|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Jerome Finley V.I.P. SLC 3419 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-05 23:00, acesover wrote: Acesover, No, no, my friend. This is a classic example of words and meaning being lost in translation via the internet. My comments were not at all directed at you, only saying that instead of burning (for ashes on the arm) one might tear the pieces up to animate them with an ET (of which I use neither). Best, J.
"Join my update list here!" http://eepurl.com/uE3Jf
|
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
TT2,
Thanks for the response. Sorry for presuming on my part. As a mentalist I should have known. Ha, Ha. John (acesover)
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
ThomasBerger Special user 593 Posts
|
"...and he/she can really entertain us!"
Problem is, being fooled is not in itself entertaining. The other point is that some people have their own agenda and don't want to be fooled, they want to look smart in front of their friends. If you perform professionally, your most important source of leads are repeat bookings! IMO, you have to totally blow people away to get them to talk about the show. It has to be entertaining...that is a given, but more than that, it must be something that will make them talk for days. Cute stuff is not good enough, IMO. Blow them away. "If someone writes something down or draws something, have no logical reason to not let them or someone else hold that bit of paper." Over analysis leads to paralysis. You can over analysis things but the odds are you have lost the ability to think and see things like a layman. Laypeople look at things BROADLY. Marc Salem sells himself as a body language/non verbal communication expert, yet spends a 1/3 of his show blindfolded. Laypeople do not up the discrepancy. Sometimes you need to try things and then trust your instincts, instead of trying to over think them. "Sometimes, we think an effect is subtle and it is really just obvious! " I would recommend reading anything from Gary Kurtz. He said that ANY effect you do needs interlocking methods. So a booktest with one book is much easier to reconstruct than 6 or 8 books with different canceling-out principles. You need to have a canceling out effect. Because of how laymen think (The Theory Of Everything), this totally destroys their thinking. Daryl wrote years ago about this and look at how Gary handles it in his chair routine. A simple explanation is at risk of exposure/being discovered. Cheers. Tom |
|||||||||
Dynamike Eternal Order FullTimer 24148 Posts
|
Are we clevrer than our audiences think? Now that is another way to look at it.
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts
|
Bobo switch the die and leave it out in plain sight as you go for the Nail...
The Bergermeister is correct - why be mediocre when you want to strive for creating awe and mystery?
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
|
ChristopherM Special user UK 844 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-06 18:40, ThomasBerger wrote: We can see how Gary currently approaches his book sequence in his shows in this manner. It is a very good piece with lots of different books, different words, different effects, and doubtless, different methods. Highly entertaining and deceptive, it builds to a very definite climax. |
|||||||||
|
ThomasBerger Special user 593 Posts
|
"We can see how Gary currently approaches his book sequence in his shows in this manner. It is a very good piece with lots of different books, different words, different effects, and doubtless, different methods. Highly entertaining and deceptive, it builds to a very definite climax."
Exactly. His book test sequence is superb. I had a layman translate his French stage performance based on video footage I found on the net. She kept on talking about this effect. He has so many things happening, so many cancelling out principles, he nails everyone. One principle is very prone to disclosure, yet have multiple layers cancel out the laymen's Theory Of Everything. Even his Confabulation routine has so many principles happening. In this day and age with the internet exposure, things will only get worse. That is ineveitable. Simple tricks with a simple method leaves you prone to disclosure IMO. I think the best way is to deal with this problem is to look at how people like Gary nail this. Tom |
|||||||||
eSamuels Inner circle 3085 Posts
|
Interesting thread, and perhaps this has been previously stated...but it strikes me that this is not a matter of the level of intellect of your audience. And it most certainly not an issue of who is smarter.
The vast majority of people, regardless of their intellectual capability, will allow for their intellect to submit to their imagination and feelings, if the setting is right. It's a basic human need. A performance (much like a poor film) only fails when it fails to suspend disbelief. Which is why technique is certainly important, but it's kind of like a camera on a film set.....it's not 'the art,' in itself. Performance is paramount. Great performance is the invitation for your audience to go to a place where their intelligence cannot be insulted. Ergo, it might be said that poor performance, in this medium, is an insult to intelligence. |
|||||||||
|
ThomasBerger Special user 593 Posts
|
Quote:
The vast majority of people, regardless of their intellectual capability, will allow for their intellect to submit to their imagination and feelings, if the setting is right. It's a basic human need. A performance (much like a poor film) only fails when it fails to suspend disbelief." I would agree with this, mostly. We have entered a new world however, and even experts with great performance suffer from occasional problems. The thing is, years ago you had a bad night.... so what. The next 50 would be great. Now we have a new age of blogs, youtube, etc. So you get someone wondering how Marc Salem did Add-a-number on a blog... and guessing correctly. Ditto with the swami opening Salem used to do...someone was sitting wide enough to see too much. And it's on a blog. Years ago it wouldn't make a difference. You don't need to be super smart to work out Add-a-number or tossed out deck, or even a basic booktest. I have heard people reverse engineer them. It can happen, especially in conferences where people are together all the time for 3 days. The wisdom of crowds means that lots of average people outperform and solve for accurately then the smartest person. This is a new phenomenon which has produced amazing results. It's called prediction markets, using opinions from lots of people. For e.g. blog.oddhead.com So at the risk of singing the same old song, I think looking at how Kurtz uses the swami is a massive lesson...how he cancels out the suspicion in its use, etc., in his chair routine. Because people are becoming more and more vocal to discrepancies. Tom |
|||||||||
|
eSamuels Inner circle 3085 Posts
|
No doubt the world has become significantly smaller in many ways, with information astonishingly accessible......(Here comes the "however")
However....as has always been the case, would you not agree that the VAST majority of your audience has no interest nor intention in trying to discover the "how?" True, there will always be those who either need to be "the smartest guy in the room," or, in other instances, those who are as fascinated by what we do, as we were when we were starting out. But I would maintain that despite the access to Youtube, etc., post performance, most people would never think to investigate, UNLESS, they feel they've been somehow 'taken,' 'duped,' or otherwise had their intelligence insulted. And, as one of the cornerstones of Magic, Mentalism, etc., is the psychological principle that people's recollection of what happened, is invariably a selectively edited memory, which, when retold, is usually grander than the actual event; I find that most people enjoy the recalling of a great performance, rather than losing that "magical" experience to the disappointment of a revealed technique. I do certainly agree that anything we can do to move the craft forward, by developing innovative techniques, is a worthy pursuit. But to me the motivation to do this is the pursuit of excellence, rather than to counter the persistence of a few potential need-to-know-it-alls. Then again, I could be wrong! |
|||||||||
|
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts
|
I find that my goal is not so much to get my audience to suspend disbelief, but rather to actively invest belief my "abilities", whatever those may be. That we have far more body language experts and nlp gurus than plain old mind readers is indicative of a fear of being taken seriously.
|
|||||||||
|
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-03 14:28, Matt Beech wrote: If you forget about how it looks to the audience and concentrate on how it looks to us. If you can go to third person (NLP) i.e look at it as a lay person, it is, indeed, the Perfect C.T. For that matter, look at it as a Mentalist, it is still, indeed, the Perfect C.T.. It fooled me, didn't it fool you? and if you do it the next time and use SAW? I haven't done this yet. Perhaps some of the more experienced members could help me What would you do SAW then PCT or PCT then SAW? With a slightly different presentation but only slightly different, or not? My idea is to completely fool anybody trying to reverse engineer me? What are your views on the above, please? TJ Here is an excellent post by that excellent mentalist Ken Dyne. It is relevant to this issue. Does anybody have Mozique's Decision? If so, what do you think of it? 
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/searc......t=493179 |
|||||||||
psychicturtle Special user UK 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-09 05:27, teejay wrote: No, before I was a magician, it didn't fool me, and it was a well known performer who did it (and they did it very well, but I'm not going to name names). I just used logic and guessed. I didn't KNOW, but I assumed. That is why after getting into this business I never bothered to learn it. I had sussed it, so surely others will. Again, it all comes down to audiences levels of intelligence being higher than a lot of people assume. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-03 11:07, Matt Beech wrote: Who would want to work for such an audience?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-10 06:24, psychicturtle wrote: I believe you (I was talking about Osterlind doing it) There are lots of things that I don't feel comfortable doing As mentioned in previous posts, both of us do not like opening the SAW twice. I am looking at the Mozique's Decision (see above) A friend has told me that the cards used are very thick and, to me, this might make them too proppy looking (suspicious) All my latest purchases have been perfect for me because I research before I buy THe Café is great for this Just look at the info on this thread alone Cheers TJ |
|||||||||
Malchat Special user The Kingdom of Croiset and Wonder 885 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-10 19:22, teejay wrote: My audiences have never found them suspicious (the heat's on my hands where there is nothing to see - some may expect to catch sleights/switches, but the scribbled cards aren't an issue for lay people.) In the manual, looch shows you one way to start off having the spectators handle the cards without hassle until you introduce the gimmick.
“You are what you pretend to be.”
|
|||||||||
|
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts
|
We are all (Myself included) discussing this with great seriousness and insight
and then I had a thought...... What about John Edwards??? And the TV shows are edited !!! Have you ever been to a Spiritualist church? No routining, sleighs or layers of misdirection They just... ??? How does that reality fit into this thread? Bemused, bothered and bewildered GRRRRR TJ |
|||||||||
Jim-Callahan V.I.P. 5018 Posts
|
Yes I have and grew up going to revivals.
I guess that is why my stuff is a bit different. Jim
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
|
|||||||||
|
harishjose Special user 932 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-06-19 21:07, teejay wrote: Spirituality and magic are interrelated but at the same time entirely different. Which is why we have almost everybody believing in a religion. And plus that kind of "magic" takes years and maybe decades of brainwashing and preparing people. And it is passed down through generations. A period that is not practical for a mentalist or a magician. And John Edwerds has his victims ready to believe in him. They would believe anybody who would provide what they are looking for. Such liberties are not available to us. Food for thought.
To believe is Magic.
|
|||||||||
|
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts
|
Niiiice one, HJ
Reading your post, my mind starts thinking 2 things 1) THe content of his schtick is highly relevant to his spectators 2) We are talking about people knowing something is suspicious but not sure what it is JE overrides that i.e he is not doing anything at all to be suspicious of Have a look at this thread: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......art=0#11 TJ |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Are our audiences cleverer than we think? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jun 6, 2007 10:26 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 < 
|