On 2005-08-19 20:12, Mad Duck wrote:

Magic history, BORING??? If its anything its definatly NOT that! If you look at magic history and start to read about it its amazing! I used to be like you and dislike history but after reading Hiding the Elephant and starting The Illustrated History of Magic I have been amazed. You learn orgins of effects and you can create very interesting conversations, I don't know how but while studying magic I have been becoming a better magician by reading the falls and rise(s?) of famous magicians. You might just find a few amazing secrets to when you study Enough of this useless jabber.

On 2005-08-20 21:22, magicalaurie wrote:
I don't see how anyone has the authority to say they have NO place in a magical presentation.

On 2005-08-20 23:09, magicalaurie wrote:
I believe some have used an authoritative tone. To imply that that those who don't share a certain perspective are telling half-truths, are not true to their audience or are egocentric, suggests the superiority of a certain opinion.

On 2005-08-01 08:44, onezero1 wrote:
Often when I finish presenting an effect in an informal (i.e non-paid) situation I sometimes talk about it with the spectators as a sort of post-mindmelt comedown.
I tell them the name of the effect (unless it tips the method in which case I make one up) and I tell them a little about the inventor. For example after Vernons twisting the aces I would say "...and that's called twisting the aces, it was invented by a guy called Dai Vernon" I then tell them a bit about Dai Vernon and his contributions to magic. Method never comes into the discussion and people seem to enjoy the mini-lecture. Laymen have never heard of this great man, we keep more than our methods secret. Anyway I find this little bit of magical education a comfortable framework for certain types of effect BUT does anyone else do this? or am I commiting a faux pas?

On 2005-08-20 23:41, Bill Palmer wrote:
I think the discussion has gotten very far from the original question, so I will re-post it here:

Quote:

On 2005-08-01 08:44, onezero1 wrote:
Often when I finish presenting an effect in an informal (i.e non-paid) situation I sometimes talk about it with the spectators as a sort of post-mindmelt comedown.
I tell them the name of the effect (unless it tips the method in which case I make one up) and I tell them a little about the inventor. For example after Vernons twisting the aces I would say "...and that's called twisting the aces, it was invented by a guy called Dai Vernon" I then tell them a bit about Dai Vernon and his contributions to magic. Method never comes into the discussion and people seem to enjoy the mini-lecture. Laymen have never heard of this great man, we keep more than our methods secret. Anyway I find this little bit of magical education a comfortable framework for certain types of effect BUT does anyone else do this? or am I commiting a faux pas?

Since this is an informal, unpaid show, I don't think this hurts at all. I'm sure that few in your peer group know anything about Dai Vernon. But he is not a total stranger to people who visited the Magic Castle in the years before he died. I used to have people ask me about him, even as late as 1998 or so. Some didn't know his name, but they described him to a T. And they knew hie was called "the Professor."

I'm not sure what I would tell them, though -- I wouldn't say "and he invented a card sleight called the double lift." and I don't think you would, either. You might say that he invented a trick that fooled Houdini. I think I would use the dropped guard people have right after they have been fooled as a way of getting into my next routine.

You have to be careful about "teaching" people. You can teach people through magic, just as is done with animated cartoons and other media as well, but you must be careful not to bore them. A famous magician I know (I won't mention his name) became infatuated with Ted Annemann. He had a whole Ted Annemann theme running through his college show. I watched the students when he did this. They did not find it extremely entertaining.

You can do a little historical teaching by making some appropriate references to Houdini, Copperfield, etc., but I wouldn't get hung up on them. A line or two about Houdini before you do a straitjacket escape is not a bad idea. A 5 minute history lesson about Houdini would probably be boring.

Magicians must satisfy their own inner needs as well as the needs of the audience. But the needs of the audience must come first. If you can combine the two, then you have got it made.

I can't imagine ending a routine with "Thank you very much. That was called 'The Dollar Bill in the Lemon,' and it was based upon the routine that George Kaplan had in The Fine Art of Magic. I added the ..." The exception would be if you were doing a lecture or something.

Teaching is best done by discovery. If you can make the audience learn something by apparently discovering it themselves, they will remember it, and they will think they are smart because they discovered it.

The worst thing you can do for an audience is bore them.

On 2005-08-21 01:13, Bill Palmer wrote:
It's just a matter of personal observation. I, for one, and Jonathan Townsend, for another are definitely interested in the history of magic. I know that there are other people on this forum who are, as well. Clay Shevlin, Curtis Kam, Tilman, all of these are very deeply interested in the history of our art/craft. I don't believe anyone who ignores the history of magic can be very good at it in the long run. At least they cannot have any depth in it.

And a knowledge of the history of magic keeps us from repeating things that are inferior. It also helps us avoid the mistakes of others. Not only that, but sometimes returning to the historical versions of older material provides us with a basis for something that will fool the heck out of our friends and entertain audiences mightily. Some of Ricky Jay's material is actually that.

On 2005-08-21 19:11, Bill Palmer wrote:
To the layman, "silk" is an adjective. "Handkerchief" is a noun. If you say, "Here I have a red silk," the spectator is waiting for the word that "silk" modifies. Why don't you use a "dacron-polyester" instead?
Study your lines. Read them thoroughly. Make sure you understand what they mean to your audience.

On 2005-08-21 19:11, Bill Palmer wrote:
No, but if it is handled correctly, it can be done.

On 2005-08-21 19:11, Bill Palmer wrote:
No, but if it is handled correctly, it can be done.

The names of "tricks" can actually get in the way.

Let me give you an example or two:

Let's suppose you are performing "The Square Circle." If you announce, "And now, the famous 'Square Circle,'" your audience will be expecting a rather unusual geometrical phenomenon. Instead, you show them an oddly decorated square tube and an equally oddly decorated round tube.

Or, you say, "and now, the Zombie." Then you make a ball float. I think they may be expecting to see an undead person.

One of the funniest things of this nature that I have ever seen was when a friend of mine decided to perform Steve Dusheck's famous floating "metal" bar effect. She was describing it to me, and she said, "And I'm performing this to a recording of 'Wunderbar.'"

I asked, "Why?"

"Well, the name of the trick is 'Wonderbar.' "

"Does the audience know that?"

"Uh, no."

"Then what's the point?"

Certain words in our presentations can present what I call "subconscious speed bumps." These are phrases that the layman will interpret differently than we do. To the layman, "silk" is an adjective. "Handkerchief" is a noun. If you say, "Here I have a red silk," the spectator is waiting for the word that "silk" modifies. Why don't you use a "dacron-polyester" instead?

Study your lines. Read them thorougly. Make sure you understand what they mean to your audience.

On 2005-08-19 15:25, Vandy Grift wrote:

Now you don't have to call me Mr. Vandy unless you are condescending to me. If you are, Mr. Grift would be more proper. My friends call me Vandy and you are welcome to do so as well.

On 2005-08-22 12:53, Bill Palmer wrote:

The segment with Bill Malone was an exception to the way he would normally perform that routine. He certainly wouldn't show a video of John Scarne at the beginning of his ace-cutting routine. He might talk about him, BRIEFLY, but then go into the routine.

On 2005-08-21 21:16, Bill Palmer wrote:

Then I went into the straitjacket. I explained that the straitjacket escape was introduced into the world of magic by Harry Houdini, because until he performed it, all escapes were done under cover. This was the first escape that was performed in the open. Then I bring out the straitjacket and let the helpers look at it. I point out the characteristics of it. "This thing is made of 64 ounce sail cloth. That's heavy stuff!!! It's the same material that pulled the great sailing ships across the ocean. It's reinforced with leather. That's tough stuff. It's used to hold cows together. Ever seen one without it? It's not a pretty sight!"

Then they put me into the straitjacket. I sent them back to their seats and I said: "Ladies and Gentlemen. Houdini's average time for this escape was 11 minutes and 57 seconds. I hope to take at least 10 minutes off this time tonight for two reasons: