Hey guys, I realized we always love to know who are the favourite magicians or magic teacher.

How about the telling us about the worst instead? And what you don't like about him?

For me: (just my humble opinions)

1. Chris Korn (mondo magic): I used to like him, but after watching Mondo Magic Singapore, I think he is really quite "bei zai" (unsteady, with his hands). His tricks were quite disappointing too. Remember the levitation of cigarette and Bak Gua? I think it looked pretty lame.

2. David Blaine: I don't know why, I just don't like his monotonous voice and his corny dialogues.

3. Brad Christian: Maybe nothing is really wrong with him, but I just can't stand his "doo..oo it slo..w..ly" style and his not-too-successful attempt at humour (if he ever had one). I can never imagine myself speaking like that.

Worst???

David Blaine: Presentation 1/10. (Monotone, no good patter, so what if you can stun people?! "Watch this", "Check this out" is all he can say?!)

Criss Angel: Presentation 2/10. (levitate on an escalator and moving up with it?! Oh man, you blew it bigtime!!!)

Basically most TV magicians piss me off nowadays. Except Cyril. At least this guy can present an effect well.

Criss Angel - I think some of he's shows kinda boring to be frank. I watched a few and the one where he escapes from a tank of water or something kinda boring because he talked to much and focused on that too much. And sometimes he elaborated too much and that gave the trick away :D .

David Blaine - Are you a magician or stuntman?

Just my 2 cents. I don't have a thing against TV magic. Again, Cyril's really good and so is Copperfield. I used to watch this magic show on different magicians on Channel I in the past, they're all really good! I forgot most of their names though.

Worst is subjective...unless we agree what makes a GREAT magician, we can't declare who is the worst.

That being said, I'd rather not watch the performances of the following magicians:

1) Franz Harary. Most of his illusions seem really cheesy and I'm not entertained.

2) Criss Angel. Feller seems like a stoner, and his effects are a little too "OOOOH I HAVE SPECIAL POWERS I AM COOL". I'm also not entertained.

3) David Blaine. Monotone presentation, so I'm not really entertained.

Basically if I'm not entertained (With presentation) and the effects are too far-fetched, I'd rather not watch.

The worst act I've ever seen is Stephane Vanel. ( stage act )

His sleights are superb but his routining was terrible. He did the same thing over and over again.Even the laymen found it boring.

Honestly I don't think I've ever seen terrible close up acts. Unless you're talking about amateurs. We all screw up sometimes.

I think David Blaine is great. The lay people are raving about him.

i find it kinda funny that we're talking about all these big name magicians who have achieved much success and fame in the real world (not with just magicians) as worst magicians.

If they are the worst (meaning there can be no lousier), what are we?
Are we more entertaining? Whats worse than the worst?

Criss angel is kinda bad. Very stoner, can tell that he is "fake" And his tricks presentation is bad.

1) Me- Too lazy
2) David Blane- To many publicity stunts
3) Chris Angel- Same as blane...

I'm seeing a lot of David Blaine and Criss Angel being listed here. I'm not really surprised. In my opinion, and I think most people would agree with me, these television magicians do not deserve the credit they are accorded. Laypeople have no objections to this, but we as magicians would like to see something original that the magicians themselves have created. Arguably the most famous trick that Blaine has performed is the Balducci Levitation, and Criss Angel's most impressive (in my opinion at least), is the Coin through Soda Can. Both of these were not invented by them, but in their shows, they do not credit the creator, and the audience would think that the invented it themselves. Also, there's a pic of Criss Angel doing one of his stunts (something about bending backwards) which shows a stick protruding from his back (not sure if I should have written that), revealing the secret. And it was from one of his videos broadcasted all over the world.

What aggravates this problem is that these magicians do not have a really spectacular method of presentation, and simply rely on the tricks that they perform, and their reputation.

In general, I think that while these magicians aren't "bad", but the problem I have with them is that they are claiming and getting credit they do not deserve.

Another 'magician' finding his way onto my list is Brad Christian. Why does he have to be on (almost) every video ellusionist creates?

yea bro that's what i was going to post(we cant even walk and bow like a magician, LOL)

personally i dont think the discussion should go on. We are not in the position to criticize the other who are much more higher up than us. If your name is not in your list of bad magicians are you trying to say that you are better than them? Or you don't consider youself as a magician?

Let's put it this way: nobody is perfect. nobody can please everyone. And it's a very difficult job to entertain those who perform magic.

A magician should respect other magicians.

hey ming how long have you been in magic? do you know that there are still people out there thinking that we are doing "magic"(defying gravity and the law of nature) and it's our job to convince them it's "magic" not "sleight of hand"

as what robert houdin stated in his book "secret of conjuring and magic" a conjurer(some one who perform sleight of hand magic) is an actor playing the role of a magician(wizard). My point is by not giving credits to balducci/ wayne is nothing wrong since they are presenting it as it's "magic" and to lay ppl, "magic" is something that cant be created.

they never claimed that they created the effects. they just performed them.

i dont know why so many people think he(db) is not good but for me i think he is alright because he make layman believe, think that its real,magic. I really feel that is good enough already. When you make people believe you have already compeleted the trick. Then again.. he is doing more stuns than magic. so... lol. And for Criss Angel his magic is too much for people to believe. Its like over the edge kind of thing.

to me a real bad magician would be one who exposes magic secrets either accidentally or "to inform the public" on national television.like the previous one respect is important

Its funny to see how many guys who get into magic because of DB now bash DB.

I'm not DB's nor Criss's No.1 fan, neither do I wanna emulate their style of presentation, nor am I crazy about their TV editted MTV style specials, but to actually come out on a public forum and say either one of them is the worst magician? C'mon.

Ming,

About crediting trick inventors in their shows, to be frank, I am not sure about this one, but did you even read the whole credits list at the end of the show before saying that? I'm just curious.

I know Criss Angel even gets the creators of the effects on his creative team and gives them TV spots on his show. How's that for giving credit?

Do you perform a magic effect to your audience and then say, "by the way, that was a Ted Anneman effect, but I modified it with a peek method from Richard Busch and I used Richard Osterlind's patter with a subtlelity by Banachek" ?

And I don't think its just as simple as giving credit, you actually got to get written permission..so who are we to judge if they got permission from the effect's creators? Unless you are saying that these so called "worst magicians" performed an effect you created.

What he said ----^

I agree that we are worms compared to these people, and that the issue of "best" or "worst" is subjective, but then, the value judgement has to start somewhere right?

Just because we are not politicians doesn't mean we are not qualified to judge and vote for politicians to lead the country.

And in this case, being magicians ourselves, I think we have a better advantage than laymen in judging who is "good" and who is not. Laymen would say, "Man that Blaine guy like so levitated man... It was like... WHOA." That for them may be good, but then, after the initial rush, they will likely ask, "How did he do it?" or seek the next rush, "Hey show us something else / Hey can you levitated higher? / Hey can you do it naked?"

As magicians, I think we measure them with different yardsticks. From what I have read of this thread so far, most people vote against performers who lack presentation and showmanship - the elements for entertainment. I doubt laymen will consider this first and foremost.

I can do cigarette through quarter (in fact I have it), so am I as great as Copperfield now? Obviously not. Why not? Because I'm not 6ft 4, has great hair, looks handsome, and rich? Or because I do not possess half the showmanship as Copperfield?

(And if you want to answer that the reason I'm not successful is because I'm not tall, good-looking etc. then I direct you to examine Specimen A: Jay Sankey)

actually, showmanship & the elements of entertainment - this is the only criteria laymen can judge magicians, cause sleights or technical difficulty is definitely not an issue.

I mean to say you don't like their presentation is fine and perfectly acceptable, but to say they are the worst??? refer any disctionary's definition of "worst" if you dont know what it means.

That's taking things a bit too far right?

I'm not here to start a debate, but I think its downright disrespectful to say these are the worst magicians, espcially when you are talking about award winning magicians. And I find it hard to accept Franz Harary was even mentioned.

But that's just my 2 cents. Maybe you guys are better than them.

I'm not continuing this topic any further.

hey I like this one. can i have your permission to use this in my patter when performing to magicians?

err...sure go ahead. But I don't know how you are gonna make it work in context...good luck

I don't like to watch Franz Harary perform. He might be a great guy, but I don't like to watch him do magic.

But that's my opinion. And on a forum, what we get from posters is only opinion, not hard truth and fact.

Just because I don't like him doesn't mean he's the "worst", because like I said "worst" is subjective. Because maybe other people (such as perhaps yourself) DO like to watch him.

I also don't agree with "people who started in magic after watching David Blaine shouldn't criticise his performance style". I think it is a sign of development in a magician if he or she can critically dissect other people's performances and see what will and will not work in their own context. That doesn't mean someone like Blaine is bad per se. It's more of "I think what he does can be done better. So I'll do it that way".

And I'd gladly watch a kid who was a Blaine fan perform great magic with great presentation rather than someone who just blindly imitates his effects and presentation style.

I agree that "worst" is a bad word to use for this kind of topic. But that doesn't mean we should not discuss the pro's and cons of different magicians so that people reading this topic realise that:

• Presentation Matters.
• I shouldn't imitate my favourite magician wholesale.
• Different people look for different things.
• Nobody is perfect.

Not discussing a topic in a logical coherent fashion because it might seem "disrespectful" is detrimental to the board. As long as people don't start going "HAY GUYS HE SUX0RS" I think it's alright.

Just a thought.

- Raoul

Yea you're right. What I mean to say is that we magicians know this is what we are looking out for in judging a performance. We are able to break it down like that, whereas laypeople probably are not really that aware of it.

Yea it's not nice nor justified to be saying who is the "worst", but I thought this was just a light topic for us to have some fun bashing some performers we didn't like. Not everything has to be taken so seriously I think. *gives rainking a Tiger beer* B)

if DB is bad, how come DB got so many fans compared to other magicians?
i think laymen's view and magician's view are different.

back to topic, haha to me is jay sankey, he is good magician but i just don't like his way of presentation, treating people like small kids wif his funny voice and funny movements. just does not entertain me at all.

I think that it is rather misleading that Criss Angel's DVD was titled Criss Angel - Coin in Soda Can. Its not the credits at the end of the show that matter, as people rarely watch it. Titling the DVD Criss Angel - Coin in Soda Can, then have him just sit there and be a host... While its legal, its just very misleading.

About people thinking that you can really defy gravity, I don't think I'll meet such people. Most Singaporeans, especially those that would want to watch anyone perform, would have heard of the phrase "sleight of hand". Around that many would have heard of, and probably even know how to perform, the Balducci Levitation. I think that people won't think that levitations and card tricks are real magic, but may be more open to other forms which are less common.

Well, I guess I was not really talking about the magicians who are the worst performers (like i said, I do not think that they are "bad"). Just a misinterpretation of the topic on my part. Certainly, they are better than me.

I would attribute David Blaine's popularity to good marketing, rather than magical brilliance. Good marketing of a product can make all the difference, which is why magicians choose to go to online shops like ellusionist to produce their products. An example of such a magician who could be more popular would be Derren Brown. Here in Singapore, few laypeople have heard of him. It was also through this lack of popularity in America that he was able to go on his tour, fooling the experts of the different professions. However, he certainly has many fans back in England.

I agree that laymen's views and those of magicians are different. But, most magicians that are able to gather the respect of other magicians would be able to impress laymen as well. Again, I cite the example of Derren Brown. He is able to impress other magicians (not just me, as I have read in threads on this forum), but also can gather popularity amongst laypeople.

Im unclear about this but I will disagree and agree with you for the moment. If both Blaine and Angel credit the originators before the performance, then ill disagree with you. For example, You dont see WH doing invisible palm and credit Paul Harris before going into the trick(but he states it on his webby) like " I would like to thank Paul Harris for creating such a great effect, here is the Invisible Palm". It will sound weird and probably destroy the effect in some way. Im a newbie in magic so isnt magicians suppose to perform an effect like you were the creator or something? Does that makes the effect more powerful?

For the agree part, both Blaine and Angel dont credit before or after the performance. Not even in the credits section. I guess they do that to somehow keep the impression of laymen on them. Yeah , whats with the monotone that Blaine speaks?

Need some views on this , correct me if im not wrong. B)

My view on this crediting issue is to think of it as how you would a movie.

Like you watch certain movies (let's take one of my favourites "Love's Labour's Lost" as an example) and you go through the 2 hours happily enjoying it. You think it's a great show. Yay.

Then say you get the DVD and in the director's commentary, you see him crediting Fred Astaire for the dance choreography, you see him crediting the Gershwins for the music, and you see him crediting stage-musical directors for the cinematography, and at one point crediting a certain director for a visual pun he directly copies for his movie.

The first time you watched it, you didn't know about all this, and even though now you do, unless you wish to become a director yourself, or are a student of film, you wouldn't really care so much about these extra information about who is being credited for what.

And the fact is, your enjoyment as an audience the first time round wasn't any less than it is now, even with the extra information. At the very most, you can boast to your friend, "Ah, that's the Astaire move right there."

This crediting thing is, I feel, more useful and applicable to people in the industry, people in the know already. Not telling your audience at every step of the way where you got your ideas from does not equate to claiming the routine/effect as yours. No layperson is going to recognise names like Luke Jermay, Richard Busch, Bob Cassidy, and quoting them is just going to spoil your presentation.

And people will just say, Kenneth Branagh made a great film. Those that know all his influences will appreciate it better and on another different level. They might say, "Branagh was very innovative in mixing 1930s glamour, with the Jazz moves together with Shakespearean dialogue in a theatrical setting." Is this cheating then since Branagh doesn't really say where he got his ideas from? I don't think so. So long as he is not claiming to have invented the stage-musical style of movie-making, then he is not committing any wrong.

I don't think Angel nor Blaine come out to say, "Hey I invented the 2-Card Monte. Just check my last TV special." If you think they are the inventors of the tricks you see, then it's a belief built around a lack of information and research. They don't claim anything, and if someone should be blamed (which I think no one should), then it's the audience member who, because of his lack of knowledge in the field, jump to the conclusion that Angel or Blaine are claiming other people's effects as their own and is thereby doing something "wrong".

I know some of you are not too comfortable in discussing the topics in this thread. I mean, some of you are right in saying who are we to judge people like Blaine or Angel when they are world famous and we are just... well, very very small fries.

Actually, when I was still a layman, all magicians looked good to me, all tricks seemed amazing. But of course, when i got into magic, my standards are raised. I start to look into presentation, style, platter, handling... all that sort of technical aspects. I think, for us, it's really inevitable.

I am not actually sayind Blaine and those guys are really poor magicians, but from a magician (or should I say magic enthusiast) point of view, I am looking from a technical point of view.

So hope you all guys understand. I am not trying to be arrogant here and judge others when I am not there yet.



:D

Actually their job is to entertain laypeople.
As long as they've done their part they are good magicians.
the laypeople like me are entertained:)

There's a... melancholy sort of attitude amongst magicians nowadays, mostly lamenting the fact that "magic is getting shite exposure from some arse-vipe television magicians". Hold on, short self-musing coming through:

I had a really bad day once. Everything went wrong- I managed to lose my lucky half dollar, I failed a test, bombed a magic performance and flipped out at my spectators to boot. I came home feeling that the whole world was against me, that life was just a rorschach patch that we ascribed any esoteric meaning to that best suited our hopes and fears at the time. Just as I was about to stick my head in the electric oven, my Gmail notifier informed me I had a new message.

The point is, when you start harboring these negative viewpoints about anything, your mind automatically subconsciously filters out everything good about that certain topic, and you carry that grudge into your actions. What I'm trying to say is that we as magicians, having been exposed to all different kinds of magic, have had our wonder-and-astonishment-bones dulled to the point of retardedment. Laymen, on the other hand, are practically virgins to our artform. They're more appreciative of the mass-marketed magic of tinseltown, as opposed to the more psychologically involving types of acts we're so interested in nowadays.

Jealousy, perhaps?

-Kev