The Magician Online

The Magician Online is a live, interactive, online experience - in the comfort of your own home. Starring Dan White. As seen by Ashton Kutcher, Ariana Grande, Chris Rock, James Corden, Jessica Alba, and President Clinton.

See details

Need advice please

Mike.Hankins

creator / <a href="http://www.theory11.com/tricks/
Nov 21, 2009
435
0
Sacramento, Cali
I disagree, gimmick make your magic much more powerful and open a new realm of possibilities, sleight of hand can only go so far...

Wrong.

It's all about the person performing. Period. If the people you are performing for don't like YOU as a person, they will not care how good your magic is.

Load up your pockets with as many gaffs as you want, and go "head to head" with someone like Greg Wilson at a party, and I bet I know the outcome of who remembers who more...
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,788
2,889
Wrong.

It's all about the person performing. Period. If the people you are performing for don't like YOU as a person, they will not care how good your magic is.

Load up your pockets with as many gaffs as you want, and go "head to head" with someone like Greg Wilson at a party, and I bet I know the outcome of who remembers who more...

I have to agree with this. The method is irrelevant as long as the final outcome is what the performer desired. It really comes down to the ability of the performer to entertain, scare, entrance, whatever, their audience.

"People will forget what you do, but they will never forget how you make them feel."
 
May 21, 2014
127
6
Staunton, VA
Wrong.

It's all about the person performing. Period. If the people you are performing for don't like YOU as a person, they will not care how good your magic is.

Load up your pockets with as many gaffs as you want, and go "head to head" with someone like Greg Wilson at a party, and I bet I know the outcome of who remembers who more...


Again, I'd like to point out that Greg Wilson isn't good because he doesn't use gaffs; he's good because he knows how to perform well. I really wish people would get away from trash-talking gaffs like they're dirty somehow. There are truly skilled, memorable performers who use gaffs and gimmicks on a regular basis; the magic is in the show, not the method.
 

Mike.Hankins

creator / <a href="http://www.theory11.com/tricks/
Nov 21, 2009
435
0
Sacramento, Cali

Again, I'd like to point out that Greg Wilson isn't good because he doesn't use gaffs; he's good because he knows how to perform well. I really wish people would get away from trash-talking gaffs like they're dirty somehow. There are truly skilled, memorable performers who use gaffs and gimmicks on a regular basis; the magic is in the show, not the method.

Not trash talking gaffs at all, because I have used them in my sets. (Hyper-Bent-a-Lation, Anniversary Waltz, etc)...

What point I am TRYING to make is that it's ultimately the performer who makes the night a success, not the TYPE of cards he has with him.
 
Feb 18, 2014
146
0
Are you assuming? Or do you have actual statistics to back up this claim?

Everyone knows that magic that happens with spectator involvement and or with the magic taking place in their hands is much more powerful than it not. If u performed hand sandwich, and instead of doing i in their hand, do it under a phone or whatever, its no where near as good...
 
Feb 18, 2014
146
0
Wrong.

It's all about the person performing. Period. If the people you are performing for don't like YOU as a person, they will not care how good your magic is.

Load up your pockets with as many gaffs as you want, and go "head to head" with someone like Greg Wilson at a party, and I bet I know the outcome of who remembers who more...

Talk about "assuming" You are assuming he'd win? Do you have actual statistics to back up that claim? I agree that it is about performance but that is not my point at all.
 

Mike.Hankins

creator / <a href="http://www.theory11.com/tricks/
Nov 21, 2009
435
0
Sacramento, Cali
Everyone knows that magic that happens with spectator involvement and or with the magic taking place in their hands is much more powerful than it not. If u performed hand sandwich, and instead of doing i in their hand, do it under a phone or whatever, its no where near as good...

Try doing an Ambitious Card without having them sign the card. It will still give you killer reactions.
 

Mike.Hankins

creator / <a href="http://www.theory11.com/tricks/
Nov 21, 2009
435
0
Sacramento, Cali
Talk about "assuming" You are assuming he'd win? Do you have actual statistics to back up that claim? I agree that it is about performance but that is not my point at all.

It's not about winning or losing. It's about being able to entertain anytime, anywhere with any thing. If you rely on gaffs and gaffed decks to perform your magic because YOU feel as if it gets a stronger reaction, then maybe you need to look at the effects you are doing...

If you book gigs and are ok with carrying 20 decks in your pockets because you feel gaffs garner the most response, then by all means keep doing what you do.

But I would absolutely disagree that effects in spectator's hands get the BEST reactions. Unless you do card to THEIR mouth. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not about winning or losing. It's about being able to entertain anytime, anywhere with any thing. If you rely on gaffs and gaffed decks to perform your magic because YOU feel as if it gets a stronger reaction, then maybe you need to look at the effects you are doing...

If you book gigs and are ok with carrying 20 decks in your pockets because you feel gaffs garner the most response, then by all means keep doing what you do.

But I would absolutely disagree that effects in spectator's hands get the BEST reactions. Unless you do card to THEIR mouth. :)

Didn't you bring up winning or losing...?
And i have to disagree with you disagreement, magic in the spectators hands is almost always better.
better being undefined and very general but still
 
Everyone knows that magic that happens with spectator involvement and or with the magic taking place in their hands is much more powerful than it not. If u performed hand sandwich, and instead of doing i in their hand, do it under a phone or whatever, its no where near as good...

out of curiosity, i mainly dislike gimmicks because it means that the cards (or whatever) can't leave your hands. What specifically are the gimmicks you're using that lets you be hands off in an otherwise sleight heavy effect?
 

Mike.Hankins

creator / <a href="http://www.theory11.com/tricks/
Nov 21, 2009
435
0
Sacramento, Cali
Didn't you bring up winning or losing...?
And i have to disagree with you disagreement, magic in the spectators hands is almost always better.
better being undefined and very general but still

OK, now I have to ask what PROOF? Are you ASSUMING that spectator's react better to magic done in their hands, or did you bring some sort of noise meter to gauge db levels per effect that you perform?

Look ALLLL the way back to DB: Street Magic. Remember when he bit the coin in half? Did you SEE those reactions? The effect didn't happen in the spectator's hands.

If you do an ACR, you aren't getting any more of a reaction by having THEM "put" the card back in the deck. The end result is that they are still amazed just the same.

There ARE effects I perform that require a spectator to hold on to a card, or money, or a ring. And when that happens, the end result is the same: they are amazed. There are also effects I perform that require me to hold everything, manipulate everything, etc...the end result is the same: they are amazed.

The reality of it is, people will go back and tell their friends what kind of awesome show they witnessed, but usually will not be able to recall EXACTLY what happened, unless they are telling someone within 30 min from when it happened.

It's the same reason why as a police officer/investigator, it is best to get on scene as fast as possible to interview witness as fast as possible...
 
Feb 18, 2014
146
0
Try doing an Ambitious Card without having them sign the card. It will still give you killer reactions.

I have, and he asked me if I was using two of the same card. Why not sign it? I usually give them away so they can have a souvenir to show their friends or whatever. BUT im 100% on magic in the spectators hands is always better.

I am not saying I like gaffs over sleights, about 80% of my tricks are sleight of hand tricks... I am not saying that gaffs will get you better reactions either, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Im just saying tricks with gaffs that eliminate sleight of hand, are super powerful, and can leave the spectator with an impossible souvenir or whatever, are amazing, that's all.
 
OK, now I have to ask what PROOF? Are you ASSUMING that spectator's react better to magic done in their hands, or did you bring some sort of noise meter to gauge db levels per effect that you perform?

maybe not better reactions (although sometimes yes) but they can't accuse you of using a trick deck if it's in their hands. If a spectator thinks he knows how it's done, the magic is ruined. Regardless of wether or not he's right.

Look ALLLL the way back to DB: Street Magic. Remember when he bit the coin in half? Did you SEE those reactions? The effect didn't happen in the spectator's hands.

I don't mean all magic needs to be in the spectators hands all the time or they won't be impressed, it's just a nice touch.
Also your argument loses points for trying to pass tv magic as real magic.

If you do an ACR, you aren't getting any more of a reaction by having THEM "put" the card back in the deck. The end result is that they are still amazed just the same.

I disagree entirely, Ive done ACR to people who didn't seem super impressed until the put the card in the middle and they turn the top card over. That's the moment you see you fooled them, whatever they thought i was doing was completely shattered at that moment.

There ARE effects I perform that require a spectator to hold on to a card, or money, or a ring. And when that happens, the end result is the same: they are amazed. There are also effects I perform that require me to hold everything, manipulate everything, etc...the end result is the same: they are amazed.

"Amazed" can vary widely, to me, it seems why not do the most amazing, cleanest version of the trick. Also it's entirely possible you're just a really good performer, some people can get away with not having anything examined. But the rest of us will just keep telling people to shuffle the cards.

The reality of it is, people will go back and tell their friends what kind of awesome show they witnessed, but usually will not be able to recall EXACTLY what happened, unless they are telling someone within 30 min from when it happened.

Exactly, i agree with this 100%. But i think you're arguing against yourself there. Do you want them to say "HE MADE MY CARD DISAPPEAR AND SHOW UP INSIDE A LEMON?!?!1111" or "HE MADE MY CARD DISAPPEAR AND SHOW UP INSIDE A LEMON AND HE NEVER EVEN TOUCHED THE CARDS....OR THE LEMON!!!"
 
Feb 18, 2014
146
0
I agree with anthony here, MAGIC IN THE SPECTATORS HANDS WILL ALWAYS BE MORE POWERFUL period. If u do a a regular ACR with you doing it all its amazing, but if you do the version in FAX by Loki Kross, now that is magic, as far as gaffs, the list never ends,
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,788
2,889
But the rest of us will just keep telling people to shuffle the cards.

Have you ever thought that maybe this is why some performers don't need to have everything examined all the time?

Too many magicians try to justify props before any justification is remotely needed. "I have a normal deck of cards here." Why are you specifying that? That's weird, for one. For two, you're putting the idea of non-normal decks into their mind before it may have even occurred. Casual handling of props as if they are nothing special will do far more than any words you could possibly use.

I agree with anthony here, MAGIC IN THE SPECTATORS HANDS WILL ALWAYS BE MORE POWERFUL period. If u do a a regular ACR with you doing it all its amazing, but if you do the version in FAX by Loki Kross, now that is magic, as far as gaffs, the list never ends,

Always? No. Usually? Maybe. It comes down to the performer. Ricky Jay's multiple-card-find in 52 Assistants is better than almost every card trick I've ever seen performed by another magician and the audience doesn't even get to touch the deck. Actually, every card trick he does in that show is better than most performances I've seen of other magicians.

The power comes from the performer being able to elicit that reaction in the mind of the audience.
 
Feb 18, 2014
146
0
we all have different views but I think it would be out of the line to say " no this is the right way, or no this isn't true" I was simply stating my opinion
 
Have you ever thought that maybe this is why some performers don't need to have everything examined all the time?

Too many magicians try to justify props before any justification is remotely needed. "I have a normal deck of cards here." Why are you specifying that? That's weird, for one. For two, you're putting the idea of non-normal decks into their mind before it may have even occurred. Casual handling of props as if they are nothing special will do far more than any words you could possibly use.

I agree that stating you have a deck of cards (weather normal or not) is bad patter. obviously they can see what you're holding. But i think having a spectator shuffle the cards before you even begin removes all question of trick deck or any sort of stack.

to me it seems why not be as fair as possible? no one is going to say "hmm he let me look at the deck too much"
However, someone might say "he didn't let me look at the deck in the beginning"
 
Jul 13, 2014
176
27
As before. Gaffs provide an easy way to increase the seeming impossibility of an effect. However audience management and psychology will also accomplish this. You don't seem to have a very clear understanding of this. It's all about the impression you leave them with. The ends don't matter that much. Sleight of hand is more convenient. For me anyway. It's quite obvious that gaffs work better for you. But that doesn't mean they are better. In fact overall they are not. But if it works for you, that's fine.
 
Jul 13, 2014
176
27
I agree that stating you have a deck of cards (weather normal or not) is bad patter. obviously they can see what you're holding. But i think having a spectator shuffle the cards before you even begin removes all question of trick deck or any sort of stack.

to me it seems why not be as fair as possible? no one is going to say "hmm he let me look at the deck too much"
However, someone might say "he didn't let me look at the deck in the beginning"
It's different for each spectator. You need to be able to gauge that and react accordingly.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results