talkmagic.co.uk

Sexton Blake Said:
Two points I need to make first:
1) I'm not arguing with you here, I'm merely discussing the difference of perspective, because I find it interesting.
2) This, topic-offingly, isn't aimed at MM's Nothing: I've heard wildly varying reports about the DVD, but I haven't seen it myself so have no personal opinion whatsoever.

Rightio. We agree that a miss or two can sell a pure mentalism act. Our difference appears to be that I feel that when and where those misses occur should be up to the performer - for reasons of effective theatre - whereas you take a more, free-wheeling, take-it-as-it-comes, thinking-on-one's-feet-loving approach. Essentially, I'm an anal control freak and you're some kind of hippy anarchist. We're both comfortable with our position and are unlikely to change, so let's but that aside.

A practical question. How (bearing point 2, above, in mind) can one 'mark' mentalism which is being offered for sale, in a way that will be generally accepted as meaningful, if whether or not the effects will work isn't seen as absolutely central? Surely there's no market for a DVD billing itself 'Increase your credibilty with these effects - each one guaranteed to have a failure rate of at least 75%'? Clever thinking is admirable, of course, but it isn't what people pay for: they pay for something they can perform. There are lots of things in magic where the consensus is, 'Original thinking and an interesting idea. But, as it doesn't actually work, you shouldn't have charged us money for it.' Young master Jermay seems to have attracted a fair amount of, 'Great. Except that won't work,' criticism regarding his published stuff, but - as far as I'm aware (and, I happily admit, you're far better placed to comment here) - his response hasn't been, 'Pshaw! Embrace the opportunities failure provides,' but rather, 'Actually, it does work if you try it rather than just dismissing it from your armchair, Bignose.'

Surely, though mentalists might discuss the benefits/role of failure as a general part of their art, for commercially-sold products the big bottom line is overwhelmingly 'does it work (massively more often than not)'?


Sexton has some very sound points and I'm loving the fact that he admitted to his anal retentive penchant though I deride the idea that I'm a hippy anarchist...

Most of the material I've studied over the years and the discussions I've had when it comes to this issue, is don't sweat it #1 and #2, don't plan it out unless it has value... let me explain...

There are ways of pacing and leading an audience using a miss or near hit and a clever performer who has serious command of both, his own skill and the ability to work the room (manipulate groups of patrons) can bring about some amazing instances of pure genius; manifestation that are more or less exclusive to that performer in that it takes his/her innate abilities and perception to pull it off. The combination delivering great production value to the program as well as merit to the performer.

However, as a rule the act of planning for desaster is typically shewed away by most, for reasons I've already expressed in the other thread where this issue came to the fore; if you work heavily with psychological type ploys failure will come, so why plan for it?

Now as to Luke and his materials... well, it's akin to Kenton and his offerings and I've heard the same debates pertaining to Waters, Maven and a plethora of others. In short, the majority of people in the magic business only want to work with sure fire effects. If one must apply his or her self to actually study, experiment and make something happen... god forbid!

T.A. Water's original manuscripts (now compiled as Mind, Myth & Magic) were shunned and laughed at by the "establishment" in my early years. Today it is seen as one's intermeadiate course of study... the tome you dive into once you've "mastered" the info found in Corinda & Annemann.

You'll find the armchair experts of magic deriding anything and everything that generally requires a bit more effort than a 6th or 7th grade comprehension level allows them to understand let alone apply. These wonder-minds that are out there merely regurgitate what they've heard or what they assume vs. getting off their hind side and actually LEARNING something via trial and error (does it show that I detest this sort of dolt?)

In my mind, the "fun" of Mentalism stems from the possibility that I might have to shift gears in midstream and move in a different direction. This assures me that my shows change and no two are exactly the same thing e.g. my patrons can see me time and again and always see something different.

VALUE is a biggie and it centers on what one's personal needs and priorities are. NOTHING probably has little to no value to those that love gadgets and haven't the self-confidence required for doing some of the things Max outlines and demonstrates. In fact, very little of the "magic" he shares (teh effects) impress me all that much. What I got from the "lecture" was the perspective and guidelines -- experientially based wisdom that we all need to stop and ponder from time to time, but which every newbie needs to more or less memorize before going too far past go.

VALUE is something that stems from personal perspective. Many loathed Kenton's MIND READING while those that actually work from the deeper sides of Mentalism have seen it as a kind of Holy Grail.

I've found through the years that people will bitch and complain no matter what the issue or topic. Harry Truman pointed this out long ago, during his presidency, as to how impossible it is to satisfy everyone. But I've discovered that I can drive most magic buff's nuts using an effect, principle or routine most of them have dismissed or chosen to ignore because in their mind, it wasn't cool enough... they forget taht the "cool" factor comes from them, not the damned trick.

This should prove an interesting journey...

I went to a lecture featuring Mr Jermay a few years ago and one of the questions asked by someone was regarding the possible failure rate of a particular effect...

His answer?

If you fail you have chosen the wrong spectator.

Now much as I admire his talent as a performer, I did see a lot of rolling eyes amongst the audience... on reflection I know exactley what he means,
Personally I will not perform at whim like I did when I was starting out and tend to choose my audience, seeing as I am a hobbiest I have that luxury which is great but as a professional entertainer I doubt you would get very far gambling with a 75% chance on the outcome of your act...

There lies the difference between Magician and Mentalist... 75% mentalist is great... 75% Magician... MMmmmm you decide!

One of the most horrid experience I ever had in life was doing as show for a bunch of grad students that majored in Psychology... trust me, this stuff don't work on them when it's fresh in their minds

Luke is correct and you will hear it echoed by others, in that it is our obligation as the performer to size up and select the individuals we believe to be "right" for each segment of a show. This is something Max goes into decent detail on in the NOTHING DVDs and I believe Kenton has pointed this out as well. "Stage" management from the performer's point of view includes knowing how to work with his audience and contrary to the belief of some, being able to roll with the punches when they are delivered.

A years or so back when I was doing my shows at a local facility I ran some experiments, shifting away from the format that is common to a traditional show i.e. being introduced by an MC and all such trimmings, and created an approach that was conversational. I liked it so much that I have completely changed how I do my shows, naming the program "Conversations with a Psychic" which is exactly what we do.

I have specific themes or discussion topics that we focus on and a general outline as to what will be presented throughout the course of the event for the sake of demonstration, education and of course entertainment. But, I also have a short list of alternative routines that I can readily flow into should the pulse of the room change or I find a spectator that is proving to be more than just a ripe opportunity for some fun.

You need to understand that my shows are rarely designed in a manner that requires me to carry much more than maybe a briefcase or shoulder bag with some writing pads, pencils and maybe some books or magazines in it... typically I can walk into a room with nothing but me and a single writing tablet and just a few markers for jotting things down... I don't want "props" and when it comes to gimmicks, I'm exceptionally selective; it is very, very rare that I use them. I try to work mainly with psychological methods, anagram type approaches and other "clean" techniques though one of my trade mark routines is 4th Demensional Telepathy and of course the Q&A. But that's just a few envelopes, some business cards and a dozen or so game pencils... again, not much, most of it goes into the coat pockets.

I'm not saying that my way is "right" or "better" than the more rigid "by the numbers" mode. More importantly, I'm not saying that it will work for everyone. But it does work for me in that it's comfortable, I can work it from my chair and the public enjoys it because it isn't a "show" but simply a conversation that's interactive and allowing them to experience something they've only heard about all their lives. On top of that, they've gained a bit of understanding about whatever it is we are talking about on that given night, be it intuition, the tarot, numerology, etc.

I've done the big stages and the more rigid mode of performance. I had loads of fun doing it and many of the bits I created in that realm were dynamite... for that point in time of my life. Things change... we change and we must learn to grow with those changes. Today, I'm far more content to do a program in someone's living room with 8-12 guests than the idea of doing a huge show for hundreds or thousands. It might sound strange, but it's just where I'm at today... Oh! and I still see the same basic level of income, patrons paying between $75.00 and $150.00 a head for my intimate gatherings

there is a very simple test (as mentioned in Luke's Building Blocks) with pendulum that you can do to find your best participant...works for me...

i've also found that building, or rather, changing the effect slightly to work within the structure of the participant's mind (or Geist to blatantly plug a very fine book - do a alakazam.co.uk search for it!) - and it tips the scales in your favour...

the real-life example i can offer is that i was performing in a suitably dingy pub, a guy was talking about his martial arts backgroud in between effects, so the suggestion(s) i used were based around the workings of Chi energies...

him holding a card that he picked (and i then named) but i also played yo-yo with his hand, commanding his hand and card to become heavier as i forced it down towards his feet with the energies from my hand...worked a treat...he even asked if i'd like to meet his sensei the following week...(probably to beat me up)...

a wierd thing that did happen, i tried something impromptu as he was such a good subject, i stretched out my hand and asked him to place both of his onto my palm and push me back in my chair as hard as he could, but he'd feel his strength leave him....

he pushed so hard he went skating back in his chair and nearly fell out of it..ok, fair enough, im quite a big lump, but even so...

and the old thinking of mixing the suggestion side in with a sure-fire workable effect is a definate yes for me too...

When people talk about failure in front of an audience they seem to forget that the audience is - unless everything goes wrong - on your side the entire time. Nobody in their right mind pays to see a show, whether it's a mentalism show, a play or a film and wants it to be bad. As you step on stage, you can actually feel the tention in the crowd. Everyone is worried that you, and the show, is going to be sh*t.

Mentalists often say, have a quick snappy opener that proves your creditials to the audience. Why are you doing this? Not for your benefit (directly) but for the benefit of the audience. You're saying to them "don't worry, I know what I'm doing and this show is going to be worth more than the entrance fee." Once you've established this and the audience is at ease, you can now get on with the show.

What's this got to do with failure? Well, the audience don't want you to fail as much as you don't want to fail. And, by-and-large, they'll do everything they can to see every effect as a triumph, even the one's that don't work. Spectators, on stage, are always more concerned with 'not messing up the trick' than catching you out. If you mess up effects, you will be responsible for ruining the evening and if they mess up the effect, then they are responsible for ruining the evening.

A great show and a good evening is only something that can be achieved if the performer and audience cooperate. Even the best effects fall flat and that's when they work. If you have a good rapport with your audience then they'll carry the energy over to the next effect. If you perform 5 effect and one fails, it simply won't matter to your audience.

If you worried about a 20% failure rate then get out of mentalism now. Considering that some of you audience will be good at maths, experienced in psychology, and familar with old effects rehashed about 20% of your audience will have been sussed some of your effects by the end of the show.

And, for good measure, unless you are a top magician, you should consider 75% total success-rate pretty good going.

..plus...no one likes a smart @rse...

no matter how entertaining they may be...

S. Lea wrote:When people talk about failure in front of an audience they seem to forget that the audience is - unless everything goes wrong - on your side the entire time. Nobody in their right mind pays to see a show, whether it's a mentalism show, a play or a film and wants it to be bad. As you step on stage, you can actually feel the tention in the crowd. Everyone is worried that you, and the show, is going to be sh*t.

Mentalists often say, have a quick snappy opener that proves your creditials to the audience. Why are you doing this? Not for your benefit (directly) but for the benefit of the audience. You're saying to them "don't worry, I know what I'm doing and this show is going to be worth more than the entrance fee." Once you've established this and the audience is at ease, you can now get on with the show.

What's this got to do with failure? Well, the audience don't want you to fail as much as you don't want to fail. And, by-and-large, they'll do everything they can to see every effect as a triumph, even the one's that don't work. Spectators, on stage, are always more concerned with 'not messing up the trick' than catching you out. If you mess up effects, you will be responsible for ruining the evening and if they mess up the effect, then they are responsible for ruining the evening.

A great show and a good evening is only something that can be achieved if the performer and audience cooperate. Even the best effects fall flat and that's when they work. If you have a good rapport with your audience then they'll carry the energy over to the next effect. If you perform 5 effect and one fails, it simply won't matter to your audience.

If you worried about a 20% failure rate then get out of mentalism now. Considering that some of you audience will be good at maths, experienced in psychology, and familar with old effects rehashed about 20% of your audience will have been sussed some of your effects by the end of the show.

And, for good measure, unless you are a top magician, you should consider 75% total success-rate pretty good going.

DAMN That's a great post!

No way could I have put that better.

When performing close up for people I have found exactly as described above.
Most of the time if you screw up you can mask it or quickly move on to the next effect but on the occasion where it's all gone very Pete Tong the spectator / s tend to urge you on to the next trick and tend to dismiss the mistake and move on before you have.

Sorry - I've only just come across this. I know you said you were going to create a thread on the subject, Mr Browning, but I couldn't see anything when I initially looked (I think I looked in Misc). I wondered if you meant that you were going to create it later. And then that perhaps you had no intention of creating it at all, and had said so simply to MESS WITH MY MIND. And then I thought I saw some kind of shadow move by the door, out of the corner of my eye, and thought that might be you too, and I became quite frightened.

The last few days haven't been easy. Still - that's all over now.

I think a pertinent point here - and generally - is that there's big divide between the amateur and the professional. I don't mean that professionals are better ('in a different class'), though this may often be the case, of course. It's not the same as the gap between, say, amateur and professional footballers. It's not the categories themselves, it's their audiences. For all sorts of reasons, performing exclusively (or almost exclusively) for friends and family is very, very different from performing for strangers. Obviously, performing professionally, for people one has never met, is much more demanding in many ways: please take that as read, because I need to concentrate on the opposite side of things for a moment to make my point.

You simply cannot get away with much of the stuff you could get away with in a crowd of strangers when the specs are three of your mates. Some of it you couldn't even begin to do - either because the premise simply wouldn't fly with people who know you well, or because it requires, say, the specs not immediately and comprehensively discussing what has happened with each other the second you've finished. By the way, I should probably mention that I'm an amateur (though, in my case, also in the 'quite rubbish' sense too). I will sometimes do a little magic in a professional setting, for strangers, but hugely rarely - it wouldn’t be fair: I'll be there being paid to give a reading/talk/lecture so, brilliantly executed and cleverly illustrative of the literary point I'm making as it might be, the people really didn't come to watch me do 3 Cards Across. Anyway, what I'm saying is that I think a lot of disagreement about the material/effects/etc. that are being sold comes down to the different needs of amateurs and professionals (and the hobbyists vastly outnumber the professionals, I'd suggest: the low/mid-end magic market is a market that relies absolutely on people who will never perform the tricks that are being sold to a paying audience).

While I acknowledge that Mr Browning needs nothing but his brain, his lips, and perhaps a small number of his fingers to perform all evening, Ps generally aren't gimmick-shy. If something can be done without them, 'Great,' but if they are required, well, 'Meh.' They terrify As, though. Especially gimmicked decks. Because, for As, it doesn't end with, 'Everyone give Bob a big round of applause!' and a hand on the base of his spine to carefully start him off on his journey back to his seat. It pretty much always ends with Bob calling out, 'Let me look at those cards,' and launching himself across the table to bodily wrestle the pack from you. 'Totally impromptu': again, for the P, a desirable thing, but hardly the deciding factor when choosing effects for his act; for the A, it’s almost a requirement - anything that needs a set up is going to cause real problems.

I think it's in that context that you have to see the failure rate issue. (Let's leave aside the question of whether it's possible to do genuine mentalism - rather than mental magic - with you mates, who know you far too well.) A failure to a P might be one dud, in a whole set, for one audience on one passing evening, and the leeway for bluffing and re-framing he has means he can quite possibly make it appear a success anyway. For the A, it might be the only thing he does that night - and he's been practising/building up to doing it for a month - and he won't be able to disguise what’s happened with nimble verbal footwork, because his mates won't buy it for a second, and they will loudly rip the pee out of him about it for weeks. No A is going to be keen on 'This will work seven out of ten times.' He has only a limited number of audiences available to him too - if those three failures are the first three, he may have no seven to move on to. The A's situation completely demands he ask, 'Will this work all the time? And will it work with my big-mouthed, contrary brother-in-law?'

There's quite a good case, I think, for actually adding an extra bit to the Review template to say whether the item is appropriate for As (secret assistants, many dual reality thing, etc., simply aren't).

Sexton... I love the fact that you can actually see the difference between the pro and the hobbiyst and applaude you for this. Sadly, the majority of hobbiysts believe that if they can afford to buy something (or arrange to have it by alternative means, which many do, sadly) they believe they should be able to run out and play as if they are Derren Brown or Steve Banachek when such simply is impossible and not the case. BUT, there is one other division in here you didn't see (which isn't unusual)...

Even within mentalism itself we have other "divisions" such as Old School vs. New School; the Quasi-Real vs. the Analytical Performer, etc. So you will find someone like Max or Banachek who have no trouble with using a gaffed deck (as per you example) while others, like myself a.) refuse to even go near playing cards; and b.) if we were, generally will not use something that can't be controlled and taken out/switched in regards to audience curiosity. Then again, the ardent hobbiyst can learn how to do a deck switch and avoid the kind of headaches his grabby chums might wish to lend him... I'm not a card guy and I know I've heard that in more than a few lectures over the years... it's part of the whole "being prepared" thing and how we transform a trick into something magical.

Truth of the matter is, if one weans his/her self from depending upon props & gadgets and learns how to actually approach mentalism, not as it being a unique form of magic trick, but under the idea of being a genuine psychic (which you will find encouraged in many of the older books as well as the works of Bob Cassidy in my recent years)... if you present things as happenstance or in a nonchalant manner, your chums will become far to paranoid to dick with you.

I was having coffee the other morning at the local Starbucks, as is my norm. As I sat there reading a magazine article I was causing a plastic Bic writing pen to spin about on the table while more or less ignoring it... let's face it, your typical wizard would practice things in a way that would be almost subliminal... second nature, right?

Well, needless to say this generates curiosity and in short time I had a couple of young ladies asking questions, disecting the pen, inspecting my finger ring, etc. Yet, the more the dug, the less they found and to some level, the more gimmicks I introduced by switching in and out duplicate pens for doing various PK type manipulations (I have a set of about 5 pens that all look alike and actually take on the appearence of being one single pen)... and yes, I have "outs" as it were, for the wiseass that wants me to use his or her own pen, including a method via which I can negate a pen for being "magnetic" and at the same time, transform a non-magnetic pen into having magnetic properties.

Confused?

By rejecting an item offered because it is obviously magnetic, I have just taken away, in the mind of the observer, one of their explanations as to how I accomplish these "miracles"

This is kind of thing has nothing to do with being "Professional" but rather, learning how to think like both, a genuine psychic and a cunning charlatan; a salesman wishing to promote something unique. In this case, an experience that defies explanation even within the mind of your average magic hobbiyst.

Now this is where you have placed yourself (in your own words) but it is a voluntary role. Granted, it does take some time for study and experimentation to get out of this limited position, but then again, we are all born with some level of creative impetus and a sense of resource; invoke this and work with it and you will find ways away from those touchy-feely kinsmen that love to dish you grief... you will learn to turn the tables and have the fun you deserve and in so doing, you will have them telling others about how a.) amazing you've become; and b.) they watched you struggle and hang in their, studying and developing your abilities.

You don't have to make mentalism your vocation in order to apply professional ideas and approaches to things. Then again, you should never sell yourself short; there is always a way of turning potential failing into a sense of triumph.

Obviously, performing professionally, for people one has never met, is much more demanding in many ways: please take that as read, because I need to concentrate on the opposite side of things for a moment to make my point.

I find it much easier to perform for strangers in a club setting, for reasons S. Lea mentions above. They've paid to see a performer, they want him to be good and they're ready to believe that he will be good. I have actually been on stage where the opposite is true, comedians thrown to the crowd to be heckled and abused. I remember once waiting backstage and literally feeling the vibrations from the baying crowd. One of the waiting performers was actually crying. It was horrible but that's another story.

Most people on stage for the first time, I'm talking about specs, have no idea what it will be like. The audience is just a wall of darkness, there's a bright light shining directly in their eyes and if the sound is bad they hear their own voice coming at them from the back of room every time they open their mouth to speak. In this situation they are, 95% of the time, willing to say or do anything you tell them to.

A further point is that if you are performing in the UK, the chances are strong that 98% your audience has never seen any type of mentalism in their lives, or even know what to expect. If you are doing straight magic, the last magician most of your audience saw was performing at a child's party. Over complicated magician-foolers are simply not necessary.

Performing professionally makes many demands, but audience control is rarely one of them.

You simply cannot get away with much of the stuff you could get away with in a crowd of strangers when the specs are three of your mates.

This is spot on.

Some of it you couldn't even begin to do - either because the premise simply wouldn't fly with people who know you well, or because it requires, say, the specs not immediately and comprehensively discussing what has happened with each other the second you've finished

Which is why magic/mentalism in an informal setting is so hard to do. Making it, in my opinion, the most difficult type of magic to perform.

and the hobbyists vastly outnumber the professionals, I'd suggest: the low/mid-end magic market is a market that relies absolutely on people who will never perform the tricks that are being sold to a paying audience

This is also spot on. It often seems peculiar to me that the overwhelming bulk of magic is sold to people who only want to perform it in informal settings and yet the magic on sale is so poorly suited for these settings.

Another point, that I was discussing offline, is that when you perform for friends and family, they are much more interested in you and how you did it. A guy on stage isn't really considered too much after the performance, people simply accept that he knows how to do magic. But if you peform a strong effect people will hassle you well after the effect has been performed.

Suppose you perform a book test with a copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula. All an interested friend has to do is google dracula magic and click the 7th link down. Or you take out your trusty BW deck and later a different interested friend types card reversed magic into google and clicks on the 3rd link down. The next time you see your friends, it's "hi Steve (or whatever) have you brought your brainwave deck with you?" Cue laughter and snide comments.

What is left after these thoughts is pretty much what Craig said.

learning how to think like both, a genuine psychic and a cunning charlatan; a salesman wishing to promote something unique. In this case, an experience that defies explanation even within the mind of your average magic hobbiyst.

I like to think of my own mentalist efforts as hoax rather than mentalism. When I devised The Russian Man it was intended to be a hoax. That is, I knew the audience would not beleive they were seeing a real pyschic but someone pretending to be one. They still paid the entrance fee but why - to see a charlaton? Of course but not just any charlaton, a brilliant one. I'm not saying I was brilliant just that that's what they hoped to see. The thrill for the audience comes, in part, from experiencing just how easy it is to be fooled.

When it comes to performing for your friends and family you have to peform a perfect hoax. They know full well that you're not magic and suspect you of buying a load of cheap tricks off the internet. To fool them you need to earn their respect and a $50 purchase off Ellustionist probably isn't going to do the trick. If you are going to perform for friends and family you need to put in as much effort as if you were going to pull off a genuine hoax.

My hands shake when I perform a simple card trick for the barista at Starbucks. But when I perform a hoax, for any audience, I feel only the butterflies you get before any kind of presentation, magic or otherwise. Because I know for certain that I can not fail.

Well, I'd never play a hoax on anyone

Copyright brings out something and I'm actually surprised he didn't bring it around as I was expecting him to... the fact that a quick Google will deliver answers to the typical busy-body and our need to overcome that particular issue. The answer oddly enough, is found in Corinda, Annemann or any number of BOOKS. (that's a clue as to where I'm heading with this...)

I had a student who, about a year ago, did a simple routine for his magic club mates that blew their mind. They asked where he got it and he told them "Corinda"... they argued and argued... no one seemed to know that the effect actually was in said book though they claimed to have read and studied it. The trick in question is known as "The Crystal Locket" on page 187 and it happens to be a gem of a piece when one has taken the time to "make it" such.

In the past week there was a coo about some punk exposing all sort of Billet Moves on UTube... so what! IF you learn how to work billets for real, in real world settings, no one is going to catch you!

How is that so?

Because "knowing a move" is not the same thing as knowing what to look for, when or even which move a performer might be employing. I've NEVER be caught on a billet switch or read and I consider myself to be quite sloppy at it; especially now days. But unlike magic, where people know you're going to do a trick, a properly worded and staged presentation of Mentalism removes the audience's need to suspect you of cheating and actually inspires them to support you, to believe in you, and to want to see the "experiment" actually happen in a way that is positive.

This kind of "Investment" is what makes mentalism so strong but it is also what makes it so much easier to do when it comes to the sneaky mechanical stuff we sometimes do. The catch is, we need to learn how to "talk" to folks and not make is sound as if we are spinning a web of lies or feeding random B.S. This is not easy for most, especially those with long and strong backgrounds in traditional magic and worse, heavy skeptic perspectives; this results in what Stephan Minch called "Magician's Guilt" (not to be confused with the blinks and hesitations associated with slights, etc.) It's also why people like Cassidy will tell you that Mentalism "ain't for panzies". It takes guts and it takes one's personal ability to lie in a way that seems a complete and totaly viable truth. In fact, I always tell my audiences the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and in so doing, they think I'm lieing by butt off.

In telling folks "the truth" however I am deliberately feeding them information and naming resources (magazine articles, studies, etc) that they can read and gain confirmation around what I am saying. This creates even greater misdirection for me in the future in that the reading of this information sustains me in what I'm doing; I end up with allies vs. a bunch of chums that think I'm cracked and seek to give me a hard time.

Anywho... I've lost my train of thought... I'll let you guys chew on that for a bit.

in my own way, i kinda like the challenge of performing for friends...

now, my friends are absolute horrors, but i've found something interesting (to me at least!) about them all when it comes to magic...

one is enthralled by any type of card magic, however simple...

another loves any kind of suggestion work (and he's an excellent subject)

someone else loves all the victoriana side of things, like the psychic block escape stuff...

i have only one grumpy card grabbing friend, who just likes to annoy me, but i remember sorting that out with the following...

i had him sign a card, lose it in the pack (he had already started to grumble); i put the pack down and said that it might be a strange concept to accept, but he would not be able to see his signature on the card until i said he could...

so i turn the top card over, he sees no signature ...a hand movement or two and a nod - "there, back to normal now", i then shapeshifted it (a move im not especially keen on) to make the signature re-appear...

so yeah, friends on the whole as has been said, are quite a pain in some ways, but good in others...

yet whenever i perform (and i only do after dinner parties/small gatherings and so on, not full on stage-work, and the occasional pub thing) i've seen a massive difference in the behaviours, theres sometimes an exception that there might be someone with a big mouth on them or who wants attention, but thats very rare...(so far!)

it is strange and wonderful thing our mind i think, how willing we can be to accept complete strangers explanations and abilities often without any pause for thought...but thats the beauty of excepting the journey of what we all do...

I'm slightly concerned that Copy appears to be gathering more flesh to himself. It reminds me of the journey from a skeletal beginning that Imhotep travelled in The Mummy - each additional layer signifying another step closer to the point where he would destroy the world. I do hope this similarity is not telling.

That aside...

copyright wrote:I find it much easier to perform for strangers in a club setting, for reasons S. Lea mentions above. They've paid to see a performer, they want him to be good and they're ready to believe that he will be good.

Yes. I think it's also more comfortable, in the sense that there's a clarity that means you're secure and confident when it's a professional situation. You're not 'thrusting yourself on people': it's your obligation - the fulfillment of your part of the unspoken contract - to do whatever it is you're going to do; and, moreover, to do it with an assurance that'd add to the idea that you were an ego-maniac if you behaved in that manner while in the newsagent's, say, or at a funeral.

copyright wrote:I have actually been on stage where the opposite is true, comedians thrown to the crowd to be heckled and abused. I remember once waiting backstage and literally feeling the vibrations from the baying crowd. One of the waiting performers was actually crying. It was horrible but that's another story.

Which, in fact, strengthens the above. The crowd behaves like that not (only) because it contains a critical mass of tossers, but because the performer isn't seen as quite human. While this is the bad side of that, the more usual one is that he is automatically given a slightly unhuman measure of control and respect; he can ask, apropos of nothing, 'Where do you come from?' and you'll answer, whereas, if someone on the street asked the same thing, you're reply, 'What the hell has it got to do with you?'

copyright wrote: Over complicated magician-foolers are simply not necessary.

Ah, that's another thread on its own. 'Unnecessary' is more, I think, that the game is very often not worth the candle, and, not infrequently, you're actually going backwards. I was watching a Ken Krenzel tape a while ago, for example, and he did this little monte thing - quite lovely and perfect. Then he went on to elaborate, 'Then, for magicians, I do this...' and - never mind that, technically, you're now bringing in a second deck and all sorts - the directness of the presentation just started to unravel. Then there's all the effort and running about that goes into (again, for example) having a trick use 'No forces!'. Well, as far as specs are concerned, there are always No forces!, but some of these things seem to practically - or even said-out-loud explicitly - 'remove suspicions' that the specs never had purely out of a desire to flag up to any watching magicians that you're doing this a 'cleverer' way.

copyright wrote:It often seems peculiar to me that the overwhelming bulk of magic is sold to people who only want to perform it in informal settings and yet the magic on sale is so poorly suited for these settings.

This reminds me of something even worse. Let's call it, um... YouTube Magic. That is, tricks that are no good in informal settings, or indeed any setting, except for performing to a fixed camera placed directly in front of you at a particular height. I'm sure you must download some of these things and the instructions begin, 'This effect needs to be performed to a single spectator, whom you've already secured to a chair with electrical tape - also, as it's sensitive any kind of depth perception, try to select someone with a neurological disorder or only one eye.'

But, bringing this back to Failure, on whom do you test new effects? Strangers or friends?

But, bringing this back to Failure, on whom do you test new effects? Strangers or friends?

On effects I create myself I give them out to people who test them in different settings. Since almost all mentalism/magic is performed by people at leisure in social settings I design all my stuff to be used in that environment. Anything that can go over performed in a coffeeshop, your office or over the christmas table can be modified for stage use. At the moment, I have a reasonably nice sample of people from different backgrounds.

It's funny you can have an effect that goes over really well with everyone except one group of people. In the old working of my chess test, where you can set up the board in the same position that your spectator is thinking of, people who didn't know how to play chess figured out something suspicious in the method. It turned out that because they couldn't play, they mentally ignored all the chess and just followed instructions without thinking about what was going on. The funny thing was I chose the old method to make the effect more interesting for non-players. After the feedback, I changed the method and feedback I'm getting is really promising.