talkmagic.co.uk

by **SpareJoker** » Aug 2nd, '11, 14:23

Lady of Mystery wrote:I really like Royal Road but it can be tricky to follow but the routines and methods in there are good. If you find the effects outdated then see if you can think up some new and interesting presentations for them. Remember that 90% magic isn't about the effect or the method but rather the presentation.

I really don't want to be Mr Contrary here, but the method has a direct influence on the degree to which an effect is convincing.
Magic is all about the effect ("Never lose sight of the effect!" - Roberto Giobbi). Without the effect, all you're doing is giving a speech whilst holding a pack of cards in your hand.

Presentation cannot compensate for weak methods or effects. It does form a significant proportion of a routine I will grant you, but not 90%.

Lady of Mystery wrote:Mark Wilson's Complete Course, if you've not already got it. A very good book, covering all sorts of different areas of magic and very easy to follow too.

Again, sorry for the contrary opinion (I'm not attacking you personally, please beleive me!) but the card magic is worse in MWCC than it is in RRTCM. Trivial effects that I wouldn't perform if I could do magic for real!. Some of the other stuff in MWCC is good/ excellent, but for a card man, there are significantly better sources out there.

by **The4thCircle** » Aug 2nd, '11, 14:48

I think you might be confusing presentation with patter there.

A magician I respect very much once said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "People think that misdirection is a way of covering bad technique, but they're wrong. Technique is a way of covering bad misdirection."

The point he was making was that the method makes you appear skillful when manipulating cards, the presentation makes that manipulation look like magic. That's the line between being an entertainer and a card shark.

Inability to understand this difference is why many people (myself included) don't enjoy anything which is presented simply as a "card trick", but most (again including myself) would enjoy magic that happens to use cards.

-Stacy

by **Mr_Grue** » Aug 2nd, '11, 15:26

Barrie Richardson, when asked to perform one thing and one thing only, will often recite a poem. I'm not suggesting we all start working out trickless sets, but a weak effect in the right hands can be entertaining. A strong effect in the hands of a dull performer will always be dull. Paul Daniels says much the same thing on his appearance on Car Pool. It's why I advise people to learn a few self-working or semi-self-working card tricks when they get started, because to begin with, learning how to hold and direct an audience's attention and interest is much more valuable than an invisible pass.

by **SpareJoker** » Aug 2nd, '11, 15:35

The4thCircle wrote:I think you might be confusing presentation with patter there.

Looking back, I think you may be right. Patter does however form a significant part of the presentation.

The4thCircle wrote:...The point he was making was that the method makes you appear skillful when manipulating cards, the presentation makes that manipulation look like magic. That's the line between being an entertainer and a card shark.

Bit of a false dichotomy there (is it not possible to be an entertaining card shark?). Manipulation of cards can be percieved as skillful sans method (e.g. Dan & Dave style flourishes or any good street juggler), the method is what is used to transmit an illusion of the impossible. No amount of presentation can make juggling/ 'XCM' look magical (i.e. beyond the bounds of physical causality).

The4thCircle wrote:Inability to understand this difference is why many people (myself included) don't enjoy anything which is presented simply as a "card trick", but most (again including myself) would enjoy magic that happens to use cards.

The reason I believe that most people don't enjoy 'card tricks' is because most card tricks refer to nothing but themselves. Good presentation (am I contradicting myself here?) can give meaning to a trick (beyond itself). This is why gambling routines are so powerful, because most people have a wish-fulfilment fantasy of winning lots of money (by fair means or foul!)

There is card magic (performances that wouldn't make any sense if not performed with cards, e.g. gambling routines), and there is magic with cards (effect s that are performed with cards, but which could be substituted for another prop, e.g. transposition effects). Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I feel it's wrong to say that one is better than the other.

by **Antera** » Aug 2nd, '11, 15:41

I dont agree with the poster who stated that Darwin Ortiz publishes stronger magic than that in RRCM. Seen most of Darwins stuff and unless you like gambling Routines he can be a real substitute for sleeping tablets
( unless you own Nigel Mansells Autobiography)

Paul Wilson did a DVD shoot of RRCM and most of the best stuff was captured here.

Ok its old but so what , so is Beethoven. Its the spectator who matters anyway. We can fool ourselves silly all day long....in more ways than one. I Also agree with Mark Lewis 100% , hes in trenches more often than not so he is a good guide

by **SpareJoker** » Aug 2nd, '11, 15:52

Antera wrote:I dont agree with the poster who stated that Darwin Ortiz publishes stronger magic than that in RRCM. Seen most of Darwins stuff and unless you like gambling Routines he can be a real substitute for sleeping tablets.

Fair point, about 1/2 of Darwin's material is gambling related. Culturally it doesn't do that well in the UK, as we do not have the history of gambling with playing cards intertiwined in our history when compared to the USA.

BUT - the other half of his material is stronger than RRCTM, with greater scope and conviction in the effects. Unless you are very familiar with both RRCTM and all of Dawins printed material (a lot of his best effects are in the books only), then the assertation is at best conjecture.

by **The4thCircle** » Aug 2nd, '11, 16:02

SpareJoker wrote:... the assertation is at best conjecture.

now that's what I call sesquipedalian loquaciousness!

I still stand by what I said though, the only difference between a gambling effect and a strong magical effect is presentation. The exact same method and effect in the hands of two different performers will appear completely different. The magicians who don't understand that are the ones who don't understand the glazed over look an audience gets when the deck of cards comes out.

And as for the argument about the types of illusion offered by the different texts, if you're purely learning technique then the suggested presentation in the guide books is just that, only a suggestion.

-Stacy

by **Antera** » Aug 2nd, '11, 16:09

David Regal is a good teacher and his first three Vids are very good and have some strong materiel for Greenhorns and Pros alike. Hes a bit cheesy for the UK style but hes a good thinker and thats what counts.

by **SpareJoker** » Aug 2nd, '11, 16:34

Mr_Grue wrote: I'm not suggesting we all start working out trickless sets, but a weak effect in the right hands can be entertaining.

Entertaining, possibly. It still remains a weak effect though.

Mr_Grue wrote:It's why I advise people to learn a few self-working or semi-self-working card tricks when they get started, because to begin with, learning how to hold and direct an audience's attention and interest is much more valuable than an invisible pass.

Can't argue with that. Good advice.

Just as a reminder, I am not critiqueing the presentations in RRCTM, nor am I denegrating the role of presentation in performance. I am critiquing the quality of the effects in RRCTM. I do believe that good presentation will not stand in the stead of convincing methods and good effect design.

The4thCircle wrote:
SpareJoker wrote:... the assertation is at best conjecture.

now that's what I call sesquipedalian loquaciousness!

I apologise if you find my competent use of the English language intimidating or confusing in any way.

The4thCircle wrote:I still stand by what I said though, the only difference between a gambling effect and a strong magical effect is presentation.

Well, yes. I don't understand what the point is that you are trying to make. Are you saying that a 'magical' effect is stronger than a 'gambling' effect because of, or in spite of presentation (and let us not forget there are many gambling routines that start out as a demo of technique, but then cross the line into the impossible).

The4thCircle wrote:The exact same method and effect in the hands of two different performers will appear completely different. The magicians who don't understand that are the ones who don't understand the glazed over look an audience gets when the deck of cards comes out.

Confusing. If it's he exact same method and effect, what is it that makes the difference (could you provide some illustrative examples in order to make the debate more concrete?).

The4thCircle wrote:And as for the argument about the types of illusion offered by the different texts, if you're purely learning technique then the suggested presentation in the guide books is just that, only a suggestion.

Again, I don't see the point you are trying to make. I was not talking about presentation, but the degree to which the method enables conviction in the audience, and the scope of the effect (e.g. finding 10 cards is more impressive than finding 1 card).

by **C.L.Ward** » Aug 2nd, '11, 16:38

oz pearlmans born to perform card magic is another excellent starting point for anyone interested in cards

by **daleshrimpton** » Aug 2nd, '11, 16:48

people, people, people.... Just an observation bought about by reading many threads like this over the years.

If one is serious about learning card magic, and wish to become the best you can possibly be, surley its important that you study everything you can get your hands on, rather than one book or another.

you should devour all past knolwedge. read r.r.t.cm, card colledge, yes.. but also study slydini, vernon, hamman, walton, tamariz, sadowitz, elmsey, ect, ect..

by **jim ferguson** » Aug 2nd, '11, 16:50

daleshrimpton wrote:people, people, people.... Just an observation bought about by reading many threads like this over the years.

If one is serious about learning card magic, and wish to become the best you can possibly be, surley its important that you study everything you can get your hands on, rather than one book or another.

you should devour all past knolwedge. read r.r.t.cm, card colledge, yes.. but also study slydini, vernon, hamman, walton, tamariz, sadowitz, elmsey, ect, ect..

by **SpareJoker** » Aug 2nd, '11, 16:58

daleshrimpton wrote:people, people, people.... Just an observation bought about by reading many threads like this over the years.

If one is serious about learning card magic, and wish to become the best you can possibly be, surley its important that you study everything you can get your hands on, rather than one book or another.

Not all the material out there is worth wasting your time and money on...

daleshrimpton wrote:you should devour all past knolwedge. read r.r.t.cm, card colledge, yes.. but also study slydini, vernon, hamman, walton, tamariz, sadowitz, elmsey, ect, ect..

... but you will not be lead astray if you follow the above quoted gents (I would also add Darwin Ortiz, but I bet y'all knew I'd say that!)

by **Arkesus** » Aug 2nd, '11, 17:16

I woulf heartily agree that Card College is a go-to resource, not based on thequality of the tricks, not based on the datedness of the presentations, but on the quality of the teaching.

When I went through Royal Road I found myself often stuck on certain things because the book only gave a one sentence account of a certain action. Card College gives such an amount of detail, and such concise diagrams that it is difficult to fail to grasp exactly what is behind each sleight and effect.

by **daleshrimpton** » Aug 2nd, '11, 17:21

Not all the material out there is worth wasting your time and money on...

Agreed. But an important part of learning, is discovering the crapp, and spotting why its crapp. plus, whats not good for one person, could become a miracle in other hands.

Oh, and let us not forget John Scarne, who is a major influence on Bill Malone. along with Ed Marlo of course.

talkmagic.co.uk

Card & Close up repertoire

Who is online