So I'm reading (yes, reading) through AoA vol. 3 last night, looking at a some ridiculous packet tricks. These tricks are not easy or simple. They are complex, difficult to learn and, need to be performed in a very precise manner to look magical.
This gets me thinking (yes, reading and thinking, all in one night). I think about some card tricks like, say, Witness, or Indecent. What do these tricks have in common?
Plastic bags.
They're also simple. They don't require gratuitous double lifts, palms, shifts, awkward displays, etc. It's basically card in bag. Bam. Magic.
They let me build up the moment. I don't have to worry about weaving aces into kings like in Interlaced Vanish.
And yet, they lack something, physically, I feel. Subtlety. Take PH's Illusion. You hold the three-card packet and you use simple little convincers to prove that there are three cards. The auditory count, etc. Or the simple billde counts in Las Vegas leaper, or in the biddle trick.
With these big simple tricks, because of the simplicity or lack of handling, You might not get a chance to "prove" to your audience. I'm not going to go into specifics, but those who own witness can't really prove a certain part of that trick. The audience must believe what it sees.
Sinful is a great trick because it has these little touches that prove that the coun is in the can. And I wouldn't call the handling easy. It's natural, but it takes practice to get it that way.
I think that these more complicated tricks are more solid because you, the magician, are in constant control of your materials at all times. You prove how many cards are in a packet, where a selection is, where the coin is.
What I'm basically saying (if you're still actually reading this) is that simple tricks are great ways to show something powerful quickly, but complex tricks really get into the spectator easier, I think. The magician has a chance to be more elegant, to make what he physically does look more magical.
I'd love to get other people's thoughts on this. Do you go the way of Witness or Tap Dancing Aces and why?
This gets me thinking (yes, reading and thinking, all in one night). I think about some card tricks like, say, Witness, or Indecent. What do these tricks have in common?
Plastic bags.
They're also simple. They don't require gratuitous double lifts, palms, shifts, awkward displays, etc. It's basically card in bag. Bam. Magic.
They let me build up the moment. I don't have to worry about weaving aces into kings like in Interlaced Vanish.
And yet, they lack something, physically, I feel. Subtlety. Take PH's Illusion. You hold the three-card packet and you use simple little convincers to prove that there are three cards. The auditory count, etc. Or the simple billde counts in Las Vegas leaper, or in the biddle trick.
With these big simple tricks, because of the simplicity or lack of handling, You might not get a chance to "prove" to your audience. I'm not going to go into specifics, but those who own witness can't really prove a certain part of that trick. The audience must believe what it sees.
Sinful is a great trick because it has these little touches that prove that the coun is in the can. And I wouldn't call the handling easy. It's natural, but it takes practice to get it that way.
I think that these more complicated tricks are more solid because you, the magician, are in constant control of your materials at all times. You prove how many cards are in a packet, where a selection is, where the coin is.
What I'm basically saying (if you're still actually reading this) is that simple tricks are great ways to show something powerful quickly, but complex tricks really get into the spectator easier, I think. The magician has a chance to be more elegant, to make what he physically does look more magical.
I'd love to get other people's thoughts on this. Do you go the way of Witness or Tap Dancing Aces and why?
