talkmagic.co.uk

Lord Freddie wrote:Of course they are all well known for their magic square, when you mention those names to a member of the public the first thing they'll think of is then filling up a pad with numbers...

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where you restricted your comment to people who've made it the primary focus of their careers.

Yes, there are some people skillful enough to polish this turd and engage people with their personalities,but it's their persona that impresses rather than a poor Suduko routine...

I agree, but what you actually wrote was: "The only people that think this is in anyway entertaining are those that read books more than they perform to real people."

It is, of course, merely the same as other types of tricks or demonstrations, such as the Knight's Tour or a memory test, or any magic trick - far better when performed properly.

You are also right that the standard presentation of a magic square is not really mentalism. Generating a magic square for a named number is just a bit of cleverness. Marc Salem did it as a "warm-up" exercise (for those who do not know him, Marc takes the "psychological techniques" approach to mentalism). It obviously impressed a lot of the audience, but it was not presented as a "wow" moment, more as a demonstration of an acute mind, making what followed more believable. In other words, showmanship.

What I was saying is that it would not be the most memorable part of a show, yet there are magicians that froth at the mouth about this 'effect' as if it's something really astonishing.
As I have said before, I have seen magicians perform this for an audience and seen the "so what?" effect it generates first hand with an audience who can't be bothered to follow along and add up so they take the magician's word for it that it's correct. I certainly (as in the title of this thread) refer to is as "the best mentalism effect wthout a gimmick...ever?".

Lord Freddie wrote:In that context Craig, yes it has a purposes, but regarding entertainment and the theme of this thread which is mentalism without a gimmick, I do believe that a spectator would be more astounded if you read their mind (whether it's via a CT, cold reading etc) than the underwheleming magic square. You can either have them believe they have had their thoughts read or believe you are good at maths. I would always choose the former!

As Stetson shows in that video loop, he does "Read a Mind" by way of the square, revealing the patron's thought of number not just once, but about a dozen different ways which delivers comic relief.

The OMEGA technique can be used as part of a Q&A in a straight show for that matter, and what I've seen when experimenting with that idea, is a greater eagerness from patrons to get involved; it's known as "take away sales" in the business world, in that they see others getting something they aren't physically receiving, but that's a whole other critter altogether.

One Other Point. . . you keep emphasizing the term "Entertaining" without considering a couple of facts, the foremost being that too many of us think something is entertaining only when it's a piece we personally like, we fail to recognize that our likes may not play well to the audience. In fact, magicians are notorious for ignoring what the audience tells them about this & that shtick and thus, bulldoze their way through with what they want to do while getting more and more frustrated when it comes to not getting repeat gigs and better pay.

Secondly, we have to look at the kind of groups one targets; the audience I and guys like Jerome Finley work tend to be composed of believers more than the general population, what these people view as being "entertaining" frequently entails education around their personal belief system -- an affirmation of sorts. On the other hand, someone that works from a more whimsical sense of character would probably be seen as "insulting" by such groups; not because they loathe levity, but because most such characters come off in a mocking manner vs. being supportive. Which brings us to the other big issue here; Magic Squares (in this case) may not suit the what & who of your persona both, form the stage and in your personal life BUT, I will pass on a suggestion -- a "Challenge" of sorts that I was first given about a decade ago, by Rick Maue; take the pieces you like least and find ways of using the effect, method, etc. that allows you to actually appreciate that material and open your personal horizons when it comes to possibilities as well as personal growth.

Just a thought

Certainly a thought, but I feel I am as likely to see a riveting performance of the Magic Square as I am to hear a decent Robbie Williams song. From the viewpoint of a mathematical demonstration, it's perfect. However for a performer I feel there is much stronger and more engaging material out there.

Part-Timer wrote:Da Vinci (that's the second time you've misspelled it, so I assume it's not just a slip).

You seem very interested in The Da Vinci Zone, ej16. Why's that? It's very much not something that fits within this cateogry! It was a reasonably good book test that was arguably over-priced for what you got, but not a bad purchase for a working stage mentalist.

I am intrested in it because I have always been a fan of book tests.
Also I can not find a review for it anywhere on the internet.

Hope this answers your question
Ej16

A magic square can work like a memory demonstration effect, as an apparent "mental warm-up".

In one of Lee Earle's Syzygy lecture videos, he opens with a memory bit, instantly memorising a long string of numbers. His explanation was: "If I was a singer, I'd have spent my time backstage doing scales. If I was a gymnast, I'd have been doing stretches to warm up the muscles. But I'm a mind reader, and I can't practise that on my own. So with your permission, I'll show you how I warm up my mind."

There's something in the back of my mind about a magic square, or something not a million miles away from a magic square, being used to calculate the spectator's lucky number. In context with a reading, or even just a star sign or Tarot card prediction, that could fit in quite well.

Sigh. THIS is how you do mathemagic: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/arthu ... magic.html

ej16 wrote:I am intrested in it because I have always been a fan of book tests.
Also I can not find a review for it anywhere on the internet.

Second item on my Google search for "the Da Vinci Zone" was this: http://www.jheff.com/Da_Vinci_Zone.html

Sorry for going off topic, but this wasn't worth a new thread. Possibly one for a PM, but I thought it better to put this out in the open in case anyone else was interested.

Part-Timer wrote:

ej16 wrote:I am intrested in it because I have always been a fan of book tests.
Also I can not find a review for it anywhere on the internet.

Second item on my Google search for "the Da Vinci Zone" was this: http://www.jheff.com/Da_Vinci_Zone.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Sorry for going off topic, but this wasn't worth a new thread. Possibly one for a PM, but I thought it better to put this out in the open in case anyone else was interested.

This is the exact one I am on about.
It is cheaper on The Miracle Factory

Lady of Mystery wrote:I'm toying with adding a magic square to a little routine that I'm putting together. I'm not really a great fan of them but for what I've got in mind, I think it has more or a purpose and I think it might just work.

Like many things, I think the magic square is one things that needs a strong presentation and some sort of reason behind it.

You make the Magic square sound quite exciting.
I, myself don't perform it. In impromptu situations I enjoy psych forces or the Naked book test, ONLY after performing a book test-- this one is achieved through the good ol center tear.

Whenever I "get it wrong" and have them write it again, I'll just have them look up another word and write THAT one down. if you guessed, that I name the previous word instead of the new one, then get out of my mind!! D: