|
|
orchid666 Special user u.k 626 Posts |
Howdy workers!
I haven't been on here regularly for a while. Don't you just hate it when the absurdity often referred to as 'Life' gets in the way of the fun stuff sometimes?! Anyways, I trust you've all been behaving yourselves? I just wanted to comment on how magic has a funny way of popping up unexpectedly, and can change your outlook/path in an instant! I was just catching up on some musical work, with the tv on in the background, and was pleased to notice a show where the presenter, Dr ronald hutton on his quest for curiosity, visited the magic circle hq in London. At the end of the segment, a cople of routines were performed for him. one was a fantastic coin matrix, with a reverse-kicker ending, and the other was a fairly simple, but flawless 4 ace location. Using a shuffle/control that all of us would know. And I haven't enjoyed watching a routine so much for a long time! So after a year of solid study, research, and practise of, among other sleights,bottom dealing, various passes and general advanced material, I can't help thinking that I've been putting to much emphasis on the tough stuff, and possibly and subcontiosly thinking that the harder it is, the better it is. Of course I know that's not true in the slightest, but maybe I'll re visit some of the routines learned years ago. I reckon my set will benefit a great deal from doing so! Kneill. |
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 2, 2014, orchid666 wrote: Great post and more importantly welcome back! Your post really speaks a lot in my humble opinion to the relationship method has on effect. Darwin Ortiz writes about the difference between simple methods and easy methods. He prefer simple to easy because simple is efficient and maximizes effect, but simple does not necessarily mean basic sleights. That said, Mr. Ortiz has created some VERY powerful magic with what we would term "easy" sleights an in a few cases, no sleights at all. There is an Ace production I perform from Apocalypse called Master of Aces by John Graham. It looks really beautiful, it has the appearance of intense skill with cards, yet, it all depends on a Charlier cut and one other little thing. It can be performed FASDIU and is really brilliant. It's one of those tricks that I would use if I would do a lecture on method and its relationship to effect to illustrate that something so simple can be as strong as as something with 37 knucklebusting sleights. Vernon would always look for ways to minimize sleights when he created magic and here was a man who could execute the toughest sleights around. I have nothing against tough sleights and use them, but, clarity of effect is always uppermost in my mind. Annemann's mantra was "effect is everything and method be d****d, I'll do whatever it takes to make the effect as strong as possible." Method should obviously be opaque to the civilians and perhaps one reason that we think, or, more accurately, "feel" that tougher method equals stronger effect is that magic (counting mentalism here too; sorry mentalists as I know you hate that, but, mentalism and magic are inextricably related) is the only performing art in which the performer must conceal her/his skill insofar as maximization of effect is concerned. We can't go around to pubs and expose our Greek deals to the punters - I can't even execute a Greek deal but I think it's a great example of a tough sleight - so perhaps we get a bit of satisfaction from performing tricks and routines that utilize these bad boys. I like to balance things methodologically and again, Darwin Ortiz's discussion of simple versus easy informs me. I tend to avoid the "easy" like duck and deal methods although I've read a few that seem like they could be really strong. Something simple may require a few very advanced sleights but that simplicity enhances effect by minimizing the number of sleights in a given trick or routine. Conversely, another simple method that uses few or no sleights is not "lesser magic" at least to me. Larry Jennings' Ambitious Classic is another trick that comes to mind in this whole simplicity discussion. Sleight-wise, it IS more involved than Master of Aces, but none of the sleights are beyond the reach of a magician possessing intermediate skill with cards and BOTH play very well such that people think I am much better than I really am. Audiences are entertained and mystified and credit me for being an excellent magician. I know that I'm a hack, but, if audiences wish to believe I'm the guy they wouldn't want to play Poker or Black Jack against, who am I to dissuade that belief? Again, great to read a post from you!! It's been far too long! Vlad |
tommyellison Regular user 159 Posts |
Is there a blur between who we are working for? Fooling another magi or entertaining a layman? Therein lies the difference. For those of us not working the magi convention circuit but instead entertaining (hopefully) the unwashed, the sleights are sometimes irrelevant as long as the end-effect is accomplished. As Shawn Farquhar likes to say, "don't run if your not being chased!"
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Quote:
but instead entertaining (hopefully) the unwashed, I usually hope they've washed.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 4, 2014, tommyellison wrote: I agree! I really think that "Don't Run if You're not Being Chased" should be the first lesson any magician learns. As for relevance, I would just add that what is relevant should be maximum impact (thanks Ken Weber). I don't really care about fooling magicians. I love to fry the civilians - hygienic or otherwise. I'm a hack and while I've fooled magicians a few times, I am not that good to pull it off like the folks who lecture professionally. That's one of the beauties of magic in that there is a place for lecturers, performers for the masses, move monkeys, etc. But I want to return to your observation about relevance because I am of the opinion that it's an important topic and you and my friend Kneill have provided the proverbial grist for the mill of discussion. How does one define relevance both in the context of a given trick or routine and moreover, relevance to civilians. Relevance might be described as what makes sense contextually. Let's say that I need to switch out a few cards but I want to avoid a "cozy" handling because that sort of handling could invite suspicion because it makes no sense contextually, or, to put it another way, it lacks a naturalness. Yet there is the quandary of whether I am over-thinking method, i.e, thinking too much like a magician and indeed running when not being chased. For a single switch for instance I have a number of options available. Do I DL, SD, or TC assuming I am proficient at executing all three. What would be relevant? I would offer - and I definitely am inviting debate/discussion here - is what makes sense contextually. I had a student who learned sleights like a madman. But he never understood that just because you can execute sleights means you can be a performer. He was learning out of context. He could do a great pull through but to what end? Does it follow that just because one CAN execute a sleight one MUST privilege it over other methodologies? It would be great fun to carry this conversation further. Best, Vlad |
tommyellison Regular user 159 Posts |
To me, Relevance would be dictated by the context of the moment, the surrounding as well as the audience....
Example: ACR in a well lit room performing for two people (one lady who is with a date acting macho in front of his gal) ***versus*** ACR in a dark bar for one person who is slightly inebriated. Now I realize these may be opposite ends of the continuum but it serves as a backdrop for the question at hand. The former may require a well-executed TC in order to amaze the girl and blur the eyes of macho man... The invoked response should be, "Wow! He changed the card without even touching it!" The latter example may suffice with a TC and a rub on the sleeve to confound the tipsy client and invoke the same response. Both worked but the methods were different. Granted, this is a simple example but in its rawest form, illustrates what is relevant. The question now is.... "Do I continue and pull the card from the wallet or just leave it in the table to use as a coaster for the next beer he orders..." What say you? Tommy |
Vlad_77 Inner circle The Netherlands 5829 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 6, 2014, tommyellison wrote: Hi Tommy, I like your example and I think it is informative to present scenarios at opposite ends of a continuum. I am assuming that for the inebriated spectator, you meant a DL as opposed to a TC? Anyhow, for the inebriated punter, I would leave the card as a coaster. For the former scenario, it depends upon how much of a jerk the mach guy is. |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » A lesson in card magic! (1 Likes) |
[ 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 < |