The Songwriters Of Magic
cc licensed flickr photo shared by Яick Harris
What do Jimi Hendrix and Lady Gaga have in common? Too many jokes and so little time, I know, but beyond that, both are famous musicians, and both began their careers offstage—as songwriters.
In music, someone who creates material for others to perform is just as legitimate as the performer on stage. In magic, however, there is often disdain and implied illegitimacy reserved for those who choose to create and publish new material for consumption—especially if they are not regular performers for lay audiences.
It's not too surprising. Go ask a full-time performer whom he holds in high esteem and he is likely to give you the names of other full-time professional performers, past and present. Ask the same of a well-known creator of magic effects, and he is likely to name others who have chosen his path. Birds of a feather bouquet.
One difference seems to be that the songwriters of magic are happy to praise the performers, but the performers—many of them—are not too keen on praising the path of marketplace magician. I find this surprising. I would have thought that professional performers would want fewer performing magicians. If all magicians began to perform for public audiences more frequently, you'd either increase the competition for the existing performers, or more likely, you'd lower the general public's perception of magic as they witnesses less than desirable performances. You can't have your sponge cake and eat it too.
I believe what gets under the skin of this perform-perform faction is the idea that someone could fashion an effect, turn around and film it, then sit on their couch for the rest of the month and make just as much money as the guy who went out and performed 25 full-length shows of more original, more refined, or at least more practical material.
So it is that an issue within the issue seems to be that the material released into the magic marketplace is often poorly thought out or incomplete, derivative or highly similar to other existing ideas—some of which the working professional may have more claim to. Choosing instead to focus on performance for non-magicians, it is argued, would polish the material and perhaps add originality to the effect over time. This is true, and this is good to remember, but let's return to the world of music for a moment.
Most songs are polished not by the songwriters, but by the performers themselves and the producers who work with them. If you go listen to the songwriter's version of a favorite song of yours, you might be surprised to hear something nearly unrecognizable from the final product. It is up to the performer to decide what is workable material for his market and his style, and the songwriter cannot be held responsible for material that has been represented honestly—though there is considerable argument over whether new material in magic is being advertised honestly, e.g., editing out the dirty moment in video trailers advertising new magic effects, or implying that a certain process or environment will work when it will not.
As for originality, most songs you hear have seven or eight notes repeated in various combinations, played by four or five instruments, and supported by a rhythm in one of a handful of common time signatures. Similarly, in magic there are common plots (e.g., pick-a-card, coins-across, sawing in half), a handful of common instruments (e.g., cards, money, airbrushed plywood cabinets) and at the most basic level, several building blocks (e.g., sleights, gimmicks, process). I know, it's not a perfect analogy.
What passes for new is almost always a combination of the same basic stuff. Usually, just one of the parts, or the whole as a unit is all that can be thought of as original or innovative. And, while I believe in the potential for something completely original, I can't remember ever seeing it. The world of music seems to be more comfortable with this reality than the world of magic. Yes, dishonesty and theft is to be found in both, but magicians seem incredibly quick to label things as gross thievery.
The funny thing is, using the same standards, these magicians probably have no idea how much "stolen" material they have in their music collection. And likewise the people in music who could tell you the history of various melodies and chord progressions have no idea that the magician at their party is doing the material of another. I'm not excusing either, but rather making the point that problems you see as having the utmost importance often don't really exist for the overwhelming majority of the world, and whether they get solved or not probably makes no difference outside of Wonderland.
cc licensed flickr photo shared by Thomas Hawk
Of course, the situation in magic and music is not perfectly synonymous. It's easier for a songwriter to sell her work to a single performer and earn a respectable fee for that than it is for someone to create a single effect and license it to one magician for the same type of fee. Even so, consultants like Blake Vogt, Michael Weber, and Daniel Garcia do it all the time.
I like these three because they all perform to some degree, but for different audiences. This seems to be another rub amongst other performers who work for the general public, an audience they feel is more "real." I disagree. Most magicians are really just informed laymen. They go to the conventions for the shows. They go to the lectures for the shows. In fact, what differentiates a layman from a magician these days is whether they actually registered for the convention or just bought tickets to the public performance. People are people. I learned that from Depeche Mode.
My good friend brings up a point worth mentioning here. Magicians as informed laymen generally prefer to collect and consume magic methods, while general audiences and working performers prioritize effect. So, these professional magic performers see the magic marketplace as catering to new methods instead of new and better effects. There is a lot of truth to this, to be sure, but there has always been a market for creating magic that only appeals to magician's sentiments. The difference is that it has become popular and profitable now. If you don't like this, you don't have to participate in it, and you can choose to inspire others on your own merits.
Finally, the really successful performers in magic don't seem to have a problem with the composition of another magician's audience or whether they choose to release magic material into the marketplace instead of performing. They are too busy tending their own garden. It seems to be the third string, for lack of a less-disparaging term, that is leading the charge. Perhaps many of them have aged into cynicism, and seem to feel that they haven't received their rightful share of praise, adoration, and compensation, and they see these magicians in the marketplace as receiving that adoration and compensation. They're probably right, but I'm not sure that gives them license to de-legitimize the other path.
I agree that the material being injected into the marketplace is of great quantity and often of lesser quality as people confuse prolificacy with status. I also believe that performance makes for better delivery of presentations, but the fact remains that some magicians will continue to choose to enter the magic marketplace and not the public performance market, and may do so for a variety of reasons, some of which we may not know. Moreover, the time spent complaining about whether someone performs enough or for the right people seems to be a waste of time, and you'll probably give yourself an ulcer in the process. After all, it's not like you can snap your fingers and have the situation be different.
What do you think you are, a magician?
//
