Do the Bucks have good magic?

Do the Buck twins create good magic effects?

  • Yes

    Votes: 70 41.2%
  • No

    Votes: 25 14.7%
  • Some good and some not so good

    Votes: 75 44.1%

  • Total voters
    170
Sep 17, 2008
197
1
Maryland
Praetoritevong, check out crunk by d+M, it is in the 1-on-1 section. I also want to point out simple tricks done with slight flourishes, like controlling a selected card to a spot and using the two aces to find it. Throwing the deck into the other hand and showing the selected card is caught in between the two aces. That to me is kind of flourishy and also has some magic to it as well. How about doing the beginning of 4-sybil as a means to produce one ace or a selected card? There are, I think, very useful pieces of flourishes in tricks. This is my opinion, yes I do think that some of these type of moves are magic. In my experience, just by doing the aces trick from Madison, that people think it's real magic. Your opinion might be different...but I just want to clarify what you are saying. There are numerous examples. When I think of flourishing, I think of XCM. However, where there are tricks involved like a random card being changed into the spectators selected card through a flourish, I can see how a layman considers it magic....and for me, if they consider it magic, it is.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
However, where there are tricks involved like a random card being changed into the spectators selected card through a flourish, I can see how a layman considers it magic....and for me, if they consider it magic, it is.

Well that begs a few interesting questions, doesn't it?

Do we allow this sort of adjudication as a rule? Or a case by case basis? Or just when it's convenient? Does this mean that the cataloging system otherwise known as genres is flexible and fluid? Does that mean anything can be anything if we just ask the right person? And if so, then wouldn't all genre titles be rendered meaningless?
 
Sep 17, 2008
197
1
Maryland
Well that begs a few interesting questions, doesn't it?

Do we allow this sort of adjudication as a rule? Or a case by case basis? Or just when it's convenient? Does this mean that the cataloging system otherwise known as genres is flexible and fluid? Does that mean anything can be anything if we just ask the right person? And if so, then wouldn't all genre titles be rendered meaningless?

I think you are kind of getting my point, I hope. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all genre tiltes like you say should be rendered meaningless though. I think I just want to know where some of these kinds of things stand to others. For me, like I said, it is magic...but I like to hear what other people thing about it so I can make a better opinion.
 
Nov 7, 2008
4
0
Matter of Participation

I my opinion a trick consists of a lot of things, and some of them coincide with flourishes. However tricks and flourishes differ when we look at the most important element which is the audience. If the audience is not actively invloved in what you are performing at that particular moment then it should be considered a flourish. The second someone starts to participate in what you are perfoming it becomes a trick. Yes flourishes look awesome but all they are is eye candy. So the tricks give the audience that candy.
 

D21400

Banned
Dec 16, 2008
200
0
31
Antwerp, Belgium
You could look at them as the Newtons if cardmagic. They invent but in the hardcore way. The first Book by Newton was impossible to understand for laymen. The same for the bucks, They invent and make revolutionairy combination of sleights and invinet or adapt new sleights. Just learn their magic adn adapt it to your routine or style.

D21400
 
May 18, 2008
812
0
I feel that the Buck's magic is really impressive and very magical. I find that the magic that they do transends the barrier of flourishing and magic to the point where it is still magical to the spectators.

Their skill with a deck of cards is unparralelled, and they are fantastic at what they do. Besides, does it matter if you think that they have good magic? They have created a style in magic. They have redefined a genre' of magic.

Too many people think that since they can't get good reactions out of people with someone elses trick, it must be one of two things...

1: The magic must not be that good.

2: It's the creators fault.

I had no trouble at all learning anything; I find the teaching on all the Buck's DVDs excellent. But what people have to realize is that they didn't create this magic for realease to make money. They created this magic for them to use.

No one releases a magic DVD or book and wants everyone else in the world to do exactly what they do verbatim. And to say that the magic is "Just flashy" and "not good" because it doesn't suit your style is just an unintelligent thing to say.

No ones style matches some one elses. There is always going to be someone out there who can get those reactions with the flashy, smooth magic that the Buck's do, and there are people who can get reactions with a simple hankercheif vanish.

It's all about what appeals to you and the audience when you perform it.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,434
6
Sydney, Australia
Praetoritevong, check out crunk by d+M, it is in the 1-on-1 section. I also want to point out simple tricks done with slight flourishes, like controlling a selected card to a spot and using the two aces to find it. Throwing the deck into the other hand and showing the selected card is caught in between the two aces. That to me is kind of flourishy and also has some magic to it as well. How about doing the beginning of 4-sybil as a means to produce one ace or a selected card? There are, I think, very useful pieces of flourishes in tricks. This is my opinion, yes I do think that some of these type of moves are magic. In my experience, just by doing the aces trick from Madison, that people think it's real magic. Your opinion might be different...but I just want to clarify what you are saying. There are numerous examples. When I think of flourishing, I think of XCM. However, where there are tricks involved like a random card being changed into the spectators selected card through a flourish, I can see how a layman considers it magic....and for me, if they consider it magic, it is.

I apologise for not answering this, in truth I didn't notice.

I had a look at Crunk and honestly, I feel like it suffers from similar faults as Catch. I didn't find it magical at all, for one. The production isn't very clean, and it isn't instantly clear what has happened. The effect isn't constructed very well, and there are a lot of unnecessary and unstreamlined movements, which all contribute to junk movements. Honestly, the entire routine felt like a demonstrations in how to cleverly and skilfully cut cards - and that isn't magic, for me.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,249
3
Back in Time
OK I also saw crunk and it didn't really look like magic. With all the fancy cuts and quick movements, most people would impressed but wouldn't believe that it was magic.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
You could look at them as the Newtons if cardmagic.

Um... no. No, I'm not gonna do that.

I would also like to point out that while they brought some new stuff to the table, a lot of the actual card magic I've seen them do has been around since the days of Howard Thurston.

I find that the magic that they do transends the barrier of flourishing and magic to the point where it is still magical to the spectators.

Except me, apparently.

Besides, does it matter if you think that they have good magic?

Well, if you're asking me to enjoy it, then.. yeah, it kinda does.

It's all about what appeals to you and the audience when you perform it.

Which rather gracefully misses the point that fancy two handed cuts are not magical. They look cool, but there's nothing mysterious or magical about it.

Christ, why does everything you people like have to be called magic in order to validate it?
 
May 8, 2008
1,085
0
Cumbria, UK
I feel that the Buck's magic is really impressive and very magical. I find that the magic that they do transends the barrier of flourishing and magic to the point where it is still magical to the spectators.
I beg to differ. There's nothing magical about being able to cut the cards flashily and their card being grabbed in the cut, for example. Nobody is saying it isn't impressive, but it certainly isn't magic.
Their skill with a deck of cards is unparralelled, and they are fantastic at what they do.
Once again, whilst possibly true, not the point. Because it IS skill, and looks like it, it clearly isn't magic.
Too many people think that since they can't get good reactions out of people with someone elses trick, it must be one of two things...

1: The magic must not be that good.

2: It's the creators fault.

I had no trouble at all learning anything; I find the teaching on all the Buck's DVDs excellent. But what people have to realize is that they didn't create this magic for realease to make money. They created this magic for them to use.
Hmm. An excellent point. Though completely beside the point, I'm afraid.
No ones style matches some one elses. There is always going to be someone out there who can get those reactions with the flashy, smooth magic that the Buck's do, and there are people who can get reactions with a simple hankercheif vanish.

It's all about what appeals to you and the audience when you perform it.
Reactions don't make a trick magical. The most magical reactions are, IMO, silence. Stunned silence. Not people running around screaming. And you won't get this with Buck magic, I'm afraid. It is fancy, but it is quite clearly skill. I'm not trying to bash their style, but it is basically a flourish with some surprising moments. Not magic. Being magic wouldn't mean you could suddenly manipulate cards brilliantly.
 
Feb 1, 2009
980
0
Manchester, UK.
I beg to differ. There's nothing magical about being able to cut the cards flashily and their card being grabbed in the cut, for example. Nobody is saying it isn't impressive, but it certainly isn't magic.

Rawr, magic isn't the trick you do, it's the way you do it and what becomes of it. If the spectator is amazed and astonished, then it's magical. Nuff said'
 
May 8, 2008
1,085
0
Cumbria, UK
Rawr, magic isn't the trick you do, it's the way you do it and what becomes of it. If the spectator is amazed and astonished, then it's magical. Nuff said'

That's a good point, but what I described there isn't going to lose anybody sleep. The description gives the method. The cards are cut flashily and a card is grabbed. If a spectator did what they saw, the same result would occur, and they know this. I'm sorry, but it isn't magic. As I said before, being magical doesn't suddenly give you insane skills with a deck of cards.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
If the spectator is amazed and astonished, then it's magical.

But where's the mystery? Where's the sublime aspect of wonder?

What the Bucks do is card manipulation, not magic. And it boggles my mind that everyone insists that it must be labeled magic to validate its quality.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,249
3
Back in Time
In order for it to be magic the audience must sit there and think "How did you do that?!" they must be left with no reason. All the exits must be burned out as The Ultimate Warrior used to say.

With the Bucks, it's skill and when they try to make it look like magic, it ends up looking silly because people will know in some way shape or form that that you did was pure skill. It's impressive, yes. But it's not magical. They are impressed with your control and skill with cards. Yet once you try to do something super magical with them. It's just a wasted effort.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,249
3
Back in Time
I dont think thats exactly true.
The next big thing in card magic.
But not in general.Besides,the ones that only do magic solely by the bucks are webcam magicians and hobbyists.

That's who they cater to and that's who tends to buy their DVD's.

I think it would be possible to perform their stuff for lay people. You'd just have to cut out all the fancy Sybil cuts and leave in the transpo's and other effects they do.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results