Where do we go from here?

I recently went down a rabbit hole listening to old Roger Miller tunes I hadn't heard by way of John Denver. It's interesting to watch live footage of these guys performing. Not only did they tend to write all their own music and songs, they were adept showman. It got me thinking about how far away we have gotten from people like this to where we are now where so many of our musical "stars" are manufactured. 

I started to wonder about the emergence of different media and what it took to make it in those new frontiers.

The oldest and most prolific form of entertainment is likely live theater (I include musical performance in this as well). It was the dominant entertainment for a very long time and most media that has come after has always been touched by some form of live theater. When radio emerged, there were radio plays where actors lended their voices to create soundscapes for the people listening at home to envision. 

You also had music being played on the radio which helped a number of people discover new artists and styles they had never heard before. This of course influenced more people to be musicians. Thus, more music makers started to emerge. People who worked hard on their craft be it drums, guitar, singing, etc. You also had to be pretty good to stand out from everyone else. It also helped if you were engaging live (going back to live theater). 

So for a long time, "musician" was the thing to strive for and then movies started to gain traction. Many of the vaudeville comedians and actors of the time started to take advantage of this new medium. Suddenly "movie star" was an option for a career in live performance. Again, you had to study for years in your craft and rehearse, practice, "pay your dues", and have something so many others didn't. Again, live performance ability translated to the new medium and helped others get ahead. The skill and knowledge was visible at every turn.

From there, television became the thing and this is where we start to see a plethora of variety acts get brought to the fore. Shows like Ed Sullivan all the way up to the Gong Show brought us the wild, wacky, and inventive. It gave so many chances they could never reach before. From there, so many saw someone do something cool and was smitten with performing their own act, whatever it might be. From variety shows, we had one off specials, from magic to comedy and everything inbetween. Cable opened even more doors in people's minds. Channels like MTV made the rock star role even MORE desirable than it had been. 

In all of these mediums, you saw and heard people at the top of their game. Much of their success largely attributed to the skill in their chosen field and performing ability (along with a little luck and sometimes business savvy). They worked hard on their craft and it paid off. Now obviously there were outliers but if you want to be inspired look at video of people like Cab Calloway, The Ramones, Fred Astaire, George Carl or any other people who were considered the best of their art.

Fast forward to today, where we have people famous for nothing (or THINK they are famous). The internet has enabled so many to have a presence, which is great in some ways. It lets so many discover new types of art and thoughts they would have never known existed. However, the "skill" now seems to be manipulating numbers and algorithms more than performing ability. 

I often say we are losing masters and they are not being readily replaced. Their shoes are staying empty for far too long. I wonder if it's because the current media is inspiring the wrong things. Of course, who am I to say what is right and wrong? I'm just someone who has seen amazing art by talented performers and I wonder if what we have now is just a watered down version of what came before. I wonder what will inspire future generations to inspire those who come after. Have we reached an impasse? I know entertainment will never die and there will ALWAYS be those who stand out, but originality and dedication to a craft are not rewarded like they once were and it makes me very, very nervous.

Only time will tell I guess.

When is it ok?

Magic has always had it's bouts of "exposure", from Reginald Scot to Penn and Teller, and it has kept plodding on. Various performers have exposed magical props and effects over the years. It's usually for comedic gain or to make a point. Where magical knowledge was once relegated to back rooms of magic clubs or brick and mortar stores, the internet has allowed the widespread exposure of magical secrets to many who wouldn't have given it nary a thought otherwise.

When someone gets called out for sharing a bit too much or the "wrong way", their defense is to always point to someone else and exclaim, "why is it ok for them to do it!?". The answer to that question is up to you ultimately but let's examine some cases shall we? 

At the top of this clip, Harry Anderson straight up shows the gaff of a well known (usually) kids show prop. How he doesn't walk the audience through it's workings, but it's enough for a thinking person to infer what's going on. Now the audience doesn't know this isn't his to show off. For all they know, he invented it and is exposing his own trick. The interesting thing about presentational exposure like this is, when combined with comedy, it has less of a sting. It's the same reason Penn and Teller's "Ripoff of Love" routine is hardly balked at. It's clearly a parody of magical illusions. 

On a personal note, I sit in a weird grey zone with this kind of stuff. While I am ok with certain people using magic for a comedy punchline or using it to make a point, I also don't LIKE it and wouldn't do it myself unless it was my own invention. I think the main thing is, the people who ARE exposing magical effects and apparatus also understand when it's ok and when it's not. The people who get away with it love magic but also know the power of letting people peek behind the curtain a bit.

What about when it's not for comedy? Using P&T as an example again, they have a whole act showing how they do their version of cups and balls utilizing clear cups. While it exposes the basic concept and their routine, by the end, you haven't learned anything. A week later, someone could see another magician do the cups and balls and still be fooled. They know where that fine line is as well as the publicity of making the magic world grumpy. Again, is it ok for them to do it? That's up to you.

I think in this day and age the biggest difference is the intent and reach behind the exposure. It's no longer seemingly for entertainment, education or parody. It's all about views, clicks, likes and other imaginary internet points. (And money, let's not forget that) The audience is much wider and more varied. You can "educate" more people on the internet than you could on TV. Magic has survived exposure of all types and it will always continue marching forward because even people with knowledge can be fooled and entertained. I know how to edit video, but just because I can work Premiere Pro doesn't lessen my enjoyment of movies any less.

We will survive.