talkmagic.co.uk

A few points, that I feel are important.

- Having a script does not exclude improvisation. If you think of something funny to say, you can say it. If you want to chat a bit with the person, you can do it. On some nights you may not even use your script a whole lot. But having a script also means that you don't have to come up with something funny to say - you are not at the mercy of the muses.

- Having a script is not the same as having a bad script. Knowing what to say is not the same as basing your act on lame one-liners.

- A script well rehearsed does not sound like a script. A mediocre actor is one who merely remembers his lines. At the lips of a great actor, those same lines are fresh and wonderful; spoken for the first time - even if those words are "to be or not to be".

- One thing worse than a magician who is just rattling of the words from the instructions, is a magician who is making it up as he goes. It either gets too wordy or he has nothing to say after all. Granted, there may be a few who can actually do it (for those who read this and think "that's me" - you're probably wrong), and in very informal settings it may not be so bad, but in general I wouldn't really want to watch such a performance.

I'm genuinely sorry contrabass101, but I have to disagree with you there, most vehemently.

I truly believe that you would find my performances entertaining. Why would you be any different to anyone else?

About applause. I am a little gobsmacked that you have said that without a routine, people would not know when to clap, but when I perform a certain effect, it gets applause at certain points- no prompting, just appreciation.

Don't confuse the 'go away now ripple' of applause at the end of the performance for appreciative rapturous ovations. Sorry, I jest, but there is an actual difference.

And about the script, contra, you are not telling me that you believe all magicians are actually aware that they are just actors, playing the part of magicians. To most, these are just words, somewhat poetic in prose, but still just another saying that floats about the magic world, from one deaf ear to the other?

A scripted act is exactly that- scripted. I wasn't even going as deep as a script, just a regulated procession of effects, but scripting patter is insane!! Yes, always carry a notepad and write down observations and ideas, jokes, etc., but to put them into a set routine is to take them out of context.

Maybe I could explain this better if I say that to me, so much magic is mechanical, by nature of the gimmicks used, but for true entertainment, you cannot better the organic performance.

Most magicians remind their audience of the last magician they saw, but my aim is to remind them that magic is a wonderful artform and to ponder the greats of times passed.

When I perform, I am advertising for magic and magicians, not, unlike so many magicians that do, advertising how amazing I think I am. I can and do perform on my toes, and if I get the chance to work with any of you, you will see the advantages.

This way, I can and do deal with anything, from people taking the deck from me, looking at a card and telling me to find it after they have shuffled the deck, to a complete drunken riot (just for the record, in a drunken riot, just join in- magic has no place there, and besides, anarchy rules, yes?)

But, once more, I digress. I wanted to mention something about the ACR you mentioned kolm, and don't worry about going off topic- please feel free to digress- we can have a few conversations at once, no problem.

My comment regarding the ambitious card routine, is something I have played with and developed into a very commercial effect, and before anyone says that I must have routined it, they would be right, but not in the way they might think. In other words, it is different every time I perform it, or almost, as I am bound to repeat it on occasion.

But it is not an ACR exactly, but is also exactly that, at the same time, but much more. What I am saying, is that it is excellent practice to play with effects, even the classics, and personalise or improve them.

How can you improve a classic effect? Classicly. No, it is possible, and perception plays a part here, somewhat. But, to me it is not enough to perform a simple ACR, because it is not very interesting. Even if you end it by involving a wallet. I would love to share this effect, but I have told other magicians about it and it is not good practice.

I intend to create a d.v.d. this year, to compliment a lecture that I am putting together, and it will hopefully include studio explanations and a massive live section or full disc. I am not doing this to make money, or compete, but because I have knowledge and information and developments and sleights and moves, and.... well, lots of stuff that I think is useful, will be appreciated and will be used in varying quantities.

Also, it is to inspire. Stop copying, start creating and become the best your potential perspective will allow. The other aim of the d.v.d. is to produce something for a very reasonable cost- some would call it a bargain.

Anyway, that was not an advert, because it is a future idea, not a product, but more magicians should produce them, and maybe it would bring the price down a bit and maybe, just maybe, the magic community could see these d.v.d.'s as a more attractive buy than the tosh single effect Ellusionary d.v.d.'s with gimmicks.

I would buy a d.v.d. created by ten unknown, or Talk Magic magicians, over a single effect or similarly trash d.v.d. anyday.

Of course, there are always exceptions. But, back to the ACR. There are a multitude of methods for ending the effect, but why not drop your pants and poo on the dinner table, pick it up and say, "Eh? Not bad for a bit of sh**e of hand!"?

So sorry, I don't know what came over me, or is it who? I apologise for the poor taste humour, but I had to raise myself to that level.

Anyway, I hope we can continue this discourse into the untalked about, unquestionably holy methodology. I do understand, by the way, why so many magicians use and stick to routines, but I also understand the various excuses (many similar and most the same) for doing so, but this is no excuse for not going beyond your self imposed limits, and exploring the 'other side'.

Routines are for those that need to have mnemonical pigeon holed systems to abide by, which is a shame, because the magic world is one of the few places where I see true creativity and ingenuity in the world today, and this is just to mention some of the products that are created, never mind the performances.

But for those of you that are knocking the idea of a non-routined gig, have you tried it? It would be interesting to read some accounts, good or bad, of what happened when you tried performing freestyle or on the toes, and all that Jazz.

Opinions are great, but with this bunch of replies/posts/comments/views/opinions(?), could we possibly have a little more input from you? Maybe some explanation of what your views are and maybe something to back up your opinions, or else they are just opinions, and I cannot learn from them, so they become lost in the contextual web. Excepted, Dale.

My spider sense is tingling. I'm not psychic for nothing. Do you have a website "Mustafa"?

I on the other hand completely agree with Contrabass101... vehemently

I suppose it could all depend on your definitions of script and routine but to say that having a script is insane is ... well, just insane. Here's my tuppance at any rate:

Why routine? Well, to reiterate what others have stated, otherwise it's just a collection of tricks cobbled together with no cohesive story or journey to take the audience on. Yes you can, and indeed should improvise to a certain extent. If you perform a routine a number of times and certain elements don't work then you change them. This is basic evolution of your act and any magician that doesn't do this is arguably doomed to a life of mediocracy. With experience we can start to practice this evolution 'on the fly'. An example (not a real life one and probably not a good one either, but an example nontheless):

I perform a number of very 'psychicy' effects, something akin to readings and these go down VERY well with my audience. I can look ahead to the rest of my performance and think to myself, with some confidence, that a smash and stab* that I have planned isn't going to hit so well so I scrap that and perfrom PK Touches instead.

Going out on stage (or wherever) without a clear idea of what you're going to be performing and how... that's just stupidity.

As for scripting, well, as I mentioned before.... performing without some level of scripting is pure insanity. Much of our misdirection is cued within our patter, amongst other things. Should you leave that to chance? Not on your life. Yes, alot of how you interact with your audience shouldn't be scripted and I have a very special term for this kind of interaction. It's all about building a rapport with any volunteers and indeed the audience at large. I like to call it...... conversation.

themagicwand wrote:My spider sense is tingling.

It's not your spider sense, it's your common sense.

themagicwand wrote:I'm not psychic for nothing.

No, you're psychic for very reasonable fees

themagicwand wrote:Do you have a website "Mustafa"?

Seconded, we're obviously in the presence of an established and OH so experienced performer.... we've much to learn!

*I don't actually do smash n stab, but it seemed a very contrasting effect for my hypothetical example.

daleshrimpton wrote:funny... I can read peoples minds long distance.
Shame on you chaps!

Guys...

This is an interesting conversation. Don’t let your curiosity regarding the poster detract from that

A routine isn't some set in stone thing that you MUST do this and MUST say that. Imrpovisation is as much a part of what we do as the endless hours of practice and having eighty decks of cards scattered around the house is.

What a routine provides is structure. Generally, effects in a routine become more impressive as the routine goes on so that the conclusion is the climax of the whole thing, it is the most impressive part. There's always room for improv in there, because when working with a real audience you cannot control every single thing that happens (unless you have a shotgun, that generally works for crowd control).

If you abandoned a routine in favor of greater creativity, you would just be doing a handful of tricks. They would not lead into one another, there would be no set up for the next effect, and the progression would be all over the place.

In the past year I've gotten pretty good at knowing the "wow factor" of the effects I regularly perform. So I know I do this first, then that, then that other one and finnish with the best (that's a very scientific way of explaining it.) That way, when I am done with the last trick and (hopefully) gotten the reaction I wanted, there is a sense of closure and satisfaction. If its just an assortment of tricks, the reaction is not progressive, you can totally stun them and then perhaps do something that gets little more than a "meh".

