|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Paul Inner circle A good lecturer at your service! 4409 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2009-12-03 11:29, krowboom wrote: And I would think most of these are people who do not go out and earn a living from magic. It should NEVER be a case of one or the other. People like Tamariz or Goldstein or the late Eddie Marlo would hardly be called rank amateurs or people with no skill, quite the contrary, and yet occasionally they would use packet effects or gaffs. Perhaps BECAUSE of their skill, they were more easily able to fool magicians with gaffs because they were unexpected. The clever magician uses whatever methods are most efficient and concentrates more on the 'effect' and presentation. If more magicians concentrated on presentations than arguing about methods we'd see a lot better magic out there. No successful professional entertainers got where they are because of the methods they use to accomplish their effects. It's because people liked what they saw, presentations and effects that pleased and were different. Paul. |
|||||||||
Jaz Inner circle NJ, U.S. 6111 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-12-03 11:29, krowboom wrote: That's ridiculous! Those "few" are looking at it technique too much and obviously overlooking entertainment skills. |
|||||||||
scaevola Loyal user 251 Posts
|
Quote:
YES! Thank you. I think this statement extends to all artists. Do painters say to each other "no pro painter would use that kind of brush?" I wouldn't take advice from those artists. Everyone knows that it is the final piece that will be judged by the audience. I think the problem that some magicians have with packet tricks is when someone pulls out a packet of cards rather than an entire deck of cards, it seems to the magician watching that they pulling out something "obviously gimmicked" because cards only come in decks. I personally don't think spectators think like this, I think if the performer does his or her job properly, doesn't arose unnecessary suspicion, does a false count to show they "aren't" gimmicked, etc, then the audience won't see gimmicked stuff, but a normal packet of playing cards. |
|||||||||
|
Paul Inner circle A good lecturer at your service! 4409 Posts
|
Re: "it seems to the magician watching that they pulling out something "obviously gimmicked" because cards only come in decks. I personally don't think spectators think like this, I think if the performer does his or her job properly, doesn't arose unnecessary suspicion.."
Yes, I agree, it is magicians that are more hung up on this than spectators. So the performer has a few cards, if he only needs a few cards to show something so what? They are cards. If not playing cards maybe they come from the myriad of games out there, hijacked by the magician just to show something amusing? If a performer does a trick with a few M & M's or mints are they suspicious because he's not using the full packet? Are all foreign coins suspicious because they haven't been seen by the average person? Chances are in a large group there will be someone of a suspicious nature anyway, just because they don't always voice their opinion doesn't mean they are not there. Just because you use a full deck of cards doen't mean you are immune to these people thinking they are trick cards. If people like you, they go with the flow. If people spent as much time on their personalities, social skills and presentations as they did collecting a mega arsenal of sleights or effects of dubious value... Long live good card tricks, no matter how many cards are used. Paul |
|||||||||
|
base851 New user Houston, TX 58 Posts
|
Joshua Jay came through town recently and offered his take on gaffed/pre-loaded/gimmicked decks. He said he used to be somewhat in the "purist" camp and looked down on them... until he had his accident and lost some use and feeling in his hand. For a time the only way he could pull some things off was to use gimmicked decks. Now that he's getting it back, his attitude is more pragmatic. What matters is the EFFECT. Some effects can only be done with some form of gimmicking. Some effects are made substantially easier and cleaner with some form of gimmicking (e.g. forcing decks).
My attitude is pretty similar. Before heading out I usually preset my deck with some sort of packet to use off the bat. The big key though is effect and naturalness. |
|||||||||
|
Paul Inner circle A good lecturer at your service! 4409 Posts
|
Base851 said; "The big key though is effect and naturalness."
Amen to that. The fact that some magicians do look down on packet effects, or gaffed decks, or mentalism or whatever is really unimportant. What lay audiences like or dislike is more important as often, they are the ones that are paying you to entertain. Your material should be judged by the reaction it receives after you've put enough time in to learn to present it well, not on whether another magician dislikes the method a lay audience is unaware of. Paul. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-12-03 15:59, scaevola wrote: Sometimes, when the effect is strong enough, and the spectator is inquisitive enough, then they're going to apply their best mental process to trying to figure it out. The first things to arouse attention are anything that seems out of the ordinary, and they'll grasp at straws if they have to. If you've pulled out a wallet and produced a small packet of cards, they'll want to examine the cards. If you've pulled out your own deck, they'll want to examine the deck. Ditto for the coins, dice, etc. Not everybody appreciates magic the same way, and for these people, the only way they're going to leave the experience with a strong memory is to have their suspicions dealt with. I've done tossed three card monte using ungimmicked cards that I produce from a special wallet, and sometimes, after the second phase, people have asked to see the cards. They take them and rub the faces, just to be sure. Not everybody does this, but it's happened a few times. For those people who check that the cards are innocent, the experience of the routine just got more profound specifically because a suspicion they had was proven unfounded. When working close-up, you've got the option to deal with people individually and figure out what their suspicions are. If you're clean, then you've got more flexibility in dealing with the really suspicious people. Obviously, new challenges arise (your execution must be top-notch, etc.), but at the very least you can leave them with the impression of you as being somebody who doesn't need to rely on tricky props. If you're not working clean, and those suspicions arise, what's your strategy for dealing with it? Consider Tommy Wonder's Tamed Card. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5kxUuO5JZo It's a great routine, and it's the prototypical packet card trick, but look at what he does. First of all, he makes sure to justify the reason why he's got a small packet of cards, since collecting cards is his hobby. Second, he makes sure that the audience is left with the experience of having seen that the cards are fair. He even pauses halfway through the effect to make sure the cards are examined. Now, he's performing in a situation where the pressures of socialization would normally keep people from speaking out of turn about their suspicions, but he still makes sure to schedule a moment, before the climax, to deal with those suspicions just in case they're out there. Not every packet trick is so well constructed.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
krowboom Loyal user Chicago area 233 Posts
|
Just to add another comment to the discussion, spectators know you're not doing "real" magic. They know you're doing "something" to accomplish the illusion. Frankly I don't think they care how you do it as long as they are entertained and baffled. For those that just want to figure things out and examine your props I think most pros have a way of dealing with that (I'm not a pro). As I mentioned before, most other forms of magic are gimmicked (ropes, coins, rings, boxes, tubes, and so on). Do spectators demand to examine all those props? Cards seem to be in a category all their own.
|
|||||||||
Kent Wong Inner circle Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2458 Posts
|
I use packet tricks all the time in my close-up work and I've never had anyone tell me that I'm not a real magician because of it (Insert joke here). Yes, there may be suspicion about the nature of the cards when you pull them out of a little black folder insead of a deck of cards. Rather than ignore the suspicion, anticipate it. Have a plausible reason for why these particular cards are kept separate and apart from a normal deck.
Maybe the cards are so different they clearly don't belong in a normal deck. Maybe the cards are all the same and so, they couldn't possibly come from one deck. Acknowledge the reason for the packet and you can eliminate much of the suspicion. Kent
"Believing is Seeing"
<BR>______________________ <BR> <BR>www.kentwongmagic.com |
|||||||||
dpe666 Inner circle 2895 Posts
|
The way I see it, all spectators are suspicious of everything we do, so using gaffs and packet tricks straight out of a little plastic wallet are nothing to worry about. I don't think that most spectators care whether we are using trick cards or not even when it is obvious that we are. For example, I perform my own "Vanishing Point" all the time. I take four queens from a little wallet and make them turn blank one at a time until all four are shown to be blank. Then I make all four "reappear" instantly. The cards are heavily gaffed, but there is a lot of sleight of hand involved as well. In the 100s of times that I have done the trick, not ONE person has EVER asked to examine the cards. Unless they are a moron, they KNOW that the cards are "trick cards" thanks to the blank faces. Yet, they are just as amazed with that effect as they are with the ones that I do with a normal deck. Lay people are far more interested with the effect, and generally could not care less about the actual methods involved. I am of the opinion that if, at the end of an effect, all the spectators care about is the method, then they were NOT entertained.
 |
|||||||||
|
abc Inner circle South African in Taiwan 1081 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-12-04 16:41, Andrew Musgrave wrote: I do think the link answers the question better than any post in this thread. |
|||||||||
|
Paul Inner circle A good lecturer at your service! 4409 Posts
|
"Not every packet trick is so well constructed."
I agree. Neither is every full deck card trick (or other kinds of effects)so well constructed.  I think some people seem to apply double standards when judging packet effects or singling them out for negativity.
I love good packet tricks and I know there are plenty of poor ones, but there are generally plenty of poorly constructed card tricks, we're surrounded with them. Sometimes the personality of the performer can take a humdrum, mediocre effect and make it truly entertaining. Someone once said that there are no bad tricks...I don't neccesarily agree with that, but the 'effect' on the audience is not just the trick and its mechanics, the effect is created by the trick (the tool)and the personality/showmanship of the performer. A trick can die with one performer and sing with another. Which is why we sometimes bypass tricks in books after reading them, but get fooled by them later when someone else does them. Paul. |
|||||||||
|
mediamonk Regular user Walla Walla 103 Posts
|
I've enjoyed using packet tricks, not all the time, but certainly often. They can get great reactions. NFW is my personal favorite. I'm strange this way (and others), but I'll keep a deck of cards around that is short a few cards and use it to hold a packet trick. I just pull off the cards that I need and move on from there. It's one of the reasons that I try and get all my cards in the same backs. Just don't forget which deck is which (yeah, no fun). Audience control is also important. After I finish a packet effect, I put the cards away while the reaction still has their attention. I then move on.
"There are two ways of living life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is." -Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||
|
RS1963 Inner circle 2734 Posts
|
I could be wrong but I think one reason packet tricks have a bad reputation with some is that back in the 70's is when the really huge wave of packet tricks in the plastic business card holders seemed to take hold. A lot of magicians hated when they would see a magician bring one of those out and then as soon as the effect was over would bring out another one.
|
|||||||||
|
rjthomp Regular user Pasadena 199 Posts
|
Kind of funny, but I'm sure if you did a search here on "favorite card effects", more than half of the responses would be packet tricks...
-Rob |
|||||||||
DWRackley Inner circle Chattanooga, TN 1909 Posts
|
Quote:
in the plastic business card holders Thanks, RS1963. I’d forgotten about those plastic cases. I had a really cool effect where I changed a one dollar bill into a five. It depended on that clear pocket. I think I’ll go make one now.
...what if I could read your mind?
Chattanooga's Premier Mentalist Donatelli and Company at ChattanoogaPerformers.com also on FaceBook |
|||||||||
DaleTrueman Veteran user Australia 317 Posts
|
Great comments on how the audience perceives the packet tricks as opposed to a full deck, good food for thought.
I guess this is more about gaff verses normal deck but now that I have learnt some sleight of hand with cards and have a few gaff/packet tricks I feel that both are equally hard to perform in some ways. The challenge I find is how to be entertaining with them, I know this has already been said in this thread but it is so true. No matter if I am using a full deck and sleights, a full deck with a self working trick, a packet trick with sleights or self working, the challenge is much more 'how am I going to present this?'.... It really came home to me when I got the invisible deck. I've put using it off for now as I realised that it's not something you can just pick up and go from the moment you get it. It will take practice to make it good. In the meantime I am working on my sleights as I really want to have them down well before really working on a routine, but in the end I will probably have a mixture of gaff and sleight. There seems to be advantages to both but both will take time to make work. |
|||||||||
|
Paul Inner circle A good lecturer at your service! 4409 Posts
|
||||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » Why are packet tricks looked down on? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Posted: Dec 3, 2009 05:44 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < 
|