No Bill, I understand exactly what your are saying. I just don't agree. Concern over perceptions of the audience is part of good routining and certainly not an obsession. The original questions was about "Mouth up Routines." I took this as asking about magic in general, not just traditional C&B routines. My error -- I guess I should have asked.

I fully agree that if one wishes to limit their presentation to Traditional C&B that having cups "mouth down" is "normal" (not to be confused with "natural") This makes certain assumptions about the knowledge of the audience that may even be valid, i.e. seeing three cups and a wand prompts certain expectations. If, however, other containers are used you cannot make the same assumptions and should therefore provide a reason for handling any object in an unnatural manner.

This is why I asked whether effects not fitting the Traditional Model should be called something else. No one has provided an answer.

There is never any RIGHT or WRONG about any posture of a prop -- only its appropriateness to character, setting and audience expectations. A performing magician can define what is normal for a prop or himself -- or risk making assumptions. This is great! To the question of "are there Mouth Up Routines available?" the answer is yes. Are they found in books on Traditonal C&B? -- apparently not. Am I an authority on either? No. Does my experience give me the right to an opinion? Yes. Do I have a right to create new effects using cups and small objects not based on traditional methods? Yes. Does anyone have to care? No. Does anyone have the right to attack my character or intelligence because I hold a different view? No.

Your influence is great, Bill. I now have many books on Traditonal C&B to review and have acquired a set of standard cups (commercial). I am sure the discipline will do me good. Thanks for that!

which has nothing to do with other effects in which a mouth-up container is natural and normal.

Ken. You are wrong on one count. You don't understand what I am saying.

In fact, there are routines that involve mouth up cups in books on traditional cups and balls. I'm just not going to tell you where they are. Why should I? You have the same basic resources I have. Find them. Hint -- there is at least one in Tarbell.

My limited experience with cups and balls indicates to me that the audience will accept anything that you do with the cups as long as it doesn't go way beyond the bounds of common sense. My experience with magic has shown me that if I obsess over a perceived flaw in a prop, object or routine, that I will think about it while performing and I will transmit my concern to the audience, much in the same way that the "transmitter" in a contact mind reading routine sends information to the "receiver."

A performer's thoughts, the silent script, if you will, is a key part of misdirection. The silent script influences the performer's movements, and if it is not supportive of what the performer is supposed to be doing, it will lead the audience to the wrong conclusions.

I want you to point out to me any place in this thread where I have said that it is wrong to put the cup or cups into a mouth-up position.

I have posted further thoughts here: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......rum=37&0

Of course I can't point to that -- because I never said that you did. You seem to have an obsession with moves being "right" or "wrong" while those term need not apply at all. I recognize that you wish to only speak of "traditional Cup" while I am adressing the use of any container and any small object. Of course I have read those books. There is even a new effect by German performer on another thread with some interesting "mouth-up" moves. Hoozah!

the question whether a given move or cup posture is "appropriate" for the props and situation.

You say, "the audience will accept anything that you do with the cups as long as it doesn't go way beyond the bounds of common sense."

I have agreed that when on sets out three brass cups and some fuzzy balls that a typical audience will have certain "common" expectations." However, when using other containers like tea cups, baskets, flowerpots, etc. these same expecations are not "common." Therefore, it is prudent to provide some rational for having that container in a "other than normal" position.

"A performer's thoughts, the silent script, if you will, is a key part of misdirection. The silent script influences the performer's movements, and if it is not supportive of what the performer is supposed to be doing, it will lead the audience to the wrong conclusions."

Exactly! and the "silent scripts" of some effects using a container and object are different from Tradionial C&B.


We agree more that disagree. Why don't we focus on that to answer the original question?

Can't the rationale be that you're performing a magic trick? Just saying "I'm going to do something interesting with this tea cup" and then going into the routine would suffice I would think.

My feeling in these situations is that the more rationale we provide for doing something out of the ordinary, the more ordinary it becomes. It takes the "something interesting" out of it if we feel that we need to provide an excuse. The only purpose that would serve is to allow the audience to think, "okay, that makes sense, it's normal. Proceed." Call me crazy, but I think normal is dull.

Are there certain situations where justifying what you're doing might be necessary? Absolutely. Overall, however, I think taking an everyday object and doing something out of the ordinary with it will only increase the spectator's interest. Why make excuses for what you're doing, rather than just doing it and letting the audience be amazed?

Couldn't agree more, Andrew. Never meant to imply "excuse" -- only actions that balance anticipation against surprise. For example, if you have two tea cups mouth up on saucers, then trun one over and casually show the interior empty, you create an anticipation that something is about to occur. If you start wiht two cups mouth down there might be suspicion that something is hidden underneath. If, in the first case you now visibly drop a ball (or other object) into the mouth-up cup there is an immediate expectation that something will happen to the ball. When that cup is tipped to be shown empty spectators will infer that the ball is now under the mouth-down cup -- where it is revealed to be. In the process you have shown both cups to be empty without overtly saying so -- made possible by the reletive posture of the tea cups. It is the change of posture that is important, not the original posture.

For me, lifting cup and saying, "nothing underneath," is unecesary and creates suspicion. One should observe the natrual/normal handling of any container and attempt to emulate that as mush as possible -- unless one wants to create focused interest as you mentioned. Either way, concern of the posture of containers is essential to good routining. The decision that, "it doesn't matter," may be the frequent result, but it is a matter of choice, not just, "others do it this way."

Ken --

I question your comprehension of my work. Look at my web site and tell me how many non-traditional sets of cups that I have in my collection. Their very presence in my collection actually contradicts what you are saying. If I didn't think they had merit, I wouldn't own them.

I have NEVER referred to a move as "right" or "wrong." I do think some moves are more appropriate under certain circumstances and in some performers' hands than others.

Basically, YOU have highjacked this thread, not I.

The question was "What routines in print (or not) are primarily with the cups in the mouth up position?"

I answered that without any particular judgment. Then you came in and spouted your wacky theories, which are based upon some apparent ability to read your spectators' minds, coupled with, what, maybe 2 months of actual performance per published routine, if any performance at all?

Bill has hit the mark so many times in this thread. But some just won't ever see that or understand. Others have made some comments that match Bill's as well. I know I did in mine that mentioned magicians thinking too much. That is exactly what is being done by some that aren't getting Bill's point.

So now it is "wacky theories" instead of "less then best terminology."

exactly what is it that you are afraid of, Bill?

I have offered information on "Mouth-Up" routines as requested.

No matter -- the field is yours. How dare anyone have an idea that you have not pre-approved.

I'm glad you caught my little pun about music on the other thread, though.

If I am a cause for wit, that is something.

Actually, Ken, you have not offered much information about routines, other than your massive digital heap of e-books. Since nobody has ever seen you do any of this material, it's very difficult to judge the performability or the value of these routines.

The problem with e-books in general is that if they are not available somehow in hard copy, then they are basically vapor. One notable exception is Kent Gunn's routine, which does actually exist both in a youtube video and as a hard copy.

Regarding my alleged fear -- You have a very odd perspective, Ken. I am not "afraid" of anything that you have done. Is it your own skewed perception of the world that equates fear, disdain and dislike?

I'm not going to discuss this with you any more.

It's like the story of the fellow who was visiting Jerusalem. He went to the Wailing Wall every morning. Each morning, he saw an old man praying at the wall. He would pray for an hour, then he would leave. Fascinated, the vactioner approached the old man and asked him if he were praying for something specific.

He said, "Yes. I am praying for peace in the Middle East."

"Is it working?"

"No. It's like talking to a wall."