From: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan)
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:59:13 GMT

Brian Harvey has said:

>To me this sounds just like the debate rock musicians used to have about
>whether it was ethical to use synthesizers.  Remember that?

[Or when the Moody Blues got into union hassles in the U.S.A. over use of the
Mellotron which eliminated the need for hiring local string sections or choral
groups to do some of their stuff?]

>                                                             You'll find
>"No synthesizers!" on the jackets of the early Queen albums, for instance.
>These days it's considered questionable to use non-synthesized instruments.

Well...since I never had an objection to that, it doesn't strike the same chord
(it just came out, I swear :-)) with me.

>The point is that every performer performs partly for the sake of the
>audience and partly for the fun of performing.  For the most part, I'd
>say, audiences don't really care how skillful a performer is; they care
>about how entertaining the show is.

Agreed, but not if they think something is going on that isn't and they find
out later that they've been misled.  I think anyone going to a magic show is
expecting misdirection, etc.  But if mechanical props and assistants do all
the work -- and the audience were to know this -- I think lots of folks would
be less enthused.

This is NOT the same as divulging HOW a _specific_ effect is done.  This is
assuming there is some personal skill on the part of the magician(s) involved
only to find out it was ALL mechanical or aided by assistants.

Let's take Copperfield's "shrinking" effect on his last show.  It was one of
the things I liked because it was a variation on a theme that you do not see as
often.  However, I bet more people in the audience were impressed with other
stuff because they felt that had "seen that sort of thing before" when they see
a "zig-zag," etc.  They were probably more blown-away by the "mind-reading" ef-
fect with the wall and spray paint.  I'll bet they would have had ZERO respect
for the effect if they knew how it was done.  Copperfield does not do ANYTHING
of significance as a magician in this effect.  (Sorry...just how I feel.)

>               A friend of mine who's a juggler tells me that some of the
>biggest crowd-pleasing stunts are quite easy to do, whereas some things
>that require great skill are boring to watch.  But of course it's more fun
>*for the performer* to do something that pushes his or her ability.

I'd say that's true for many fields of endeavor.

>Audiences do occasionally get angry if they feel that the performer is
>a complete fraud

>                                               But what's strange is that
>the criteria for this anger vary enormously.  It used to be taken for
>granted that musicians appearing on TV would lip-sync to their records and
>not actually make music.  Why isn't that fraudulent?

Because the assumption was that the performer DID perform the music originally
and that in an appropriate live concert, they would/could again.  Lots of folks
don't object to lip syncing on a TV show, but they are darned angry when they
pay for a concert and get recorded music!  And many HAVE called that fraudulent.

>                                                      It is now okay for
>a performer to make music by sampling and rearranging someone else's music.
>That would have made me angry in my youth.

Not me.  In fact, I'll bet, in a less obvious sense, that's how influences in
classical and jazz music actually occur at one level or another.  However, this
is not representing something for other than it appears to be.  It is clear in
sampling that other people's works are involved.  This is the point of
contention, not the fact that it isn't "real" music.

I'd compare this more to a magician taking parts of other magicians' acts and
presenting them as their own.  Oops...doesn't this happen all the time?  I mean
how many uniquely original magic shows have you ever seen?  (On the other hand,
when an original presentation of an effect is presented, the magic world does
get a tad upset if someone outright rips it off.)  This analogy (of music to
magic) falls apart fairly quickly, I fear, based on what is considered to be the
created work and what comprises it.

>For magicians the rules are even more arbitrary because, of course, in one
>sense every magician is a fraud, and the audience expects that.

Precisiely, as I noted above.  But they expect it within certain bounds.

>as actors aren't expected to do their own risky stunts.

More doe these days because they fgeel it important to do so themselves since
the footage can be more effective that way however.  If you have heard recent
interviews with folks like Kevin Costner, this is what they say.  On the other
hand, the use of stubnt people is one of the bounds within which the audience
works.  They are not grossly disappointed when they find out that this is true
because the profesion does not go out of its way to hide the fact from them.

>                                                         Houdini used
>invisible assistants.

Welll, "unseen" ones.  If he managed "invisible" ones...wow...now that WOULD be
neat.  Seriously, I think Houdini's reputation was built on tremendous personal
skill, though.  But, I'm sure, in some circumstances, people would have been
very upset to know Houdini did this just because he made such a big deal of his
skills.

>I suppose I might feel cheated if a magician advertised "no assistants" and
>it turned out not to be true.

How about one who says "no strings" and then uses wires?

>                               But I don't think magicians should be trying
>to establish the atmosphere of challenging the audience anyway; the idea is
>to *help* the audience suspend disbelief.

Yes...very true.  And Copperfield did that effectively with many of his big
effects.  But many of them were a flop in my opinion.  His recent "flying"
routine was very well done.  I would have admired him more if they had not got-
ten James Earl Jones to talk about "strings."  I bet the lay audience would
make no distinction between "strings" and "wires" and "cables" and ...!
-- 

Scott   (email) duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Internet)
             OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan (UUCP)
        (voice) 908-699-3910 (w)   609-452-9054 (h)
	(USMAIL) Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane  RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ  08854
Newsgroups: alt.magic