Do the Bucks have good magic?

[Randomwrath]

Here it is again, LOL. Way to read.

I'm sorry, but when you go from having an interesting debate to criticizing the opposition, calling them tossers and not actually making any intelligent counter arguments, you lose all respect from me. Trust me, admitting you're wrong is far better than taking an immature point of view and being a sore loser. Give up mate.

 

[Sinful07]

And that's why this topic is in the General discussion area.

 

[OneCardWonder]

LOL. He summarized my argument into one line, based on one post in a long string that I've made in this thread, and ignored everything else because he decided that he was in petulant mood.

I don't think I'm wrong, and I think that the rest of my posts elucidate my actual point, but he chose to ignore them because that was what he wanted to do and instead decided that a personal attack was in order.

As to your level of respect for me, I don't really care. You don't know me, and I don't know you, save that you take this all way too seriously and that you dole out respect based on a forum. Get out of your basement.

 

[b.boulton]

Define "Good Magic"
Technical skill?
Presentation?
Simple astonishment?

What do you mean by "Good Magic"???

-Brad


PS- IM BACK!

 

[Steerpike]

LOL. He summarized my argument into one line, based on one post in a long string that I've made in this thread, and ignored everything else because he decided that he was in petulant mood.

I found your rhetoric to be ignorant, and I find ignorance offensive.

I don't think I'm wrong, and I think that the rest of my posts elucidate my actual point, but he chose to ignore them because that was what he wanted to do and instead decided that a personal attack was in order.

All right. I'll humor you.

they point out that they don't expect you to go out and perform these tricks, but to take away sleights, ideas and their finesse with a deck of cards and add that to your routines. It's a source of ideas.

Then I wouldn't call it magic.

Their style has made them recognized the world over for what it is.

Well, to magicians anyway. As I said before, I don't consider magicians a legit audience. I consider them a target market.

So yeah they do have great magic.

Once again, I do not consider card manipulation to be magic. It is neither greater nor less than, it simply is not magic.

This is an unfair question basically. We are -not- in a position to judge D&Ds magic, because I don't think most here have seen them perform live.

Several people have seen them live and weren't impressed. Let them judge all they want.

Let the rest of us judge all we want so long as we have a reason.

I don't consider what they do to be magic, so I'm going to judge it as such.

Judgment should not be so demonized. It's how our brains function.

So... upon review it seems I was half-wrong and half-right. You're not an ignorant fanboy. You're just ignorant. A lot of your arguments still don't hold up with me and your rationalizations are just baffling half the time.

As to your level of respect for me, I don't really care. You don't know me, and I don't know you, save that you take this all way too seriously and that you dole out respect based on a forum. Get out of your basement.

I would like to point out however that it's a laugh-and-a-half how my critics whinge about how mean I am, and then in the next breath support my statement that magicians in general are rude, boorish, and possess the self-control of a goat through their actions.

Next time just report my post and get me banned again, rather than trying to out-dickhead me. You'll be happier for it.

 

[OneCardWonder]

I'm not unhappy now to be honest, I as you've probably noticed enjoy a good *****. I can actually acknowledge that this last response of yours was more devoid of personal attack so I can at least gather what your counterpoint is, however it seems to be semantically based on the exact definition of terms in the title post intermingled with my apparent ignorance in your opinion, which is irrelevant to me. Though there's no need to humor me by rudely dismissing ideas that contradict your own. We could continue chest thumping in a continued display of mutual arrogance, but I just can't see the point.

I have no desire to get you banned, as you're more entertaining than annoying, nor am I a critic.....I don't even believe that my post that sparked your interest was directed at you...so I don't think that qualifies me for critic status. You and your posse have just become my first critic however. I take that as a compliment.

Your bafflement proves your ignorance of my no doubt superior thought process so whicha.

Also don't tar magicians with my brush. I may be an arrogant git, but I don't consider myself a magician and I'm not arrogant enough to consider myself an artist. I just like doing magic and make a bit of cash at it sometimes. That doesn't make me a magician.

 

[Steerpike]

Also don't tar magicians with my brush. I may be an arrogant git, but I don't consider myself a magician and I'm not arrogant enough to consider myself an artist. I just like doing magic and make a bit of cash at it sometimes. That doesn't make me a magician.

You can call yourself as astronaut if you want. My judgment stands regardless.

And I admit to being arrogant as all get out. That's probably why I hate it.

 

[TheBlack&WhiteIllusionist]

I went up to Salem, MA, and came back. What a difference those few hours made. Glad to see everything back on it's heels again... As usual.

 

[cm763]

I'm kind of confused here...perhaps someone could clear it up for me.

Steerpike's opinion is easy to recognize; he seems to be saying that what the bucks perform is not magic. While OneCardWonder seems to be saying that they do, in fact, perform magic, based on the fact that they're excellent at marketing (i.e., they're famous), they're skillful in the execution of the sleights/effects they perform, and they "wow" audiences (I'm still not convinced that that audience consists of anyone aside from magicians--and even then, I'm not convinced that they're impressed in a "wow, that was magical" sense, but rather a "Wow, you're skillful with cards" sense).

My confusion is this: how does marketing, technical skill, and "wow"ing the audience equate to magic being performed? I realize that they're good at what they do, but like Steerpike mentioned, what they do is not magic.

 

[aJohnson]

It is how you classify magic, many people will say it's what the performer does, however a vast majority say it's what happens in the audience. I think it's what happens in the audience, in the spectator, and if the bucks "magic" can do that, then I'd classify it as magic.

 

[sinjin7]

The premise of this thread was to discuss whether the Buck twins magic is good, bad, or a little of both. The point is that there is no right or wrong answer. Some people here obviously LOVE to argue just for the sake of arguing, to prove themselves "right" and others "wrong". Its ridiculous to thow these hissy fits and try to argue who's right or wrong about a question where there is no right or wrong answer.

Steerpike doesn't believe the Bucks perform magic. Fine, end of story. Just because he has declared that what the twins do isn't magic doesn't make it so, however. The twins aren't magical only in his own mind and that's just HIS opinion. Which he is entitled to. Others obviously have different opinions and do believe the Buck perform magic. And that is their opinion. There's no point in arguing the definition of what is magic or not, that wasn't the intenion of this thread.

So to get back on topic, my opinion (and that's all it is, just an opinion) is that the Bucks do perform magic. It's just often obscured by flashy flourishes, but its there nonetheless. I also believe that its good magic, just in small doses, so there is some benefit to their unique style which could be successfully implemented into my own material. I wouldn't do a whole set with nothing but Buck stuff. I will throw in a little bit towards the end of a series of routines as "eye candy" just to mix it up a bit and to keep things visually engaging, if I feel the need for it.

 

[Deleted member 2755]

The premise of this thread was to discuss whether the Buck twins magic is good, bad, or a little of both. The point is that there is no right or wrong answer. Some people here obviously LOVE to argue just for the sake of arguing, to prove themselves "right" and others "wrong". Its ridiculous to thow these hissy fits and try to argue who's right or wrong about a question where there is no right or wrong answer.

Steerpike doesn't believe the Bucks perform magic. Fine, end of story. Just because he has declared that what the twins do isn't magic doesn't make it so, however. The twins aren't magical only in his own mind and that's just HIS opinion. Which he is entitled to. Others obviously have different opinions and do believe the Buck perform magic. And that is their opinion. There's no point in arguing the definition of what is magic or not, that wasn't the intenion of this thread.

So to get back on topic, my opinion (and that's all it is, just an opinion) is that the Bucks do perform magic. It's just often obscured by flashy flourishes, but its there nonetheless. I also believe that its good magic, just in small doses, so there is some benefit to their unique style which could be successfully implemented into my own material. I wouldn't do a whole set with nothing but Buck stuff. I will throw in a little bit towards the end of a series of routines as "eye candy" just to mix it up a bit and to keep things visually engaging, if I feel the need for it.

I have not read anything in this thread past my last post so I have no idea what's going on. Well if that is Steerpike's opinion, I actually 100% agree with him.

Sure, the spectators WILL have a moment of astonishment. They will. When they see cards change places instantly like they do, there will be a moment of astonishment as with any magic trick. The thing is though, everyone will just be wondering what kind of sleight of hand accomplished what they did. Believe me, I don't claim to have supernatural powers. I'm not that type of person. However, I don't come out right away and say "Ok, check out this sleight of hand." Essentially, that is what the Bucks do. They are very quick and flashy.

Spectators will have a moment of astonishment as with normal magic when viewing Buck magic. However, it will be a different thinking process. Bucks lead them down the "That's crazy sleight of hand! How did they do that?!" road. I lead them down the "That's a crazy trick! How is that even possible?!" road. Believe it or not, some people will think it is real magic. Now that... is a magical moment.

If asked, of course I say everything I do is an illusion and all sleight of hand. However, I don't just go up to someone and say right away that I do sleight of hand or do some crazy XCM. As most magicians say, XCM takes away from the magic. I do magic. I leave them with the magic too. If they ask me if I have supernatural powers, I say no. If not asked though, I do magic. This way, it stays magic. Its not like Buckland where they are wondering how the heck your fingers did that. In magicland, they wonder how it was even possible let along sleight of hand.

Overall... I guess if you consider that moment of astonishment the Bucks give magic, then yes the Bucks do magic. However, I see the Bucks more as awesome showoffs than magicians. I love the Bucks, don't get me wrong. I'm just simply saying things how I see them.

-Doug

 

[Steerpike]

I have not read anything in this thread past my last post so I have no idea what's going on.

Probably for the best. I said some things I'm not proud of.

Overall... I guess if you consider that moment of astonishment the Bucks give magic, then yes the Bucks do magic. However, I see the Bucks more as awesome showoffs than magicians. I love the Bucks, don't get me wrong. I'm just simply saying things how I see them.

I confess to being a bit militant about this particular opinion of mine.

I get the impression from a lot of people that being called a card manipulator or a performance artist is somehow a lesser title than magician. For something to be good, it has to be labeled magic. It's not the first time I've seen this logic. I just don't get it.

I'm of the Eugene Burger school of thought in that there is a clear cut difference between flourishes, stunts, and magic. No one is inherently better or worse than the other. But they don't mix very well.

 

[Randy]

Well as Eugene Burger as said. There is nothing wrong with a stunt. People still remember stunts, just as they would remember XCM. Just that if you do XCM. Don't try to play it off as magic.. Because you would end up looking silly.

I say that the Bucks and other XCM guys do a lot of impressive card stuff. Just that I don't see any magic in cutting the deck with great dexterity and then trying to pull off something like card in hand or any other card magic. The idea of their card magically coming to the top no longer exists because they will mainly be thinking "Wow, he's good! But he obviously brought it to the top with all those cuts."

But with normal card moves like say a DL, a double undercut or whatever. It now looks like you buried the card and then it was magically back at the top, or by doing a false shuffle or two.

 

[Michael Kras]

I was somewhat bored watching the magic on the Trilogy set. It does nothing for me and, in my experience, they are anything but magical for a spectator. The best magic occurs with the smallest amount of obvious visual handling possible. With the Bucks' magic, much of it can be brought down to "mere" sleight of hand.

 

[Holyshnikes]

I have a bit to say, but right now I have to tend to a sick wife. Too many people are making this topic into something that it shouldnt be. Regardless if it is their right to do so or not, stay on point.

 

[praetoritevong]

What, you mean the tricks are easy to replicate? I beg to differ. maybe i misunderstood your statement.

Anyways- im sure it has been tackled in the previous pages of this thread, but what defines 'Good magic' ?

its not something i want an answer for. Its something you should take away and think over.

Cheers,

-Sin07

Sorry for not explaining, it was late and I was tired. I simply meant that it is particularly easy to take D&D's tricks, and perform them exactly as they show it and perform it on the DVD, as evidenced by the multitude of Queens and Tivo performances. I should add that I don't count substituting sleight x for slightly modified sleight y as "personalising an effect" - but some people on YouTube seem to think that counts.

Probably for the best. I said some things I'm not proud of.



I confess to being a bit militant about this particular opinion of mine.

I get the impression from a lot of people that being called a card manipulator or a performance artist is somehow a lesser title than magician. For something to be good, it has to be labeled magic. It's not the first time I've seen this logic. I just don't get it.

I'm of the Eugene Burger school of thought in that there is a clear cut difference between flourishes, stunts, and magic. No one is inherently better or worse than the other. But they don't mix very well.

The problem Steer, is that many people flourish, but very few people make it interesting. It is for the same reason that flourishes get slaughtered at FISM. I know one person who makes an art out of flourishing and card manipulating. He really tries his best and does very well at creating a flourishing routine, and creates interesting and artistic output, like a dancer might set moves to music. The rest don't do anything interesting with it. Which doesn't bother me per se - except when they insert it into magic with the delusion that they are doing something with it.

 

[Holyshnikes]

The problem Steer, is that many people flourish, but very few people make it interesting. It is for the same reason that flourishes get slaughtered at FISM. I know one person who makes an art out of flourishing and card manipulating. He really tries his best and does very well at creating a flourishing routine, and creates interesting and artistic output, like a dancer might set moves to music. The rest don't do anything interesting with it. Which doesn't bother me per se - except when they insert it into magic with the delusion that they are doing something with it.

Does this mean that you think some of the tricks d+M has are just flourishes and not magic? I'm not attacking, just want to know if I get your whole opinion.

 

[praetoritevong]

Does this mean that you think some of the tricks d+M has are just flourishes and not magic? I'm not attacking, just want to know if I get your whole opinion.

No worries Holyshnikes... The only product of d+M's I have is Dangerous, so I'll restrict myself to looking at the Mystique DVD...

The only thing on Mystique that incorporates flourishes is Catch, and in this case, yes, I think that Catch is by far the worst item on the DVD, and probably the entire set. I certainly wouldn't call it magic. Apart from being nothing more than a visual moment of eye candy, what I found most silly was that even d+M does not perform it well - if you've seen him on the DVD, notice how he has to spend several seconds repositioning his fingers to prepare for the revelation. It's akin to watching a 12 year old YouTuber fumble for several seconds to get a break for his double lift.

But yes, I feel that Catch is a badly constructed attempt to incorporate flourishing into magic. It's a look what I can do visual puzzle - it has no buildup, no room for presentation, substituting amazing acrobatics in place of amazing magic. Instead of involving the audience, it pushes them aside, relegating them to the role of simply bystander and observer, watching a display of your dexterity - not your magic, but your skill.

Flourishing incorporated into magic by nature I think tends to have this problem. While granted, Catch is a rather extreme example of magic incorporating flourishing, I do not believe that the general style is beneficial to either flourishing or magic.

 

[Mentalizing]

Hmmm.... I don't enjoy threads getting turned into hissy fits between other members when you have already stated your opinion. Steerpike is right and so is onecardwonder, I agree with Steerpike's but that's just me. So whoever posts something back at another after my post is going to look stupid because you are whining to the other person about your opinion and complaining about theirs.

I agree with what sinful said as that it isn't very impressive magic but just sleight of hand only with eye candy thrown in.