Is this the year that "America's Got Magic?"

[Magic Newswire]

We all know that in spite of some great performers appearing on America's Got Talent (Nathan Burton, Kevin James, ThePendragons, etc...) the show is not considered to be particularly friendly to our art as a form of entertainment.

This season, we have several magicians getting through and one HUGE rejection (so far).

I'd be very interested in the feedback from our community on what you are seeing. If you have missed the shows, you can find all the video and links at MagicNewswire.com.

Feedback please! Maybe this will help the next "Magician" that wants to show the world what they can do.


WATCH THEM ALL HERE

[CraigMitchell]

For those who can't watch Dodd's clips ( Hulu don't allow viewing outside of the US ) you'll need to search YouTube.

Here is the clip of Marti Brill - I sincerely hope he was being that bad on purpose ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn2y7ZiyU4k

Edit: For further comedy visit:

http://www.youtube.com/user/miamimagicians

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLTMuEvy ... annel_page

"Marti Brill is Miami's best magician! THE BEST MAGICIAN AND ILLUSIONIST OF ALL TIME.

Call 754-204-3037
Email Momarti627@aol.com
Web www.MiamiMagicians.com

Florida's greatest living magic legend. Performing virtually every day of the year. Kid's Parties, Corporate Trade Shows, Birthday Parties, Bar Mitzvahs, School Shows, Cruise Ships... Marti does it all!
Reserve your show today - availability is vanishing for Miami's Magician! "

Are we sure this isn't a joke ?

[CraigMitchell]

The promo video:

http://www.miamimagicians.com/promovideo.html

[Dustin Stinett]

This jerk is the poster boy for everything that is wrong with magic. If he was just joking around then he's even a bigger jerk than I think, because how are millions of people watching supposed to know? (Unlike a clearly defined character like "Mr. Mysto.")

He, and people like him, are why people think magic as a whole sucks.

Isn't it interesting that when a crappy singer comes on, it's the singer that's crappy, but singing as a whole is still okay?

Isn't interesting that two good singers can probably sing the same song without a judge saying, "We've heard that before" versus a judge saying "We've seen that trick before" to an illusionist?

What's worse is that we've allowed this to happen.

Dustin

[Gord]

There is a very easy way to tell when someone is going to suck on one of these shows.
The more they brag, the more they say things like "The magic world will never be the same" the greater chance they are going to suck.

Gord

[Gord]

The second magician highlighted on this season, Jay Mattiloi, was fantastic. The way he controlled the audience, the details of the illusion, the little add on bits were all fantastic.
So far, he's our best bet for magicians on the show for this season.
Even if he doesn't win, I predict he'll go far.

Gord

[Magic Newswire]

Still waiting for comments on Drew Thomas and on Constantine. The judges said that Drew was the first magician that they had seen that might winn $1 Mil. Constantine they liked, partly because of the story.

[Matt Sedlak]

I've liked Jay Mattioli ever since he was on the Lance Burton Young Magician's special. Of all those great performers that were on there I always felt he had the most potential and I think he can be the next Copperfield. Copperfield was able to mix popular culture with his magic and do it well and I think that was a part of his success. There aren't really any magicians that are doing that today at the same level. Criss Angel I suppose does it a little (from what I've heard...I don't really watch anything he does) but at 41 years old he can't really get away with the things Jay Mattioli can.

Drew Thomas and Constantine left me pretty uninspired, although I did watch them after Mattioli's performance so that set the bar pretty high.

One of the problems with the way magic is perceived, I think, comes from stage magic. Box illusions, while fine used sparingly, are problematic because people aren't stupid. They know that the box has some secret that causes the magic. While a good performer can overcome this it is still something they have to overcome, rather than build upon. Even the judge's comments about Jay said the same thing...the box trick was just alright, the first effect was amazing, and his overall character is what sealed it.

If you think about it, a lot of the best acts move away from box effects, perhaps use them sparingly, or at least disguise them so it doesn't seem like the same old thing. I saw Copperfield in Vegas at the MGM and although there were some boxes they were cleverly disguised. I remember seeing Lance Burton here in CT at Foxwoods and while I can't remember the entire act (this was years ago) the highlights I do remember were not boxes.

One of the best things about good close-up magic is that you can totally move away from this stereotype and establish yourself as a different kind of magician. Of course some close-up guys are ruining this by doing things that are obviously from a magic shop but it isn't as rampant (at least not for the people I perform for mostly). Too bad close-up doesn't really work well on a show like this. In fact, I think close-up in general really needs to be experienced in person to get the full effect. I think if some of the top close-up guys or mentalists were able to do shows like this it would go a long way to changing our public image. The more boxes people put on stage the deeper we dig our grave.

[Travis]

I respectfully disagree, Matt.

If I may defer to to an excerpt from Jim Steinmeyer's The Secret No One Tells You, as he states the case quite nicely. Toward the conclusion of this lecture, he mentions that he has often listened in the lobby at intermission to audience members discussing a magic show and, as a result, heard lots said of magic and famous magicians. He then goes on to list several quotes he's never heard from laymen, and never will. This excerpt is from #4:

"That Magician was good, but he had too much apparatus."
Within our own weird, insular world of magicians, it is an established fact that hacks use colorful apparatus. Artists... wait, let me rephrase that... "Artistes" use no apparatus at all, or simple, everyday objects like stubby pencils, small bits of paper, coins, string, a cigarette... small clods of dirt, broken buttons, used lengths of dental floss. After all, if you were a real magician, you'd use trash like that, wouldn't you?

We all think that we should aspire to have nothing on stage with us; that our magic will be pure and artistic when we reach this level. Why?
Magic is about physical things. It's a visual art. A real magician would perform a range of things with objects, and bring production value to the performance through those objects.... Believe me, no audience expects you to do it with"nothing". They've all seen magicians in movies or television shows, and they know that part of the act is having things that look interesting and help the magician in his act.

Perhaps a masterful musician could prove a point if, instead of playing a Stradivarius violin, she played a comb and tissue paper, or maybe by humming, display her expertise. Perhaps. But that's the tough way to do it. I'm not sure if that would charm an audience.

I agree. I think audiences enjoy seeing these unusual objects on stage, wondering what mysteries they might hold, and then being taken on a journey by a skilled conjuror. Of course, that's not to say I haven't often cringed at a poorly-made piece of apparatus (bad craftsmanship, aesthetically unappealing, or non-deceptive design) or at a wretched presentation built around a beautiful one. Nevertheless, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[rkosby]

I always wonder if people who see a bad magician and think magic sucks have an exception in mind. Like "magic sucks but I know one person who's really good".

Interesting point about a judge never saying "we've heard that song before". If a musician sang it exactly like the originator though, I wonder if they might get picked on for mimicking.

I was wondering if anyone here is also a musician?

I was wondering if an unknown musician follows someone awful, do they have to struggle to win over the audience like a magician does?

[Bill Duncan]

Unlike magicians, people have seen lots of musicians, and have multiple criteria on which they judge them. A singer may not have the best voice but if he can find the right song and can put the right emotion behind it, that doesnt matter. Im not a fan of country music but there are half a dozen songs by Johnny Cash that are among the best songs Ive ever heard.
Watch Americas Got Talent. The comments about singers and musicians indicate that the judges consider many different things in a performance. With magic (and this is the fault of magicians) there is only one criterion: can I guess how it works?
Magicians have conditioned audiences to think magic is about fooling them because they often dont provide much else. We let the magic speak for itself and then wonder why after they have seen a trick exposed on YouTube, they dont want to see it any more.

[Tortuga]

I hadn't seen any of the performances before reading this thread tonight. Based upon the youtube clips, I would say that one of the biggest issues had to be personality. Thomas and Mattioli were instantly likeable. Yes, I do believe that there is such a thing. Mr. Brill was not. I'll leave it at that.

As far as I can tell, he is not aware of how he comes across. I don't enjoy watching people getting their feelings hurt. He was obviously stung by the reaction. But come on, if you have to wave your hands in the air and beg the audience to get into it, you've already lost them, haven't you?

He lost the audience the second he answered the judges question about how old he was and how long he had been performing. If he would have smiled and maybe winked, it would have been understood that he was simply joking around. Instead, it came across that he was serious and that he wanted us to believe he's been performing professionally since he was 5. That's what I got out of it. Besides, the magic sucked. Even a great personality wouldn't have carried the day.

I'll have to watch out for future contestants.

[Mike P]

I would wonder why The Pendragons have not won or KEvin James didn't win. They did a great job on the show in the past.

Rudy's old Mad Scientist act would probably win the money.

You have to do somehing really spectacular to win those judges over on AGT.

Brill was just plain horrible in every aspect of his act. He got more nervous as his act went on but his assistant did a great job. He built himself up in a way that doomed him to fail...did he even know what he was getting into?

The other two guys you posted videos of had good energy and did a decent job.

AGT has had great talent magicwise and I think the closest act to magic that got the money was the quick change artists...their act was a true spectle and a joy to watch.
Later,
Mike

[Matt Sedlak]

I respectfully disagree, Matt.

If I may defer to to an excerpt from Jim Steinmeyer's The Secret No One Tells You, as he states the case quite nicely. Toward the conclusion of this lecture, he mentions that he has often listened in the lobby at intermission to audience members discussing a magic show and, as a result, heard lots said of magic and famous magicians. He then goes on to list several quotes he's never heard from laymen, and never will. This excerpt is from #4:

"That Magician was good, but he had too much apparatus."
Within our own weird, insular world of magicians, it is an established fact that hacks use colorful apparatus. Artists... wait, let me rephrase that... "Artistes" use no apparatus at all, or simple, everyday objects like stubby pencils, small bits of paper, coins, string, a cigarette... small clods of dirt, broken buttons, used lengths of dental floss. After all, if you were a real magician, you'd use trash like that, wouldn't you?

We all think that we should aspire to have nothing on stage with us; that our magic will be pure and artistic when we reach this level. Why?
Magic is about physical things. It's a visual art. A real magician would perform a range of things with objects, and bring production value to the performance through those objects.... Believe me, no audience expects you to do it with"nothing". They've all seen magicians in movies or television shows, and they know that part of the act is having things that look interesting and help the magician in his act.

Perhaps a masterful musician could prove a point if, instead of playing a Stradivarius violin, she played a comb and tissue paper, or maybe by humming, display her expertise. Perhaps. But that's the tough way to do it. I'm not sure if that would charm an audience.

I agree. I think audiences enjoy seeing these unusual objects on stage, wondering what mysteries they might hold, and then being taken on a journey by a skilled conjuror. Of course, that's not to say I haven't often cringed at a poorly-made piece of apparatus (bad craftsmanship, aesthetically unappealing, or non-deceptive design) or at a wretched presentation built around a beautiful one. Nevertheless, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I never said that they shouldn't have props on stage with them, merely that they should have less "boxy" type illusions or conceal that box property better. Otherwise the audience says, "Wow there must be something about that box that allows the magician to do that but I can't imagine what it is."

A good example of this is the classic sawing in half illusion that nearly every laymen seems to think of when they think about magic. Some of the newest incarnations of that effect that I have seen have tried to eliminate the box-ness of the illusion and in doing so have improved it greatly. Many of the same basic principles still apply but they are more cleverly concealed.

You can disagree but it seems at the very least the judges of AGT agree with me, from the comments I overheard in the videos linked on here.

[Jack Turk]

Another angle from someone who's been watching AGT...

The one thing Brill did bring to the table was
personality. Big time.

Sadly, it wasn't a particularly endearing one.

IMO, the problem with how most "hide-girl-in-box" tricks
is the emphasis on "box" rather than on the performer's
relationship with the audience.

If all you have is a "guess the secret" kind of act, then
that's the only criteria with which the audience (and
AGT's judges) can evaluate the routine.

If, on the other hand, you provide something that really
demonstrates not only great magic, but also an original
and compelling stage presence, then you have a shot
at creating winning entertainment.

[Travis]

I concur that one should avoid rolling a box out onstage for every routine, however, I do not believe that one must always try to make something less boxy, or try to hide its "boxiness" simply because his/her goal is to avoid boxes at all costs. The fact is, sometimes a box is just the right solution. Take, for instance, Steinmeyer's Modern Art. This illusion went through several incarnations over the years, the earliest being one that involved the lady's top half being completely free of any kind of enclosure, sitting on the table top. He realized, ultimately, that this was actually working against the illusion and not in its favor. The problem was that it focused all attention on the lady's lower half. By enclosing the lady completely in a box, the trick took on its most practical and deceptive form.

You mentioned sawing effects. Consider two of the most baffling: Alan Wakeling's Selbit-like version (not to mention Selbit's original) and Jarrett's rarely-seen sawing. Both of these conceal the victim completely within a box. All the audience sees is box! And yet, performed well, I would venture to say that these are two of the most effective sawing effects ever created. I find them far more convincing and exciting than a standard thin-model, or even Copperfield's Death Saw or Jonathan & Char's Clearly Impossible. When done right, they take on an almost real quality. Of course, this requires an adept performer. Kalin & Jinger, as well as Rick Thomas, kill with Alan's sawing.

[Matt Sedlak]

Travis,

Sure I think that using a box effect from time to time is fine, as long as the entire act isn't merely box effect after box effect. The problem with doing one of these on a show like AGT where you have a short amount of time to do something is that the impression they will get of your act is that it is all box effects. Perhaps a great performer can do an entire act of box effects and kill with it, but I think they would have to work harder for it. Still, I maintain that one of the things killing magic's reputation in the public are these box effects. It makes magicians seem like they are merely people who know a few secrets, even if they do a good job with the performance. By mixing in some things that are not simply "magic-shop" type of effects I think it lends much more credibility to the performer.

[Travis]

Matt,

It sounds like we agree more than we disagree. I absolutely do not think it reflects good performance skills or judgement to simply roll on box after box. That would be tedious. I suppose Hans Klok might actually fall into that category. His energy and speed carry him through, but I submit that the audience is simply left empty and feeling as though they've merely been bombarded by a slew of special effects, but no magic. No mystery.

A good stage magic show has ebb and flow; illusions, stage magic, and perhaps a dash of close-up (when the venue is equipped for such).

Where we disagree is this: I do not think that "box effects" are killing magic's reputation. Magicians who have no idea how to present and weave a mystery around them are killing magic. Magicians must choose good, strong material, as well as educate themselves on being an excellent performer. Inanimate objects are not to blame for the public's perception of magic. It's the magicians themselves who are the culprits.

[Matt Sedlak]

Well I would agree that bad magicians are killing magic too. But most people have never seen a magician, at least in my experience, other than possibly on television. Even still the public has this stereotypical magician in their minds. The one with the cape and top hat where the rabbit is pulled from. I think that when they see a magician with their colorful boxes they tend to associate that magician with the stereotypical one. The one they think is "for the kids." So when a magician comes on television and does one trick and it is a box trick that even the judges say, "We've seen that a dozen times already," it only strengthens that stereotype. Also it makes it seem like anyone could do it (which half the time is true anyway). When someone sees a singer or a comedian, even if they are only average, they don't usually sit there and say "Oh I could do that."

[Travis]

True, many have not seen a magician perform live. If they do go and see one, and he/she is an exceptional magician, then they will come away with a positive feeling about magic, boxes or not. And I believe that when someone sees a great magician they do not sit there saying, "Oh, I could do that". They're too busy being entertained and amazed.

When a magician steps onto the AGT stage, he/she has 90 seconds to get the job done. A formidable task for an illusionist, to be sure. Choosing the right piece could make or break you. Drew chose a strong effect, a box effect, using a principle first put to use by Thomas Tobin with his Proteus Cabinet in the 19th century, and he killed them with it. In Jay and Constantine's case, the box illusions were weak, hence the judges' reactions . Not great tricks. There are such things as bad tricks and one must choose good material. So, one they loved (even eliciting comments like "You're the best illusionist I've ever seen) and the others they disliked, but all were box tricks.

Someone mentioned that Rudy Coby would be a shoo-in on this show. I concur. His act would kill, and he has enough short, sweet pieces to keep coming back with week after week. His character comes across immediately. He could perform his Wash-O-Matic and Puppet Boy. The crowd and the judges would love it. Both box tricks, by the way.

[Magic Newswire]

With regard to those that compare it to singers... How many bad singers/musicians do we see on this show every year? TONS!

[Dustin Stinett]

Im not sure what your point is, Dodd, considering I know that you understand mine. That is that, when the audience sees those tons of awful singers that are paraded out on this show, no one in the audience thinks that singingas a form of entertainmentis awful. They only embarrass themselves and not an entire performance art. However, one cannot say that about magic because a lot of people think magic as a form of entertainment sucks because the magic that they have seen sucks. This is not their (the publics) fault; it is the fault of an enormous number of people in our community who call themselves magicians and go out and embarrass not only themselves (usually without knowing it) and also a once highly regarded performance art.

Dustin

[Bob Klase]

I would wonder why The Pendragons have not won or KEvin James didn't win. They did a great job on the show in the past.

The Pendragons didn't win because they appeared on one show, were passed through to the next round by the judges and never appeared on the show again. Although I do remember reading the reasons they didn't appear again I don't remember the specifics. But regardless, you can't win if you don't perform on the show.

Kevin James appeared 3 times. On his 3rd appearance he couldn't do the routine he'd planned for reasons out of his control (again, the specifics were reported in the magic magazine) and instead had to do a different routine which IIRC was sort of cobbled together and lacked a climax. While anyone who's familiar with Kevin's work would liked to have seen him get a pass and moved on so he could show what he's really capable of, it's not hard to understand why he was voted off after that performance.

[Magic Newswire]

I dunno.. I for one am a bit bored with singers being the only winners on talent competitions.

Beyond that.. you drag the same old props out on stage and do it the same old way, then yeah.... people are gonna get bored. That's one of the things I constantly talk about on the podcast with the people that I interview. How do you make magic your own even if you are doing an effect that you didn't create.

I remember a few years ago, everyone was singing "Wind Beneath My Wings." As soon as the music would start, I'd cringe... Now.. I see an Origami (which can be an amazing effect...) and I feel the same tightening of the bowels.. Then again.. I have seen too many magic shows in my life when compared to the average person.

[Magic Newswire]

While finishing the editing of my interview with Jeff Hobson, I was reminded of his quote on this topic.

"Magic is the only theatrical profession in which someone visits a Magic Shop and the next day he has a business card."

[Magic Newswire]

Just posted our interview with Jay Mattioli, the second magician to qualify for the next round of America's Got Talent. ENJOY

[Magic Newswire]

Just posted my latest podcast.. an interview with Constantine & KC - one of the magic teams to advance to the finals of America's Got Talent in Las Vegas. ENJOY LISTENING HERE

[Magic Newswire]

WELL... America has voted, and they voted for a Magician. Drew Thomas was one of only 5 acts to be put forward to the next round when the results were announced on Wednesday. I have posted both the performance clip from Tuesday and the results clip from Wednesday for anyone that might have missed it. ENJOY

[Magic Newswire]

Well... as we all know, Drew has made it through and Nathan Burton mysteriously vanished. We've since repoted on the upcoming return of Nathan as a guest performer. In addition, Jay Mattioli reappeared last night as a wild card contestant after being eliminated immediately upon his arrival in Las Vegas. There is yet one more magic surorise to come on the show, but find out more about and watch Jay's return HERE