Final thoughts on flourishing during card magic

[jok3r]

These threads about flourishing during a trick keep coming up, i would like put my thoughts out there once and for all.

I had a thought the other day, and found out im looking at this situation wrong.
I dont think the big thing is flourishing, its HOW much flourishing your doing.

Are you doing a quick flourish to reveal a card?
A false cut?
or a few sybils in between tricks?

Personally I flourish alot while performing, but i don't bust out into jackson five in the middle of an acr.

I think were misunderstanding each other when we talk about this subject,.

I think when we here flourishing in a trick, we quickly jump to the thought of Jackson five in the middle of a trick.

Another point is how you perform, if you are into mentalism, and have a real serious character the you probably aren't going to flourish.

I think you should do what you enjoy, and what best fits you.

And most of all, do what makes you happy.

I think thats my final 2 cents on the subject.


Im going to try not to argue with anyone on the subject anymore.

peace,

 

[RDChopper]

Flourishing in magic is as useful as stabbing yourself in the leg. Offers no point other than to get attention, and it detracts from the effect.

What's more powerful to you, someone takes a card places it directly in the middle and then it appears on the top immediately. Or they take the card and flourish the hell out of it and then it appears. Which is stronger and will get more positive reactions?

Nuff' said.

It's about what you are trying to portray.

 

[Sherlock]

Debating isn't really bad, it doesn't mean you try to get the other person to agree but understand your point of view on the subject.

I think flourishing is very stupid during a card effect, it doesn't add anything other than suspicion. I don't expect people to pull off a jackson five but if you do a sybil or something like that then you are wasting your spectators time. A quick little thing like static or death to double undercut is personally fine. You just moved three packets to cut the deck, but when you add this whole ten second routine to the card effect then you've lost the bigger reaction you could of have.

 

[RDChopper]

Debating isn't really bad, it doesn't mean you try to get the other person to agree but understand your point of view on the subject.

I think flourishing is very stupid during a card effect, it doesn't add anything other than suspicion. I don't expect people to pull off a jackson five but if you do a sybil or something like that then you are wasting your spectators time. A quick little thing like static or death to double undercut is personally fine. You just moved three packets to cut the deck, but when you add this whole ten second routine to the card effect then you've lost the bigger reaction you could of have.

Dude I just quoted you!

 

[jok3r]

Debating isn't really bad, it doesn't mean you try to get the other person to agree but understand your point of view on the subject.

I think flourishing is very stupid during a card effect, it doesn't add anything other than suspicion. I don't expect people to pull off a jackson five but if you do a sybil or something like that then you are wasting your spectators time. A quick little thing like static or death to double undercut is personally fine. You just moved three packets to cut the deck, but when you add this whole ten second routine to the card effect then you've lost the bigger reaction you could of have.

I can see where your coming from, tho i dont completely agree.

One other thing i forgot to add is, Are you flourishing in your magic.
or between your magic?

Thats a big thing for me, because going back and thinking about it.
I don't flourish much during the effect, even know im trying hard to defend my side of flourishing isnt bad.

I do most of my flourishes between tricks, or right before.

I would like to know what some pros think about this, like d&d, D mad, etc.

maybe one day ill get to ask them

 

[praetoritevong]

I think you'll find most pros of the calibre you're talking about will advise people not to flourish between magic, just from observation. Just wanted to add that in there - like Lovell and Roth in the other thread, for example. That's just about as big as they get in terms of pros.

 

[jok3r]

I think you'll find most pros of the calibre you're talking about will advise people not to flourish between magic, just from observation. Just wanted to add that in there - like Lovell and Roth in the other thread, for example. That's just about as big as they get in terms of pros.

I guess my biggest thing is, whats flourishing for then?
If not to add a little flare to your magic?

 

[visualartist]

Why do people assume that the only time your doing a serious character is when your doing mentalism?
Also characters arent divided so easily between serious and laid back.

 

[RDChopper]

I guess my biggest thing is, whats flourishing for then?
If not to add a little flare to your magic?

For your signature I can say that you are highly addicted to Brian Tudor stuff (wich is not a bad thing)

Flourishing is for either to show it on it's own or as another hobby. Thats it.

 

[jok3r]

For your signature I can say that you are highly addicted to Brian Tudor stuff (wich is not a bad thing)

Flourishing is for either to show it on it's own or as another hobby. Thats it.

haha actually i just thought that quote was funny.
I liked his stuff, and then soon found the reason no one uses it.
I still find him insanely good.

i guess your right, so why are we calling it a genre in magic?

 

[RDChopper]

haha actually i just thought that quote was funny.
I liked his stuff, and then soon found the reason no one uses it.
I still find him insanely good.

i guess your right, so why are we calling it a genre in magic?

Flourishing it's not a "genre" in magic, it's something that goes appart from doing magic, Brian tudor had the "amasing" idea of combining both, but see how far he has gone with that.

He is "insanely good" as you call him but then again, as stated before, flourishing definetly hurts more your performance rather than helping it.

 

[jok3r]

Flourishing it's not a "genre" in magic, it's something that goes appart from doing magic, Brian tudor had the "amasing" idea of combining both, but see how far he has gone with that.

He is "insanely good" as you call him but then again, as stated before, flourishing definetly hurts more your performance rather than helping it.

I remember dan and dave saying its a new genre to magic in a video of them in iceland. tha'ts why i said that.

Wither or not he can perform, has nothing to do with the fact his skill is amazing

 

[visualartist]

i so why are we calling it a genre in magic?

No one calls it that. And they shouldnt kid themselves by saying it.
Its like saying juggling a ball and vanishing it are the same thing.

 

[Sherlock]

Flourishing just proves you can manipulate cards with ease. You ever heard of the simplest effects being some of the most powerful, well the most direct moves are the best sellers of the effect.

 

[RDChopper]

Wither or not he can perform, has nothing to do with the fact his skill is amazing

You just said that you prefer to show skill rather than perform.

Good for you, at least you know what do you want out of magic, a lot of people don't know that

 

[jok3r]

You just said that you prefer to show skill rather than perform.

Good for you, at least you know what do you want out of magic, a lot of people don't know that

Im glad you can read.

Considering i said, HE, and not ME.

 

[praetoritevong]

I guess my biggest thing is, whats flourishing for then?
If not to add a little flare to your magic?

For most people, it's nothing but a little habit they do in their chair in front of the computer, and you're right to ask that question, because rarely do we see a performer who gives flourishing its own significance in and of itself.

That's a problem with flourishing and the community.

For others, it's a professional performance art in and of itself.

That's its potential.

 

[RDChopper]

Im glad you can read.

Considering i said, HE, and not ME.

I know what I read, my point is, you admire that kind of stuff, being able of "showing your amasingly god powers over cards" by doing flourishes in between tricks and such, that's the reason behind your signature, that's the reason behind the way you defend "your point", be sincere, your aim right now at magic is to do the routines that Brian Tudor does.

And thats the reason behind all this argument, because since you began with this kind of stuff you have found countless magicians that tell you that that kind of presentation and performance is wrong, yet, you still try to seek approval by praising guys that do flourishes between their tricks and by making threads like this.

Believe me, im not that dumb, there is a reason behind my last post, and it wasn't because I readed your post wrong.

 

[jok3r]

For most people, it's nothing but a little habit they do in their chair in front of the computer, and you're right to ask that question, because rarely do we see a performer who gives flourishing its own significance in and of itself.

That's a problem with flourishing and the community.

For others, it's a professional performance art in and of itself.

That's its potential.

See thats all that needs to be said, that helps me out alot.

These other bozos, cant get off there high horse to answer a question.

 

[RDChopper]

See thats all that needs to be said, that helps me out alot.

These other bozos, cant get off there high horse to answer a question.

? Because you are not getting the answers you want?


okay.,.....