"Move Monkey"? I think not.

[LucasCG]

I have often been called a move monkey; I learn hard moves and I work hard on making them clean. I learn hard moves for, seemingly, the sake of learning hard moves. On several occasions, this had led to discussions with people who are firmly set in the point of view that what you're performing doesnt rely on method at all, because the spectators dont care about the method. These people often insist that it is perfectly OK to double undercut for every top control or something similar. After all, magic is only about presentation, right?

I consistently tell people that in any given situation, we can use hundreds of different moves; there are hundreds of top controls to pick from. But we shouldnt look to use just any top control, we should look to use the perfect control for that given situation. Magic is very situational, and there is a perfect move for each and every situation. In order to be able to use and find this perfect move, I must learn hard things. It's not about doing hard things for the sake of doing hard things in performance... Its about doing hard things in order to preserve the illusion and make it look as perfect as possible.

I was recently re-reading (for about the millionth time...) Strong Magic (Darwin Ortiz,) and it reminded me of this discussion I often have to have with people. It actually basically talks about this exact issue. Let me quote it for a minute:

(Pg. 48)
The third reason for indirect procedures is that they often make an effect much easier. Unfortunately, they may also make the effect no longer worth performing. This is an uncomfortable fact that many magicians refuse to face. I recently read an article on presentation in a magic magazine. Along with some generally good advice, the author makes this statement: "Forget complicated magical methods, and seek the easiest way to accomplish the trick." The problem is that very often the complicated method is the easiest way to accomplish the trick.
[...]
In his version, the aces are palmed across, so the packets never touch. Magicians who are afraid of palming devised version in which the aces had to be continually gathered up only to be dealt out again for no good reason. The magician's job became easier, but the effect became less clear. Remember, your job is the make things as easy as possible for your audience, not make things as easy as possible for yourself.
[...]
(Pg 51)
A typical example is the magician who says, "It doesn't matter how you control the selected card. The audience doesn't care how you control the card. They're only interested in how you reveal it."
The fallacy in this attitude becomes obvious when you realize that the expository phase [set up phase] and the magical phase are exactly analogous to the setup and punchline in a joke. It's the punchline that gets the laugh, but it's not the punchline that's funny; it's the entire jokes that's funny.
To put it another way, the setup determines how funny the punchline will me. Imagine a comic who stood before an audience and only recited punchlines. Do you really think he's get lots of laughs? Do you think it doesn't matter what he says during the setup because the audience is only interested in the punchline? Not only is the setup necessary, the setup must be done just a certain way for the joke to work.

The last part is essentially saying that what control and what not that you use IS important because it setups up the trick, makes it flow nicely, clarifies the effect. Makes it a cohesive part of a larger trick. The first part is fairly self-explanitory.

I'd just like to repeat part of it to make it extremely clear: Remember, your job is the make things as easy as possible for your audience, not make things as easy as possible for yourself.

This is just a little food for thought for those of you who lack the dedication to work hard and strive for perfection in your magic. Work for it. You owe it to your spectators.

Cheers,
Lucas

 

[CorbinB]

I wish we had the ability to favorite threads. I completely agree.

 

[canadamagic]

I also agree, I really don't see anythng wrong with being a move monkey personally. Gives you exprience, knowlage and much practice. I have so often seen magicians using the same control, the same change, the same controlled shuffle over and over for different performances and it drives me nuts.
One in perticular I can remember now is "Army of 52" by" Justin Miller." Most all of the effects use the same conrtol, the same force over and over, one things that I was really dissapointed with the DVD

 

[D ICE R]

The thing is not so much using a huge range of moves but just using the right ones at the right time. Justin in Ao52 uses standard 'moves' that work and work well. There is no need to use six or seven different forces in any effect especially if you have a great classic force. I know of magicians who use nothing but a riffle force even when not forcing a card, why you might ask so the whole effect of the show seems natural. If you are doing classic type selections then for no reason start doing riffle type selection procedures the audience may pick up on this.

Darwin did not write about using 100's of moves, he wrote about using the right ones for the effect. If you were doing an ACR an open control (one that is hidden in a 'fair' procedure like a shiffle control or cut.) still has the idea of something happening. Where as a pass or a tilt or bluff pass with a DL cements the idea that nothing has happened. Say you had to control the card for the biddle trick to the 2nd from the top you could use a tilt or bluff pass, however the shuffle or double undercut gives the card a reason to be in the top five cards. Whilst if you use the 'magic' gesutre to get it to come close to the top you are adding a phase that does not really add a great deal to the effect especially if you are using an ACR before the biddle trick.

 

[Justin.Morris]

Its about doing hard things in order to preserve the illusion and make it look as perfect as possible.

Well said. This is something that I am learning a bit more. I used to totally subscribe to the Eugene Burger theory that the easier the method the more you can focus on the presentation. This is not always true tho.

 

[zatch]

The thing is not so much using a huge range of moves but just using the right ones at the right time. Justin in Ao52 uses standard 'moves' that work and work well. There is no need to use six or seven different forces in any effect especially if you have a great classic force. I know of magicians who use nothing but a riffle force even when not forcing a card, why you might ask so the whole effect of the show seems natural. If you are doing classic type selections then for no reason start doing riffle type selection procedures the audience may pick up on this.

Darwin did not write about using 100's of moves, he wrote about using the right ones for the effect. If you were doing an ACR an open control (one that is hidden in a 'fair' procedure like a shiffle control or cut.) still has the idea of something happening. Where as a pass or a tilt or bluff pass with a DL cements the idea that nothing has happened. Say you had to control the card for the biddle trick to the 2nd from the top you could use a tilt or bluff pass, however the shuffle or double undercut gives the card a reason to be in the top five cards. Whilst if you use the 'magic' gesutre to get it to come close to the top you are adding a phase that does not really add a great deal to the effect especially if you are using an ACR before the biddle trick.

Right... but he talked about using the right move in the right circumstance.

Which, in my opinion, means to learn moves... not just the regular moves.

He didn't say to use all the moves in the same performance. Each new performance gives you a chance to use the best sleight or tell the best story.

I'm sure he was implying to use uniformity of action... always... but the precedent of the action is set by the first way you do something... so each performance, use the best sleight, but keep to that sleight until another performance.

Best regards

ZG

 

[RikAllen]

Right... but he talked about using the right move in the right circumstance.

Which, in my opinion, means to learn moves... not just the regular moves.

He didn't say to use all the moves in the same performance. Each new performance gives you a chance to use the best sleight or tell the best story.

I'm sure he was implying to use uniformity of action... always... but the precedent of the action is set by the first way you do something... so each performance, use the best sleight, but keep to that sleight until another performance.

Best regards

ZG

Daniel Garcia said something, that I think applies, when talking about Jacob's Ladder on Symphony. Basically there are situations where the trick won't work (a lot of tricks/moves are like this) and people were asking him "Danny, I want to do this trick but don't have the right conditions, how do I adapt...what should I do?"
DannyG's answer? "Don't do the trick." Do a different trick, one that works for the situation you're in. VISA is an effect that works best in a casual setting, hanging out in hotels or just sessioning with magicians, it's not something you put into a staged show.

The same could be said about any effect that uses a certain move. If someone being behind you is going to ruin the effect (expose it) and someone is behind you, don't change the method on the fly (if you practice various methods for each effect that's your own boat, different conversation) instead just do a different trick.

There are exceptions (in everything) and my big thing is forces. The classic force is perfect for most situations and could be used in almost every trick you do strolling or close-up. What if all of your spectators are holding items in both hands?
Maybe riffle or dribble force so they don't have to fumble to grab at a card. That doesn't change the effect, just the selection process. Doing a double undercut is completely different in appearance than the pass or a side steal. Ortiz was mentioning that if the effect makes more sense using a pass, use the pass. If palming cards is the best way to simplify the effect (From the audiences point of view) then you should palm cards for the effect.

Learning the necessary moves to get the most direct effect, away from method completely, is what is really going on. I don't have my copy of Strong Magic with me (at the beach, brought Scripting Magic for this trip) so I can't re-count exactly what is going on in your quotes, but wouldn't mind re-reading it after I get home later this week.


I'm sure that only made so much sense, my brain isn't focusing well, hope it makes sense.

 

[Shodan]

The idea that you use the perfect move for the context of the trick is absolutely correct and sound magical thinking. However, I'm not necessarily sure that I agree that this means you must practise moves "in case you need them". I would rather take the more efficient approach of discovering a trick that I want to be able to present and then ensuring that I can do that trick as well as possible by perfecting the required sleights.

At the end of that process, I'm left with a routine I can perform, rather than a collection of disembodied sleights that I *might* be able to use for a routine one day.

Through the course of learning and creating these routines I can continue to build my toolbox and may be able to refine the approach to old "finished" routines (which of course is a continuous process) - so the end result is the same, but focussed on the magic rather than the nuts and bolts behind the magic.

Cheers,
David.