Unpopular Opinion: Stage Magic is Harder Than Close Up

[MohanaMisra]

While I don't disgree with that, I still think stage magic requires more investment. A close up magic is just, right there. Right in front of others, though I must admit that when I was thinking of close up magic, I wasn't considering magic which requires tables, which was silly of me. I just didn't really know that this was an unpopular opinion, that stage magic is harder

The reasons I never did stage magic actively, or all I did was scaled up close up magic on stage was:-

1) The *stage* in stage magic. In close up magic, my stage is literally *anywhere*.

2) The audience seems to be more forgiving in close up magic somehow, or that's what I have experienced and it may differ for others.

3) The investment. I'm sorry but I really cannot get over it. I try never to grumble because I honestly believe that waking up in the morning is a blessing itself, but money is a significant factor. My idea of the most amazing birthday gift even today, after nine years of doing magic, is a Bicycle Deck. When I somehow manage with a 100% pure plastic deck (bridge sized), I admit a dancing cane sounds dream-like to me (not fascinating though, for reasons mentioned below). This is not due to the lack of money but the ridiculous pricing. I actually got The Modern Coing Magic, Karl Fulves' Mental Magic and Paul Zenon's book on Street Magic for just over 750 Rs. (together) and a Bicycle deck here costs Rs. 700. What logic goes behind this, I have no idea... I really have to ask Jeff Bezos!

4) The fascination. Unlike many of my generation, I got interested in magic after watching a real-life stage show. Yet I don't do it, because it just does not interest me as much as right-under-your-nose magic.

5) The impossibility. When seeing a magic show on stage, even though I am a magician, it's still so difficult not to dismiss everything as trick boxes, or lighting tricks or stooges! Anything could be happening there, 10 metres from me! It is much more difficult to convince a spectator that magic is happening on the stage than that it is happebing right in front of them.

6) It's notoriety as something orthodox. Unless a fabulous, one in a million stage magician changes this view worldwide and brings a revolution, I can't see stage magic gaining traction in the Internet Age because honestly, while I'd love to see Copperfield on stage, I don't have time to go to a show physically or I am too lazy to leave the comfort of my bedroom. I can't imagine the charisma a performer would need to bring non-magicians (who care even less about a dancing cane) out of their houses!

7) Stage itself is a dying platform independently, that is, it is difficult for a stage performer to survive through acts on the stage alone. They need to branch out to other platforms simultaneously. But with the television's demise, I think stage acts will pick up.

8) The fact that majority of the people here perform close up magic here, for whatever reason. If I have never actively done stage magic (again, just scaled up close up magic), of course it'll seem difficult to me. Unless somebody forces me to dabble only in stage magic for a year, I'm not gonna find stage magic any easier now than I did when I was eight. But yes, the fact that minor flashes are more hidden in a stage environment is very useful.

All in all, to me stage magic is a form of magic that I respect, I love and I'm fascinated more by a charismatic stage magician than a cool You Tube magician any day. It's just not my cup of tea, and the few sips I have had of it weren't fabulous, so...

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

1) The *stage* in stage magic. In close up magic, my stage is literally *anywhere*.

And here's where we get into "it all evens out". Yes, you can perform close up anywhere if you go Blaine guerrilla style. But you're going to have a heck of a time doing a full show that way, and it's extremely difficult to get any real foothold in the industry with that route. Whereas a stage performer may have to work at finding venues, they will be able to establish themselves in the industry much more quickly.

2) The audience seems to be more forgiving in close up magic somehow, or that's what I have experienced and it may differ for others.

I've never noticed a difference. Close up, parlor, stage - all the same.

3) The investment. I'm sorry but I really cannot get over it. I try never to grumble because I honestly believe that waking up in the morning is a blessing itself, but money is a significant factor. My idea of the most amazing birthday gift even today, after nine years of doing magic, is a Bicycle Deck. When I somehow manage with a 100% pure plastic deck (bridge sized), I admit a dancing cane sounds dream-like to me (not fascinating though, for reasons mentioned below). This is not due to the lack of money but the ridiculous pricing. I actually got The Modern Coing Magic, Karl Fulves' Mental Magic and Paul Zenon's book on Street Magic for just over 750 Rs. (together) and a Bicycle deck here costs Rs. 700. What logic goes behind this, I have no idea... I really have to ask Jeff Bezos!

Venders on Amazon set their own prices. There's also a not insignificant amount of tax to send playing cards to certain parts of the world which is why they are so expensive in some countries.

Again - If you invest in knowledge first, you can build a show with readily available objects. Classic magic, as in Discoverie of Witchcraft era, used common objects. I guarantee you have a full show's worth of props in your house right now. And, if you didn't do a ton of card tricks, you'll automatically set yourself apart from the average close up magician.

4) The fascination. Unlike many of my generation, I got interested in magic after watching a real-life stage show. Yet I don't do it, because it just does not interest me as much as right-under-your-nose magic.

That's not a matter of the venue, that's a matter of the performer. What you're highlighting here is the lack of quality performance that is prevalent in the magic industry, not any inherent quality of fascination.

5) The impossibility. When seeing a magic show on stage, even though I am a magician, it's still so difficult not to dismiss everything as trick boxes, or lighting tricks or stooges! Anything could be happening there, 10 metres from me! It is much more difficult to convince a spectator that magic is happening on the stage than that it is happebing right in front of them.

Again - you're speaking to the lack of quality performance. Also, it's far more common for a magician to have trouble not seeing methods than it is for laymen.

And again, close up performers will have just as much a challenge in making something seem impossible. Most only succeed in giving their audience a puzzle.

What you may be confusing is how a polite audience will react to someone right next to them, opposed to having the distance of a stage performance. What people say to each other in the audience of a stage show is the same stuff they say to each other when the close up performer walks away.

6) It's notoriety as something orthodox. Unless a fabulous, one in a million stage magician changes this view worldwide and brings a revolution, I can't see stage magic gaining traction in the Internet Age because honestly, while I'd love to see Copperfield on stage, I don't have time to go to a show physically or I am too lazy to leave the comfort of my bedroom. I can't imagine the charisma a performer would need to bring non-magicians (who care even less about a dancing cane) out of their houses!

Looking at history, I'd bet there's been about the same number of close up performers who 'brought a revolution' as there were stage performers. It goes in waves. Also keep in mind, historically speaking, the 'stage' performer was probably in someone's house or a small theater. Today when we say 'stage' we think Copperfield, but shows that large are a relatively recent occurrence.

People aren't flooding out of their homes to see close up performers either. Yes, you can see that on YouTube but very, very few people are going to make a living that way.

7) Stage itself is a dying platform independently, that is, it is difficult for a stage performer to survive through acts on the stage alone. They need to branch out to other platforms simultaneously. But with the television's demise, I think stage acts will pick up.

Citation needed. What proof are you using to draw that conclusion? All the top earning magic performers are doing stage shows. For a professional performer, the pay check is more or less directly related to the size of the audience, and a close up performer has a more or less hard limit on the size of their audience.

8) The fact that majority of the people here perform close up magic here, for whatever reason. If I have never actively done stage magic (again, just scaled up close up magic), of course it'll seem difficult to me. Unless somebody forces me to dabble only in stage magic for a year, I'm not gonna find stage magic any easier now than I did when I was eight. But yes, the fact that minor flashes are more hidden in a stage environment is very useful.

"Here" as in where you live, or "here" as in this site? Because this site is focused on close up, so obviously the majority of people here are doing close up. If you mean where you live, I assume it's India since you quoted prices in Rupees. Not trying to mansplain here, but India has a long history of "street" magic (ie: busking), which is close up. The traditional styles of magic come from that path. Also, magic has not fully separated from the roots of the shamanistic style of 'magic' performance in that region.

What this boils down to is that you are looking at this through the lens of your personal experience, knowledge, and assumptions. Which, in this case, are limited.

I'll say it again - every genre of performance has challenges, and overall it probably evens out.

 

[MohanaMisra]

I'll say it again - every genre of performance has challenges, and overall it probably evens out.

I'd agree.

"Here" as in where you live, or "here" as in this site? Because this site is focused on close up, so obviously the majority of people here are doing close up.

I meant the website.

Citation needed. What proof are you using to draw that conclusion? All the top earning magic performers are doing stage shows. For a professional performer, the pay check is more or less directly related to the size of the audience, and a close up performer has a more or less hard limit on the size of their audience.

I meant that since this is the digital age, there needs to be enough 'substance' about the performer online. That is how people make decisions to go to view even real-life events. By saying 'stage alone' I meant that no magician can remain only on the stage with absolutely zero, zilch, NOTHING online to put out into the world so as to communicate to people that they are worth the time. Basically, going online is an important part of advertising, which again is essential for any business at all, and any magician, stage, close up or otherwise.

However there is a vast majority of magicians --- and we leave the skill out of the question for now, because how skilled a performer is relative to the viewer --- who have kept their sphere on You Tube, branched out maybe to merchandise, but they get a pretty good sum to keep them going.

Close up magic is just, easier! It's much easier to film today and attract eyeballs and posterior ends in seats if anybody wants to perform on-stage too.

TLDR:- All magic requires significantly more investment in terms of time rather than money, which is why so many teenagers and adolescents get into newer hobbies, because they have a lot of time but very little money themselves.

And I did say this, which means, really, that in the end, after all this discussion, that:-

overall it probably evens out

Really, I am saying the same, with just the difference that for me stage magic is harder while for you maybe both stage magic and magic close up is equal, since you are experienced in both of them. It, at this point, is purely a matter of preference for me.

However, I'm thankful for this thread, because I honestly had no idea that so many people consider good close up magic to be so difficult, makes me feel validated

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I meant that since this is the digital age, there needs to be enough 'substance' about the performer online. That is how people make decisions to go to view even real-life events. By saying 'stage alone' I meant that no magician can remain only on the stage with absolutely zero, zilch, NOTHING online to put out into the world so as to communicate to people that they are worth the time. Basically, going online is an important part of advertising, which again is essential for any business at all, and any magician, stage, close up or otherwise.

This is actually incorrect. It comes down to the individual's business model and market.

There are quite a few magicians who don't have a website, or who have a fairly minimal web presence who are doing quite well - as in pulling 2-10K per gig, and working very consistently. If the only reference one has is the internet, it does seem like the internet is an essential aspect, but in the greater perspective that's just not true. I would advise caution when reading marketing or business advice online, most of it is hogwash, or applies to general business, not the entertainment industry. It can often result in a lot of wasted time and resources.

However there is a vast majority of magicians --- and we leave the skill out of the question for now, because how skilled a performer is relative to the viewer --- who have kept their sphere on You Tube, branched out maybe to merchandise, but they get a pretty good sum to keep them going.

"There is a vast majority"?? No, no there isn't. The vast majority of people on YouTube make nothing or very little. Particularly now that YouTube has changed their monetization rules (twice) in such ways that have crippled many of the smaller channels.

Merchandise can be profitable, but it takes a massive audience that's actually willing to spend money, and also the logistical side is a nightmare (we all know of some high-profile folks in the magic industry who bomb on that side of things).

For every successful YouTube magician there's probably a thousand channels languishing in obscurity. According to this article (https://www.tubics.com/blog/number-of-youtube-channels/) there's over 31 million channels on YT. How many of those do you think actually earn a living exclusively on their YT earnings? I'd be surprised if it's a hundred.

 

[Al e Cat Dabra]

While the comparison of close up to stage magic has led to a fascinating discussion, to my way of thinking, the true difficulty does not lie within either type. The real difficulty is in becoming a great performer, regardless of which type of magic we are doing (something I'm still working on after 60 years as a magician, LOL)

The common denominator that links both close up and stage magic is the personality and presentational abilities of the performer. In other words, understanding how to connect with the audience. This is where an understanding of human psychology (not the type of prop) is important. Unlike a piece of magical apparatus, these elements of presentation and applied psychology cannot be purchased, but they are priceless, and they can be studied. And they certainly do not come overnight, but only through experience which, yes, is oftentimes paid for by failure. We must be willing to be completely honest with ourselves and have a sincere desire to keep taking it to a higher level. So whether it's close up or stage, the real difficulty is in learning how to be a great performer.