Do the Brits have better role models?

[eostresh]

Okay so I am reading this book http://www.wonderwizards.com/product_info.php?products_id=517&osCsid=6ue28qjcfjjgtartk0im2asku6 by Chris Rawlins (review will be posted in a day or so) on the heels of having read a few books by Peter Turner. http://www.wonderwizards.com/product_info.php?products_id=522&osCsid=6ue28qjcfjjgtartk0im2asku6 Reading all this back to back has been eye opening. Both of these guys have put together some fantastic ideas. Anyone who has read on mentalism has a few Luke Jermay titles in their collection I'm sure. So my point is that everytime I seem to read something from one of these Brits it is an eye opening experience. Now of course, the list goes on when thinking about the English contribution to mental magic and mentalism. Corinda, Nyman, Berglas, Grahm Jolly, the whole Head Hacking crew, and of course the reigning king of mental magic, Derren Brown. Now I realize that most of this stuff falls into the mental side of magic but even when I see traditional magic shows on TV(or youtube to be precise) the stuff aired in England just seems better. Look at Penn and Tellers "Fool Us." What a great show. Old clips of Paul Daniels, what a class act!

Now I am not saying that American magic is bad, though certain shows I absolutely disdain, but it seems like you need to have a better filter to find the gems that come from the west side of the Atlantic. I'll be honest, I really don't care for Chris Angel, but I do like David Blaine quite a bit. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I would call David Blaine a particularly good "Role Model." It seems as if they have inspired people who create incredibly visual magic but much of it is geared towards youtube. How many effects have you gotten because the trailer looked so amazing. Then you get it and even if it does look just as amazing in real life you discover that it is very angle sensitive, or it requires so much prep that it needs to be used either as a one effect "stunt" or at best requires it to be the first effect you do. Thus, putting you in the bind of needing to find something even more amazing looking that you can close with.

Maybe I am comparing apples to oranges and maybe I have just gotten lucky in effects I have gotten from across the pond but maybe there is something to it?

 

[visualartist]

I don't know much about what your going for but i will say that the entertainment industries of both continents are very different.
But of course, they are two different cultures. American entertainment is vastly different from british. British humor is different than american. and so on and so forth. it's simply your opinion that the brits have it better than americans.

 

[William Draven]

This is like trying to compare Kids in the Hall, Monty Python, and Robin Williams.... All comedians, three very different styles. None's better than the other, just a matter of personal preference.

 

[Craig Browning]

While you will find genius via the UK you will also find lots and lots of rehash certain folk are pooping out as being "original" to themselves even though known material of the same sort exists here in the States & Canada that pre-date such things. You will likewise find a great deal of double-speak that allows said "authors" a pseudo way out and mans by which to appear legit. While the same can be said about many young American writers on magic, the plethora of such material oozing out of the UK has given cause for many of the U.S. "elite" (I so hate that term) to encourage high caution. Not just because of the questionable sense of plagiarism but likewise the fantasiful side of things when it comes to certain methods that even the author has numerous fails when attempting to demonstrate them; something that's especially true when it comes to all the psychological "force" type material.

In my experience "genius" can be found anywhere and too, the solid contributions when it comes to this sort of thing, cycles. We will have a decade when tons of stuff flows out of the UK for an example, followed by a time in which we see insights flowing out of France or Germany or the Netherlands and so on. Fred Kapps after all, was a "god" and we've seen more than a taste of things fantastic evolve out of Asia.

As has been pointed out however, "Entertainment" in Europe differs significantly from what is appreciated here in the States. In certain area of Magic Europe actually sets the beat; finding certain types of programs commercially appealing years prior to them coming common place in the U.S. (if at all). But to show a hint of this contrast take a look as the U.S. versions of UK Tv shows and how so many of them get grossly criticized for being lame, insulting, and just plane DUMB (such as "The Office"). The demographics on such programs generally do not appeal to "older" audiences (the 40ish and over) while greater acceptance comes out of the younger market. This was just as true with Faulty Towers and Benny Hill as it is today. But then "Being Human" was totally destroyed by the ScyFy network.

I'm getting way off base here. . . the facts are however, we don't think and process things in the same way, even how we use the English language differs (hahaha)

 

[eostresh]

Well I don't know what to make of your plagiarism comment? You are not specific enough about it to argue for or against, or to be warned off from purchasing from those you are accusing. What I can say is that is an issue in our community and it goes back a long way. Many of our magic idols were both victims and perpetrators. Heugard and Braue didn't credit much of the Vernon material included in Expert Card Technique, and Marlo was famous for publishing moves that he had learned from "sessioning" with other magicians.

I think you are right on when you talk about cycles. Most of the stuff I have been exposed to recently draw on, and credit, Banechek and Kenton Knepper quite heavily. So that is a clear indication that not too long ago America was producing most of the cutting edge ideas in mental magic. But that brings me back to my point. Role models. Both of those guys likely came of age in the 70s and 80s. An era in which Max Maven wasn't just well known in magic circles. He had enough TV exposure that he was well known to lay audiences as well. Likely the most recognizable magician next to Doug Henning.

Anyways, it is seeming as if my unconscious purpose for this was just another Chris Angel/America's Got Talent rant. For that I'm sorry guys. I honestly didn't realize that until I read your comments. Still....It seems to me that effects like "Touching on Hoy" are fundamentally better contributions to our art than having a bottle collapse in my hands only to have some spectator say, "Oh yeah...We did that in my Junior High science class!"

 

[Craig Browning]

(that was weird. . . I just tried to post and the text totally vanished)

Eostresh, I'm not certain how old you are but I have don't recall Max ever being all that well known by the general public even though he did some Saturday morning Tv spots along with Harry Blackstone as part of an education deal and too, he was on a major Soap Opera for a season. Other than that I only recall him being on a handful of Magic Specials over the years and I've known Max for nearly three decades. When comes to Marlo. . . well Bill Malone could clarify things on that front (he practically lived with the man for years, he was there so often) but I do know that the joke at the Magic Castle after Ed passed, was that Larry Jennings would have to find someone else to "improve on" for his next book.

Yes, we all "borrow" and "evolve" from others and when it comes to the greater majority of us, especially over the past 25 or so years, credit is typically given and permission gotten. Especially sense the entertainment industry as a whole, started pushing the whole "Intellectual Property" issue complete with bank cards at the ready in that greed is always a key driving point on such things. The Magic World grip stemming from the big 5 builders of the late 70's & early 80's who wished to protect their contributing sources, with Stinemeyer leading the pack as one to be protected. . . mainly due to the many knock-offs of the Origami Illusion that were being marketed (I might add that one of the early sponsors of the Magic Cafe was one of the biggest culprits in this situation as well as scenarios involving Harrary effects. He likewise invented the loop-hole of not manufacturing the props (after going to court) but simply retailing props he purchased out of Mexico. . . oi vey!) Frankly, I'm quite torn on this issue in that I have a foot in both worlds here; that is to say, I've reaped the benefits of being a designer/co-developer of several award winning bits when working with Creative Illusions and at the same time, I believe in a bit freer market place such as it was when I was younger; you could compare the quality and deceptivity of a prop between builders. If you wanted a Think Model Sawing for an example, you could shop price, quality, dependability, etc. Now days if you want a particular effect you most likely have to purchase it from one, maybe two authorized manufacturers and pay full price. There's no way to go to an alternative source (legally) and save yourself a few grand; even buying copies of the building plans now days has become ridiculous; hundreds of dollars for what was once a $3 to $10 purchase. . . and back in the day you didn't have to cough up another "performance rights" fee on things. . .

. . . so much for the little guy.​

When it comes to plagiarism however and my not pointing fingers at specific people, let's just say I don't and I doubt anyone else here wants to deal with the high drama and headaches such antics provoke. I know of several instances that involve material written by some very well known American sources and a few lesser known sources that have been exploited, the originators of said material simply not have the time nor desire to take legal action (especially on an international level) even though their gripes are well known within influential circles and so, the guilty parties will only progress so far career wise when it comes to this industry. As the saying goes "they've been named & shamed" where it counts.

 

[eostresh]

Ha...You have found the more interesting topic Craig. LOL.
I'm in my 30s, which is why I knew of Max I guess. I was watching cartoons in the 80s. Thus to me, he was well known. Perhaps not as well as Doug Henning but at least as much as Harry Blackstone. Again....To ME he was. I certainly wasn't cognizant enough at the time, nor was I really into magic, to grasp the full picture. Perhaps I was introduced to him when he was at his peak in popularity and he left such a strong impression that I still remember him as more than what he was.

"Improvements," That's the catch isn't it! We like to think that the market should be open for people to improve on the work of others. After all, that is how magic has come as far as it has. New effects are released every week but honestly, how often do you come across an effect that utilizes a new principle? Pretty rare I'm sure. So I think it is safe to say that magic would have stagnated long ago had we not opened the field for improvements. But the catch is, who is the arbiter of improvements? To some people an effect is a cheap knockoff and to others it is an improvement.

A few cases in point. A buddy of mine and I have been in an on again off again row over Craig Petty's Key Master. He claims it is just a knock off of Jay Sankey's Holy Moly. Now both use a moving hole plot but Craig's does it on keys. Keys are a more organic object than washers for most people. Thus, in my mind it is enough of an improvement to warrant the release. But it gets more complicated. Sankey did release a moving hold plot with keys(can't remember the name off the top of my head.) In Sankey's effect the hole moves from an old metal disk style key chain tag. That still isn't good enough in my mind to say it should be a sacrosanct effect. Those metal disk style key chain tags are pretty uncommon these days. It looks like the kind of key chain tag that janitors put on there service keys. In petty's effect the hole moves from one key to the next. Everything looks more natural and "spur of the moment" because of that. No questions of, "what is this guy doing with washers in his pocket?" or, "Why did this guy bring his keys from his day job?" Now the keys Petty had made had to be specially done. That's why his effect costs quite a bit more than Sankey's. Nevertheless, to those willing to pay the extra dime, should they be prevented from doing that just because the effect owes a lot to Sankey's work? After all, the moving hole plot wasn't even original to Sankey, and Sankey obviously wasn't willing to invest the extra time, effort, and money to create a key with a missing hole. So for people who feel those little details matter, should they be prevented from getting the higher quality, more logical looking prop just because the person who popularized the effect hasn't made a gimmick of your liking yet?

No on the flip side of this there is "The Light." A card from zippo lighter. Now it is I who dispise that trick. Not because I don't like the effect. I love the effect! I have been doing it for a long time. It is just that I have been doing it with a much better gimmick.....The Serendipity. The serendipity(by collectors workshop) was designed to be a more "organic" looking ring box. The light works on the same principle as John Kennedy's Mystery Box. The only problem with using that principle in the light is that it effectively exposes the gimmick for Serendipity. Furthermore, once you cram a card in a serendipity you really can hand the lighter to your spectator and let them struggle to claw that card out of the zippo case. This only further sells the impossibility of a card winding up in a lighter. So basically, "The Light," in my opinion, is a devolution not an evolution of an effect.

So it all comes down to opinion. But am I the one who arbitrates this stuff. Nope. And as long as there is money to be made I'm sure it is the market that will determine what is a valuable contribution and not ethics minded magic pontificators.

 

[Craig Browning]

hahaha

Long ago when I was working on Wondercade for Ward Hall, a then well known traveling mage named Roy Houston was telling me that it didn't matter who made the original prop, they are all just starter kits in that every full-time worker will modify the effect so as to best suit their needs and working conditions. One example of this is the Thurston Sawing and how little divits were carved into the neck stock area for Jane to put her knees when working the effect. It made things a little bit more comfortable for her and yet, you wouldn't know about said modification unless you had seen or worked with the original cabinets (there are two Thurston cabinets + the one Dante made for himself, which has to be one of the most gorgeous props of its kind. I believe Copperfield has it and one of the Thurston cabinets now, I've lost track of the one we had). The same holds true with the majority of those older props because of the thickness of most woods in those days and the little things that were done to steal out some extra space without making a bigger table or box.

I hope what I'm saying here makes sense as to "Improving Upon" props. Part of my previous post has to do with the fact that we no longer have that advantage on one level, because of all the exclusivity and royalty pay-out that's going on -- magic has become even more competitive and "challenging" than it was. This has lead to an odd "oneupsmanship" scenario in which one company creates a neat piece that sells like hot-cakes so another street magic oriented company creates "their variation" to it and so on. . . then again, according to copyright & patent law, you only need to change something by 10% for it to not be a reproduction of someone else's work; a loop-hole used by pirates for decades now. So yes, where there's a dollar to be had there will be rats carving out their own niche for getting a piece of it.

 

[eostresh]

Sorry it took a while to reply. Honestly you left me little to say Craig. Your insight into the stage craft side of things is quite informative. It is a tough line to draw progressing the art and some "hack" knocking off another's effect. Your point about competing companies coming out with endless "variations" of effects made me crack up. I to am a little disheartened by that. One of my first opportunities to perform on stage I did the haunted pack using the original method, you know...wear black pants and use a black string. The next time I had a stage oppertunity I did hanted pack again...but this time I "upgraded" to a micro ITR. You know what....there was no difference in the reaction. They both got great reactions because it is a great effect. The funny part is that even using IT on a reel is a pretty "old style" way to perform the haunted pack. Over the last year I think I have seen at least three new haunted packs hit the market. Do we really need ten different haunted pack variations? And don't get me started on TnRs! If in 2007 a magician can entertain a room foll of 300 people with an effect that has been around since the 1930's then how much more work do we really need to put into it. But then again, we are a group of people who do so love our subtleties. But hey, stuff like that is what fuels the industry.And whether we like it or not it is the existence of that industry which keeps us pushing forward.

 

[Craig Browning]

Magicians love to try to reinvent the wheel but rarely succeed. But you are correct on the point (which Henning actually proved during his short career), you can take material from the 1800s to that which was known during the day's of your grandparent's youth and start doing it the same way now and you'll blow minds.

Abbott's Magic I believe it was, put out a gimmicked system for doing the Old Orange Bowl routine; two crystal bowls that are shown empty, you drop a cloth over them and instantly, they are filled with oranges. The problem is, unlike the original routine, you can't toss out the oranges you produce. . . sure, it's easier to do than the original, requires far less practice and isn't as likely to "mis-fire" (the original gimmick was so sensitive that it can open and release the oranges at very inopportune moments). BUT, the fact that you couldn't prove the oranges were real, ruined the bit. . . same can be said about those fruit bearing bushes of yesteryear fame; there's some beautiful variants to them in today's world but the fruit they produce (or flowers) aren't real and though only a handful of audience members get to hold a flower, orange or apple, etc. the look on their face is priceless and validates the fact that you're a for certain wizard.

I think we, as performers, need to learn to be far more picky -- demanding of our suppliers as well as ourselves when it comes to delivering quality, clean and practical phenomena for our audiences.