Gimmicks are WRONG?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
My main issue with gimmicks is that they can create extraordinary pieces of magic but when compared to magic done with sleight of hand, the sleight of hand appears to be a lot more amateur.

For example: I was doing a show at my Youth with a fellow magician. I did a cups and balls routine, with final loads being spongeballs allowing me to flow into a Benson Bowl-esque routine and spongeball routine. Now, what I did was great use of sleight of hand and routining. Sure, I am no pro sleight of hand artist but what I did required much practice and thought. My final "load" under the bowl was an "invisible deck" (which was actually nothing) so that my friend would be easily routined into the show...then all of his tricks required some form of gimmick (except Pressure which just uses a balloon and a borrowed item) and he finished out the show. The only problem was, at the end of the show, everyone was saying how great his was and how mine was alright. Except they don't know the most important aspect, his work was almost all done for him, mine was all up to me. Invisible deck, Pressure, Tagged...all of these are about 2 points away from being self working.

That's my issue with gimmicks...when people think they are more amazing than sleight of hand...sure, they can do amazing things but a magician without them that focuses on them, is screwed and not really a magician at all.

I'm not saying don't use gimmicks as I have a few in my arsenal too but when it comes down to it, it really ticks me off that people think magicians who use all gimmicks are some kind of amazing person when in actuality, they barely do any work.

PS. My friend is quite the card worker, I'm not disrespecting him or anything, he only used gimmicks for this show because he recently bought Tagged, loves his Invisible deck and he just learned Pressure.
 
Jul 13, 2009
424
0
Edmonton, Canada
yeah i agree ... gimmicks/gaffs are great and can sometimes accomplish the impossible but a good magician should not always rely on gimmicks when there is a sleight of hand method and i believe SHOULD know more impromptu/sleight of hand tricks than gimmicked one

EDIT: After reading the above post, i should also point out that spectators doesn't not care or know whether you are using gimmicks or just making use of sleight of hand, for them , everything they see is magic. Unless you are performing for a magician, gimmicks are great ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
That's my issue with gimmicks...when people think they are more amazing than sleight of hand...sure, they can do amazing things but a magician without them that focuses on them, is screwed and not really a magician at all.

I'm not saying don't use gimmicks as I have a few in my arsenal too but when it comes down to it, it really ticks me off that people think magicians who use all gimmicks are some kind of amazing person when in actuality, they barely do any work.

You want validation for your hours of work behind the scenes. You want someone to verify that it was all worth it. You want to be rewarded for your blood, sweat, and tears. Just like everybody else.

But you ain't gonna ****ing get it.

Get over it. What your friend did impressed the crowd more. That means as much work as you put into your routine, it lacked something that the Invisible Deck had. And it has nothing to do with it being a gimmick and everything to do with you.

You probably are debating right now what profane names to call me for saying that, but if you think about it... I'm right.
 
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
You want validation for your hours of work behind the scenes. You want someone to verify that it was all worth it. You want to be rewarded for your blood, sweat, and tears. Just like everybody else.

But you ain't gonna ****ing get it.

Get over it. What your friend did impressed the crowd more. That means as much work as you put into your routine, it lacked something that the Invisible Deck had. And it has nothing to do with it being a gimmick and everything to do with you.

You probably are debating right now what profane names to call me for saying that, but if you think about it... I'm right.

I am over it, I just still think SOH should get props where it is due.

Also, it didn't have anymore pizazz than what mine did. It was our first show, we were both nervous, we sorta got into it a bit, he is naturally more inclined to be showy on a stage...I am naturally charismatic when I am not performing for people...like...I am but I'm not. (Not going to bother explaining that) They just preferred the Invisible deck because almost everyone does, it just seems so impossible. It's the deck that did it.

Now, while he may have been a bit more on it that night then I was, (in terms of charisma, entertainment and what have you) most have seen the trick before and they still give big reactions to it.
 
Feb 27, 2008
2,342
1
33
Grand prairie TX
For example: I was doing a show at my Youth with a fellow magician. I did a cups and balls routine, with final loads being spongeballs allowing me to flow into a Benson Bowl-esque routine and spongeball routine. Now, what I did was great use of sleight of hand and routining. Sure, I am no pro sleight of hand artist but what I did required much practice and thought. My final "load" under the bowl was an "invisible deck" (which was actually nothing) so that my friend would be easily routined into the show...then all of his tricks required some form of gimmick (except Pressure which just uses a balloon and a borrowed item) and he finished out the show. The only problem was, at the end of the show, everyone was saying how great his was and how mine was alright. Except they don't know the most important aspect, his work was almost all done for him, mine was all up to me. Invisible deck, Pressure, Tagged...all of these are about 2 points away from being self working.

That's my issue with gimmicks...when people think they are more amazing than sleight of hand...sure, they can do amazing things but a magician without them that focuses on them, is screwed and not really a magician at all.

I'm not saying don't use gimmicks as I have a few in my arsenal too but when it comes down to it, it really ticks me off that people think magicians who use all gimmicks are some kind of amazing person when in actuality, they barely do any work.

PS. My friend is quite the card worker, I'm not disrespecting him or anything, he only used gimmicks for this show because he recently bought Tagged, loves his Invisible deck and he just learned Pressure.

This excuse doesnt fly because ive seen someone perform a loop effect and then a guy do ambitious card in the same hour.
The sleight of hand guy impressed more people and recieved higher praise.
Dont blame the gimmicks because they stole your show because they didnt.
Its like blaming my deck of cards because I cant do pandora or whatever flourishy thing. Sounds pretty ridiculous right?
Also they variety of tricks probably helped your friend.
 
Feb 27, 2008
2,342
1
33
Grand prairie TX
also,no laymen gives a sh!t about your sleight of hand or your gimmick.
Just do real f'ing magic. Doesnt matter how.
And whoever says using gimmicks doesnt take work or is "easy" is just full of BS.
 
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
also,no laymen gives a sh!t about your sleight of hand or your gimmick.
Just do real f'ing magic. Doesnt matter how.
And whoever says using gimmicks doesnt take work or is "easy" is just full of BS.

So you are trying to tell me Invisible Deck and Tagged aren't easy? Really? Are you sure you want to lock that answer in?

And also, it was real magic, that's why mine deserves it's props. But you can't go telling someone his was gimmicks and mine wasn't because that ruins it and is slack. Now this was a few months ago but it's stupid that people can get more applause and cheers for a deck that is already right no matter what.

The people here who are honestly trying to say that it wasn't the gimmicks that gave him better reactions are honestly full of it. I don't care what you say, if you saw the show, you'd understand. And a loops effect isn't that amazing, most people think: "Oh it's invisible string or fishing line." I know, most of my friends and people I've done magic for or people that I've seen have magic done for them say this so don't say they don't.

PS. I don't use IT or Loops or anything so it's never happened to me personally, just other magicians that I've witnessed.
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
My main issue with gimmicks is that they can create extraordinary pieces of magic but when compared to magic done with sleight of hand, the sleight of hand appears to be a lot more amateur.

For example: I was doing a show at my Youth with a fellow magician. I did a cups and balls routine, with final loads being spongeballs allowing me to flow into a Benson Bowl-esque routine and spongeball routine. Now, what I did was great use of sleight of hand and routining. Sure, I am no pro sleight of hand artist but what I did required much practice and thought. My final "load" under the bowl was an "invisible deck" (which was actually nothing) so that my friend would be easily routined into the show...then all of his tricks required some form of gimmick (except Pressure which just uses a balloon and a borrowed item) and he finished out the show. The only problem was, at the end of the show, everyone was saying how great his was and how mine was alright. Except they don't know the most important aspect, his work was almost all done for him, mine was all up to me. Invisible deck, Pressure, Tagged...all of these are about 2 points away from being self working.

That's my issue with gimmicks...when people think they are more amazing than sleight of hand...sure, they can do amazing things but a magician without them that focuses on them, is screwed and not really a magician at all.

I'm not saying don't use gimmicks as I have a few in my arsenal too but when it comes down to it, it really ticks me off that people think magicians who use all gimmicks are some kind of amazing person when in actuality, they barely do any work.

PS. My friend is quite the card worker, I'm not disrespecting him or anything, he only used gimmicks for this show because he recently bought Tagged, loves his Invisible deck and he just learned Pressure.

There are a couple of things I want to say here. The invisible deck is an incredibly powerful trick. That is a fact. There is no fiddling with the cards, no moves, no possibility of anything underhand (or so the spectators think) because the cards are inside the box till you take them out for the reveal.

I don't know if you can replicate that with sleight of hand. I have heard about ungimmicked invisible deck effects, but seriously, I don't think an ungimmicked version will ever be as clean. Your spectators shouldn't see your technique or your secret sleights, so they will only appreciate the final effect. Its hard to beat something like the ID in terms of the effect it has on laymen.

Speaking more generally, magic is not about instant gratification. You may practice sleights for months but your spectators never see them. If you want to impress laymen, your main hope is to present effects where the impossibility factor is high. If gimmicks let you do that without raising suspicion, more power to you. Your friend seems to have made his life easier by using appropriate gimmicks. Maybe you can find a similar solution that works for you and lets you stand out in your own way.
 
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
There are a couple of things I want to say here. The invisible deck is an incredibly powerful trick. That is a fact. There is no fiddling with the cards, no moves, no possibility of anything underhand (or so the spectators think) because the cards are inside the box till you take them out for the reveal.

