talkmagic.co.uk

Chances are people aren't going to ask to examine your things or think about it unless you bring it up. If you act casual and have a decent or good presentation with what you are doing. They won't even stop to think "I should have examined his props because of this or that reason." they'll be too busy remembering how much fun they had and how amazing you were.

And if one person asks to see the stuff, you can still say. I'd worry less about that one in a million guy not wanting to enjoy the show. As the old saying goes. The needs of many, out weight the needs of one. Why should you change your show just because you are worried about that ONE person who might not be that impressed with everything you do..

I think David Copperfield and Paul Daniels don't need to worry so much partly due to their fame and the cameras being there but if you was to ask them if they've come across this situation before they would say yes, just like if you all were honest you would say yes, it's just like driving, you could be a safe driver, but that won't stop someone else hitting you.

I do think Randy has a good answer, that you shouldn't need to change things just for that one time. For me, I will rarely use things that are gimmicked, and if I do it's not normally something in sight, it's a hidden tool, not like a gimmicked deck so anything that could be asked to be examined would be safe to. This is just how I work.

I don't feel that you will lose control if you did indulge someone a look, I guess it would be how you react to it as is comes, if you're hesitant and seem like they caught you off guard then maybe, but I would just come out with something like "ok, now that (X) is happy, how about we continue". It doesn't need to be such a big issue.

Does anyone ask to inspect David Copperfield's whatever he's using at the time?

Actually even Copperfield and other illusionists go part way to showing that their props are normal, having people come up on stage, bang on the side of boxes, etc...
shining torches through empty spaces, etc etc...

The thing is that, that's an important part of the effect, it just shouldn't be a laborious part of the performance - well no part should be boring, or stretched out.
It's also about your attitude and personality

Back to close up. A quick spread through of the cards face up saying, 'you can take any of these 52 here' should be enough to say these are normal, without actually saying it.
If you have a gimmicked deck, eg. the svengali, you can dribble the cards and say exactly the same thing.

It is posible to drive a nail into a plank with your bare hands (and some padding): http://www.oldtimestrongman.com/naildriving.html

However, most of us prefer to use a hammer.

Does that make us lazy DIYers, I wonder?

Being a little more serious, the answer is that this is a trade-off. Learning an ungimmicked version may have some advantages. The trick becomes something that you can do with a regular deck and perhaps even a borrowed deck (but as Mark says, there may be cards missing and the rest might not be in the state you need). The props will also be examinable, should you consider that this is a relevant factor (largely, I do not, but I entirely understand the contrary view).

On the other hand, the trick may become much more difficult. Making things easy for yourself is not necessarily the same as being lazy. Carpenters will often use power tools in order to do a job more quickly; it does not mean that one who only ever drills or saws by hand is better, or more industrious.

Making the trick more difficult may increase the chances of you making a mistake, or a spectator happening to look in the wrong place at the wrong time and spotting the move (misdirection is not always 100% reliable, especially in certain situations such as walk-around, and also the sleights may be angle-dependent). Excessive handling of props compared to a gimmicked version of a trick may lead the spectator to assume (rightly) that the trick is achieved by sleight of hand.

Relying solely on trick decks is a bad thing, in my opinion, but even if they are not necessary, they can be extremely useful.

I am not a card manipulator, and I have no interest in being one. There I said it. No disrespect to those who have spent a lifetime becoming one, but it is just not part of my personal quest.

However, I do tricks with everyday objects, and a pack of cards is indeed an everyday object. Sure, if you are "the magician" then people might reasonably expect you to do at least one card trick. I some times use cards to support another effect, but in other situations would not be averse to reaching for a gaffed deck, if the power of the effect warrants it. Even when I perform one, I would only use the simplest of sleights.

It's not that I'm lazy, or even a beginner, just not interested. Imagine if we criticised hill walkers for not being mountaineers, or joggers for not being olympic athletes, or operetta enthisiasts for not doing classical operas.

I also have no interest in performing magic for magicians, or obtaining their admiration. I don't perform as a challenge or to be a smartar*e amongst my friends, therefore don't get heckled. I just like bringing a little light relief or interest to others, so gaffed decks are fine by me.

just a personal view

David

Jing wrote:Actually even Copperfield and other illusionists go part way to showing that their props are normal, having people come up on stage, bang on the side of boxes, etc... shining torches through empty spaces, etc etc...

How is this different than what I already said? I specifically stated, the only time you should show or "prove" how above board everything is, is when you've scripted it. Copperfield isn't being challenged to show anything, it's part of the presentation.

I think my point, and comments regarding it are straying off topic, though - so I go back to the original thought. No - like anything else, it's not absolutely necessary to use gimmicked decks. Use whatever you want/need to perform. It's really down to personal preference.

Demitri,
I re-read your post, and you're right. I think we are saying the same thing - make the demonstration of items, part of your script and performance, wether you are a close up / iluusionist or whatever.

KISS

A TIT!!!

Arkesus wrote:

Magia San wrote:
Remember a magician should be able to do ANYTHING, and ANYTIME, so always be ready. I say don't use trick decks on the off chance you are faced with a real deck.

Is the obvious concept not to simpy be aquainted with both?

A friend will tell his/her friend about the trick, and if they get he same card, they will suspect.

Yes because a good magician will always repeat the same effect twice for the same audience.

Gimmicked are okay to use as a beginer yes, I agree with that, but as you get more into magic, only rarely should you use ANY gimmick, cards or otherwise.

Well, I am sure David Copperfield, Mac King, Lance Burton, Penn & Teller, Scott Penrose and countless others who have made a packet from gimmicks and props over the years, will welcome your advice.

I'm not meaning to sound like I am being picky here, but the sheer size of the holes in your logic gives me reason to point them out.

I am saying this as my opinion as a paid close up magician, not as fact. And as far as the repeat the same trick to the same audience, it is not the fact that I am showing the same audience, more as the fact that quite a few of my tricks have been apparently so impressive as to make people want to see them again, or make people want to make you show their friends, and yes, it is true that you can hol them off for a little while with other tricks, but people still want you to show their friends certain tricks. This is almost a guarantee for nearly every close up magician. And one thing I have learned, From personal experience, is that not showing others tricks is not the best way to go, and when you are in my situation, (being paid) (obviously I cannot speak for everyone, but as I say, personal experience) you REALLY want the audience on your side, especially if you want to get more gigs. As I say, when you do magic for a living every gig does count.

I am by no means trying to discourage others to use gimmicked or trick decks. It is just I have found from personal experience that people are wising to trick decks and, or so it seems, everyones brother owns a pack of gimmicked cards. They do ask if it is a trick deck, even when it isn't. Not because the tricks I do are rubbish, which I seem to remember someone saying, but because my tricks are that good, people think they can't be performed with a normal deck.

I apologise to anyone that takes this in a negative way, I am only speaking opinion from personal experience, which you cannot fault me for. But 'lay people' are getting wiser, this is one of the reasons magic is dying, that and the unorigionality of close up magic.

Magic is dying. Fact. Undeniable. And trick decks are so common that nearly everyone knows about them, I am not saying you should stop, by all means carry on, keep trying. But magic needs to be extra special nowadays. What magicians of today seem to be forgetting is that magic is NOT what the magician does, the magician meerly distracts the eyes. The true magic happens after the magician has left, it is not just in front of the audience, the audience IS the magic. The magic happen, truly happens, when the audience remembers it, when they tell someone else what happened. THAT is when magic is at it's strongest, NOT when the magician is present.

Therefore I think we shouldn't really have all this hoo-har over this less important physical side, as long as we make the tricks something that they will remember. Cliched as it is. Presentation is MUCH more important than the sleights you know, than how stunning you can make cuts look, than even having a pack of cards in the first place to some extent.


Again I apologise, this seems to have turned into a small lecture. Again personal experience and opinion, I mean no negativity by any of this, if you take any of that, I apoogise.

In my humble opinion the majority of people I've met who have a thing against trick decks usually have a bit too much of an ego.

They spent months and years learning sleights and so when someone tells them they can replicate the same effect with a gaff/gimmick/prop they get offended. The effort they expended in learning is essentially negated and someone who has spent considerably less effort in practising could re-create the same effect, which to a lay audience looks exactly the same.

I think a perfect example is 'Unshuffled' by Paul Gertner (vid here if anyone is unaware of the effect)

I really wanted to learn this effect but to do it requires you to perform several perfect faro shuffles - which, if any of you have tried to learn, is a bitch of a move to master. Took me a while, but I nailed it in the end and performed it a lot and got some great reactions.

Then this came out: Something From Nothing

Pretty much the same trick with no sleight of hand!!

Now, I can go on performing Unshuffled and turn my nose up at the trick deck version, or, I can think 'actually, using a gaff deck would take a considerable amount of heat off me nailing 5 perfect faros, with little lost in the effect'.

So, why wouldn't I use the trick deck in this case? Granted, if you are a strolling magician the amount of trick decks you can carry in your pocket becomes a factor.

I think the whole argument is pretty stupid really as laymen have no idea how a trick is done, so why on earth does it matter whether you use a gaff or use a sleight...?

On Devil's Picturebook, Deren Brown explains the research and sweat which went into trying to achieve an effect he wanted. Sleights, memorising and so on were all tried but in the end he just used a gaff deck.

Trick decks are as necessary as magic tricks themselves

Trick decks are like a Pizza...

Lawrence wrote:Trick decks are like a Pizza...

Trick decks are posh cheese on toast?