How Good of a Magician are You?

[D ICE R]

This is not going to be a thread about what you can and cannot do, but more about an idea I have recently been thinking about. Whislt watching the Max Maven DVD Nothing in the interview between him and Michael Weber, Max mentioned something very intersting. Apparently he talked about it in the 80s so it is not something new but is still very relevant to this day.

He talks about the idea of how you can gauge the 'skill' of a magician but his explaination of a trick. For example we use something like a simple false transfer coin vanish. A bad magician would say something along the lines of I pretend to place the coin in my left hand really keeping it in the right and when I open my hand it is seen to be gone. A decent magician would say something along the lines of I place the coin into my hand wave and it disappears. However a good magician would be able to give you are reason as to how the coin is gone, for example that it implodes into nothingness or that it is not really gone just invisible or many many other reasons. However this does not have to be verbalised it should be evident in your actions more so than your words.

Now here is the fun part, I want you to take your 5 or 6 core effects and apply this kind of thinking to them. It would also be helpful if they are all closely related aswell (interms of your abilities). So if you want to be conisdered a card expert then your ACR should (in my opinion) have a flash of nothingness in the first phase then finally into clean DL into the centre straight to the top.

I might later give you my ideas on my effects. Well atleast some of the ones that I have scrapped over the years.

 

[canadamagic]

Daniel Madison also goes into detail concerning this and I agree with him and yourself. When ever I create an effect that requires patter the patter has to make logcal sense. Not simply the card will "jump here to there." I always try to make my effects make sence the the spectator and give them a reason why something is happening

 

[Mr.MadMan]

Daniel Madison also goes into detail concerning this and I agree with him and yourself. When ever I create an effect that requires patter the patter has to make logcal sense. Not simply the card will "jump here to there." I always try to make my effects make sence the the spectator and give them a reason why something is happening

I don't agree with this to the full extend. Logical is not always good, if you make it too logical people will take it for granted and believe that. Which takes away from the effect, if you use logic always put some roadblock on the way home . That will spice up things.

Mikk.

 

[D ICE R]

The card jumps here example is fine but however the real point I was trying to make was how does it acctually happen.

In Danny Garcia's Fallen the card does not rise but all the other cards fall through the selection. This is not 'logical' however it is demonstrated has a thought process that explains why this is happening. David Williamson's ACR exposes a lot of methods of misdirection and sleight of hand that he is not actually using. And when he does his the later phases of the ACR it makes no sense using a second deal.

The real point is that your result is not always the whole story but the journey to get there is just as important. If you use an ACR, how dies the card rise to the top, you don't always have to verbalise it but through your actions you should make your audience experience it.

If we were to use the ACR and the context of being a skilled card handler, the method that most people is wrong. Most people seem to do a pass as one of their last phases of an ACR. I disagree I think it should be done eariler no first but still early. If I was to do an ACR using the skilled handler 'method' it would go something like this. Have the cards shuffled and patter about the cut. DL and then place the x-card in the centre do something that looks like a pass and show the card is on top. Then I would do something like a face up either turn over or spread
pass as the are more angle proof and the spectator can see that the card was really in the center. I would end with a face up phase but using a bluff pass or tilt and some form of either one card pass or something like the harbour change.

Whilst I don't use an ACR this is the structure that I would use because you get the spectator to believe what you are doing earlier in the routine and it appears to get harder for you to do it however it is easier.

 

[Justice]

Thanks for sharing that . I was expecting a little more replies, but whatever.

I kinda agree with Madman in this one, there are tricks in wich this line of thinking could do wonders for the routine, a good exaple of this (in my opinion) is the "invisible palm" routine.

This kind of tricks requires the magician to take the hand of the spectator, and guide him through the whole experience of the routine.

On the other hand, there are routines and tricks that in my opinion, should let the spectator imagination to fly a little freely in order to make them "believe' in our magic.

A good example of this could be "out of this world"

 

[Sir FansAlot]

I would gauge myself as a "mediocre" magician. And I'm not embarrassed to say that.

 

[oldavid1]

So when the spectator asks incredulously "How did you do that?!"
Should I reply "Magic!"
or
Should I reply "I am actually twisting the natural forces of nature by sending a card up through the deck and to the very top of the deck."

Isn't it more magical (sometimes at least) for the spectator to have no idea what hit them?

 

[worldwideme]

i'm stuck on this one.

the ACR analogies made me think of the vegas card cheat routine taught on ninja1 where brad christian exposes the classic pass, riffle pass, and other ways to make the pass invisible. then whams in the head with an easier sleight but tells them its a one handed pass. and nobody can see the one handed pass. and they all believe he's an amazing magician. theres and explanation to how everything he does works. up until the point he does the one handed pass. where the previous explanations lead the spec to believe in an incredible amount of skill when in truth, its a modified DL. leaving the spectators afraid to play cards with you.


i think i'm missing something in this thread. but i do like to educate on the art of magic when performing. like i even had a girl say to me

"i loved the chit-chat you did around the palm reading trick, you knew the card the whole time, but you still made me think for a minute that you knew all of annas (a different girls) darkest secrets"
not an exact quote but you get it

or i talk about how magic is stronger when it happens in their hands...here then there.

or how audio when accompanied with the visual magnifies the magic moment. stealth pen, or coins across

i love to talk to hecklers about how the magic doesnt happen in my hands. i have nothing to do with the magic. the real magic happens out in the audience, out with the people who arent doing the trick. thats where the real magic lies.

stuff like that. idk i like it.

 

[Steerpike]

Telekinetic Timber. Prop it up and go amongst the audience and tell everyone to join hands and focus on trying to push it over. Audience involvement, an explanation, and yet precious little is actually said meaning the explanation is entirely implied. Sublime.

 

[Justice]

So when the spectator asks incredulously "How did you do that?!"

If you did your work right, the answer should be pretty much clear by now, they should either believe it is magic or whatever patter you gave them. That's one of the benefits of using scripted routines.

 

[canadamagic]

I don't agree with this to the full extend. Logical is not always good, if you make it too logical people will take it for granted and believe that. Which takes away from the effect, if you use logic always put some roadblock on the way home . That will spice up things.

Mikk.

I agree with this, What I mean to say is that there should be magic but it should make sense. Many times have I seen an effect that is excellent and performed well, while the patter is completely irrelevant, it jumps around to suit the effect. How I mean is that the patter should make sense and explain the effect, while needless the say containing a magic base. (Excuse me if I have drifted away from the topic of the thread)