What are some of the double lift in andthensome and are there any that are like the diving boarder double and how well is it explained thanks
andthensome double lifts
- Thread starter 52 card pickup
- Start date
There are 3 DLs I believe. All are explained very well.
The first one is the DL for the trick Portal. Very simple.
Then Rodney Reyes's Orbit, it is an aerial DL so it is pretty knacky.
Last is the Ginastaire Double, which was also on their note Sleightly Magical. It is fairly knacky, Dan tells you in the DVD that he'd rather do Orbit and Ginastaire more as flourishes than DLs because they aren't that reliable.
The first one is the DL for the trick Portal. Very simple.
Then Rodney Reyes's Orbit, it is an aerial DL so it is pretty knacky.
Last is the Ginastaire Double, which was also on their note Sleightly Magical. It is fairly knacky, Dan tells you in the DVD that he'd rather do Orbit and Ginastaire more as flourishes than DLs because they aren't that reliable.
I'd be interested in the answer if any of you were to email a reputable and experienced magician who performs for laymen as a profession, and ask them how many double lifts they did, and what sort of double lifts they did - do they fly ten feet in the air with a backwards three and a half twist?
haha
touche praetoritevong.
Thats why I didnt really like the Trilogy in the first place, it was kinda too flashy for my taste as well as my performing for laymen.
As for the double lift thing, I burst out laughing the first time I saw brad christian do a rotating double off the deck. I found it a joke.
But I do try to learn the aerial doubles just as a cool defying physics sorta thing. "hey look! two cards? ill throw them. DAMN IT LOOKS LIKE ONE!"
touche praetoritevong.
Thats why I didnt really like the Trilogy in the first place, it was kinda too flashy for my taste as well as my performing for laymen.
As for the double lift thing, I burst out laughing the first time I saw brad christian do a rotating double off the deck. I found it a joke.
But I do try to learn the aerial doubles just as a cool defying physics sorta thing. "hey look! two cards? ill throw them. DAMN IT LOOKS LIKE ONE!"
i believe that anyone who takes magic seriously is able to imagine what the answer would be . Those who do not know have a lot to learn and probably have not performed for an audience other than their relatives and friends
George
Guys, I think learning these other double lifts will only help card handlers of all types. No, you probably won't perform aerial doubles in the middle of an intimate performance, but learning these sleights will only increase your dexterity and understanding of how the cards work together. Do you perform every flourish you use? How about every trick you learn? The answer is no, but you continue to learn in the hopes that the very act of learning these will show positive effects across the board. So yes, to some strict performers, they may be inutile, but they certainly won't hurt you and will most likely help you.
SG
SG
Oh, I'm not saying it's bad at all to learn and read about many double lifts.
I just question the reason of many magicians for doing so.
Similarly, I think there can be benefits derived from learning effects for magicians. The question is, are you doing it to look good for your magician friends, or are you truly doing it for the overall benefits for your magic? I feel that guys like Derek Dingle and Earnest Earick, are, sadly, studied for the former, despite having much to offer for the latter. This is slightly off topic so I'll stop now - but I hope you understand my point - it's not the what so much as the why that caused me to write my previous post.
I just question the reason of many magicians for doing so.
Similarly, I think there can be benefits derived from learning effects for magicians. The question is, are you doing it to look good for your magician friends, or are you truly doing it for the overall benefits for your magic? I feel that guys like Derek Dingle and Earnest Earick, are, sadly, studied for the former, despite having much to offer for the latter. This is slightly off topic so I'll stop now - but I hope you understand my point - it's not the what so much as the why that caused me to write my previous post.
this DVD is great for....move monkeys and creative ideas.
these "sleights" are very well knacky and "impractical", but again dan and dave arnt performers to laymen. They think about fooling and impressing the magical community. They have a take it or leave sense of attitude. The dls may NOT be good for laymen, and thats why we dont use them for laymen, we use them for magicians. if you want simple, laymen proferred dls, get a beginners DvD. itll teach you, and probably bore you, what you need to know to entertain laymen. just my 2 pennies.
peace.
-andy.
these "sleights" are very well knacky and "impractical", but again dan and dave arnt performers to laymen. They think about fooling and impressing the magical community. They have a take it or leave sense of attitude. The dls may NOT be good for laymen, and thats why we dont use them for laymen, we use them for magicians. if you want simple, laymen proferred dls, get a beginners DvD. itll teach you, and probably bore you, what you need to know to entertain laymen. just my 2 pennies.
peace.
-andy.
Going back to the original question, there are 7 items on the DVD regarding doubles.
1. A spread double lift - used in Portal.
2. Orbit - aerial double used in Encore.
3. Ginastaire double - from Sleightly Magical.
4. Spinning Top - Double spins on the deck.
5. Spinning Table Top - Double spins on the table.
6. Double Pirouette - Pirouette Flourish with a double.
7. Dr 90210 - An addition to the spin doctor double used in Tivo 2.0.
1. A spread double lift - used in Portal.
2. Orbit - aerial double used in Encore.
3. Ginastaire double - from Sleightly Magical.
4. Spinning Top - Double spins on the deck.
5. Spinning Table Top - Double spins on the table.
6. Double Pirouette - Pirouette Flourish with a double.
7. Dr 90210 - An addition to the spin doctor double used in Tivo 2.0.
Getting back away from the original question,
I'm not a big flourisher or anything (not that coordinated
), but what makes you think that a lay person would not be impressed, or would think it was 'fishy' doing a double backflip double lift? That's magician thinking again. I imagine that if Dan or Dave (or any one of you) did a flourishy card effect for a spectator, including flashy double lifts, the spectators would be just as impressed. I highly doubt they would be questioning if during that one part of the routine you were spinning that card in the air to hide the fact there was two cards there.
You flourishers are so talented, the first time I see some of those doubles, I'm like 'what!?! how on earth was that a double!' Spectators will see it the same way.
-justin
I'm not a big flourisher or anything (not that coordinated
), but what makes you think that a lay person would not be impressed, or would think it was 'fishy' doing a double backflip double lift? That's magician thinking again. I imagine that if Dan or Dave (or any one of you) did a flourishy card effect for a spectator, including flashy double lifts, the spectators would be just as impressed. I highly doubt they would be questioning if during that one part of the routine you were spinning that card in the air to hide the fact there was two cards there. You flourishers are so talented, the first time I see some of those doubles, I'm like 'what!?! how on earth was that a double!' Spectators will see it the same way.
-justin
Put it this way. What do you want the spectators to remember - You, or that double that flew up ten feet in the air. What do you want them to be amazed at - the trick, or should they still be buzzing about the double at the end of the trick?
If it doesn't add to the trick, if it distracts, take it out. The evidence for this is in the amount of professional performers doing such aerial double lifts in performing for laymen.
If it doesn't add to the trick, if it distracts, take it out. The evidence for this is in the amount of professional performers doing such aerial double lifts in performing for laymen.
Most of dan and dave's stuff isn't really for lay people to see. it's more for the kids who want to learn the next flashy stuff.
Most pro's I know use really simply DL's. Daryl does the Jennings Snap DL. Whit Hayden does the push off. I think a few also use a solid DL or the strike. I don't think it matters what DL you use as long as it's "good enough" and looks like your single lift. Which is really easy to do because its one card. Anyways I don't really think D&D's stuff is meant in a magical sense and more in a LOOK WHAT I CAN DO! sense.
It depends,
If your tricks are full of flourishy things, then do it, it won't take away, it will add, it makes sense and brings a nice spin or throw etc. to most things, this is good. However if your performance is more simple, i.e. not that flourishy, then it would be foolish to do that, so in my opinion it depends on what you're already doing.
If your tricks are full of flourishy things, then do it, it won't take away, it will add, it makes sense and brings a nice spin or throw etc. to most things, this is good. However if your performance is more simple, i.e. not that flourishy, then it would be foolish to do that, so in my opinion it depends on what you're already doing.
yes indeed it depends in your style . And some of you (52cardpickup) said that their doubles are for magicians. Put it this way how many times are you gonna perform for magicians? I live in Greece and there's hardly anyone else doing magic especially in the city i live (and most of them are total amateurs). I am performing for laymen and dont need to get boring pdfs/videos containing DLs for laypeople.
There are advanced teckniques that allow for very natural looking doubles ,which is what most magicians go for
George
There are advanced teckniques that allow for very natural looking doubles ,which is what most magicians go for
George
Why can't it be both?
It is the same if I use flash paper in a routine and spectators remember that their ring vanished in a ball of fire. It's not the main effect, but it adds to how the spectators will remember the event and me.
The better you handle your cards, the more people will say "Wow Justin is really amazing with a deck of cards did you see how they just came alive when he used them?" -but of course they won't say my name but yours...if you are the one flourishing....you understand..
now that is just crap. i know it is your opinion but seriously who the hell is going to be talking about the one part that you just happened to throw a card in the are and catch it. yeah they might briefly talk about it but they are going to be focused on the actual trick it self.
lets take a cool stage act for an example in some stage acts they have awesome lights music and people doing like flips and s*** or something of that nature while they are doing the trick, after wards nooooooo one is mainly talking about the flips they are amazed by the trick it is just nice to watch something fancy as it happens it makes the entire show more enjoyable.
i don't know about you but i wonder what those people are saying about me after i leave and they are explaining it to friends, face it some things just aren't cool if your not there, like sponge balls or something if they were to go tell there friends about it it probablly won't sound to cool i mean a guy with some little red balls that he put in my hand! but the flourishy stuff adds to the effect afterwards when explaining what happened to other people. when people hear it they will be like damn that sounds amazing!
it seems you are too worried about what professionals are doing, just because they do it does not mean that it is the preffered thing to do. so your example of professionals using simple DLs doesn't help at all.
besides the way i look at it is that if i were to do something like orbit compared to a simple turnover, the spectator afterwards when they are thinking about the trick (lets say it was a simple 2 card transpo) if they saw a normal double lift eventually they will think that oh maybe he just turned over 2 cards duh! but if they see orbit or diving board they won't think of that because they will be like no way! that can't be 2 cards! trust me that is how i used to think before i became a magician and that is how most people would think.
It's important to remember that flourish tricks are put together for a very different reason than a classic trick. In a classic trick you want everything to be fairly simple, easy to follow, deliberate, and purposeful. With flourishes and flourish effects, they are their own beast. They don't fit conventional reasoning because their purpose is different. People will be impressed at them for what they are, and a classic effect for what it is. It two sets of rules and conventions.
j
j
Precisely. And why do you (not you specifically Randy) think pros like Daryl use simple DLs?
I don't want it to be both because time admiring my dexterity is time away from being astonished. You seem to be taking the Dariel Fitzkee approach to presenting magic, that magic by itself needs dressing up. I would simply argue that everything should be geared towards the astonishment at the end of the effect.
It's not a bad thing to have good card handling. It should be something that is subliminally registered, that I am a more than competent handler of cards. But I don't want it to attract attention per se; rather, like the hues of a painting, it should complement the final portrait. Again, magic should be about the effect of magic at the end, and time admiring handling is a distraction; I do not want them to admire me, or even take a moment to think about it - I want them to be totally engrossed in the magic, and purely the magic, because the performance is about the magic, and not about my skills. Ultimately, when push comes to shove I feel that even such a small distraction is one thing I am taking away from the effect.
I'll put it bluntly: you're wrong.
Starting with the first paragraph: Even jtmorris referenced spectators thinking about/admiring card handling. So that paragraph is just wrong.
Next up: You're comparing magic to acrobatics. Let me ask you something: are you really performing magic, or are you performing visual puzzles with card juggling. So really, your comparison is just wrong.
Third paragraph: You obviously have never experienced how laymen talk about magic. You don't need to provide somersaults and flashy things to animate their stories. Have you ever actually heard a laymen talk about a good magician? They talk about the magician, and they talk about the trick in highly exaggerated terms. Why? Because ultimately, it's not about the trick. Laymen exaggerate the stories because what they want to communicate is how they felt. How you made them feel. They don't need to tell you about how that (single) card flew up ten feet. They want to tell people about how amazed they were at the trick. So basically, the premise of your paragraph is wrong.
Fourth: Ok, let me get this straight. You're telling me that what Dai Vernon did, what Ed Marlo did, what Daryl does, what Ricky Jay does, what Ascanio did, what guys like John Carney and Bruce Cervon and Roger Klause did/do is irrelevant to magic? Is this post a joke? Because needless to say, (for obvious reasons, I'd hope), this is wrong.
Fifth paragraph: So what you're saying is... If you keep doing a regular, non-flashy double lift, you'll eventually get caught?
...
...
Wait for it...
...
Wrong! I don't know about you, but I like to actually practice enough that I won't get caught.
In conclusion...
Incorrect!
I had fun with that last post, can you tell?
Actually I do kinda agree with you here, in that flourishy tricks are different to so called "classic tricks" (but only kinda agree). Honestly, if we strip these bare, I don't think their purpose is any different - it's to create magic. As such, I don't feel there should be a different set of rules and conventions. It is important to be mindful of style, yes, but the problem of turning magic into puzzles is still present, perhaps moreso in the latter. Also, I would raise the difficulty of defining a "classic trick" per se, I think it's a little simplistic. Yes, we do however need to be mindful of the variations in style and the resultant variables in performance. But a flashy double, in the sense that it is a tool to create magic, should be viewed with the same guidelines as a non-flashy double - with relation to the final effect.
i advise you reading "strong magic" by darwin ortiz.
Ortiz's argument is simple. Try to make magic real for the audience. Doing a triple back flip diving board double doesn't add to the effect, it adds to the "Holy Crap, this guy is amazing with cards" effect. Here's an example:
I was doing a handling of Paul Harris's card throwing effect. I worked for hours on throwing and catching the card. Then I took it a step further, I split the deck in my hands and caught it. Then I added to the effect by making them believe their card is sandwiched between two in their hands. I preformed it for the first time, and the reaction horrified me. I had a spectator that would come back every two or three weeks to see my next effect, he wanted to see magic.
Everything went without a fluke and the person was amazed. He wasn't amazed with the transpo of their card, but moreof the throw and catch. His response was "Wow, You really good with cards!". His idea of me preforming magic was ruined.
Last edited by a moderator: