In live performance, the audience is involved. And if you're performing chink-a-chink on the street for a few spectators standing directly in front of your table, and you're looking at them, and speaking to them, do you think they don't think they're involved, Andrew?

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what the heck is being talked about here.

I don't get how people are supposed to feel that the performer is being "generous" by having the coins go in their direction. It helps the magic, sure, but their level of involvement in that scenario is limited solely to proximity. They don't get credit for the magic, nor do they get to have the magic happen in their hands, nor do they get to leave with the coins afterwards. If the magic is being done solely for them, then that's a gift that's got nothing to do with whether or not the coins are going to them in a diamond formation or in approximately their direction in the outer corner of a square. If, on the other hand, the magic is being done for a group, and that one person is there to act as some sort of prop to demonstrate to the rest of the group how generous you are by sending the coins in their direction, I don't really see much gratitude coming out that.

And going to a broader level, actors working off each other, playing around with levels of status so as to have dramatic focus and developments work properly in a theatrical performance... that's a dynamic that feels different to most magic I've seen where a performer works with a spectator. Most of the people who end up "sharing the stage" with the magician didn't really have a clue that they were going to be part of the act, and a certain amount of awkwardness is expected and arguably even necessary a lot of the time just to make sure people are convinced that the person there isn't in on it somehow. This lack of familiarity with their role is part of the charm, of course, but the dynamic tends to be less about two actors sharing the stage with each other, and more of a dancer leading their partner through the steps.

So yeah, still confused.

Once more, Curtis touched on it here:



Regarding your dancing reference, all theatre productions will have a day that's the first on set. I'm sure Mr. James Earl Jones has danced with many an awkward partner who ended up thanking him for his grace and generosity.

I wonder if maybe he did it a little something like this: http://www.dancingdeep.com/connect.html

There's a big difference between choosing a choreography because it feels right, and asserting that a specific choreography encompasses some lofty virtue. If somebody's idea of being "generous" means sending the magic a tiny bit more in their direction than the other guy, rather than, oh, I dunno, making them the star of the routine, or letting the magic happen in their hands, or giving them greater credit in the way things unfold, or offering them a true gift that they can keep, or coming through on a genuine request... well, it sounds like somebody's kidding themselves about what generosity truly is.

It might feel right because it is generous. Part of the problem here, Andrew, I think, is that you started attacking this idea of generosity by assuming those who see this perspective are suggesting:


No one said there's anything inadequate necessarily about sending the coins to the side or that an audience would be offended by that blocking. It's a fantastic, strong, audience appreciated effect. Therefore, the subtlety of sending the coins more openly to the audience could be considered generous. Subtle but very true. Not sure why you need to shut that down, Andrew. We're not kidding ourselves. Your comment to the contrary is out of line. I don't spend time discussing and posting citations for subjects I know nothing about. I shut my mouth and do some reading and listening. And I continue to do that when I have knowledge, too, because I'm interested in the material. Lawrence, Curtis, and I understand what we're saying here, and I'd wager so do plenty of others. You're not beyond learning, Andrew, anymore than the rest of us are.

We didn't imply:

either.

It's disappointing to see you continue attacking credible people's character and intelligence when you don't like what they're saying, but you haven't got another leg to stand on in the discussion.

Really?



Please pay attention to the words "meaningless" and the phrasing "instead of magic being generous", two apparent criticisms of the traditional way of doing things.



Compared to... what? Unless the magician overtly plays up the generosity angle, most audiences simply aren't going to have enough data from previous performances to compare how "generous" this routine construction is compared to others, because most audiences, when they see magic live, are seeing it for the first time. Conversely, they won't be able to see an innate lack of generosity in the traditional approach, because they'll think that the point of the routine is to have the coins gather in one area.

And, if the magician was foolish enough to play up the generosity angle, then he'd have to deal with the fact that the routine that's purportedly being so generous doesn't involve the spectator in a meaningful way, doesn't allow them to get credit for any of the magic, doesn't involve them getting to keep the coins, doesn't inherently include something that's going to be perceived as "generous" that couldn't also be introduced into an original to-the-corner assembly.

Given the absence of those extra factors that would make the routine read as "generous", the take-away for most people with Chink-A-Chink is related to the inherent dynamics of the effect. Breaking the major ones down: the magic is very visual; there are a half-dozen hits of magic in a short period of time; the magic involves examinable objects; the magic ends away from the magician (Roth method); the magic is mysterious because it starts and ends clean (Roth method); the spectator is passive throughout (good or bad depending upon the function one's hoping the trick to fulfill); the magician can sell the idea of not even touching the coins. These are the take-aways for everybody in the original trick, and they're good ones. We could look at some of the potential cons, such as an arbitrary layout of the coins, but consider that pretty much any table layout is going to seem arbitrary IF the point is to stress the point that the magician is magically gifting the spectator with coins. Why not have them jump from your hand into theirs? Why not have them hold a useless piece of metal, you apply your magic, and it changes into gold? Why not have them hold their penny, and you hold a quarter, and you cause them to switch places, leaving them with the more valuable coin? Or, if the supposed generosity is to make them more involved in the bit, why not do a trick where they get some real credit for the magic that's happened, where you don't even have to shoe-horn in the generosity angle?



Oh, grow up, Laurie. If nothing else, if somebody can't handle dealing with rebuttals to a logically-shaky assertion, then how are they going to handle performing live for people? If Lawrence likes sending the coins directly at the spectator because it's got a better aesthetic, or else because it ramps up the impossibility scale that much more by being further away from the magician, that's one thing, but to imply that he's a better person for doing it, rather than indulging in meaninglessness and lack of generosity of those who perform the original, then that's laughable.

On 2012-01-21 15:26, Andrew Musgrave wrote:


Really?



O.k. My mistake. I'll speak for myself. The concept of generosity I've defended here is still relevant. As I said earlier:

Fine. Please explain how this "generosity" is absent in a traditional Chink-a-Chink routine with the original layout. There's still a shared stage, the coins can still go in their direction, and having it go to the corner rather than directly across could allow for magician and spectator to be at 3/4 profile rather than side-profile, which is awkward staging, and still have the coins end up closest to them.

In my earlier comments I referred to performing Chink-a-Chink on the street for a few people standing directly in front of the table. If your audience is front and center, sending the coins that way could be considered generous compared to sending them another direction. It was a subtle, valid point. I haven't set the two handlings in diametric opposition. It's a handling variation, not an opposite. My posts reflect my intent and appreciation for the effect.

Again, in my earlier comments I pointed out that this assumes that they're aware of the other possibilities, and will judge your version against those. And, keep in mind, when Lawrence was proposing his choreography and justification for it, he wasn't limiting the venue to something as specific as you're describing, he was speaking altruistically.

Ah whatever. You want to play at your game of grasping at straws, have at 'er.

No, Andrew. It doesn't assume that. Lawrence was talking about directing the coins toward the audience. I think it was implied he meant sending them closer than they would go otherwise. And I think initially he was speaking as a magician to fellow magicians who would recognize the difference by comparison. But I'll let him speak further on that for himself.

In terms of audience perspective I'll stand by saying just because an audience is not being shown the two handlings side by side, doesn't mean they can't perceive the coins going to them as generous. Doesn't mean they'll articulate it as such, as I've said before. Doesn't mean they won't, either.

As I also said earlier, your insults are out of line. They weaken your arguments and are a disservice to magic and magicians in a big way.

Excellent! Everything's going according to plan...

The beneficiary is not required to declare outright, "That was generous." or even to realize the action was such. It simply can be when the magician has sincerely given enhanced recognition, regard, and respect. More than would have been adequate. When it's been done to increase benefit to those present with him. Choosing the handling variation of chink-a-chink that's been discussed can be done in that capacity.

I don't know if that particular presentation would be generous, but I would deem it considerate (for maximum visibility and impact). I think Etienne is wise to study his presentation from ALL angles, so to speak.

I was working on my nautical presentation for this yesterday and came up with the idea of using a different coloured coin to distinguish the captain's boat from the rest of the fleet. I imagine the idea of using different coloured or otherwise distinctive items has been explored before with chink-a-chink but I don't recall having seen a presentation of it. I use the regular (ala David Roth) sequence. It's a dark and stormy night, the ocean's not fit for man nor beast (which explains the turtle shells that the sailors find washed up on shore the following morning, which bring me to the 3 shell game quite nicely. ) Anyway, here are a few pics for the presentation- I've considered using miniature boats but haven't found quite what I'm looking for- perhaps I should make some If anyone is aware of a similar presentation, I'd certainly like to hear about it. I'll post a video as soon as I can get one.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......start=30

I think there are a few additional references, descriptions listed here. Some similar to what I'm working on.

Wow - tough to see in the top photo but you are using nickels! I don’t think I have ever worked with coins that small. Do you perform any other coin effects with nickels or other small coins? Just curious.

Thanks!

Jim

Hi Jim,

Yes, using nickels for this presentation now. I was using quarters but that changed yesterday.

I do have another presentation for chink-a-chink which uses sheep coins, also nickel size. I have some larger sheep coins, but they're too big, I think, though I don't recall having tried them for chink-a-chink. The coins dictate sometimes.

I have also used the sheep nickel sized coins for "Thieves Pitchin' Sheep" along with a couple of Canadian 1967 wolf half dollars.

I use the Canadian 1967 rabbit nickels too:

in "The Great Rabbit Escape" here

and Dynamic Rabbit Duo