talkmagic.co.uk

I don't believe that's the best way to find the best magicians. You can have the best sleight of hand ever but be the worst magician when it comes to presentation. Since self-working tricks look the same to a spectator, but since you're performing for magicians they're a picky bunch.

dat8962 wrote:You also need to take two tricks along to the audition so that the interviewers can get a basic idea of your skill level.
Good luck.

Thank you. I have the documents you mention.
Could you clarify about the "two tricks"?

From the PMs I have received, some people seem to think that a mentalism act is appropriate, while others think that I'll need to dig out some coins and playing cards for the audition. I could do that, but it wouldn't reflect what I do normally, so that doesn't seem like a sensible idea.
I'd have thought that it is the presentation of a well-performed, entertaining effect (regardless of whether or not it contains physical sleights) that would matter. But maybe I am off the mark.

Ted, some mentalism routines contain sleight of hand and presentational skills. Switches, p**ks, steals, nail writing...etc. So this could be a demonstration of sleight and presentation. I can't advise what trick you should do. That's all up to you.

Ian the Mental-Ian wrote:Ted, some mentalism routines contain sleight of hand and presentational skills.

That is what I am banking on, certainly

Alright, Best of luck to you.

First to answer Ian.

If you read my post again you will note that I have specifically mentionned that presentation is marked and this is also confirmed in the guide if you take a look at this on the MC web site.

The audition encompasses all aspects of what make a good magic routine and a good magician so your comment is not relevant. The reason for sleight of hand is that this also incorporates misdirection where as self workers rarely have misdirection involved. It is definately NOT about magicians being picky but any magic Society or circle has the right to be selective, whether it's the IBM, the Magic Circle or the Magic Castle.

You must also remember that the Magic Circle, as with the others is for experienced magicians irrespective of their professional or amateur status.

Ted

Mentalism could indeed work but remember that the interview is a one to one type of affair. If you believe that it meets the criteria then go for it. If you're unsure then ask or don't take the chance. That's why there's a guide and you will be assured that if there is anything that you don't understand then you are free to ask. I can assure you that everyone will be supportive and offer good advice. They want you to succeed - they don't want you to fail.

Entertainment is the key and you'll likely have an audience of around 12 to 20 people for the audition. This depends what is on for the club night and a big name will attract more people so that usually equates to a larger audience for the auditions.

If you're going to do a mentalism routine then I would suspect that it will work better with an audience (audition) than at a one to one (interview).

However, my personal advice would be to go with the sleight of hand as they do prefer for you to stick between the 8 and 12 minutes and that may only mean that you have time for one mentalism routine. Try to get three or four routines into the time allowed.

Finally, don't under estimate the knowledge of the judges. They will have seen just about everything and seen it performed by the best. They're not looking for you to be the best, just to perform well, with confidence and with a little sparkle. You also won't be judged harshly if you make a mistake.

I hope that this helps but if you're honest about yourself, you'll know when the time is right and what you need to work on.

dat8962 wrote:I hope that this helps but if you're honest about yourself, you'll know when the time is right and what you need to work on.

Many thanks for your full and thoughtful answer.

Not a problem - PM me if you have any further questions.

Thanks for the replies dat...

dat8962 wrote:The reason that I say what I say about stooges is that the audition is a test of your magic (sleight of hand) skills, presentation and routining (how the tricks flow during the 8 to 12 minutes).

There's more to a stooge than just saying yes to your reveal and looking amazed. They can feed the performer information from the back of the room, for example, make switches, or hold out an object for the performer. I don't use them because I can't be bothered with the bothered with the hassle of 'hiring' someone for my performances. And they'd be very obvious in office parties and the like, where everybody knows one another.

But they can be used in very subtle and devious ways that in no way undermines the cunningness of the effect being presented.

Just a thought.

Pete

I would suspect that the covert use of a stooge would require quite a bit of skill on the part of both the magician and also the stooge where information is being fed and read.

dat8962 wrote:I would suspect that the covert use of a stooge would require quite a bit of skill on the part of both the magician and also the stooge where information is being fed and read.

It depends on the stooge's job, really. If you want to get one ahead on a written prediction effect, then all they have to do is remember what question to write.

But isn't that a very heavy-handed way to get one ahead?

Bob Cassidy and Richard Osterlind each have lovely force-free methods. And no accomplices are necessary.

Pete

pcwells wrote:But isn't that a very heavy-handed way to get one ahead?

I'm not sure, really. I suppose it depends on the situation. If it's easy to recruit a stooge, and you do it (and use him/her) convincingly, then it's just one way of many to fool the audience. I only used the above as an example to demonstrate that you don't have to use stooges very obviously.

I guess you could say that many stage illusions are heavy handed, due to the technical lengths an act might go to to fool the audience. But isn't that the way of things? To go further in your subterfuge than anyone could guess?

That said, I suppose you could always prepare for having a stooge and then prepare for them to fail (e.g. not turn up, forget what they are supposed to do etc.) That way you have a number of ways to perform and might even be able to do the same effect twice in a row, but using different methods.

Just my thoughts.

EDIT: I have started another thread on the subject of subterfuge.

Ted wrote:

pcwells wrote:But isn't that a very heavy-handed way to get one ahead?

I'm not sure, really. I suppose it depends on the situation. If it's easy to recruit a stooge, and you do it (and use him/her) convincingly, then it's just one way of many to fool the audience. I only used the above as an example to demonstrate that you don't have to use stooges very obviously.

I guess you could say that many stage illusions are heavy handed, due to the technical lengths an act might go to to fool the audience. But isn't that the way of things? To go further in your subterfuge than anyone could guess?

That said, I suppose you could always prepare for having a stooge and then prepare for them to fail (e.g. not turn up, forget what they are supposed to do etc.) That way you have a number of ways to perform and might even be able to do the same effect twice in a row, but using different methods.

Just my thoughts.

EDIT: I have started another thread on the subject of subterfuge.

For me, it's about practicality. When I develop a routine, I want to work on something that I can use a lot. And if I'm hired for a show, I need to know that whatever methods I use will be credible and appropriate. While it's accepted that a stage illusionist will have a glamourous assistant (and possibly a stange hand or two), that's very different to having a secret helper in the audience. You can certainly get away with this in public shows, but iit would be unreasonable for me to invite one of my friends to somebody else's party when it comes to a private function...

So for the sake of getting a one-ahead, I'd consider it much more easier to use some other method that only relies on me. Richard Osterlind's approach, using only a ring-bound pad of paper is wonderful and completely impromptu. Bob Cassidy's three-envelope routine isn't exactly hard to prepare either.

In my public performances at comedy clubs and the like, I've often been tempted to have a member of the audience make switches for me, so as to give a completely hands-off appearance for the routines, but at the end of the day, I decided against it, as I like to know what's happening at all times in my performances. I've never been good at asking other people to secretly make me look good.

Pete