Talking with magicians, I often heard the snide comments about Wyrick and his "toys." The general consensus seemed to indicate that Wyrick was only mildly talented and able to afford the big illusions and the launching of his show.
While on stage, Wyrick may not have possessed the raw charisma of David Copperfield (who does?), but I thought that his show was very entertaining (you can read my review here). Of course, what I think about Wyrick's show doesn't matter as the free market has spoken. But I can't believe the snarky comments coming from the press. There's simply no need to hit this low.
"And what do we make of Wyrick -- a performer who cannot get the message that people do not care about his show?" says a recent story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "Like his past efforts, the Hilton was said to be a competent production full of big props. 'It's like visiting your creepy old uncle's house. He has a lot of really cool, really expensive stuff in his house that you want to enjoy,' says one who saw it."
And then there's the narcissism angle. "'One of the things about narcissism is its singular lack of self-awareness,' says Steven Kalas, the Las Vegas Review-Journal's behavioral columnist (seemingly indicating that Wyrick needs psychological help for his attempts at a comeback?). "He points to "American Idol" contestants who don't comprehend that they are horrible until Simon Cowell tells them."
As I've mentioned in past entries, I think that Las Vegas reviewers have simply seen too many magic shows and lost touch with what general audiences pay to see. Of course, if one sees too many magic shows, the illusions can become predictable. But most of the visitors who come to Las Vegas only see one, maybe two shows. And when seen with a fresh set of eyes, the material is stunning and fun.
Yes, please identify the shows that feature poor performers and low production values and aren't worth the money. But at least view each show for its entertainment value to the average person. Not as someone who has been forced to watch and write about ten magic shows in the past two months because his job requires him to do so.
You can read the Las Vegas Review-Journal story here.
More Reading:
Review: CRISS ANGEL Believe
Las Vegas Magic Shows
Comments
wayne, your opinion on steve wyrick is absolutely true. I have seen steve wyrick’s shows at lady luck and at sahara. I thought he was pretty good. I have seen almost all the magic shows in las vegas. The las vegas review journal’s magic show commentator’s remarks are out of line. It seems he dislikes both steve wyrick and also lance burton. He needs to grow up! he should give credit to performers when it is due.
It is all a matter of how you use the props I suggest reworkng all such tricks such that the magician is the victim if you really must do the “bra trick” or other “Sucker” tricks.
Well said Wayne! It is the singer not the song that sells the show. The same is true of magic: it is the showmanship not the ‘tricks’ that sell the show. Reviewers can make or break an act and because they are exposed to many ‘same-old same-old’ acts they often lose sight of what their role is – that of reviewing in an OBJECTIVE manner – and to encourage bums on seats to aid the economy.
A simple ‘check-list’ to review and score ALL shows in a qualitative unbiased manner – with one point awarded for a ‘yes’ and zero points awarded for a ‘no’ is the answer. Here is an example that ALL artists/shows should satisfy:
Is the act original?
Is the show engaging?
Is the audience enjoying what they are experiencing?
Is the presenter always ‘politically correct’ (i.e. no insults or crudeness)?
Does the show continually hold the audience attention (i.e. no ‘flat’ spots)?
Is there lots of audience participation?
Is the performance highly polished?
Does the audience gasp at the ‘wow moments’?
Does the audience regularly burst into ‘unprompted’ spontaneous applause?
Does the audience talk positively about the show as they leave the venue?
Does the show give ‘value for money’?
If all of the above is achieved then reviewers should SAY SO!
Many so-called ‘artists’ incapable of applying original artistic effort swiftly turn magic from true-art into false-art. The far more worthy consideration of how to do WHAT HAS NOT YET BEEN DONE, is totally ignored.
Steve Wyrick’s great Magic Show needs no small minded reviewer to try to understand him. The reviewer needs counseling, not Steve: He does an exciting show with great props and nice attitude during and after. Your reviewer probably failed with his first magic kit at ten and has been bitter ever since. What a fool, and what a rude review of a great act that is trying to entertain people (reviewers are not people, they are employees).