|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Bill Hegbli Eternal Order Fort Wayne, Indiana 22797 Posts 
|
I have been watching WGM recently, and noticed all the magician performing on stage and in the center isle among the seated guests, execute the riffle force improperly. They all just quickly pull the top of the deck out. Making it very noticeable what they are doing.
Is it because they get wrong tutorials off YouTube, or they just don't read the card books anymore. Last show I watched all did the riffle force using the same handling, and it was not the correct way to execute the force. I find it interesting as these performers are suppose to be Great Magicians. |
|||||||||
|
fonda57 Inner circle chicago 3080 Posts
|
Jibrizi has been on that show, what does that tell you.
|
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts
|
I think Bill is pointing out an important mishandling. That can be a help to those who are looking to improve their work. An artist should seek to fix any weakness in his work once it is called out. Criticism among magicians is not just meanness...real workers appreciate being called out by their peers rather than their audiences.
|
|||||||||
|
AaronSterling Veteran user 319 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 7, 2018, fonda57 wrote: ??? Jibrizy's been on Fool Us. He fooled P&T. |
|||||||||
|
GlennLawrence Veteran user Randolph NJ 321 Posts
|
Bill, just to clarify do you mean Masters of Illusion? World's Greatest Magic (WGM) was a series of five 2 hour TV specials that aired in the late 90's that were produced by Gary Oullet. But if you're talking something currently airing I would assume it's either Masters, or could also be America's Got Talent.
In any case, yes I too have noticed the same thing you mention. The execution could be better. |
|||||||||
|
0pus Inner circle New Jersey 1739 Posts
|
I would like to ask some questions.
I am not very accomplished at card magic. Could Bill explain for a new-to-card-sleights person what the riffle force is, how it should be executed and what the magicians he is seeing are doing (and why that is improper and less effective than the proper execution)? And I would greatly appreciate it if the explanation is stated as simply as possible. I do not pretend to have any real competence in this area. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Hegbli Eternal Order Fort Wayne, Indiana 22797 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2018, GlennLawrence wrote: Yes, you are correct, I believe, It currently airs on the CW on Friday I believe. I watched it last week and this stayed in my mind all week, so that is why I posted the question. They usually run a repeat and then a new show. Gay Blackstone puts it together. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Hegbli Eternal Order Fort Wayne, Indiana 22797 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 8, 2018, 0pus wrote: I don't believe your request can be honored, as it is against the rules of the Café to expose magic in an open forum. Secondly, it would take a small booklet to explain the mechanics and patter. I can only say, the Riffle Force is began by running the thumb down the corner of the deck, and the spectator is call out stop, the magician then stops at that point and deck is opened book fashion. The card at the cut, is the selected card to be used in the effect. Look it up, it is in print. |
|||||||||
Ben Blau Inner circle 1475 Posts
|
Not a fan of the Riffle Force, even on its best day. Especially when the magician actually uses the word “riffle”.
“I’ll just riffle the cards like this, and you just call out ‘stop’ any time you want.” This is not the way anyone would have a card fairly selected or thought of, IMO. Regular people don’t even know what “riffle” means in the first place. At very least, adjust the words to something like, “I’m going to run my thumb down the side like this. At any time you like, tell me where you’d like me to stop.” That would be an improvement, but I still think it’s weird. Its main virtues are that it’s easy and practical. But if you want maximum impact in card tricks that involve selections, I much prefer to allow them to select a card with the deck in their own hands, or better yet, just think of one. There are decent looking forces from an in-the-hands spread, but that is such an archetypal “pick a card, any card” posture, I don’t like them very much for that exact reason. The Riffle Force has potential to become the second most trite technique in card magic (first place obviously goes to the multiple lift/turnover in this category). My preference and motto has always been “Subtlety over brute force”. I can force a card on anyone, including magicians, without them even suspecting a force. Okay, I’m ready to be flamed now. 
Ben Blau
http://www.benblaumentalism.com |
|||||||||
rabbitok New user Sydney, Australia 52 Posts
|
Quote:
An artist should seek to fix any weakness in his work once it is called out. Criticism among magicians is not just meanness...real workers appreciate being called out by their peers rather than their audiences. +1 ! How else can we improve unless we are willing to take notes, critiques and the APPLY the notes to our work, I continually seek feedback even for moves and tricks that I think I've got down, there is always room for nuanced improvement... And to keep it relevent there are imho way better forces than the riffle, classic is my go to, even the cross force is highly deceptive... Annemans (202 Card Forces) would be my path for a better way : ) |
|||||||||
|
AaronSterling Veteran user 319 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2018, Ben Blau wrote: I've seen it motivated best on stage. You're letting the person in the third row select a card, without having to come all the way up. But it's the same as them being there with you, your thumb is an extension of their hands. You're saving them time, and it's a natural process. As opposed to a weird magician-way to choose a card. Close up it doesn't make much sense to me. Why not at least use a Peek Control, so the audience physically touches the deck? |
|||||||||
|
Wilktone Loyal user Asheville, NC 258 Posts
|
Quote:
I have been watching WGM recently, and noticed all the magician performing on stage and in the center isle among the seated guests, execute the riffle force improperly. They all just quickly pull the top of the deck out. Making it very noticeable what they are doing. I haven’t gone back (yet) to watch examples of what you’re pointing out, but are you noting that the magicians open the “book” too quickly? If so, that sort of lines up with the Jerx’s comments that it’s the speed of the force technique which invites suspicion. Quote:
The people sample size they used was 22, which statically is way too small compared to the lay audience population, therefore you cannot confidently generalise the results from it. That is true, a sample size of 22 is more of a pilot study, but to put that number into some perspective, my doctoral dissertation used a sample size of 34. That was large enough to successfully defend my research and complete my degree. The other point that we need to consider is that it is 22 people larger than what anyone else appears to have done. Yes, there’s probably some “noise” in the results, but such large differences make it worthy of more thought. Quote:
The red flag is when the Classic Force is as low as 45 whereas the Under-the-Spread Force scores 72, i.e. 60% higher. Those two forces are identical in the selection procedure (the deck is spread and the spec chooses a card), besides the fact that the CF seems fairer as the card is removed by the spectator whereas it’s not in the USF. The researchers did address your criticism in the methodology discussion, but perhaps not to your satisfaction. Here is what was written: So why test both the classic force and the under-the-spread force? Well, despite the fact they're both selections from a spread, they have different rhythms to them. With the classic force the cards are pretty much constantly moving from one hand to the other until the selection is made. The under-the-spread force can be done slower and more deliberately and the cards can be held in a static spread. In one the card is removed, in the other it's (usually) left in the deck. Again, while we didn't actually force the cards during these selections, we kept the same rhythm and look to the selection. In the write up of the results the author speculates that it is the speed of the force that raises suspicion. In the classic force the spread is constantly moving and the spectator has no chance to change his or her mind, compared with the under the spread force. One other point addressed in the author’s discussion is that many of the subjects were familiar with the concept of the classic force already and so it felt less fair to them - even though a card wasn’t really being forced at the time. Quote:
I've done some scientificization of magic, and it's extremely hard, because you have to be clear about exactly what your model is keeping, and what it is throwing away. Have you had a chance to do something similar and test a lay audiences’ perceptions of forces? If so, I gather your results were different from the Jerx’s write up. Would you be able to comment on what you found to be the most fair feeling force? My personal (amateur) experience with the classic force is that I have been busted a number of times. My spectators (usually people I already know) have commented something to the effect that I just handed them the card I wanted them to take. Surely some of that suspicion comes down to my technique, but I also suspect that magicians don’t always give a lay audience enough credit. I typically don’t use a riffle force, preferring the slip force. The angles aren’t as forgiving, but it feels (to me) like it’s fairer. That said, it’s an odd way to select a card. I think the motivation that Aaron mentions above is enough to justify it in a performance, but it would be interesting to test that idea out further. Dave |
|||||||||
|
tltq Regular user east coast 161 Posts
|
||||||||||
Last Laugh Inner circle Grass Valley, California 3498 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2018, Ben Blau wrote: Yeah I was also going to add that the double lift/turnover is the other thing I avoid but didn't want to get too off track. Like you I don't like the 'pick a card, any card' stance. But then we are both mentalists, so we have a vested interest in creating a little distance from magic. But take a look at innovative performers like Dani DaOrtiz. You will see no riffle forces or DLs. Regarding the Jerx - if one is interested in moving magic forward, then it's very important to question commonly held beliefs. Nobody else is doing focus groups to test these deeply held assumptions. It's easy to dismiss things that you don't want to hear, but if you genuinely want to be a better performer, then you should be willing to listen to arguments that challenge your beliefs. Even if you decide you ultimately don't agree, you will be better for having questioned.
My Mentalism Podcast:
The Mystery Arts Podcast Check out my products! Direct from me (PW: cassidy) On Penguin Magic |
|||||||||
|
Bill Hegbli Eternal Order Fort Wayne, Indiana 22797 Posts
|
I don't see the need to argue which Force is better, everyone, including me knows there are better forces available, but the riffle force, when presented correctly, is strong, and easy for most magicians.
I feel it can be used to much in an act, but it has the advantage of not needing a table to the deck on. Take for example the Classic Force, if you don't have an out prepared, then you stuck. You have to be bold as well, but that takes a lot of misses to finally learn how to time your actions along with the spectator's movements. So the best solution is to have a small arsenal of forces, and use several in a presentation, if they are needed. Saying "Pick a Card" constantly is just as bad as, "Tell when to stop" constantly. To much repetitive actions not any good as well. Even using a forcing deck, takes practice and rehearsal. The Koran 101 Deck is an example. The spectator could argue which card he landed on in his dealing of the cards on the table. It is over come with a simple statement. Just some thoughts as I read through these discussions. |
|||||||||
|
AaronSterling Veteran user 319 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2018, Last Laugh wrote: I think you're missing the point. The goal isn't to appear fair. It's to appear *worth watching* while at the same time giving the audience lots of tiny opportunities to help you. They're bought in at the start, with either their time or money. The rest of the show is a process of them investing further in you (really, in the success of the group). If someone chooses a card helpfully and then insists "I want to keep this card, I don't want to change my mind," you've created a team effort where the spectator helped you in the selection, and then builds an emotional memory of really really wanting this card, even though they could have switched for any other. |
|||||||||
|
Last Laugh Inner circle Grass Valley, California 3498 Posts
|
Well, to be clear here, my post wasn't a response to yours, just to the out of hand dismissal of the articles by several people in this thread.
However for me, the goal IS to appear fair. AND worth watching. And there is absolutely nothing mutually exclusive about the two. Not sure why one wouldn't want to be both. For me - especially as a mentalist - I want the audience to think "I have no idea how that happened" rather than "He must be really good at sleight of hand". So that *for me* means doing mostly hands off card material and making sure that I don't use procedures that the average audience associates with sleight of hand. As such, fairness/deceptiveness is definitely one of my goals. I am not at all saying that you shouldn't do the classic force, or to not prioritize being fair. That's your choice and has to do with your performing character. I do strongly believe that magic is better when it's not something that can be rationalized by the audience as 'sleight of hand'. But again, that's my opinion. Sure, gambling demonstrations and SOH experts are entertaining and worthy of respect, but I find them less magical. And I mean magical in the sense of creating a paradox in the mind where the audience has no way to explain what they have seen.
My Mentalism Podcast:
The Mystery Arts Podcast Check out my products! Direct from me (PW: cassidy) On Penguin Magic |
|||||||||
|
Last Laugh Inner circle Grass Valley, California 3498 Posts
|
You're saying that a genuine selection using the same procedure as the riffle force is less deceptive than an actual force?
That doesn't make much sense to me. But either way - the big take away for me is to make sure the participant doesn't feel rushed. No matter which method you use, you want the participant to feel they could have truly taken any card, not that they didn't have time to really make a choice.
My Mentalism Podcast:
The Mystery Arts Podcast Check out my products! Direct from me (PW: cassidy) On Penguin Magic |
|||||||||
Mr Salk Special user Tied to 568 Posts
|
I may have misread the results, but yes a non-sleight may look significantly more or less fair than the actual depending on the handling and pacing. I agree about not being "rushed" regardless of method.
Noting the success of the cross-cut I assume the specs were not card players. Any rummy grandma would rate it as zero.
.
. |
|||||||||
|
Maestro Special user 802 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2018, tltq wrote: Thanks for the link, looks like its worth looking at. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Why Do All Magician on WGM Execute The Riffle Improperly? (30 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 7, 2018 06:48 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|