Do the Bucks have good magic?

[praetoritevong]

Honestly, I don't really think that this should be a thread to begin with as its sole purpose is to judge two magicians. So I won't be voting. I will say my opinion though. Their flourishes are awesome and overall I do like their style a lot, but only to a certain extent. While their style isn't like mine at all, I still like it. I think they take it a bit far and I honestly think magicians would find their magic more entertaining than a layman. I think their material is AWESOME as far as sleights go. Their performance style I think is pretty cool too. However, like I said, only to a certain extent. I think they take their no patter style too far. I also think sometimes their magic can be a bit too complicated for someone to comprehend. I remember watching Hedbergs Peak for the first time and I had to watch it 2 or 3 times to know what I even just witnessed. I think they are sometimes too fast and could use at least a little bit of patter. Of course, that's just my opinion.

-Doug

There've been some good lessons that've come out from this thread though. More than the "So and so has a new site!" and "ZOMG x's SITE IS DOWN" threads anyway. So in that sense it deserves to be here a lot more than others. Which has surprised me, I admit.

 

[Sinful07]

Yeah, i got confused when i first saw hedberg's peak too. not in a magical sense, but i didnt know what was going on. I wasnt Amused or astonished, but rather lost on what is supposed to be magical.

Then the clip ended. Quite dissapointing That! But anyways, i love the buck's work but honestly, Hedberg all over.

Oh come on. As if you never thought of doing it with THAT. im seeing posts saying "oh my god, that is soo revolutionary, why didnt i think of that."

Seriously. Just Seriously. As if that didnt exist before the Bucks published it.

Not ranting or anything, More like pointing out the ignorance of 'magicians' nowadays when it comes to effects. I cant really go indepth with my rant without revealing the effect, but it really annoys me when people said it was "EFFING AMAZING".

 

[praetoritevong]

And there is still, I might add, a resounding and perhaps mindless refusal from the large majority of those who voted yes, to defend their opinion. My cynicism suspects it's because of precisely that mindlessness, because they don't actually know why. It's just easy to replicate, and they just don't know any better.

 

[Sinful07]

What, you mean the tricks are easy to replicate? I beg to differ. maybe i misunderstood your statement.

Anyways- im sure it has been tackled in the previous pages of this thread, but what defines 'Good magic' ?

its not something i want an answer for. Its something you should take away and think over.

Cheers,

-Sin07

 

[OneCardWonder]

Those that say yes don't have to justify their position to you. The Bucks are world famous magicians, lol. Who are you to judge them in the first place? lol. Their world wide acceptance within the magic community as being extremely gifted is enough of an endorecement. That and the reaction of their audiences to their magic.

Off you go and create a trick and see how well it goes down. It's on you to justify your position, and you've done such a lamentably bad job of it, I'm only wading in because I believe that in performance their tricks do work, and I know this, not because I sit recording videos for You tube to impress forum dwellers, but because I've tried some of their stuff live and had very good reactions to it. That's the acid test of magic.

I agree though, not all of their tricks are that revolutionary, but their interesting applications of things like double lifts, controls etc to create very high impact, very quick effects.

I'd like to know what your definition of revoluationary is? It's a deck of cards, there's only so much you can do with it. It's how you do it that makes the magician.

 

[ROYm]

i think any of their trick is a great opener for a flourish routine. everything is flashy but im not sure that gets much impact like other tricks.
well since im into flourishing i voted yes as i use this flashy style much.

 

[TheBlack&WhiteIllusionist]

I think it's funny that people are critizing their magic, yet look at how far it's got them. After all, they are good at what they do. Out of pure curiosity, does anyone think that they've wrongfully marketed themselves or their magic? (As in, said it's something that it's clearly not.)

 

[Steerpike]

Jesus cross-dressing Christ on a bike. I leave for a couple of days to cool my jets. I'm feeling better so I pop back in, and this is what I find. I'm just going to break down the one post I find the most intellectually offensive.

Those that say yes don't have to justify their position to you.

But you will try anyway just by the fact that you opened your mouth.

The Bucks are world famous magicians, lol.

Don't say lol. It's insipid and banal, mostly because you aren't actually laughing.

That said, they're only famous to other magicians and flourish monkeys. That doesn't count, and fame doesn't equate to talent anyway. Next time, try a better argument.

Who are you to judge them in the first place? lol.

Again, don't use lol in place of saying anything remotely intelligent.

As for who I am, I can criticize whomever I want, whenever I want. If you think your fractured logic and faulty arguments are the best you can do to stop me, then you couldn't persuade a starving wolf to chow down on an all-meat buffet.

Their world wide acceptance within the magic community as being extremely gifted is enough of an endorecement.

Unless you're like me and much harder to impress. You know, like you've got standards and crap like that.

That and the reaction of their audiences to their magic.

What audiences?

Off you go and create a trick and see how well it goes down.

That's the same argument prepubescent Metallica fanboys use when I say I don't like the band's music. Hope you enjoy the company.

It's on you to justify your position, and you've done such a lamentably bad job of it,

Said the pot to the kettle.

I'm only wading in because I believe that in performance their tricks do work, and I know this, not because I sit recording videos for You tube to impress forum dwellers, but because I've tried some of their stuff live and had very good reactions to it. That's the acid test of magic.

Then you have unbelievably low standards in magic.

As for me, no I don't think they have good magic because I don't consider what they do to be magic at all. It's card manipulation, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[The Tumbleweed]

Don't say lol. It's insipid and banal, mostly because you aren't actually laughing.


Again, don't use lol in place of saying anything remotely intelligent.


What audiences?


As for me, no I don't think they have good magic because I don't consider what they do to be magic at all. It's card manipulation, nothing more and nothing less.

These parts of the post, are... awesome. Mainly because it was the stuff I was thinking, expressed in Steerpike form!

I'll just add that some people have said that 'times are changing' and this is 'modern magic' which made me think, why modernize magic? The only reason I can think of is if the spectators were also changing. Which they aren't.
Sooo..... I've once again come to the conclusion that older magic is more hard hitting, even though its not as 'visual' or 'fast paced' or whatever.
Buck stuff is fun to practice, but don't ridicule your spectators by actually performing the stuff to them, they deserve a little more, don't you think?

 

[OneCardWonder]

Wow.....you went through my post line by line. The kind of insecurity that requires is both shocking and amusing to me. Though I've seen you do it numerous times and I enjoy your tantramatic attempts to make purely objective arguments personal because you're apparently so concerned about your reputation on this forum that you believe if you can't win an argument based on fact you'll just cry all over the forum. I like it. You entertain me constantly with your trolling.


A critique of me using lol, when you produce such gramatical gems as , 'you know, like' is also tremendously entertaining. You want a conversational post, but you want to critique mine. Get a life you tosser. Lol. (There it is again, go call the grammar police jackoff.) Oh wait, now I'm being personal too....maybe it's just me having a slice of hypocrite pie....I hear it's going around these days. It's OK though right....because subjectively I think its OK if I do it, so I can still judge you for it right? I mean surely I don't have to be moral to obtain the moral high horse right? SURELY?


Fame doesn't equate to talent, but it does equate to the effectiveness of your performance for whatever reason. Be it mass appeal (however misguided) or mass awareness (however obtained.) As a result, they don't have to justify themselves to you. Don't get me wrong, the argument 6 million smokers can't be wrong is applicable there, however, you can't argue that cigarettes don't have appeal, nor can you argue that they aren't effectively sold, which is lets face it the goal of any magician. If you can't be an artist in magic, be a performer, plain and simple.

And if getting good reactions from spectators and using that to judge a trick is a low standard in magic then I wish you luck in your no doubt modern art esque approach to magic, where as long as you can cream out a milky one over the complexities and intricacies of a trick that no lay person will even give a **** about provided the effect is good. But of course you're in it for the high standards, rather than entertainment.

I can only guess that I hit a nerve with your lamentable lack of recognition for your magic. You're probably one of those people that feels you -deserve- it because you are much more technical and amazing. Well so do a bunch of terrible authors and musicians and a bunch of other people with so abrasive a personality that it doesn't matter what you do.

The point is this discussion is pointless in and unto itself. The Bucks do magic that has a good impact and entertains the audience when done correctly. Personally, not being a full time professional, that's all I look to achieve when I perform. If enjoying what I do, and entertaining people means my standards are low in your opinion then all I can really say is, go **** yourself punk. Lol. (Oh and there it is again), your standards don't interest me and neither does your opinion on the Bucks magic.

Whicha.

 

[Randy]

I don't really consider what they do "magic". It's impressive and neat looking but other than that there isn't any other form of amazement in the effect and all the fancy cuts and flourishes end up undercutting the actual effect.

Here's and experiment: Try doing your basic Card in Hand or ACR, but do it with all the fancy false cuts that XCMers use. You'll most likely find out that the person will be impressed with your dexterity but the whole "How did my card keep coming to the top!" idea will be gone.

 

[Steerpike]

Wow.....you went through my post line by line. The kind of insecurity that requires is both shocking and amusing to me. Though I've seen you do it numerous times and I enjoy your tantramatic attempts to make purely objective arguments personal because you're apparently so concerned about your reputation on this forum that you believe if you can't win an argument based on fact you'll just cry all over the forum. I like it. You entertain me constantly with your trolling.

Glad I could be of service. Now say something useful.

A critique of me using lol, when you produce such gramatical gems as , 'you know, like' is also tremendously entertaining.

Nice how you take that out of context.

You want a conversational post, but you want to critique mine.

No and yes.

Get a life you tosser. Lol. (There it is again, go call the grammar police jackoff.) Oh wait, now I'm being personal too....maybe it's just me having a slice of hypocrite pie....I hear it's going around these days. It's OK though right....because subjectively I think its OK if I do it, so I can still judge you for it right? I mean surely I don't have to be moral to obtain the moral high horse right? SURELY?

You can judge me for anything you want. You can call me the reincarnation of John Wayne Gacey for all it means to me or anyone of consequence.

Of course, it fails to address the fact that your argument sucks.

Fame doesn't equate to talent, but it does equate to the effectiveness of your performance for whatever reason. Be it mass appeal (however misguided) or mass awareness (however obtained.)

In the biz we call that marketing.

As a result, they don't have to justify themselves to you.

I didn't ask them to.

Don't get me wrong, the argument 6 million smokers can't be wrong is applicable there, however, you can't argue that cigarettes don't have appeal, nor can you argue that they aren't effectively sold, which is lets face it the goal of any magician. If you can't be an artist in magic, be a performer, plain and simple.

And I don't believe they're either.

And if getting good reactions from spectators and using that to judge a trick is a low standard in magic then I wish you luck in your no doubt modern art esque approach to magic, where as long as you can cream out a milky one over the complexities and intricacies of a trick that no lay person will even give a **** about provided the effect is good. But of course you're in it for the high standards, rather than entertainment.

Says the guy who has obviously never read any of the routines I have submitted for critique. Projection, much.

I said you have low standards because getting a reaction seems to be the extent of your qualifications. I on the other hand prefer to differentiate stunts from flourishes from magic.

I can only guess that I hit a nerve with your lamentable lack of recognition for your magic. You're probably one of those people that feels you -deserve- it because you are much more technical and amazing.

Actually, my technical skill is mediocre at best. I'm so dominantly left-handed that most knuckle-busting sleights are beyond the limits of my manual dexterity. What I excel at is in my writing and my ability to befriend my audiences.

Well so do a bunch of terrible authors and musicians and a bunch of other people with so abrasive a personality that it doesn't matter what you do.

Truth be told, I'm only abrasive to other artists. Magicians in general I consider to be a bunch of egomaniacal, slobbering jackals with a lot of money and time.

The point is this discussion is pointless in and unto itself.

And yet... here you are.

The Bucks do magic that has a good impact and entertains the audience when done correctly.

And I don't consider card manipulation to be magic. It's not inferior, it's just not magic.

If enjoying what I do, and entertaining people means my standards are low then all I can really say is, go **** yourself punk. Lol.

Funny how I'm criticized for my temper when my critics have far less self-control.

 

[OneCardWonder]

Oh I'm not angry.

I was amused and now I'm just confused and bored....watching you masterbate all over your perceived greatness is just too much for me to take....

 

[Steerpike]

watching you masterbate all over your perceived greatness is just too much for me to take....

I made one reference to my own abilities and that was enough to overwhelm you. Jesus...

Seriously, guy just admit that your argument was stupid. You effectively told everyone that they're not allowed to criticize the Bucks because we're not rich and famous (to a niche market anyway). That kind of logic has no place in the real world.

 

[aJohnson]

I think it's how you perform there tricks really, not how they perform there tricks. However they do specify there tricks aren't meant for laymen, they're meant for you to take out the sleights and use in other tricks.

 

[Sinful07]

I think Steerpike went a bit overboard there by critizing him line-by-line. (though i do agree with him on most of the points that he made)

"oh my god sinful, you're like totally going againts steerpike."

Yeah, and what?

 

[Steerpike]

I think Steerpike went a bit overboard there by critizing him line-by-line. (though i do agree with him on most of the points that he made)

"oh my god sinful, you're like totally going againts steerpike."

Yeah, and what?

I'm not going to go after you, don't worry. You didn't say anything stupid.

 

[OneCardWonder]

Seriously, guy just admit that your argument was stupid. You effectively told everyone that they're not allowed to criticize the Bucks because we're not rich and famous (to a niche market anyway). That kind of logic has no place in the real world.

Here it is again, LOL. Way to read.

 

[Steerpike]

Here it is again, LOL. Way to read.

Then what was your argument? Indulge me.

 

[Sinful07]

Ah Steerpike, i wasnt worried about anything. I was quite frankly tackling the false notions that may have come up through that post.

Anyways, Continue with the argument. Amusing.