Alright, Now that I'm back from Las Vegas and infront of a computer as opposed to my cell phone I think I can devote a little more intelligent thought to a reply instead of quipping out a sarcastic two liner aimed at being ironicly funny as opposed to being constructivly useful.
I'll take this line by line the best I can.
Warning: As a note in afterthought I just realized that this reply is too big for a single post. I'm going to double post this. Please read with careful consideration.
...It really got me thinking about Stage Magic vs. Street Magic. It is just such a controversial subject."
Not really. I don't know of any controversy at all between these two genre's. To the best of my knowledge no pre-existing grudge exists between the two. Certainly nothing close to the differences of opinions you would find in a magic vs mentalism conversation.
"...I can't get into that big stage stuff. I like the more up close, done at random stuff. You know? Like that David somethin' guy or that guy who wears all the Affliction shirts. Street entertainers, that's what I like. You know? It just makes it seem more magical."
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
When you get down to the guts of it, Stage stuff seems to be more showy and not too magical. but this, off-the-cuff magic, seems astonishing.
I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges here. Your "street" magic and the grand illusions of stage magic are two very separate genres of magic. They operate very different from each other in presentation and psychology. I think you are confusing a personal preference for an overall opinion on the genre in it's entirety. The dangerous part of that is that you are attempting to sway someones preference away from one specific genre in favor of your preferred style. This is dangerous because you could be denying someone a great experience and memory solely because you don't approve of a specific style. I really think that it should be left to the individual to decide for them self what they like and don't like.
Also your opinion could be jaded because you are a magician yourself. What you personally find amazing could be light years from what a layman would find amazing.
Example in point: I myself am a close up performer. I've been doing closeup magic longer than I've been doing my current freak act. I'm well adept at card magic, and my co-workers sometimes get sick of being used as Guinna pigs to my close up routines, new material, and older material that is getting a face lift. A co-woker and close friend of mine went to Las Vegas with me this past weekend. (Actually it was I that went with him, but minor detail.) My friend has seen a lot of close up magic, to which he does enjoy, however for his birthday I got him tickets to see Lance Burton perform. He was absolutely blown away by the magic, where as I wasn't that thrilled at the effects but I marveled at the entertainment, and showmanship. I would certainly say that my opinion of Lance's show was definitely affected by my own experience and years as a magician.
So here it is... I've already bored you so I'll make it quick... Well, think about it. There is no dubt about it. Pen & Tell, Burton, Seifried & Roy, and Copperfield are all very talented magicians, who have gotten very famous, and are extrordinary illusionists.
This sounds like you're trying to cover your rear because you're about to lay into them. I'll bet the next word in your sentence is "but".
Didn't see that coming...
could it be that the only people go to see them is because they like magic, and are more famous, than say I guy who works outside a hotel for tips. Of course!!!
Hang on, I think I either need an aspirin or a shot of rum before I can fully wrap my head around this statement. If I read this right, and understand what it is you mean to imply then what you are saying is that people only go to see Lance, David, Penn & Teller because they either like magic already or because these magicians are famous? Correct?
I strongly disagree. While fame certainly does help in marketing an act, and it can also add a level of prestige to a venue it doesn't mean that it is the only reason why people are in the audience. As I've probably already stated I just got back from Las Vegas, and there were plenty of people in Lances show that never seen a magic show live before. I think that people go to see them because they want good entertainment and to be that big of a name you'd expect that from their acts. Some random hack standing on a street corner flipping Three Card Monte's for a quick buck isn't going to compare to the quality of show, entertainment, (and possibly) skill of the larger name magicians you've listed here.
Now, when you go to a large theater type place, you are going into it knowing that everything has been rehearsed, and choreographed, etc. You know that everything is in fact a trick and it has been all set up months or even years before hand. Now, when you know this, sure you still have fun and are amazed at the show. But you are asking yourself: "Wow! I wonder how he did that?" But what the ultimate goal is is to have the spectators go: "That couldn't of happened. Did I just see a miracle?"
Quit looking at the glass from the magicians point of view. It doesn't matter if the glass is an illusion. The spectator is the one that see's it half empty or half full. Our point of view doesn't matter. Again, we're jaded because we know how the magic is done. For us, the review shouldn't focus on the type of magic performed but on the level of showmanship used, and the overall quality of the show and it's entertainment value.
To a layman watching David fly over your heads is JUST as amazing as watching you do some knuckle busting, hot off the line, Buck twin inspired colour change. The choreography, rehearsals, methods, and etc hardly even come into the forethought's of your average layman. If it does, then it is doing nothing more than passing through.
(To Be Continued)
