Gimmicks are WRONG?
- Thread starter CaseyRudd
- Start date
- Status
Haha, well after I posted, I read it anyway. It'd be rude if I didn't.
And yes, I'd probably prefer to use ID but do I not have a right to be annoyed that gimmicks got all the applause? Oh and they had seen the ID peformed by him before and with many different presentations...just because you mentioned they may have seen C&Bs and not ID.
And I guess it's all semantics really. A magician is supposed to entertain but doesn't have to entertain to be defined as one.
Here's a quote directly from dictionary.com:
"Magician -
1.
an entertainer who is skilled in producing illusion by sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; conjurer.
2.
a person who is skilled in magic; sorcerer."
So I guess we are both right. Then again, the second meaning may mean "REAL" magic so there you go, maybe I'm wrong after all. My bad.
Do not presume to lecture me on what criticism is. I know far better than you do and routinely take criticisms that would reduce someone like you to tears. Why? Because I can tell who's a windbag and who's got the goods. The fact that you say "outright criticism" is bad proves that you're just another internet guttersnipe who can't handle any form of criticism because you don't get enough of it.
I'm going to make this clear to you right now. Criticism is when somebody says, "No, that's not right, and here's why." Using the phrase "constructive criticism" in the manner you did is a way for people to avoid taking any criticism. Once all criticisms have been completely de-clawed and rendered useless by too much Culture of Nice bull****, you just ignore it anyway.
I am not here to coddle you. I am here to tell you the truth.
If I said either one of those things verbatim I would have to kick my own ass. If I subscribe to your definition of constructive, I'm too nice to be of any use because you'll just blow me off. You wouldn't take advice from such a person because they don't give you any incentive to. You already have their approval. So what reason do you have to take their advice seriously?
And if I said your idiotic take on what actual criticism entails, that would just be me an ad hominem in which I just call you a tool and don't qualify that statement. But I actually have explained why I think the way I do, and in fact have you let you hang yourself on your own words repeatedly.
It's utterly bizarre to me that you keep bringing this up. Who are you trying to convince?
And that's the part where I call you an ******* and why I said you're just desperately seeking approval. You want validation for your practice. You believe that you should be rewarded not just for the performance, but for the behind-the-scenes work, the hours spent practicing alone in your room. You want to believe that you possess a skill that few can do and that sets you above and beyond.
But audiences don't give a **** about that. They never have and they never will. They want the magic to be sublime. They don't want your blood, sweat, and tears. And that is where your friend succeeded where you did not. The invisible deck did not do all the work. He did. And you refuse to accept that. You don't want to admit that he is a better magician than you are because he could take something that you view as nothing more than a child's toy and got better reactions.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Listen to yourself; you're blaming inanimate objects! Does that make any sense to you? And you keep contradicting yourself. You say in one breath that gimmicks are magic. But then in the next breath you say they're not because laymen can do it. I don't even have to criticize you on that, you hanged yourself saying that.
And on that note, I can see why your friend is a better magician than you are. You think you're separate from your audience, that you possess a skill that makes you better than them. Or at the very least that your skill is sacred and exclusive. That's the beginnings of kvlt kiddie syndrome.
Every magician gets the reactions that he deserves. I suggest you man up and accept that fact.
No it doesn't. Gimmick or sleight of hand, it makes no difference at all if you're a goddamn Mary Sue of a performer.
I have understood from the beginning. I can read you like a telepathic Freud. And I usually don't have to is the worst part. You keep hanging yourself on your own words.
And you think I'm a dick?
No. Arguments happen specifically because people disagree. Opinions can be argued and should be. A mind that is not regularly challenged grows weak.
Ooh, how can I put this....? Kiss my ass. You're just being a brat at this point.
Oh, so it's only a problem when somebody other than you gets good reactions with it?
I will not sink so low as to reply to your post, however, I must say this, no words could bring me to tears. Whether you said it online or in person. The only thing that'll ever make me cry is if I barf or I feel extreme physical pain. And that's fact. I can prove it by the numerous years that have gone by without me crying. That is not me trying to prove myself to be some macho man or something, just me proving that you could not possibly make me cry with anything you say. Unless, of course, that was just said to illustrate your point.
And from now on, I am done arguing with you Steerpike. I may continue to post here but I am refraining from dignifying you with a response if you are just going to try and flame me when I have called an end to this pointless argument. I am sure the other members do not care for it, neither do I.
And yet... here you are.
It's called hyperbole. And I suggest you do read my post. Do remember that I perform for a living, so I'm not just pulling these ideas out of my ass.
If you think this is a flame war, you've never actually been in one. No, I'm just convinced that you're incapable of taking criticism.
Okay, you've goaded me into this again...call it boredom if you will.
I meant, I was not going to reply to the rest of the post.
I never said you were pulling them from nothingness, nor did I say they don't hold any weight but you cannot expect someone to not be irritated when laziness gets applause and hard work does not?
Oh, I have been in plenty of flame wars, I used to start them. On a graphics forum, I went from being my nice, normal self (in person) to part of the cool group that openly flamed and trolled just because we could. On magic sites however, I do not see the need to flame people or troll threads. What I am doing here with you is an argument, I am not flaming you and at least we have certain viewpoints that we are basing this off. Unlike where I used to throw out insults for the hell of it, regardless if they actually pertained to the topic at hand. For that, I must give you props for at least arguing and having a reason to do so. I can also take criticism but I want it to be useful. Criticism is just criticizing without addressing how to fix the problem. Constructive criticism also tells a person how to fix the problem. Regardless, I did not need criticism or did I need constructive criticism nor did I ask for it. I was answering the topic of this thread and added a real life situation to go with it. I didn't say: "Hey guys, tell me how to make my reactions better than my friends'." If I want you to help me with something, I shall ask.
Futhermore, I now know who to come to if I want honest truth and not answers that while trying to be nice, don't overly help my situation.
So then, we have this settled? I do not want criticism of my performance, it was just to add to my point but if I do, I shall come directly to you. Fair?
But he's performed with the ID before. You said yourself that he has multiple presentations for it. He obviously put some work into figuring out how to use it well. How is that laziness?
And apparently he's a good showman because he was able to take untested material, perform it successfully, and get solid reactions. He had to have worked on his public speaking and presentational abilities to pull that off. How is that laziness?
I'm not your mother. I can't lead you by the hand. Besides, what is there to construct here? The simple fact is that you don't understand the causality of the situation and that's why you constantly contradict yourself.
Besides that, I can't tell you to fix a problem when you refuse to admit there is a problem in the first place.
I don't give a rat's ass if you asked for it. You were demonstrably wrong, so I called you on it. Your contribution was erroneous.
And besides that, this is (ostensibly) a discussion forum. We are to make our disagreements about magic public and discuss them. The topic is about the validity of gimmicks as magic, so why shouldn't we argue about it?
I'm sorry, but I can't call that fair. My stance for years has been that if you don't want a thought to be criticized, you shouldn't voice it. Anything that you say in this forum is fair game for disagreement, argument, discussion, and criticism. The same goes for everyone else, myself included. In fact one of the biggest reasons I don't come here that often anymore is specifically because I don't get criticized enough. I get called names a lot, but that's not criticism. That's just the noise people make when they don't like me.
How can they not? I find you quite interesting and amusing actually. I like you. I see you creating many good times for me in the future, whether you intend to or not. I also don't mind if you do not like me, I do not care, I just find you fun.
Guys, this is getting way out of hand here. Please stop arguing, grow up, and be done with it. Are you guys really that immature to battle over whose opinion is better? For Christ's sake, just stop arguing, this isn't what the thread was supposed to be about. Just express your opinion, and don't fight over someone else's. Thank you.
Cheers,
Casey Rudd
Cheers,
Casey Rudd
Blah blah blah go cry somewhere else. You made a thread about gimmicks and what not and someone posted BS about non gimmicked magic being better, or should be more awarded and praised then gimmicked magic. Steer saw the huge BMW (Big mexican Woman) Flaw in his argument and has been prodding away to see if he can maybe help guide the jaded feelings to one that is more acceptable and not full of crap.
Anyway I am still hung up on this comment,
Kris Deagle said:
F***, I guess I am not a magician for using gimmicks. It's okay I guess I will just move myself up to Illusionist status.
Kris:
Let me offer a different take on the reactions of your spectators. As you said, the spectators didn't know that your routine required slight of hand and that your friend's relied on gimmicks. So why the difference in reactions? A couple of ideas:
That being said, I understand your frustration. A couple of weekends ago, I performed some effects for my wife's parents. Some of those effects required hours of practice and some difficult slights. What effect most impressed my wife's dad? It was a "Do as I Do" effect I casually did when a commercial came on during a television show we were watching. No major slight of hand, no intricate gimmicks it took hours to make and the same patter I've used since I first learned the effect. The amount of effort put into learning an effect isn't necessarily related to the strength of the effect in the spectator' view.
You also stated that gimmicks are alright, but that slight of hand should come first. I disagree. For a beginner magician, I think that the gimmicks should come first. As I said above, the gimmicks allow a magician to develop presentation skills and I think those skills are the most important part of being a magician. For those who skipped it, go back and read Steerpike's first post. He really nails the progression of a magician's thinking on this issue.
For a more experienced magician, slight of hand and gimmicks should be on an equal footing. You should use whichever method best accomplishes the effect. As others have stated, you can get great results if you combine both a gimmick and slight of hand. I use a chop cup in my cups and balls routine, merely because I can accomplish effects with the chop cup that I can't do with just slight of hand.
Let me offer a different take on the reactions of your spectators. As you said, the spectators didn't know that your routine required slight of hand and that your friend's relied on gimmicks. So why the difference in reactions? A couple of ideas:
1. Cups and balls and sponge balls LOOK more gimmicked than an Invisible Deck, Tagged or Pressure. People don't see metal cups, knit balls and sponge balls in their everyday lives, but they do see decks of cards, books, balloons and cell phones.
2. When you are first starting out with slight of hand, more effort during a performance is directed toward getting the slight of hand right. In contrast, if you are using a gimmick, you can direct more effort toward your presentation.
3. To perform a "amazing" cups and balls or sponge ball routine takes a lot more presentation skills than to perform "amazing" magic using an Invisible Deck, Tagged or Pressure which pretty much astonish the spectator without any presentation.
2. When you are first starting out with slight of hand, more effort during a performance is directed toward getting the slight of hand right. In contrast, if you are using a gimmick, you can direct more effort toward your presentation.
3. To perform a "amazing" cups and balls or sponge ball routine takes a lot more presentation skills than to perform "amazing" magic using an Invisible Deck, Tagged or Pressure which pretty much astonish the spectator without any presentation.
That being said, I understand your frustration. A couple of weekends ago, I performed some effects for my wife's parents. Some of those effects required hours of practice and some difficult slights. What effect most impressed my wife's dad? It was a "Do as I Do" effect I casually did when a commercial came on during a television show we were watching. No major slight of hand, no intricate gimmicks it took hours to make and the same patter I've used since I first learned the effect. The amount of effort put into learning an effect isn't necessarily related to the strength of the effect in the spectator' view.
You also stated that gimmicks are alright, but that slight of hand should come first. I disagree. For a beginner magician, I think that the gimmicks should come first. As I said above, the gimmicks allow a magician to develop presentation skills and I think those skills are the most important part of being a magician. For those who skipped it, go back and read Steerpike's first post. He really nails the progression of a magician's thinking on this issue.
For a more experienced magician, slight of hand and gimmicks should be on an equal footing. You should use whichever method best accomplishes the effect. As others have stated, you can get great results if you combine both a gimmick and slight of hand. I use a chop cup in my cups and balls routine, merely because I can accomplish effects with the chop cup that I can't do with just slight of hand.
I think this is spot on. Gimmicked 'normal' items will always be less suspicious than a normal silk or metal ring or silver cup. Seriously, when is it normal for a man to own that many colourful silk handkerchiefs!!!
Rev
What do you mean by "go cry somewhere else". I wasn't "crying" in the first place. We're all supposed to get along here, isn't that right? I love what Steerpike is saying about this issue, couldn't agree more, but could we please just find a way to discuss this matter without being so negative all the time? It's all I ask for God's sake. I'm not "crying" about the issue. I just want to hear one's opinions without it being negative to someone else.
- Status