talkmagic.co.uk

I've gone on a huge overdose of 'magic theory' recently, and will probably end up posting a few threads about various ideas.

The first thing that has prompted me to post though, is the contrast between these quotes from Jay Sankey and Darwin Ortiz:

'Actually, speed does harm to almost every aspect of our craft'
'Perform your magic slowly and steadily'
- Jay Sankey, 'Beyond Secrets' p.23

'Fast pacing is the single quality that most distinguishes professional magicians from amateur magicians'
'Almost without exception, even the most accomplished... amateurs.. work at a pace too slow for professional performance'
- Darwin Ortiz, 'Strong Magic' p.306

What do you think about this apparent difference of opinion? Who do you agree with and why?

Both are right!!!!

Speed & pace of performance are all relative to what the individual performer considers too fast or slow. What I percieve as too fast may be seen as too slow to someone else....your style, personality, the effects you choose, the age/maturity of your audience, the venue, etc, all will have an effect on what SHOULD be done.

I have some effects that I prefer to perform at a quicker pace, and others that I luck to perform much slower as the dramatic effect is important....in my opionion it is simply a debate on opinion.....and I feel ones opinions should be based on the factors (and others) that I have listed above....no right or wrong answer in general, only right or wrong for each performer/performance.

Find what works for you and stick with it!

While it's an interesting point about some effects suiting different pacing, these two writers certainly don't think that they are both right or that it is relative to each magician's usual pace.

Both are very clear and absolute in the way that they make these points about speed. Ortiz thinks magic should be done faster than it generally is and Sankey thinks the precise opposite.

I think the two are talking about different aspects of magic. Sankey seems to be referring to the effects--things look so much nicer when you slowly turn over a DL than if you do it hurriedly.

Ortiz, on the other hand, appears to be talking about the performance itself. When I first started magic, I'd string a whole bunch of tricks together in no particular order. As such, I'd often have huge gaps between effects that would be filled with awkward pauses, vocal fillers, and yawns from people quickly losing interest.

As I practiced and started routining my effects together, I got rid of those unnecessary pauses and my performances became much more successful. I think what Ortiz is saying is that a well-practiced professional who has done his homework by performing for live audiences again and again will come across as the performer he has become. At the same time, an amateur isn't necessarily going to have those skills and will just sting trick after trick together with no cohesion, slowing the performance and losing the audience's attention.

I submit that both authors are correct, but in different aspects of performance. Sankey's advice applies to the "magic moments" that we want so badly to cherish throughout our performances. If you do a Marlo's Rub-A-Dub Vanish, you don't do the vanish and immediately lift your hand. You place the card on the table, rub it, feel it get warm, and melt away. Then you can lift your hand and show that it's vanished, but only after it has indeed gone. Darwin Ortiz's advice is apt for the performance as a whole. You need to keep your routine moving, keep the audience's attention and not allow them to get bored by pauses that don't belong.

This is just my take on things... Makes sense in my head, so I hope it does in yours.

As an afterthought, take a look at this Slydini performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i30qx9eI1r0

He performs the actual sleights slowly, but there is no hesitation between each; you'd never believe him if he came up behind you, watched over your shoulder, and said, "wow, that was the first time I'd ever performed that..." He's a true professional, much like Picasso was to painting, while an amateur wouldn't be nearly as fluid or well-prepared.

Again, some nice points made.. but I disagree that this is what Sankey and Ortiz disagree upon. There is not one word in either of their sections about speed that suggests one is talking about the speed of each effect and the other about the speed between effects or anything like that. (In fact, Sankey mentions doing certain sleights very quickly even though the effect as a whole should be slow).

I think the two flatout disagree, and I'd just be interested to hear a range of opinions and reasons for them.

For what it's worth, I incline more towards Sankey's point of view. Ortiz's comments on this took me by surprise somewhat in the context of everything else he writes in 'Strong Magic' (creating suspense etc, which is pretty hard to do if you race through an effect).

I think that in order to understand the meaning that is intended, you have to study the surrounding words, either written or spoken in order to understand the context of each of the two statements.

Neither are right and neither are wrong without understanding the context in which the satements are made.

Some magic is spoilt if performed at breakneck speed or indeed if performed too slowly and much depends on a number of different aspects. for instance, sleights that may be needed often do require speed in order to maintain stealth whereas the effect could still be performed relatively slowly.

Magic is to be performed at the speed of the audience and not at the speed of the magician in order for it to get the maximum effect.

Pace and speed are actually two different things, in a theatrical sense. Speed is the tempo of what's going on, whereas pace is the gaps between what's going on.

Performing magic quickly does do harm, as does slow pacing, i.e. doing one bit of an effect, thinking about the next bit, then doing the next bit, then thinking baout the next step, then doing the next step.

The magic should be slow and clear, but the pacing needs to be tight, so there is no time for the spectator to catch up or get bored.

Zack - nice to see you back as it's been a while.

I think that many of us are in agreement and are perhaps saying the same thing but in different ways.

I've been reading The Card Magic of LePaul by LePaul the last few days. In the preface, written by himself, rather than talking about speed he mentions natural procedure.

The physical action by which a sleight is accomplished should be either disguised to appear as a gesture or as a normal movement in keeping with natural procedure. This is a very important point.

Then he goes on about misunderstandings regarding misdirection, which in his opinion should become an optical illusion rather than trying to distract attention away from the hands. I think there lies the quid of the question and the apparent difference of opinion. I think Sankey says that sleights should not be performed quickly, e.g. the pass should not be a strange quick movement, because that only draws attention to the deck. The spec knows something has happened, but not what actually did happen. But something did. This is closer to what LePaul says. Whereas Ortiz says the same thing, but from "the other side of the road". He means that most magician (hobbyists) can't do it smoothly to make it look like a normal gesture. They do it too slowly to make it look that way. So I think they mean the same thing. But one looks to his left, and the other looks at the other's left.

The Slydini footage is great! Beautiful handling. And it looked natural to me.

hmmm some interesting thoughts.....

My take on it would be this.

A routine should not be rushed, do the slights in a calm and relaxed way but at the same time they should be done smoothly and not hesitantly.

Too rushed or too hesitant and you're only going to draw attention to the fact that you're doing something shifty. Keep everything at a nice, relaxed and flowing pace and you're routine will look much slicker.

Its the performance the should flow nicely.

If you are fumbling for props between effects and using meaningless filler while you arrange yourself, that screams out amateur..

The slights, moves and the effects themselves should flow along at a nice pace, but be done slowly enough to let the magic sink in.

Take the hundred dollar bill switch. Some performers do it fast and BAM!! its changed. Others, like myself, like the idea of stopping at the half way mark, letting them see a little more of the bill right before the switch then BAM!! the switch.. pause to let it sink in the slowly open it up!!

Its all personal preference what speed you perform at but the general concencus ( right spelling? ) is that the pace should move quicklu. ie: flow.. so as not to bore your audience.. if you don't know where you are going after each effect, your audience wont care where you go!!

[quote="magicforfun"] I think Sankey says that sleights should not be performed quickly, e.g. the pass should not be a strange quick movement, because that only draws attention to the deck. The spec knows something has happened, but not what actually did happen. But something did. quote]

This is what Sankey actually says in 'Beyond Secrets' p.23:
'.. when I execute the Classic Pass... I employ a burst of speed'

I think there are a lot of good points being made in this thread, but I still think that there is an unwillingness to accept that the two writers flat out disagree. I've read and re-read the relevant passages since starting this thread, and I repeat that there is nothing at all that suggests Sankey and Ortiz are talking about different elements of performance, or specifically that one is talking about speed OF an effect and one about speed BETWEEN effects.

Sankey thinks most magic is performed too fast, Ortiz thinks most magic is performed too slow, period. So again, I just wonder what YOU think?

I tend to think slower is better. When I see a card routine, for instance, done at an impressive, blistering pace it's all well and good - but it leaves me the impression that I've witnessed lots of very clever sleight of hand and have been 'confused' by the speed somewhat. It doesn't leave a very 'magical' impression.

I like to do everything at a nice and steady pace. Keep everything casual and relaxed and you're less likely to draw attention to what you're doing.

This is what Sankey actually says in 'Beyond Secrets' p.23:
'.. when I execute the Classic Pass... I employ a burst of speed'

I think there are a lot of good points being made in this thread, but I still think that there is an unwillingness to accept that the two writers flat out disagree. I've read and re-read the relevant passages since starting this thread, and I repeat that there is nothing at all that suggests Sankey and Ortiz are talking about different elements of performance, or specifically that one is talking about speed OF an effect and one about speed BETWEEN effects.

OK. Not sure what to think about the disagreement anymore. You might be right, they maybe are in disagreement, but then again, maybe, just maybe, it could have something to do with that the movement should be smooth and natural whilst the sleight (depending on which) should be performed quickly. LePaul wasn't happy until he was able to do more than 120 classic passes per minute. Phew. If that's the case they might not disagree.

In my opinion, I think the performance should be smooth and natural. The sleight should be fast enough in order to be disguised by the natural movements I make.