Has any magician thought like this before?

[SleightOfHand Crazed]

Hi Magicians,

Firstly, there are 2 types of magic to be discussed here.
[1] The kind of magic from EX: Dan and Dave (Trilogy,AndThenSome).
[2] The kind of magic like ambitious card, stigmata and Paul Harris' TA box set.

The [1] type of magic dont get really great reactions, they are angle proof and u cannot perform surrounded and lastly the important factor, spectators will think that you have extremely fast fingers or hands and it does nt feel magical to them.

The [2] type of magic can be perform totally surrounded ( Most of the effects ) and they give the spectators a more magic feeling. Something is really called MAGIC and not tricks acomplished with trained fast fingers.

To be mre simple, type [2] tricks are more practical in the real word but type [1] tricks look great on camera.


* Im not trying to sterotype any body here and hold great respect for magicians mentioned above.

 

[StevenLevitt]

I think you are putting them in two types of how they perform their magic.

I can get great reactions from card to mouth, and ambitious card, because of the way I perform it. - It is not the trick, it is the presentation.

 

[The Tumbleweed]

It's good that you noticed it, because it's very important to keep in mind.
D&D Tricks are only good for improving your dexterity, although I must confess that I occasionally perform Hand to Mouth.

 

[FOO:L]

[1] The kind of magic from EX: Dan and Dave

didnt understand that. EX?

The [1] type of magic dont get really great reactions, they are angle proof and u cannot perform surrounded and lastly the important factor, spectators will think that you have extremely fast fingers or hands and it does nt feel magical to them.

I think you meant angle sensitive. And to refute the not getting great reactions claim, I perform hand to mouth and dejavu from the trilogy daily.
I use the excuse of fast hand motions as patter for my ambitious card routine because i set it up as a gambling technique.
I get great reactions from all those.

To be mre simple, type [2] tricks are more practical in the real word but type [1] tricks look great on camera.

No. Not necessarily.

 

[PullusGallinaceus]

What? With DnD tricks you don't get great reactions? Well, I wonder how Dan and Dave became so famous if their tricks aren't so amazing.

They will be amazed for your fast fingers then. They will still be amazed.

However, I don't want to give magic feelings or things like that. I want people to be amazed for my sleight of hand. I hate that "comedy" style of magic where you make people believe you have some powers or something. That's just my opinion of course.

So, you're saying that you see better reactions when performing self working tricks, or what? Sorry, but I didn't really understand that distinction between type 1 and 2. You should explain the difference instead of just making examples. All I can say is that self working tricks can be done totally surrounded, of course a real magician should be able to perform some more angle sensitive tricks too. Of course you can't always be totally surrounded.

 

[aJohnson]

I disagree, you can get great reactions with D&D tricks, it's not just the trick, it's the performance.

 

[FOO:L]

What? With DnD tricks you don't get great reactions? Well, I wonder how Dan and Dave became so famous if their tricks aren't so amazing.

because they are technically advanced and well versed in sleight of hand.

They will be amazed for your fast fingers then. They will still be amazed.

it depends on how you view amazement.

So, you're saying that you see better reactions when performing self working tricks, or what? Sorry, but I didn't really understand that distinction between type 1 and 2.
You should explain the difference instead of just making examples

I made a mistake in my previous post, thinking that he meant totally surrounded to be self working. ive corrected that. My bad.
its not particularly hard to see the differences in 1 and 2.

 

[Squ!rrel]

This is a very basic form of an argument that's been going on for quite some time, if you do a search you should be able to find several massive threads discussing this.

You've simplified the whole thing way too much, how can you possibly group an ambitious card routine in with the magic from TA? An ACR can be done in any style, either the flashy Dan and Dave style or with a more traditional approach, or somewhere in between.

I'd also say quite a lot of Paul Harris material isn't especially practical, it often requires a set up and can't always be reset quickly meaning it's not too useful for a professional who may want to be able to perform an effect 10 times in a row for 10 different tables. PH dfoes of course have many great impromptu effects but certainly not all of them are.

You're also ignoring the presentation aspect of this, with a different presentation you could probably make some D&D effects feel like PH effects and make PH effects feel like D&D effects.

It's good that you're thinking about this but I think you should do quite a bit more research on this first as you're simplifying it way too much and ignoring a lot of important factors.

 

[LuseifHo]

Hasnt everyone realized this already?
Yea.
The
DND style only gets good reactions from Camera and other magicians. Its not something people would find magical. But perform a long line of flourishes, and they will still love it.

 

[SleightOfHand Crazed]

Hi all =) and thnx for the replies,

This is a very basic form of an argument that's been going on for quite some time, if you do a search you should be able to find several massive threads discussing this.

You've simplified the whole thing way too much, how can you possibly group an ambitious card routine in with the magic from TA? An ACR can be done in any style, either the flashy Dan and Dave style or with a more traditional approach, or somewhere in between.

I'd also say quite a lot of Paul Harris material isn't especially practical, it often requires a set up and can't always be reset quickly meaning it's not too useful for a professional who may want to be able to perform an effect 10 times in a row for 10 different tables. PH dfoes of course have many great impromptu effects but certainly not all of them are.

You're also ignoring the presentation aspect of this, with a different presentation you could probably make some D&D effects feel like PH effects and make PH effects feel like D&D effects.

It's good that you're thinking about this but I think you should do quite a bit more research on this first as you're simplifying it way too much and ignoring a lot of important factors.

i would certainly try that out =) (could probably make some D&D effects feel like PH effects and make PH effects feel like D&D effects.)

Lets say a magician is totally surrounded, would u all still carrying on with a trick lets say tivo. 2.0. For me, i think i would not because people at the back are gona see it..

 

[Steerpike]

[1] The kind of magic from EX: Dan and Dave (Trilogy,AndThenSome).
[2] The kind of magic like ambitious card, stigmata and Paul Harris' TA box set.

I think the bigger problem is that everyone thinks these are the default standards by which all other manipulation and magic shall be judged. It's too early in the morning for me to start drinking. Maybe I'll get baked instead.

What? With DnD tricks you don't get great reactions? Well, I wonder how Dan and Dave became so famous if their tricks aren't so amazing.

They're only famous among magicians because magicians have very deep pockets and insatiable appetites.

They will be amazed for your fast fingers then. They will still be amazed.

Which still isn't magic.

However, I don't want to give magic feelings or things like that. I want people to be amazed for my sleight of hand. I hate that "comedy" style of magic where you make people believe you have some powers or something. That's just my opinion of course.

In other words, it's an ego thing. You want validation.

And I'm failing to see the connection between comedy and playing the idea of supernatural phenomenon with a straight face. Are you sure you're thinking of the right word? Hell am I the only one who noticed that doesn't make any damn sense?

 

[Squ!rrel]

Hi all =) and thnx for the replies,

i would certainly try that out =) (could probably make some D&D effects feel like PH effects and make PH effects feel like D&D effects.)

Lets say a magician is totally surrounded, would u all still carrying on with a trick lets say tivo. 2.0. For me, i think i would not because people at the back are gona see it..

I obviously wouldn't perform an angle sensitive effect surrounded as that would be immensely stupid. Not really sure why you'd have to ask that.

Although I don't think that's a particularly relevant question, the major difference between the styles is how they are perceived to the audience, one as card manipulation/ sleight of hand and the other as being magical. The angle sensitivity isn't what defines a style.

 

[SleightOfHand Crazed]

OMG! THNX Steerpike!!!! U HELPED me get my point across >< A BIG THNX AGAIN. why perform magic if u wan ppl to be amazed at ur fast fingers, no longer magic, i personally love performing the quuens frm dan and dave really cool and beautiful piece of magic.

 

[Steerpike]

My point is actually that if you want to perform to show off sleight of hand, then you're not a magician, you're a manipulation artist. Call yourself what you are.

 

[StevenLevitt]

That is true to a certain extent. However, you can use sleight of hand without showing off, and be a fantastic magician.

It is depends on what you show, and how you present it, like I said in my very first post.

 

[FOO:L]

My point is actually that if you want to perform to show off sleight of hand, then you're not a magician, you're a manipulation artist. Call yourself what you are.

hmm sleight of hand artist would be a better term. I kinda see manipulation as the whole jeff mcbride thing.