Flourishy Tricks

[TheNinjew]

I bought Crunk by Daniel madison a few days ago from the 1on1s. Here is the link
http://www.theory11.com/1on1/#category:27/page:2/sort:price/video:48

It is basically a flourishy sandwich effect where to red aces(or other cards) are produced and used to find the selection. So I was wondering what do you guys think of tricks where flourishing is used in the trick? Also what are some other good examples of these tricks.

 

[wZEnigma]

What did you think of Crunk? I was debating on getting it, but it seems confusing.

Ian

 

[nIvan]

What did you think of Crunk? I was debating on getting it, but it seems confusing.

Ian

It's an obvious display of skill and flourishing. It looks as if you are literally finding the card and sandwiching it. Personally, I prefer things to be invisible and hidden as possible and thus this was not for me. But if you are known for lots of flourishes then this is for you. I don't have this, but my friend does.

 

[b+w]

It all depends on what style you are trying to present to your audience. If you are trying to convey to your audience that you can use the supernatural, or actually do magic then all I can say is you have to appear as unskilled as possible to make it seem as if there was a magical occurence which took place.

On the other hand, you can present yourself as a "sleight of hand artist" or a card shark type performer (this is the path I have chosen as I also perform Cardistry) so effects such as "Crunk" I would say are perfect for that type of performance because like nIvan said, it is as if you are using your SKILL to literally find the card which at the end of the day is exactly what you are doing.

Many magicians don't like this as it appears you are revealing the method by saying you are using sleight of hand- well, sure but I suggest you listen to a Roundtable Discussion featuring Jason England (I think his first one but all are worth a listen) where he talks about this very subject (sorry, I can't remember exactly what he said) and how although they know you're using sleight of hand it still doesn't take away from the end result and reaction you may get from a spectator.

Anyway, if you're looking for good examples of flashy tricks which show more skill than magical ability, Dan and Dave Buck are defiently the way to go with their DVDs "The Trilogy" and "andthensome" containing most of their effects and flourishes. Daniel Madison is also a good choice for flashy effects.
I'd encourage anyone to add a bit of Cardistry to their tricks and routines as it has worked wonders for me.

Hope this helps.
-Ben

 

[praetoritevong]

My opinion, in short, about skill & magic:

Does skill take away from the feeling of magic?

Undoubtedly, yes.

Where there is skill, there is no magic. Skill speaks to method. Magic has no method. Magic is impossible.

Where there is skill, there can definitely however be entertainment. Audiences are clever, and they can appreciate skill. There can be amazement. But it's a different form of entertainment. It's not necessarily a lesser form of entertainment. But it's not magic.

As a performer, you have to decide how much of each you want to include.

My personal opinion is that magic is special precisely because it is impossible. Therefore I do not want to take away from this at all. You can see skill in many places - you can see a juggler, go to a circus, watch a firebreather, etc. You can't see the impossible in many places at all.

Many people perform tricks - not just magicians. I prefer to perform magic.

 

[TheNinjew]

What did you think of Crunk? I was debating on getting it, but it seems confusing.

Ian

Well I thought Crunk was very well done. I would say that the teaching seems a little hurried, but other than that it is very good. If you are Intermediate I would say this could take you 3 to 4 hours to master. If you are very experienced at flourishing then this should take you a very short time.

Hope this helps

 

[Zevaka]

crank is a good trick, one of the first things i've learnt from daniel madison's tricks.
But in my opinion flourishy tricks should not be "select a card - here is it" tricks (even with sandwich part). That's too simple structure.

praetoritevong made a good point about flourishy tricks vs. magic tricks. Indeed, if you start your performance with super-fast-hands tricks you need to go with it to the end. Fortunately there are plenty of hand-quicker-than-the-eye tricks. Also, a lot of tricks fit both flourishy magicians and magic magicians, for example, ambitious card routine. You can preform it as a great miracle that even you cannot explain. Or you can go with "look, fast move and it's on top again" pattern.
Anyway, i'd like to mention first disc of DnD's trilogy. If you watched it, you might notice, that all those tricks are fast, with cool smooth and stylish moves. But do you call those tricks flourishy? i guess no. Because all those moves are utility moves, not flourish for the sake of flourish. I guess that's the good middle between magic and card manipulation performances.

Different types of laymen like different types of performance, tho. I know a couple of guys, who are never impressed with magic, even the most fantastic and magical stuff (colour changing decks etc) but they get wild seeing just cool card manipulations.

 

[praetoritevong]

crank is a good trick, one of the first things i've learnt from daniel madison's tricks.
But in my opinion flourishy tricks should not be "select a card - here is it" tricks (even with sandwich part). That's too simple structure.

praetoritevong made a good point about flourishy tricks vs. magic tricks. Indeed, if you start your performance with super-fast-hands tricks you need to go with it to the end. Fortunately there are plenty of hand-quicker-than-the-eye tricks. Also, a lot of tricks fit both flourishy magicians and magic magicians, for example, ambitious card routine. You can preform it as a great miracle that even you cannot explain. Or you can go with "look, fast move and it's on top again" pattern.
Anyway, i'd like to mention first disc of DnD's trilogy. If you watched it, you might notice, that all those tricks are fast, with cool smooth and stylish moves. But do you call those tricks flourishy? i guess no. Because all those moves are utility moves, not flourish for the sake of flourish. I guess that's the good middle between magic and card manipulation performances.

Different types of laymen like different types of performance, tho. I know a couple of guys, who are never impressed with magic, even the most fantastic and magical stuff (colour changing decks etc) but they get wild seeing just cool card manipulations.

You make a good point also - every now and again, you will see someone who is just more interested in method and manipulation than magic. This is why it's important to have a solid grounding in a variety of magic styles - the bizarrist should read Tarbell, and the coin worker, Corinda, in the my opinion - not necessarily to perform, of course, but because knowledge helps you to adapt.

I want to emphasise again that having sleight of hand based tricks are not necessarily a bad thing - they're a personal choice - just that they're not magic. No value judgment attached to that, but they're just not.

 

[D ICE R]

I feel that you need to demonstrate a skill in getting to the level of performance. It has to be used though in the correct context and the correct amount. I personally demonstrate my 'skills' in the earlier parts of my show. I personally believe if someone believes your initial claims then they will be more likely to believe the later parts.

 

[James Pritchard]

I think you can show flourishes and skill and still give the feeling of magic. Darwin Ortiz wrote an interesting essay on this in his book Scams & Fantasies. He argues that it's sometimes nice to show skill, elegant handling can make things look more magical. You must then perform the trick in such a seemingly fair way that it apparently could not have been achieved through skill, but must have been by magical means.

You want your magic to look so clean that it could not have been achieved through skill, which is different from the audience assuming you didn't use skill because you don't have any. In my opinion, throwing in some pretty flourishes enhances the impression that you can do the impossible.

Of course it also comes down to character. Someone like Juan Tamariz looks clumsy, but is a grand master. It can work either way, you just have to go with what suits your personality.

 

[praetoritevong]

Hold on a sec here. Two things:

1) Having sleight of hand skill is a very different skill to being graceful with cards... Take for example the career gambler, like Daniel Negreanu, for example. He obviously can handle cards well... He has "skill" in that sense - but he has no, as far as I'm aware, sleight of hand skill. I can avoid displays of skill without appearing clumsy, unrehearsed, etc. Those, again, are two different things entirely. Both take skill, but you can't use them interchangeably in the same argument.

2) It's also false to imply that if you don't have skill, then you are clumsy. False dichotomy. It's not one or the other - it's a question of dimension. Your normal person who isn't a magician or a card player, but has played poker a few times and can riffle the cards - this is not any demonstration of dexterity, but it is not clumsiness either. They're just normal. It's not "either way" - there are more than two possibilities.