The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Knots and loops » » Keeping it simple (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

scottds80
View Profile
Special user
Victoria, Australia
730 Posts

Profile of scottds80
I have found that it could be easy to confuse an audience with ropes, so keeping it simple could be the key for a stronger effect.

In my show, I just do a simple cut & restored rope (x2) with different versions. This always works out perfectly and it's kept simple and to the point with a couple of small gags as part of it. Always strong reactions.

When I see other rope manipulation performances, they are very very impressive on the handling, but I honestly get lost and confused. I lose track of which end is where, where it should be, and it becomes more of a pointless unmagical exercise.

Perhaps everyone in our audiences have different abilities with their mental awareness coordinations. But not everyone is going to follow these messy rope routines.
"Great Scott the Magician", Gippsland
nonvpro
View Profile
Inner circle
1844 Posts

Profile of nonvpro
I have long thought the same thing.
Pete Biro
View Profile
1933 - 2018
18559 Posts

Profile of Pete Biro
Me too
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
Mary Mowder
View Profile
Inner circle
Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA
3645 Posts

Profile of Mary Mowder
True, but when you see someone who does a good job of keeping what is supposed to be happening clear to the audience it can be amazing.

Tabary's routine may be a bit long for my taste but I'm with him all the way. Daryl is clear throughout his routines. Dennis Loomis is never confusing.

It's not the Magic most of the time, it's the Magician. I think too many of us think we are that good when we aren't (but I'm still in there pitching).

- Mary Mowder
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
I'm with Mary
A magician is supposed to weave a story with his props that holds the undevided attention of his audience. The ability to make your mind, mouth, body position, props, and hands present a story is what magic is all about. When performing magic the trick should be niether simple, nor complex, because a great magician tells a great story.
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
scottds80
View Profile
Special user
Victoria, Australia
730 Posts

Profile of scottds80
Ok, good points. So at least slow it down and make it easy to follow. And entertaining
"Great Scott the Magician", Gippsland
David Charvet
View Profile
Special user
www.charvetmagic.com
501 Posts

Profile of David Charvet
If you ever saw Pierre Edernac from France, rope magic does not have to be confusing. His was a beautiful act. And it was silent.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
The most important differance between fiber optics and most other rope routines is the speed which Richard Sanders performs it. The rope just jumps out of his hands, which makes his rope routine unique, but Richard Sanders ain't about simple. He goes for eye popping rope magic.
IMHO
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
Mr. Mystoffelees
View Profile
Inner circle
I haven't changed anyone's opinion in
3615 Posts

Profile of Mr. Mystoffelees
I agree. And Tabary is much smoother (which is not a criticism of Richard).

However, they share a common ground- any confusion in the mind of the spectator is not due to the routine, but rather to the collision between (1) what the spec "knows" to be physical reality, and (2) what the spec just witnessed. Not all confusion is bad- depends on what the spec blames it on...

Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
Lawrence O
View Profile
Inner circle
Greenwich (CT)
6799 Posts

Profile of Lawrence O
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 21:31, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
I agree. And Tabary is much smoother (which is not a criticism of Richard).

However, they share a common ground- any confusion in the mind of the spectator is not due to the routine, but rather to the collision between (1) what the spec "knows" to be physical reality, and (2) what the spec just witnessed. Not all confusion is bad- depends on what the spec blames it on...

Jim


Confusion seems to me to be a misleading choice of term: conflict would probably be more appropriate.
Magic is a dilemma in the spectator's mind between what he knows, confirmed by personal experience, and an impossibility which has just been proven to him with the performer's implicit admission (nature of the show itself) that such proof is flawed.

Thus this is not a theoretical debate: it has some very direct and important implications concerning how a magical act is designed.

The question more or less clearly identified in the present thread is whether the variety of effects in an ACT is confusing or not. There is naturally a difference between an act or a routine and a trick since an act or a routine includes several tricks.

Magicians have a tendency to choose their act by including in it effects what fooled them and what impressed them the most. The problem is that all of us have a preference for a certain type of effects (for example immature magicians tend to prefer vanishes which leaves them in a reassuring position where nothing can be checked by the audience), when audiences come to experience how magic if it existed would make their life better (money would be magically produced, physical objects would remain protective without becoming obstacles, people could fly physically or metaphorically...)

In short magicians tend to become mono effect: they project better what they feel at ease with.
Audiences tend to seek a story where effects conflict until the one they prefer (for ethical or empathy reasons) takes the better

Now it is clear that building a show with an underlying story with characters (told or untold) and theme and development of a conflict and a denouement requires more talent from the performer. Then some form of dialog must be established (patter). Add to this the needed talent to "act" the show.

It is therefore not surprising that people who know a few tricks but would like to reach "magician" status advocate for unicity of effects with a lot of rationalization for what they do.

As I wrote in other issues here in the magic café: "King Midas has donkey's ears". We all tend to "value" the road we chose, even or especially if we chose it by inexperience, laziness, ego trip...

I personally value the road of improving over myself which means in this thread to be able to have rope routines covering several effects without becoming confusing. Yes it requires more research, more talents and I'm prepared to acquire the ones that I may lack rather than indulging in mediocre self satisfaction. Now this is me and I have no problem in hearing some other points of view.
Magic is the art of proving impossible things in parallel dimensions that can't be reached
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Knots and loops » » Keeping it simple (0 Likes)
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.16 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL