|
|
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts |
Hey everyone,
How many of you uses sleights in a non-obvious way? To use a sleight or method to convey something different of the most obvious way to use that sleight. I'll try to explain what I mean by that: -To use a sleight where the effect is not directly linked to the method. eg: effect: a card on the table magically changes it's value method: top change VS. effect: you install a secret virus on the spectator's phone where the camera blocks any record of the 3 of clubs by changing the photos to look like the 5 of hearts. Method: a top change. Another example (but in coin magic) using a muscle pass to make the coin "fall upwards" vs. Using a muscle pass to vanish or change a coin. Those are just simple and kind of dumb examples. But who does things along those lines? Why do I ask that? I feel the subject is tangent to the "card tricks are boring" post. Also, I think it can be a better way to hide some sleights or to justify them. It's a way of thinking about sleights and presentations that seems to generate more interesting effects. What do you think? Do you do that? |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2018, Ricardo Delgado wrote: you might enjoy older books which mention tricks using "the slide" or "facing the cards/deck". There's not [i]supposed[i] be an obvious way to use a sleight.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Huzzah New user 53 Posts |
It sounds a lot like the topic Darwin Ortiz talks about in Designing Miracles about using direct methods. I think the example he gave was a MacDonald's Ace routine using the DF cards vs palming the Aces out of each packet and dropping them into the leader packet. In one, the method/sleight is just secretly turning over a card, which isn't directly related to transposition, but in the other, the method is very direct, literally taking the cards and secretly switching them. The latter is inferior because that is one of the first possibilities a spectator will consider
|
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts |
Yes Huzzah! That's what I meant.
And yes Jonathan, you're right. I haven't expressed myself the best way I could, sorry. Direct method may be a better description. But if you think about it there are obvious ways to use some sleights. Or at least a pourpose. Color changes have a very obvious use: to visually make a card change. Maybe there is a way to use a color change as a control. It would be anything but obvious. A color change made with the backs facing up could be a way to "invisibly" change a card for another and lose that other card in the deck instead. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Sleights are supposed to be invisible - we're not juggling. The audience is not supposed to know if we did any sleights. Unless perhaps you are working for magicians and want to use the actions of one sleight to set up a feint - to make a moment where you do something else.
As Darwin discussed - one aspect of method design is to make room (distance and/or time) between the "before" and "after" so you can play up the "magical cause". Finding a match between your open procedure and available sleights is its own challenge.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts |
I agree with the second phrase, but not with the first. I've never been confortable reading or thinking that sleights are suposed to be invisible. Beacuse that's not it. They are supposed to look like something (maybe an action, or a shuffle or something else), and with that, to be perceived as a innocent move. "Squaring the deck" for the pass, or "turning one card over" for the DL.
But that's not really the point of the post. We can change "obvious" for "traditional", or "established". But I still think obvious describes better what I mean. It's the first effect that crossed our minds when we first learn an sleight or principle. Like woth the mem-deck. The first thing (and most obvious) is to make someone name a card and we find it. It is obvious, but it doesn't mean it's a bad method. And it is literally invisible. There are no sleights, it's immaterial. But, there is a (justified) concern to hide that method. On the other hand, there are effects using the mem-deck on a different way. The nor blind not stupid routine that fooled Penn and Teller is an example. Isn't that more subtle? I'd like to know more of that, but applied to sleights. All literature is appreciated, but I'm interested most in your experiences. |
carlyle Regular user 166 Posts |
Interesting topic - I agree, things using a faced-deck spring to mind. As do faro's, but not sure if that kind of thing would be considered a sleight or an actual shuffle/procedure.
John Hamman's "The Knavish Deuces" uses a type of flustration count half way through that I find pretty subtle and out of context - which really makes the trick something special. Perhaps the structure itself is what makes it such a fun trick, but it came to mind. The beginning of "Heart of the City" (Bannon) also comes to mind - again, the structure of the trick seems to make the sleights less obvious perhaps, but at times it seems like you're one ahead and then one behind, etc. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
If your actions are not obviously motivated by plausible mannerisms then...
So whether or not it's really when you did it...cause and effect get back tracked. Where and when...no concern for what... This is what folks sometimes call "too perfect"...or obvious upon reflection.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
fonda57 Inner circle chicago 3078 Posts |
Depends on your goal. Is using a muscle pass to change coins as deceptive as other methods?
In your example, does the audience know or perceive you did a double lift or a pass? If they suspect you did anything than you did it wrong, doesn't matter the method. |
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts |
About the muscle pass, I don't know. It was just an example to better explain the idea. And I ask about that exactly because I'd like to know what other similar ideas people have or had. I've heard about how Shoot Ogawa uses it for a variety of things more interesting than making a coin jump.
But by asking about spectators perception of the flaws in the execution of a sleight, you are missing the point. This is not about imperfect moves, or flaws. Always assume, in my examples in this topic, that all the moves are done perfectly. If you are suggesting that the moves don't matter as long as they are well executed and technically perfect, I strongly disagree. Methods should be amalgamated to the presentation of any Theatrical Magic performance (close-up or stage). If you change the method, at least some part of the presentation should also change. In Social Magic you have more flexibility. If sleights didn't mattered as long as they were perfect, then we wouldn't have the variety of sleights in existence today. And also, we wouldn't be having this discussion. |
fonda57 Inner circle chicago 3078 Posts |
Yes, I'm missing the point. I don't know what your are talking about.
|
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
I know exactly what you’re talking about, Ricardo.
It’s about using indirect methods to accomplish effects. Using a top change to change a card is, in theory, a direct line from method to effect. In practice, of course, we use misdirection and presentation to blur that line. But those tools shouldn’t stop us from intelligently constructing methods that subvert that line totally. For instance, John Cornelius uses the muscle pass to toss a coin through a glass table. Instead of using the move’s properties — i.e. the coin shoots upward, apparently of its own volition — he uses it in a non-obvious (and in this case covert) fashion. (And yes, I’m aware that’s an ironic example, considering Cornelius popularized the “coin that falls up.”) |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
There's a clever Tent Vanish that uses a color change sleight. Or the classic pass used in a sneaky method for the "collectors" trick.
If you look for where the card sleights were first described you will likely find some clever, appropriate and non-obvious methods for magic. That includes the Muscle Pass coin item in the Buckley book.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
fonda57 Inner circle chicago 3078 Posts |
Oh. I see. I thought you meant different versions of moves.
|
Ricardo Delgado Loyal user 230 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 21, 2018, Rupert Pupkin wrote: Yes! That's what I'm talking about. Thanks, you expressed it better than I could. I don't know the Tent Vanish. I'll look into it. Is it published somewhere? Thanks for the responses! If you have more on that I'd love to hear it! |
Huzzah New user 53 Posts |
I got to meet Shoot last year and his muscle pass really is incredible. He did a coins across routine that used it a lot. On the one hand muscle pass can be considered a very direct method for a coins across routine, but on the other hand, it does allow for some time displacement and emphasizing the "magical moment" as Jonathan said
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Using Sleights in non-obvious ways (4 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |