|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 | ||||||||||
travisb Special user Vancouver, BC 546 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-10-23 21:17, wsduncan wrote: Mostly the former, I think, with the obvious caveat that it's hard to imagine anything being entertaining "in and of [itself]." (Dear God let this not become a "there are no bad tricks, only bad magicians!" type thread.) When a critic goes to the theatre, they judge the acting but also the script. In this case I think I'm mostly interested in the "script," acknowledging that that might be a limiting way of thinking about it. Also, I've enjoyed reading the varied contributions to this thread and I'd hate to think that somebody would withold something interesting just because they thought it wasn't perfectly "on topic." Then again, that usually doesn't stop people... Actually, I would definitely also like to hear anybody's thoughts on the subject, raised above, of how some tricks seem to work better for certain people. It's sort of related, and it's also just an interesting question (to me). Something that annoys me: "in [insert name]'s hands, everything was a miracle!" Oh really? It had nothing to do with their choice of material? They were totally indiscriminate? And if it really didn't, that's even better: now what are the actual reasons that even the crappiest ("suckiest"?) trick was a miracle in [insert name]'s hands? Wouldn't that be worth analysing, at the very least to see if it can be analysed? Why is it that given the opportunity to go into detail and to really think about something, we so often resort to clichés and hero worship? I enjoy reading good film criticism (i.e. magazines like Film Comment etc. more than your local paper's movie reviews). I feel like I expand my understanding of not just the film being reviewed, but film in general. Nerdy as it sounds, I'd love to read criticism in that vein but about magic tricks. Of course, that kind of thing takes thought and energy to produce, which might be asking a bit much. I notice that I personally am here reduced to commenting on a kind of meta-level about the thread itself, rather than offering anything like my own theories or observations. Maybe I'll get around to fixing that. -Travis |
|||||||||
Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3498 Posts |
Okay, just to start, let me say I saw Paul Chosse do his "Spellbound".
Didn't suck. Actually, it was much, much better than that, but heaven forbid we should get off topic. One of the reasons Paul's routine didn't suck was that he clearly came to the routine with specific goals in mind, and he had the physical and presentational chops to achieve them. He solved the familiar "dramatic" problems (lack of a satisfying ending, lack of a "build" to that ending, and making the audience want to see the coin change in the first place) as well as the inherent "deceptiveness" problems. (creating the conviction that there's only one coin, eliminating plausible wrong solutions, etc.) So that's the first thing I'd suggest as a guideline--for a routine not to "suck" the performer must bring something more to the table than just the trick. He should have an interesting perspective on the trick, and he must be able to communicate that perspective effectively. It doesn't help much to count the number of words a performer uses, or indeed, how much he says. Certainly Slydini used very few, Goshman said more, David Roth still more, and then there's Gary Kurtz. (limiting this to--hopefully--familiar coin workers) I think all would agree, however, that each of these performers knew how he wanted his performance to effect the audience, and knew how he was going to make that happen. When you know these two things, you've fulfilled your basic obligations as a performer. If you take the "stage" without knowing what you're there for, or how you're going to get it, your performance might very well "suck". Starting point for critique? Or is this too vague as stated?
Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery
|
|||||||||
Paul Chosse V.I.P. 1955 - 2010 2389 Posts |
I've published my "Spellbound" handling. That, I'm told, is the best way to hide things. Success!
That having been said, I DIDN'T explain all the thought that went into its' construction. It seems appropriate to do that here. For those of you who don't know the sequence, let me say, it is a triple change, and the coins are different sizes as well as different metals, and they come from different countries. I originally learned Vernon's "Spellbound" as it appears in "Stars of Magic". Since the "patter" is about changing base metal to semi-precious metal (copper to silver), it seemed "wrong" for the coin to change its' appearance, other than in terms of its' metal. So, a half to a penny made no sense. To solve that dilemma I had an English Penny silver-plated, and I had a Kennedy half gold-plated. Niether of these changes seemed to satisfy either, but for different reasons. There was no conclusion to the routine, so "Spellbound" remained an interesting "interlude"... In 1976 I read Scotty York's "Triple Change Spellbound". The third coin was instrumental in changing my thinking. With three changes I was changing the coin from one CURRENCY to another. Why? Well, what if I were a world traveller? What if I hated standing in line? What if currency exchange was a pain in the ***? Hmmm... I'm a magician, right? So, if I needed to, I could change the currency I had at will. No matter where I was in the world, I could change my money to the currency of that country. Could this be a "plot"? Indeed it could be! So, this is the BEGINNING of a solution to the "Spellbound" problem... There are other problems. Technically, how should I handle the changes? Presentationally, how should I explain them? Finally, and most importantly, how can I derail the thinking of my audience? That nagging feeling that I have extra coins and that I am cleverly switching and concealing them? Because, fear not, that is exactly what they are thinking, no matter how perfect your slieght of hand... More later, if you like... Best, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
|||||||||
Paul Chosse V.I.P. 1955 - 2010 2389 Posts |
I just realized, I may be hijacking this thread with the above. Sorry, that was not my intention. I just wanted to show the thinking behind constructing a routine that has some inherent problems. I hope that the process I explained above gives people some idea about how I approach things, and that maybe others will share thier "creative process"...
Best, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
And that's how Paul took the suck of out of his spellbound...
:)
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Marc01 Regular user 119 Posts |
[quote]On 2005-10-29 15:31, Paul Chosse wrote:
I've published my "Spellbound" handling. That, I'm told, is the best way to hide things. Success! Where did tou publish it? I'm interested Thanks Marc |
|||||||||
Paul Chosse V.I.P. 1955 - 2010 2389 Posts |
You can find it in an issue of "Channel One" magazine, published by Rose and Tony Miller, who posts here as Doomo...
Best, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
|||||||||
travisb Special user Vancouver, BC 546 Posts |
As far as highjacking goes, just the opposite—that kind of post is the sort of thing that keeps me coming back here.
Quote:
So, this is the BEGINNING of a solution to the "Spellbound" problem... Please. -Travis |
|||||||||
Paul Chosse V.I.P. 1955 - 2010 2389 Posts |
Okay, here is "a little more" on "Spellbound", as promised...
This was originally written as a response to a PM I recieved. It assumes certain knowledge, so if it isn't clear feel free to ask for clarification. The idea here is to demonstrate the thinking behind the construction of the trick, NOT to teach the trick. You know, it's the old "Give a man a fish... teach a man to fish..." thing... I frequently, in fact almost always, use "Spellbound" in a social situation, not as a set piece in a structured show scenario. It is what Ron Bauer dubbed "conversational magic", or something of that ilk. Something that I do when people know I do magic and ask for a trick, or when the conversation lags and I see the opportunity to sneak in a trick! I actually start with a large English Penny (1797), and explain its' history. Depending on the situation this can be a long or short "history lesson". The King on that particular coin is George III, the "Mad King", so there is all sorts of interesting history related to it. Also, that is the first year that England minted a penny, so there is another conversational ploy that applies. I talk about the "commoners" using the barter system, and thier envy of the upper class and its' having coin to buy goods with. The coin is twice the thickness of a silver dollar, and the same diameter. It is solid copper, so it is quite heavy. This allows for another conversational gambit, or joke, like "imagine having a dollars' worth of these pennies - you'd walk lopsided!", etc. At any rate, I also mention that it is no longer viable currency, that its' real value is its' numismatic value. "That means coin collectors' love the coin, but you can't buy beans with it!" "So, if you want its' equivalent in modern currency you'd have to sell it. You can't even go to a currency exchange, they wouldn't know what it was. But, it would buy about the same thing as fifty cents might, in today's money. Now, if you could make your hands work like a currency exchange, then it would look like this..."(Change) "Of course, U.S. money isn't worth much on the European market today, so this is only about - well, the same thing - a penny, just a different penny!" (Change) But the real value, as I said, is in its' collectability, so it makes more sense to save the original..." (Change) What do you think, would you take fifty cents (Change) for that coin? I know wouldn't!" "Now I know what you're thinking - you're thinking can BOTH those little coins REALLY fit inside that big one? (change) Well sure, (Display), but that isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is how the big one fits inside those little ones!" (Display) You need to understand the handling in order for all the changes and displays I noted to make sense, but you get the idea. The ending is important - it addresses the thinking of the spectator - they are wondering where all the coins are, how I am "hiding" them (trust me, they don't think it's magic, they think I am cleverly switching coins). I plant the idea that the big coin is a trick coin, that the small ones go inside it. Then I derail their thinking by asking how the big one could be hidden - it can't fit inside the little ones! Then I give them the large penny to look at. Obviously the slieghts are such that they see both hands empty at all the right times and are left with the feeling that there really is just one coin. A trick coin is the only answer, but it can't BE the answer. Result? Short curcuit! At least that's what I hope happens. I have had people try to open that penny for long periods of time - it gets passed around and everything! OK, there is more to this, but that is some of the detail. The technique itself includes work by Scotty York, who sent me on my way with a triple change, and the Professor, whose published change with a back clip gave me the clean-up I needed and the displays that are so convincing. The Morritt Palm, or "Purse Palm" plays an important role, and allows for a very clean-looking starting position. the orientation of the coins as detailed in the write up in "Channel One" magazine kills potential "flash", and the C/S gaff allows the triple change while minimizing the handling - three coins for the price of two! Again, there are reasons for every decision I made about the coins to use, the sequence, the slieghts, etc. I will continue to explain as long as people seem interested. Please ask questions or comment as you like... Best, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
|||||||||
leftytheclown Loyal user Illinois 255 Posts |
WOW! to Mr. Chosse
I would like the history lesson even without the magic, but with great magic and I understand it is, the effect is a "presentation" piece. Henry Hay and many, many others said a magician's skills must look effortless. A digression. When you watch great jugglers, the object they are juggling hits the same spot every time. It looks effortless, until you try it. However, having great skill is not enough. You must have meaning to your magic and presentation skills. Coin sleights are HARD work, which may cut down on presentation time and therefore take longer to finally bring it into your act--a serious consideration. It takes a lot of practice just to learn the moves to say, Down's Eureka Pass. Sorry, I'm old school. Then you must bring in a logical way to present it. Hay goes on to say that there were many technically proficient coin workers, but not many had the presentation skills of T. Nelson Downs. I like coin magic, but I don't have a passion for it, which is what you need to be an outstanding coin worker. I don't think the term "sucks" is the right term. I think the "sucks" denotes a poorly skilled performer who fumbles badly. More to the point, how many coin routines make you say WOW! I'm not talking about coin routines here, but when I saw Lance Berton for the first time, I said it. Some of Paul Harris' effects made me say WOW as did the Frog Prince by Close. It may be just a matter of taste. I'm reminded of the difference between an editor and an English teacher upon reading a poor piece of writing. The teacher says, "It doesn't inflame the passions of my heart." The editor says, "Burn it."
Lefty (aka) Sterling Dare
Author: Money Menagerie Book and DVD |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » Coin magic: specific routines that "suck" or don't? (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |