In Which Order
- Thread starter AlfieWhattamMagic
- Start date
Well, Be Honest, What is it?, should almost certainly come after a single card transposition.
There are no rules as to what will work and what won't, you just need to be creative and work out what the direction of your routine is.
Maybe you could start with a transposition of two cards as a starter to introduce the idea of being able to switch cards by cheating. You can then do the 2 card monte presentation as a demonstration of how this can be used to make a bit of money. You finally reveal that the secret is that you are hiding cards up your sleeves, but the fact that you have short sleeves leaves your audience doubtful. You then explain that your sleeves are invisible, but that is fine, because so are the cards you are hiding up them, in fact, you have a whole invisible deck which you can use to your advantage whenever you feel like it...
Just an idea. It's not really the kind of thing you can just ask for, though. You're best off putting the thought into it yourself and seeing what you can come up with.
Joe
There are no rules as to what will work and what won't, you just need to be creative and work out what the direction of your routine is.
Maybe you could start with a transposition of two cards as a starter to introduce the idea of being able to switch cards by cheating. You can then do the 2 card monte presentation as a demonstration of how this can be used to make a bit of money. You finally reveal that the secret is that you are hiding cards up your sleeves, but the fact that you have short sleeves leaves your audience doubtful. You then explain that your sleeves are invisible, but that is fine, because so are the cards you are hiding up them, in fact, you have a whole invisible deck which you can use to your advantage whenever you feel like it...
Just an idea. It's not really the kind of thing you can just ask for, though. You're best off putting the thought into it yourself and seeing what you can come up with.
Joe
I personally don't think that is a strong routine - I think good routines offer variety.
Doing a once card transpo...then a two card one...that is essentially the same effect done twice in a row. Think about offering a bit more to the routine - perhaps a non-card effect so you can ring in the ID.
Doing a once card transpo...then a two card one...that is essentially the same effect done twice in a row. Think about offering a bit more to the routine - perhaps a non-card effect so you can ring in the ID.
It is not necessarily a bad thing to do similar effects back to back as long as you offer something new presentationally.
Joe
I think the order you have them there could work. But I would break it up:
The transpo is a one card switch, then you could say "Let's try again" and take two different cards and do the monte game. Before the reveal, say something like did you catch me switching them? Turn them over... They will think you switched the two cards around and then they turn them over to find two new cards.
Really that in itself is a routine by itself.
The invisible deck can also be a routine by itself.
You want to leave them with something to remember. If you do all three, what do you think they will remember? The invisible deck or the transpo? Why not separate them and show them at different times? One week, one routine, the next week the other.
j
The transpo is a one card switch, then you could say "Let's try again" and take two different cards and do the monte game. Before the reveal, say something like did you catch me switching them? Turn them over... They will think you switched the two cards around and then they turn them over to find two new cards.
Really that in itself is a routine by itself.
The invisible deck can also be a routine by itself.
You want to leave them with something to remember. If you do all three, what do you think they will remember? The invisible deck or the transpo? Why not separate them and show them at different times? One week, one routine, the next week the other.
j
I somewhat disagree.
Would you follow red hot mamma (Chicago Opener) with a colour changing deck? Would you do them in the same set? Chicago Opener is a very strong effect, that being the changing of the back and face of one card - if you follow that or precede it with a colour changing deck...you just overshadowed the amazingness (for a lack of better words right now) of one card changing, for the entire deck.
It is like trying to impress someone with the production of one coin...then doing Miser's dream.
It would be like vanishing one card...and following it with the vanish of the deck.
In short, these things make good phases of an effect, but routining a set is different. I think that with all the magic out there...you could do something better with those 3 chances the audience is giving you.
Would you follow red hot mamma (Chicago Opener) with a colour changing deck? Would you do them in the same set? Chicago Opener is a very strong effect, that being the changing of the back and face of one card - if you follow that or precede it with a colour changing deck...you just overshadowed the amazingness (for a lack of better words right now) of one card changing, for the entire deck.
It is like trying to impress someone with the production of one coin...then doing Miser's dream.
It would be like vanishing one card...and following it with the vanish of the deck.
In short, these things make good phases of an effect, but routining a set is different. I think that with all the magic out there...you could do something better with those 3 chances the audience is giving you.
Can we define what is meant by routine...when we say that ID is a routine, that may be somewhat true...but I am wondering if the word SET was meant, and not routine.
Also, nobody has addressed how he will go from his deck for the back to back monte sequence, to the ID?
Lastly, I think you will find that people believe they see 2 tricks, not 3 -- as those first two, like JT said, can be a routine on their own.
Also, nobody has addressed how he will go from his deck for the back to back monte sequence, to the ID?
Lastly, I think you will find that people believe they see 2 tricks, not 3 -- as those first two, like JT said, can be a routine on their own.
Morgician, following Red Hot Mama with a colour changing deck could easily make for a great routine. Increasing the scale is a very common way of adding direction to a routine. Do you not like to perform an ambitious card routine?
You say they'll end up thinking they saw two tricks, not three. For a start, why would this be a bad thing? It's not about forking out as many effects as possible. What is important is direction and meaning. A routine should have something common throughout, even if that is only the direction, maybe a conclusion that is to be reached, something that makes it worth watching for the audience, not just a few tricks.
Ideally for the first two phases of this routine, they will not think they saw one trick, but they will think they saw a magician who could make cards magically swap places. That beats "He did one where a card came to the top, then one where two cards swapped places...".
Joe
You say they'll end up thinking they saw two tricks, not three. For a start, why would this be a bad thing? It's not about forking out as many effects as possible. What is important is direction and meaning. A routine should have something common throughout, even if that is only the direction, maybe a conclusion that is to be reached, something that makes it worth watching for the audience, not just a few tricks.
Ideally for the first two phases of this routine, they will not think they saw one trick, but they will think they saw a magician who could make cards magically swap places. That beats "He did one where a card came to the top, then one where two cards swapped places...".
Joe
I'm with Morgician on this. I believe that performing one effect followed immediately by the same thing on a larger scale undermines the original effect. The audience will be left with a feeling of 'why waste my time showing me the one card change/vanish/whatever?' All the magic of the first moment will be gone, replaced by the second moment, which will deflate the magic as a whole throughout the set. What you want to do, rather, is to build upon the magic, don't replace it but compliment it.
I am going to tell you this now. But you are really not leaving any room for the Ultra Mental Deck.
I disagree - and think ACR is a poor comparison, as it isn't exactly the same. Actually, that kind of comment can get me started on the issues with an ACR, and how that effect has no real ending...so, stick with my comparisions to see clearly how this can change the impact. This takes an understanding of how people think, and if you don't think changing one card, then the entire deck washes away the first one and creates an out for the audience. I fear you may not have a solid understanding of how people view magic. (This is nothing to be angry about - as many people don't, it takes time and experience...even for me)
I agree, however, I also believe that a set is better with a beginning, middle and end. (I am an advocate of "series of 3" meaning I want my effects to flow, but distinct things occuring in each phase) I personally believe that if I only have a limited time to show someone something, I won't show two things similar - it doens't show variety or my range as an entertainer. Also, I find the first two effects to be very limiting in showing my personality and the kind of impact they will have.
I agree - HOWEVER, I think you are mistaking theme with effect. (A routine doesn't have to have something common in it, actually, if you look at Ricky Jay's show, his personality is the common theme, but the effects are different) The effects don't have to all be the same...actually, a stronger set llinks the effects together but are unrelated in effect.
Joe, you seem to miss the point. These two effects have many issues with them...let me start:
- 2 out of 3 effects don't show variety...just that you can make cards change places. It almost smells like trick deck!
- Speaking of drick deck - how is he going to switch out the deck? Far easier if he does something different in the middle and puts the cards away...or he has to consider a strong deck switch - which may have heat on them. Done poorly for sure they will think one trick pony deck, followed by another.
- Everyone on this forum appears to do 3 tricks...Biddle trick...2CM and then ACR - then a few more kids actually buy some effect from this forum. This is new wave originality?! (These are good effects, but how can the same effects show the personality differences that exist in all these people doing them? I think there is more magic that can seperate the youth on this forum...they just aren't sure where to find it) As for the originality concept - it points at how these effects speak to them, and building a set does speak to originality IMO.
Joe, naming what is worse than this doesn't mean it is good - I can say that dirt is better to eat than poop...but I wouldn't want to eat either. I think there is SO much more to magic than you guys realize, but it takes reading...and effort to find the right sources.
In the end - if you feel this routine is what represents you - do it. It just makes my life easier, as I will stand out more...but harder if they see you, as I have to knock down a few magic walls you build by not thinking it through. Don't worry, early we all do it - but then again...I didn't have a forum with practiced well read magicians that do magic professionally to help me out.
Hmmm.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's a bit silly and dumb to carry around two decks. If you are really looking forward to using the Ultra mental Deck. Then use it by itself or during a mentalism routine (which is what it was originally meant for.).
While I think 2CM and Biddle Trick are neat. They really seem like filler to me. They're like the things you would do if somebody said "Do something for Bob, before you leave." Not things you want to base what people remember you by.
Another thing is that people seem to have a mad on for things like the ACR. While in itself it does seem to be a decent "classic" effect. The problem is that too many people (some Pro Magicians as well.) seem to think you can just make it have as many "levels" as you want and that will make it even more amazing. Which isn't true. The only person I have seen who actually made it seem like something amazing was Tommy Wonder.
While I think 2CM and Biddle Trick are neat. They really seem like filler to me. They're like the things you would do if somebody said "Do something for Bob, before you leave." Not things you want to base what people remember you by.
Another thing is that people seem to have a mad on for things like the ACR. While in itself it does seem to be a decent "classic" effect. The problem is that too many people (some Pro Magicians as well.) seem to think you can just make it have as many "levels" as you want and that will make it even more amazing. Which isn't true. The only person I have seen who actually made it seem like something amazing was Tommy Wonder.
Wouldn't the idea of doing a color changing deck routine and then Chicago Opener be kind of redundant. it's like "Look the cards were blue and now they're red, then this one card turned blue.. HAZAH!"
Morgician, please take a little more time to read through posts with a more open mindset before making so many assumptions and criticisms. You seem to have a need to preach your point here, but extrapolating from what I have said and basing your arguments such extrapolations is going to help neither you or I, or anyone else reading this thread, for that matter.
So if I don't think like you, then I don't understand how people view magic? Thanks for those wise words which you have backed up with no supporting reasoning or evidence.
In case you're interested, here's my true opinion, and I'll try to give you some reasoning, too. So, how do people view magic? Broad question - I'll make it a little more contextual. How would people view a routine consisting of a single card color change followed by a full deck change, versus one or the other? In truth, it depends entirely on how they are performed. If you let the spectator view each effect as a magician does, as single effects one after the other, then I believe your conclusion of undermining the first is probably close to reality. However, when you build a routine, you don't have to make this distinct separation. You create a flow of magic that doesn't necessarily have delimited "tricks". Changing the color of a single card could easily bring meaning to the second phase. Maybe a spectator touching a card changes it's color? This is demonstrated with one card, then they run their finger along the rest of the deck and it too changes color. I'd personally say this could strengthen the effect of a colour changing deck. The first phase isn't undermined by the deck changing, but rather it enhances the overall routine by adding meaning.
I hope you can now see that, as you suggested later in your post, I am not confusing theme with effect. This is an extrapolation. I agree that it is not enough to simply increase the scale of the effect, but to build on the meaning of the effect in the direction of some kind of conclusion (a "middle" leading towards an "end"). You can do this with completely different effects, you can do it with IDENTICAL effects. What is important is that there is meaning to doing it a second time beyond "yeah, I can do it even better than I just showed you, too".
That seems perfectly fair, I'm sorry. Ignore any examples I give because you don't think they're any good? Apologies for not realising how much more important your opinion is than mine.
When I wrote...
The above is another example of how you have extrapolated from my post. You imply that I disagree that a routine has a beginning, a middle and an end. At what point did I say otherwise? In fact, "direction" implies such an order.
That's you though, isn't it? I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but we're not talking about you. You like a variety of different effects, that's great, you're a brilliant all round performer - I get that, now - but my suggestion was in response to what AlfieWhattamMagic asked. From what I gathered, the question seemed to be coming from a beginner, and so I tried to answer in a way that would be helpful to him. Rather than saying "it won't work, try something else", I tried to find something that would work.
I miss what point? You had not, in a previous post, made such a point regarding variety. Maybe you meant to, but you did not actually explain what you were trying to achieve with your examples. I took your "point" to be meaning undermining. In truth, did I miss the point, or did you simply not make it? Admittedly, it does help to undermine my argument by suggesting my incompetence. If that is how you like to approach an argument, so be it.
Two of the effects don't show variety... and you say I don't understand how people view the magic? If you don't want them to see two separate tricks, then you can do this in your presentation. That's the whole point of routining and building presentation. The emphasis is on what the audience sees, not was the effects technically are. Maybe the effects are technically very similar, that doesn't mean the presentation has to be. As I explained earlier, the first phase can be used to greatly enhance the second phase, or can simply help the direction of the presentation.
How will he switch out the deck? While this isn't at all relevant to to the argument at hand, he doesn't need to switch the deck. The first deck clearly goes away when the invisible deck is introduced. The audience can't see the invisible deck until you produce it however you like, maybe even simply by pulling it from your pocket. As long as there is a reason for it now being visible, which may simply be hat you now want them to be visible. The deck is already magical enough to be invisible, why not have it's visibility controllable?
I'm not even sure how you expect this to come into your argument. We weren't discussing originality. The audience isn't likely to have seen them anyway. Yes, I'm sure you're probably brilliant and original in all you do, but that doesn't really help those who are starting out and trying to perform what they can while also putting thought into how they present it.
In reply to this...
You wrote...
Poor analogy. You were arguing that the tricks should not be so similar that one undermines the other. I chose to illustrate how two different effects presented as such isn't necessarily stronger as you implied.
Your comments regarding your own experience and how read-up you are adds nothing to your argument. It merely demonstrates your ignorance and ego. You assume nobody else has the knowledge or experience and so you preach. Why do you assume this? Do you know all there is to know, and so you can tell when somebody is inexperienced or un-read?
Here you go with that blazing ego again. You know nothing about me yet you assume so much. And again with the extrapolation! I did not say I performed this routine. I don't. It was something I came up with quickly as a suggestion for the original question. I thought that much was clear. I was attempting to solve a presentational problem. The best you seem to have done is avoid it. Maybe your intentions were to help, but to me it seemed more like you were simply out to make you opinion seem the most important.
Joe
morgician said:
So if I don't think like you, then I don't understand how people view magic? Thanks for those wise words which you have backed up with no supporting reasoning or evidence.
In case you're interested, here's my true opinion, and I'll try to give you some reasoning, too. So, how do people view magic? Broad question - I'll make it a little more contextual. How would people view a routine consisting of a single card color change followed by a full deck change, versus one or the other? In truth, it depends entirely on how they are performed. If you let the spectator view each effect as a magician does, as single effects one after the other, then I believe your conclusion of undermining the first is probably close to reality. However, when you build a routine, you don't have to make this distinct separation. You create a flow of magic that doesn't necessarily have delimited "tricks". Changing the color of a single card could easily bring meaning to the second phase. Maybe a spectator touching a card changes it's color? This is demonstrated with one card, then they run their finger along the rest of the deck and it too changes color. I'd personally say this could strengthen the effect of a colour changing deck. The first phase isn't undermined by the deck changing, but rather it enhances the overall routine by adding meaning.
I hope you can now see that, as you suggested later in your post, I am not confusing theme with effect. This is an extrapolation. I agree that it is not enough to simply increase the scale of the effect, but to build on the meaning of the effect in the direction of some kind of conclusion (a "middle" leading towards an "end"). You can do this with completely different effects, you can do it with IDENTICAL effects. What is important is that there is meaning to doing it a second time beyond "yeah, I can do it even better than I just showed you, too".
That seems perfectly fair, I'm sorry. Ignore any examples I give because you don't think they're any good? Apologies for not realising how much more important your opinion is than mine.
When I wrote...
You replied by saying...huruey said:
morgician said:
The above is another example of how you have extrapolated from my post. You imply that I disagree that a routine has a beginning, a middle and an end. At what point did I say otherwise? In fact, "direction" implies such an order.
morgician said:
That's you though, isn't it? I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but we're not talking about you. You like a variety of different effects, that's great, you're a brilliant all round performer - I get that, now - but my suggestion was in response to what AlfieWhattamMagic asked. From what I gathered, the question seemed to be coming from a beginner, and so I tried to answer in a way that would be helpful to him. Rather than saying "it won't work, try something else", I tried to find something that would work.
I miss what point? You had not, in a previous post, made such a point regarding variety. Maybe you meant to, but you did not actually explain what you were trying to achieve with your examples. I took your "point" to be meaning undermining. In truth, did I miss the point, or did you simply not make it? Admittedly, it does help to undermine my argument by suggesting my incompetence. If that is how you like to approach an argument, so be it.
Two of the effects don't show variety... and you say I don't understand how people view the magic? If you don't want them to see two separate tricks, then you can do this in your presentation. That's the whole point of routining and building presentation. The emphasis is on what the audience sees, not was the effects technically are. Maybe the effects are technically very similar, that doesn't mean the presentation has to be. As I explained earlier, the first phase can be used to greatly enhance the second phase, or can simply help the direction of the presentation.
How will he switch out the deck? While this isn't at all relevant to to the argument at hand, he doesn't need to switch the deck. The first deck clearly goes away when the invisible deck is introduced. The audience can't see the invisible deck until you produce it however you like, maybe even simply by pulling it from your pocket. As long as there is a reason for it now being visible, which may simply be hat you now want them to be visible. The deck is already magical enough to be invisible, why not have it's visibility controllable?
I'm not even sure how you expect this to come into your argument. We weren't discussing originality. The audience isn't likely to have seen them anyway. Yes, I'm sure you're probably brilliant and original in all you do, but that doesn't really help those who are starting out and trying to perform what they can while also putting thought into how they present it.
In reply to this...
huruey said:
You wrote...
morgician said:
Poor analogy. You were arguing that the tricks should not be so similar that one undermines the other. I chose to illustrate how two different effects presented as such isn't necessarily stronger as you implied.
Your comments regarding your own experience and how read-up you are adds nothing to your argument. It merely demonstrates your ignorance and ego. You assume nobody else has the knowledge or experience and so you preach. Why do you assume this? Do you know all there is to know, and so you can tell when somebody is inexperienced or un-read?
morgician said:
Here you go with that blazing ego again. You know nothing about me yet you assume so much. And again with the extrapolation! I did not say I performed this routine. I don't. It was something I came up with quickly as a suggestion for the original question. I thought that much was clear. I was attempting to solve a presentational problem. The best you seem to have done is avoid it. Maybe your intentions were to help, but to me it seemed more like you were simply out to make you opinion seem the most important.
Joe
Last edited by a moderator:
Not necessarily. It depends on how you present it. I'm not saying I have a presentation for this, simply that you cannot say what will work and what won't in a routine simply by the trick itself. If you are presenting the trick as a trick with no meaning, as in your example, then I concede that that would most likely fail. However, I prefer to think in terms of presentation, meaning and direction rather than tricks when building a routine.
Joe
And actually the card changing color and the deck changing color is color changing deck routine. Dai Vernon had the idea and I am pretty sure all color changing decks involve the deck changing colors after the card did.
Having it change back while to YOU, would seem neat. To somebody else would be pointless. The same goes for the cards changing places as well. It's neat when it first happens, but afterward it's like "What's the point?" "Is that it?"
Which is why I said that 2CM and the Biddle trick are filler. They are quick and simple for reason. Eddie Fecther worked as a Bar magician so he had to come up with quick stuff and I don't really know much the biddle trick but from any other point of view. It's pretty much filler.
Filler+Filler don't equal entertainment.
Having it change back while to YOU, would seem neat. To somebody else would be pointless. The same goes for the cards changing places as well. It's neat when it first happens, but afterward it's like "What's the point?" "Is that it?"
Which is why I said that 2CM and the Biddle trick are filler. They are quick and simple for reason. Eddie Fecther worked as a Bar magician so he had to come up with quick stuff and I don't really know much the biddle trick but from any other point of view. It's pretty much filler.
Filler+Filler don't equal entertainment.
They don't have to be filler if you can work out a better way of presenting them. The same goes for cards changing places. What's the point, you ask? Exactly, find a point, present that point.
Joe
Really interesting point, I've never thought of it that way.
To answer the original question, one of my favorite card routines:
1. Two-Card Monte
2. Some sort of sandwich effect with the two cards that were produced in the Two-Card Monte
Last edited by a moderator:
That is true providing the presentation of the effect is nothing more than the effect itself. No reasons, no conclusions, no meaning, just "snap and this happens, wave and that happens, and I'm showing you this because I can". Something that gives a spectator a reason to watch, something they stand to gain or to learn, might be aided by a routine which repeats an effect but on a different scale.
It is possible to make a very strong routine by doing the same basic effect but making it bigger or better in some way, as long as it makes sense to do so in the presentation. The presentation is what is used to prevent the second phase from undermining the first. The presentation can make each stage compliment each other to great effect.
Joe