I don't know if you can replicate that with sleight of hand. I have heard about ungimmicked invisible deck effects, but seriously, I don't think an ungimmicked version will ever be as clean. Your spectators shouldn't see your technique or your secret sleights, so they will only appreciate the final effect. Its hard to beat something like the ID in terms of the effect it has on laymen.

Speaking more generally, magic is not about instant gratification. You may practice sleights for months but your spectators never see them. If you want to impress laymen, your main hope is to present effects where the impossibility factor is high. If gimmicks let you do that without raising suspicion, more power to you. Your friend seems to have made his life easier by using appropriate gimmicks. Maybe you can find a similar solution that works for you and lets you stand out in your own way.

Thank you, a post with a much more level headed answer and reasoning.

Yes, my point is something like ID is going to destroy any trick I do because it is impossible...for the most part. However, I would like it that people (remembering, all the people we performed for know we are magicians and have seen most of our tricks before) would actually show appreciation for both performers...they acted as if I was just there because I do magic too. However, I was the one performing all the sleight of hand. I know they don't know that mine wasn't gimmicked but I know most of them can tell between gimmicked stuff and sleight of hand and yet everyone loved his stuff. Yes gimmicks are good and yes they create feats of impossibility but my point was, that I'd like it if magicians didn't solely rely on gimmicks and that more often than not, they used SOH. After all, you could pull any layman off the street and teach him how to use an ID and he could be a "master magician" in about 10 minutes. Get that same person to perform a cups and balls routine and see how well he does in 10 minutes.

As for why I didn't use gimmicks...is simple, as stated above, I want to use SOH as it is as close to real magic as can be...it's your hands doing all the work...no strings, no magnets, no gimmicks. Tell me how many close-up pros do you see that became pros simply by using gimmicks? 0. Sure, they may use some but they didn't become working professionals without some decent sleight of hand ability and that's what I hope to one day achieve.

I'm not saying I'm any expert or that gimmicks suck, they should just be used in moderation by all and SOH should come first and foremost.

Anyway, enough of my rant.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I am over it, I just still think SOH should get props where it is due.

Which is a stupid thing to say because the audience shouldn't know the difference. And really, this does nothing to change my opinion. You felt you worked harder and deserved a bigger reward than your friend.

(Not going to bother explaining that)

Good, I don't want to hear it.

They just preferred the Invisible deck because almost everyone does, it just seems so impossible. It's the deck that did it.

The deck did it. You seriously just said that. I shouldn't be shocked really. It's human nature to shift the responsibility of our shortcomings and failures on luck or a third party. Not something you want to depend on though.

Now, while he may have been a bit more on it that night then I was, (in terms of charisma, entertainment and what have you) most have seen the trick before and they still give big reactions to it.

He was more engaging as a performer than you were... and it's still the deck's fault that you didn't get the adulation you wanted?

So you are trying to tell me Invisible Deck and Tagged aren't easy? Really? Are you sure you want to lock that answer in?

Easy to learn. Difficult to master.

And also, it was real magic, that's why mine deserves it's props.

Normally I have to bait people more before they say something this inadvertently damning.

So the ID isn't real magic. And thus are our true colors revealed.

Now this was a few months ago but it's stupid that people can get more applause and cheers for a deck that is already right no matter what.

And this is how I can say you're not over "it." You're not. You're either lying to me or you lack the self-awareness to look beyond your own nose.

The people here who are honestly trying to say that it wasn't the gimmicks that gave him better reactions are honestly full of it. I don't care what you say, if you saw the show, you'd understand.

Deep breaths, find your center.

And a loops effect isn't that amazing, most people think: "Oh it's invisible string or fishing line." I know, most of my friends and people I've done magic for or people that I've seen have magic done for them say this so don't say they don't.

Sour grapes, anyone?

PS. I don't use IT or Loops or anything so it's never happened to me personally, just other magicians that I've witnessed.

Then how can I take your opinion as an authority?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
Yes, my point is something like ID is going to destroy any trick I do because it is impossible...for the most part.

I disagree with this actually. The point I was trying to make is that you shouldn't be competing with the invisible deck, but you have plenty of other ways of impressing the audience. Your magic should be sufficiently different so that you avoid competing with your friend. Did you know what effects your friend was going to do? If he was doing cards, maybe you could have done something else (Coins for example, or maybe radically different card effects like TnR type effects).

However, I would like it that people (remembering, all the people we performed for know we are magicians and have seen most of our tricks before) would actually show appreciation for both performers...they acted as if I was just there because I do magic too. However, I was the one performing all the sleight of hand. I know they don't know that mine wasn't gimmicked but I know most of them can tell between gimmicked stuff and sleight of hand and yet everyone loved his stuff.

