New Video from my buddy
- Thread starter ProAma
- Start date
Here's my question: you based your version of success off the above magicians.
What exactly is Chris Ramsay trying to promote in impressionable magicians?
Also, I'm not on board with incorporating cardistry in magic. Very, very few cardistry moves can even be thought to be conventionally used in a magic routine that isn't just 'filler'.
I can see them being done as desperate entities within a set, hand burning be damned. But not fused together.
What exactly is Chris Ramsay trying to promote in impressionable magicians?
Also, I'm not on board with incorporating cardistry in magic. Very, very few cardistry moves can even be thought to be conventionally used in a magic routine that isn't just 'filler'.
I can see them being done as desperate entities within a set, hand burning be damned. But not fused together.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I'm in the "young and impressionable magician" category but I think it is possible to combine magic and cardistry. It all depends on how you present yourself and your magic. If you want to go for a more mysterious, "I'm not actually doing anything it's just the cards/coins/whatever that are doing the magic", then cardistry isn't for you. But in a generation of move monkeys, people want to present it as a skill, rather than a truly magical moment. One will leave your audience feeling more impressed than amazed but both can be equally as entertaining if done right.
I think this category of magic works well for street magic/walkaround where you don't have as much time to develop your persona in front of an audience and can only fit in one or two tricks. However, this would make for an awful parlor/stage act where you show off for 45 minutes. That being said, I don't think people have really explored the possibilities of how magic and cardistry can be combined. I feel like there are ways to incorporate cardistry into the magic rather than doing trick, flourish, trick with no real connection. I have an (extremely simple) cut I made up that allows me to palm off a selection in the process of doing the flourish to mix up the deck. But this is a topic I personally want to do more with and hope others do the same.
1. Hack lines are not funny. I can tell if someone is forcing humor very easily. What is funny is you improv-ing your humor. That is the only natural way of doing anything and being a successful magician/entertainer. Improv-ing with a script in the back to fall on.
2. RealityOne Chris is no where near an arrogant a**. I can point out tons of s*** magicians and at the end of the day it is still subjective. But what is not subjective is how others react to content put out by one of the most successful social media magicians.
3. Chris appeals to the old and the young. Old fuddy duds can stick to their ways and be stubborn but when you get right down to it, it is those who change and adapt to the environment and the times that are objectively successful.
4.Brett Hurley I agree with you on this one. It is distracting, they will burn your hands unless you just did a couple card springs or one flourish and that is all, and you may as well learn juggling if you want to entertain an audience of strangers in that way
2. RealityOne Chris is no where near an arrogant a**. I can point out tons of s*** magicians and at the end of the day it is still subjective. But what is not subjective is how others react to content put out by one of the most successful social media magicians.
3. Chris appeals to the old and the young. Old fuddy duds can stick to their ways and be stubborn but when you get right down to it, it is those who change and adapt to the environment and the times that are objectively successful.
4.Brett Hurley I agree with you on this one. It is distracting, they will burn your hands unless you just did a couple card springs or one flourish and that is all, and you may as well learn juggling if you want to entertain an audience of strangers in that way
So I'm assuming I'm the only "impressionable magician" in the conversation at the moment, as I am only 16. That being said, I have numerous reasons to take things away from magic. Firstly, Ramsay has helped me realize what my performing style is/will become. I am almost the complete opposite of him in terms of style.
However, what Ramsay does promote is Magic ethic. Not necessarily the right or wrong way on how to learn to perform it, but rather how you should incorporate it. I've learned that I don't need to use tricks I don't like, but I can adapt those tricks and create my own effects (though this is more of something I picked up while performing, not directly from Chris).
One other thing you guys should keep in check is that magic is a changing art, and already has many paths to take. I think you can very easily look through history and see how magic has changed. To the "newer generation of Magicians", magic might not have the same effect that it might on an older generation. I mean, you can go as far back as 25 - 40 years, and you will surely see that stage magic was a major focus on magic, whereas now, for the most part, we focus on up close and street magic. Basically what I'm saying is, at some point, we simply realize what magic truly is for us. People like Brian Brushwood, Asad from 52kards, Jay Sankey, even Chris Ramsay, and other magicians are trying to show what magic truly is as an art. They are just as much of an inspiration as the books I've picked up about magic, (Erdnase, the Royal Road, etc.). Basically what I'm getting at is that you have a ton of people using tools like YouTube, and their own websites to not just teach us the straight up moves and tricks that so many "exposers" reveal. All of these are inspirations for us, teaching us the true art of magic. We can use their experience as a mentoring guideline on how we want to develop as magicians individually.
So to say that one thing is right and another is wrong is not correct at all. Because each magician, and performer has their own style, there is no way you can tell them that their style is incorrect.
I know I'm in the "young and impressionable magician" category but I think it is possible to combine magic and cardistry. It all depends on how you present yourself and your magic. If you want to go for a more mysterious, "I'm not actually doing anything it's just the cards/coins/whatever that are doing the magic", then cardistry isn't for you. But in a generation of move monkeys, people want to present it as a skill, rather than a truly magical moment. One will leave your audience feeling more impressed than amazed but both can be equally as entertaining if done right.
I think this category of magic works well for street magic/walkaround where you don't have as much time to develop your persona in front of an audience and can only fit in one or two tricks. However, this would make for an awful parlor/stage act where you show off for 45 minutes. That being said, I don't think people have really explored the possibilities of how magic and cardistry can be combined. I feel like there are ways to incorporate cardistry into the magic rather than doing trick, flourish, trick with no real connection. I have an (extremely simple) cut I made up that allows me to palm off a selection in the process of doing the flourish to mix up the deck. But this is a topic I personally want to do more with and hope others do the same.
I'm under the impression that, as far as expectations from the audience, that skill and mystery are on a sliding scale of sorts. And the thing that sides the scale is how something is presented.
I think the 'move monkey' mentality has to do with the accessibility of tricks are these days. We live in an age where we can pick and choose so many different variations of tricks with many different difficulties. And we can pick and choose with extreme ease. I.E. instant downloadable tutorials.
I think the biggest pitfall that I see newer magicians (myself included. I've only been doing this for almost 3 years now) get into is: the harder the trick, the bigger the impact.
If this were the case, 'Raise Rise' would be the gold standard of all card tricks.
There's nothing wrong with learning hard stuff, even for the sake of it. But it does help if one looks at a trick objectively and tries to see if it's something they will actually use for a while. Which is something I think a lot of the new generation of magcians fall into as well: knee-jerk decisions.
Basically, we have access to so much these days that it's far too easy to point, click, and we have a new trick at our disposal before we go through our own mental 'checks and balances'. But that's a discussion. For another time.
Then step right up to ACE CUT!
It's mostly Charlier and a Revolution Cut. But there is a way to incorporate other one-handed flourishes if you know what you're looking for.
I have a video somewhere of me doing it with a few different flourishes for an SNC a while back. If I find it, I'll post it.
But Ace Cut is definitely fun to do, but very time consuming to do well.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
I didn't really detect much arrogance in this video in particular. In fact Mistake #3 touched on this idea that many magicians believe they are smarter than their audience because they don't know the method, which Ramsay says to stop doing. That would be the opposite of arrogance. I think there were many good points to the video and it is not a waste of 11 minutes, but you're entitled to your own opinion as well. So I respect that.
I don't disagree that there are a great number of very bad magicians. I don't know Chris personally, but his presentation in his video comes across as being amazingly arrogant in that he knows everything and is entitled to look down on anyone else. Also, his five points could have taken three minutes if you took out all of the self absorbed ranting. Just because he is successful on Youtube doesn't mean he can entertain a group live -- I've never seen him perform, so I can't comment on how effective his style translates to actual performance.
I think the my point can be seen when you compare this to Juan Tamariz's Seven Veils of Magic in the documentary Our Magic. Tamariz is inspiring and his advice encourages and uplifts performers. Chris's rant is designed to put people down.
My response is not an ad-hominim attack, but merely an observation that his style isn't designed to get his point across but rather to merely put people down thorugh a rant. I don't disagree with his general points but disagree with his way of presenting them.
Also, what he is saying is nothing new -- at least to me. Maybe it is new to his target audience.
You would be better served reading Maximum Entertainment by Ken Webber. Best book on presentation of magic.
Well stated and I agree. In my mind Chris Ramsay's style is a bit SENSATIONAL; intended to be grand, large, loud, forceful.
Although he appears to be a generally humble person, the persona that is attracting YouTube viewers is NOT.
I like Ramsay as a person. He's friendly, knowledgeable regarding what he does, and has a great energy. He is engaging to a younger demographic. He can entertain, though I haven't watched much of him performing either. However, we have pretty drastically different ideas of what magic is and should be.
If magic is to be considered an art, magicians have to stop making a point of telling the audience what they are doing is tricks (ie: trivial). I think everyone has their own concept of what art is, but to me art is important. It's not just about creating a beautiful image or moment, it's about connecting with the person viewing the art and causing them to think or feel something significant.
The vast majority of magic out there is not art. It's tricks, trivialities, novelties. Brain candy with no substance, no meaning, no point.
Can you incorporate flourishing into magic? I dunno, probably. It'll be hard though. Flourishing is juggling. I'm not demeaning it when I say that - it is literally derived from contact juggling. I have only seen one or two jugglers who's act I thought seemed magical. One was Michael Moschen, another was a Japanese guy busking with contact juggling. The challenges to overcome is that flourishing is inherently confusing, which is not magical, it's inherently small due to the size of the cards, and it's inherently a physical skill. All of these things lead people to think, "I don't know what he did, but it was probably during all that ... stuff." No longer magic, just an impressive physical skill.
A lot of younger folks talk about how the "old guard" ignores the new stuff in magic. I personally fall somewhere between those factions. I don't tend to find much of what the old guard or the new folks are doing is terribly magical at all. I think they're just doing different kinds of tricks, usually in different (but predictably) bad ways.
Except that most really successful comedians have a -thoroughly- scripted show with very little improv, which they then practice until they can deliver it as if they were making it up on the spot. I've heard it said that Mac King has his show so tightly scripted that if there's a point where he asks, "What times is it?" he already knows the answer. You think Louis CK is improv-ing up there? Nope! He knows what he's going to say at pretty much any point. Ricky Gervais - same thing, and he's famous for his ability to improv.
The model of successful performers is have a tight script that you know inside and out, with improv to fall back on. Everyone thinks they're the next Eddie Izzard but in reality they're usually the guy shuffling his feet on stage at the open mic comedy night.
If magic is to be considered an art, magicians have to stop making a point of telling the audience what they are doing is tricks (ie: trivial). I think everyone has their own concept of what art is, but to me art is important. It's not just about creating a beautiful image or moment, it's about connecting with the person viewing the art and causing them to think or feel something significant.
The vast majority of magic out there is not art. It's tricks, trivialities, novelties. Brain candy with no substance, no meaning, no point.
Can you incorporate flourishing into magic? I dunno, probably. It'll be hard though. Flourishing is juggling. I'm not demeaning it when I say that - it is literally derived from contact juggling. I have only seen one or two jugglers who's act I thought seemed magical. One was Michael Moschen, another was a Japanese guy busking with contact juggling. The challenges to overcome is that flourishing is inherently confusing, which is not magical, it's inherently small due to the size of the cards, and it's inherently a physical skill. All of these things lead people to think, "I don't know what he did, but it was probably during all that ... stuff." No longer magic, just an impressive physical skill.
A lot of younger folks talk about how the "old guard" ignores the new stuff in magic. I personally fall somewhere between those factions. I don't tend to find much of what the old guard or the new folks are doing is terribly magical at all. I think they're just doing different kinds of tricks, usually in different (but predictably) bad ways.
Except that most really successful comedians have a -thoroughly- scripted show with very little improv, which they then practice until they can deliver it as if they were making it up on the spot. I've heard it said that Mac King has his show so tightly scripted that if there's a point where he asks, "What times is it?" he already knows the answer. You think Louis CK is improv-ing up there? Nope! He knows what he's going to say at pretty much any point. Ricky Gervais - same thing, and he's famous for his ability to improv.
The model of successful performers is have a tight script that you know inside and out, with improv to fall back on. Everyone thinks they're the next Eddie Izzard but in reality they're usually the guy shuffling his feet on stage at the open mic comedy night.
Are you referring to packet manipulation / fancy cuts? If so then I agree with you some what.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the charlier cut, thumb fan (all fans really), LePaul spread and spring all flourishes?
Some examples of these in magic:
Spring: Scoop and Autocatch by Dan and Dave
Thumb Fan: Cherry Control by Ricky Smith
Charlier Cut / Flicker Shot: Control two spectator's cards to top and bottom, throw a joker in the air and catch between a charlier cut to have the joker "find" the two cards in the middle. Could make this even more impressive if you can do a flicker shot.
Dave Buck also has a one card flourish called flirt that magician Franco Pascali suggests could look good in an ACR. I agree.
I think there are many creative ways to incorporate cardistry into magic without killing the magic. It looks beautiful and shows skill with a deck of cards. It makes people feel like, "man this guy is good, he is worth watching". It's a style of magic perhaps that you're just not interested in.
I covered that - it makes people realize it's a physical skill, therefore not magic. Jugglers are worth watching, too, but it's not magic.
Also, yes technically a fan is a flourish, as are any spreads or whatever. That's not what we're focusing on here and trying to pull that in is just a diversion. We're talking about what is normally called Cardistry or Extreme Card Manipulation (XCM).
For something to appear "magical" there can't be a simple physical explanation. If the performer gives a distinct display of physical dexterity with playing cards, it's going to be extremely difficult to convince folks that the skill they just displayed wasn't part of how they got that playing card into their wallet.
Card work in general is pretty difficult to make seem truly magical. Which is probably why so many magicians don't even try and just go with "It's all tricks".
Which is why I premised my post with "Are you refering to packet manipulation/fancy cuts?"
Are we talking about just the fancy cuts? Or just you? Flourishing is broader than just what you describe. And I don't think Ramsay is suggesting you "lose" a card in the middle and control it to the top with a fancy cardistry cut. More like instead of revealing the selected card by just simply flipping it over, you give it a sexy pirouette, and ferris for the reveal.
But fine, lets assume he only meant fancy and extreme packet manipulation and cuts. In this case, I 100 percent agree with you. Any of this turns the trick into a display of skill rather than magic.
People these days probably go with, "It's all tricks" when it comes to card magic simply because the spectator of today may not know the method but they know it's just sleight of hand. Its card manipulation. No real magic involved. I was watching David Blaines old tv specials, and the reactions the people gave him seemed like they saw him as some kind of God. Perform any card trick today to anyone and the assumption now is not that your performance was magical, but that your sleight of hand is impressive. It's pretentious to think that we can make our audience believe we are truly performing miracles when you're using a bicycle deck you got from costco. Like we established earlier: our audience isn't stupid.
I'm sure there are card tricks you can perform that really seem magical, but they probably involve some kind of mentalism thing that is different entirely.
As far as that example is concerned. Serious question:
Is a pirouette + ferris really going to elevate the amount of reaction more than what the final reveal would already do?
I agree that we shouldn't underestimate our audience, but I feel that cardistry used for sake of 'why not?' teeters on taunting your audience in looking a lot more closely in what you're doing than they should.
Yes. Absolutely yes. Imagine this. Lebron James gets a wide open fast break. You want him to lay up or dunk the ball? It's two points either way. I'd imagine you would answer: dunk.
You ever perform a ribbon spread or a spring before to an audience? So easy. So simple, yet they seem to be so impressed with just that and it puts a smile on their face. Why not do it? Why not add that layer of skill for a smile or chuckle.
I understand the concern with spectators perhaps burning your hands more now that they realize you're a god with a deck of cards, but I feel a polished routine doesn't worry too much about this. Perhaps I'm wrong.
I want to reiterate that I said it's probably possible to incorporate the big flourishes with magic. I did say that.
I just want to emphasize that if you are going to try to do that, understand that you are challenging yourself. You are making it harder on yourself.
I am of the school of thought that any hints towards a physical method will detract from the possibility of a magical explanation.
A very simple example:
1) A card is selected, memorized, and slid into the middle of the deck with just a bit protruding. The performer flashes the card once more, pushes it fully into the deck, then splits the deck into three packets, each flipping over and swinging around his fingers in a deft display of skill, to ensure the card is thoroughly lost in the deck. He sets the deck on the table, then shows the top card briefly, showing it is not the selection. He then steps back and asks the volunteer to concentrate on their card, imagine it on top of the deck, and asks them to turn over the top card. Tada! The indifferent card has become the selection.
2) A card is selected, memorized, and slid into the middle of the deck with just a bit protruding. The performer flashes the card once more, sets the deck on the table, and firmly squares the deck. He invites the volunteer to imagine that card melting up through the deck, until it is on top whereas a moment ago it was clearly in the middle. The volunteer is asked to turn over to the top card, finding their selection there.
Which seems more magical? In the first example, the obvious solution (whether it is correct or not) is that something happened during that confusing bit with the packets (Which, by the way, I was imagining Joel Paschal's Death to the Double Undercut) that brought the card to the top, and the first display was a fake. The second one has no explanation.
The idea that people automatically assume that things we do are tricks is part of the trivialization of magic (and mentalism, sadly). Magicians have pushed that idea for decades now. "Magic isn't real, this is just tricks". I know routines that can be presented as a mental thing, or as a magic thing, and have it not seem like sleight of hand at all. Of course there's always mind reading and cartomancy and that kind of stuff, but I'm talking about things like Out of this World for example.
I've been doing a variation of Poker Player's Picnic for years. It was one of the first tricks I ever learned. The one I have now is so streamlined that usually people think it's a genuine display of being able to cut to the aces. Of course, I make sure they do the work, not me.
It's not the material - it's the performer and the presentation. David Blaine gets the reactions he gets because he has a way of hooking his audiences and playing it totally straight. He doesn't put them off with the corny jokes and calling it all tricks, and he does enough that's genuinely real that the other stuff gets called into question.
I never do springs, rarely do dribbles, and the only time I ribbon spread the deck is for a reveal. Of course, in my professional work I don't even use cards. Because if I could do real magic, I wouldn't bother transporting cards from one place to another. When I do card magic for friends, though, it is no-frill, straight to the point. And that style of card magic is what scored me a presentation at a graduate class of perceptual neuroscience. The performance/presentation I did on how magicians manipulate perception is why they are looking into hiring me again for a big performance in two weeks. Apparently my Energy Touches routine has been the talk of the town.
This has become a bit rambling, so I'll finish up here.
I assume it is possible to incorporate magic and flashy flourishes, but you will be fighting an uphill battle if you want that to come across as magical instead of a physical skill. Treating magic like a purely physical skill, and all tricks, vastly trivializes the performance. The degree to which something is or is not magical depends on the performer's ability to make it magical.
I just want to emphasize that if you are going to try to do that, understand that you are challenging yourself. You are making it harder on yourself.
I am of the school of thought that any hints towards a physical method will detract from the possibility of a magical explanation.
A very simple example:
1) A card is selected, memorized, and slid into the middle of the deck with just a bit protruding. The performer flashes the card once more, pushes it fully into the deck, then splits the deck into three packets, each flipping over and swinging around his fingers in a deft display of skill, to ensure the card is thoroughly lost in the deck. He sets the deck on the table, then shows the top card briefly, showing it is not the selection. He then steps back and asks the volunteer to concentrate on their card, imagine it on top of the deck, and asks them to turn over the top card. Tada! The indifferent card has become the selection.
2) A card is selected, memorized, and slid into the middle of the deck with just a bit protruding. The performer flashes the card once more, sets the deck on the table, and firmly squares the deck. He invites the volunteer to imagine that card melting up through the deck, until it is on top whereas a moment ago it was clearly in the middle. The volunteer is asked to turn over to the top card, finding their selection there.
Which seems more magical? In the first example, the obvious solution (whether it is correct or not) is that something happened during that confusing bit with the packets (Which, by the way, I was imagining Joel Paschal's Death to the Double Undercut) that brought the card to the top, and the first display was a fake. The second one has no explanation.
The idea that people automatically assume that things we do are tricks is part of the trivialization of magic (and mentalism, sadly). Magicians have pushed that idea for decades now. "Magic isn't real, this is just tricks". I know routines that can be presented as a mental thing, or as a magic thing, and have it not seem like sleight of hand at all. Of course there's always mind reading and cartomancy and that kind of stuff, but I'm talking about things like Out of this World for example.
I've been doing a variation of Poker Player's Picnic for years. It was one of the first tricks I ever learned. The one I have now is so streamlined that usually people think it's a genuine display of being able to cut to the aces. Of course, I make sure they do the work, not me.
It's not the material - it's the performer and the presentation. David Blaine gets the reactions he gets because he has a way of hooking his audiences and playing it totally straight. He doesn't put them off with the corny jokes and calling it all tricks, and he does enough that's genuinely real that the other stuff gets called into question.
I never do springs, rarely do dribbles, and the only time I ribbon spread the deck is for a reveal. Of course, in my professional work I don't even use cards. Because if I could do real magic, I wouldn't bother transporting cards from one place to another. When I do card magic for friends, though, it is no-frill, straight to the point. And that style of card magic is what scored me a presentation at a graduate class of perceptual neuroscience. The performance/presentation I did on how magicians manipulate perception is why they are looking into hiring me again for a big performance in two weeks. Apparently my Energy Touches routine has been the talk of the town.
This has become a bit rambling, so I'll finish up here.
I assume it is possible to incorporate magic and flashy flourishes, but you will be fighting an uphill battle if you want that to come across as magical instead of a physical skill. Treating magic like a purely physical skill, and all tricks, vastly trivializes the performance. The degree to which something is or is not magical depends on the performer's ability to make it magical.
I'll give 2 instances where I think magic and cardistry work and where they do not.
The first is of Shin Lim. This video isn't the greatest example of total integration but I think you can see the ways he has combined it. For some one like Shin Lim this is part of his style and in this clip he uses the flourishes to keep the viewer engaged between the magic moments. It looks interesting.
The second is Dan and Dave's Uzumaki. In this case I feel like the flourish hints at the method and a layperson may leave thinking that they know how the trick worked (in all likelihood they are probably wrong). I can hear them saying, "He does something as the card is spinning".
Imagine a magician trying to integrate juggling into a routine. It can be done but it is tough. Penn Jillette has done it, Rune Klan has done it but the list is pretty short. It takes skill to mesh the two.
The first is of Shin Lim. This video isn't the greatest example of total integration but I think you can see the ways he has combined it. For some one like Shin Lim this is part of his style and in this clip he uses the flourishes to keep the viewer engaged between the magic moments. It looks interesting.
The second is Dan and Dave's Uzumaki. In this case I feel like the flourish hints at the method and a layperson may leave thinking that they know how the trick worked (in all likelihood they are probably wrong). I can hear them saying, "He does something as the card is spinning".
Imagine a magician trying to integrate juggling into a routine. It can be done but it is tough. Penn Jillette has done it, Rune Klan has done it but the list is pretty short. It takes skill to mesh the two.