|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
Alan Ackerman also has a routine named, "Impromptu Ultramental", which was in his book, Here's My Card and is also on his DVD, "The Las Vegas Card Expert and Every Move a Move". It's done with a regular deck of cards. There are a couple of limitations compared to using the Ultramental Deck. One is that the original card cannot just be thought of, it has to be viewed and thought of as the deck is spread, i.e. it cannot be any card. The other is that it requires sleight of hand, so the handling isn't quite as pristine. It is a very good routine though.
I agree that the original gaffed solution is generally best.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
Marcus K New user Bay Area, California 96 Posts |
Doing an impromptu invisible deck is like making your own soap. Sure, you feel a bit superior, and you learn a new skill, but the only people who will care are not the people you should be trying to impress. Not to mention the fact that there's NO WAY to make it look easy - or clean. Now, go wash your hands with Ivory and thank the Good Lord that he has delivered unto us the ID.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
|
|||||||||
Hideo Kato Inner circle Tokyo 5649 Posts |
This discussion is one of proofs magicians tend to like methods over effects. (in this case, effect is 'affect' on audience).
Subtlety in method is nothing if it does not produce a good affect. Hideo Kato |
|||||||||
cboscari Regular user 119 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-06 13:52, Theurgist wrote: I tried to figure out for a long time how to do an ID routine with a regular deck. I thought "I could do this, then this, then this,... then I realized "OR I could just use an ID." The only advantage I see to using a borrowed deck is to advert suspicion about using a gaff. However, having done the ID hundreds of times, I think I can only think of one time when this was an issue. The effort to payoff just isn't worth it, at least for me. |
|||||||||
Nathan Kranzo V.I.P. 2955 Posts |
I agree it's hard to beat the Ultra Mental Deck.
BUT if you are interested in exploring non gaffed versions....check out handlings by Paul Cummins, Scott Robinson, J.C. Wagner, and Steve Beam. All the best, Kranzo
check out MINDZILLA VOL. 2!!! Brand New Effects. Instant Downloads. Watch Demo Videos. Click below!!!
KranzoMagic.com |
|||||||||
closeupcardician Special user Justin Teeman Moore, OK 602 Posts |
I would urge you to check out Mr. Gadfly Vol. 2 Issue 1 (January and February). Therein you will find thoughts/handling from Rich Marotta. Aptly titled "Impromptu Invisible Deck. In Regards to the 2 Deck handling which I often use. Check out Rodney Reyes' Performance on the School Of Hardnocks DVD.
"Magic as art cannot live without love. Love of some kind. There are novels without love, other arts without love. But there can be no magic without love." - Rodney Reyes
|
|||||||||
korttihai_82 Inner circle Finland 1880 Posts |
I have to agree with most posters in this thread... There is no way that any sleight of hand version would be as clean as the current version is and if there would be even version that would be near it still would be benefical to only for magicians. Here in europe we don't have a problem with magic shops being all over the cities and laymen can get inside and buy ITR, TT and invisible decks. althought I don't think the situation is as bad in United States either. Magicians just make it seem so. if you consider the effect of invisible deck it doesn't look at all like gimickked deck or even effect that laymen would assume to be gimicked. In all simplicity just one named card is other way than rest of the deck... I would be more worried with the boom of let say Robert Houdins protean deck... Now that effect is so different it would scream to laymen that the deck is not normal!
J-M |
|||||||||
churken Regular user California 199 Posts |
In my opinion, the problem with using an ID is that you are using a gaffed deck for just one effect. Magicians are always complaining about how to execute a deck switch in front of an intelligent audience. In my eyes this is exactly the problem you must face if using an ID in the real world. There are always going to be that spectator who demands to see the cards, or to shuffle, or whatever. You never know when this person is going to pop up. It is bad if they pop up when you have an ID in your hands. Also, what do you do before and after performing the ID? You can put the deck away and do a coin trick or sponge balls or mentalism, etc., but if you plan on doing any other card trick during your set, you better have a good way to switch the decks. At the very least you need to pull the two decks from the same pocket.
Which brings us to doing the ID with a normal deck. I disagree that an impromptu version can never be as clean as the gimmicked version. Even with the gimmicked version, if you don't practice it's going to look crappy. The sleight of hand my be challenging, but so was a DL when you first started learning it. All sleight of hand can look smooth and natural if you put in the time to master it. The benefit of doing the work in this case is that you can perform your other favorite card effects and go immediately into the ID without the deck switch. Remember, lay audiences don't know the methods. (Although, there will be those who have been in a magic shop and know the Svengali and ID and Rising decks) Which means that normally you can get away with the gimmicked method, but also means that you can perform a no gimmick version. If they have been to a magic shop, the impromptu version is better. A lay audience is not going to pick up on the sleights required to perform the effect if you execute them well. Clarity of effect is about presentation more than method. Method, by definition, needs to be invisible to the audience. This is true in both gimmicked and impromptu effects. Any effect you do needs to be clear and uncluttered to the audience. Most of the impromptu ID effects I have seen performed retain the same clarity as the gimmicked version. But if not, it is again the fault of the performer. The effect is simple: the spectator names any card and you spread the deck and show that their named card is the only one reversed. When devising an impromptu verion your method must conform to this description. Otherwise you are devising a different effect, one that is probably not as strong. So method should not be the issue. Once you have worked out a good method, you can now work on presentation. If you have to deviate from this description, you are cluttering the effect and making it unclear. So clarity, in this effect, is based on presentation - What the audience sees. Personally, I use the method taught in Workers 5 to perform the ID. (Stacked Deck) This can also be seen as gimmicked, but the advantage is that I can now go into a dozen other effects with the same deck. It is also as clear to the audience as the original. In fact it is virtually the same as the gimmick version. I get better reactions to this version than I ever did when I used the gimmick. But that's mostly because I've grown as a performer. I will also use the Rich Moratta version if someone just hands me a deck and says, "here do a trick". Also strong and uncluttered. Bottom line is that I have seen magicians both succeed and fail with an ID. I have seen the same thing with an impromptu performance. I think it comes down to how much work you are willing to put into the effect. And also how much pocket space you have to carry all of your gimmicked decks. Paul |
|||||||||
korttihai_82 Inner circle Finland 1880 Posts |
In my history of performing magic that's around 15 years or so, no one has ever, and I mean ever asked to see my invisible deck or any other prop of mine that woudnt stand for examination. There has been times when I used to do ID for instance way over 30 times a night... I seem to have ben extremely lucky? It doesn't mean it cant happen but ever considered just saying "No" and smile would be enough if that would happen once? that's enough for me at least.
Also what could possibly be strong enought to do after invisible deck with cards? Maybe some other name card tricks with stack but at least in my experience on working paid gigs, I do just one effect with cards per group. Sometimes its ID and sometimes something else. Also about deck switching... Magicians make a huge deal about it being hard. I don't agree at all. Once I used to do longer card sets at table, around 10min with pure cards and I switched deck in that set 3 times and never got caught cos all the switches were on very heavy offbeat. Switching the deck is one of the most easiest things you can imagine to do IF you do it at the right time, meaning at the offbeat. Magicians however seem to have tendensy to cry and whine that misdirection doesn't work for em and such when in reality they are just too unexperienced or don't really have yet what it takes to keep audiences attension under their control. I remember when I was starting and continuosly was caught on top changes, passes and palms... I too claimed that misdirection just doesn't work for me, but in reality I didn't have a clue what audience management was. It comes with time and cant be practised without performing for real people. Not for magicians but for real laymens. Not your friends either, but real unknown laymen. Other thing with magicians can be told by telling a story of Larry Jennings. Once he was supposed to be at the magic castle and performing. A lady selected a card and returned it into deck and just when Jennings was about to execute a pass, the lady looked away. Jennings was so annoyed by this that he cut the deck visually, just so he could do the pass again and make the lady look at the deck when he did it.... The point of the story at least to me is that magicians start to like their moves and tegnique way too much and they want people to stare at em. Same with switching the decks. Magicians assume that deck switch has to be made when people are burning the deck. They should be done completely opposite.. On the offbeat. Just try to see Juan Tamariz perform or lecture. He switches deck like 5 times at least during his show, and I could bet some heavy money on the line that if you don't know the switch is coming, you have no idea catching him. And the switches he use are nothing tegnical at all. Mainly he just puts the deck into pocket and takes other one out from other pocket. Same with every other tegnique he does. I had the privledge to spend some time with him few months ago while he was lecturing in finland and I helped him on few of his routines on his lecture. Now, I knew them before because I had seen his dvd lectures and read his books but still, I missed every move he did. I just coudnt see em if I had wanted to cos he was in total control of my attention at all times. Same with Aldo Colombini. He switches deck during his lecture about 10 times as well and most will fly right past even magicians, cos he does em when the trick is over and people are laughing. Also I have to say few things about Michael Closes invisible deck and every other versions out there and mentioned in this thread. They all have that moment where you are clearly staring at the spread of cards to see the card to be culled... Spectators can see this. Even with memorized decks and you will have to tilt the faces of the cards away from spectators so they don't get an accidential glimpse of the card going under the spread. Now same is true with basic ID, if you havent stacked it someway as well so you know where the selection is. I agree with Paul in that people still don't put enough thought on even the basic version. J-M |
|||||||||
magicduro Special user Las Vegas 529 Posts |
I think that Invisible Deck can be created just as well with a regular deck if you take into consideration that misdirection can make any moves invisible.
And who is to say, in the spectators mind, the effect is any "cleaner". |
|||||||||
Hideo Kato Inner circle Tokyo 5649 Posts |
When do you use Misdirecton in ID with normal deck? When you secretly revese the named card? It produce the clean looking that gimmicked ID does not need any misdirection. You must get attention on the deck after you take out the deck from pocket.
May I ask only to professinal magicians? Do you use ID effect with normal deck in your work for lay people. If the answer is 'Yes', do you think the reaction of audience for the effect is stronger than the one using gimmicked ID? I am looking forward to their experiences of pros who answer 'yes' for both questions. Hideo Kato |
|||||||||
Dennis Loomis 1943 - 2013 2113 Posts |
To Hideo,
Okay, I'm a professional magician. I've used I.D. with both the gaffed version and a "normal" deck. For the "normal" deck I have used Mike Close's version from Workers. While the deck is not gaffed, it is set up, so the effect is not impromptu in the sense that you could borrow a deck and do it. I cannot say that the reaction was any stronger with either version. Frankly, I do not believe that the reaction of the audience relates to the method in any effect. It relates to the performer. First, if your method requires sleight of hand, you must be competent at the necessary moves. Mike Close's method requires a memorized deck, and you must be competent with that tool. (No stalling, no forgetting, you must be on top of your stack.) And the method requires a half-pass. Given that your are competent, then the reaction of the audience depends on your presentation. In short, magic is a performing art and what matters is the ability of the performer to perform! Many magicians would do well to learn fewer moves and tricks and learn to really sell the effects that they do. But, to return to a discussion of methods. Richard Osterlind has a routine on his new set of DVDs, No Camera Tricks, that he calls Richardwave. It's his version of brain wave (kinda) with a (kinda) regular deck. First, there is a single gaffed card which you get from a second deck, but the gaffing if something you can do yourself in a few minutes. By the end of the routine, the gaffed card is out of play and Richard gives the deck away as a souvenir, to make the point that the deck is not gimmicked. (Mike Close sometimes does that with his I.D. routine also.) To do Richards complete routine, you will need another prop. A "Card to Wallet" wallet. Since most of us already have one of those, it's not a big deal. Richards' effect is not quite like Brainwave. ANY card is named and that card is shown to have a different colored back. It is not reversed in the deck. This is very clean, and not technically demanding at all. Then, Richard says that he would like to give the spectator the deck as a souvenir, but it's not complete. "Remembering" that he put the matching colored card in his wallet, he takes out his wallet, unzips the compartment, and takes out the card which was named, but with the back that matches the deck. He returns it to the deck and give the deck away. This phase will require that you do a top palm. However, it comes at a perfect time... apparently the effect is over, and the heat is off. The business of returning the "correct" card to the deck is a strong throw off and reinforces the impossibility of what you've just done. I plan to start working on the Osterlind version. Now why, you might ask, if I do the Close Version, and the gimmicked I.D., would I want a third version? Because each has it's place. I already have the necessary props and skill set, so it won't take long to work this us. And giving away a deck as a souvenir makes a lasting impression on the audience, especially the recipient. This may well be the person that hired me, or the President of the Company, etc. I'll put a sticker on the card box with my contact information. Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com |
|||||||||
Jonathan_Miller Loyal user CT 211 Posts |
Im just curious about something, and not trying to start a big argument. Why is it that some people have a problem with magic being both a performing art and an academic pursuit. For many of us magic is just a hobby and so it should be something we enjoy. True that an impromptu invisible deck is probably not going to look as clean as the gaffed version so does that automatically make it not worth studying. I would thing not. I have performed for magicians way more than I have for laymen because that is what I enjoy. I think having people involved in more academic pursiuts of magic is helpful in general.
|
|||||||||
churken Regular user California 199 Posts |
Hideo,
I also am a professional magician and as I stated in my above post I use the Michael Close version of the ID. The reactions I get with this handling are excellent. I have nothing against the gaffed ID, but for my performing style it just doesn't fit. My point in my previous post is simply that I believe that with proper preperation you can perform sleight of hand without making the audience suspicious. At least no more suspicious than they are naturally. Also you can use pure sleight of hand to present a very "clean" effect. This isn't to say that I am against gimmicks. I do use them when the situation warrants. Gimmicks, just like sleight of hand, have their place. There are some effects that just can't be done without a gimmick. For those - use the gimmick. But if you come across an effect that can be done just as well, and garner the same (or better) reaction from the audience with sleight of hand, why not spend the time practicing and eliminate the need for the gimmick? To me ID is such an effect. But that's for my style. I work strictly out of my pockets and I am very picky when it comes to any effect that is going to take up more pocket space. Also, I like to use just one deck when performing. I like to use the same deck that has been in play all along to do ID. Oddly enough, with my presentation for ID, it would be about the easiest deck switch of all time for me to ring in the gaffed version. I just choose not to. These are personal choices based on my personality and style. I applaud those that do the ID in any form as it is a great effect. Whatever method you are comfortable with and gets a strong reaction from your audience is the one you should use. After all, ultimately that's what magic is all about - the reaction we get from our audiences. Paul |
|||||||||
Hideo Kato Inner circle Tokyo 5649 Posts |
Thank you Dennis Loomis-san and churken-san for explaining why you use ungaffed ID. I understand there are situations you need to use a normal deck for the effect.
I am curious if Loomis-san and churken-san use 'Invisible Deck' theme in those situations. (That is introducing an invisible deck in the begining). If you don't use that presenation, I think the effect belongs to 'Ultra Mental Deck' type. (Reveasal of the named card). Hideo Kato |
|||||||||
Dennis Loomis 1943 - 2013 2113 Posts |
To Jonathan Miller,
Your point is well taken. I have no problem with amateur magicians doing whatever they enjoy. However, too often, they believe that a technical understanding of magic and the ability to do competent sleight of hand means that they are ready to start doing shows and charging a fee. If they do not cross that line, I wish them well and they can study whatever they like, and do tricks at the magic club, etc. But, when they hang out a shingle and start charging for shows, they need to understand that people are hiring an entertainer. Contrary to what Penn and Teller say, they are not just a couple of guys that have learned a few cool tricks. They are GREAT entertainers and the audience goes away satisfied, wanting to see them again, and open to seeing more magicians. That's what all professional magicians must strive for. Most pros that survive in the business have a high percentage of repeat dates. That tells you they are not just fooling the audience, but entertaining them. And, you've really got to do both. That said, I send my best wishes to all that enjoy our magic community. If you just enjoy reading and collecting books, doing tricks for other magicians, attending lectures, trading thoughts on the Café... wonderful. I wish you much happiness and satisfaction with your hobby. If you see me at a convention, club meeting, or lecture, come on over and chat. For me, magic is BOTH my profession and my hobby. (All consuming passion is more accurate.) I enjoy discussing all aspects of it with most anyone in our community. Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com |
|||||||||
churken Regular user California 199 Posts |
Hideo,
My presentation for the impromptu ID is pretty much the ID theme. I talk about visualization, but it boils down to the same thing. Dennis, I agree 100% with your thoughts that being entertaining is just as important as being good at the sleights. Paul |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
To Mr. Miller,
If folks spent as much time looking for answers as they did polishing their answers they would not likely be so arrogant about how they discussed their findings. In this case consider how a card index and one sleight would get the job done for those who can manage the audience for that critical brainwave moment. Make that two sleights (using something of Hofzinser's to ensure no duplicity is displayed and you have a fairly obvious answer that would serve most here. That said, a lack of balance often manifests itself in hostilities toward others who display what's lacking to find that balance. Sort of how opposites attract and you get sparks.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Eric Jones V.I.P. Director of Product Development 2101 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-08 22:32, Hideo Kato wrote: I'm mistaken. The effect is actually in Pasteboard Presentations II written by Scott Cram rather than the out of print Pasteboard Presentations written by Wayne Whiting.
“We're two tigers away from an act in Vegas.” Greg House M.D.
<BR> <BR>http://www.ericjonesmagic.com |
|||||||||
Hideo Kato Inner circle Tokyo 5649 Posts |
Thanks for the information.
Hideo Kato |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Impromptu invisible deck.... (12 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |