(Close Window)
Topic: Why do you expose the F@@@e Tr@@@@@r In CnB?
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 23, 2014 03:49AM)
Hi,

I see all performers exposing that disqualifying 3/4 of the Cups and Balls routine.

It seems it has the same intelligence behind it of a person doing ambitious card routine exposing DL in order to keep the audience attention and to misdirect in order to do a pass...

Am I missing something?

Exposing a move that really works and is used a lot even in other kind of magic I thought was bad really bad...

Sorry but I really think you will go to hell...where your punishment will be starting CnB and your audience just walk away saying "It is not in his hand...Does he think I'm stupid?" over and over again...
Message: Posted by: MagiCol (Dec 23, 2014 04:15AM)
Hi, DeadMoney,
Welcome to the Café.

I don't do C&B but I do know that when you know how a move is done -e.g palm a coin or a ball - then you start looking for it, and then
when you don't detect it yourself, that's all the more admiration the viewer develops for how well a magic move is made.

When you can't detect a move even though that's what happens and you're looking for it, WOW! You've been well and truly fooled.

If you know Gazzo's Street Cups DVD and watch it and notice how little proportion of time the actual bare routine would take, and also notice the patter that Gazzo uses and how much time he spends on that, then you can appreciate how much the 'extra talk/patter' enhances the enjoyment of folk watching Gazzo at work.

When Gazzo tells them about palming the ball, I bet some of the crowd who then watch do wonder if Gazzo was telling the truth anyway.
Magicians are liars in one way or other as part of their performing/acting.

People like to be fooled.
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 23, 2014 04:47AM)
Hi,

I prefer not to talk about specific performers...but if you want to talk about Gazzo ok...obviously he is great an probably the best...but if you see him perform I have even seen an audience member guess correctly the exact number of balls under the cup (3) after the Fal@@ T@@@@@@r and load (even if fake it put in the mind of the spectator the palming and loading sequence)explanation...

If you ask an audience member of Gazzo I'm pretty sure he will remember 2 things...he was funny and charming to dead and at he made orange and melon appear...yes generally people remember your character and the finale better but all the finale before the big loads is disqualified...

I don't believe the majority of people believe it's a fake explanation for the simple reasons that you are showing really well that you put the ball in the hand but big surprise it's not there...and here how it's done...and just for clarity you show it againg and again...because it's fun to expose magic..and than you expose the you go around with balls palmed to put under the cups...

I want to cry :(
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 23, 2014 04:51AM)
Ok...I'll try to think again better...maybe I'm missing something...but exposing a technique that works well and is so useful is difficult to digest...
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 23, 2014 04:53AM)
Let's say your audience the same day or the next day see another performer...his sponge balls routine and his CnB routine get really weakened...
Message: Posted by: Harry Murphy (Dec 23, 2014 06:56AM)
Honestly I've never liked the sequence. I didn't like it when Vernon did it. Most if not all of the routines using that sequence are based on Vernon. I know why (and the logic) behind the move but honestly the sequence is not necessary to move to the next phase.

There are any number of magicians that do not use that sequence. I'm one of them. I never have. I learned the cups from sources that predated Vernon and were not influenced by Vernon's routine. My first routine was directly from the Classic Secrets of Magic (Bruce Elliott) and a little later Don Bowles (carnival magician) taught me a C&B routine that served me for decades. It was short, fast, to the point and magical. It exposed nothing.

I've seen several great magicians use the FT sequence to good effect. I've seen just as many not use the sequence.

Presently the blue-eyed boy of the C&B routines seems to be Gazzo's. It seems a lot of magicians are learning it because it works so well for Gazzo and is readily available. Honestly there are any number of really good routines that don't use the FT sequence.

Café' member Gerald Edmunson (user name Gerald) agrees and has a discussion on this (and other C&B flaws) in his book "The Ostrich Factor" (a must read for anyone wanting to polish their performance or take their magic to the next level). Gerald's book can be found at http://www.geraldedmundson.com/tof1/bookorder.htm
(I've no connection but think the book is a must read).
Message: Posted by: gallagher (Dec 23, 2014 01:12PM)
Hey DeadMoney,
I agree with you here 100%.

I believe the reasoning is that most performer demeaner the craft of Magic for entertaining purposes only.
AND, while they cannot create wonder,..
(because they are bad Magicians)
they sell out the craft,..
for comedy,..
cheap laughs.

I really believe this.
Watching Magic Shows,..
I always notice the moments of "ahhs",
in comparision to the "ha-ha-ha's".
There are few "ahhing" Shows today.

A teacher of Juggling, from the Big Apple Circus, told me years ago,
"Comedy is the easiest form of entertainment,.. to do,.. and to be understood,..,by the masses."
(before we all start fighting; notice, he didn't say, "It was easy to do.")
I really believe this, as well.

I think it comes down to US, as Performers,..
what do we want?
The simplest road to 'being noticed' ?
Good Magic isn't easy.
I really KNOW this, as well.
What should we do about guys selling it out?
I don't think we should honour them,..
that's for sure!

smiles,
gallagher

p.s.: Going in a somewhat different direction, looking for the same sea;
Can Magic, performed well, still entertain today?
This is a serious question.
I hope so,..
but I'm lost in the moment.

p.s.s.: ,.. almost forgot,. Welcome to the Sidewalk!
Message: Posted by: Poof-Daddy (Dec 23, 2014 03:14PM)
Is it really exposure if you give it and then take it away with another method?
I love Penn and Tellers C&B routine but it is so much and so fast, the average laymen isn't going to remember a thing except that they were funny, entertaining and very good at their craft. I realize it is a bit different as a street performer, relying on C&B's as your closer (it seems a "throw-away" routine to P&T) but exposing a move and taking it back with another method shouldn't ruin the routine. Are you performing for the same person 30 times a day? (that is the guy who is gonna figure it out no matter what you do). Doing it for a set and those folks moving on to make way for the next set shouldn't be a major problem. Unfortunately, in our internet, Youtube age, anyone who really wants to remember or know how you did it, can find out. I still believe people enjoy being fooled as long as they are entertained in the process. :-)
Message: Posted by: Gerald (Dec 23, 2014 05:43PM)
[quote]Café' member Gerald Edmundson (user name Gerald) agrees and has a discussion on this (and other C&B flaws) in his book "The Ostrich Factor" (a must read for anyone wanting to polish their performance or take their magic to the next level). Gerald's book can be found at http://www.geraldedmundson.com/tof1/bookorder.htm
(I've no connection but think the book is a must read). [/quote]

Thanks, Harry for mentioning [i]The Ostrich Factor[/i]!

The Cups and Balls information is from my undistributed manuscript on the Cups and Balls. However, [i]The Ostrich Factor[/i] would be an excellent guide to practicing and preparing to perform the Cups and Balls. But The Ostrich Factor book is more of a general practice guide which applies to all phases of the craft.

Thanks again, Harry! Glad you like [i]The Ostrich Factor[/i]. Thanks for the recommendation!

Gerald
Message: Posted by: TheAmbitiousCard (Dec 24, 2014 07:25PM)
I don't use the FT and don't really like it either.
Message: Posted by: ROBERT BLAKE (Dec 25, 2014 01:38AM)
And what about all those tricks with a fake explanation: egg bag - torn restored newspaper - color changing silks etc. I often do the old floating wand where you squeeze your wrist. I expose it and explain it doing it with a f=different method again. people know that we do tricks and by exposing this effect I show then that I don't take myself to serious. usualy magicians are to serious and that give a sense of arrogantcy, the look what I can do and you don't.

but in this example of the cnb you don't need to do so. keep in mind we ,magicians, are trained to methods and can spot them. audiences can take one method but not 4 or 6 that is to much. there will be always someone who guesses right.
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 25, 2014 04:21AM)
I think a fake explanation is very different than a real one that is about a move so valuable.

About this:"Is it really exposure if you give it and then take it away with another method?" I think yes if you explain a really good move used effectively by other magician...If I explain PN and than I use some gimmicks ropes am I exposing?...of course yes...

People that expose a good move/trick to keep attention and build misdirection for the next move maybe do not hurt themselves a lot (in the short run) but hurt the next performer...and I think they know it but just don't care and are lazy to just think a day a second way to achieve the same goal without exposing for real.
Message: Posted by: Gerald (Dec 25, 2014 08:06AM)
Consider using Maskelyne's axioms in [i]Our Magic[/i]. He advises us wisely:

[i]“Always remember that avoidable defects are incapable of justification.”[/i]

[i]"Always remember that a plea of justification is ordinarily an acknowledgement of error, and consequently demands every possible reparation."[/i]

I fully understand the many facets of the reverse psychology of the fake transfer explanation ploy. Because of Vernon's strong influence, I understand why many performers use it. But with all due respect to Vernon, and my respect is substantial, to reveal one of the craft’s most basic and greatest secrets, even as a “red herring”, to me, is a defect. Spectators might not pursue that path of thought unless we suggest it. To even suggest the secret or put that thought into the spectator's mind is not necessary.

The fake transfer explanation in Cups and Balls routines is easily avoidable. So in sixty years of performing the trick, over forty years as a full-time professional, I have never used it. Using Maskelyne's axioms and empirical knowledge as guides, I cannot justify its use.

Gerald
Message: Posted by: ROBERT BLAKE (Dec 25, 2014 05:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 25, 2014, DeadMoney wrote:
People that expose a good move/trick to keep attention and build misdirection for the next move maybe do not hurt themselves a lot (in the short run) but hurt the next performer...and I think they know it but just don't care and are lazy to just think a day a second way to achieve the same goal without exposing for real. [/quote]

what about all those people who explain every possible trick on youtube? is it because they ar not talented enough to do magic well and want thier fame by just explaining it?
Message: Posted by: Paddy (Dec 25, 2014 07:05PM)
The reason most people expose the false transfer is because they have watched Gazzo perform the c & b and he does that in his routine. So they learn one move, but they never know or even guess how the balls move between the cups or how the final loads appear. :fruity:
Message: Posted by: EVILDAN (Dec 25, 2014 09:13PM)
I never understood it myself. I did it when I was learning Vernon's routine.
Cut it out as soon as I created my own routine. I didn't see a need for it and didn't see a reason for the exposure. It doesn't further my version at all.
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 26, 2014 03:32AM)
[quote]On Dec 25, 2014, ROBERT BLAKE wrote:
[quote]On Dec 25, 2014, DeadMoney wrote:
People that expose a good move/trick to keep attention and build misdirection for the next move maybe do not hurt themselves a lot (in the short run) but hurt the next performer...and I think they know it but just don't care and are lazy to just think a day a second way to achieve the same goal without exposing for real. [/quote]

what about all those people who explain every possible trick on youtube? is it because they ar not talented enough to do magic well and want thier fame by just explaining it? [/quote]

Yes...just my opinion...but I thought was a common one...
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Dec 26, 2014 09:35PM)
With the correct timing it becomes a joke. Without the right timing you shouldn't be doing comedy.
Message: Posted by: Mortimer Graves (Dec 27, 2014 10:23PM)
The explanation of the move is part of the Vernon routine. That's why people use it, because it worked for him. Gazzo, Cellini, yeah, they all do (or did) it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be done that way.

Here's some reasoning behind why it's done: it throws people off who think they know how it all works, while setting them up for a bigger surprise. And it (sort of) fulfills the promise often made that you'll show them at the end how it's all done, which is part of why some people stick around and watch. Believe it or not, most people couldn't care less about seeing a guy do that "silly old cup trick", because (sorry, just being realistic here) everyone thinks they know how it works already. The idea of getting to see how it really works is a tease, it gives them the hope of confirming what they already suspect.

I used to do the routines that way, because that's how I was taught, but I've since learned that it can be dropped if you're good enough. I never use the same move twice in a routine, I use timing and misdirection, avoid all of the monotonous bits by using only two cups (because as beautiful as my three-cup routines are, only magicians want to watch them, usually), and I break with other patterns traditionally followed, as well. Not to reveal too much on a public forum, but nobody ever sees the big surprise coming at the end, even people who do the cups and balls.

I don't have to explain how a move works to get them to look where I want them to anymore, and I think that's a good thing. Really, it's all about engaging them properly. If they're bored enough with you to be burning your hands for their own amusement, you're doing it wrong from the get-go.

Even the most respected professionals I've talked to (argued with) about it seem to think it's all about the finale; it's not. Don't throw away the parts that took so long to learn, or you'll never get any better at them. It's not a track race, it's a beautiful dance.
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 28, 2014 03:27AM)
About this:"... it throws people off who think they know how it all works, while setting them up for a bigger surprise..." Are you saying that showing that you can do a great FT and Pa##### and Faking putting balls away you disqualify how they think it works?

About this:"And it (sort of) fulfills the promise often made that you'll show them at the end how it's all done, which is part of why some people stick around and watch"...I don't have seen that presentation...but even if that was the case why don't just use a fake explanation?...I have it seen somewhere...where the performer does bad FT...to explain...and than says:"Of course I don't do it that way, you would not belive that would you?"....
Message: Posted by: Mortimer Graves (Dec 28, 2014 07:02AM)
Did you read more than two paragraphs? That's simply some of the common reasoning, provided to me by people who do it. I don't mince my words, I said it all pretty plainly, I thought.

I don't do the exposure bit. I'm pretty sure I said I think it's wrong to do it, too.

I believe that if you have to expose any of the moves just to direct attention strongly enough to get away with setting up for the finale, then you simply lack imagination. A compelling enough presentation has enough shadows in it to get away with pretty much anything, so why bother exposing a secret just because the "old boys" do it? Most often when I see someone else do the cups, it's like watching a sleepwalker trying to tie his shoes; the "presentation" is more like a commentary for the blind. It's sad.

So yeah, I think we basically agree, even if you simply choose on this occasion to roll poop into little balls about it. Please read my whole post before implying that I need to justify a standpoint that I've quite plainly not taken. Big pictures look a lot clearer when you're not squinting to make out all the little dots.

Cellini used to tell people he'd teach them the trick at the end so they could play casino in their own homes. As funny as the line is, I've never liked it, and I told him so. In fact, my then-current wife absolutely loathed his entire presentation, and this was a man I respected, and who was teaching me! I asked him why he would expose any of it, and he said nobody cared, so why did I. He told me he'd done it that way so long he didn't even think about it any more.

And that's the whole problem. Even Vernon himself said that magicians stop thinking too soon. And even he couldn't escape it, nor could those he inspired and taught, it seems. Oh well, nobody's perfect.

I use fake explanations, but they know my explanations are fake from the get-go, because only an insane person would use rubber cups and cut holes in his pockets to do the trick. We're having too much fun by then for anyone to be thinking too critically, anyway, but they know it's all part of the act.

I basically watched every magician I could, and decided to do it all differently than the common herd, hence my show is filled with playful make-believe, not attempts to prove that I'm a miracle man or an expert hustler or a cheat. I'm an entertainer. Whether my approach is valid for me is mirrored in the reactions of my audiences. They love what I do, and I love doing it for them, and that's ultimately all that counts. 20 years doing the same trick, paying my way through life with it, I think I'd better know by now what I'm doing, or I'm really screwed.

I'd say, in general, that if you want your cups and balls to really stand apart and knock people out, you should examine your own working routine and question it to death, then do something about it. Ask yourself all the questions you'd ask other magi, and don't be afraid to be different than all of them. What worked for Vernon won't necessarily work for someone else, and exposure sucks either way, so if you dislike the exposure ploy, just don't do it. Be the example you want to see everyone else set, and maybe they'll get with it someday.
Message: Posted by: DeadMoney (Dec 28, 2014 09:22AM)
Hi Mortimer Graves,

I understood we have the same point of view...I was just trying reinforcing it again for people that read...just because, like you, I love the art of magic and I like it done the best way...

Of course I will always valuate my point of view....it could be wrong and I could be missing something ...that's the other reason why I keep the ball rolling... :)
Message: Posted by: David Fillary (Dec 28, 2014 10:44AM)
I believe Vernon took his routine from Malini and too questioned the "exposure". He trialled with it and decided to keep it as it was, but I don't know his reasoning.
Message: Posted by: Mortimer Graves (Dec 28, 2014 01:00PM)
I could list a lot of reasons for the exposure bit (most of which amount to the same thing - the "sucker effect"), but it doesn't change the fact that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have even, in my foolish past, been chastised by audience members (who were not magicians) for breaking the rules and telling a secret.

About the third or fourth time a child from my audience told me in front of everyone that it was wrong to give away the secret, I learned my lesson.

If even the public thinks it looks bad, then I'd never be able to justify doing it. The public pays my rent, so I tend to listen to them. Ultimately, they've taught me more about how to be a successful performer than any magician ever has.

Nobody has to expose any secrets to do the cups effectively. Even if they're exposing something that's "old" or "lame" in their opinion, it's not the move's fault, it's theirs, if it's lame. Performed properly even the oldest sleights still blow people away, so why treat them like toilet paper?
Message: Posted by: Gerald (Dec 30, 2014 04:23AM)
[quote]On Dec 28, 2014, Mortimer Graves wrote:. . .
Nobody has to expose any secrets to do the cups effectively. Even if they're exposing something that's "old" or "lame" in their opinion, it's not the move's fault, it's theirs, if it's lame. Performed properly even the oldest sleights still blow people away, so why treat them like toilet paper? [/quote]

Agreed, absolutely.

Vernon had a good reason for the fake transfer explanation. It is an integral component of the misdirection for his final loads. But Maskelyne's point is; avoid a defect if at all possible. There are so many other avenues to pursue, the questionable false transfer explanation is not necessary and can easily be avoided.

Gerald
Message: Posted by: Gerald (Dec 30, 2014 04:36AM)
[quote]On Dec 28, 2014, David Fillary wrote:
I believe Vernon took his routine from Malini and too questioned the "exposure". He trialled with it and decided to keep it as it was, but I don't know his reasoning. [/quote]
I heard Vernon discuss this subject a number of times in the early 1970s. He reasoned that the spectators would think the explanation was false, a sort of "red herring" because “A magician never reveals his secrets.” But many spectators do not carry their analytical thinking this far the reverse psychology tactic does not influence their thinking. He ended the topic by saying something like, [i]"If you don't like it, leave it out. Everyone has a different way of working."[/i] From the discussion, it was apparent that he also had doubts about the wisdom of using the false transfer explanation.

Gerald
Message: Posted by: Mortimer Graves (Dec 30, 2014 04:50AM)
Thank you, Gerald. It's nice to hear this from someone who was closer to the source than most of us got to be.

And yeah, everyone has what works for them and what doesn't, that's true too. Vernon really knew his stuff, even if he was just as human as the rest of us. *nods*

My thinking on psychological ploys is to use them to hook the knowers without blowing it for the non-knowers. The ones who think they know and are busting me get the sucker effect, and the ones who just want to see the pretty magic see the pretty magic.

What's funny is that it doesn't have to be done with moves, you can use feelings and subtext within yourself to do it, as well as tiny false tells, because even laymen can sense such things if they're looking for tells and such. Sometimes you can throw off a knower by tensing the hand you want them to look at slightly, or even just thinking about that hand for a moment, as if it's "dirty".

It's a much deeper art than we usually think it is.
Message: Posted by: James_Kelsey (Jan 14, 2015 01:49PM)
The way Vernon exposed the false transfer was really a lie. We don't drop balls from the cup, the ball is already there. The audiemce can't reconstruct the trick with that knowledge even though they try to make it as though they now know everything. This truth allows them to calm down and not feel like we are constantly making them feel stupid. This allows them to relax and enjoy the final loads at the end instead of feeling like we just spent the lest ten minutes making them look like an idiot.
Message: Posted by: Harry Patter (Jan 15, 2015 09:50AM)
I saw someone do this today and was very disappointed. It wasn't a funny moment, it simply didn't add anything.
You only need to look at Tom Stone and his Benson Burner to see how far a cup and ball can pushed.
Message: Posted by: Endless West (Jan 16, 2015 10:55PM)
Because when you show them that they all go "ahhh, that's what I thought!" And then you make a f$@&@!#% orange appear under the cup.
It negates the whole explanation.
They're all thinking "oh he just fooled us by saying that's how it's done, and it's not, because now there's a !@#$%^! orange under the cup and he definitely didn't roll it under there from the back of the cup."
It's like reverse psychology.
Message: Posted by: Endless West (Jan 16, 2015 10:56PM)
Just went back and read the posts above me and James_kelsey nailed it.
Message: Posted by: Mario Morris (Jan 17, 2015 02:36AM)
[quote]On Dec 25, 2014, ROBERT BLAKE wrote:
And what about all those tricks with a fake explanation: egg bag - torn restored newspaper - color changing silks etc. I often do the old floating wand where you squeeze your wrist. I expose it and explain it doing it with a f=different method again. people know that we do tricks and by exposing this effect I show then that I don't take myself to serious. usualy magicians are to serious and that give a sense of arrogantcy, the look what I can do and you don't.

but in this example of the cnb you don't need to do so. keep in mind we ,magicians, are trained to methods and can spot them. audiences can take one method but not 4 or 6 that is to much. there will be always someone who guesses right. [/quote]

This can be very clever magic.
Message: Posted by: Mario Morris (Jan 17, 2015 03:35AM)
[quote]On Jan 14, 2015, James_Kelsey wrote:
The way Vernon exposed the false transfer was really a lie. We don't drop balls from the cup, the ball is already there. The audiemce can't reconstruct the trick with that knowledge even though they try to make it as though they now know everything. This truth allows them to calm down and not feel like we are constantly making them feel stupid. This allows them to relax and enjoy the final loads at the end instead of feeling like we just spent the lest ten minutes making them look like an idiot. [/quote]

Actually the false transfer is a very clever effect that if done right fools and tricks your audience even further. I see my audience being totaly wowed and further fooled by it. It relies on both a move of being one step ahead and misdirecting your audience and patter, a story of this is how you do it. When in fact you don't tell them what your really doing. Now I would explain what this one step ahead move is as it seems to be fooling some of you or at the very least you could not have done it right in the pass. To explain it in a public fourm step by step would be wrong because you'd be exposing it. So to help stop calling it the exposure of the fa;se transfer and start calling it the false transefer conbined, or "false transfer and one step ahead move" Looking over the posts on this thread I think it is more a discussion about taste and styles. I love the false transfer and one step ahead move as I think it is very magical, it fools the audieance and it more than funny and its attention grabbing.
Message: Posted by: migwar (Jan 17, 2015 06:12AM)
That phase of the Vernon routine justifies a lot of handling of the props to get you where you need to start the final loading. It's a great piece of (mis) direction as it's puts people's gaze exactly where you want it.


I think it's a solid part of the routine, personally I don't use it but only because I don't think it suits me.
Message: Posted by: James_Kelsey (Jan 17, 2015 10:42AM)
Very well said Mario!