|
|
saxmangeoff Veteran user Moscow, ID, USA 353 Posts |
We often hear about the fact that the effect is what matters, and all spectators should be aware of. If a sleight is involved, it should be done well enough that the spectators never know a sleight was used. Magicians tend to look at method, and it's easy to get caught up in that.
I thought I'd share a story that illustrates just how far apart method and effect are. First some background. One of the effects I've been trying to perfect (see Bill Palmer's quote in my signature) is "Flying Eagles," which is a "coins across" effect. On the "Show me the Money" forum, there was some discussion a while back about a clip of David Roth on the David Letterman show. Here's how these two things come together: I was recently going through some magic clips on my computer, and this was the first time my wife saw the Roth clip. He starts with a coins across, but it's quite different from Flying Eagles. My wife said, "I've seen you do this trick." I asked her later, after the clip was over, if she noticed any difference between Roth's coins across and mine. She said she didn't. So, not only did my wife not pick up on differences in method between two different presentations of the coins across idea, she didn't even pick up on the differences in plot. Roth started with four coins in one hand that ended up with all four in the other hand. Flying Eagles has three coins in each hand and ends up with all six in one hand (I use a specator's hand for the final coin). But to my wife, they were the same thing -- coins magically go from one hand to the other. I think that's worth remembering when we get mired in the details and nuances of effects. To our audiences, the differences are much less significant. Geoff
"You must practice your material until it becomes boring, then practice it until it becomes beautiful." -- Bill Palmer
|
Kent Wong Inner circle Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2458 Posts |
Great point. This leads to another old adage: "It's not what you do, but what the audience remembers you doing that counts." It constantly amazes me how the typcial spectator's mind works and what they remember after a performance.
Kent
"Believing is Seeing"
<BR>______________________ <BR> <BR>www.kentwongmagic.com |
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6111 Posts |
Well said mm845.
They often recall the basics like, the coins went from one hand to the other somehow. The magician cut the rope and fixed it. For some people tricks are recalled as being more fantastic than what you actually did. |
Steve Friedberg Inner circle 1402 Posts |
Which is why, for some effects, it's important to separate yourself from the props as best you can. Clearly table the deck, or clearly show the four coins...one under each card. You want the spectator to later say, "he wasn't anywhere near the stuff when the magic happened."
Cheers,
Steve "A trick does not fool the eyes, but fools the brain." -- John Mulholland |
Frank Tougas Inner circle Minneapolis, MN 1712 Posts |
Great story Geoff! Speed is also an important factor. Many magicians will hurry through a sleight-of-hand routine hoping that the sheer speed of the performance will cover up imperfections. Really the opposite is true. Going slowly and deliberately while executing a routine makes the magic all the more strong.
While there are "purists" who would argue that better methods make for better magic, I would remind them that magic is a visual medium and much of what we do takes place in the heads of our audience rather than in the real world. A point Kent made quite well. Therefore ( I've always wanted to use therefore in a posting)if you'd agree with that premise it is easy to see how it favors effect over method. Frank Tougas
Frank Tougas The Twin Cities Most "Kid Experienced" Children's Performer :"Creating Positive Memories...One Smile at a Time"
|
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Hello:
A superlative post. I frequently am asked if I use any 'trick' decks? My answer is "you betcha", when I can get a better, cleaner, easier effect from the trick deck than any other method. Case in point is the Invisble Deck. Arguments can be made against it, but I still think this is one of the strongest if not the strongest effect with cards ever devised. Every sleight-of-hand variant I have seen falls short of what the gaffed deck offers and yet........some of the non gaffed versions are clean enough that TO A SPECTATOR the ultimate 'affect' upon their memory could very much be the same! My rule has always been an Annemanesque, "Use the cleanest method whenever possible to produce whatever effect I am trying for." Anneman's brilliant, "Simplify, simplify, simplify" should be listed as one of the standard rules of magic. Best,
Brad Burt
|
Kent Wong Inner circle Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2458 Posts |
I agree with the "simplify, simplify, simplify" adage, but I would also apply it to effect as well as method. All too often, I see or read about a great new method for a trick, but the plot line for the trick itself rambles on forever. A complicated plot line makes it very hard for the spectator to remember the trick, and I always strive to make my magic as memorable as possible. So, I have always sought tricks that have simple plot lines for the spectator.
For instance, some of the cleanest, most powerful effects can be described in only one or two simple sentences. "He made the coin vanish from my hand", "He floated". Of course, these are just a couple of brief examples. But, have you ever heard a spectator say he saw a magician do a great trick where he picked a card, and then the magician separated the deck into four piles, and the magician eliminated three of the four piles, and then when the magician only had one pile left, he narrowed it down to my card? Probably not. Now, some people may take issue with this by pointing to effects such as cups and balls as an example of complicated yet memorable plot lines. But cups and balls is really a simple effect to remember for most spectators. In their mind it will likely be remembered as "The magician kept making these balls appear and disappear from underneath the cups and then, at the end, he produced three elephants!" In short, efficient methods are great if they don't take away from the effect (indeed, sometimes they add to the effect - like the invisible deck example). But don't let an efficient method blind you to an overly complicated plot. As Brad indicated, simplify, simplify, simplify. Kent
"Believing is Seeing"
<BR>______________________ <BR> <BR>www.kentwongmagic.com |
saxmangeoff Veteran user Moscow, ID, USA 353 Posts |
Thanks, Brad, for that response. As you say, since the audience should be completely unaware than any method (be it sleight of hand, sleight of mouth, or a gimmick) exists, the criterion should simply be to use the method which provides for the most straightforward, unobtrusive production of the desired effect.
As magicians, we tend to get enamored of magical methods. What we should really be enamored of are magical effects. The methods are but a means to an end. Geoff
"You must practice your material until it becomes boring, then practice it until it becomes beautiful." -- Bill Palmer
|
Jaxon Inner circle Kalamazoo, Mi. 2537 Posts |
Good point. Let me share another example I brought up to a friend of mine. He's getting pretty good at magic. It's just something he was doing but he didn't realize he was doing it so I pointed it out to him.
He'd always pause when he was doing a move. Even a simple move like a jog shuffle. His body language would actually point toward his hands and he didn't say a word while he'd do the move. What happens is he's spent a lot of time practicing those moves so when he does them he unconsciously wants the spectators to see him do it. They can't see the move really because it's the kind of move that can't be seen. But the pause suggests something fishy is going on at that moment. It would have been great to have someone point these little mistakes out to me when I was learning. Actually, it would be great now too. It's easier to see the mistakes of others then to see ouyrselves making a mistake while we're doing it. So if you ever watch me perform and see me make a mistake. Go ahead and tell me about it. I'm deaf anyway.. Ron Jaxon |
edh Inner circle 4698 Posts |
LOL. That's a good one Jaxon.
Magic is a vanishing art.
|
rmoraleta Special user Philippines 767 Posts |
The effect matters most.
I have seen people blink when they do the move. |
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Hello,
Ron Jaxon is spot on. The problem is not with practice, but with 'how' the practice is done. Once a sleight is perfected is has to be inserted into whatever routine uses it in such a way that it BLENDS with the whole of the routine. One problem is that many beginners and not so beginners have carried the emphasis that came with working on the sleight OVER to the sleight as it works in the the greater routine. They WANT you to see how clever the MOVE is, not so much how strong the EFFECT of the routine is. I admit to having been frustrated about this in the past! It is one of the reasons why it is so satisfying to perform things like Color Change routines or Gambling demos where you WANT them to see what is in effect THE MOVE! Turn the top card over and show it. Turn down and Second Deal 5 cards and show card is still on top. Well, you get the idea. Thinking about it you realize that Magic is the ONLY craft form that hides the actual methods that have been perfected in practice! Jugglers, musicians, dancers, etc. SHOW YOU THE OVERT RESULT of what they have worked on! That's WHY we MUST concentrate upon the EFFECT and always the EFFECT. To magic nothing else matters.....magically. Best,
Brad Burt
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Effect vs. Method (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |