Entertainment vs. Effect

Jul 29, 2013
15
0
Hey,

I noticed, that many people out of the young generatrion do not think about the entertainment value of a trick.
They are more intrested in moves and the 100th new flourish, this of course can be an advantage if they just practice it, but do not perform that stuff.
But if they would really perform this pieces, a laymen wouldn t care after the 20 colour change and flourish..they want to be entertaint.
Do u believe the spectator really sees a difference of all these flourishes?
I also noticed that moves are perfected from some guys, for example a classic erdnase change becomes more visual...thats a good thing, of course but sometimes even if moves look better, they become angle sensetive or unpractical.
I also try to make technically everything as perfect as I can, and I mean I do not care abot how diffucult a move is, I just try to find the best for the situation.
But somtimes I think technique, doesn t matter, it doesn t change the effect if I would use a ernase change instead of a cardini change.
Of course if the spectators would see both changes, and they have to compare both, they would they that the cardini change is more visual, but you know they don t have the possibility to compare me with anybody, so who cares.
The thing that counts is the effect, A CARD CHANGES.
Do you think that if something looks more visual, it elevates (makes it stronger) the effects?
And if it elevates the effect, do u think a stronger effect has more entertainment?

I do not see the magician as an men that does magic, but more an entertainer that uses magic to entertain.

Of course everything should be as perfect as it can (except for the guys that belive in the too perfect theory:p), but not just magicly, also the entertainment (the lines, the jokes, the patter) should be perfect, and if you have the choice between a fancy visual vanish of the four aces, but its angle sensetive and doesn t has a reset and no spectator involved.
And a slow clean vanish one by one with cool lines that might build up a conversation with the spectators, which variation would you choce?
I belive one fast visual Trick (effect) can entertain the audience, the magic speaks for its self, but if you just use these tricks, it would become boring very quickly.


Just some thoughts of mine, hope you become thinking and tell me your opinion..
And sorry for my Engllish, I hope you can understand everything.

Greetings from Germany..
 
Jan 22, 2012
418
1
I do kind of understand what you are saying. I mean I do agree that this generation of magicians are more into becoming cardists and cardistry because of the influence of Theory11, Dan and Dave, the Virts etc. Also I don't think cardists would perform to laymen but to other cardists who appreciate it. Cardists and Magicians are also separate things so don't compare them. Also I agree what you say about the method does not matter. It truly doesn't. I've done the same trick in different methods to people and they don't care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

yyyyyyy

Elite Member
Apr 7, 2012
537
12
I've never understood why people concern themselves with this concept time and time again. Magicians and Cardists are both trying to do the same thing, we're trying to entertain. I just don't understand why people insist on arguing over who is the more "valid" entertainer. It would be like comparing David Copperfield to Cirque Du Soleil. Two fantastic but completely different shows.

As for what you're saying about methods, I disagree. You're basically saying that the PLOT of the effect is stronger than the method of the effect. The plot is just the initial idea, the execution and the method is what determines whether or not the trick is good. Oil and Water has been done hundreds of times, some versions are just god-awful and some are beautiful. Same goes for Triumph, so many boring versions but there are some beautiful variations of the plot.

An argument against what I'm saying is usually something along the lines of "Why use this impractical gimmick when you can just use a simple sleight instead"? Well, sometimes, gimmicks can do things that sleights simply can't do. Sometimes sleights can do things that you genuinely don't need a gimmick for. It all depends on the context, the method and the execution. The plot is just the initial idea.

Do I think that spectators react to more visual magic? Is that a trick question? No pun intended there. Of course I do. If I had the choice between the Erdnase and the Cardini change, I would choose the Cardini, just because the change seems to happen instantly. I've gotten ridiculous reactions for a Cardini.

Anyway, to sum things up, stop debating over what is more "important" to an entertainer. The only thing that really matters is the spectator.
 
Apr 17, 2013
885
4
As for what you're saying about methods, I disagree. You're basically saying that the PLOT of the effect is stronger than the method of the effect. The plot is just the initial idea, the execution and the method is what determines whether or not the trick is good. Oil and Water has been done hundreds of times, some versions are just god-awful and some are beautiful. Same goes for Triumph, so many boring versions but there are some beautiful variations of the plot.

Magicians are entertainers. The effect is just the means by which we entertain. It doesn't matter if it is the hardest slight or the simplest slight, if your presentation plot and patter are boring then no one will care. In my 20 years of performing, the biggest reaction is from the simplest thing I do. No one cares that it is almost self working. They love the story and are drawn in and they freak at the reveal. The only people that care about what move we do or which gaff we have are magicians. We end up falling into the trap of thinking like magicians. I can tell you right now no one other than magicians care what slights and passes you are using.

As for the Cardist vs Magician thing. Cardist are jugglers. The goal of magic is to make to entertain by making it look magical. It doesn't look magical for you to have the deck right it self, save for one card, and out itself back in order if you spent the first five minutes doing fancy cuts fans and shuffles. It makes it look like you are just doing moves to get the cards to do what you want. At that point it becomes a "Well look at what i can do and you can't" thing. It's now showing off and a puzzle. Sure some people like that, but it doesn't make what you are doing look magical.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I've never understood why people concern themselves with this concept time and time again. Magicians and Cardists are both trying to do the same thing, we're trying to entertain. I just don't understand why people insist on arguing over who is the more "valid" entertainer. It would be like comparing David Copperfield to Cirque Du Soleil. Two fantastic but completely different shows.

Magic remains the only type of theater whose primary audience is its own practitioners. You don't see a problem with that?

As for what you're saying about methods, I disagree. You're basically saying that the PLOT of the effect is stronger than the method of the effect. The plot is just the initial idea, the execution and the method is what determines whether or not the trick is good. Oil and Water has been done hundreds of times, some versions are just god-awful and some are beautiful. Same goes for Triumph, so many boring versions but there are some beautiful variations of the plot.

And if there's absolutely no personality on display when they're performed, why should I care? I live in the city that is home to Carnegie Mellon University. There are people living within a couple miles of me who can build a robot that could do card tricks. If the method is so important, then there would be no point in spending the money to go see Penn & Teller in Vegas as opposed to taking a 10-minute drive to campus to check out the robotics laboratory.

Anyway, to sum things up, stop debating over what is more "important" to an entertainer. The only thing that really matters is the spectator.

And yet by focusing on what you think is more visual or impressive, the spectator then becomes a distant second. I can get better reactions with a single key card location effect than half the people on this forum could get with all the Theory 11 tricks they bought over the last two years. That's not meant to be a boast. I've seen the videos around here. I will win every time by sheer virtue of the fact that I have actual theatrical training.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jul 22, 2013
222
1
California
Magic remains the only type of theater whose primary audience is its own practitioners. You don't see a problem with that?
I don't think that is correct. I think magicians are like skateboarders or freerunners (in a way) because they perform for laypeople, who are amazed by what we do (if performed correctly). We also perform to each other, though, because the different methods matter to those who do the same as we do.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I think magicians are like skateboarders or freerunners (in a way) because they perform for laypeople, who are amazed by what we do (if performed correctly).

I know skateboarders. I ran with a Parkour group in college. Neither one is technically a performance art. They are not forms of theater. They're sport. They're in the same category as football, and if you think for even a nanosecond that no one cares about the personalities of the players, let me introduce you to my brother's fantasy football buddies.
 
Jul 29, 2013
15
0
I've never understood why people concern themselves with this concept time and time again. Magicians and Cardists are both trying to do the same thing, we're trying to entertain. I just don't understand why people insist on arguing over who is the more "valid" entertainer. It would be like comparing David Copperfield to Cirque Du Soleil. Two fantastic but completely different shows.

As for what you're saying about methods, I disagree. You're basically saying that the PLOT of the effect is stronger than the method of the effect. The plot is just the initial idea, the execution and the method is what determines whether or not the trick is good. Oil and Water has been done hundreds of times, some versions are just god-awful and some are beautiful. Same goes for Triumph, so many boring versions but there are some beautiful variations of the plot.

An argument against what I'm saying is usually something along the lines of "Why use this impractical gimmick when you can just use a simple sleight instead"? Well, sometimes, gimmicks can do things that sleights simply can't do. Sometimes sleights can do things that you genuinely don't need a gimmick for. It all depends on the context, the method and the execution. The plot is just the initial idea.

Do I think that spectators react to more visual magic? Is that a trick question? No pun intended there. Of course I do. If I had the choice between the Erdnase and the Cardini change, I would choose the Cardini, just because the change seems to happen instantly. I've gotten ridiculous reactions for a Cardini.

Anyway, to sum things up, stop debating over what is more "important" to an entertainer. The only thing that really matters is the spectator.

Sorry you got me wrong, maybe I expressed myself not that clear.
I didn t copared cardist with magicians, with the first part I just wanted to say that in my opinion it s a shame that many talented flourishers (cardists) could be much more entertaining if they would use some theorys of show building, because the rules are the same the flourish or magic doesn t count, presenation is all.
The thing is I know a lot of lazy magicians, but cardists often have the skill, so if a little bit of presentation or good acting could bring them to a whole new level.

And in the second part you said that visual magic gave you better reactions, but do better reactions proove a stronger trick, I have a version of ACAAN and I do not get reactions like: (whoo, ooo booo)...but I still thing it s one of the strongest effects.
And I must agree that everything is diffucult to say in general, and easier in and direct routiene, but I always thing it s a good idea to think aboute things in general, because then you can adapt them to any routine.
And I would agree that everything even the style of the sleight of hand depends on the performance character.

Your summary is right, its not a good idea to debate about whats more important because the performance counts all in all, but we can discuss what is important and what is very important.
I would love to hear what you mean with the spectator matters.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
The thing is I know a lot of lazy magicians, but cardists often have the skill, so if a little bit of presentation or good acting could bring them to a whole new level.

The cold hard truth is that will never happen for most of them. Again, this is a form of theater, but there is a major critical difference between magicians/flourishers and actors. A magician, unless he starts performing constantly, never needs to break down his ego the way an actor does. Actors have to get over their body issues. They have to be completely unafraid to act silly, even deranged in front of an audience. They have to play heroes and villains. They have to be the butt of jokes as often as the teller.

But flourishers who never perform for audiences don't do that. Magicians who only ever perform for a webcam don't do that. In their mind, it's always about them.

Your summary is right, its not a good idea to debate about whats more important because the performance counts all in all, but we can discuss what is important and what is very important.

I disagree. It's an argument we need to have. The third phase of learning any skill is evaluation, figuring out the hierarchy of the elements that create the skill set.
 

yyyyyyy

Elite Member
Apr 7, 2012
537
12
And if there's absolutely no personality on display when they're performed, why should I care? I live in the city that is home to Carnegie Mellon University. There are people living within a couple miles of me who can build a robot that could do card tricks. If the method is so important, then there would be no point in spending the money to go see Penn & Teller in Vegas as opposed to taking a 10-minute drive to campus to check out the robotics laboratory.


And yet by focusing on what you think is more visual or impressive, the spectator then becomes a distant second. I can get better reactions with a single key card location effect than half the people on this forum could get with all the Theory 11 tricks they bought over the last two years. That's not meant to be a boast. I've seen the videos around here. I will win every time by sheer virtue of the fact that I have actual theatrical training.

I believe I did specifically say "The execution and the method", as in how it's done (method) and how you choose to present it (execution). I'm not by any means saying that the magic lies purely in the method, of course you still need to be a "performer" and make the effect feel magical. What I'm saying is that I don't believe the plot is the main part of the trick. Okay, so a card changed. But, how did it actually look? Was your hand covering it the entire time, was it in the spectator's hands, did they see it happen etc...

I'm talking about the smaller details of how you choose to present an effect, I feel like THOSE are what make the trick magical. Not just the plot itself. That would be like saying a 9 year old who learned a garbage double lift from YouTube performing a simple color change with no emotion or real presentation is just as strong as someone that has spent years practicing a trick of the same plot. I'm saying a lot still goes into HOW you're doing things, not just the plot of the effect.

As for my preference for visual magic, that preference comes from receiving better reactions from spectators when I perform something more visual. So, I try to present more visual magic because people have shown a clear interest in it. It's just what I've run into in the past. I'm not saying visual magic is inherently better than other magic, that would be ridiculous.

I don't think our viewpoints are all that different to be honest, I think I'm just wording things badly.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
I don't think our viewpoints are all that different to be honest, I think I'm just wording things badly.

Perhaps, but the how is far less important to me than the why. I keep telling people, your audience is asking themselves the same thing every time you do something: "What am I looking at, and why am I looking at it?"
 

CalvinTan

Elite Member
All these tricks, flourishes, and whatever, whether they're easy, flashy, or difficult, don't matter if I don't care about you as the performer.

If you don't make me care about what I'm watching, I'm going to get bored and your performance will not be remembered.

There's really nothing to debate here. The focus should not be on whether I should do this color change vs the other because it's more fancy, difficult, or whatever. The focus should be, which color change fits best into the context of my performance in terms of character, plot, and story.

On a side note, I saw a fantastic lecture last night (Hayashi) at Marc DeSouza's house. As technically awesome as Hayashi was, what I got most out of the entire lecture was how he used his body in his performances. The reasons for his body positioning, and why. Knowing how to use your body in controlling, and telling the story you wish to present should be thought of first, and then pick the sleight or flourish that fits where you want to be in that sequence.
 
Jul 29, 2013
15
0
I'm talking about the smaller details of how you choose to present an effect, I feel like THOSE are what make the trick magical. Not just the plot itself. That would be like saying a 9 year old who learned a garbage double lift from YouTube performing a simple color change with no emotion or real presentation is just as strong as someone that has spent years practicing a trick of the same plot.

You are right, but in my opinion building up an effect and make it magical happens away from the method and the cards, you need patter, misdirection (direction), acting...thats what most people don t get it s aboute an emotion that the spectators should feel.
And you can be serious that a simple (of course motivated) double lift, and then put the cards in spectators hand, can be 10 times more magical then an clipshift.
And hopefully I didn t said that it doesn t matter which version or variation of an plot, they are all good...of yourse thats not the case.
But most it s presenation.
I agree, I believe we all have similar opinions, but isn t that what makes us good, to remember and discuss these things?

By the way I can t agree more with Steerpike arguments about key cards, theory 11 tricks, theater...

PS: Nice to see some discussions here, I wasn t used to that in different forums.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results