|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Magicmaven Inner circle 1235 Posts |
Hey guys,
I have a cups and balls routine that I love to perform. It is losely based on the Vernon one. My reactions are fabulous! Really good stuff. But, sometimes an audience member will ask me if there is a ball in my hand. I know that sometimes they may think that the ball is in my hand, other times they have seen that the ball was in my hand, and other times they are just guessing. Now I am not asking them "where is the ball?" there is no prompt (that I know of) that is cluing them to say "is the ball in that hand..." I guess when starting the routine, and developing it, I modelled it after Vernon's situations. (I can't imagine that being good, but...) So, I feel that naturally the audience should be respectful, talk when they are prompted, laugh when they are prompted... and not say anything when they are not prompted@ Needless to say, this has happened, and obviously it can ruin the routine. I try to do some sort of palm whenever I get the chance and it is appropriat. In fact once someone said this, and I just Classic palmed it, and htey said, Oh, nevermind (that worked really well). Needless to say, I need some other helpers here please. I am not necessarily asking for lines, but things that I can do during the routine so that this situation never appears again. I am 15, so most of my audiences are my friends, or relatives, and they are just having fun, or they want to be the kid who "got the magician..." so take that into consideration. My mentor saw me perform and said that I should, once the ball has disappeared or whatever, almost imediately produce the ball back again or show where it has gone. Now this totally contradicts the concept of milking a moment... Then again, most of my perfroming situations aren't necesarilly formal, so milking something doesn't seem like the right idea. (tell me if this is wrong, please) My mentor is not telling me to rush the routine, but rather answer the audiences questions quicker. That is they ask themselves the question "where did the ball go" and before they have the opportunity to ask me, I have already produced it and therefore answered their question. (read those last couple lines a few times, it seems correct to me, but I want your guys' point of views as well.) Thanks a lot guys! This will surely help my routine greatly. (Don't say practice, k? just look at my signature...)
rmaxgoodwin.com
https://rmaxgoodwin.com/ |
|||||||||
Roland Henning Special user Kiel, Germany 511 Posts |
About the milking thing. My rule is to wait no more than 3 seconds, before revealing the ball in a different place. This ammount of time is based on a scientific fact. Every 3 seconds the brain checks the enviroment around it. This may sound odd, but it can be proven very simply. I am sure you are familiar with those pictures of cubes, which can be viewed inside or outside, depending on your pure will. Or some stairs, which can be seen going up or being upside down. If you stare at one of those pictures, let's say the cubes, you can try to keep it outside. After 3 seconds it will switch, weather you want it or not. Anyway.
The assumption of the spectators that the ball is in the other hand is usually based on the fact, that it is easier for the audience to believe that the ball is in the other hand, than the thought, that the ball has vanished. My personal solution: After the false transfer of the ball I do a tossing motion towards the cups. This is one more thing that the audience needs to think about, further distracting from the true situation. (BTW: It neathly foreshadows the climax of that particular phase in the routine) The vanish of the ball (not the false transfer that has taken place earlier) and the picking up of the next ball happens within the 3 second time frame I have mentioned before. So before the spectators can think about where the ball might be, they are faced with the next thing they have to think about. I hope this is clear. English is not my language. |
|||||||||
Magicmaven Inner circle 1235 Posts |
Ok, I will think about that.
Thank you, any others?
rmaxgoodwin.com
https://rmaxgoodwin.com/ |
|||||||||
Dave V Inner circle Las Vegas, NV 4824 Posts |
I agree with Roland. Most people of moderate intelligence know that it didn't simply "vanish" so they start looking for answers. The three second clock is now ticking. Gazzo helps conceal the ball by picking up, or setting down a wand. By the time they digest this new information (essentially resetting the timer on their brain), and fighting their belief that a hand can't do two things at once, you're ready to reveal the ball in it's final resting place.
Cellini changes each of the three vanishes, so they have no time to reconstruct. By the time they work on one, he's already doing something else. Gazzo uses basically the same vanish but breaks the rhythym with comedic by-play. By the time they're done laughing it's all over. Whatever you end up doing, just don't give them time to think.
No trees were killed in the making of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
If you have Alex De Cova's tape "Hidden Treasures Volume II" (I think), there is a drop vanish that he attributes to John Carney. You can do this at any time if you have a wand underneath the arm that has the hand holding the ball. I think you know the one I am referring to. So, if a spectator says, "The ball is in that hand," if the wand is not in place, pick it up, point to the hand and say, "This one?" and put the wand under your arm. Then say, "No, watch," and take the wand, doing the vanish. It may put you out of sequence with what your hands have to do, but it is a solution.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
rikbrooks Inner circle Olive Branch, Mississippi 1317 Posts |
Rmax, I think that you already know your problem. It's the audience. I won't perform for my family. The last time that I did I showed my mother the Invisible Deck. Her response was, "Ricky, let me see those cards."
"Here, let me show you another trick." I said, putting away the cards. "YOUNG MAN You were my son before you were a magician, now you bring those cards over to your mama this very instant!" "Yes Ma'am" You aren't a magician to your friends and family. You are the son that's a magician or the friend that's a magician. Can't you hear one of your friends saying to someone, "Of course I know how that trick is done. One of my close friends is a magician, think he wouldn't tell ME?" I've learned my lesson. I'm family and friend to family and friends and a magician to everyone else. It seems to me like it's time for you to get a real audience. |
|||||||||
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts |
Roland's insight here is VERY good! (...or maybe it confirms my own opinion ) Heading toward the recovery will give the spectators less time to take stock of the situation. Foreshadowing the next climax is very strong. It turns a light onto that next section of the path. Most people will be compelled to follow it, as it becomes a logical transition.
Magicmaven did not specify if a wand was being used. That can aid in the disguise of the guilty hand, but it will not eliminate a routine search in the spectators' minds. That is why vanishes are always more difficult than productions. If it is not here, it IS somewhere. If the vanish caught them by surprise, many spectators will start turning over rocks immediately. Better to lead them where you want them to go. Milking the situation does not imply waiting while the spectators get their footing. Foreshadowing will put things in the direction you wish them to go, but can be coupled with a delayed revelation to build tension. It's good to make them wait for an anticipated confirmation. It is not good to just wait for random suspicion to develop. The three-second delay rule is credible, but can be stretched with foreshadowing. BTW - The release of that tension is a beautiful point of misdirection! In fact, none stronger. ~michael
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
When Vernon did that first phase, he was smooth and did it at a casual pace, but still he did the tip over moves one right after another. He typically did two regular false transfers, and then did his wand vanish. If anybody suspected that the ball was in the right after the first two vanishes, Vernon could casually show it in the left and make it vanish for the third. Many magicians use three wand vanishes for that same reason.
The vanish that Mr. Palmer talks about is very deceptive. He showed it to me but for the life of me I can't reconstruct it, but it is not too hard (from what I remember.) It doesn't matter because I do not put the wand under my arm. When I do this on the street, I don't worry about what the spectators might or might not guess. During the second vanish, I deliberately get caught cheating (a la Gazzo) which I hope brings some humor and some confussion to the routine. I hope that it keeps the mind from focusing on where the ball really is. I finish the third vanish by "eating" the ball, further confusing. Then the balls are revealed under the cups. A more formal showing, that is more "magical" then a street routine, needs to be different.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Magicmaven Inner circle 1235 Posts |
Thanks a lot guys! I'll try to adopt some of these philosophies. I do use a wand, just to let you know, and I hold onto it whenever holding out-- just about.
For the first sequence of the routine, the tip over sequence, which is most likely the time when someone will ask if the ball is in the hand... I do the following: First ball: false transfer Second ball: retension vanish that has the same handling as the false transfer, but you "see" the ball going into the hand Last BAll: Vernon Wand spin. So for the first ball, they might suspect something, but the next time they see a ball vanish, they SEE the ball going INTO my hand. So there assumption that the ball never went into the hand is destroyed. The third time I use the wand vanish. So I do do a little variation... and I think with some of your guys' advice, it will be really good. Thanks guys,
rmaxgoodwin.com
https://rmaxgoodwin.com/ |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
If you do a good retention vanish, why not use it on both vanishes. It is good to build in aspects to the routine that mess with the spectator's assumptions, but you don't want to look like you are messing with their assumptions if possible. A good false transfer should convince even a skeptical observer for a moment or two, especially if it is done matter of factly or on the off beat. It should not look like you are doing anything except reaching for the wand.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Magicmaven Inner circle 1235 Posts |
Ok, I'll think about that...
rmaxgoodwin.com
https://rmaxgoodwin.com/ |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
If some of the better performers could see your routine they could help more. I have only done a performance in front of spectators on the streets about 40 times, so I don't know as much.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Magicmaven Inner circle 1235 Posts |
That's more than me( for street work.
I'll try to put up a video... But the Junior Members are helping me too.
rmaxgoodwin.com
https://rmaxgoodwin.com/ |
|||||||||
Robert Kohler Special user Fayetteville, Arkansas 520 Posts |
Why not use the strike vanish on the second vanish?
We judge ourselves by our intentions - others judge us by our actions.....
<BR> <BR>B. Wilson |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Forty is better than none, but most of these big boys did that in the first few days they hit the streets, in some cases 20 years ago.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Magicmaven Inner circle 1235 Posts |
A false transfer, then strike vanish, then Vernon wand spin?> That is a lot for one audience to take in.
Also, I am not 100% with it. I used to be, but after I cut for the exact reason above, I don't practice that much.
rmaxgoodwin.com
https://rmaxgoodwin.com/ |
|||||||||
Roland Henning Special user Kiel, Germany 511 Posts |
I had always problems with the Vernon Wand spin thing. The only advantage is, that the ball really goes into the right hand. But that doesn't count, because if the false transfer is okay, the audience believes that the ball is in the right hand anyway.
So why? |
|||||||||
Magicmaven Inner circle 1235 Posts |
Give your audience a little credit. After the first false transfer or two, THEY KNOW THE BALL DOESN"T ACTUALLY GO IN THE HAND!!!, come on. Even if they don't see that you didn't put the ball in your hand, they know!!!.
That is why I add my retension vanishes. To specifically counter their assumptions that the ball never went into the hand. The rist couple times you do the FT, they don't follow, but the third time... they catch on. They know what is going on, or at least they think they do(and they do), therefore when you do a retension vanish-- it destroys their theory that the ball never went in your hand. The following time you do the spin explaining that the ball DOES go into the hand. I hate running when no one is chasing you, but still, I like this sequence.
rmaxgoodwin.com
https://rmaxgoodwin.com/ |
|||||||||
Roland Henning Special user Kiel, Germany 511 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-05-18 12:24, Magicmaven wrote: My experience has shown me that this isn't true. 1. First I pick up the ball with my left (the audience sees me picking up the ball) 2. Then I false transfer that ball into my right hand. (the audience sees me putting the ball in my right) 3. Then I take the wand with my left. (the audience sees me taking the wand) 4. I wave the wand around my right hand. (the audience sees me waving the wand) 5. I slowly open the right to reveal the ball is gone (the audience sees just that) These are five things the audience sees. Five little steps on which I might cheat. 1. They could suspect me of having not taken the ball in the left hand in the first place. 2. They could suspect me of having not taken the ball in my right hand. (which you assume they assume on the third time) 3. They could suspect me of having dropped the ball from my right as I take the wand. 4. They could suspect me of having dropped the ball from my right hand as I wave around it with the wand (ironicly the truth during the Wand Spin) 5. They could suspect me of hiding the ball somehow in my right hand, after I opened it. (Suprisingly I often hear remarks of having secret pockets in the hand) They know nothing. I am performing the Cups and Balls on a regular basis. I know that a false transfer (not speaking of any retention stuff) does fool. Simply because there are five little solutions that my audience might come up with. After first vanish all theories might still be true from a spectators point of view. Now they are watching closly. Theory number 1 will be excluded, because they definitly see the ball being picked up by the right hand. Theory number 2 will be excluded as well, because the audience will "see" the ball going into the right. That is the beauty of a good false transfer. It is easier for the audience to believe the ball went really into the right hand, than to believe it was held back by some means of sleight of hand. The mind will follow the easier road. Theory number 3, 4 and 5 will also be excluded in the cause of this part of the routine. Secretly dropping the ball from the right is easier for the spectators to assume than never having it put in in the first place. That is why the Vernon Wand Spin has a weakness, that is a bit weightier than the weakness of a false transfer. I am not saying that the Vernon Wand Spin doesn't fool, but I am saying, that the Vernon Wand Spind does not replace a good false transfer. And with good false transfer, I am talking about a natural transfer, as if you are really transfering a little ball. And most retention vanishes lack that bit of being natural. |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Remember also, with the wand vanish, of any kind, the ball is in one hand, the wand goes near it and then the ball is gone. Given time, the spec can still reconstruct the vanish and imagine that you just dropped it into the other hand. This is no different than the false transfer. Given time, they can figure it out. What they can't do is figure out how you got the balls under the cups. The tansfer becomes secondary or forgotten. What you gain, though, from a wand vanish, is the elimination of the back and forth movement of the ball from one hand to the other.
I do not do wand vanishes myself, and I don't think that I have had any problems with the FT. As Roland says, it just has to be natural--don't say anything. Don't say, "I now put the ball into the other hand and pick up the wand..." From watching others, having the wand under the arm helps. To the spectator, when it is under the arm, you can only reach for the wand with one hand and it is natural to put the ball into the other hand to do that. Therefore the focus is on the wand, and the transfer is incidental. I, unfortuanately for various reasons, keep the wand on the table. Although I do not have any obvious problems with spectators catching onto the FT, the focus is more on the transfer then the wand. It is subtle, but real, I believe. Quote:
On 2005-05-18 12:24, Magicmaven wrote: All I can say is, that performing for family and friends is not a true picture. You need to do this for strangers over and over. But if they all know you are holding the ball out, then there is something wrong with the FT. Either that or you tipped the idea of a FT at some other point, maybe with coins or other objects. Also friends and family tend to see routines over and over and often will burn your hands and not really watch the magic. I don't do much for family or friends any more. They can come and watch the show if they like. They will tend to enjoy my show and stop worrying about my sleights if they do.
Chris
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ever so sleightly » » Help, I don't know where to start with this one... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |