Book Update

For those of you who have chosen to support Season 3 at the Gotta Have It level, I wanted to give you an update on the book. Yesterday I put a first hyper-rough-draft together of the ideas and effects that will make up Magic for Young Lovers to get a sense of how much material I had... and it was almost 200 pages longer than I intend the final project to be. So now it's just a matter of deciding what stuff I think works best for this book and what I'm going to cut.

If you're waiting for a detailed description of what's going to be in the book before you order, no such list is forthcoming. I don't want to have to talk someone into buying a $260 book. It is what it's meant to be: a reward for the people who like this site enough to support it. If a year of this site, four issues of the X-Comm magazine, a limited edition deck of cards and a limited edition book isn't worth that cost to you, then me describing some of the tricks isn't going to push you over the edge, I'm sure. 

The big focus in this book is magic that creates more enduring amazement by utilizing strong emotional hooks. Presentations that would be interesting even without a trick accompanying them, and props that the average human can connect to with greater ease than they can just a deck of cards or some Chinese coins. (In Magic For Young Lovers you will find tricks with pictures of your ex-girlfriend, licorice, a re-cut version of Star Wars, buried treasure, dreams, incense, a prototype version of a new word game your friend created, origami, pictures of your genitals, sign language, and an infant child.) 

There's no big hurry to purchase the book now, I will give a "final call" later in the year before it's sent off to the printers. I should say though, unlike JV1 where there were some extras printed for my retirement plan, with this book there won't be any extras printed (other than any overage created by the printer). So to guarantee a copy you'll have to get in an order before I place my order with the publisher. But, as I said, there's no rush. I'll keep you updated.

On the agenda for the coming months, in addition to writing and editing the book, I'll be working with the photographer and choosing the models for the cover shoot, taking the reference photos for the illustrations (once again to be done by the brilliant Stasia Burrington), designing and finding a printer for a couple small props that will come with the book, putting the Jerx Deck #2 together, and writing this site and the magazine and testing out a couple of dozen ideas every month or so. If you're ever like, "Why doesn't he write me back long emails?" This is why.

I'm not complaining though. This is all crazy time-consuming, but it's also intellectually and creatively stimulating stuff. So it's generally pretty enjoyable. Definitely better than the alternative.

tumblr_p7g99qFdSe1qz6f4bo1_500.jpg

Presentation Exploder

Let's take a look at the evolution of a trick/presentation as it applies to a commercial effect.

Why not just go with the presentation that was provided with the trick itself? Well, there are probably a number of reasons why you wouldn't want to, but two key ones are:

1. A personal, non-generic presentation is likely to be stronger and more interesting.

2. An original presentation is much less susceptible to having the mystery eliminated with a quick google search.

The basic idea we're building towards with this example comes from Joe Mckay. I've just embellished his presentation a little so it suits my style.

So we start with the commercially released effect, Cesaral's Melting Point. This was a trick that was released over a decade ago and was, primarily, marketed as a coin through glass table effect. You can see the effect below (and listen to some funky bass grooves).

I think this trick looks great, but the problem with a trick like this is that it's just about the moment of impossibility. When a trick is just about that moment, that become the sole focus for the spectator. And when all they're given is a moment of impossibility—for a lot of people—it just becomes an exercise in attacking that moment. By adding some other elements to the presentation we can create something that is bigger than just the one moment.

For decades, if not centuries, magicians have done a terrible job of adding elements to the presentation in an attempt to flesh out their presentation. Usually their big idea is to add symbolism. "This coin represents your goals and dream, and this glass table represents the obstacles you'll face." Or, "This coin is like an atom and...," blah, blah, blah. Symbolism is terrible in magic presentations. It trivializes both the magic and the thing being symbolized. 

An equally dumb presentational choice magicians make is to add a layer of distance between this moment and the effect the audience is seeing. Instead of a presentation that suggests, "I'm going to push this coin through the table and this is why it's important/interesting," they go with a presentation that's like, "One time I was at a bar and I saw a magician push a coin through a glass table." This type of thing is terrible. All it does is shift the focus off the current moment, when magic's greatest strength is its ability to pull focus to the present.

So the question becomes, what could we add to this effect to make it not just a moment of impossibility, but one that has some potentially broader implications? Cesaral's Melting Point does not need to be done with a coin or a table. Can we change either of those elements to make the penetration more meaningful? What else might go through glass? How about that Danny Thomas story where he would have prostitutes shit on a glass coffee table while he laid underneath it? Hmm... no... I think we're getting colder.

When else might there be a pane of glass that you'd like to get an object to the other side of?

How about...

X4YCYTY7RWVLAR3SP7QIMA35NY.jpg

No, I'm not suggesting you perform the effect in a prison visiting room (although that would be pretty cool). 

But look at what Melting Point looks like when done through a window rather than on a table. (The person on the other side of the glass is a stooge. And in this case, a not particularly good one. (Why does he only react to the coin going through the window after he looks at it?))

You can see how that visual could easily be transposed in a spectator's mind to something that was happening on opposite sides of prison glass. 

Joe's idea was to do the trick through a window with a stooge and to use a key instead of a coin. I really like the use of a key because I think it's easier to come up with reasons why you need to pass a key from one side of something to the other than it is to come up with reasons you need to pass a coin. In Joe's version, the trick was a demonstration of an old Houdini technique to sneak a key into a prison he was going to be escaping from. 

If I was going to do this trick (and I likely will) I would probably modify that presentation slightly in two ways. First, I wouldn't use a stooge. I'd use a second person who is a partner with me in the presentation. (A stooge whose primary job is to act amazed never goes over well in my opinion.) And rather than making it a demonstration of an old technique, I'd make it a rehearsal of something new we're working on now. 

Here's what I mean:

Presentation 1 - For use when the audience knows me well, and understands that I'm prone to spinning a web of bullshit for the sake of entertainment and they're not too likely to get hung up on the reality of what I'm saying.

In this case I'd be out for a coffee with my partner, and our target audience (of one or more people) would be joining us. When they get there, my partner and I are looking at some sketches on a napkin. "Oh hey, guys. You know Steve, right? Let me get these out of your way.... We have this thing we're working on. Steve's uncle is in jail on some totally bullshit charges. What is he supposed to do? Check the I.D. of everyone who gives him a blowjob? Anyway... we have this plan to help him out. We just need to get him this key. But everything you send in through the prison mail system gets searched and visitations are done through a pane of glass. But I think I have an idea. It's based on an old technique Houdini used to do. We were just about to try it."

This is the type of presentation I think of as "immersive fiction." I'm not trying to present something to people that they'll believe is true. I'm trying to present something to them that they'll find intriguing. And sneaking something to someone in prison is an inherently interesting subject even if there is no magic involved.

Presentation 2 - For when I want to present the effect in a way that is more nuanced in regards to what is real and what isn't. 

It starts off the same way. Some friends meet up with me and my partner for this effect as we're apparently working on something. [It would not come off as a monologue like this, but this is just the general idea.] "You guys know Steve, right? We're working on something pretty interesting. Steve has been studying Houdini for years and he's trying to do some similar types of performances and is working on a prison escape publicity stunt. They won't let you do anything like that in the U.S., but he has family in Colombia and he's got permission from a prison there because... what do they care."

"The thing is, the way you break out of prison as an escape artist is by sneaking in keys or lock picks. And the way Houdini would do that is he'd hide them in his hair or up his asshole or he'd swallow them to regurgitate them later. Or he'd have his wife, Bess, hide them in her mouth and when she'd give him a farewell kiss—after he'd been searched—she'd slip them from her mouth into his. But all those techniques are public knowledge now, so they're not going to let Steve get away with that. They're going to shave his head and use some temporary glue to seal his mouth shut and something to plug his butthole, I guess. It's pretty intense. And he only gets to see his girlfriend through a window in the visiting area before he's locked in for the night. So we're trying to come up with a way for her to still sneak him a key. We think we have an idea and we were just about to test it..."

The narrative elements here are the sort of thing that will make the passing of the key much more interesting than just a standard penetration. "But doesn't the impossibility make it interesting enough on its own?" Sometimes yes, but the novelty of impossibility does wear off for people who have seen a lot of magic. On the other hand, a truly captivating concept with a magical element to it is the type of thing that people will never tire of seeing.

Six Uses of a Less-Secret Assistant

In this post on Wingmen, I introduced the concept of a Less-Secret Assistant. Unlike a Secret Assistant, whose presence is not noticed, the Less-Secret Assistant is someone who is clearly a part of the interaction, but the other people there don't realize this person is working with you. 

But Andy, why are you using the words "wingman" and "less-secret assistant" and this sort of thing? Why not use the terms that are already part of the magic vernacular like "stooge" and "confederate"?

Here's why. I want to veer off in a slightly different direction with these topics. And if I say, "Here are some uses for a stooge or confederate," you may have some predetermined feelings on those topics that aren't beneficial to the direction I want to go with these ideas. 

You see, a wingman is a reciprocal relationship, between two or more magicians to be exploited in social situations. This isn't about putting a plant in the audience to make you look good. The idea of having and being a wingman is about the relationship you two create, and using it to really mess with people. 

Now, as I said in my original post, you don't have to hide the fact that your Less-Secret Assistant is also interested in magic. Perhaps if you overuse this technique on the same group of people, they might suspect you're working together, but you'd really have to be pretty obvious about it. In a way we're going to take advantage of the stereotype of a magician being somewhat egocentric or narcissistic. Magic is considered something of a "show-off" hobby. So the idea that someone who is in your social circle and an equal to you might be secretly helping you just for the sake of making you look better or making an interesting experience for the others without getting any of the acclaim for him or herself, that's not a concept that is immediately going to spring to mind for your target audience. Audiences tend to look at the smaller picture; the thing that just happened in this moment. The notion that you might have a long-term relationship with one or more of the people there, built on helping each other out, that's not an obvious solution many spectators will leap to.

Six Uses for a Less-Secret Assistant

You're out with a group of people. One or more of them is in your crew of wingmen. Here are some examples of ways you might used them as a Less-Secret Assistant. (Or vice-versa.)

Examine the Unexaminable

Many tricks start unexaminable, but end in an examinable state. A great use for an LSA is to hand the gimmicked deck or the gimmicked coins or whatever to them at the start and ask them to give them a look. They give a fake look over the objects and hand them back. This is a subtle, but valuable, use of an LSA. And it's especially convincing when you can hand the objects back out for general examination to everyone at the end.

If the trick doesn't end examinable you could still use this ruse by handing the objects to be examined at the end just to your LSA to give a fake once-over. But you run the risk of the other people there wanting to take a look too. 

One thing I've considered, but never actually done, is to take a highly gimmicked deck, like a Mental Photography Deck, do a trick with it and then put it in my messenger bag or coat pocket at the end and then have my LSA be like, "What the fuck... there's no way. That's a trick deck or something." And they reach in and grab the deck to take a look at it. Of course, they're removing an ungimmicked deck in the process. So it's like a pocket switch but done by two people. 

Foot Tapping

All sorts of information can be transmitted by tapping each other's feet under a table. You can do very simple stuff like you leave the room and an object is hidden under one of four bowls, you come back and wave your hand over each bowl and you know which one has the hidden object. 

Or you can do a card divination where a card you never see is selected from wan ordinary deck of cards. You then learn what the card is either by breaking it down into its attributes.  "Okay, think... was it a red card... or a black card [foot tap]." And so on.

But the real value of having wingmen is to work on things you couldn't just do with any ordinary stooge. You can teach your ditzy boyfriend or girlfriend to tap on your foot when you point at the bowl with the object under it. But with wingmen you can get together some night and just order a couple of pizzas and put your heads down and commit to learning morse code. It can be done in a night. And with other people, it's fun to practice. 