If you were performing for laymen, how do they know the difference between gimmicks and pure Sleight of Hand? They should not be able to tell the difference. Laymen simply don't have any basis for judging technical proficiency, so there is no point complaining about that. You won't get sympathy on this point from most people here because that is an issue we all have to resolve for ourselves.

Yes gimmicks are good and yes they create feats of impossibility but my point was, that I'd like it if magicians didn't solely rely on gimmicks and that more often than not, they used SOH. After all, you could pull any layman off the street and teach him how to use an ID and he could be a "master magician" in about 10 minutes. Get that same person to perform a cups and balls routine and see how well he does in 10 minutes.

As for why I didn't use gimmicks...is simple, as stated above, I want to use SOH as it is as close to real magic as can be...it's your hands doing all the work...no strings, no magnets, no gimmicks. Tell me how many close-up pros do you see that became pros simply by using gimmicks? 0. Sure, they may use some but they didn't become working professionals without some decent sleight of hand ability and that's what I hope to one day achieve.

The real masters all have good foundations in Sleight of hand, but I hope you don't go too far in trying to be a purist. There are many pros who used heavily gimmicked methods with a lot of success. Tommy Wonder is the best example I can think of. Most of his tricks are gimmicked to the hilt, but he was one of the all time greats. Don't fall into the gimmicks vs sleights false dichotomy.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I know they don't know that mine wasn't gimmicked but I know most of them can tell between gimmicked stuff and sleight of hand and yet everyone loved his stuff.

Okay... Am I the only one who sees what the **** is wrong with this sentence? In fact, let me post again with bolding and italics for emphasis.

I know they don't know that mine wasn't gimmicked but I know most of them can tell between gimmicked stuff and sleight of hand and yet everyone loved his stuff.

Holy ****...

Yes gimmicks are good and yes they create feats of impossibility but my point was, that I'd like it if magicians didn't solely rely on gimmicks and that more often than not, they used SOH.

No, your point seems to be that you're pissed that gimmicks stole your thunder once.

After all, you could pull any layman off the street and teach him how to use an ID and he could be a "master magician" in about 10 minutes. Get that same person to perform a cups and balls routine and see how well he does in 10 minutes.

More approval-seeking talk.

As for why I didn't use gimmicks...is simple, as stated above, I want to use SOH as it is as close to real magic as can be...it's your hands doing all the work...no strings, no magnets, no gimmicks.

It's an ego thing.

Tell me how many close-up pros do you see that became pros simply by using gimmicks? 0.

What a ridiculous straw man.

Sure, they may use some but they didn't become working professionals without some decent sleight of hand ability and that's what I hope to one day achieve.

What, you actually think your ability to execute knucklebusters will land you a career?
 
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
I disagree with this actually. The point I was trying to make is that you shouldn't be competing with the invisible deck, but you have plenty of other ways of impressing the audience. Your magic should be sufficiently different so that you avoid competing with your friend. Did you know what effects your friend was going to do? If he was doing cards, maybe you could have done something else (Coins for example, or maybe radically different card effects like TnR type effects).

In case you didn't read, I did cups and balls, a bowl routine and spongeballs. He used cards and a balloon. I'd say we were different. And I never said we were competing. My point that no-one seems to get is that I was treated like I did nothing...I did hard work to perform my magic. And it's gimmicks that ruin my hard work.


If you were performing for laymen, how do they know the difference between gimmicks and pure Sleight of Hand? They should not be able to tell the difference. Laymen simply don't have any basis for judging technical proficiency, so there is no point complaining about that. You won't get sympathy on this point from most people here because that is an issue we all have to resolve for ourselves.

They are our friends, we do magic for them all the time, they don't do magic but they know most of our stuff. Lots of times, they will steal our stuff (okay maybe not mine but one guy always takes my friends' stuff to learn how he does it and he isn't strong enough to fight back)

The real masters all have good foundations in Sleight of hand, but I hope you don't go too far in trying to be a purist. There are many pros who used heavily gimmicked methods with a lot of success. Tommy Wonder is the best example I can think of. Most of his tricks are gimmicked to the hilt, but he was one of the all time greats. Don't fall into the gimmicks vs sleights false dichotomy.

No, like I said, I don't have a problem with gimmicks, they just shouldn't be used so much that laymen think they are an amazing magician when they are not.

As for you Steerpike, I am not even going to dignify your crap with a response. Re-read what I have said. Take it in. Then, when you finally figure out what I'm getting at, you can sit back, shut up and just let the topic flow.

PS. Are you Steerpike from E? If so, you're way different on here. Does being a Mod on E require being nice?
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
If you were performing for laymen, how do they know the difference between gimmicks and pure Sleight of Hand? They should not be able to tell the difference. Laymen simply don't have any basis for judging technical proficiency, so there is no point complaining about that. You won't get sympathy on this point from most people here because that is an issue we all have to resolve for ourselves.

