talkmagic.co.uk

I didn't mention the word "mastered" intentionally, I am not saying I have mastered these tricks I am simply saying that I would like to learn some new material to the standard that I have learnt my present routines, which is to a good standard

magician242 wrote:I'm not a complete beginner and I can do a large amount of the sleights in bobos modern coin magic and I am competent in several of the card sleights in the books I have. I just wanted to know what you guys think of the tricks I have mentioned. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I don't think my performance skills are that bad that I need to work on them rather than learning new material, I understand once you have a new trick it is very important to work on patter and style, however all of the tricks I have at the moment I have learnt and I feel it is time to invest in some new material as I have performed them lots of times and I want something new to learn and work on so any feed back on the tricks that I have mentioned? also the version of chaos I was talking about is the one the similar to shinag, a selected card is found by pulling the cards out of a card spring.
thank you

That is the "chaos" I have, it is very knacky and takes a fair bit of practice to get it looking good- I've been practicing it for a couple of months now and I still wouldn't take it out to show spectators yet.

Seriously, you should never ever ever stop working on performance skills, it isn't about one or the other but ensuring you don't lose sight that magic is about performance and enjoyment first and skill second.

Anyway, I like iContact as a trick but as a prediction deck type trick I prefer the Anhilation deck.

Really? I really like the icontact ending a lot more than the annihilation deck's twist. I like the mentalism element of icontact where the prediction contains the card another spectator only thought of. The annihilation deck only has 1 prediction but icontact has two. I don't like the context of the magician's mistake in annihilation deck either really.

Have you seen childs play?

Lee Smith wrote:Have you seen childs play?

Jordan C wrote:

Lee Smith wrote:Have you seen childs play?

LOL I use this at nearly every group it is amazing. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN36-RCqcDs

My favourite effect to perform still at the moment.

ha ha, my bad. Thought you meant the film!

magician242 wrote:I'm not a complete beginner and I can do a large amount of the sleights in bobos modern coin magic and I am competent in several of the card sleights in the books I have. I just wanted to know what you guys think of the tricks I have mentioned. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I don't think my performance skills are that bad that I need to work on them rather than learning new material, I understand once you have a new trick it is very important to work on patter and style, however all of the tricks I have at the moment I have learnt and I feel it is time to invest in some new material as I have performed them lots of times and I want something new to learn and work on so any feed back on the tricks that I have mentioned? also the version of chaos I was talking about is the one the similar to shinag, a selected card is found by pulling the cards out of a card spring.
thank you

I understand your sense of frustration, but your original post reads like the fear-filled amateur that refuses (is too lazy to) learn the basic mechanics of magic. Learning "some" of Bobo and "some" of this or that card move simply isn't enough . . . Back in the mid-70s I had a Martial Arts incident in which I basically shattered both hands, even now my left wrist is seriously deformed (internally) and arthritis is making things even more difficult. . . but as I was recovering from said accident my mother realized that I'd never stop doing magic because of the tears she saw in my eyes as I tried relearning moves I'd known for years previous. . . it's akin to those dedicated to music that invest hour upon endless hour learning to master just one set of notes or fingering techniques. These are the things that define the magician and why individuals like Levand, Johnny Paul and several others out there, learn to overcome major physical limitations, giving to our world a glimpse at real magic -- the magic of the human soul when it is driven by passion.

I understand chasing after tricks, I did grand illusions for years and I would go after certain pieces for similar reasons. . . but, not before I knew where I'd use them and how. Sometimes it was simply a matter of studying the mechanics in that not all effects work the same way. Which brings me to the next mini-lecture; if you see a commercial piece you like, then develop something similar that is unique to you rather than running out and being another clone. If you have that foundation knowledge we've spoken of, you can do this, it's something the late Barclay Shaw did constantly; reinventing the commercial so it fit him and what he did not the other way around. One of the most important lectures I ever witnessed was Eugene Burgers tribute to Barclay and how the man's mind worked.

Don't take what I or the others have said as an insult, see it for what it's intended to be, a challenge and opportunity for you to improve yourself, your magic and what you're able to actually deliver. Understand too that when you word posts in ways similar to your OP, people are going to view you as being someone inexperienced and not focused on the things that matter. . . a trick chaser vs. a thinker. Too, you are faced with an audience here that believes far more in personal education than CUPS (if you don't know what CUPS is, just look through the threads around here where it's mentioned; let's just say that it's an affliction most all magic buffs suffer from).

Best of luck

magician242 wrote:Really? I really like the icontact ending a lot more than the annihilation deck's twist. I like the mentalism element of icontact where the prediction contains the card another spectator only thought of. The annihilation deck only has 1 prediction but icontact has two. I don't like the context of the magician's mistake in annihilation deck either really.

I've had seriously dropped jaws with the annihilation deck prediction but then it fits my close up persona. I'm not convinced that more than one prediction is necessary, having said that for a double prediction trick my favourite is "invisible" from Liam Montier's ultraviolet DVD.

As ever, I cannot put it more succinctly than Craig has done. I was a gimmick/gaff junkie when I started in magic. There is no substitute for learning your craft PROPERLY

As I see it, if a magician is able to amaze people and make them think that they have achieved the impossible then that is the definition of the job of a magician. Through the means he does this are of no importance. People always say you should not be put off an effect because you know the method. I am aware that sleight of hand when done well gives several of the greatest illusions known to man, there is something beautiful about having the finesse to carry out a move like that, but the point I am trying to make is that I think you are getting carried away by the idea that only magic that is beautiful to us magicians is good enough to perform for spectators. If you can accomplish an effect using gimmicks and gaffs as well as advanced sleight of hand, although you will be regarded higher by magicians, the layman will think they are both the same. Maybe some magicians don't like to think of themselves as cheating but that is our job, to deceive, it is not elegant that is another illusion we are using to make the spectators experience more enjoyable, we can play at being fancy with cards and just using gaffs, as we play with having a coin in one hand while concealing it in the other, it is yet another illusion. Remember "A magician is simply an actor playing the role of a magician". I am happy to cheat with gimmicks as long as the laymen believes it. Our job is to deceive and thus amaze, so if that means telling a dirty blatant lie then that is what it takes, I think you'll find the thing that Derren brown calls "showmanship" is polite for lies and deceit. I use gaffs and gimmicks and I should not and will not be afraid or scared to say that in this forum because that qualifies me as just as much of a magician all you professional magicians out there, whether or not you want to talk about sleight of hand is another matter, but as long as I can amaze people with apparent impossible phenomena, I will and I will be just as successful as the professionals as I can do effects as strong as theirs with means other than sleight of hand and of course using sleight of hand too. When magic gets to the point that sleight of hand magic is much more impressive than any other means of accomplishing an effect then, and only then will I rely solely on sleight of hand to achieve my effects.

The specs don't care what you use or how it's done as long as it's done well. Purists will insist that only sleight of hand should be used and zero gimmicks and gaffs be involved. If we're quoting Derren Brown then those who have Devil's Picture Book will know he used one of the most blatant and basic gaffs to achieve one effect so if that's any recommendation then it's OK to do the same!

The point in this thread is not so much whether your magic is pure or if it's chock full of gimmicks, all that really matters is how well and skilfully you present and entertain the audience. Magicians can, and will, bang on until the cows come home about the finer points but in the end it's how the audience view things that really matters.

There is nothing wrong with some gaffs and gimmicks. But the OP gave the impression of being 'lazy' in a way and making excuses for why sleights were hard to learn. The wider advice has been to continue the traditional route of learning sleights and moves, and feedback given on the tricks of choice.

The problem with having many gaffed decks etc is always the question from spectators - 'Why have you used a different deck for each trick?'. It's better to utilise some gaffed cards within a normal deck than to have to keep switching decks

There's an old post on here about switching decks, one guy thought he was being very skillful in putting the deck in a pocket and, after another effect, bringing out a different gaffed deck which looked the same. All went well until one spec asked, 'Why do the card boxes have different names written on the end? The first one had ID written on it but this one's different'. Collapse of magician!

Personally I go with the thinking which Wayne Dobson used even when he was fully able - take an effect, remove all the knuckle busting sleights and the really tricky stuff so you can concentrate on the presentation. There again, I don't have a lot of skill for card stuff!

Jordan C wrote:There is no excuse for not being able to work cards. Rene Lavand only had ONE hand, and I can;t recall the other guys name just now but on the best card sharks the world ever knew had very small hands!

EDIT: DAI VERNON!!

I think you mean Max Malini?