Now you can secretly transmit actual words to each other at a table. So, perhaps, one spectator brings any book, a second flips to any page, and a third points to any word on the page and you're able to name what it is with your eyes tightly closed and facing away from everyone. Or, what I like, is to do the sort of thing where your eyes are clearly covered, but you can continually name objects that are held up by someone else at the table. Most often you can figure out the object with just the first three or four letters tapped on your foot.

False Shuffling

"Give these cards a quick mix," you say, and hand the deck to your LSA.

You continue talking to your target audience and your LSA false shuffles and hands the deck back.

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter if they are the world's worst false shuffler. They just have to make some riffling noises while you are occupying people's attention and everyone will assume the deck has been shuffled.

Spoon Bending

I'm not much of a spoon bender myself, but I've watched friends do this routine. It works best if no one knows your LSA is into magic.

It's you, your LSA and your TA (Target Audience) at the table. 

You ask your LSA to grab three spoons. One spoon is examined and put into a little bag formed by holding a cloth napkin or bandana by the four corners. This is given to the TA to hold by the corners. The other two spoons are examined and one is given to the performer and one is kept by LSA. 

You concentrate and bend your spoon with your mind (apparently). The spoon is compared to the LSA's spoon to show how much it bent. 

"But maybe I just secretly bent it with my hands or something. Here, [LSA], you hold onto this spoon like this." They hold onto the spoon and it visually starts to melt in their hands at your command. 

"Okay, but still, he was touching the spoon. Maybe it's a fancy spoon that melts from human body heat. I don't know. But there's one spoon no one has touched, in the little bag you're holding." You make some gesture and the TA removes the spoon to find it bent. 

So, obviously, you and the LSA both need some spoon bending abilities. The LSA should probably be the better of the two at spoon bending because that's going to be the follow-up to the original bend, so there may be more heat on it. The spoon that's placed in the napkin can be placed in straight and just bent from the outside of the napkin as the corners are being gathered up. 

I don't think you can present spoon bending in a much stronger way than this.

One Ahead

You'll almost be embarrassed to do this because it's too good and too easy. Just use your LSA for the last choice in a one-ahead routine. Unlike many one-ahead routines that have a kind of wonky progression—"think of any place in the world, now any number, now pick a card"—this allows you to perform some very straight-forward and cohesive effects. "I want everyone here to think of an embarrassing childhood celebrity crush and I'm going to try and guess them." I think the consistency of the question and the process actually makes the method stronger than traditional uses of one-ahead where things change along the way, which perhaps points to the method.

Less-Secret APPsistant

A lot of the magic apps on the market can go from great to miracle with when you have an LSA on your side. I'm not going to go into all these because I don't want to get into methods too much. But often you need to do some secret inputting of information into your phone. If the inputting is done by one of the apparent spectators, then it seems all the more cleaner. 

Think about the use of an LSA with an app like Digital Force Bag. This makes that app even more valuable because you can perform tricks without you knowing the number selected by the audience. The group of spectators can secretly agree on a number. You say, "Someone grab my phone and go to my notes app." Your phone just happens to be closest to your LSA. Miracles ensue. 

Combine some of these ideas and things become even more astounding. Think of doing Wikitest with your eyes genuinely closed and covered. Your Target Audience thinks of any word and looks it up on Wikipedia on her own phone. She is to make sure no one else in the group sees the word. Your LSA gets the peek and then transmits the word to you with foot taps. 

Is this gilding the lily? Yes. I'm not sure it's significantly more impressive than Wikitest as it's performed normally. But part of this is about increasing the bond between your group of wingmen, and executing some more outlandish methodologies is going to build that connection. It's just fun to plan this stuff and take advantage of people's special skills and pull off a crazy trick. It's a little like what I imagine planning a bank heist feels like.

You see, the "wingman" concept is not just about creating experiences for your spectators, it's also about creating experiences for you as a small group of performers. This is really where the idea differs from the traditional notions of stooges, plants, and confederates. 