They are our friends, we do magic for them all the time, they don't do magic but they know most of our stuff. Lots of times, they will steal our stuff (okay maybe not mine but one guy always takes my friends' stuff to learn how he does it and he isn't strong enough to fight back)

One piece of advice for you then. Stop performing for these friends. If you must perform for them, don't get bent out of shape if they react this way.

Also, don't say that gimmicks ruin your sleight of hand. You are basing that on your friends' reactions. Perform for other people who don't get to see magicians regularly and see how they react. If the reactions are similar, you know you are not doing something right.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
As for you Steerpike, I am not even going to dignify your crap with a response. Re-read what I have said. Take it in. Then, when you finally figure out what I'm getting at, you can sit back, shut up and just let the topic flow.

Ignoring me works a lot better if you don't address me directly. Besides that, what's not to get? You blamed a lack of reaction in a performance on an inanimate object someone else used and you expect me to sympathize with you. You then go on to say that it's bull**** another magician could get better reactions with an invisible deck than you do with sleight of hand, why? Because the invisible deck isn't real magic. You say magicians can use gimmicks, but you think it's wrong when the gimmicks get better reaction than sleight of hand.

What did you expect me to think?

PS. Are you Steerpike from E? If so, you're way different on here. Does being a Mod on E require being nice?

Being a moderator does mean I am expected to conduct myself in a less profane manner, but I find less need to be blunt with people there as I do on here because most people on E will actually listen to an opposing viewpoint instead of just crying about it. It doesn't matter where I am, I do not tolerate bull****. Which brings me to our current predicament. Your arguments are weak, flimsy, and poorly constructed. I don't believe you fully understand why you're saying the things you are. And I am telling you as much. If you cannot handle dissent and unrestrained criticism, that is not my fault.
 
May 3, 2008
1,146
4
Hong Kong
Kris Deagle... really?
"No, like I said, I don't have a problem with gimmicks, they just shouldn't be used so much that laymen think they are an amazing magician when they are not."
A magician is not defined by his skill in Sleight of Hand... A magician is just someone who performs magic tricks to amuse an audience. If he is able to perform well, with good presentation, and let the audience have a good time, he is a good magician.
Its not a matter of skill... at all... Its just a matter of how well you fullfill your "job". Take a keycard principle, mesh it with an amazing presentation. There we have a great magician.
Take the pushthrough shuffle, clipshift, diagonal palm shift, and some other knucklebusting move, and mesh it with a man with no charisma, no character, no patter/ presentation what so ever and there we have a bad magician.
Gimmicks works exactly like sleight of hand. They are both things which help you achieve magic tricks. Sure sleight of hand is technically more respectable within the community, but it really comes down to how well you use what you have.
Just because you got one-upped by a easily used gimmick compared to your apparently great Cups and Balls routine, doesnt mean that gimmicks are worse. Perhaps your friend just performed better than you, perhaps he just routined better than you, perhaps he just knew what would work well for audiences. Just because he got a better reaction doesnt mean you have to go whine about it.
You may have worked years on that cups and balls, you may have a perfect shuttle pass, a perfect load, a perfect closer... So what? in the end, the Invisible Deck just works better for some audience. If you fail to realize that and use it to your advantage, then perhaps it makes you a bad magician rather than those who got a better payback with less work.
And just as a side note, as everyone else has said... audience dont care whether its gimmick or sleight of hand. A magic trick is a magic trick. Using gimmicks or skill doesnt make it any more or less of a trick.
What do you expect from them?
"wow... now that was a jolly good trick. dont you think?"
"yes yes... very nice... I loved how it was so impossible..."
"but wait... that other guy... was only using cups and balls.. He must have the real skill!"
"that is correct! Even though the trick with the cards was much more impossible, i think we can all agree that cups-and-balls-guy is the better magician"
"AYE!"

go perform to magicians if you want that. (you probably still wont get it though)
and dont you think its stupid for you to rant that hes getting acclaim cause hes using a gimmick that no one sees while youre performing with odd cups and balls? If anything, the audience would think that you were using gimmicked cups and balls... how often do you see metal cups and crochet balls used that way...? Just adding it as a side of irony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
One piece of advice for you then. Stop performing for these friends. If you must perform for them, don't get bent out of shape if they react this way.

Also, don't say that gimmicks ruin your sleight of hand. You are basing that on your friends' reactions. Perform for other people who don't get to see magicians regularly and see how they react. If the reactions are similar, you know you are not doing something right.

I'm not bent out of shape. The point of this topic is are gimmicks wrong. I answered with what I feel, that gimmicks aren't wrong but they should come second to SOH and I related to it with a real life experience.

Ignoring me works a lot better if you don't address me directly. Besides that, what's not to get? You blamed a lack of reaction in a performance on an inanimate object someone else used and you expect me to sympathize with you. You then go on to say that it's bull**** another magician could get better reactions with an invisible deck than you do with sleight of hand, why? Because the invisible deck isn't real magic. You say magicians can use gimmicks, but you think it's wrong when the gimmicks get better reaction than sleight of hand.

I think it's wrong that an act purely full of gimmicks, (okay minus Pressure) gets all these amazing reactions yet another act with all the hard work to learn SOH gets almost no reaction.

That is what I think is wrong.


Being a moderator does mean I am expected to conduct myself in a less profane manner, but I find less need to be blunt with people there as I do on here because most people on E will actually listen to an opposing viewpoint instead of just crying about it. It doesn't matter where I am, I do not tolerate bull****. Which brings me to our current predicament. Your arguments are weak, flimsy, and poorly constructed. I don't believe you fully understand why you're saying the things you are. And I am telling you as much. If you cannot handle dissent and unrestrained criticism, that is not my fault.

I do listen and have been listening. There is a difference between saying something constructive and outright criticism. Something which you seem to not yet understand. Or, at least, you do not demonstrate that knowledge in any of these posts. Had you have said something like: "While it is unfortunate that someone who used nothing but gimmicks got better reactions than your sleight of hand routine, may be you should incorporate some gimmicks too so that your act is much more rounded and meets all the audiences needs." Or some such, rather than saying: "Oh, you're saying that your SOH doesn't deserve a reaction because he used gimmicks and the gimmicks look better and that's real magic and all you're saying is BS, you fag." Sure, gimmicks are magic too but remember, a real magician can still fool you without the use of gimmicks. That's where the difference is. You may say gimmicks are real magic but if a layman can be pick it up, be told how to use it and perform with it in mere minutes...that's not magic. The hours of practice and hard work to get a decent looking clipshift down or what have you is. Do you understand now? I cannot make it any clearer.

Kris Deagle... really?
"No, like I said, I don't have a problem with gimmicks, they just shouldn't be used so much that laymen think they are an amazing magician when they are not."
A magician is not defined by his skill in Sleight of Hand... A magician is just someone who performs magic tricks to amuse an audience. If he is able to perform well, with good presentation, and let the audience have a good time, he is a good magician.

A magician is not someone who performs "magic tricks" to "amuse" an audience at all. They are there to perform mystifying magic and to entertain. However, you can be a good magician and not be entertaining, it's just not preferable and most certainly won't get you many gigs. Also, most people would be offended by you calling them tricks. (I don't, after all, that's what they are called but a lot of people prefer magic effects)

They are not clowns or jesters, they are not there to amuse you, they are there to entertain. There IS a difference. And also, no they may not be defined by their skill in SOH but you can't define anyone to have "skill" with gimmicks.


Its not a matter of skill... at all... Its just a matter of how well you fullfill your "job". Take a keycard principle, mesh it with an amazing presentation. There we have a great magician.

I am aware and we both did present rather well for our first time. Sure, we may have been nervous but we got into it. And most people said I was the funnier one. They preferred his tricks/effects/what have you and my entertainment. I may have forgotten to mention that earlier and that would've probably stopped this whole argument from happening in the first place.

Take the pushthrough shuffle, clipshift, diagonal palm shift, and some other knucklebusting move, and mesh it with a man with no charisma, no character, no patter/ presentation what so ever and there we have a bad magician.

No, we don't. We have a good magician who can't entertain. He has the magical ability which defines him as a good magician...he just doesn't have the entertainment to go with it.

There is no rule that you can't be a good magician and be un-entertaining...it just won't get you hired. Performing magic, makes you a magician. (Though that is up for debate, as you can teach any five year old a keycard trick but that doesn't make him a magician...but we are not getting into that, point is, you don't have to be entertaining to be a magician though it helps)


Gimmicks works exactly like sleight of hand. They are both things which help you achieve magic tricks. Sure sleight of hand is technically more respectable within the community, but it really comes down to how well you use what you have.

Yes but you can't perform a clipshift with 10 minutes practice, you CAN however perform an ID routine. Does everyone see the difference? Do you finally understand where I am coming from? If not, then this is a lost cause and you will never get it.

Just because you got one-upped by a easily used gimmick compared to your apparently great Cups and Balls routine, doesnt mean that gimmicks are worse. Perhaps your friend just performed better than you, perhaps he just routined better than you, perhaps he just knew what would work well for audiences. Just because he got a better reaction doesnt mean you have to go whine about it.

I didn't say it was a great cups and balls routine...it was my first time performing them. Sure, it could do with a lot of work but no-one caught me, the balls all appeared where I wanted them to, it was what it was supposed to be. And I didn't say they are worse. Why does everyone get the impression I hate gimmicks.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I SAID: "GIMMICKS ARE FINE TO USE BUT COME SECOND TO SLEIGHT OF HAND."

And for the record, I created my routine, it flowed together...he had no idea how to routine so I routined him into the show and from there he just tried to go with it...though it didn't really work. His were more just some random effects but most happened to be with cards.

And neither of us had any idea what would work well for them as it was our first time with most of this stuff. Cups and balls, bowl routine, Pressure, Tagged...we hadn't performed any of these tricks before.

And I wasn't whining, I was simply stating it is unfair for gimmicks to be given so much credit when anyone can learn to use them (well I am mainly referring to these gimmicks, not others) while the hard work that is SOH gets barely anything. You can't honestly tell me that any one of you would not get irritated if you put weeks of work into your part of the show only to be upstaged by a gimmicked deck, a balloon and a gimmicked card. Really? You are all against me yet I guarantee you agree with that statement. If you don't, you're a moron.


You may have worked years on that cups and balls, you may have a perfect shuttle pass, a perfect load, a perfect closer... So what? in the end, the Invisible Deck just works better for some audience. If you fail to realize that and use it to your advantage, then perhaps it makes you a bad magician rather than those who got a better payback with less work.

I realize ID is always going to get amazing reactions...and I don't mind he got so many and such great reactions...it's the fact that mine didn't also get good reactions which ticks me off.

And just as a side note, as everyone else has said... audience dont care whether its gimmick or sleight of hand. A magic trick is a magic trick. Using gimmicks or skill doesnt make it any more or less of a trick.

No but if you got them to try and do both of our routines, I bet you they'd soon change their opinions because of how simple his was. Sure, it doesn't stop it from being a good trick but when you learn how it's done, it can disappoint. For example, the friend that was in the show with me, always gets disappointed with gimmicked tricks these days when he learns how they are done, sure he thinks they look cool but he is disappointed with it because of how simple and easy they are. Like GUM for example, I love the trick but he hated the method and he thinks, how does that fool anyone, it's so obvious. Same goes for ID. But anyhow...
 
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
What do you expect from them?
"wow... now that was a jolly good trick. dont you think?"
"yes yes... very nice... I loved how it was so impossible..."
"but wait... that other guy... was only using cups and balls.. He must have the real skill!"
"that is correct! Even though the trick with the cards was much more impossible, i think we can all agree that cups-and-balls-guy is the better magician"
"AYE!"

Haha, nice. I can see your point but like I said, it infuriates me because I know how much work went into mine. And how much went into his too...which was not much.

go perform to magicians if you want that. (you probably still wont get it though)
and dont you think its stupid for you to rant that hes getting acclaim cause hes using a gimmick that no one sees while youre performing with odd cups and balls? If anything, the audience would think that you were using gimmicked cups and balls... how often do you see metal cups and crochet balls used that way...? Just adding it as a side of irony.

Then you come up with theories of how a cup and ball can possibly be gimmicked to do that. After all, a few people had inspected my cups a few days prior to the show while I was practicing at their house...they were amazed when they saw what I could do with innocent cups and balls. After all, they had just checked and knew there was no way that ball could've passed through that solid cup.


Anyway, can we drop the subject? No-one really cares what we think.

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS SIMPLE: No.
 
May 3, 2008
1,146
4
Hong Kong
So where youre generally coming from is:
"a magician is defined by skill, not entertainment.
I entertained better than him while at the same time was a better magician.
I practiced my routine longer than him and put more thought into it.
He got better reactions.
Im pissed."

I think where the biggest difference in opinions at this moment is how we define magician. I thought it was a general definition that we had to amuse to be a magician. What you described, in my opinion, is a... (i really dont know the word)... artisan? Just someone who has skills... I define a magician as someone who performs magic to AMUSE/ ENTERTAIN. so thus, one who does not entertain can not really be defined as a magician. I think a lot of people agree with that as well.. but I dont really remember anymore. Final line is, we define it differently.
As for your opinion on the clip shift part... I dont quite get it. So you are saying you are pissed cause youre hard work didn't get as good of a return as the 10 minute practice trick did? Wheres the problem? You cant expect them to realize that you put hard work into a trick.
The fact that you expect to get the same amount of respect from the audience purely on the fact that yours is sleight and his isnt. is just quite unreasonable.
How bout some role playing. Imagine you were laymen and watching the two of you. Which trick would you be more impressed with? the ID of course. Sure cups and balls are out of the ordinary... but the ID is impossible.
You also need to take things into account, which may have led to this result. Firstly, I'm sure plenty of laymen have seen the cups and balls in one way or another. They may have found yours unoriginal and boring. What your friend performed, I doubt laymen have seen before. It is new and unexpected. The fact that it was two magicians in a row might make them judge differently. "Hey that guy performed a trick! It was awesome! HOLY BALLS ANOTHER TRICK? WEW!!!" Perhaps they were more into the magic after you performed.
I would take this situation as a lesson. I find it rather unlogical that you expected equal or larger applause before the trick. You knew what he was going to perform, you knew what reactions they would get. So why would you perform a routine which would obviously not play up to it. You could have easily chosen something else of equal "awesomeness" and gotten the reaction you deserve. Nowadays, teleporting mini balls just dont cut it when theres a mobile phone in a balloon as well. You should have chosen a different routine if you knew what was coming.
And how do we all categorize tricks in order of good to bad? Is it the skill involved? is it the effect? is it the prep? the setup? the patter? presentation? props? what is it? A magician performs for audience and I think the good/bad level of a trick is ultimately defined by their experience and reaction. Tivo 2.0 is a "good" trick. Its clean, impromptu, looks visual, etc. But compare that to... the ID (what a coincidence). Which do you think people (magicians and laymen alike) will call the "better" trick? Definately the ID. It has so much more potential for presentation, is much more impossible, theres audience engagement, relates to the audience on a stronger level, and (you might hate me for saying this) is much easier.
How can you not love a trick which can blow minds with minimal work? Sure I'm being lazy, but why not? If you got to choose for a stage show, would you rather perform the original Invisible Deck or Alvo Stockman's Sleight of Hand version. One takes 10 minutes of practice, while the other requires lots more as well as angle control and timing. Same effect, different efforts. Which would you prefer as a magician?
 
Mar 4, 2010
90
0
So where youre generally coming from is:
"a magician is defined by skill, not entertainment.
I entertained better than him while at the same time was a better magician.
I practiced my routine longer than him and put more thought into it.
He got better reactions.
Im pissed."

I think where the biggest difference in opinions at this moment is how we define magician. I thought it was a general definition that we had to amuse to be a magician. What you described, in my opinion, is a... (i really dont know the word)... artisan? Just someone who has skills... I define a magician as someone who performs magic to AMUSE/ ENTERTAIN. so thus, one who does not entertain can not really be defined as a magician. I think a lot of people agree with that as well.. but I dont really remember anymore. Final line is, we define it differently.
As for your opinion on the clip shift part... I dont quite get it. So you are saying you are pissed cause youre hard work didn't get as good of a return as the 10 minute practice trick did? Wheres the problem? You cant expect them to realize that you put hard work into a trick.
The fact that you expect to get the same amount of respect from the audience purely on the fact that yours is sleight and his isnt. is just quite unreasonable.
How bout some role playing. Imagine you were laymen and watching the two of you. Which trick would you be more impressed with? the ID of course. Sure cups and balls are out of the ordinary... but the ID is impossible.
You also need to take things into account, which may have led to this result. Firstly, I'm sure plenty of laymen have seen the cups and balls in one way or another. They may have found yours unoriginal and boring. What your friend performed, I doubt laymen have seen before. It is new and unexpected. The fact that it was two magicians in a row might make them judge differently. "Hey that guy performed a trick! It was awesome! HOLY BALLS ANOTHER TRICK? WEW!!!" Perhaps they were more into the magic after you performed.
I would take this situation as a lesson. I find it rather unlogical that you expected equal or larger applause before the trick. You knew what he was going to perform, you knew what reactions they would get. So why would you perform a routine which would obviously not play up to it. You could have easily chosen something else of equal "awesomeness" and gotten the reaction you deserve. Nowadays, teleporting mini balls just dont cut it when theres a mobile phone in a balloon as well. You should have chosen a different routine if you knew what was coming.
And how do we all categorize tricks in order of good to bad? Is it the skill involved? is it the effect? is it the prep? the setup? the patter? presentation? props? what is it? A magician performs for audience and I think the good/bad level of a trick is ultimately defined by their experience and reaction. Tivo 2.0 is a "good" trick. Its clean, impromptu, looks visual, etc. But compare that to... the ID (what a coincidence). Which do you think people (magicians and laymen alike) will call the "better" trick? Definately the ID. It has so much more potential for presentation, is much more impossible, theres audience engagement, relates to the audience on a stronger level, and (you might hate me for saying this) is much easier.
How can you not love a trick which can blow minds with minimal work? Sure I'm being lazy, but why not? If you got to choose for a stage show, would you rather perform the original Invisible Deck or Alvo Stockman's Sleight of Hand version. One takes 10 minutes of practice, while the other requires lots more as well as angle control and timing. Same effect, different efforts. Which would you prefer as a magician?

I didn't read your post but I thought we were moving on? It's pointless to continue arguing over people's opinions so how about we move on from my post and post your own answer to the thread or let others post theirs?

Appeasement: Okay guys, I'm wrong, I am not an expert and so therefore I am wrong. You are right. I am sorry for having an opinion different to yours?

Better? Good.

Unnecessary addendum: I have no problems with the ID. I love it. Just so everyone is clear. I own one of my own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results