|
|
Sword of the Soldier Elite user 437 Posts |
Hey Guys,
Hope this finds you well! First off, I'm fairly new to rope magic. Don't get me wrong, I am not new to magi, and I've played with ropes quite a bit over the years however the affair never usually lasts long. This time thought, in looking for something unique to perform walk around, I have fallen in love with them yet again and I think it really took hold. The only difference is on this go I have been thinking more about the theory and psychology of ropes. I feel this is an important point for discussion, but something that has been lacking in these threads. Thus, I have created this post. Here's what prompted me to begin this. Fiber Optics. Now I know a lot has been said of Sanders work (or pseudo work - depending on who you are), but my thoughts concern his construction and the theory behind it. He begins with the Professors Nightmare. A fantastic trick (I'll never forget the first time I saw it), however it begins with a small medium and large piece of rope, the medium which is eliminated, leaving the other two. He then goes into a one rope routine per the usual methods. Now my thought was this, does the audience member remember the existence of the short piece after the pseudo meld of the two remaining ropes? Or do they actually believe that there are two lengths of rope and the small one is truly believe to have changed? If you proceed with removing and reattaching ends, it seems to harken back to the initial small rope at the beginning. It's not blatant but there is a link there that fast company may make, despite the Slydini count and the "one rope" display hinding the Sands "gimmick". Counter this with beginning with a single rope, having it examined, and then adding on the "gimmick" afterwards secretly, which leaves the audience "not suspecting, let alone detecting" anything more than the piece they just saw. This eliminates the chance to use the PN at the beginning, but I think makes for a stronger opening. Thoughts? Unless however, you go the Dan Fleishman route and use an extra "gimmick" that gets added secretly. I do not know if this is an idea that originated with him, but this presents several solutions. He begins with PN too but then leaves one "gimmick" in play while secretly adding another one. This provides a clean segue into a one string routine (in his case a ring on rope) and eliminates, what I see and is an inherent weakness. Thoughts on this? Here was another theoretical thought I had. In Sanders routine, he ends with reminding the audience that this was a trick which began with three equal ropes, and then proceeds to change them back into unequal ropes. Now say, you could live with beginning with PN and going into the one rope routine using the "gimmick". If you end going back into three equal, then unequal ropes, it seems to be that you are adding another link that fast company could make (that the "gimmick" never went out of play). It's a small point but one that seems messy. So what about this alternative. Have the one rope, and remind the audience that the trick started with three ropes and proceed to "cut" the smaller rope from the larger and then introduce the medium again. It's a small point and you lose the effect of changing three equal to unequal, but I think it covers the use of the gimmick better than changing them back because the small piece is "created" rather than changed back. Does this make sense? These are just some thoughts I have had over the last few weeks. No doubt I over thought in some cases, but I was merely trying to introduce some psychological thoughts that I found to be lacking form the literature I have read thus far. Rope magic is beautifully visual, but it seems to run the risk of lacking clarity in construction and ending if not looked at carefully. (For example, the ends transposing with the middle to eliminate the gimmick. It's efficient, but leaves the trick ending on a terribly anticlimactic note. It's terrible. There's so much strong magic in the middle and rather than ending with a punch to the gut, you end with a rather wimpy transpo. A transp that happens in the pocket! Where else are they going to think the secret lies? Theres not another effect in magic - that I can think of - where the ditch and effect happen at the same time. But I digress... I would love to hear some of your guys' thoughts? On these, or any other psychological points? How to construct a strong rope routine, how to make a routine more powerful, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts! All the Best, Josh |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
For me, the ideal sequence has always been:
single piece of rope CR at point selected by spectator Rope cut into three sections PN routine linking ropes restore to single rope many methods for accomplishing these effects -- check with MagicIan for the simplest. Also check out NeckLacy ..................................................... for psychology I think it silly to just say, "now for a rope trick" and do a single effect. Design a routine that has some reason for being, starting and ending. There was a time when rope was a common household item and everyone was familiar with basic knots and even scissors. Today, any rope routine risks looking like magician props and suspect. Consider using an electric extension cord rather than rope, or even the strap off of a tie-down. Aslo -- consider an approach in which you never reveal the existence of the "gimmick" at all, i.e., after the stretch you never later show the pieces separately. Methinks that ending with a single long piece is more powerful than showing the cut pieces somehow returning. Consider that if you did "real magic", accidentally cut a rope into odd lengths and magically made them the same length, why would you ever magicially repeat the mistake?
"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 |
Sword of the Soldier Elite user 437 Posts |
Hi Funsway,
Thanks for your thoughts. I like your sequence and it makes a lot of sense. I have seen Ian lecture and I do like his stuff. I'll be sure to look out for NeckLacy. In regard to your thoughts on psychology. I agree with your sillyness comment. A rope effect must be routined, that is a reason for beginning, starting and ending. This also needs to be clear and more importantly it needs to build thematically while maintaining clarity. Your sequence does this. It begins at a distinct point, follows a structure, segues into something familiar to the audience (linking ropes/rings) and ends back where it started on a strong point with a full on restoration. This is better in a lot of ways I think than Sanders routine. The only thing that's different, is it doesn't have as much visual content - which is something Sanders (and since his DVD influenced so many new rope guys)are taking to the masses. This is something I also find myself very much liking as it adds a very beautiful element to ropes, but something with which I struggle to adapt into a solid constructiong suitable for a walkaround environment. I also completely agree with your thoughts on not revealing the "gimmick" at all. This I think makes the magic so much stronger as I said earlier. The problem is, the visual sutff that Sanders put out relies on revealing that "gimmick" (e.g. repeatedly taking the ends off, super slide, etc). It may not be a full blown reveal but it is in a way. Thus there is this dichotomy where some of the prettiest stuff has a small weakness, and thus to make it psychologically more sound I think you need to have the work added secretly and then eliminated secretly in a way that builds. Thanks for your thoughts though Funsway! You gave me something to think about! Best, Josh |
jolyonjenkins Inner circle United Kingdom 1181 Posts |
Really I don't think audiences think about it nearly as much as you are imagining. I do both the Sanders versions, add a few Roland Henning bits sometimes; I do the sliding short bit, ends on, ends off, and no one ever cares, they just laugh. I've been doing it for years and even my children, who must have seen it dozens of times, don't really understand the PN bit - they simply aren't thinking about the method.
Jolyon Jenkins
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Part of me agrees with rjenkins -- our striving for perfection may be lost on most audiences ..
I realize that when the audience is "with you" anything you do will be magic and method often never even explored. If the audience is not "with you" then any excuse for deconstructing the effect will occur and seem out of place. So, for me, the question is not whether the "ends" justify the "means" sorry;-), but when the rope routine occurs in the entire show. If the PN approach is the only effect performed I think the "loose ends" may detract -- but who will know if you are strolling? As part of an entire show the "end game" with humor may be the hit of the performance. Strong magic is not always the best entertainment.
"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 |
Sword of the Soldier Elite user 437 Posts |
Hey Jolyon,
You definitely make a point and it is one that I made in my initial post. There is some over-thinking going on, no doubt. And most audiences will never go as far as I am discussing. That said, the question still can and should be asked as to what makes a strong rope routine, what are the weakest points, how can they be eliminated, and what is happening in the background that may not jive later on. I am of the school that, I do not want my audiences to have a clue. I don't want to give them any possible means for retrograde reconstruction. What they see should be impossible, no matter how they slice it. For example, the sliding short, is a beautiful moment. It's gorgeous. However many on this forum have noted that it has a weakness in that it reveals the short piece and gives a clue toward the method. It's a small clue, but one nonetheless. This doesn't mean it should be eliminated but perhaps moved or made so that one could find a way to do it and then immediately hand the rope out. Take an Ambitious Card, one of the strongest most powerful effects out there. The method relies on a DL (90% of the time). I can so a perfect strike double, push off double, you name it. And I still have on some occasions people suggesting the possibility of a D***le. The impossibility of the effect relies on them being convinced that the card goes into the center. The moment they don't believe that, the effect is weakened. This goes the same for ropes in my opinion. The strength of ring on rope, of removing the ends, of the sliding not, is them not having a clue of the existence of that gimmick. If they even suspect it, the effect is weaker than it could be. I'm rambling now, but I guess I just think the routine (a lot of rope routines) could be stronger. Take Tabary's Fism Act. It is as solid as rope routines come. As tightly constructs as they come. It build thematically. The "gimmick" is never even suspected or even hinted at until over halfway through, and even then the effect involved is so subtle (while being strong) that it cannot even be suspected. Why should not all routines follow this example? Funsways routine is strong. Sander's routine I think could be stronger. Funsway - Nice Pun! And you're right, our striving for perfection may be lost on some audiences (or most)...sadly. But out audiences deserve that we strive for perfection. There are too many crappy magicians out there for use to strive for anything less. In regards to your last statement, "Strong magic is not always the best entertainment". I feel like I need to disagree. I do not believe that being entertaining, or funny or charming is an excuse for less than strong magic. As Magicians, for me, strong magic is essential! Josh |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Suitably admonished -- not what I really meant.
Perhaps, "In a complete show not every effect needs to be strong magic in order for the show to be memorable and entertaining" -- but, yes, the over all impression must be strong magic. I am always drawn to my early mentoring that directed that at least one effect be simple enough for the audience to figure out -- or actually a trick. This is part of the "wink" that makes us human and detracts from possible fear. The question here is whether the "loose ends" serves this objective in opposition to "strong magic." I rarely perform magic "for entertainment" so my not be qualified here. It is only my gut feeling that an inexperienced magician show not do this complete effect as a stand-alone presentation - the risk of exposure outweighing any possible gain. What if this effect is so popular because the audience can figure it out in part, and thereby me more enchanted by the remainder. For me, "Strong magic" is what is told to grandchildren, not measured by the gasps or applause (or nudge of neighbor). Sometimes I wonder if we become magicians because we lack the ability to appreciate magic in a simple way -- a deficient gene perhaps. (the endorphin reward for solving a puzzle is gene based, for example). We discuss odds and ends of a rope -- surely we are magically disabled!
"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 |
magicians Inner circle Teacher and Legend 2898 Posts |
I have to remind those who praise Sanders, that the majority of the routine is borrowed. George Sands is 80% or more of what you are thrilled about in Sanders fiber optics. When discussing rope theory, Sands created the ideal scenario. Start with one rope which has all gimmickry ready to go. Transform it, cut it, shape it then return to where you started. Sands never addressed the PN. Unfortunately, Sands has never been addressed in a mainstream instructional video. His son Allan has tried, but not successfully. So, you are left to think that those who use Sands work are the creators of his moves.
Sanders, takes the gimmick out of the closet, makes it acrobatic which of course thrills the novice magician who just doesn't think like that. In my routine, I sought out to lead the spectator (and the magician) down a garden path and do visual transformations. I start with the PN (or with one rope), wind up with 3 long ropes, which dissolve into two ropes, then three which can be shown separately as long. Then (optionally) go into linking ropes then have two ropes, which turn into three again then return to the beginning. The volume of the rope expands during the routine, then contracts like a spent balloon or waking from a dream. My advanced version is all done without gimmickry. In my new dvd (in progress), I discuss rope theory and acknowledge transition points that are common to most of the rope effects out there. ie the connection created when the short and long poses as two equal ropes. The "blink factor" is addressed, where you branch into unexpected shapes. This is done effectively in Dan Harlans rope, and Sanders. The rock stars of rope magic all have one thing in common, they mess with the "sacred" PN. Anything you do to deviate from the PN will be considered avante garde.
Illusionist, Illusionist consulting, product development, stage consultant, seasoned performer for over 35 years. Specializing in original effects. Highly opinionated, usually correct, and not afraid of jealous critics. I've been a puppet, a pirate, a pawn and a King. Free lance gynecologist.
|
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Well said, Ian! Well said...
Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Knots and loops » » Rope Theory (0 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 < |