talkmagic.co.uk

By your argument when people hear you are a psychic entertainer a lot will associate that with being a fake. If you, Craig, as you say, use card TRICKS - or things which your audience perceive to be card tricks -in your show, then why should they suppose that you aren't using trickery for your other bits and pieces? Like you say, you can't have it both ways.

Firstly I have the advantage of a very unique sense of "preshow" that was known to the old timers but is of the ilk not so liberally encouraged in today's world; I am known in the New Age/Pagan community as a legit Reader, Metaphysical Teacher/Counselor and pedigreed minister. In the mind of most that see me work this is my vocation and magic is just something I dabble in.

Secondly, when I am doing a full evening program I explain to folks up front that there will be some little odds & ends involved that aren't to be taken too seriously... it's there for fun and it's rather obvious that this is the situation as it happens. This is something that's accepted and I've yet to have anyone question it.... Let's face it, my version of POISON MONTE spoofs the classic American TV Game Show complete with music scores, gamer's stands, buzzers, flashing lights, etc. It's kind of hard to digest such a presentation as being anything but a bit of fun... a magic trick if you would, though it still holds to the Psychic idea.

When I was doing my Consumer Shows we closed with my PSYCHIC HOTLINE routine which I introduce as being 100% pure fraud, allowing the audience to see for themselves "just how real a fake psychic can seem".

That is what folks encounter in my Commercial programs so you can be comforted in the fact that my shows aren't dry or anything remotely close to boring. The catch is, I also exploit that reputation I have within the New Age & Pagan sub-culture; something I've patronized and been an identifiable part of since the late 1970s as a teacher, speaker, writer, healer, reader, minister, et al. No, this isn't a misleading course of action and I can assure you I'm doing nothing immoral or unethical via this side of my work. But I do allow that shut-eye association to help add to the "aura" I project when performing. It is a potent psychological tool that helps invoke that level of belief (and dis-spell the disbelief side) I require -- that psychological investment -- for creating the AFFECT in the mind of my audience, that I'm after.

Not to contradict what you're implying, but yes I can have it both ways so long as I'm being honest with my audience and concise in my wordage as I present things.

The fickle concept of shifting anchors and modifying perception is, as you should know (if you've actually invested some time into working with NLP and associative memory techniques) requires repetition and time when the "hook" as it were (such as a deck of playing cards) become a part of one's personal law. I just can't imagine any magic hobbyist investing the time required to remove such a deep set idea from each patron's mind just to prove me wrong...

As Tomo has re-enforced in his post above, it is the performer that shifts the idea of what's up in his/her mind and for some reason that makes it fact to them. It is not fact to the laity and when magical entertainers begin to remove the cotton form their ears and actually listening to their patrons, they'll realize this (and that's not a slam towards Tomo or any one in particular, it's a cover-all statement).

I say things like this because it took a handful of old salts busting my chops for years until I started LISTENING to people and paying attention to the public's reaction vs. what I wanted to hear (or believe). I know that in the short time I've been on this forum as well as the years I've been on others, a small handful of former detractors have slowly admitted that they've found what I say to be a bit more "true" than they wished. I don't say this for the sake of blowing my own horn, only to point out that there may be a message in here that is getting rejected or blocked out for the wrong reasons and if we are honest with ourselves and serious about wanting to be the best in whatever area of performance it may be, WE MUST GET OUT OF OUR OWN WAY.

These things aren't "my opinion" they are "the secrets" handed down to me by my teachers over the years and they are a genuine truth that I've come to slowly accept and acknowledge after years of trying to do things "my way" and running into road blocks, points of frustration, etc. I share it in a rather evangelic spirit in the hopes that others will catch on quicker than I did and thus, be able to go further towards their goals faster.

With regard to "card tricks" no less a person than Maurice Fogel (probably the best mentalist of the lot) stated that cards in a mental act were perfectly acceptable since playing cards have been used by psychics for divination purposes for centuries.

Fair enough Craig, I just wanted to pick up on a few points:

The fickle concept of shifting anchors and modifying perception is, as you should know (if you've actually invested some time into working with NLP and associative memory techniques) requires repetition and time when the "hook" as it were (such as a deck of playing cards) become a part of one's personal law. I just can't imagine any magic hobbyist investing the time required to remove such a deep set idea from each patron's mind just to prove me wrong...

I get what you mean - the subconscious' preferred way of learning is analogical - the association of ideas. It is when these associations go awry that people may need to seek help, and of course such things take time. I cannot see peoples association with a pack of cards carrying as much emotional significance however, but that's something we'll have to disagree about.

(Just as a case in point, people can go with negative ideas about magicians to see a skilled performer and come away with a much higher appreciation of the art - though this is different to the card trick/mentalism relationship, it's what I'm aiming to do...one day!)

My performances hint at the psychological aspect of things anyway, so in this way I guess my use of cards is seen fair.

I am not arguing that what you say isn't sound advice - merely that I do agree with all of it. Times change, people change; maybe not in the space of a few generations perhaps but certainly over hundreds of years. After all, many centuries ago we would have been burnt alive for what we do. Who can say how magic will be perceived in centuries to come?

I just wanted to offer some possible trains of thought. I don't think any of us can say to know the absolute answers, and that looking at things from different perspectives makes for interesting debate anyway.

I'd just like to make a point here and see if anyone agrees with me. I think that the public's perception of magic has shifted considerably over the past few years. While 15 years ago magic might have meant "light entertainment", thanks to Blaine, Brown and (lord help us) Criss Angel, the public's perception of what magic actually *is* has shifted to a slighter darker place.

When I sit down at a table, the reaction I'm most likely to get is "Ooh, you're not going to spook us out too much are you?" 20 yaers ago those same folk would have been expecting a stream of one-liners, jokey put downs and mickey taking. Now they're expecting someone who's going to freak them.

It is in this light that many professional (and hobbyist) magicians have incorporated mentalist/psychic elements into their work. Simply because the public expect it.

On Friday I did a Halloween show. This was the darkest show I had ever performed. The audience (an intimate ensemble of 16) didn't bat an eyelid when I introduced the seance and the ouija. They may have expected it because this was a Halloween show, but they also expected it because that's what they'd seen other magi do "on the tele".

Just a thought.

oh my gosh!!!! just seen all the posts, looks like i started a war funny tho as this is talk magic forum and not talk mentalist forum sorry criag very in depth opinions which is more than plenty on food for thought. david blaine is a cock----tail of magic and mentalism and he gets away from it. i believe never to mix up the two tho in a one act show. either do one or the other. it looks so much stronger to perform mentalism on is own in a short act i you do get people questioning you.

mark lewis wrote:With regard to "card tricks" no less a person than Maurice Fogel (probably the best mentalist of the lot) stated that cards in a mental act were perfectly acceptable since playing cards have been used by psychics for divination purposes for centuries.

Stop stirring the cauldron Mark

Fogel was a commercial entertainer that used a Mind Reader's theme akin to the Dunninger formula. I know that you know the difference and I also know that you've had more than a few moments where you favored the more "questionable" side of the game... so let's not move in a direction that will really get these poor guys in a twist as they try to figure which end is up...

Craig Browning wrote:As Tomo has re-enforced in his post above, it is the performer that shifts the idea of what's up in his/her mind and for some reason that makes it fact to them. It is not fact to the laity and when magical entertainers begin to remove the cotton form their ears and actually listening to their patrons, they'll realize this (and that's not a slam towards Tomo or any one in particular, it's a cover-all statement).

I understand all the words you wrote Craig, but the actual sentences make no sense whatsoever. Have another go. We'll get to the crux of your argument eventually.

I must inform Reverend Browning that I am not "stirring any cauldrons". Everyone knows I am not the type to do such a thing. I am merely stating what Fogel himself said on page 229 of the 13 Steps to Mentalism.

i was booked for a little dinner-party show for tonight, but it got shifted to sunday (just gone)..it went really well, i was very pleased, thankfully the hosts and guests were too...my point is this:

i started off with a gambling demo, which in turn changed into a couple of magic effects, which were all framed around synchronicity (spelling?!) and intuition...then a little chat about the history of cards, which lead me onto using a stacked tarot deck and an effect from Geist...

then we had a little break and a chat, and we touched upon ghost stories, spiritualism then Houdini/Conan-Doyle...and i performed some story driven effects, a rattle box and an "Invisible" ring amongst others that i wont bore you all with (i do enough of that)...

i still have major problems with labels though, i've never once said I'm a magician, nor a mentalist...i don't wish to define myself in that way, purely because i think those labels are more important to us folk than to the audience...

my whole framing for things is a mix of relaxation, the power of the mind as an untapped resource, and esoteric studying...at this moment in time at least, im sure it'll change and grow as i get better...

i still believe you can use cards as well as going onto more "serious" stuff, if given space and time to breathe and let each area bleed across into one another...like the roots of the one tree - magic has many foundations, many things buried underneath it to discover...i believe you can use it all if given the right approach...

But look closely to what you've done Abraxus... a.) you held to a viable theme (intuition), which permitted a logical sense of segue; b.) you created a "break" in things before moving into the more esoteric (Ghost Story) type routines.

This is exactly the way it can and should be done. Even when Copperfield was featuring his Ghoststory shows he seperated the more esoteric stuff from his traditional commercial magic via an intermission when traveling or some sort of logical segue that bridged the audience's sense of focus.

This is my contention in that most we find out there do not create this kind of psychological transition and thus, they end up hurting themselves and short-changing the act.