Is the most direct way, the best?

[industrialchild]

I just wanted to know what you guys think. In your opinion, is it desirable for a trick to be direct in method but in turn lose some of it's impact. For instance, you learn an effect where the audience shuffles the pack and you produce the four aces. Good effect, however the method involves culling, and multiple second or bottom dealing. Later you learn an effect that looks the same but eliminates those "pesky" difficult moves, but now it is not possible for the audience to shuffle the deck at the beginning.

I hope this post is making since to you, and I know that when it boils down to it, it depends on the effect one is trying to accomplish. I just want your two cents on this subject.

Sincerely,
David

 

[supernaturalone]

Palm aces in whichever palm you feel most comfortable with. Participant shuffles and you replace the aces. Then produce. Job done.

What I'm trying to say is that there are ways to eliminate moves and still be direct.

 

[Zeedub81]

I think as long as you nonchalantly false shuffle before you do the production the effect shouldn't lose much impact. You wouldn't want to cram up the performance with unneccessary moves that could draw suspiscion.

 

[VagueTheory]

Just know that your audience DOES NOT know magic (usually anyway).

Most of the time, any effect will baffle them, regardless of what sleights you use unless, of course, you make really awkward gestures.

Then again, it would really be nice for a hard hitting effect to require very easy sleights, but it shouldn't be modified to the point where it's effect is hindered due to its "ease to perform."

 

[D ICE R]

The method you should use for the effect, should be determined by the both what you want to demonstrate to the audience and the type of show. In your example if you are working in a smaller group and have no real set time I would much rather have the spectator shuffle the cards because it gives them one more thing to hold on to. I am huge supporter of if you do an action (open) why should they not be allowed to do the same thing. For example if you shuffle the cards it looks terrible if they ask to and you say no. However if the show is more formal and you have a proper set it is better to use the other method as having the audience shuffle cards creates dead time.

Aside:
Can people please stop saying we will lose the card into the deck as you perform a double undercut. Most people know that something is happening when you cut the cards so they dont believe it is lost anymore but you are keeping track of it somehow. I have had my magic rant for the day.

 

[Wallmott]

Aside:
Can people please stop saying we will lose the card into the deck as you perform a double undercut. Most people know that something is happening when you cut the cards so they dont believe it is lost anymore but you are keeping track of it somehow. I have had my magic rant for the day.

Haha, i agree.

I think that the doubble undercut is a good control, but you should not say "We will loose the card in the deck"

In a effect like Card in hand etc it does work because you can say, "I will try to find your card" and the "fail" and show the wrong card.

 

[menderkant]

If you have an ENTERTAINING routine (a script) to go with the trick, the trick hardly matters anymore at all. Your routine will create the reaction not which sleights you perform or how you accomplish the effect. I think something as small as a shuffle (unless your routine is all about shuffling) could slip to the wayside without anyone caring.

 

[praetoritevong]

All I'm gonna say in response to the OP is: Not necessarily. Often, yes, but not necessarily. It's quite easy for me to simply perform a false shuffle, for example; but I find it much more interesting personally to make them believe that they shuffled when they didn't. More work, less surety, but in my opinion, better.

 

[jok3r]

cop, or palm is what i would use.
but that's only if your comfortable with those moves.

I think letting the spectator shuffles does add something to the effect, mainly for there after thoughts, where there thinking. (I shuffled those cards!!)

 

[romeo sierra]

In terms of professional magic, I always prefer simpler, more direct handlings when working for lay audiences. It enables me to build upon my presentation and interaction with everyone watching. I often find that any hindrances in a streamlined routine can be obscured or justified with solid scripting anyway. I'm also an advocate of believing that a stronger presentation will always make a better performance moreso than stronger techniques.

With regards to the example above, I would obviously prefer the more direct handling without the numerous sleights. To justify not letting the spectators shuffle, I'd simply carry on talking and joking with various spectators so that the possibility of a stacked deck never enters their mind. The best misdirection is often humor. Incidentally, the most memorable and entertaining performances are often funny. Properly timed comedy in a performance kills two birds with one stone.

I do study more challenging effect for personal growth though. I like having something new to share with other magicians when I session or attend magic clubs. Among other performers, you get a sense of appreciation and respect for studying more challenging material, but I find that effort is always lost on a paying audience that doesn't do magic at all. I once learned Ray Kosby's Raise Rise and compared it with Ben Harris' Slow-Motion Ambitious Card using Tilt. Obviously, Ben Harris' piece was 100x simpler, but it acquired the same response (sometimes even more powerful response) as Raise Rise. I think that experience taught me that simpler magic is typically the best route.

RS.

 

[industrialchild]

Awesome opinions guys! There are indeed many ways to look at the situation. What I have always respected about magic is the simple fact that when you learn a trick; that nothing is written in stone. Everything is customizable, if you don't like a move you can always change the move, or change the moment in which that move is executed.

Over the years, I have had numerous arguments with magicians that claimed that harder knuckle-busting way was always the best. I believe sometimes that is very true, however; when the effect becomes cluttered and there is a good bit of dead time as a result, then I try to customize the routine to fit me and my style of performing until there is a fluidity to the performance.

I enjoy reading everybody's take on this issue, keep em' coming!

Sincerely,
David

 

[RDChopper]

Why the fu** insn't this on top? sweet lord have mercy.

 

[Mr.MadMan]

::The Promoters are at work!

Don´t please bothers us

Mikk.