Recently I have seen an array of experts on Theory 11 who make profound statements of fact, yet when questioned, demonstrate they have nothing with which to back them up.
So, I thought I would take a few moments to clear up a few myths, offer some suggestions when it comes to arguing logically, and hopefully allow potentially meaningful discussions to remain meaningful.
First, unless you know first hand how the magic industry works, don't guess.
In a recent post I saw people talk about Bill Malone and Michael Ammar, drawing conclusions based on their success and the types of work they do and how they get it. This came from someone who clearly knows neither men, nor what kind of work they get, nor how they get it.
Most of the magicians who are bandied around as names to listen to are not professional magicians. Most of them are professional magic dealers. They are not out working in the real world, they are out doing lectures and selling to people like us. Consequently, their styles and approach represent what sells to magicians, not what sells in the real world.
Interestingly, the handful of magicians that do work for both groups often have two completely different approaches. I have seen several magic "names" work for real people - many of them I personally hired.
The selection of material, the jokes, the style they use in the real world is not what you see at the magic convention.
So - it's not fair to say so and so doesn't represent magic well when the only thing you have seen is them on DVD. Further, you can't assume that the people you hold as models actually ever represent magic in the real world. Even further, unless you have talked with them about how they obtain their work - then you are just pulling crap out of your butt.
Unless you know what someone thinks because they told you, you cannot draw conclusions about their beliefs.
Mind reading is not a valid logical position from which to defend your point.
Most magic consumers have no idea who is really working in the real world, what they do, what they charge, or how successful they may or may not be. There is a lot of guessing, but the entertainment world is much larger and more nuanced than most people seem to be imagining.
Which brings us to the second point -
Know where your information comes from.
In a recent post, one person quoted Robert Greene and the conclusions he drew about Charlie Parker and the reason for his early death. Robert Greene is a very successful author - of self help books. He writes the 48 laws of series. Great books. But he is not an historian, knows nothing - as far as I know - about Jazz in general or Parker in particular. He basically studies literature (his word choice) and extracts concepts he finds interesting or uses literature to prop up points he wants to make. In this case, his claims did not jive with what is commonly known regarding the history of Jazz.
For someone to THEN use his conclusions as the basis for further conclusions is essentially playing the telephone game twice removed. I say this not to impugn the person who made this error, but because it happens all the time and I felt a non-magic example may illustrate the point more readily.
If you have an idea, great - but back it up with facts and logic. And if backed up with facts, make sure your source has some reputation for at least being accurate. And it would be nice for you to be able to establish your source as having validity.
For example - claiming that the receipt is an IMS award means anything shows that the claimant knows nothing about the IMS or the award. Now, being recognized by FISM - that may mean something. Being recognized by Forbes magazine - definitely.
But IMS is not the only one. The Magic Woods guy is a swell person, but his award is meaningless beyond a popularity contest. Heck I know three magicians who created their own organizations so they could grant their leading awards to THEM and their friends. Two of them were specific to the magic world but wanted to use the accolade in their press kits for real people - this strikes me as fraud. The other created his own Campus Entertainers award so he could give it to himself.
Not all facts have the same authority and one should be aware of that before choosing to rely on them.
But what about experience?
Sure, magic is an experiment. Until these ideas are tested and shown to work in the real world, they are worthless. But one cannot assume that simply because they had one result under one circumstance one time that it will hold true for all people in all circumstance in all times. In other words, while you can often move from the general to the specific, you cannot always move from the specific to the general.
Recently, someone made the claim that Criss Angel was more in the public consciousness than Derren Brown and others. First, I am forced to ask, based on what? What numbers, what study shows this to be true? I mean, we can easily compare Derren's rating numbers with Criss's - but that's not what the claimant did.
What the claimant was really saying is "among the people I know, Criss is more visible than Derren et al." That may be true. But who are those people? So I or should I care about them? Are those people everyone?
Clearly not. So to assume that because your demographic of friends knows or likes something MEANS that everyone knows or likes something is just bad logic.
Likewise, just because your style or trick selection works for the people you perform for, doesn't mean they will work for anyone else, let alone everyone else.
I can think of things I did (and the ways I did them) when I was young that I could never make play today. Likewise, there were things I tried to do then (emulating older magicians) that just made me look like an ass. Jay Marshal and Billy McComb could do and say things I can't even now - but someday . . .
Now, if what you do works for the people you work for - great. However, you may be making choices and advocating positions that will NOT work in other cases. To proclaim this is "the way" is foolhardy.
Just because something is NEW does not mean it is Good.
I happen to believe that great magic results not from doing what you do well, but from getting your audience to the place where you can do what you do well. While I would never advocate a "one size fits all" approach, I would alsomnever suggest that you play to the lowest, dumbest denominator in order to reach the broadest appeal the most readily. That doesn't produce art, that produces kittens hanging on ropes until Friday and boy bands from the 1990's.
Having said that, I think it is critical that we develop skills and a style which allow us to reach as many people as we wish to reach. And some of the positions I read advocated as "proven" or "right" simply aren't that path. They limit. They restrict. While the claimant may have not performed in enough places or for enough different audiences to realize that - it doesn't mean it isn't true.
So, do not assume just because you have an idea that it works, and just because you may have made it work once, for one group, at one time, that it works for everyone, for all groups at all times.
So, I thought I would take a few moments to clear up a few myths, offer some suggestions when it comes to arguing logically, and hopefully allow potentially meaningful discussions to remain meaningful.
First, unless you know first hand how the magic industry works, don't guess.
In a recent post I saw people talk about Bill Malone and Michael Ammar, drawing conclusions based on their success and the types of work they do and how they get it. This came from someone who clearly knows neither men, nor what kind of work they get, nor how they get it.
Most of the magicians who are bandied around as names to listen to are not professional magicians. Most of them are professional magic dealers. They are not out working in the real world, they are out doing lectures and selling to people like us. Consequently, their styles and approach represent what sells to magicians, not what sells in the real world.
Interestingly, the handful of magicians that do work for both groups often have two completely different approaches. I have seen several magic "names" work for real people - many of them I personally hired.
The selection of material, the jokes, the style they use in the real world is not what you see at the magic convention.
So - it's not fair to say so and so doesn't represent magic well when the only thing you have seen is them on DVD. Further, you can't assume that the people you hold as models actually ever represent magic in the real world. Even further, unless you have talked with them about how they obtain their work - then you are just pulling crap out of your butt.
Unless you know what someone thinks because they told you, you cannot draw conclusions about their beliefs.
Mind reading is not a valid logical position from which to defend your point.
Most magic consumers have no idea who is really working in the real world, what they do, what they charge, or how successful they may or may not be. There is a lot of guessing, but the entertainment world is much larger and more nuanced than most people seem to be imagining.
Which brings us to the second point -
Know where your information comes from.
In a recent post, one person quoted Robert Greene and the conclusions he drew about Charlie Parker and the reason for his early death. Robert Greene is a very successful author - of self help books. He writes the 48 laws of series. Great books. But he is not an historian, knows nothing - as far as I know - about Jazz in general or Parker in particular. He basically studies literature (his word choice) and extracts concepts he finds interesting or uses literature to prop up points he wants to make. In this case, his claims did not jive with what is commonly known regarding the history of Jazz.
For someone to THEN use his conclusions as the basis for further conclusions is essentially playing the telephone game twice removed. I say this not to impugn the person who made this error, but because it happens all the time and I felt a non-magic example may illustrate the point more readily.
If you have an idea, great - but back it up with facts and logic. And if backed up with facts, make sure your source has some reputation for at least being accurate. And it would be nice for you to be able to establish your source as having validity.
For example - claiming that the receipt is an IMS award means anything shows that the claimant knows nothing about the IMS or the award. Now, being recognized by FISM - that may mean something. Being recognized by Forbes magazine - definitely.
But IMS is not the only one. The Magic Woods guy is a swell person, but his award is meaningless beyond a popularity contest. Heck I know three magicians who created their own organizations so they could grant their leading awards to THEM and their friends. Two of them were specific to the magic world but wanted to use the accolade in their press kits for real people - this strikes me as fraud. The other created his own Campus Entertainers award so he could give it to himself.
Not all facts have the same authority and one should be aware of that before choosing to rely on them.
But what about experience?
Sure, magic is an experiment. Until these ideas are tested and shown to work in the real world, they are worthless. But one cannot assume that simply because they had one result under one circumstance one time that it will hold true for all people in all circumstance in all times. In other words, while you can often move from the general to the specific, you cannot always move from the specific to the general.
Recently, someone made the claim that Criss Angel was more in the public consciousness than Derren Brown and others. First, I am forced to ask, based on what? What numbers, what study shows this to be true? I mean, we can easily compare Derren's rating numbers with Criss's - but that's not what the claimant did.
What the claimant was really saying is "among the people I know, Criss is more visible than Derren et al." That may be true. But who are those people? So I or should I care about them? Are those people everyone?
Clearly not. So to assume that because your demographic of friends knows or likes something MEANS that everyone knows or likes something is just bad logic.
Likewise, just because your style or trick selection works for the people you perform for, doesn't mean they will work for anyone else, let alone everyone else.
I can think of things I did (and the ways I did them) when I was young that I could never make play today. Likewise, there were things I tried to do then (emulating older magicians) that just made me look like an ass. Jay Marshal and Billy McComb could do and say things I can't even now - but someday . . .
Now, if what you do works for the people you work for - great. However, you may be making choices and advocating positions that will NOT work in other cases. To proclaim this is "the way" is foolhardy.
Just because something is NEW does not mean it is Good.
I happen to believe that great magic results not from doing what you do well, but from getting your audience to the place where you can do what you do well. While I would never advocate a "one size fits all" approach, I would alsomnever suggest that you play to the lowest, dumbest denominator in order to reach the broadest appeal the most readily. That doesn't produce art, that produces kittens hanging on ropes until Friday and boy bands from the 1990's.
Having said that, I think it is critical that we develop skills and a style which allow us to reach as many people as we wish to reach. And some of the positions I read advocated as "proven" or "right" simply aren't that path. They limit. They restrict. While the claimant may have not performed in enough places or for enough different audiences to realize that - it doesn't mean it isn't true.
So, do not assume just because you have an idea that it works, and just because you may have made it work once, for one group, at one time, that it works for everyone, for all groups at all times.
)
