Well, I think the only thing that we should agree on is that "there are no rules".

I have an audio recording of Billy McComb performing the silk to egg on a cruise ship, it is his closer in this recording. I have performed silk to egg as a closer many, many times. In my opinion, it is a great closer. I don't think my audience ever really feel like they have been "stung". But maybe that has more to do with character and presentation. On the other hand, I agree that silk to egg probably isn't a very good opener.

Aussie, you are right you can take the sucker element out of silk to egg Lance Burton does so in his routine.
I agreed with you on it being a good closer because of the visual element at the end holding a glass with a real egg in it is a huge applause que.
Many tricks have a stink factor to them that are not sucker tricks, anytime you fool your audience there is a bit of a sting to their intellect. For me a sucker trick is when you make the audiance or a member feel like a fool or embarrassed such as tissue balls over the head.

I also agree that character and presentation makes an effect or breaks it. Bill McComb if you ever saw him live you would know that he develops such a great repore with the audiance that if he were to do a sucker trick they would just smile, his mumbling character takes the sting out of being fooled.

Well, I think that we will not get far if all we have to offer each other is our own limited experience.

There will always be disagreements among us over theory, rules and general philosophy. But it is wrong to say that all we have to give each other is our own preferences and our own performing experience.

That is to leave out the thinking and performing experience of all those who have gone before.

Maskelyne and Devant, Sharpe, Hugard and many others have written extensively on the rules and procedures of magic. The huge library of experience available to us is much more than our own little experience.

We may disagree on our philosophy of magic, but let's not pretend it is just one voice and one experience against another.

There are 24 rules of magic in Our Magic. I think that to violate any of them without thought and reason to do so is a big mistake.

To not understand that we have a perfectly good set of rules on how magic is best accomplished, is to constantly re-invent the wheel.

I am not so conceited that I would ask people to take my opinion seriously if all I had to offer was my own preferences without arguments, goals, philosophy and the experience and thought of the masters to back it up.

Opinions are meaningless if you cannot offer the thinking and judgments that go into them.

I've been doing magic for over 50 years, and here's what I've learned:

If you want to get REALLY HUMBLE as a magician, ask someone who has seen one of your shows YEARS LATER (or even WEEKS or DAYS LATER) what trick(s) they remembered that you did.

Trust me, you will be surprised at their response, or lack thereof.

You will get great feedback this way, and you will learn what or what didn't work.

As magicians, it really doesn't matter what we like......it's what your audiences like and respond to that's important.

Whit, you're one of the best magicians I have ever seen, sir. And I've seen A LOT!

Your stuff is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

I am not so sure I agree with Whit's post, but I am going to get "Our Magic" of the shelf and have a look anyway.

I recently was listening to an audio seminar by Bob Cassidy. And if I remember correctly, during this session he says that it is the person that will argue with him about something that is the real pro! Why? Because there are no rules! I will need to go back and check this though.

What works, works! Our audiences are the real judges aren't they?

Isn't it a so called "rule" not to finish on a vanish? Yet, Billy McComb has closed with the vanishing bird cage, hasn't he?

Entertainment dictated by rules is to me a little depressing...

Whit Haydn has many more years experience than me, and I am here to learn.

Respectfully

Ken Weber says the following in "Maximum Entertainment":

"The artist discovers new art by ignoring the not-supposed-to's.
Or by pushing the limits of the supposed to's. We can never achieve originality if we walk only on the path others have carefully trod before us. Sometimes we have to risk stepping on a mine." (p.248)

I think that Maximum Entertainment is a good book, but not the best place to go for an understanding of the philosophy of magic.

I think that rules are there for our guidance. There is nothing wrong with bending or breaking a rule--once you understand the rule completely and have sufficient reason to do so.

Billy McComb was my dearest friend. He often would go contrary to the rules, but he knew Maskelyne and Devant backwards and forwards, and always had a very clear and valid reason for stretching or breaking a rule.

I don't know whose rule "Never end on a vanish" is. I have heard others say that.

I don't believe it is a good rule, and would love to hear the reasoning behind it--it is not from Maskelyne and Devant.

Where did that come from, aussiemagic?

I think some people misunderstand the nature of rules. They are so used to arbitrary rules put in place by authority in school and society, rules everyone tends to "rebel" against, that they forget there is a difference in the rules of art. The rules of art are not arbitrary--they are not a test you must pass. They are the distillation of experience.

Without understanding and knowing the experience of those who have gone before, we are constantly starting over from scratch. "We learn little from others experience," said T.S. Elliot. That is not a happy announcement.

Why would you not want to listen to what people like Houdini, Maskelyne and Devant, Hoffman, Hofsinzer, Houdin and other great performers have said about the nature and structure of magic?

I have been fortunate to know many of the greatest magicians of the last fifty years. They all have one thing in common. They have truly studied and learned the philosophy of magic.

Lance Burton, Larry Jennings, Johnny Thompson, Billy McComb, Tommy Wonder, and most any of the great magicians can discuss magic theory on a deep level, and constantly refer to the great texts.

Entertainment is not "dictated" by the rules. The rules are the basic building blocks with which you can construct and critique the work of magic.

People don't argue about magic because "there aren't any rules." If there aren't any rules, there is nothing to argue about. There is no way to critique anything. It would just be my "feeling" and experience against someone else's... What's to argue?

Do you think that when Lance Burton finds one of his illusions just isn't working, he just keeps making arbitrary changes and tries each out in front of his audience until he finds something that works? Of course not. He either analyzes the presentation on the basis of the rules of magic, or calls in Johnny Thompson or someone else to analyze and discover the problem.

To think that in one small career one can experimentally rediscover for yourself all the experience and knowledge distilled by the masters over hundreds of years is the worst kind of hubris.

I have had a great deal of performing experience over the last 50 years I have been in magic. My experience has more often than not, confirmed the rules that our predecessors have laid down. I don't consider myself some sort of genius that intuitively knows how to routine and construct magic. I have stolen everything I can from the greatest magicians, and tried my best to understand and utilize all the great work they have left for us.

I think I may have started the "never end on a vanish" rule/rumor in some of my posts, but I was discussing the illusion where the performer vanishes from the stage and does not reappear to take a bow, claim applause, or collect his check. There should never be any problem with ending on a vanish of doves, a flock of geese, playing cards, bird cages, or the occasional mother-in-law. The ending should be sudden, startling, and impress the heck out of the person holding the pen over your check. That's the only rule that I know for closers. Besides, I'm too young to be making rules for magic.

Whit,
For clarification reasons let me say, my experience does not neglect the rules set forth by those who came before me or you. My experience is from being a student of magic for a very long time, not as long as you I would agree you have a few years in age over most . But none the less my experience has showed me that I too can have my own rules set forth by my own personal experiences with my own performance style, character and understanding of the magic I perform given the way I script and modify the effect for my own personal style of performing.

My point is that we are all bringing to the table what we know from our own personal journey in magic including the rules we have learned over the years. Never did I say to neglect the rules of conjuring nor did I say that I agree fully with all the older rules within the frame work of modern day magic. I do however find that knowing your own boundaries is very important and knowing that sometimes with the correct scripting or presentation one can change the rules to work in ones favor. My journey is still on going, and will last me a life time! My point was don't take it personal we can agree to disagree but what works for you may not work for others.

Now I would love to hear your thoughts and helpful advice of NonVpro lineup for his benefit, and everyone who is now tuning into this thread.

Thanks
Floyd

Yes, I'm still here. Just reading what everyone is posting. It has been very educational for me. I appreciate reading all the different points of view. I would like to thank everyone who has posted.

NonVpro for a broader view of what Pop is talking about check out this thread.

http://themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic......um=27&35

Thank you for your post, Whit.

Unfortunately, I don't know the origins of the "don't end on a vanish" rule. Although, I am almost certain that "Spellbinder" didn't start this rumor. I find it humorous that he thinks he did though.

I am aware of the close relationship you had with Billy McComb and that is why I used him as an example.

Well, I am definitely going to take a look at "Our Magic" now!

Speaking (actually writing) about never close with a vanish. For years, I closed with vanishing my dove, Freedom, who was produced earlier in the show. I used the standard, off the magic dealer's shelf, newpaper vanish box. I would say some closing comments wishing the audience welll, have Freedom say bye-bye and then the vanish. IT ALWAYS PLAYED WELL!

P.S. I'd be hard pressed to bet against Whit Hayden. It one thing to be a performer. It is another to be a scholar of magic. I clearly am the former. Whit is both!

I was listening to a tape by Sammy Smith, David Ginn and Steve Taylor recently where the quote was attributed to John Booth. Given the volume of Booth's work, I have no way of confirming the attribution.

Whit - I concur 100% with your opinion about T&R newspaper as a great closer. I also close my act with Gene Anderson's version of this classic trick and will continue to do so as longer as there are still newspapers to tear up.

Mike

I think Mr. Haydn has covered the value of a T&R Newspaper as a potential closer very well. I think for his act it makes a fantastic closer. Watching him was what inspired me to learn this effect. I don't think I could pull of his presentation, as I'm just not the same sort of person (but at least I know that).

For me, I'd love to use Paul Potassey's newspaper tear or at least his basic routine. I love the idea of ending with "teaching" the audience a trick. And it is still a valid trick even when you then finish with his extra restoration of the handful of pieces. Very fun. But just about any good trick should make a valid closer if you find a way to present it so everyone sees it as a great ending of a show.

No matter what, I think you have to make sure your show suits who you are. Haydn's show is a very good example. Even when you know exactly how he does the tricks it is a pure pleasure to watch him do it because his show conveys a character without any breaks in who he is on stage. Inspirational.

My advice is what has been said before. Videotape your proposed show, watch it a couple of times, then show it to someone who has not seen you perform this show and ask in particular for how you can tighten it up. Listen to that friend especially if he doesn't normally watch a lot of magic. That's your audience, after all.

-Patrick

Gene Anderson’s Torn & Restored Newspaper (when performed properly) is such a strong effect that it can be used as an opener or closing piece in most any act!

I use the G A Torn & Restored as an opening bit in my comedy act for small stage/cabaret/club venues. The effect plays big as I often go into the audience (from stage right to stage left) and have folks pick out their own bylines or photos to remember. When possible I use the local newspaper and pick out articles related to the audience members which provides for entertaining byplay. The flash restoration helps to establish that I am a magician as well as a comic.
I use almost the same routine for this effect as a closing bit in my medicine show and my library/school show when I am not using livestock (in which case I do a rabbit production from a square circle).

The Anderson Torn & Restored Newspaper effect is very entertaining (when performed properly) [oh, did I say that before?], visual and flashy, and will be talked about long after the show is over!

Something to thinik about:

http://Sefalaljia.com

This is what I'm doing but it wouldn't be hard to put something like this together if you're a little handy and a lot of fun.

-=tabman

Tabman…

The link was cool, however, how does it respond to “Nonvpro’s” issues? Or, as it happens all too often to me on the Web, did I miss the boat with this one!

MT

The boat is still at the dock!!

-=tab