talkmagic.co.uk

Ace of Kev Said:

But the spectators are only watching for a good trick, not to see how it is done

I disagree. They're watching because they want to be entertained and to try and catch the magician out. The wow factor is when you perform something to them that seems impossible, because your presentation was too good for them to figure out what you did.

Personally I think it depends on the performer.

I kind of try to aim for a psychological approach with my character, so the ID is a lot more fitting in the sense that I've just turned a random card face down in some un-elaborate deck of cards that no one really pays attention to. As in, it's not really a 'Card Trick' but I'm just using cards because I *happen* to have them with me.

On the other hand, the Brainwave Deck is likely more suitable for card-specific magicians as a one-off effect (or something along those lines, IMO).

Dat8962 wrote. in part: "They're watching because they want to be entertained and to try and catch the magician out."

Anyone whose audience "tries and catch the magician out" isn't very good and. regrettably, doesn't understand a great deal about audience management.

Peter Marucci wrote:Anyone whose audience "tries and catch the magician out" isn't very good and. regrettably, doesn't understand a great deal about audience management.

That attitude bugs me - I don't like it when magicians get authorative about how an audience is supposed to enjoy magic, as though there were only one legitimate way. People can enjoy magic in various ways, most of which are not mutually exclusive, i.e. a single spectator can be entertained on many different levels simultaneously and one of those levels is to silently speculate on how it is done. This is not a typical spectator's primary focus, but as part of the secondary focus it should be respected as part of the overall picture.

Adrian Morgan writes: "I don't like it when magicians get authoritative about how an audience is supposed to enjoy magic. . ."

I never mentioned how an audience is supposed to enjoy magic.

Read the posting again; it's about the magician's role.

(Which, in this case, misses the boat!)

Well, let's see if we agree about what the phrase "try to catch the magician out" actually means. The meaning of the phrase is not really about the magician, nor about an overtly competitive relationship with the performer. It's shorthand. To "catch the magician out" means to notice a point in the performance where an effect is explicable in terms of the spectator's general knowledge and powers of observation. Right?

I can't agree that the magician's role is to stop a spectator from trying to do this. It is, in part, to stop a spectator from succeeding - to ensure that no rational solution appears plausible. To this end come various tricks of the trade, such as directing the spectator's attention and exploiting the spectator's intuition. It is also to ensure that the audience is also (indeed, primarily) entertained on the imaginative, emotional level and goes away with a sense of having thoroughly enjoyed the performance, without needing to understand how it was done.

I expect you to agree with most of this. But my point is that keeping the audience from trying to explain the magic has no part in any of it, in my view.

This is my 2 penneth for what its worth.

When I do a trick, I want to entertain. Those on the forum who have seen me perform will say I do it quite well.

I do not try to analyse the spectators, I just entertain them. When I do that, they don't susspect my fake coin, pen or cards, they just enjoy and accept it. No-one ever questions anything.

I'm c*** (not the best) at palming a card, but I talk to people and chat with them as I perform and when I palm they don't see it.

To my mind, instead of trying to analyse people, concentrate on being an entertainer and the rest drops into place. My view, just entertain. Nowt fancy or difficult, just concentrate on them enjoying it.

I couldn't agree more with the last two posts. I will also add that some spectators will always want to try and work out how you do it. That is human nature. To say that they should not be interested in how it is done is underestimating and insulting to the spectors. What kind of a human being doesn't try to rationalise what has happened? All people think about how things could have been done. We want them to reach a place where they have no explanation. To think that what they have experienced must ahve been what we said it was. If the claim is unquestioned then there is no magic, they are just blindly accepting. Entertainment should be the primary objective.

Further up rhis chain Daleshrimpton wrote

The reveal on both the brainwave, and Invisible should be the same. Both decks are stacked in an order that tells you the next card.

My ID is not in any particular order. Am I doing it wrong?

No.

Cards are paired, that is all.

There are certian orders to avoid of course, since certain groupings of cards might 'tip the gaff' as it were.

I'm sorry I'm being vague, but I hope you know what I mean.

Mark

EDIT: just to add, I found out the hard way when I 're-magicked' the deck and gathered it up without keeping an eye on the order.
A spec pointed out: "Hey there are no *** *****".
Sharp eyed bu**er.

I'm sorry I'm being vague, but I hope you know what I mean.

Thanks Marvo, sure do.

Marvo Marky wrote:I found out the hard way when I 're-magicked' the deck and gathered it up without keeping an eye on the order.
A spec pointed out: "Hey there are no *** *****".
Sharp eyed bu**er.

That's something I've been wondering about, too. So far no one's picked up on that because I don't often keep the spread open for more than a few seconds, and they're too busy being amazed at the actual reveal, but I've always had that in the back of my mind as a potential problem.

Yeah but then again that could just be ''Magicians guilt''

I've just deleted an overlong post responding to Peter's point, but I don't want to be boring so I'll just say: I think that's a little unfair, even the best magician occasionally comes across a card grabbing, sport-spoiling numpty Sure, it'll happen less with experience and confidence, but it happens to everyone at some point.

Any road up - IDs vs. Brainwaves... I was sure I'd posted in this?! It seems not. I'd go for the ID, for two main reasons:

1) Easier! No card counting or m***ing!

2) The routine builds, and has an appropriate climax. There's suspense as they see one card face down... sub-climax... and then, pow, the revelation. And it's their card. Compared to the brainwave which gives the game away immediately - oh, that's my card face up - and then a climax which is arguably less powerful in terms of the back colour. I think the revelation of a specific card is stronger than revealing the colour-changed back, which feels like a bit of an add on.

Oh, wait, I'll add -
3) ID is more appropriate for an out, because it doesn't have to be an effect it itself, it's a little more subtle.


I do however use the Sankey-modified ID, with big black Xs on one side, so depending on what they choose the card is either the only card with or the only card without a fat black X on it. This negates the idea that it was achieved by sleight of hand, and if you've seen someone good at culling, that's entirely possible!

Farlsborough wrote:ID is more appropriate for an out, because it doesn't have to be an effect it itself, it's a little more subtle.

That's for sure! I always have an ID on me for the slim chance I completely screw up on another effect. "Oh! This isn't your card?! Well what was it? That figures, because it's actually flown into this unopened deck I have right here..." Thank you ID, thank you!