Opinion about Double Lifts
- Thread starter thanatos
- Start date
I think that's the problem with the strike double. It doesn't look like a natural turnover, and if you change your method of turning over singles to match it, in my opinion that would make every turnover suspicious. Sometimes this could be useful, for example if you want to do a fake move to create an offbeat, but in general, I think a turnover should either be natural or flourishy. A strike is neither.
My preferred technique is what I call a "pull-off" or a "gravity" double (as far as I know it's original to me, and I haven't decided on the name yet). It looks similar to Michael Vincent's soft double, so very natural, doesn't require a break, and can be done with one or two hands. The idea is that you use gravity and your left-hand third finger to slide the double over then flip it over either with your right hand or your left thumb.
I only really use doubles in my ACR, and even then I only do it twice. I'm trying to learn Domico's double lift from card control mainly because it's flourish-y, and it's pretty convincing that there is no way you have two cards. For my routines though, i'll have to turn over my cards in the same way though, so I might just be learning this for the sake of learning it. For practical purposes, what I usually use is the double described in the Royal Road. Simple and natural. I'm also trying to make one where you flip it from the back for some reason, mabye cause that's how I turn over cards.
Ok I use my own double lifts I am sure tey have been created dome wearby some one but I come up with them all on my own......YA=)
Indiana.C
Indiana.C
An interesting point, although I believe your logic is flawed. You are making the assumption that there is a standard, natural way of turning over a card which laymen expect, I don't think this is true. They just don't think about these things. I think they will become suspicious if you do your doubles and singles differently, it is the discrepancy between the turnovers which makes them suspicious not the double lift itself.
If you do a couple of single turnovers early on and then casually prove that they are single, by pirouetting, flicking etc then you condition your spectators into accepting this as being normal way of turning over a card.
I disagree with the notion that doubles should look exactly like how you turn over a single.
First off, you're a magician; people expect you to handle cards different, because you can do that sorta stuff. As long as it looks natural and clean, no-one will question "Why did he lift the card from the corner instead of the middle of the side?" Seriously, has anyone ever asked you that question? Secondly, a double lift is still unknown to the majority of laymen. If anyone instantly suspects your DL, honestly, just practice making it more natural.
First off, you're a magician; people expect you to handle cards different, because you can do that sorta stuff. As long as it looks natural and clean, no-one will question "Why did he lift the card from the corner instead of the middle of the side?" Seriously, has anyone ever asked you that question? Secondly, a double lift is still unknown to the majority of laymen. If anyone instantly suspects your DL, honestly, just practice making it more natural.
I will admit, a strike double works. It gets the two cards turned over as one, and it's not often that a layman will call you on it if you do it well. If that is the only consideration in choosing your technique then fine, that's no problem. However, I think a genuinely natural double turnover is something to aspire to, simply because I believe that, in order to make sleight-of-hand as beautiful as possible, as many small details of inconsistency of motion should be removed as can be achieved. Even though your spectator may not actually call you on it, or even be conscious of any discrepancy, I think that unconsciously, these things register, and they prevent your magic from being as truly elegant as it can be.
And, as an additional point, if you're talking about consistency, if you start pirouetting and flicking your singles, won't your audience notice when you handle your doubles more carefully?
I worked out this 2 years ago, and found out 2 other magicians that use it.
Me and both of them did it as a modified handling of the Vernon Push off. The idea of using gravity is credited to R. Paul Wilson in his UltraNatural DL, though used differently. Its ebook is just 5$, check it out.
Cheers,
For me it's a simple pinky count, or just get a break with a little misdirection. By the way. Is there a book or dvd that can teach you a bunch of different double lifts?
Yeah, "Gregory Wilson's Double Take" DVD (there's 25 DLs)... I use Stuart Gordon's and LePauls Flip Over DL.
DomKabala
If you want to try and achieve a perfect natural double lift as a personal goal then that's fine and I don't object to it at all. However I don't think it has any real practical purpose.
To suggest that spectators are subconciously aware that a card is being turned over in a slightly different way to what they might expect is absolutley absurd. They just don't think about these things on this level. As long as the double doesn't look very strange or noticeably different to previous turnovers they won't think twice about it.
I think magician's sometimes try and convince themselves that spectators care more about the subtleties of individual sleights than they actually do to justify the amount of work put into a move.
As for the pirouetting and flicking, I wouldn't do it with every single turnover, just from time to time.
I think your double has to be as natural as possible. What I mean is that it shouldn't take THAT much effort to turn over a card right? Who would get a break, snap the double and flip it over like its something special. takes someone like 3 seconds just to prepare to turn over a card. Even if layman don't verbalize it, they will feel it.
Its like doing a classic pass. Lets say your pass is INVISIBLE. But your hands tense up. I don't care who you are, laymen will say you did something at that moment because you tensed up. Doesn't matter if they didn't see it.
Its like doing a classic pass. Lets say your pass is INVISIBLE. But your hands tense up. I don't care who you are, laymen will say you did something at that moment because you tensed up. Doesn't matter if they didn't see it.
I use a couple of double lifts, mainly the strike double and the larry jennings' snap double (which I learned from Daryl's ambitious card video).
I would just like to add that a spectator has never questioned or probably even noticed that I have turned the double over a different way than a single, I try to avoid doing this but have never been called on it.
I would just like to add that a spectator has never questioned or probably even noticed that I have turned the double over a different way than a single, I try to avoid doing this but have never been called on it.
I said that the discrepancy registers unconsciously. In other words, it's not something that they are aware of, so no, they may not "think twice about it", because they aren't even conscious of having noticed it. I would refer you to Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" for a good overview of how our perceptions and feelings can be affected by details that we aren't consciously aware of. Rather than it being something explicit that they will call you on, they will instead be left with a feeling that something was wrong, but they can't quite put their finger on it.
In the same way, when you listen to a good amateur singer and an accomplished professional, you may not be able to analyse or put into words technically why the professional's better, you will just get the feeling that they are. Yes, a good amateur can entertain, but the same material, in the hands of a practiced pro, with all the subtleties and details taken into account, can be raised to the level of a masterpiece.
I agree with TeeDee here - and it is oft quote in magic circles, and I paraphrase, that to think that something happened is as bad as knowing exactly what happened.
On an interesting note, I know some amateurs who are way, way above professional level, though don't earn money from magic.
I know this post is unrelated to the subject, but its worth addressing. There is a difference between a casual hobbyist and a keen amateur, you don't have to be pro (i.e. magic puts food on the table ) to be good at it.
And of course, this is demonstrated by many magicians ( either FISM winners, or publishers .. etc ).
Cheers,
Yes, you're quite right, I think maybe "amateur" and "professional" were the wrong choice of words, but you get the idea.
