

As a youngster, I found my parents preferred Sinatra and Glen Miller to the Beatles and The Rolling Stones.

With Blaine, older magicians were not so impressed because trick wise they were mostly seeing tricks they had performed themselves, but done in a monotone manner, with the exception of obviously stooged effects. Younger magicians were impressed because they were seeing these old effects for the first and seeing how effective they could be.

Close up magic IS strong magic, and credit to Blaine, he saw a new way of making money from it and brought close up magic to a new audience of TV viewers who saw an alternative to the glitzy overkill of most televised magic acts. Forget all the delays and dancing girls, just the magic. Good luck to him.

Often we are blinded into seeing success purely in a financial sense, but in reality one can have millions in the bank and still be unhappy.

We had a series on Brit TV recently about stars behaving badly, showing how money and success had turned some well known names into power mad morons.

I'd rather be happy and liked by people. And being liked by people is an essential part of being a good close up magician. As magicians we generally have to be liked by a wider age range than most singers target.

Peter, if you were performing the same night as the strippers, I'd come and see you. But I'd hope the strippers were retained for a second night lol.

Paul Hallas.

Thanks, Paul. At least SOMEBODY understands what I'm getting at!
And I'll try to hold the strippers over for a second night!
(BTW, Beverley Sills is (was? retired?) the leading female operatic singer of her day.)
cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com

No, Peter. You can emulate whomever you like. I'm just taking issue with your initial statement, which seems to be saying that Blaine is not successful, when, in fact, he obviously is. That has nothing to do with whether you or I like him. He is a successful magician, by any measure except that you don't like him. I personally couldn't stand Doug Henning, but I'm, not about to say he wasn't a successful magician.

And don't drag Miss Cleo (or Hitler, for that matter), into to this. Those kinds of absurd comparisons do little to further your argument.

Jim
( That all sounds a little meaner than I intend it to. Keep in mind that I'm smiling as I type this. )

Jim, I'm a bit confused here.
Re-reading my initial post, nowhere do I imply that Blaine is not popular or successful.
He has, in fact, a big following.
(But, then, so did that other guy that you won't let me name! )
Yak's original question was "what make a good closeup magician?"
Blaine may be popular and make a lot of money and be on television; but, TO MY MIND, he is neither a closeup magician nor a good magician.
That's my opinion! Not a carved-in-stone fact, which is why I have my name at the bottom.
But, judging from other comments, I'm not alone in my view.
(And I'm smiling, too, as I write this!)

cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com

Now we're getting down to brass tacks (whatever the heck that means ). What constitutes a good magician? If it is how well he goes over with the general public, then I'd have to say Blaine qualifies on that account. If it's how well he goes over with other magicians, well, that's another story. Personally, if I have to choose between the two, I'll take the former.

If what makes a good magician is merely a matter of personal opinion, then why discuss it? Of course, if it is whether or not Peter Marucci likes someone, then I'm doomed.

It is tempting to say that it is a matter of technical proficiency, but I don't think that is accurate either. I know guys who are technical masters, but lousy performers. Peter, it sounds like to me you are saying that you don't consider Blaine a good magician because of his technical skill (which is, admitedly, not earth-shattering). He certainly gets good reactions from his audience so we can't fault his showmanship, as non-existant as it may seem to us old fogies.

So. What constitutes a good magician?

Jim

The question was NOT "What makes a good magican?" Rather it WAS "What makes a good CLOSE UP MAGICIAN?" There is a difference!

What Blaine did, successful or not, was NOT street magic (another topic entirely), nor was it, technically, close up magic, any more than what Copperfield does with his huge illusions is close up, just because the camera comes in "tight."

Blaine did a television special, where, although there were spectators (many of whom were stooges), he was performing for millions on tape delay. Possibly (make that probably) with multiple takes so that we couldn't see the screw-ups, with special camera effects that couldn't be duplicated in real-life, and with audiences who were often part of the performance, and not real audiences at all. If the question were, "What makes a successful TV magic special?" Well, then I'd have to agree that Blaine's would most certainly qualify.

REAL close up magic is done LIVE, in ONE TAKE for REAL audiences who are not "in on" the effects. At least where I live, most laymen I've talked to HATED Blaine's style and said they would probably punch him out if he approached them in such a manner. Further, many were convinced that he used camera tricks, and felt he was a fraud, trying to claim real powers for what were obviously magic tricks (these were their opinions--I did not give them mine, as I make it a point to try not to say anything disparaging about other magicians to the public). However, they did, in fact, watch the show, which means that it WAS in fact successful--as a TV special, but NOT as close up magic.

Let's get back on topic. Instaed of making this a "Is Blaine good or bad?" let's talk about what makes a "GOOD CLOSE UP magician."

I've already stated my opinions on this topic in earlier posts, but let me add one more thing here. Most (not all) of the folks who disagree with the statements that entertainment and likeability aren't essential tend to be of the very flourishy, arrogant, "Look what I can do, and you're not smart enough to figure it out" personality type. Someof these people are very skilled. I would say that they are excellent technicians, but poor magicians.

There are others who go to the other extreme, saying, "I just entertain them," whose magic skills and technique are atrocious. I would say that those folks may be good entertainers, but they are poor magicians.

In a nutshell, I'd say that your magic must be strong, and you muat be entertaining and likeable to be a good close up magician. What would you say?

No arguments there, Scott.

Jim

yeah that just about sums it up for me too Scot.
phillip

Sounds good, Scott. Through all of this I think we can deduce that the major point of difference is what exactly we find to be entertaining or likeable. It obviously varies.

I think it's its own topic and is obviously not adding to this one. So since I believe it was me who swung us in this direction, I'll post a new topic.

Platt

A good magician is one that can elicit a solid, positive response from almost any and every audience.
Not just the ones that make it out of the editing booth and onto TV.

I, too, know many guys who are technically brilliant and yet can't entertain anyone; they would not be classed as good magicians although they probably would be classed as brilliant magic innovators.

Until Blaine can show that he can handle almost any audience under almost any conditions, then he is just a TV-manufactured doer-of-tricks.
And that's all, despite his following.

As someone else said, the reason Blaine has such a big following among young magicians and not among old magicians is that what he does is new to the young but old hat to the older magicians. They've seen it done before and done much better.

Same with the audiences that Blaine plays to; when they have seen a dozen or more magicians, then see if they still think Blaine is great.

For example, if you've never seen a live play before, the first one you see will probably blow you away -- whether it be good or bad.
Same with magicians -- if you've never seen one before, you will rank the first one you see as the best.

However, when you have been exposed to more plays/magicians, you become more discerning.
What constitutes a good magician?
I probably can't tell you.
What constitutes a bad magician?
I think I just told you.
cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com

I think Scott was trying to steer us away from the Blaine question and back to the topic at hand, which is, "What makes a good CLOSE-UP magician." I think we can agree that Blaine is not a CLOSE-UP magician. As for him not appealing to older magicians, I like him, and I'm 52. I grew up watching the likes of Channing Pollock, Cardini, Slydini, and Don Alan on TV, so there goes that theory.

In other words (and this does get back to the issue of what makes a good CLOSE-UP magician), different strokes for different folks. Some folks like Celine Dion, some folks like The Ramones (guess which one I am )

This leads me to a point that is definitely germane to the subject at hand, which is that how well a close-up magician is received can depend on whom he's performing for (of course, this is true for all magicians, but I'm trying to keep things on keel here ). A good close-up magician needs to be aware of his audience members, and attuned to their moods. In this respect, the close-up magician has a slight advantage over a stage magician because he's right there with them. They are not dark bumps beyond the footlights.

So, does a good close-up magician modify his act according to the audience, or does he avoid situations where he knows the audience won't be enthusiastic to his particular performance style? I'd say a little of the former and a lot of the latter.

Jim

Aw, c'mon Jim, lemme have one last shot!

You write: "As for (Blaine) not appealing to older magicians, I like him, and I'm 52. I grew up watching the likes of Channing Pollock, Cardini, Slydini, and Don Alan on TV, so there goes that theory."

Well, not really. I'm 62, and also grew up watching the likes of Pollock, Cardini, etc. And Tony Slydini was a second cousin of mine. And I STILL don't like Blaine.

But you are absolutely right about:
a) we seemed to have drifted off topic.

b) a good closeup magician has to be able to read his audience. That may be the most important part of his job, since he is dealing with individual personalities (rather than a stage magician, who deals with a group personality).

And I agree 100 per cent with your last paragraph:
If you can't get into it, get out of it.


cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com

A lot of wisdom in your closing remarks there Jim. I hope everyone doesn't pass them over because you like Celine Dion.

I have to say that, if I understand Jim’s last Paragraph correctly, I disagree with it.
If I have misunderstood, my apologies.

