talkmagic.co.uk

Damn Tod, that's more stuff than I'd use in a full show!

As is well known I own a SUC case and use it for two things only; an astrology match bit that Mark featured in one of the books dealing with the device and for pocket writing, that's it. Beyond that I have never found a need, nor any sense of logic being having such a contraption. But then I rarely use a Swami gimmick even though I have a slightly different pov when it comes to them. Doing a Book Test while strolling... I'm sorry old man but that's just hilarious and well over the top... the exception would be if you happened to be in a room where magazines, newspapers or actual books already existed and you worked them into a demonstration; that is when the routine becomes an intrigue vs. a trick that you just happen to have on your person... at least in my experience.

As I've stated, 90% of the time if I'm strolling, I do little other than Readings... after all, most everyone present has hands and a face and a name... you need nothing else other than your own charm and a git of psychological savvy. If I'm not doing standard readings I may have some billets, including my Butterfly device and of course golf pencils. I am sometimes set for Cassidy's Jazz Q&A routine which is little more than billets and a TT.

The objective of the Psychic Entertainer is to be as clean as he or she can possibly be, not dressed for war with every James Bond gadget on the market. Though I have major issues with Tomo, I still have to give what I know about his Naked Mentalism a big thumbs up when it comes to this point. It's not necessarily original to him from what I've been told, but it does extend a sense of challenge to the performer that is rather over-due. Then again, we are seeing more and more of this kind of contribution through the works of Alain Bellon, Jerome Finely, Devin Knight and others.

Admittedly it is a personal pet peeve, but I stopped being a "Magician" nearly 20 years ago e.g. I no longer have an excuse for filling my pockets with stuff. Not when I know my craft and strive to fulfill my role as well as my obligation to the public, by removing those devices that could lend to them a means of reverse engineering and thus, the loss of enchantment... especially for the more skeptical in a group; the sort I'm quite proud of "converting" with great frequency because I've robbed them of the common explanations found in their most common resources. But that is very much part of my job description and as I was taught, the obligation of anyone claiming to be a Mentalist.

I'm not "Picking on" you Tod, but your outline reveals far more closely what not to do than what is timely and practical; it's magician's thinking stemming out of magician's habit... something we all are prone to as we start out in the transition away from the one and into the other. Sadly, it is a trench many find more comfortable in that they can play in both worlds rather than making a dedicated choice of investment one way or the other.

Mental Magic, such as you describe of yourself, is certainly more commercially viable -- it's safe! It likewise lends a great deal of production value when doing "a show". But it is not Mentalism, even Larry Becker admits to this, recognizing that much of what he's done for years is just that "Mental Magic" vs. the more Kreskinesque mode of things in which a greater degree of realism was set into place and next to no "gadgets" (other than his silly blinder around his note pad... it's very old school but quite out-moded).

Mental Magic can be far more "fun" so to speak and much easier to learn than true Mentalism, which is rarely as forgiving. Though it too can be loads of fun the reason for the glee stems from an entirely different state of mind. This is likewise true of Bizarre Magick based on whether you are presenting a ghostly "seance" type routine or things more tongue-n-cheek such as the late Gene Poinc would do via Lizzie's Bunny's or Kal the Kadaver Karpenter... (which is still one of my favorite bits to pull out every now and then).

The Less is More attitude is well outlined in Paul Book's ALCHEMICAL MAGIC and given the number of accolades the book received within this forum alone, I find it peculiar the scores of folks that have yet to embrace the lessons and principles it expressed.

but enough of my preaching

Serendipity wrote:

DominicRougier wrote:fundamentally, if you have access to that kind of power, why are you apparently waiting tables? It's another disbelief to suspend, and one too far for me.

How is that any different to being a magician? If you had the ability to transform one thing into another, or to make things disappear (or whatever) why would you be waiting tables?

That's a good point.

Personally - and this thread is only meant to be personal opinion - I perform magic as "a trick", or as something sneaky or clever that, perhaps, implies something greater or has some higher metaphor. The fundamentals, however, are still grounded in reality.

So, as a magician, I would not implicitly or explicitly demonstrate power.

Actually, let me revise that. Currently I claim to be doing nothing more than I sort-of-actually am, that is through misdirection and sleight of hand, controlling people's perceptions... and when you can control how people see the world, you can direct how people are allowed to think.


As a bizarrist, which is something I've been thinking deeply about recently, reading the Golden Bough and plowing through some Crowley and Mathers for ideas, even functionally similar effects would not work (for me) at a restaurant table.

Likewise mentalism.

I dearly love magic, but I hate it just the same. For my money it's too often trivial, crass and wholely lacking in wonder and mystique.

I want to make art, dammit, and to hell with these comfortable nests we build for ourselves.

Magic is not art. But I'll be damned if I don't try.


Now, from a purely commercial point of view, and indeed from the technical point of view, there is nothing wrong with a bizarre routine, mentalist routine, whatever in pretty much any conditions... but I'm not sure that's for me.

Perhaps the way to perform magic that isn't crass or lacking in wonder and mystique is to stop grounding your magic in reality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should start invoking dark spirits or using pixie dust as you wander the tables at a wedding, but perhaps you'll find some of that wonder by presenting what you do not as tricks grounded in reality, but as pieces of real magic, suggesting something miraculous.

This is in no way an attack on you, this is something I've been trying to apply to my own magic for some time.

This is true, but what's been interesting me is the idea of grounding magic in our mystical reality.

I mean, people have created systems of magic, divination and their own elements of wonder for thousands of years - clearly (well... clearly to me) they speak to something fundamental to our psychology.

No magician in history has just been able to "do" something - power has a price, and an underlying logic.

No spells have ever been cast for no good reason, both drama and human understanding require a cause-and-effect.


This is only a personal opinion, as I've said. It is not meant to infer that any other way is inferior, although (currently) I believe that this is a way that is working for me, it certainly has a lot of room for expansion, and opportunity for the creativity that I crave.

My routines for "strolling" (weddings, restaurants, corporate etc):

Mind reading with cards (bikes or tarot depending on setting).
Mind reading thanks to imp device.
Tarot & palm reading.

In the words of Gordon Ramsey: "Done."

I disagree with you Craig, as I like variety for each set of people I encounter, and this allows me to vary what I do. Sometimes I use most of it, sometimes not.

I am a magician and I peform a range of things that can be broadly classed as mystery entertainment.

As I said in my post, the bookings have been for a mix of things and this setup suits me fine. I have found that older clients prefer conjuring while younger ones prefer mentalism, and I can do both. I am not sure why we have to choose between one or the other, why not enhance your 'performance possibility frontier' by engaging in both genres and heed the advice of Ken Weber in Maximum Enetrtainment?

For other bookings, I travel lighter, and for the stage show, much heavier. It is possible to do a whole strolling gig with a set of business cards and some envelopes. On these occasions I have simply chosen not to.

Paul Brook's work is excellent, but still contains lots of cards, padlocks, envelopes and the like...so not sure if that is as minimalist as you suggest.

I am happy with the way things are going and appreciate that we do different things differently. Works for me, might not work for you...c'est la vie!

I see no reason why you couldn't or shouldn't perform both magic and mentalism. I've read all that's been written about mentalists being believable and that's it's totally different performance style to a magician. But for the average punter, they don't know the difference. So what if I've ben pulling coins out of ears at the last table, they don't know that so what's wrong with switching style and doing something more mindy?

In the couple of paid gigs that I've done, I've come across very different types of people. Some love silly, fun magicans tricks, others love to be baffled with some mentalism. If you can pick and choose what you perform for who and are versatile enough to be able to change then I'd imagine that you're going to be far better off than the magician\mentalist who is constricted to one style.

Maybe, just maybe - we do not all wish to adhere to the same stern 1930s and earlier definitions of what mentalism was/is.

With any artform, it has to adapt and move in various ways. Therefore, just like other artforms, the individual expresses themselves via that medium, not represents the artform in a rigid and preset manner defined by someone else.

Just as a set of oils and canvas in one person's hands would yield different results to another set of hands. Substitute hands for heads and mouths, and oils for stationery - then hopefully the gist is clear. Unlike that explanation.

Even in the 50s and 60s, Nelson was saying that mentalism should move on, the old psychic ways were outmoded. People want the more mystic mixed in with psychology and other such "new wave" thinking (back then).

Old ways are often the new ways, however - to prescribe how some artform SHOULD be portrayed is not the way forward i feel. I do not "stroll". I lounge around at a table. Let them come to me if they so wish. However, if someone approached me and i thought them an engaging and interesting character i certainly would watch in the hope of being mystified.

If all mentalists did readings, pretended to be psychic...they'd all be the same. Seen one mentalist, seen 'em all.

Paolo Cavalli, Greg Arce, John Riggs, Jerome Finlay, Derren Brown. All entirely different people, different characters. But all employ both magician and card techniques, as well as the obvious and not so obvious mentalism ones too. But all mentalists. Just different strains of.

In John Riggs dvds (highly recommended as is everything by him) - he tells you his thoughts on mentalism and even the use of cards therein. It boiled down to offering his bottom to be kissed if you didnt agree. He also gives readings.

Greg Arce regularly works at the Magic Castle, puts out fantastic work and is very talented. Doesnt give readings.

Different framework, different styles, different people. Embrace individuality. Turn your back on being told how things should be. My thoughts.

The only time you'll be destroying anything, is if you are rubbish at what you perform and have no personality.

Duplicity wrote:The only time you'll be destroying anything, is if you are rubbish at what you perform and have no personality.

Take that one to the bank Dupe!

Excellent stuff, again it bears repeating that I was just after your thoughts and opinions though - I'm not after your (or anyone else's) advice per se.

As I said, with anything creative, but especially magic it seems, there are no rules - it's a field which, practically, only really has about 200 years of development behind it, since Robert-Houdin.

There are no right answers for everyone, and no one way to follow, but there can be a "right" way for you, personally, which you have developed to suit what you understand about your character, and also your performing persona, however similar or distinct those two creatures are.

An opinion or a point of view is never wrong, and indeed should be encouraged. When arrogance overcomes you and you start believing that your way is "right", we start running into problems.

Amen to all that Dominic. There are perhaps some basic guidelines about doing the best job you can, putting in the practice and being professional, entertaining etc but after that it's a blank canvas waiting for each performer to create their own individual work of art. Time and time again I find that as soon as someone says a particular approach or effect isn't right, somebody else comes along and shows exactly the opposite - and long may that be the case !

DominicRougier wrote:Excellent stuff, again it bears repeating that I was just after your thoughts and opinions though - I'm not after your (or anyone else's) advice per se.

As I said, with anything creative, but especially magic it seems, there are no rules - it's a field which, practically, only really has about 200 years of development behind it, since Robert-Houdin.

There are no right answers for everyone, and no one way to follow, but there can be a "right" way for you, personally, which you have developed to suit what you understand about your character, and also your performing persona, however similar or distinct those two creatures are.

An opinion or a point of view is never wrong, and indeed should be encouraged. When arrogance overcomes you and you start believing that your way is "right", we start running into problems.

Spot on and good luck!

Duplicty... I know every single person on that list of yours at a fairly personal level. I also realize that your kind of cherry picking when it comes to a few of them who I know for a fact, strive for the more pure "hands free" mode of working.

I'm unsure, but I thought it was this thread that I pointed out how "Mental Magic" is more commercial. I also believe that I've pointed out how I will, when doing a full show, throw bits of Mental Magic into the program from the sake of production value and to allow the audience to relax a bit. But I'll lay money on it that John Riggs will laugh at the guy carrying 101 gimmicks on him and thinking himself a "Mentalist" or the jerk that does a dozen or more cards tricks with nothing else for contrast & variety, that claims the same.

I know that Greg Arce is primarily a magician that does some mentalism and the fact that he "plays the castle every night" is a misnomer in that most any member can pull up a chair at any available close-up table and amuse guests... I was a regular in the old dungeon show room as well as the pub for years and worked many a private party there right beside John Carney and others

I'm also the guy, if you were to check out the older copies of On-Line VISIONS, that talked about incorporating grand illusion technology as part of one's Mentalism so as to add production value and "fill the stage". To my knowledge I'm one of maybe 3 people in the whole of magic history to cover this topic to any sense of depth and if I were still doing larger venues with big stages, I'd still be tossing in my more grand forms of demonstration... such as using the Kevin James Blizzard as a totally unexpected revelation that's never failed to give me a standing ovation.

Yes, Nelson encouraged a growth that was appropriate at that point in time when it came to performance theme. For the 60s and 70s that angle was more than perfect. However, in the 80s and 90s things started swinging back towards mysticism and if you really want to take a look at the whole "New Age" thing, it started in the 60s with a witchcraft revival that has grown considerably.

I can assure you there remains and probably will forever be, a much more steady market catering to the mystical side of things than you have folks wanting to have intellectuals looking down their nose at them or smartasses making fools of them by way of tricks that look like tricks.

What you seem to be defending is the right to do mentalism just as poorly as people have done magic for years. Even Tod's reference to Alchemical Tools proves the fact that his attitude toward it all is just like the typical novice... he focuses on all the tricks vs. the philosophy shared by Paul in said tome. I find it rather interesting how so many seem to ignore 2/3rds of that book while remembering the section on tricks.

The PEA was created originally, to keep the deeper secrets of Mentalism exclusive to the working professionals of said industry. It managed to get thrown off track for a time, costing itself many noted members. In recent years it seems to be trying to recapture the essence it once stood for but then, there are those such as Jerome Finely and others, that are facing the issues by way of exceptionally limited and controlled release of their products and selling it at a premium. Let's face it, $1,000.00 for an eBook more or less limits who is going to have access to the information and will do well to guard against the other side of our current trends in magic -- piracy and the deluded idea by many of today's younger people, that all information should be free. Though this forum don't seem to have the abundance of abuse found elsewhere, it's still an issue and one that creative minds have gotten tired of suffering over. But the other side of their suffrage, as it were, is watching nincompoops torment audiences and destroy their creations by presenting said mysteries as a bloody magicians trick rather than the kind of miracle it can be when studied and executed properly.

Yes, "Magic"... "Enchantment" as Kenton would say, is based on the performer for the most part; the individual that's willing to actually invest his/her time into learning their art... their area of specialty NOT everything in the proverbial book! It is physically impossible to serve two masters and do them both justice and that seems to be just what you're encouraging. It is a path however, that brings about a thing that is less than it could be when single-minded focus is set into place. This isn't my exclusive philosophy it is one that has existed not just within magic but life for eons; every martial arts student knows it (or should).

As I've said, I understand how Mental Magic can be far more commercial than Mentalism... been there, done that. I likewise understand how the greater sense of form purity delivers a superior product, which is something every one of those guys you listed will tell you as well. Otherwise there would not be such a huge movement within the auspices of professional mentalism, to create a totally hands free mode of performance.

Oops... missed one point of yours Dup... using a technique from magic for mentalism or vice versa is entirely different than meshing the two disciplines. Coin moves were used with billets long, long ago as were card counts and slights... I don't see that as a trespass. But as Greg Arce will point out, you will rarely hear a mentalist trying to figure out how to put that coins across bit into their act while 99.9% of magicians will see a mentalist do a Book Test they they not only buy on-line that night but have in their kiddie Birthday party shows the following week (and yes, this really happened with MoAB and a former President of IBM that did the thing in full white-faced clown make-up... now, justify that one for a group of 5 year-olds )

Magician's have rarely extended any kind of respect towards Mentalism, it is one reason a huge rift existed between the two fields for years and still does to some level.

Craig

I merely referenced the section of Alchemical Tools that was relevant to the minimalist claim that your were advancing. I have read the whole thing and enjoyed it very much, especially his philosophy on performance. I have also enjoyed meeting him in person several times and discussing at length the performance of mentalism. So, once again,you take my comments out of context and misuse them for your own point, which is not very different from what many of us are saying.

The theme of the thread is on the possibility of performing strolling mentalism and it has been established that it is both possible and desirable,but differently achievable. There is a continuum of performance along which many of us self-locate or gravitate, and we also respond to our client's needs thus producing a variety of options.

And I'm afraid you've completely and utterly missed my point Mr. Browning.

I'm surprised you mentioned Paolo, Jerome and Derren. I also happen to know Paolo and Jerome and Greg. I would have thought you would have drop-kicked Derren by what i've read of your views on here.

The battle of the name dropping begins now!

No, no. I jest. However, you seem to have a very narrow view and may i say, at times - contradictory. What is proper and right for one person, is not proper and right for another.

Mr. Berglas's character fits him, and partially Derren's. A hugely respected man, and quite rightly so. But i would not think you could carry it off, as would Mr. Berglas would surely not fit your shoes well either.

I think though, that, all things being equal - that opinions are very much like bottoms. We all have them, but we should also learn when not to talk out of them.

Dependant on your character, delivery and everything else - a mentalist can use certain props within their own defined context. I love Mr. Riggs and his products - and he has definately influenced what i do. However, we are very different characters, and i would not be able to give a reading for example - due to his family upbringing and belief system(s), he can, and does very well indeed.

But, for you, or i, or indeed our patient reader of this somewhat long winded thread - to say that there is only "one way". Well that person is just plain wrong. If that were true, lets say in a universe created by your god-self (sic), let's call it craigsville for sake of brevity - then every mentalist would be the same. There's room for Kreskins, Browns, Berglas'sssssssssss , Brooks, Riggs and Arces

There's even a little crevice for you. And way up in an ivory tower somewhere far, far away is little old Randi - peeking down onto the world - like a hairless Rapunzel.

In summing up m'lud - i just think that if the cap fits, wear it. And we should accept one anothers differing view points and maybe learn something new from one another.

Big kiss.