The Genii Forum

At least one lesson involves Johnny Thompson with Penn & Teller coaching a student to do a chop cup routine.

There is a lot of irony in this state of affairs. If any other magician offered something like this, magicians would be crying exposure. But they won’t because popularity trumps all issues in magic. Had penn and teller done this two decades ago they would have been considered Magic’s worst enemy - as they often were when they weren’t actually exposing anything at all.

This is a class, so where's the (hypothetical) exposure? Is it the table of contents?

You think something being offered as a class would immunize people to accusations of exposure?

So people can no longer offer magic classes of their own material or material in the public domain? Or Brad are you saying that the whole exposure fear is largely nonsense?

I am commenting on how magicians respond to things such as this.

Before penn and teller became popular, their acts of NONexposure were condemn as exposure. Now that they are popular, you won’t see any question raised about this offering.

I am NOT saying this offering is exposure. That’s not the point. (And I couldn’t judge unless I saw it first.) But people have often claimed that classes that teach magic ARE, especially if they are done via mass outreach. A case can be made for that.

However We won’t see that reaction, I predict, because the popularity status of penn and teller has changed.

My condemnation is not directed at penn and teller
But at the fickle nature of hero worshipping magicians.

Interesting point.

To perhaps shed a slightly different light on this: to view all of the P & T Master Class lessons, it will cost $180. Anyone who is willing to pay that price is probably really interested in magic.
I seem to recall that the so-called P & T "exposures" that made people freak out were those that could be seen for free, correct?

There are certainly some exceptions where people overreacted even when money changed hands (Pat Page), but it seems the "exposures" that might accidentally be seen by channel flippers tended to draw the biggest condemnations in the past.

Therefore, might not the $180 admission fee contribute to tamping down the unfounded criticism this time around?

erdnasephile wrote:Interesting point.

To perhaps shed a slightly different light on this: to view all of the P & T Master Class lessons, it will cost $180.

Actually, if I read this correctly it is only $90 for P&T. (Still enough to keep out the merely curious).It is $180 for every class on the site.

I am waiting for the comparisons to this and the price of “The Magic Rainbow”.

Suppose you just want one of them. Is that $45?

Joe Lyons wrote:

erdnasephile wrote:Interesting point.

To perhaps shed a slightly different light on this: to view all of the P & T Master Class lessons, it will cost $180.

Actually, if I read this correctly it is only $90 for P&T. (Still enough to keep out the merely curious).It is $180 for every class on the site.

I am waiting for the comparisons to this and the price of “The Magic Rainbow”.

Copy that. Still, a C-Note would indicate at least some modicum of interest, I would think.

erdnasephile wrote:Interesting point.

To perhaps shed a slightly different light on this: to view all of the P & T Master Class lessons, it will cost $180. Anyone who is willing to pay that price is probably really interested in magic.
I seem to recall that the so-called P & T "exposures" that made people freak out were those that could be seen for free, correct?

Correct.

Bill Mullins wrote:Suppose you just want one of them. Is that $45?

Ok, I’ll bite.
Do you want a Masterclass with Penn? Or Teller?

Let's unmuddle: If someone pays for a lesson with ANY magician, it's not exposure. So let's just drop that discussion now.

youre missing the point.

Magicians cry foul at all sorts of things for which one can make the argument against exposure - take for example the reaction to the jawbreakers video series. You had to pay for those ‘lessons’ but they were decried by many as exposure.

The issue, I contend, had more to do with the popularity of the person committing the act than any actual concern with exposure.

In this case it’s particularly interesting because penn and teller, before they were popular, did things that weren’t exposure but they were accused of such.

One would think if those non exposure acts were condemned, one would find at least equal negative response to something which magicians condemned previously - the selling of magic secrets to a mass market.

But you won’t.

It has nothing to do with the issue of exposure per se, but the feckless and obsequious nature of the magic community. We decide what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ more often based on our relationship to the people doing the thing, than the issues surrounding the thing itself.

Brad Henderson wrote:It has nothing to do with the issue of exposure per se, but the feckless and obsequious nature of the magic community. We decide what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ more often based on our relationship to the people doing the thing, than the issues surrounding the thing itself.

Word to the mother.

Joe Lyons wrote:Ok, I’ll bite.
Do you want a Masterclass with Penn? Or Teller?

Neither.

Brad Henderson wrote:But you won’t.
It has nothing to do with the issue of exposure per se, but the feckless and obsequious nature of the magic community. We decide what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ more often based on our relationship to the people doing the thing, than the issues surrounding the thing itself.

Strike out the word "magic" and this cap fits everybody. And every situation.
Doesn't it?

to the degree that it’s true in magic? I don’t think so.

Of course I can’t speak for all fields.

But I think the nature of magic encourages it. But that’s a conversation for another thread.

On this week's Penn Sunday School, Penn, Piff John Lovick and Matt Donnelly talk about Master Class

/https://pennsundayschool.com/episodes/

Part 2 of Penn’s Sunday School episode on their Master Class contains some very interesting thoughts. Penn seems fascinated by the idea of integrating more magic terminology into performances - words like “effect" and “method.” And he even would like to (hold on to your top hats) have a piece where Teller simply demonstrates how to do the French Drop as a performance. I love that idea, and coincidentally, had just ruminated on a similar idea of presenting a magic lecture as a public performance, after having attended a Max Maven lecture in New York last month:

http://www.suitcaseofwonders.nyc/diary

Brad, do you purposefully not capitalize Penn and Teller's names? I find it jarring. If it's just indolence, on your part, fine. If not wtf?

Given that the majority of the Masterclass customers will be annual subscribers (pretty much the only level they have been promoting for the last couple of years), I think most of people who watch the lessons will be idly curious. There's no way of knowing, of course, but I don't think this will result in any more secrets being 'out there' than there are on YouTube already.

Also, I think it's a bit of a grey area when discussing the whole 'exposure vs paid lessons' thing; as I mentioned above, I think most of the people watching will not have paid for the magic lessons _specifically_. It's a bit like paying for cable TV, and the Masked Magician comes on - you didn't specifically pay for him, but there he is (if you feel the need).

Kent Gunn wrote:Brad, do you purposefully not capitalize Penn and Teller's names? I find it jarring. If it's just indolence, on your part, fine. If not wtf?

My iPhone fails to capitalize many things. Take it up with Steve jobs.

If you pay, then it's not exposure. Paying makes you a student.

"If you pay, then it's not exposure. Paying makes you a student."

I know, that's why I said it was a grey area, because the majority of the viewers will not have paid for the magic lessons specifically.

If you pay, then it's not exposure. Paying makes you a student.

So to play devils advocate for a moment; I have a YouTube premium subscription (which means i can watch all their content without any adverts or pop ups) and many of the popular YouTube videos the revenue from advertising or subscriptions is shared with the video's uploaders based on the number of viewers. In short all viewers are indirectly paying and all subscribers are directly paying the people whose videos we watch; does that therefor mean that "exposure" videos on Youtube aren't actually exposure videos any more?

Riddle me not.

Richard is more than capable of speaking for himself, but the question was raised here whether exposure videos on YouTube are not really exposure videos anymore? No. Exposure videos on YouTube always have been, still are, and always will be, exposure videos. The overwhelming majority of viewers have never paid a dime to YouTube or the exposer for anything, much less remitted payment in exchange for those videos. The minority of people willing to pay not to see advertisements are not paying a magician for lessons; they are paying YouTube to remove an annoyance from their viewing experience.

But the business model for masterclass is all about pushing users to the “everything” subscription which enables users to view all the masterclass programs so in exactly the same way as with YouTube there’s a very large number of masterclass users who are paying to view Ron Howard or Steve Martin videos who end up stumbling across the P&T footage about how magic is done. Aside from the issues of scale (YouTube is infinitely bigger than masterclass) how is this platform any different?

Skimming this (or just about any "exposure") topic heightens my appreciation of "Sayre's Law".