In the last couple of years I saw two stage magic shows. The first was Kalin and Ginger and the second was David Copperfield. The effects that I liked the best and remembered the most weren't the flashy "look at what I can do" effects, but the effects that reached out on an emotional level. Mark Kalin performed a billiard ball manipulation as he told a story about the first magic effect he performed for his mother. Him, a stool, a spotlight, a box on a table and some billiard balls. It was truly magic. David Copperfield performed a routine about his grandfather who disapproved of him becoming a professional magician. How he thought he saw his grandfather at the back of one of his shows... and tried to talk to him after the show but couldn't find him. Later, when his grandfather passed away, David found a ticket stub for the show in his grandfather's house. He then proceeded to make his grandfather's car appear on stage amidst a number of spectators with a license plate that matched random letters and numbers selected by an audience member. In those shows, not every effect was intended to touch the audience's emotions, not every effect had a story. However, those two routines were more powerful because they did.
I agree with Casey if he performed for me I would get tired of his long stories.
If you read the thread, the advice to "cut the fat" was given very often. Good patter is not too long and not too short, but just right.
Exactly. If someone does it wrong he doesn't point it out besides saying "Really? That sucks." or "That's it? You can do better." and doesn't give any more advice. It's be a lot more effective if he pointed out the wrong ones and gave advice for them rather than pointing out the right ones and say "follow this example"; doesn't give much clarity.
As Toby pointed out, the purpose of the thread (in my opinion) was to make people think about their patter and to WORK to make it better. There are smatterings of advice throughout the thread but you have to think about the examples given. Working that hard makes you more invested in the result. Note, this is coming from someone who was told several times that his patter sucked.
An effect I recently picked up on is "The Sculpture" by Helder Guimaraes from his Red Mirror DVD. I feel that this one effect has inspired me to start applying what I do and let my spectators know more about who I am and what I do and why I do it.
***
Then the routine goes on. I really connect with this effect and it connects to me as well. This is one of my favorite effects performing because I can really show myself to my audience. When your audience gets to know you, the mood is more relaxed and they connect with you better. Hopefully this introduction to the effect gets you thinking. Find a trick, make it connect in a personal and emotional way, and you got a great start to your routine.
I think that works for an icebreaker and an introduction. However, I'm not sure how much of a connection it creates with the audience because you are talking about yourself rather than talking about something that links you to your audience.
When I do my haunted key routine, I talk about a armoire in the attic of my grandfather's house that really scared me when I was a little kid. People can relate to that because everyone when they were little had irrational fears regarding strange objects in strange places.
Extreme Burn is one of the most visual effects out there, to the point where it doesn't need some cheesy patter where the bills are turned into fake money. That's just insulting. I prefer the David Blaine method: "Watch." *BAM* "WTF"
That method works best with a network film crew in tow. Ask people about what you did a week later and they will say it was a really cool trick where you changed those bills. With strong patter, people will say I loved what you did with the key from your grandfather's armoire. In that case, the patter becomes inextricably tied to their reaction to the effect. The amazement at what happened is still there, but the effect takes on a greater meaning.
That thread by Goudinov is old, but pretty good. I've read every single post in that thread, and I think that you guys are missing the point of the whole thread.
That thread had been posted as a challenge, for people to figure out how to make interesting patter. So to give out help all the time would kill the point of the thread. The reason that he just say "it sucks, come up with something better" is because the point is that YOU need to come up with something better yourself, thus forcing you to think harder, which is not achieved my constant outside help.
Agree.
I Believe my post were deleted because i 'disagreed' with what was being said there..
That being Said..
Who is to say 'He' is the 'Know it all' of patter.. could you honestly sit through a whole show of his 'Patter'?
Magic doesn't have to have a whole 'Story' just meaning.. something i've lectured on before
Your posts (as well as Steerpike's and my posts disagreeing with you) were most likely deleted because they were derailing the thread from its intended purpose - people post patter and get a reaction from Goudinov as to whether it sucks or not. If I recall correctly, your posts were essentially, asking "who is this guy to tell us what to do?" and saying there really "is no right or wrong when it comes to performing because magic is an art." The advice given in that thread is like any other advice you get - you are free to take it or leave it. If you don't want the feedback, don't post.
Also, I don't think Goudinov presented himself as a know it all of patter. The idea is you post, he responds based on what he thinks is good patter. He has a very specific idea of what makes good patter. He uses Eugene Burger and David Copperfield as models for what he is saying. Not bad company.
Who is to say that Darwin Ortiz is the "Know it all" of patter? No one actually said that Goudinov is the know it all of patter, but everything he said (more or less, so far) made sense, at least to me. He never said that EVERY SINGLE effect you do should have a long and engaging patter. In fact, if I remember correctly, he said quite the opposite, he did say that you SHOULDN'T have long and engaging patter in every effect. Which, once again, makes sense.
Exactly.
Indeed... I don't follow everything 'Darwin' says by heart either.. in fact that book has gotten just as much 'Over Hype' as a lot of them
you have to find and 'Script' what fits 'YOUR' Character.... so it does no good to say 'This is how you SHOULD' write your patter.. or 'Your Patter Sucks'
We can merely give 'Guidelines' and what we have found works in actually 'Professional' Settings...
The way i 'Present' an Effect and the way you 'Present' an effect will be completely different.. and it quite well should be different.. there is no reason why anyone should ever 'Present' the 'Effect' exactly the same..
That Being Said
i could write a whole book on 'Creating Rapport' 'Having the Audience Invest In You' 'Emotional Hooks' 'Engaging' 'Presentation'
Based on Real World Professional Working Situations
but who is to say my way is 'Superior' to any other way
Savvy?
I think you are taking relativism to an extreme. If your way of doing something works for you, there probably are techniques that you use which may be useful to others. The idea of patter espoused in that thread works for Goudinov and there are principles that may be useful to others.
However, just like when you read books on presentation by Dariel Fitzskee, Darwin Ortiz, Derren Brown, Ken Webber, Peter McCabe, Juan Tamariz, etc., you need to think about the advice given and decide if it works for you. The important part is that you think about how you present your magic and whether what you are doing works and why it works.
I think the best example of the type of reaction that Goudinov's thread is going after is the Pixar movies. Toy Story isn't amazing because we watch toys act like people and Up isn't a beautiful movie because we get to see a house fly using hundreds of balloons. Those movies are amazing and beautiful because the animation conveys a story that touches our emotions. Wouldn't it be great if you had one effect that, through its patter, touched your audience's emotions?
