|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
daniel116 Regular user 196 Posts 
|
Hi guys
I was first introduced to the one behind principle watching Jay Sankey's "Mexican Jumping Beans" coins across routine, later I studied David Williamson's "When you're behind, you're ahead" routine, a three coins production-vanish-production routine. I saw the principle being used in a Robert Moreland routine as well. I played around with the principle for a lot of time, but could never find a good use for it. I found that if you just show people how you count three coins as two, they're really amazed and will always ask you to do it again and again, so for some time I used to just do that, mainly for friends and family, never in a professional event. A few days ago I was playing around with the idea and came up with a completely out of context ending to an on the spot made up routine, and found that it got great reactions, so here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K4lmSpv4Xg and here's a semi-live performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxG7RwxYeE |
|||||||||
OliveroG Regular user 167 Posts
|
Ok that was unexpected. Loved the idea!
I hope you understand, my dear friend, that everything you are seeing is a lie, but everything you are feeling holds true.
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9987 Posts
|
I have used this approach in various effects for many years. My favorite 3Fly ditches one coin and finishes with only two shown as three. (Uses as TUC)
The easiest coin to vanish is one that never was. Consider that the use of an EXP [ can allow you to be either one ahead or one behind at will - depending on how the effect is framed.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Mb217 Inner circle 9530 Posts
|
Nice play daniel...
*Check out my latest: Gifts From The Old Country: A Mini-Magic Book, MBs Mini-Lecture on Coin Magic, The MB Tanspo PLUS, MB's Morgan, Copper Silver INC, Double Trouble, FlySki, Crimp Change - REDUX!, and other fine magic at gumroad.com/mb217magic
"Believe in YOU, and you will see the greatest magic that ever was." -Mb 
|
|||||||||
|
tonsofquestions Inner circle 1807 Posts
|
As a magician, I enjoyed the surprise ending.
But I'm also pretty torn about the routine in general. It almost feels like sharing too much of a secret that we can count numbers incorrectly and lie. You're not pretending it's some other "magic", pseudo-science, etc - you're explicitly telling (and showing) them what you can do. Imagine doing that, and then a 3-coin routine. The spectator will never trust any of your counts, because you just demonstrated you could do that. To me it's like showing a spectator a second deal - any future tricks are lessened, since they now have some idea of how you're likely doing it. Sure, some folks do know about fake deals, but not all do, I see no good reason to emphasize it? As far as the counting itself - I think you did it a few too many times in a row, the exact same way. (Never do the same trick twice). You also put all three coins in your hand in completely different ways (but the same orders each time), which feels strange to me - maybe the first or last coin would be special, but all three? That's pretty far from the way I'd count coins for real. The repetition on top of that really made it stand out as unusual. Anyway, that's just my two cents, and some thoughts to consider. I did enjoy it, so thanks for sharing! |
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9987 Posts
|
I agree with tons here on the "reveal" aspect of such a demonstration.
a sleight is supposed to be of "never happened" variety of moves. To draw attention to it as a skill demonstration is contra-magic (opinion) In fact, any immediate reveal of results following any sleight is usually not wise. As noted above, I am in favor of one behind as a "principle." If it is destroyed it is not longer a principle, or ploy or stratagem - just bad juggling. I am not even sure that starting with two coins and showing them as three even is "one behind" since you are exactly where you started. My view of "being one behind" is that the audience NEVER knows you have fewer objects than displayed. With "one ahead" they NEVER know you have an extra object. Where in this do you "show three coins as two" as stated in the OP? Did you mean "two coins as three?", but then, "show" is not a sleight, and reveal is not magic. For me, any false count is a way of getting one ahead, or of concealing that you are one behind as part of an effect -- never the effect itself. As Dick Oslund often reminds us "effect" is what the audience sees (or what you plan on them seeing). Where is the magic here? The OP says he got great reactions. Where any of those reactions, "Wow - so that is what real magic would look like?" but in support of daniel's efforts, though I am nor sure what the intent is -- there are so many false counts available, I suggest never using the same one back-to-back guess I am old fashioned - my friends and family deserve my best magic. They are not a practice mirror.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
|
daniel116 Regular user 196 Posts
|
I get what you're saying about revealing actual techniques.
Tell me, would you be more open about a routine as this had it been presented as a gambling demonstration? "this is how hustlers can scam you on the streets" or "this is a technique gamblers use to cheat at hold'em when adding chips to the bet" When performing card magic, sometimes you can tell when an audience is right for a gambling demonstration, usually when performing for stubborn men who don't care much for magic, but would love to watch you demonstrate how you can take their MONEY. in that case I have a few card routines that involve a true revealement of card techniques; the classic pass, false shuffles, etc. but all these routines have a surprise magic ending that gets even the toughest spectators on the floor. I don't have much experience in revealing coin magic, but I have seen Apollo Robbins explaining false transfers and demonstrating the French Drop over and over while doing a lecture on misdirection, so I wouldn't say I'm the first to reveal coin techniques as part of a performance. In my opinion, by "giving them something" you can get them to lower their guards to lows you'd have a hard time reaching with classic magic. Funsway, this is not a routine I would do in the hopes of having people wonder if this is what real magic looks like, as my performing personality is not a "real magic" kind of personality, the only paid performances I've had in my life were in bars doing quick tricks until the drunks got their burgers
Regarding the "one behind principle" when the audience in fact sees that only two coins are presented as three: well I guess this is my neo-modernist approach to this principle, it is now possible to be both behind and ahead, what a time to be alive! What I take from the feedback I've gotten so far is that I should probably present this routine as a sort of gambling demonstration, rather than a magic-revealement. I do think that using the same false count more than once passes here, because I'm not trying to fool them with the false count, the count is only presented to get their attention and set them for the surprise ending. the rule of "don't perform the same trick twice" doesn't apply to the counting phase, but rather the trick as a whole, when they already know that tons of coins are going to appear at the end. I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback so far! One last thing: Funsway, if you don't practice in front of your friends and family, whos your practice audience? Also: This is another video of me performing a one-behind routine, doing Jay Sankey's "Mexican Jumping Beans coins across" and then vanishing the coins. The routine is pretty difficult to follow without patter but it would be too difficult for me to try and present it while speaking English, anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNvOslfh-88 |
|||||||||
|
ma91cm1ke New user 85 Posts
|
How about two behind.
This video was shot on my phone just for personal reference so nothing fancy https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P6KzhpTaAXs Just thought it might be of interest and I have to admit it does get great reactions when I perform it. Cheers Michael |
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9987 Posts
|
When I was performing a lot I had a practice buddy - another magician who shared both my passion and desire to only present fully mastered routines.
As noted in may posts, I did have the advantage performing magic in "other than for entertainment" settings. There I could try new things because the observer had no expectations at all or know that I was a magician. Th result was that they questioned their perception of what was impossible in thier business. Many of my favorite sleights and moves became Sway Methods when adapted to performance magic. Send me a note to eversway@yahoo.com and I'll send you a very powerful "one behind" effect if you promise never to reveal it
You have also explained why I do not like performing in bars. I understand your motivation here, even if I think it is not good magic. Still can't see where showing two coins as three is "one behind" Sankey's use of Tenkai's Point transfer in that effect is similar to my SwayOn developed in 1982. The difference is that the audience never knows there are only two coins, whereas you make it obvious. But, I will support your efforts to get out and do anything other than video games or unsocial media. Go for it. I will never have to follow your act.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
|
Wilktone Loyal user Asheville, NC 258 Posts
|
Thanks for sharing that, Daniel! I enjoyed the routine, particularly the ending. I also like your creative thinking about trying out the one behind principle in a way that is different from how it is usually used - you end by showing your really very far ahead. It's sort of like that moment in the cups and balls where the audience thinks they have maybe figured it out when the large loads suddenly appear.
For the record, I'm a complete beginner when it comes to designing original magic routines, but your routine and some of the suggestions above made me think about different ways the first phases might go differently. I came up with different ways to actually show three coins, including using the shell idea funsway mentioned above. But what I think makes your ending so strong is that at that point the audience is pretty convinced there are only really two coins in play. Are you familiar with The Legendary Four Coin Trick from "David Roth's Expert Coin Magic?" Richard Kaufman points out in his writeup on this trick's purpose is for a lighter moment of magic than what you're going for, but maybe there's something in there that you might find helpful. I did notice a couple of things about your routine that are different from others I'm familiar with. The first is that for the initial phases of your routine there's no emphasis on a moment of magic. The effect is: 1. Two coins are brought out and a third coin appear. 2. One of those coins is shown to never have really been there, or maybe it disappeared. Depending on the presentation you want to go with, maybe consider pausing for a moment to let your audience "see" the moment when the coin disappears from out of your hand. Maybe give them a magical moment for when the third coin is supposed to have appeared. The other thing I note about the structure of the routine is that your phases almost, but not quite, fit the "rule of three" that a lot of other routines go for. Showing two coins as three happens three times exactly the same, and then your final phase is the big ending. Compare to the "two in the hands, one in the pocket" plot, where the effect happens twice and the big ending happens on the third time. I don't know if this is really a big deal or not. If I were going to take this routine and fit my style, I would probably approach it something like this: 1. Take out coins without calling attention to their number and just count them into my hand. Make the audience assume there are three coins because they saw me count three coins to myself. One of those coins vanishes. 2. Make the coin reappear, but now it's actually invisible, but if I put them with the other coins it becomes visible again, which I prove with an obvious false count (maybe like Roth's above, maybe come up with one that is really obvious, but plausible enough that a spectator might think it would pass if they weren't watching for it). The third coin supposedly vanishes again. By now the audience thinks that there are only two coins. 3. Do an obvious false count again, but then at the end of the trick, show the third coin is really there. Then dump out the rest of the coins onto the table. Presentationally you could still use the "conman's cheat reveal" as a presentation. For phase 2 and 3 you are teaching them these (obvious and maybe even silly if you use Roth's false count for one of these phases) false counts, but playing them straight as if they actually work in a poker game. You prove that they do by showing how much money you won at the end. |
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9987 Posts
|
Wilktone - a great expansion on the original moves, and much more mystifying, methinks.
You have changed this into one of "false anticipation" similar to a sucker routine rather than a reveal of technique. I have found that an audience will accept "now invisible" over vanish or "gone." It does not have to return or move, just be visible again.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
|
David Neighbors V.I.P. 4911 Posts
|
How about three behind??? Thank you John Ramsay!!!
 |
|||||||||
|
tonsofquestions Inner circle 1807 Posts
|
Quote:
well I guess this is my neo-modernist approach to this principle, it is now possible to be both behind and ahead, what a time to be alive! No, you're not both one behind and one ahead. In my mind, those refer to routines where there are multiple coins traveling/appearing/disappearing/etc. and where you are with your coins relative to what your spectators think is the case. (e.g. a hanging coins). You can't have both more and fewer coins (than expected) at the same time. This is just a false count. You could maybe make an argument that you're one coin different from what your spectators think you have, except you repeatedly challenge and show them as wrong, rather than surprising them with magic. Your point of showing something simple to the spectator as a way to establish trust is a valid one - but I think it should be something very simple that they can (mostly) come up with (don't take the coin, just pretend) rather than something more advanced/psychological like a false count. I think funsway put it well with his Quote:
For me, any false count is a way of getting one ahead, or of concealing that you are one behind as part of an effect -- never the effect itself. When it's the effect itself, you don't end up one behind, and certainly not one ahead at the same time. That would be having three coins, but only showing two, which is not something you ever do here. |
|||||||||
|
daniel116 Regular user 196 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 6, 2018, Wilktone wrote: Thank you so much for your feedback and ideas! I commented on each idea with **** before my reply. |
|||||||||
|
tonsofquestions Inner circle 1807 Posts
|
I agree that the rule of three is a valuable framework to have in mind. But I don't agree that it means "do exact same thing three times". In most one coin routines that have this - coins might disappear or move three times, but typically using different methods. Or the appearance, location, and/or timing changes. Otherwise you're just repeating yourself exactly, and that gets repetitive fast.
|
|||||||||
Andy Young Special user Jersey Shore, PA 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Mar 10, 2018, tonsofquestions wrote: There is always an exception. Al Schneider pulls this off. |
|||||||||
|
countrymaven Inner circle 1428 Posts
|
First of all, I have problems with how unclean the routine is. next, revealing something you don't need to reveal. why not use this principle, WELL DONE, in a brilliant routine like Harbottle does. Ross Bertram would roll over in his grave to see such a gimmicky looking count, with his being far superior, as well as giving away an idea instead of creating a miracle with it. just my thoughts.
|
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9987 Posts
|
I just read an article on the newly available "Nu Way Magick Blogge"
It reminded me that magicians of all types and flavors are honored as "Holders of Secrets." Not just specific secrets of tricks, but as a cultural desire that someone hold and controls things unknown or barely understood. Why shatter that illusion or meme by revealing a secret just to build false anticipation? Every secret revealed may destroy the ability of some else to appreciate the magic they love and crave. This author further suggests that one must ask, "Is this audience prepared to handle the magic I present?" Also, in teaching a trick to another magician, "Is he ready to do the work to honor this effect and the secret? So, knowing a secret of any kind carries an obligation to respect it. You may choose to reveal it, but only with careful consideration. I have looked at the OP presentation again from this perspective and ask "Where is the magic?" Skill demonstration? Yes? Surprising? Yes, following some boring repetition. Entertaining? Maybe in a bar. Enjoyable? Not sure. Astonishing? Doubtful. Magic? Not for me. Please daniel, use you skill and passion in a more productive way that supports magic and secrets over "gotcha."
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Larry Barnowsky Inner circle Cooperstown, NY where bats are made from 4770 Posts
|
One behind is a very powerful tool. I used it in my 21stCCM book in Digestible Coins (2005) and in the 2018 21stCCM DVD with Invisible Coins and Cup Routine.
Larry |
|||||||||
Michael Rubinstein V.I.P. 4674 Posts
|
I first learned of this priciple after reading a Mike Gallo routine in Encore 2 (or 3). I used it in one of my favorite production routines, Triple Play, found in the NYCMS dvd series, and my Penguin Live lecture 1.
S.E.M. (The Sun, the Moon, and the Earth) is a sun and moon routine unlike any other. Limited to 100 sets, here is the promo:
https://youtu.be/aFuAWCNEuOI?si=ZdDUNV8lUPWvtOcL $325 ppd USA (Shipping extra outside of USA). If interested, shoot me an email for ordering information at rubinsteindvm@aol.com |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » The One Behind Principle (5 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 1, 2018 09:40 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < 
|