Structure helps manage the reactions, helps increase them by steadily doing better and better things. Without it, there is no act, just a bloke doing a bunch of seperate tricks, which sort of loses some of the character, doesn't it?

Mustafa Trickatoo wrote:I'm genuinely sorry contrabass101, but I have to disagree with you there, most vehemently.

I truly believe that you would find my performances entertaining. Why would you be any different to anyone else?

I might. You might just be exceptionally well gifted at improvising, and if so all the better for you.

For my own part, though, doing tricks without a script is a guaranteed recipe for disaster, as I guess it is for all beginners and most pros. I may not mess up the moves, but I will definitely become way too long-winded. One "ehm" is one too many.

And to judge from youtube, that happens to 99% of us, when we have not thought carefully about our effects.

And about the script, contra, you are not telling me that you believe all magicians are actually aware that they are just actors, playing the part of magicians. To most, these are just words, somewhat poetic in prose, but still just another saying that floats about the magic world, from one deaf ear to the other?

While it may be true that those words have been said too often for anyone to actually understand them, I hope every performer is aware that presentation is everything, and that he is engaging in a performance art.

A scripted act is exactly that- scripted. I wasn't even going as deep as a script, just a regulated procession of effects, but scripting patter is insane!!

I see.

While some effects shouldn't be put next to each other, or in a certain order, or even in the same act, I don't see much harm in not going through the exact same effects every time. Structuring the effects in a meaningful way is important though.

For the individual effects, though, scripting may be hard work, but it is thinking you can succesfully ad lib every time that is insane.

Maybe I could explain this better if I say that to me, so much magic is mechanical, by nature of the gimmicks used, but for true entertainment, you cannot better the organic performance.

You diagnose the problem well, but I believe you are off in prescribing the cure. And if you will pardon my use of an over-extended metaphor, among organic beings, the intelligent ones usually have a spine.

Stop copying, start creating and become the best your potential perspective will allow.

Absolutely!

"Originality" in a music-setting (which I'm honestly more used to) does not mean always getting up on stage and improvising. It means putting a lot of actual effort into writing the music, rewriting it, rehearsing it, rewriting it again, rewriting it again, and when it begins to sound decent, you can begin performing it. Why should it be any different in magic?

Also: What everyone else said.

Contrabass101 wrote:
"Originality" in a music-setting (which I'm honestly more used to) does not mean always getting up on stage and improvising. It means putting a lot of actual effort into writing the music, rewriting it, rehearsing it, rewriting it again, rewriting it again, and when it begins to sound decent, you can begin performing it. Why should it be any different in magic?

Also: What everyone else said.

I like this analogy, I think that just about sums up everything said previously. Well put

Okay,

Dear Van der belt, you posted in your last taunt:

"Why routine? Well, to reiterate what others have stated, otherwise it's just a collection of tricks cobbled together with no cohesive story or journey to take the audience on."

Why, if you do not routine, does that HAVE TO be the case, and this is what I am talking about. Just for the record, I am a close-up magician, and for the record, to go out on a stage without a routine, yes, would be crazy mad thinking, and almost destined to failure, and at the least a skeletal routine for large audiences or cabaret, etc., but as we have established, there is still space for improvisation in those cases.

You are wrong, Van. I am sorry, but there is no other way to put it. Your comment is based upon a pre-conception that is grounded upon the advice of others and personal attainment of the status promised in that advice and it is not based upon the experience of learning- just the experience of following.

Look, I don't get why you would hold someone that could perform without a routine (and very well) so highly. Surely you don't see it as that alien, weird far out and just not the done thing? Really, you should at least try performing more improvisation than script- it does work, and we are all capable of it. Maybe improvisational magic needs explaining?

Van, you attempt to exercise risibility with the concept of conversation, so make your mind up- do you have conversations with people or perform magic.... hang on, did you say you performed spikey hand? Tut, tut, tut. No, won't go there- learn the hard way.

Anyway, only half-heartedly responding to your post, as it was a sneering attack upon my porevious posts, but that's fine, but if you persist in these pathetically cynical sarcastic taunts, I will have no other option but to perceive you as an idiot, and just ignore you in the future, which is a shame, because anyone will tell you that when you meet me, you would probably get on with me, but then nothing is definitive..... except the definitive things in the world.

Are you so insecure, and this is addressed to anyone that feels like attacking what I have posted, that you have to try to big yourselves up by putting down others? I am trying to be constructive, but maybe I have made a mistake in joining this site, but I am prepared to stay and finish what I have started, and have had much much worse to deal with, so onwards and, hopefully, upwards it is then.

This is what I am talking about- your advert for a bad attitude:

"Seconded, we're obviously in the presence of an established and OH so experienced performer.... we've much to learn! "

Anyway, magicwand, if you are not going to add to the content of this post, could I kindly ask you not to post provocative posts, in the presence of certain individuals that might jump upon them, like a foaming dog on heat with a bone, please? Thank you, very much, and much appreciated, good sir.

Okay, Matthius88, you posted this:

"If you abandoned a routine in favor of greater creativity, you would just be doing a handful of tricks. They would not lead into one another, there would be no set up for the next effect, and the progression would be all over the place."

Why? Why, if you can perform your effects so well that you do not need to mark them in order of preference, but instead you know where they fit. I am actually amazed by the reaction on here, but I expected it, to some degree. You are stating the obvious, but not addressing my points, just opposing them, vehemently or not.

I have performed to a routine, and without one, and when I perform without one, it is so much better. Better for the bookers, better for the audiences and spectators, and better for me (still only talking about close-up and walkabout, not stage here, by the way, but my stage act is enhanced by using this methodology, or view of performance.

You also said this:

"Structure helps manage the reactions, helps increase them by steadily doing better and better things. Without it, there is no act, just a bloke doing a bunch of seperate tricks, which sort of loses some of the character, doesn't it?"

Again, I disagree, because I never perform a bunch of tricks. My whole act is 100% professional- 100% entertaining. I do so much unseen work, you would think I am mad to go to such lengths, but they are not lengths, if you assume them as part of being a magician. Actually, I have written out routines and created routines for many effects, but these are nuances, more than scriptures.

I love magic. In fact, I love it so much that I am only doing this in the hope that it might help your perceptions, and aid you somehow, maybe add to or improve your performances, and if not, then nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The bottom line, and many of you are not going to like this, is that I am all for skill, and not at all for self-working, or gimmicky effects. Why? well, I will tell you a story in the post, but later on, about a conversation that the dearly departed, and loved so much by me, Patrick Page and I had, but there is a time and a place for everything.

I prefer control as opposed to force. I prefer pure skill. Why? Because it breeds confidence. Gimmicks and self-working tricks exist for two reasons. One, the creator will find it easier to sell a self-working, or gimmicked effect, than one which requires, study, work, or practice. Two, money based supply and demand.

But, I digress yet again. Conta, I do like the first post you posted, but not sure I like the spineless reference. If this is referring to me, could you please elucidate for me? But, you are a gent, and I genuinely like your tone. My only point is, that doing a performance without a script is not ad-libbing all the way through the gig. I mean, my effects are solid, for want of a better word, and the stringing together of them isn't even an issue.

Do I know what affects I am going to do, when I go to a gig? Nope, nor in what order, but I guess I do have structure, as I know which of my effects are openers, but by definition of 'what the audience really want', I have learned to develop my performances, so they follow the audience, but lead and control them at the same time. It is very difficult to put into words. Or, it is difficult to be concise, as I am sure you are aware is a very important aspect, in relation to my posts.

Oh, Contra, your point about musical originality, has rather rocky foundations, as we are not writing musical scores. It is easy to analogise, but then to make the leaps of understanding from music to magic, when there is no relation between the two, is misinformed. Musical originality and magical originality? There is no comparison, as if you ask people, "For £50,000, would you like to name 200 musical artists or bands, or name 25 magicians?" Yes, they would go for the musicians, every time, unless of course they were magicians, etc.

But, the analogy is in scripting making it tighter, better and stronger, but this is what I am trying to explain. Yes, a routine is a good foundation, but beyond the boundaries of routines, there is a world of fun and true entertainment. I have never had a complaint for my performances, and have had many re-bookings, spanning over years, so I know it works, and besides, routining? Been there, done that, moved on....

Okay, I am being a little flippant, but I do have a point in there somewhere. As I said earlier in this thread, a routine would be the first stop for anyone I was trying to help with magic or advise, but the routining phase is just that, and one can sit rather comfortably in there for their whole career, but they can go further if they wish, and then they will have real fun and entertainment, and so will the audience.

As you all know, I'm sure, entertainment is a two way form of communication, oh, and about the rapport? I see rapport as paramount, but if you think conversation is the be all and end all of rapport, and that will do, then you do not understand rapport and how it works, and why it is so important, in any transaction between peole in any walk of life or situation. I like this method, personally, and aren't we getting on just fine?

Anyway, for now, will leave it at that, but would like to discuss this further, of course. I will leave you with this thought, though: "Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster", and, "Originality is the art of concealing your sources"

I concur.

MUSTAFA TRICKATOO

I think you should LIST your next dozen show venues & engagement dates so that any Magicians who are close by can come and view your out of this world theories and see what they are missing!!

Now that is a Challenge-- a real life chance to prove your points.

And a minor point. Shouldn't it be 'trickaTWO' or 'Trick or two?'

Allen Tipton

scripting is important...anyone who improvises and is good at what they do, has a script...

people confuse the notion of having a script means you have to stick to it word for word...it doesnt...

one of the best story tellers is billy connolly, if you think he just jumps up on stage and rambles...he doesnt...he knows exactly what he wants to talk about and how to move from one place to the next...

regardless of when he goes off on a tangent, he'll always return to his inner script...

You did mention acting must have a trick or two, and said that it was just empty words spread around by magicians. Whilst, yes, that may be the case for many magicians, have you ever studied acting? Please study acting, study scripting and routining and then explain what is so innefficient about it.

I can honestly tell you, I NEED a script for certain effects as they rely on a carefully positioned unspecified verb here and a subtly pronounced phonological ambiguity there. Also, I have spent many, many hours structuring just a single routine so it fits together coherently, thematically in a suitably entertaining and theatrical structure, with twists and call-backs and so forth.

Could you imagine how bad '12 angry men' or 'the shawshank redemption' would be like if they just got a camera and got all the actors to just make it up as they went along. You may well end up with a 'whose line is it anyway' but you would have no resonating dramatic masterpiece.

Quite honestly, I like this suggestion best and if you are for real, then you should have no reason to deny us the honour:

Allen Tipton wrote:MUSTAFA TRICKATOO

I think you should LIST your next dozen show venues & engagement dates so that any Magicians who are close by can come and view your out of this world theories and see what they are missing!!

Now that is a Challenge-- a real life chance to prove your points.

And a minor point. Shouldn't it be 'trickaTWO' or 'Trick or two?'

Allen Tipton

Who knows, we may well have a magical copernican revolution and all experienced magicians past and present may be proved wrong. Or... maybe not.



Oh and yes:

IAIN wrote:scripting is important...anyone who improvises and is good at what they do, has a script...

people confuse the notion of having a script means you have to stick to it word for word...it doesnt...

one of the best story tellers is billy connolly, if you think he just jumps up on stage and rambles...he doesnt...he knows exactly what he wants to talk about and how to move from one place to the next...

regardless of when he goes off on a tangent, he'll always return to his inner script...

I think if we are to work by this analogy, we can all remind ourselves of Ricky Gervais at the Diana thingy. It was painful.

And continuing the brilliant music analogy. Yes, you can improvise and sometimes you come up with some great stuff. But do you think Hendrix or Marley got famous from just getting up on stage and making up songs as they went along? Of course they didn't. (For God sake, even Marley's song 'Jamming' wasn't improvised!) Neither did Motzart or BB King or any other legend that pops into your head. I know some people who MC or whatever its called- essentially they are incredible at improvising lyrics, but generally they tend to go something aloing the lines of:
'I raa banged ya mom, then da police came and i hid me bong, den i came here to sing dis song, and my thingy is raa long, now i've run outta stuff dat rymes with ya mom, coz i iz da bom... bo selecta'

Off the top of someones head, its quite impressive, but nonetheless hardly revolution inspiring, brechtian social commentary or a captivating and entrancing artaudian journey...

Jimmy Page (and tenacious D and I'm sure many other musicians) just improvised to a tape. After jamming about and coming up with some stuff they listen back, evolve what sounded good and from improvising some interesting stuff comes about. The solo for Stairway to heaven was improvised at the studio (If my memory serves, there were three improvisations). But still... I don't quite think that the anthem that is stairway, is something your likley to accidentally stumble across each night in improvisation.