talkmagic.co.uk

Truth of the matter is, many of the most famous magi out there know little to none... David Copperfield and Mark Wilson are two that come to mind... they learn as they need it (though Mark is quite good with Thimbles). There are many exceptions to this truth, but the reality is, most of the guys & gals that do grand illusions have little to no need for knowing much more than the basics when it comes to slights.

The Assembling Ace routine David does was taught to him over several long months by Paul Gertner... David was terrified the first night he performed it live for an audience as Caesar's Palace in Vegas but he managed to do a rather fair job at it.

The other point to this leans close to what Abraxus was suggesting... we will teach ourselves to become willing to be willing to learn a more difficult bit as we find those effects we down right love and have to be able to do and do well thus, like the big boys, we all end up becoming guilty of learning "just the one's we need to know as we need to know them" once we reach a certain level in our readings and studies.

Alas young Flood has a lot to learn. Presentation is EVERYTHING!

mark lewis wrote:Alas young Flood has a lot to learn. Presentation is EVERYTHING!

Amen

I wouldn't say that sleight of hand is essential, as there are some decent self-working tricks out there which slay the layman, but it does expand what you can do and you will have more tools at your disposal.
Some people sit and learn sleights and flourishes for the wrong reasons which is just so they can tell othe magi they can do them. I tend to see or read of an effect that impresses me and I wish to learn and if there are sleights involved I initially learn them purely to perform that effect. There is a reason to learn and practice these things.

Seeing a list of sleights and their descriptions can be daunting for a beginner, but it's not the sleights that maketh the magician, it is, as has been said a million times before, the performance. A good performer can make the simplest self-worker into an entertaing piece of art.

Certain moves I have learnt have been in the context of an effect I wanted to perform. Not only do I know the sleight after, I also know what it can be used for so it becomes a useful tool that makes sense rather than a flash little thing I can do with my fingers. I also look for the most convenient method of doing something. False cuts and shuffles, though not essential, are added convincers which leaves your audience thinking that there was no set-up order and makes the miracle more potent.

You can get by without too many sleights, but the self-gratification from being able to entertain people with what teenage youttoobers would refer to as a "normal deck of cards" is unbeatable and a great acheivement for any magician.

I performed at a party recently and some thrust their own deck of cards in my hand and said smugly "Do some tricks with THESE!"
So I did, using his own deck, which raised the astonishment bar even higher in his mind. Try do that with an ID, svengali and rising deck.

Jean Hugard said that:
"complication for the sake of complication is a fool's trick and is not the same as being clever."

He was refering to the Stripper Pack and how some people think those who use gimmicked decks are less becasue they cant use sleights.

I prefer sleights because they open up a range of possibilities, but what does it matter when the fooling and entertainment of your audience is your main goal.

Im not saying go all out on gimmicks but clever use of them can have the same effect as practising the same routine with sleights.

I prefer sleights and think they are a neccesity, but that doesnt mean everyone should have to use them.

When the pros want to force a card (and be TOTALLY sure they force the right card), they won't ordinarily use sleights; they'll use a one-way deck.

Callum wrote:Hi all,

This is just a little question my small mind managed to cough up; though it's only relevant to card magic sleights in particular.


So, is being a sleight of hand expert essential to performing good card effects?

Personally, I find all of these sleights with weird, impractical names rather flustering and generally don't bother with a lot of them (even some apparently crucial ones). However (I'm not showing off here) I've done some tricks and stuff at school for pupils and teachers etc. and they were all pretty impressed by some odd mind-reading effect I did or something or other, using just a rather simple card force.

So, is advanced sleight of hand really a necessary thing to know?

Discuss away

The majority of posts on this thread seem to answer your question this way:

As long as you entertain, it doesn't matter what method you use. Learning sleights will give you more of a range and also helping out if something does go wrong. Learn if you want to, then learn what you require for the effect you want. Performed well, the entertainment is going to win through.

On the other hand, one person would prefer you know lots of sleights, don't worry too much if you don't entertain people with them. Learn them because you should and it proves you are a magician.
Oh dear!!!

From your post, it seems that both you and your audience enjoy your performances.

Some people may feel you need sleights to entertain, but some also feel you have to perform 10 minutes of card manipulation between each effect!!

just do good tricks and entertain

Peter Marucci wrote:When the pros want to force a card (and be TOTALLY sure they force the right card), they won't ordinarily use sleights; they'll use a one-way deck.

What pros have you been hanging around with?

I don't think Marty Nash or Derek Dingle even owned such a contraption and I know Vernon would crack your knuckles with that damnable wand of his, if you stooped to using a gaffed deck and still call yourself a "magician".

Sorry Peter, I know too many card workers that make their living with the things (as much as I hate them) and NONE OF THEM use a forcing deck in their work, they just know their job.

As poor as I am with card control I never owned a force deck until I started doing Mentalism and at that I've only owned Ted Lesley's DECISIONS routine and more recently a routine by my buddy Paul Brook that was just too clever to pass up.

C'mon old man, you know better.

Flood wrote:just do good tricks and entertain

That, I think, sums it up perfectly. Can I add my tuppence-worth of noise?

The spectator only sees the effect. That's all. So, in essence, the cause doesn't really matter. It's entirely up to you. Essentially, this implies that there's no hierarchy of methods, none that are better or worse than the others; just those that will help you achieve the effect you want the spectator to experience. Some will make it more easily achievable than others, but if they're also simpler in their working, I can't see that as making them somehow inferior to methods that demand more skill. In fact, it may even make simpler methods more fit for purpose by handing you more room to develop the presentation.

Maybe the idea of advanced sleights being better than simpler methods begins with the idea of putting as much distance between cause and effect as possible to throw the spectator off the scent. However, some methods used in mentalism - the supposedly grown up form of magic as Annemann has it - are ridiculously simple and require no real dexterity beyond learning them. And yet, mentalims can be immensely powerful. That's because what does take the time is developing the unique skill of presenting that particular effect so that it comes across in the most compelling way. Another effect, another skill.

Swings and roundabouts, innit.

...Vernon would crack your knuckles with that damnable wand of his, if you stooped to using a gaffed deck and still call yourself a "magician".

Writing on using gaffes and gadgets and gizmos, Dai Vernon stated:

"Some magicians tend to make fun of this type of person, stating that they can't do sleights or tricks. We shouldn't make fun of them - this is their pleasure and they, in turn, are passing pleasure on to others."

January, 1971

Pros do use forcing decks.

Ive seen peter lamont use one.

TheAlkhemist07 wrote:Pros do use forcing decks.

Ive seen peter lamont use one.

I know for certain Paul Brook uses one, too.

EDIT: That looks like a dig at you-know-who. It's not.

There's a line in an old Yazoo album track that goes, "Use the tools available". It's how you use them, not what they are that's important. Otherwise Viagra would be a heart medicine.

Presentation is EVERYTHING!

I disagree (a little bit >.>).

Personally, I think presentation is about 90% of the trick, and this will make me out to be the Antichrist, but I think the trick itself is a small piece of it too, and the last piece the audience.

So:

90% - Presentation
5% - Audience
5% - The Trick


So, presentation is crucial, but there are some tricks that can't be disguised or modified and be absolutely stunning.

That one where you deal the cards into three piles (I can't, for the love of me, be bothered looking for the name of it) for example, probably can't be masked so skilfully that it becomes a masterpiece that can blow your audience away.

Also, if the audience are a bunch of stubborn gits that want to see you crash and burn from the start then it becomes much much more difficult (if not impossible) to amaze them.

Just my own opinion on it, but there you go

Just curious here,
I know your 15 and all but have you performed to an audience?

I am not an amazing magish, I dont call myself a magish, my audience does.

I do effects requiring simple sleight of hand but as far as they know its a miracle.

You probably havent performed in front of drunks, believe me they want you to crash and burn (most of them, its like the alcohol clears their mind) but with a simple and well presented trick you can blow even the most skeptical of audiences minds.
I'm talking serious drooling here.

Look at hankercheif thru hand, a small sleight is used, but it only works if you present it well. Otherwise its not that good.