For the first 20 years that I practiced magic, it often felt very isolating as a hobby. Performing for others wasn't something I loved doing because I didn't like the magician-centric approach that was modeled for me in magic. And for every time I performed something and felt like it brought people closer to me, I felt just as often that it kept people at a distance. And the part of the hobby devoted to the inner-workings of the effects was also something that was designed to be kept to myself, except on rare occasions when I'd interact with other magicians. 

During the first three years of this site I've explored a lot of ideas about the presentation of magic which have helped get me out and performing more (as much as any non-professional in the world, I would imagine) by making it more communal and experiential and less about me.

The wingmen concept is about taking that same esthetic and applying it to the secret workings of effects. It's about making magic more of a collaborative and social experience, but not in just a "let's get together and talk secrets way," but in a way that's actually about creating magical experiences for others.

I'm often asked why there isn't a Jerx message board or facebook page. It's because you don't need another place online to talk magic. If anything, all these places online are likely keeping you from getting out there and performing. If you want another group to talk about magic and the concepts that I explore here, make that a group you create in the real world.

Gardyloo #59

73c0db5b3889f5e4ee9393186327f230--birthday-qoutes-boy-birthday-cards.jpg

As this pangendered mult-instrumentalist and his/her mutant lamb-dog hybrid suggest, this site is now three years old.


On Wednesday I wrote about how I see magic evolving as the availability of secrets continues to grow. Essentially I see it changing into a two-part presentation. Traditionally, a magic trick takes place in one "act." I perform something mystifying and I leave you with the mystery. But, as secrets become more ubiquitous, I see magic presentations taking place in two parts. I perform something mystifying, then I tell you how it was done. It will almost be like a riddle, where you set up some intriguing question, but then ultimately you solve it for them. If we continue to perform in a trick-centric, magician-centric, secret-centric style, that's the only place magic really can go (if the second "act" doesn't take place with the magician, then the spectator will take care of it themselves wth a google search).

This may seem like a detriment to the art of magic, and it may be. But let's be honest, you love magic and you love learning all the secrets too, so it's not like the two can't co-exist. What it's definitely a detriment to is the experience of mystery. But don't worry, in the spirit of "take your weaknesses and make them strengths," I think I have some ideas that can allow us to co-opt this progression and create even stronger magic and mystery. More on that soon.


A reader, Casey, sent me this video/link. And I present it as a point of reference along the way towards the Magic as Riddle evolution. 

Mathieu Bich goes on Fool Us and fools Penn and Teller with his trick Spreadwave

That video on youtube has well over a million views. And it links you right to a website he made—www.ifooledthem.com—where not only will he sell you the trick, but he'll just go ahead and tell you the secret for $2. It's just to satisfy your curiosity (as the secret is useless without the gimmicked deck).

Magical purists will say, "How dare he!" But it is his trick to do with as he pleases. And if he didn't "expose" it, someone else on youtube would do it instead. That's kind of the point I'm making about the ultimate endgame of the progression I feel we're on. How do we change course? There's an obvious, but not simple, solution. As I said, more on this to come.


The best thing in magic is when you find a truly one-of-a-kind performance. Sure, seeing the classics performed is always nice. But there's nothing more exciting than seeing something that is so perfectly original and unique to a performer that you know you'll never see something like it ever again. Like, for example, this trick where Franz Harary makes the Whitewater High School Marching Band appear on an empty football field! That's something you don't see everyday!


If you didn't watch until the end of Monday's video, you missed the part that made me laugh the most when making it.


This Week in Failed Experiements

Can I do a color-changing gumball trick by using dry-erase marker on a white gumball?

IMG_4832.GIF

Uhm... no. No I can't.


The best thing in magic is when you find a truly one-of-a-kind performance. Sure, seeing the classics performed is always nice. But there's nothing more exciting than seeing something that is so perfectly original and unique to a performer that you know you'll never see something like it ever again. Like, for example, this trick where Ken Scott makes the Whitewater High School Marching Band appear on an empty football field! That's something you don't see everyday!


tumblr_p8jkc5IKgX1tki7xko1_540.jpg

Saving Magic By Eliminating Tricks

There's a low-key form of testing I like to do when I'm considering buying a new effect. It's something you all can do too. It doesn't cost any money and it's really easy. You don't have to own the effect. All you need to do is describe the effect to someone as if you're considering working on it and then ask if they have any ideas how it might be done. If, in this mental exercise, they immediately go to the method used in the actual trick—or even if they come up with any reasonable method that you can't eliminate in performance—then it might not be such a hot effect.

Recently, Ellusionist released a trick that I thought was a little weak. It's called Isolated by Keiron Johnson. It's a signed Rubik's Cube in glass jar effect.

maxresdefault.jpg

Now, when I look at that I immediately think that I'm not seeing a signed cube in a bottle I'm seeing a signed sticker that happens to be on a cube. Anyone who has handled a cube knows it has stickers on it. So my first thought was that a spectator would guess that's the method. It seemed obvious to me. It would be like if you had a "Signed Chef's Salad in Jar" and it was just one of the cherry tomatoes that was signed. I think people would realize that maybe the only thing that wasn't in the bottle to begin with was that cherry tomato.

Again, I thought this was obvious, but I'm smart enough to know that I'm not so smart that I can always tell the way laypeople's minds will work.

So I walked through the idea of the effect briefly with some people and asked how they thought I might be able to accomplish it. Nobody mentioned the concept of sneaking the sticker off the cube and applying it to another cube in a jar. So it turns out it wasn't such an obvious solution. At least with the half-dozen people I asked. And so I began to think about purchasing this trick.

But then something happened that made me change my mind. Two of the people I asked about the idea had gone and googled rubik's cube in bottle magic or something along those lines and both sent me to the page where the trick was sold. You could say that I had encouraged them to google the idea because I asked about possible methods. That's conceivable. But I don't think the urge to google some idea I mentioned casually would be more intense than it would be to google the same trick if it had just fooled you badly and you were dying to satisfy your rabid curiosity. And this is a problem.

I recently got an email from Joe Mckay that said, "Another depressing thing is how easy it is to google magic secrets. Just type the basic effect into google of any card trick - and most of the time you will get a bunch of explanations telling you how the trick was done. You don't even need to know the name of the trick."

In actuality, I think card tricks are sort of the "safest" type of trick to perform in this respect. Most are so dull that no one is going to bother googling: "The trick where one ace is placed on the bottom of the pile and it goes to the top. Then another ace is placed on the top of a second pile and goes to the bottom. And then..." No one's going to bother googling that. Although some classic card effects that are simple to describe may be susceptible to a simple google search.

If performing magic that is anything other than a momentary diversion is important to you, this is a subject you need to be thinking about. This is not about the exposure of secrets, it's about the availability of secrets. There's a gigantic difference there. If Brian Brushwood exposes the invisible deck, that's an issue only if you're performing the invisible deck for someone who has watched that episode of his show. Exposure affects a very narrow section of your performances. But availability of secrets affects potentially everything you perform. 

Your spectator doesn't actually have to be able to find the secret itself. Just the idea that they can run a google search and see where they can buy any particular trick is going to weaken the moment for them.

And the unfortunate thing is that the more people are taken with your performance, the harder it fools them, and the more likely they are to try and satisfy their curiosity in regards to how it was done.

If things just progress as they're going, I think in a matter of years, the "mystery" element (the "magical" element) of magic will be almost gone. This isn't a bold prediction, this is just the way magic has evolved over the past couple hundred years. In ten years, when finding out anything will be almost instantaneous, I can see the mystery being entirely eliminated. Or at the very most it will be this very brief moment that happens before the secret is immediately revealed.  Magic tricks will be almost like the set-ups to jokes. And learning the secret will be the punchline. That will be the nature of performing tricks. I don't think this is a pessimistic point of view. I think it's not only realistic, but pretty much obvious. People will still like magic, but if will be a different sort of experience.

But then I suspect what will happen is that some magicians will start saying, "This is fun, but I miss the days when it was more about living in that magic moment for a while. When it was more about the sense of wonder and not showing them a puzzle and a clever solution." And then there's going to be a movement to move from magician-centric/trick-centric/secret-centric performances to experience-centric performances. Because they'll realize that when the trick is not the show-piece, but is instead fodder for the experience, you can reclaim that magic moment.

And someone is going to say, "Hey, I think I remember some guy mentioning a blog that existed years ago that talked a lot about this stuff. Like expanding the magic beyond the trick and beyond the performer." And then finally this site will be acknowledged and recognized for how important it is. I'm not the savior of modern magic. I'm the savior of future magic, you dummies! Sometimes it's tough being so far ahead of your time.

[You might be confused what I mean by experience-centric magic. It's confusing because a lot of magicians talk about creating an "experience" and then end up doing the exact same bullshit that everyone else is doing. There are many examples of experience-centric magic on this site, but I'll point you to the one in the post Young Reckless Hearts. It's the story of, essentially, a burned and restored playing card. But I can tell you she didn't go home and google "burned and restored card" because the effect was in service to the experience that was created. Or look at Multiple Universe Selection, which is a card change but no one googles "how to change one card to another" after it.]

If the experience is crafted the right way, you can almost hide the trick in it, while still leaving the residual mystery and wonder. Part of saving the feeling of magic will be eliminating the focus on "the trick." I realize this all sounds like some whimsical, flight of fancy horse-shit—especially if your goal is to impress people with your second-deal. But I'm telling you this sort of stuff is really possible and I think it's by far the most fun you and your audience can have with magic.

So if you're concerned at all about the steady decline of mystery in magic, I would say to take a serious look not just at the tricks written up on this site, but also the broad concepts, as they're all designed to go beyond the trick/secret dynamic. (In the meantime, there are some practical ideas in this post in regards to ways to make your magic un-googleable that you can implement today.) I'm definitely interested in hearing other people's thoughts on these subjects because I definitely don't have all the answers and I think it's going to be the defining issue for magic over the next 20 or so years.

A Bet You'll Always Win

Whenever I hear someone say, "Modern music sucks," I always propose a bet. And the bet is this: I will give you $1000 if you can name three bands that were started in the last five years. They can't, of course, because their pronouncement isn't an informed decision based on paying attention to the music of today. It's just bitter-old-person-syndrome (BOPS)

And yes, the top 40 can often be a bit of a crapshoot depending on the whims of the moment, but outside of that, there is always good music being made. Much of it that harkens back to whatever era some people suggest was when "good" music was made. (Usually what people mean when they say modern music sucks is that it doesn't sound like the music they listened to when they were 14 i.e., the last time they were engaged in what new music was coming out.)

What follows is some new music—from the past year or so—all of which is heavily influenced by the music from earlier generations. 

1.jpg

If You Know That I'm Lonely by Fur

Sounds Like: Late 50s pop mixed with modern bedroom rock

Onion by Shannon and the Clams

Sounds like: 50s doo-wop, 60s girl groups and surf rock and a little 80s punk. (Will undoubtedly be in my top 10 for 2018)

Color Out of Space by Dommengang

Sounds like: 70s Rock

Still Waking Up by Tim Darcy

Sounds Like: I thought The Smiths when I first heard it, but my pal Toby nailed it when he called him a babyfaced Roy Orbison. 

Behind Closed Doors by The Strypes

Sounds Like: 80s Pop Rock

Nameless, Faceless by Courtney Barnett

Sounds Like: Early Liz Phair and other mid-90s female rockers

We Out Here by Villain Park

Sounds Like: Late 90s Hip-Hop

More by Cape Cartel

Sounds Like: A mixture of all sorts of good shit from the past 50 years