If you pick and choose the tables you approach, you will miss a lot of great audiences. Also, If for instance you miss out tables with groups of youths on it this week, and then have a bad experience with a table of football fans so miss them out in future, eventually you will end up approaching no one.

I firmly believe that in restaurant work etc, Approach every table, every group. Obviously this should be at a suitable time, not during arguments etc, but definitely never miss one just because it doesn't look like your kind of audience. For instance, a lot of very shy people come across initially as negative or disinterested, whereas inside they would love to be approached and will love what you do.

If you approach every table at the right time, occasionally it will very soon be obvious that your services aren't required, it's very easy to gracefully leave in that case. However, many more times you will find that a table who you thought would not like what you do will finish up as one of your best audiences of the evening.

Just my thoughts.

Andy

Andy,

My last paragraph was more of a question than a blanket statement, because I knew someone would have another perspective on the issue. Your points are well taken.

You may be right. Personally, I would skip the table of football jocks. I may well be missing some wonderful opportunities, but being mainly a card man, I always play the probabilities. Of course, what constitutes football here and what constitutes football where you are aren't quite the same thing. I'm not sure if the fans are as insufferable in England as they are here (although I've heard that they are).

It sounds like you do restaurant magic as your primary job, and what makes a good RESTAURANT magician (vs. what makes a good CLOSE-UP magician) may be the subject of another topic entirely. In some ways, I think restaurant magic may be the hardest kind of magic there is to perform, because you have to do it for every type of audience, and you never know what to expect as you approach a table. My hat goes off to you.

Since I tend to set up shows at which I perform, I try and make sure that the people coming to see me have some idea of what to expect. In this way, I control my audience. This doesn't mean I don't get hecklers or surprises by any means, but it does weed out the people who aren't going to like anything about my show. I do occasionally do shows that don't follow this rule (like next Monday, when I have to do fifteen minutes before a rock band), and some of these have been..., let's just say, less than stellar.

The more psycho-analytical types out there way now be tempted to chime in, "Perhaps, because you were not in control of the enviroment, you felt awkward, and that affected your performance." That could very well be, but now we're right back to my original statement.

Jim

I didn't read Jim's final paragraph, in his penultimate post, as meaning that one should skip some tables; more that the performer should avoid certain situations.
For example, if you are basically a bizarrist, you might want to do something else for a table of Christian fundamentalists.
Or, if you are faced with a table of jocks, that might not be the right place for feather flowers and sponge bunnies.
Andy is right in saying it's not a good idea to skip a table because you THINK there might be a problem.
But, on the other hand, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and looks like a duck -- then, chances are, it IS a duck.
Same with being able to read tables: Eventually you will know which ones to do what tricks at and, sometimes, which ones to avoid entirely. (A couple in the middle of a fight is not always receptive to strolling entertainment!)
Unfortunately, it's the kind of thing that you only get to know only by working in the trenches!
BTW, Jim, I'm sure Andy would agree that some Brit soccer fans are far worse than U.S. football fans.
cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com

With apologies to many above, I feel we may have drifted from Yak's question - "what makes a good close-up magician" and into a debate on two performers. Let me try to misdirect the conversation....

As many have said but let me out my spin on the question - a good close-up magician needs:

- magical, commercial material;
- a personality that is likable;
- behavior like a gentleman/gentlewoman;
- relates to his/her audience as "friends"
- fun
- engaging
- does not perform "gotcha" effects where the audience looks like a loser

- The ability to capture and sustain interest
- The ability to appeal to the level of your spectators (old or young, erudite or illiterate, wealthy or destitute)
- Delivering material in a unique fashion (making it yours in their eyes)
- Being likable
- Being unique

are all criterias which I feel are important to being a good close-up magician. Being unique may very well be the most important.

Let me ask a related question. You are the organiser of a large corporate event, pondering who or what to get for the evenings' entertainment. What do you think would go best with your audience; hiring an ordinary guy (or gal) doing ordinary things, or an ordinary guy doing extraordinary things, or an extraordinary person doing extraordinary things??

As for David Blaine's success; my experience is that locally, the Blaine shows were universally well received (maybe Scott's immediate audience is more magically educated than mine). Keep in mind that television has power. The idiot box is perceived as a litmus test for the general population; if you are on it, you must be good. Especially if if are a novelty act - which magicians are. Especially if you are given a shot at a second special. And a third. All of this affects the public's perceptions. I think Ortiz referred to this as the prestige effect.

(Personally, I rather liked the Blaine specials, especially the second one).