talkmagic.co.uk

Hi hds02115, another interesting topic

Speaking from a technical point of view i dont think easiest is always best - it can be, but its certainly not the rule. What i look for when some jiggery pokery is required is the BEST sleight/subtlety for the purpose. It may be something very simple, it could be a demanding sleight, it may be a gimmick, a subtlety, anything. As long as its the best and most streamlined method for that particular effect.

Id be interested to know if those who keep coming out with ''the method isnt important, so we should use the simplest'', are using things like classic palming, or a retention vanish. After all, there are far easier methods out there

Anyway for me its not a case of whats the easiest, rather i think we should be looking for whats best.

jim

It's not really the method that's important but the performance. I like to keep things as simple as possible while making the presentation as entertaining as possible.

Spot on - the important bit being "...as possible...".
Sometimes you need to use a particular sleight, however, I remember demonstrating a trick (using Waikiki Shuffle) that was REALLY intriguing a group of magicians until they found out it was virtually 100% self-working....and then most of them dismissed it, (body language changed completely).
I suspect they were the "hobbyists", (no great debate on the term please..!)
Bruce

Vanderbelt wrote:"Simple and early" is my motto - Ideally all the moves/sleights are done way before the effect actually happens from the audience's point of view. Do the dirty, it's all set up and from there on in you're all about the performance.

This is spot on how I feel. I like to perform my routines as cleanly as I can, in such a way that I'm not mauling the deck, or what ever else is involved.

As for how some people are answering. Of course the performance and reaction for the spectators are the important thing, unless they're in the know, the effect would look the same whether it was using a marked memorized deck and a combination of some pretty technical slights, or just a cross cut force. The question was more, would you do the complex slight version to them, or the simple, regardless of the performance side of it. Just purly the method.

So this is to all the people out there that have not answered it and instead said "the performance is the important thing", the question is, ignoring the performance, would you rather use a simplified method, or a complex method? That was the question.

They answered your question. A Simple method allows you to focus on the presentation and entertain the audience more.

"Sell The Sizzle, not the Steak."

jim ferguson wrote:Hi hds02115, another interesting topic

Speaking from a technical point of view i dont think easiest is always best - it can be, but its certainly not the rule. What i look for when some jiggery pokery is required is the BEST sleight/subtlety for the purpose. It may be something very simple, it could be a demanding sleight, it may be a gimmick, a subtlety, anything. As long as its the best and most streamlined method for that particular effect.

Id be interested to know if those who keep coming out with ''the method isnt important, so we should use the simplest'', are using things like classic palming, or a retention vanish. After all, there are far easier methods out there

Anyway for me its not a case of whats the easiest, rather i think we should be looking for whats best.

jim

Exactly, best method for the effect. I suppose it should be clarified. The easiest method for the performer in question. Because I find the classic palm easy. Others may not feel the same.

bmat wrote: The easiest method for the performer in question.

The best method for the effect in question.

jim

jim ferguson wrote:Hi hds02115, another interesting topic

Speaking from a technical point of view i dont think easiest is always best - it can be, but its certainly not the rule. What i look for when some jiggery pokery is required is the BEST sleight/subtlety for the purpose. It may be something very simple, it could be a demanding sleight, it may be a gimmick, a subtlety, anything. As long as its the best and most streamlined method for that particular effect.

Id be interested to know if those who keep coming out with ''the method isnt important, so we should use the simplest'', are using things like classic palming, or a retention vanish. After all, there are far easier methods out there

Anyway for me its not a case of whats the easiest, rather i think we should be looking for whats best.

jim

I think this hits it spot on.

Most people have their head in the clouds when it comes to what they think they can get away with. I remember a show I was at last year, in the audience mind, where at the interval, two spectators were discussing a performers I.D routine, and one explained it methodwise, 100% spot on.
Could using a different method, (RichardWave or something?) be seen as more complicated? even though it's the same effect. Like bmat says, depends on the person.

If the effect needs a complex method... so be it. Thinking you can get away with something, just because you have the balls to do it, might not be the best way to go. A lot of people have been saying this about 'Svengali', and how most of it was easily worked out by the simplistic methods.

P.S This isn't really about performance more method, before people start jumping on me for anything of that ilk.

jim ferguson wrote:Hi hds02115, another interesting topic

Speaking from a technical point of view i dont think easiest is always best - it can be, but its certainly not the rule. What i look for when some jiggery pokery is required is the BEST sleight/subtlety for the purpose. It may be something very simple, it could be a demanding sleight, it may be a gimmick, a subtlety, anything. As long as its the best and most streamlined method for that particular effect.

Id be interested to know if those who keep coming out with ''the method isnt important, so we should use the simplest'', are using things like classic palming, or a retention vanish. After all, there are far easier methods out there

Anyway for me its not a case of whats the easiest, rather i think we should be looking for whats best.

jim

I totally agree. Saying that simple is better would probably mean a double undercut is better than a pass. Which it might be sometimes, but surely it depends on the effect and nothing else.

Christian Chelman is a good example, he has some crazy card skills, which allows him a wider choice of methods to achieve what he wants to happen. He can pick the best, rather than the easiest. (check his mucking, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMBFaArc-Ak )...

hds02115 wrote: regardless of the performance side of it

hds02115 wrote: ignoring the performance

Without performance you have no magic, you have a trick.

Vanderbelt wrote:

hds02115 wrote: regardless of the performance side of it

hds02115 wrote: ignoring the performance

Without performance you have no magic, you have a trick.

You've mis-quoted me here, if you read what I actually said, I was saying for the purposes of this thread, ignore the performance, just answer whether you'd prefer a simple or complex method.

Of course performance is everything. I have an effect I use in my working routine that consists of nothing more than either a marked deck or cut force, depending on what the circumstance is. This effect is 99% performance but it's probably my favourite effect and get's the storngest reactions.

I understood what you meant, I just don't understand the point.
As soon as you remove the performance, even for the purposes of this thread, then everything else is redundant.
What's the point of a method if it's not for performance?

I agree with Jim Ferguson. The BEST method for the presentation, always. It may be technically difficult - but if it helps everything else flow and run well; then it is the best.

Vanderbelt wrote:I understood what you meant, I just don't understand the point.
As soon as you remove the performance, even for the purposes of this thread, then everything else is redundant.
What's the point of a method if it's not for performance?

I disagree. What I understand the topic to be about is magic design. The two Ortiz books I recommended earlier tackle these two different aspects of magic; Strong Magic is about performance and presentation and Designing Miracles is about magic design. The design is the structure of the routine-- the method and the techniques behind the magic effect. This is separate from presentation and deserves at least as much attention if our magic is to be deceptive and logical.

Thanks sleightlycrazy, I could have described it better, but yes, this is what I was trying to get at.

Thanks