The Bait?

Shaun David: Dear Geoff

First of all, thank you for taking the time to visit Magic Bunny. I haven't seen your DVD set yet, but after this I'm sure I'll be picking them up soon. The question I wanted to ask was about your choice of close up material. In "How to Win Friends and Influence People" Dale Carnegie talks about baiting the hook with the fishes favourite food, not yours. So many magicians use effects they enjoy - and not necessarily what the audience enjoy. What factors in an effect make the routine a working routine for you? I know people who believe everything is workable; it's just the presentation that sorts then men from the boys. What do you think?

Thanks for any replies ahead of time!

Geoff Williams: Shaun,

Good question. Yes, there are effects that are workable for some and not for others. There are some tricks out there that just don't "work" for anyone (their flaws are too serious for even an exceptional presentation to cover).

For me, a routine is a "worker" if 1) I enjoy performing it and 2) the audience reacts favorably to my performance of it.

I have discontinued performing many routines/effects that I thought were stunners but got lackluster responses from the audience. Since I am forced to enjoy my magic through the unjaded eyes of my audience, if they don't appreciate a certain trick then it gets dropped from the act no matter how enamored I am with it.

I would imagine this is true for most, if not all of us: our shows have changed DRASTICALLY as we've gotten better and wiser. Most of the changes in my show/act are the direct result of audience approval.

So, to actually get down to answering the question, the audience ALWAYS comes first...BUT...if I personally don't enjoy performing the trick, it'll get nixed (unless the audience DEMANDS that I bring it back into the working repertoire which, now that I think about it, has never happened to me).

I get requests for things I haven't done in awhile but not for anything I disliked performing.

Yes, I've heard there are no bad tricks but well, I've actually seen some about which I have serious doubts. Some tricks have been designed by people who do not think long or hard enough about the construction of a trick. There are in this world some people, designers of magic for the rest of us, who should be doing us and the art of magic a favor by designing decorative toaster covers instead.

Bottom line, if either the audience or I can't agree on the fun/magic/entertainment factor of a trick, it'll get dropped by the wayside...or sold at an annual magic auction for 1/3 its retail value by someone who will probably take it, modify the darn thing, put slightly more work into it than I did and then have a signature piece that'll take them around the world and launch them to superstardom while I end up being a roady for them and get minimum wage working behind the scenes doing all the heavy grunt work while they rake in a 12-figure income and all of the German supermodels you can shake a bratwurst at.

Man, I hate when that happens, don't you?

Shaun David: I'm glad you said it's something you enjoy as well as the audience. A lot of performers I know hate the effects they work. But through having no time to work in new material or no desire to they keep on working at it. Personally, I took a step back from magic the past year. I was working routines that were "commercial" but I got very little enjoyment from performing them. The flipside was some of the material I did like performing I wasn't ready to be working yet, so the result was to stop all together! I'm just about to step back into the working magic world at the moment, so you're thoughts are welcomed. You just sold yourself a DVD set

As for people taking my ideas, modifying them and having success with them; It happens to me all the time! I guess we're both bitter, twisted, ramblers on that point of view. Thanks for the reply and enjoy the rest of your time here.

Geoff Williams: The real problem here is, unless they are Academy Award-caliber actors, their dislike of the material will affect their performances.

They should do their audiences a favor and perform material that everyone can enjoy. Life is way too short...

Turning Pro

Craig P: We get a lot of members on the boards asking how they can go about turning pro and what they need to do to achieve this. As someone who obviously has piles of, may I ask what your reasoning was behind turning semi-pro and still keeping on a "normal" job? Is turning professional something you want to do in the future?

Craig P

Geoff Williams: Craig,

That's a question I get all the time with my Minnesota friends, too. Here's my answer:

I LOVE my computer job, which I've been doing longer than magic (I started it in the very early 80's). I am a supreme computer geek at heart.

• 401k Retirement fund

• Major medical program

• Dental program

• Paid vacation time

• Additional guaranteed income

• Employee purchase pricing

and, here's the cool thing, my employer is 100% behind my magic career. If I have a conflict (a gig during the day or need to take off early for a show or even take off several days to fly out for a gig), they bend over backwards to accommodate me. They even sponsored a theatre run of mine here in the area.

I don't know of many businesses that support their employees in such extracurricular activities as mine. I am very fortunate.

I urge people to think twice before taking the "full-time pro" plunge. You must do more advertising, more cold calling, more mailings, more door knocking, more schmoozing and put up with bigger headaches than those of us who "play on both sides of the street" (which, now that I think about it, sounds vaguely pornographic).

I would imagine that semi-pros enjoy the "process" of the magic business more than do full-time pros (who must work to eat). Amateurs (and the word is based on the Latin "to love") enjoy magic more than anyone since they just do magic for fun.

No matter what your involvement is with magic, try your utmost to keep the spirit of the amateur; do it because you love it. The money should always be secondary (at the very most). Tommy Wonder once said to not worry about the money, worry about your show. The money will happen.

Flourishing

Craig P: What are you views on the ever-lasting flourishing debate. Do you feel they have a place in close up magic or not? What do you think of XCM? I know on your DVD's you talk about keeping it simple but at the same time demonstrate Chris Kenner's Sybil Cut.

Thanks in advance

Craig P

Geoff Williams: I'm of the opinion that flourishes for the sake of being flourishy, (is that a word? Someone grab a dictionary, quick) enters the realm of the juggler.

I would hazard a guess (mainly because I'm too lazy to go out and actually take a poll or anything that would mean me actually leaving my house right now which isn't prudent because I have no pants on), that most laymen are not really "fooled" by card manipulation dudes/dudettes.

I would be willing to bet (not actual money, mind you, since my wallet is in my pants which we've already established are missing) that most non-magicians who see, say, a Jeff-Sheridan-type work realize that they're somehow hiding the cards cleverly (with the exception of those claw-like, cramped hand postures which aren't really clever in the least and can barely fool Stevie Wonder, who, according to what I've read in Variety, almost always has pants on).

When a manipulator shows both sides of his hands in a flourishy (I certainly hope that's a word because I'm starting to use it with alarming frequency) move, I expect most people think to themselves, "Hmmm...his hand movements seem rather flourishy." (that wasn't me that time; it was the person in the example) "I wonder what he's trying to hide...maybe some more of those cards he's been producing FOR THE PAST 15 MINUTES?"

On my DVD, the Sybil Cut is in the context of demonstrating different ways that people around the globe mix cards. In that respect, it's not a (brace yourselves; here it comes again) flourishy thing but an example of what "others" do. In that context, it's not a super-fancy "see what I can do that you can't" show off move but rather a documentary-style demonstration. It's very well motivated, unlike the flourishy (okay, that did it; it's officially a word now) pulling-cards-from-the-air-for-no-real-reason-whatsoever which, like Anna Nicole Smith, is entertaining to watch but isn't a real miracle... unless you realize just how much weight she HAS lost, in which case it's quite a stunner, actually.

Anybody else here got ADD?