Why Magic Needs Patter
- Thread starter UnknownMagician93
- Start date
I rest my case on your case, (if that makes sense? Which in fact it doesn't because i didn't state my case - magic really can be confusing eh?)
But yeah, totally agreed, and i think from this and your other videos, you have a natural gift for patter, you make it so fluid it just sounds perfect.
Ive noticed that, even in my first month and a half of magic, patter makes my tricks so much more entertaining for the spectators, and a very good tool of misdirection too.
Without it magic really would be dead.
Good job on posting this, helps demonstrate the strength of it really well.
But yeah, totally agreed, and i think from this and your other videos, you have a natural gift for patter, you make it so fluid it just sounds perfect.
Ive noticed that, even in my first month and a half of magic, patter makes my tricks so much more entertaining for the spectators, and a very good tool of misdirection too.
Without it magic really would be dead.
Good job on posting this, helps demonstrate the strength of it really well.
I agree I think that patter is a needed element. It draws people into the trick and they have something to buy into.
Not a criticism but on your video it seems that you do a lot of talking? Maybe to much patter? Just a personal opinion. btw Great trick
Not a criticism but on your video it seems that you do a lot of talking? Maybe to much patter? Just a personal opinion. btw Great trick
GREAT video. Awesome example, as that effect totally confused me the first time (with no patter). Great job!
It's true that magic would be dead without presentation and patter.
Cheers
It's true that magic would be dead without presentation and patter.
Cheers
Glad you guys liked my trick I came up with it so I could use it as an example for this purpose. Its a good thing that Im not the only one who thinks patter is where its at
SkaterSteve- Thanks dude that means alot, that my efforts don't go unnoticed.
aprentice- I agree that it was a tad long-winded, but I do like to have a theme to my presentation, so Im fine sacrificing a bit of length to make the effect stronger.
I came up with it so I could use it as an example for this purpose. Its a good thing that Im not the only one who thinks patter is where its atSkaterSteve- Thanks dude that means alot, that my efforts don't go unnoticed.
aprentice- I agree that it was a tad long-winded, but I do like to have a theme to my presentation, so Im fine sacrificing a bit of length to make the effect stronger.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree. Magic doesn't need patter. Teller is a renowned magician, yet he doesn't speak. To make it more personal, I'm currently living in a with about 8 students, none of whom speak english as a first language and most of them only speak broken english. I've done magic for them, and rather than try and simplify my patter, I performed without. Reactions were still excellent.
In fact, if your patter sucks, it can detract substantially from your magic. It can add complexity where it shouldn't exist.
Granted, I realize patter is important and can contribute an enormous amount to magic. I just wouldn't go so far to say it is completely necessary.
In fact, if your patter sucks, it can detract substantially from your magic. It can add complexity where it shouldn't exist.
Granted, I realize patter is important and can contribute an enormous amount to magic. I just wouldn't go so far to say it is completely necessary.
Patter isn't just talking. The presentation itself is patter; for example Cardini's act and Jeff McBride's act are two of the most meaningful performances I've ever seen, but they are completely silent. The patter is in the characters that they developed. Teller's patter is present in his partner, etc.
As for UM's patter being long winded, it doesn't matter, as long as the audience responds well. Look at Juan Tamariz's way of presenting. He takes a lot of time to present his effects, taking up to 15 minutes to present effects that could be accomplished in 3 minutes, but his audience responds so well, that it's worth it.
While I do agree that patter is important, I don't particularly like your form of patter because it seems so scripted and drawn out. I was just as confused watching your second performance as I was with the first.
Sometimes the magic needs to speak for itself. If a trick in itself is confusing without speaking, then I would suggest it to be worked on to be made simpler and more streamlined. I thought the trick you chose to portray was just a bad effect. I had to try to keep up with understanding what you were saying so much that I didn't even realize the magic that was supposed to happen.
I prefer keeping my script down to a few key lines and the rest left to play off my spectators. That's for the actual interaction between my audience and myself.
So while I agree patter is important and necessary, I do not believe in long drawn out scripts that fail to captivate an audience.
Sometimes the magic needs to speak for itself. If a trick in itself is confusing without speaking, then I would suggest it to be worked on to be made simpler and more streamlined. I thought the trick you chose to portray was just a bad effect. I had to try to keep up with understanding what you were saying so much that I didn't even realize the magic that was supposed to happen.
I prefer keeping my script down to a few key lines and the rest left to play off my spectators. That's for the actual interaction between my audience and myself.
So while I agree patter is important and necessary, I do not believe in long drawn out scripts that fail to captivate an audience.
Like a few others have pointed out, the effect is almost incomprehensible without patter. However, even with your patter, the whole thing isn't totally clear.
Of course, I understood what was going on because I had already seen the patterless version, so I knew where to pay attention, but laymen might not appreciate the fact that the effect is a transposition and a reverse combined. They might just think you reversed the 2 of hearts, and that the four of clubs was just distraction.
So, in this case at least, the patter makes a small improvement, but the effect itself might fail.
Of course, I understood what was going on because I had already seen the patterless version, so I knew where to pay attention, but laymen might not appreciate the fact that the effect is a transposition and a reverse combined. They might just think you reversed the 2 of hearts, and that the four of clubs was just distraction.
So, in this case at least, the patter makes a small improvement, but the effect itself might fail.
Gonna go out here but to say that I actually didn't really like the video at all.
I found that the patter of explaining Why we need patter took away from the effect and made it yet more confusing. I agree that magic needs appropriate patter but this video doesn't really suit the explination in my mind.
By walking through With the spectator and explaining what you think that their thoughts are, it added an uneaded patter and took away form the effect in my mind. Most specators won't think the same way that a magician does, they aren't thinking oh maybe that card will end up being reversed in the deck, or maybe it will switch with another card in the future. The object is for the spectator to think as normaly and simple as possible.
When you lay a card down on the table you want them to think that it is the card they JUST saw, not the fact that it may change to another one.
Thats just my opinion there
I found that the patter of explaining Why we need patter took away from the effect and made it yet more confusing. I agree that magic needs appropriate patter but this video doesn't really suit the explination in my mind.
By walking through With the spectator and explaining what you think that their thoughts are, it added an uneaded patter and took away form the effect in my mind. Most specators won't think the same way that a magician does, they aren't thinking oh maybe that card will end up being reversed in the deck, or maybe it will switch with another card in the future. The object is for the spectator to think as normaly and simple as possible.
When you lay a card down on the table you want them to think that it is the card they JUST saw, not the fact that it may change to another one.
Thats just my opinion there
I can't begin to express how many great performance I have seen with out speech. Teller does Shadows and that has no talking what so ever. It blows me away at the artistic quality, one of the awe inspiring moments. Daniel Garcia manages to pull off another one of those moments in Life. Sometimes it is best just to let the magic do the talking, and let the spectator breath in the art of it.