talkmagic.co.uk

Now I still maintain that I am not a magician, I am just a guy who does tricks who wants to become a magician.

Im not very good with a deck of cards, although usually when Im caught doing a DL its more often because of a dirty edged card that looks funny when stacked up, than because of an uneven DL (although I screw up sometimes) And I can do a couple other basic card sleights, nothing that a 7 month magician cant learn though with a little time and dedication (I started doing magic in late January of this year and its changed my life for the better)

But I went out and bought a couple gimmicks this week like Lethal Tender, Hopping Halves, a foam trick, and Im looking into getting a jardonet wallet, finger tip smoke I bought,and I already own a couple others, scotch and soda, ID, more will come to mind when I think of it.

I mean I can do magic with some ordinary objects, like a couple paper tricks, and a rigged deck of cards with a duplicate card and a blue card for here then there and chicago opener. But theres something about it that makes me feel like less of a magician because Im not taking ungimmicked items to perform my tricks. I got a friend who can do amazing stuff with ungimmicked items (although he hasnt picked up his phone in 2 weeks, probably because he has NOTHING to learn from me in magic)

Im gonna watch some royal road to card magic dvd to help offset all the gimmick buying spree I went on in the past week. I just hate the idea of being a magician who relies on gimmicks more than a rigged card deck maybe.

What do you guys think?

David Abbott, one of my favorite dead magicians, was known to not have much dexterity at all. It wasn't him. His talents didn't lie with doing invisible passes, perfect faros or even the french drop, for that matter. He was brilliant at carefully and deviously designing technically easy methods to fool the hell out of his audience. Teller, in his annotation of Abbott's Book of Mysteries, included an essay on finding your own strength and using it to your advantage.

So no, I don't think exploiting gimmicks and preparations, when done well, makes you any less of a magician.

Using gimmicks doesn't make you less of a magician at all, it's how you perform and entertain your audience that makes you a magician. It's fine to use gimmicks when they're appropriate. There are alot of people out there who only by gimmicks and haven't got a clue about slieghts. You do need to know some sleights I think but if you can routine a gimmick into your set then there's nothing wrong with that at all. Jsut don't become too dependant on them.

Do you feel like less of a magician when you buy a gimmick?

Does a plumber feel guilty if he buys a spanner?
Does a carpenter feel shame when he buys a saw?
Is a farmer less of a man, because he uses a tractor?

No.

Gimmicks are tools, a means to an end amd it doesnt make you less of a performer by using them.
What makes you the lesser performer, is HOW you use those tools.

Remember the secret of magic isnt secrets, its how you hide them

i dont think it really matters in the slightest when you use a gimmick most laymen and sometimes magicians get fooled even when a gimmick is in play and some think its just general sleight of hand

its how you use the gimmick and what you do with it is what makes the magic happen and also making people believe that what you do as a magician that makes it real there are many many tricks and routines that use gimmicks and for some tricks to work without a gimmick is nearly impossible

so it does not make you any less of a magician even the most famouuse of magicians use a gimmick and they amaze to this day

Firstly, it sounds like you're on the right track, good luck and keep with it

Secondly, I think there's a problem if you have too many gimmicks, or too early. If you start with sleights then the magic you do with gimmicks is likely to be far stronger.

In terms of pure magic, there are effects which you can only achieve (or only achieve so cleanly) with gimmicks - as a genuine example, my current close-up card routine has a total of one gimmick (a card to wallet), and only then because it would be impossible to otherwise get a signed card in a wallet, in a zipped compartment, in an id case.

The rest of the routine can be performed with any deck of cards, with no setup, and the gimmick is optional - the card could just to to pocket instead if need be.

Likewise, an ID by itself is a trick deck. With a little thought, it can be an amazing "out" for a psychological force, or you can use an idea of T.A. Water's (Mind Myth and Magick) and display a feat of a spectator's automatic writing - his routine was called "Automanticard".

Gimmicks certainly don't make you less of a magician, but they have to be used sensibly, and in such a way that they enhance what is already there.

Secondly, I think there's a problem if you have too many gimmicks, or too early.

I couldn't agree more with this point of view!

Everyone is different, but I began learning magic by working my way through the Royal Road to Card Magic and Expert Card Technique. By mastering the basics (like simple jog shuffles and card controls) you give yourself solid foundations to build your skills upon.

Introducing some gimmicked items later on is completely fine, as discussed on this thread, but the more sleights you have at your disposal the better prepared you are for any situation!

Although your pedigree as a magician will be ascertained by your performance technique I don't think gimmicks should be relied upon too heavily at this early stage!

90% of my favourite effects use a regular deck of cards - and my audiences are always blown away, but you must find your own path - as stated. Perhaps you will be 90% gimmicks and 10% sleights - and that's fine - but personally I think the beauty of our art comes from the execution of sleight of hand.

MagicBill wrote:

personally I think the beauty of our art comes from the execution of sleight of hand.

only for us.The audiences really couldnt care less how we do it, as long as we do it well, and in an entertaining manner

only for us.The audiences really couldnt care less how we do it, as long as we do it well, and in an entertaining manner

Haha Dale! But that's my point. I want to feel like I've fooled my audiences with pure sleight of hand - not a bunch of gimmicks! It comes down to personal satisfaction in the end.

Would Monet be equally as satisfied with a landscape he'd painted upon a blank canvas as to one where he'd 'painted by numbers'?

daleshrimpton wrote:The audiences really couldnt care less how we do it, as long as we do it well, and in an entertaining manner

Absolutely correct, but equally rolling out five store-bought, unconnected and highly gimmicked effects can also equate to "look at this neat stuff I bought", without care.

There's no strict material advantage to being "pure" or going gimmick-less, but on the other hand it does give you a lot more flexibility in what you can do, and how you do it. It is certainly a great advantage in any truely impromptu (as in "unprepared") performance as well.

There is, of course, a huge difference between utility gimmicks which are useful in a wide range of situations (TT, boon etc.) and gimmicks designed to do one thing only (uh.. the Raven I guess?)

MagicBill wrote:
Would Monet be equally as satisfied with a landscape he'd painted upon a blank canvas as to one where he'd 'painted by numbers'?

I can see your confusing art, with what we do.. Magic is not an art in it's self. The performer can be an artist, but once he or she pops their clogs, the "art" ends.
but to answer your question...

If they paid him the going rate for a monet ... Yep.

For me - any tool that fools/confounds/entertains is a tool worth using. You should never feel like less of a magician based solely upon the tools you use.

As well, the versatility of impromptu work is something to strive for from a personal perspective, but it doesn't need to be the goal of every single performer. I have many impromptu effects I can use in any situation, but that never stops me from carrying a few bits and baubles at all times.

I disagree with those who have warned against using gimmicks during the early stages of learning. In fact, I would argue that (measure) use of gimmicks is actually better for you at this point.

The greatest fear a burgeoning performer has isn't his material - it's PERFORMING. I knew every trick cold when I started out. I practiced for hours on end. I didn't flub because the gimmick screwed up, or because my sleight of hand wasn't up to snuff, it's because I lacked confidence. A prop or gimmick that removes the technical difficulty from a particular performance can help a beginning performer far more than it hurts. It frees you to focus on presentation, to focus on interaction and entertaining. Above all else, it bolsters our confidence in those crucial first steps. What's the problem with using a Svengali Deck to perform an ambitious card routine while you're working on a sleight of hand version at home?

I do, however, agree that you shouldn't rely completely on the gimmicks. A balance is necessary, if only from an entertainment perspective. As Dominic pointed out - blowing through 5 store-bought gimmicks without care is terrible magic. On the flip side, I can count hundreds of abysmal performances I've seen that rely only on sleight of hand.

What it all comes down to, is your performance - not what you're using. If it's entertaining, who cares how you pulled it off? The longer your stick with this, and the more you learn - the more you'll see just how plotted out and fully prepared our "impromptu" performances really are.

I think this is a case of magician's guilt in the same sense that magicians may be self conscious of their DLs. My thought is that, yes, there is a certain romanticism and purism in remaining truthful to sleight of hand, in that there is perhaps a deeply instilled vision or aspiration to being a wizard-like mage: capable of making an apple float in the air with sheer mind power alone, or to actually transforming one card into another without recourse to an Erdnase.

But then I wake up, and yes, sleight of hand does give you that enormous sense of satisfaction of having learnt a skill that that will remain with you when you are an old and fragile grandfather and you will have the impromptu skills to say, do an Asher Twist effect, and sit back in your rocking chair with a rueful but conspiratorial smile.

However, on the other (gimmicked) hand you have the ability to accomplish unbelievable feats of magic not otherwise possible. I agree with both camps, incidentally, but believe we have to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that excellent magicians, whether they are Derren Brown or Dynamo, utilise gimmicks to full effect. A mixture of pure sleight of hand and the invisible use of gimmicks (quite literally, the Invisble Deck, for example) transcend the limits of the humble examinable deck.

I agree as the above posts as to over reliance though. You definitely need a balance, if only for the personal sense of achievement rather than some young trickster who may £100 last weekend at a magic shop and repeatedly pull out wallet after plastic wallet.

For those who still have reservations, just think of Eisenheim in The Illusionist: that scene where he is lovingly carving wood to build an effect for me makes me feel more of a magician, in that there is a whole other side to magic, and that is the creation / building of effects. Whether this be on a more fundamental level of designing a routine to incorporate a sleight or whether you are a brainstorming an idea to create a gimmick to be manufactured and sold, you are still preparing an effect to be showcased. There is no doubt another skill in the building of an effect, and whilst the average magician would realistically not be making some stage prop, the principle is still applicable.

I compare this to a master chef preparing ingredients, chopping or finding the sweetest fruit: the art of cooking - as with magic - is not only in the actual cooking or showing of an effect, it is the honing of skills, the sourcing of ingredients / ideas / finding recipes and making them your own. The magic occurs in the presentation and the reaction of the spectator: whether this is achieved by gimmicry or otherwise is less significant than pragmatic audience amazement.

I totally agree with what a lot of poeple are saying, it really doens't matter what you use or how you do your tricks. The most important thing is that your audience go away entertained by what you've done.

It depends on the gimmick, I think. I've got no qualms about using my S Sharpie or reel, because those require an element of skill and provide a service that can't be duplicated without a gimmick. Packet tricks that use a plastic box as cover for something you should be able to do yourself - deck vanishes, etc. - I'm not sure I'd want to use.