|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
garcia New user 7 Posts |
This question was addressed many years ago by Henry Hay in the Amature Magician's Handbook. If I can remember correctly, (and this is going back about 20 years), his quote was something to the effect of "If it makes the desired effect appear more realistic, then the use of a gimmick is desirable. A silk can be vanished by pure slight of hand. However, the resulting effect would be cumbersome to perform and the end result not nearly as "magical" as using a gimmick."
So, yes, it would depend entirely on the effect and the illusion the performer is trying to convey. |
|||||||||
Jon Allen V.I.P. England 1771 Posts |
Hi MagicBkMn,
I'm honoured that my post broguth you out of Lurkerville. It is very true that sleights are not always the best. I do hear people saying that effects acheived by sleight of hand are a pure form of magic. For me, laymen do not perceive magic by how it is done but but how it appears. One friend of mine is a top sleight of hand person. However, he'll throw in a gaffed coin or card and really fool magicians. They assume he wouldn't stoop so low as to use fakes and gimmicks. They are stunned by the results. I wonder whether the makers of the Spiderman films sat around saying, "But we shouldn't be using CGI. We should use a gymnast or someone who can do all those moves!" Nah.
Creator of iconic magic that you will want to perform.
The Silent Treatment, The Pain Game, Paragon 3D, Double Back, Destination Box and more. Available at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk |
|||||||||
Wayne Hackler Regular user 139 Posts |
Hello Jon. It's wonderful that you're here with us and taking the time to address our questions. When I furst started in magic, I almost exclusively used gimmicks. They were an easy segway into the art and helped build my confidence. Now I use gimmicks less and less as my confidence and skill in sleights improves. I still use some gimmicks, depending on the audience and what I want to achieve. I believe that there can be a happy balance between them. I think it is a disservice to the magician and the art as a whole to rely exclusively on sleights or gimmicks.
|
|||||||||
Caruthias New user Ottawa, Ontario 67 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-08-18 18:57, alym wrote: Toonies cannot take the form of "Michelle.." you have to get a shaved a remilled set. |
|||||||||
Alym Amlani Inner circle Canada 1464 Posts |
I believe there are people around who make expanded versions of Michelle.
There was a guy out of Toronto who was selling on ebay some time back...
Logic Defied
|
|||||||||
foolsnobody Special user Buffalo, NY 843 Posts |
Unlike wayne2241, when I started out I used nothing but sleight of hand, as learned from The Royal Road to Card Magic, Harry Lorayne's Close Up Card Magic, and Marlo's The Cardician. I was in my early twenties. Over the years I eschewed gimmicry except for tricky coins, but that was more just to play with as all I ever did for other people was card tricks.
As I have aged, not so gracefully, I am moving toward whatever makes the trick easier for me to do. I have noticed that even someone like Allan Ackerman includes a lot more effects that are self-working or nearly so in his later published material. I like to think that it is part of the maturing process, not to need to show "chops" that you don't possess (referring to myself, not Allan), in order to be able to session or fit in with people who do the tough stuff well. I don't know about other amateurs here, but I have had to accept, in music as well as magic, that I am not that good...not terrible, but not that good really. And that at this age I am probably not going to get any better --as far as chops go anyway. What I might get better at is selecting material, and then making it both fooling and entertaining for others, by learning to work within my own limitations. |
|||||||||
mormonyoyoman Inner circle I dug 5,000 postholes, but I have only 2440 Posts |
Risking all, I have to say (Yes, I HAVE to say it! I am being mind-controlled by aliens, who are FORCING me to say this!) (Ignore my literal-mindedness.) that the question is a moot question to me. I'm given a choice? Then the choice is -- whichever best fits the effect which I'm trying to portray.
My goal is to make magic happen in the sight and in the mind of the audience. Or the non-existent spectator. Whatever means I need to use is "right" for that particular effect. If the effect is "I want to make a spider appear on their hand" then I'd have a hard time performing it without a gimmick. On the other hand, if I want them to doubt their senses, a good old-fashioned Red Hot Mama seems to get 'em every time.
#ShareGoodness #ldsconf
--Grandpa Chet |
|||||||||
Dan LeFay Inner circle Holland 1371 Posts |
Jon mentioned "either" in his question.
Suppose I could do the same effect with and without gimmick and they'd both look the same in the eyes of a specta...erm a participant. Well hell, I'd go for the sleight of hand version of course. Problem is pure sleight of hand almost never looks so good (in my opinion) as the EXPERT use of a gimmick. Especially in coin magic the use of Michelle (!?) makes so much clearer and more deliberate possibilities of showing the hands and the props, I think it is just not realistic to advocate pure sleight of hand other than it's impromptu nature. I'm even more amazed that sometimes so-called-purists boast that they can do the trick without the use of gimmicks or even extra's. Most of the times this leads to a horrible display of techniques and slapping around coins. Personally I'd rather not show something than feel obliged and do a version that is less than ideal in my observation. I have only see one person yet who not only got away with pure sleight of hand but also prooved to be the happy exeption on my rather bleak opinion in the sleights vs. gaffs case.
"Things need not have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths, that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot." Neil Gaiman |
|||||||||
Caruthias New user Ottawa, Ontario 67 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-08-19 16:54, alym wrote: Nope. Impossibe with a toonie... it's really two pieces of metal and the inner one falls out when you expand it. Not even Lassen or Kueppers can do it. |
|||||||||
dominik Regular user Germany 143 Posts |
I would generally go for sleight of hand. If the gaffed version is more than just a little bit more effective however, I would go with that.
I agree with Daegs that sleight of hand is much more fun to practise, though. Ideally I think, magicians should be able to do both a gaffed and an ungaffed version of their strongest effects: Use sleight of hand when you have to perform impromptu, and use the gaff to blow them away in a set show. |
|||||||||
Jon Allen V.I.P. England 1771 Posts |
Hiya Dan,
Always good to hear fom you! You make a good poitn with regard to clarity and fairness. This is especially true in coin magic. Whn Michelle is not assisting, much is left to the belief of the audience that what you say and what they believe are true. Michelle enables me to show 3 coins in my hand and then a split second later, I have 2. My hand is obviously and blatantly lacking in the 3rd coin department. While sleights may accomplish the same thing, it cannot look as clean, fair and 'pure' as with Michelle. There is usually some sort of action that magicians think looks akay because "that's the move to accomplish the effect" but I believe people think "Why on earth did he do that?" I should point out that Shoot Ogowa's coins across almost made me change my mind. It is the cleanest version I have ever seen. Michelle was at the bar getting a drink while shoot was wowing the audience. As well as using gimmicks to acheive an effect possible with SoH, there is also the issue of people saying, "I don't do any effects that require a gimmick. I'm a purist." This means that gimmicks like IT, TTs, Michelle, DF or DB cards don't get a look in. IT is possible the only gimmick I can think of that enables you to do effects that are impossible with pure sleight of hand. That's a whole area of incredible magic that is closed off. I wonder why people shun the methods that are available to creating magic for the laymen?
Creator of iconic magic that you will want to perform.
The Silent Treatment, The Pain Game, Paragon 3D, Double Back, Destination Box and more. Available at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk |
|||||||||
Alym Amlani Inner circle Canada 1464 Posts |
Quote:
Michelle was at the bar getting a drink while shoot was wowing the audience. LOL!!!!
Logic Defied
|
|||||||||
Chris Wood New user UK 48 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-08-20 13:05, Jon Allen wrote: I suspect because those people are consciously/subconsciously trying to impress other magicians rather than laymen - even if that means themselves. Even as magicians we are disappointed when an effect that has fooled us is "only" due to a gimmick. It seems too easy and so looses some kind of kudos. To boast about not using gimmicks is like an actor saying they don't need to use makeup. They are there to enhance or create effects - tools of the trade that sometimes require as much skill to handle as SoH. (e.g. have you ever seen the size of the gimmick Kaps used for the salt pour?) |
|||||||||
Jon Allen V.I.P. England 1771 Posts |
I haven't seen the Kaps gimmick but I bet it's not as big as the Fearson Floatation gimmick!
Creator of iconic magic that you will want to perform.
The Silent Treatment, The Pain Game, Paragon 3D, Double Back, Destination Box and more. Available at www.onlinemagicshop.co.uk |
|||||||||
JJP161 Special user Columbus, Ohio 509 Posts |
Very well put Chris, I couldn't have said it better myself. Gimmicks are just some of the tools of the trade, doesn't necessarily mean they are easy to use, or make entertaining our audience any easier. Many require a great deal of skill and practice to master.
In fact it still takes someone of great skill and talent to sometimes see a use and effectively use the gimmick. I remember the first time I saw a Sanada Gimmick, I thought you've got to be kidding me I can't believe I just bought this thing and in the drunk drawer it went. Then I saw it in the hands of a few professionals or better yet I should say I didn't see it in their hands and was completely blown away by it's use. I'm sure many of us had similar feelings about different gimmicks until we saw their potential when someone fried us with them. Some other examples for myself would have been Johnny Ace Palmer using a Thumb Tip in his amazing and very visual Three Magic Scarves Routine or how about the miracles Tim Ellis or Boris Wild perform with a marked deck? Again for me it boils down to just one thing how magical the effect looks to my audience. Joe |
|||||||||
Roger Boucher Regular user 114 Posts |
I think for me I tend to prefer to use sleight of hand over gimmicks. One reason being is that when I am performing I am in a tshirt and jeans and I know that there are 4 -5 pockets that I could use but always going into your pockets doesn't work for me (it may be just that I need to become a better performer)
Another reason is for repeatability I usually don't carry anything on me so if I use gimmicks in my shows and people expect to see that trick again and I can't reproduce it and that is the only one that they want to see then you might have a problem. Has anyone ever seen a DBack snoopy card? Yeah me neither. I was at a friends house for her bDay and I didn't bring anything but they wanted me to show them something so if I brought soemthing it would have been useless because they wanted me to use thier cards. (I was glad I got to open the pack). That doesn't mean that I wouldn't use gimmicks but I just lean towards sleight of hand. I think it is because I enjoy the sence of accomplishment when I get that move, then again when I perfect it, then when it works for audiences. Great topic though Roger |
|||||||||
Franz-O New user Toronto, Canada 66 Posts |
Michelle... oh..
I GET IT NOW *bangs head on wall and reminds myself to stop reading magiccafe at 1am..* |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The August 2004 entrée: Jon Allen » » A fight to the death! » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |