|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Vraagaard Inner circle Copenhagen, Denmark 1479 Posts 
|
The DL is the most important of all card sleighs since it is used throughout lots of tricks. that's why we need to practice it to perfection. Now what it should look like to a lay man is exactly how a lay man would deal a card or turn over a card. Ask a layman to deal a card or turn over a card and you will see that they all (if right handed) will hold the deck in the left hand an deal or lift from the top right corner of the deck. This means that you need to deal or lift a card from the top right corner when you hold the deck in dealing position - if you want it to look natural. You would actually do the same if you sit down and try to handle a single card - and that is of course how a DL should look. Conclussion - lift cards of from the top right corner of the deck - that's my opinion.
That's why the strike double and also the pinky count will not look entirely natural - since it doesn't make them able to lift the card from the top right corner of the deck - maybe a few can master that from a pinky count but I haven't seen them yet. The strike double will normally be liftet from the bottom right corner - which is unnatural - Sankey's double lift (strike double) is by this definition unnatural looking - which I always thought from the first time I saw it - and that was before I even knew about the double lift. In conclusion I use 3 different get-ready's that enables me to lift from the top right corner. 1) A push over get ready - when the flow of the tricks allow that to look natural (Michael Ammar uses this get ready a lot). 2 The Larry Jenning snap double (don't make it snap - that's only in the beginning when you practice it that it should snap. A snap sound is unnatural). And believe me this is totally angle proff and doesn't require any misdirection if you tilt your left wrist a little towards your left). 3) A push over double - and believe me that requires a lot of practice. I've seen the Marlo students who claim they use the push over double like Steve Draun etc. and they are great. Even though - they also still use the snap double and the push over get ready when they can get away with it - because it's easier and looks equally good. SO what ever get ready you recommend - please at the same time tell us if it makes you able to lift the card from the all important and natural top right corner of the deck - because that's the only natural way to lift a card - unless you live on Mars. Just study Dai vernon - he spent a lifetime making his magic look natural - on the revelations DVD's he has a clean comment to the strike double. The essence of that comment is "that's unnatural and the best examle of how not to do it since it lifts the card from the bottom right corner - always lift the card from the top right corner of the deck". |
|||||||||
|
Paul Sherman Inner circle Arlington, VA 1511 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-05-31 05:05, Vraagaard wrote: Why are we laboring under the assumption that "natural" is defined by how laymen handle things, rather than by how laymen might reasonably expect to see things handled?
"The finished card expert considers nothing too trivial that in any way contributes to his success..." Erdnase
some youtube videos |
|||||||||
Logan Inner circle 2290 Posts
|
Paul,
I think it's cos we want to try to hit 'closer to home' so to speak. So they don't just pass of a miracle we just did because we have 'skills' by doing things differently. There will always be skeptics, but I personally feel that if we try to make the moves we do familiar to some extent, there is less room for doubt. Just a possibility. I know that's why I strive in that direction.
You've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth criminal.
Singapore's Hairiest Corporate Comedy Magician! |
|||||||||
|
Paul Sherman Inner circle Arlington, VA 1511 Posts
|
What I'm suggesting is that "naturalness" covers a range of possible behaviors, rather than a few discrete behaviors that are themselves "natural".
If a layperson thinks "oh, he must have done it when he turned the card over that way", then obviously the turnover wasn't deceptive. The question is: why wasn't it deceptive? Assuming that the technique itself doesn't flash and that it really does look like a single card being turned over, the explanation must be that the technique looks "unnatural". That doesn't mean, however, that the solution is necessarily to handle things like a layperson. For example, if you handed violins to 100 laymen with no musical background, and asked them to hold it as if they were playing it, you'd probably see 100 people in stances that were vaguely similar to what they've seen professional violinists do. They'd probably be clumsy and unsure and they would probably all make mistakes. Now imagine you had 100 laymen watch one professional violinist as he uncases his instrument, positions it, and begins playing. He would do countless things different than they would. He would move more deftly, handle the instrument more gracefully, position it without conscious thought. The laymen might see that there were several things that he did completely differently. Yet, despite the fact that his actions only vaguely resemble those of a layperson, they would hardly be noticed, because they fall within the range of expectations. He's a professional and people expect that he'll handle his instrument in ways that are more refined than they would themselves. They'd probably pay no attention to these actions and would just wait for the music. Also, consider how odd it would seem to all those lay people watching that violinist if he, a professional, were clumsy in positioning his instrument. This same range of naturalness exists in magic. Obviously the range is affected by what we wish to convey. If a magician wanted to make people think he was a layman, he would probably want to handle card exactly as a layman would. Max Maven, as someone demonstrating psychic abilities, probably wouldn't want to shuffle his ESP cards like Steve Forte. The range is also affected by our personalities (certain techniques that arouse no suspicion in the hands of an expressive person would scream out in the hands of a reserved person and vice versa). At any rate, what I'm getting at here is that the way lay-people handle things is only a small (and probably not even the most important) part of the range of naturalness. Generally speaking, we have more leeway than that. Paul
"The finished card expert considers nothing too trivial that in any way contributes to his success..." Erdnase
some youtube videos |
|||||||||
|
Vraagaard Inner circle Copenhagen, Denmark 1479 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-05-31 06:20, Paul Sherman wrote: Hi Paul, I agree with you that when it comes to naturalness "we have much more leeway than that". So I buy into your point in general. But this thread is about the best way to perform a DL - so we are not talking about what we can accomplish with clever misdirections - because then any DL would be "perfect". I do believe if you can make the trick and handling natural looking even from a laymans point of view - you are better of - and you need less misdirection to achieve your effect - meaning you can contrate more on your presentation. So if you can make it as a lay man would do it - then why not - or if you could make so that a lay man wouldn't find it odd - then why not do it. Your example with the violin's - although well meant - is not the best example for comparison. You see out of 100 spectators to a magic show at least 100 have had some sort of cards in their hand at some point in their life - and most of them are pretty used to playing cards. Whether its regular cards, childrens cards, Pokemon cards, basecall cards or other cards. SO here you are actually performing for people who knows the feeling of holding a deck and dealing a card - unlike the feeling of holding a violin. I can still only say that before I even knew about the DL I saw Jay Sankey (using the strike double from the bottom left corner of the deck) and I remember I was thinking "what an odd way to take a card". I didn't think he was cheating at that moment - but still it gave me an odd feeling - and you can overcome that by making it look natural. I'm not saying that you cannot perform great magic with unnatural moves - of course you can. And sometimes unnatural moves just gets unnoticed - due to the presentation. I'm only saying that if you can acccomplish the same with simplicity and natural moves - then I think you are better of. And in this thread we are discussing the "best" way to do a DL. Isn't it a part of refining the tricks we do - making them more simple, more direct and more natural in the handling. I think that's a part of "better do a few tricks perfect - than a lot of tricks less than perfect". That of course depends of your purpose and who you are. Just my two cents - for what its worth. |
|||||||||
|
ziatro Veteran user Havant, England 322 Posts
|
I think that as magicians we get too worked up about what looks natural or unnatural. If a move is performed smoothly and doesn't look so weird as to rouse suspicion on the part of the spectator, where is the problem? Why would you necessarily want to perform a move exactly the way a layman would do it, after all most people have never witnessed live magic and wouldn't really know what to expect. I certainly don't imagine they would worry or analyze the turning over of a card too much if it differed from the way they would do it. After all, surely they would expect something a little different. A lot of the moves or sleights that exist in card magic don't look particlarly natural, but we have the additional benefit of patter to reinforce the sleight or move, and thereby giving a reason for it's existence, without raising any real suspicion that anything unnatural has occured. I do my own one handed double lift which looks like the top card is hinged from the back of the deck and immediately pops up into a vertical position; how unnatural is that! But before this happens I pretend to pull a hair from my head and wrap it around the front edge of the deck and give it a sharp tug and the card is instantly raised. Is this natural; of course not, but it is magical and rouses no suspicion from the spectator. Keep it smooth, make it technically as good as you can, try not to make it ultra weird, and nobody will be any the wiser.
|
|||||||||
|
Logan Inner circle 2290 Posts
|
Love your points Ziatro.
But one correction, I think what me and Vraagaard mean to convey is NOT to copy the layman - but to put it in Paul's words (hope you don't mind buddy), to fall within the range of expectations of the layman - the expectations here being handling cards as logically as they do. Why handle it logically when we can show them our elite skills with cards? Well, from my point of view, if you handle cards logically, when the spectator watches, he/she can follow easily and more importantly, can RELATE. They would think, "But he turned the card over and now it's changed?!" The last thing they would think was that you turned over 2 cards - why? Because you did it naturally and logically - with grounds that they can follow. This is just from my point of view. Now don't get me wrong, this only applies to the aspect of DL's - I like fancy cardwork myself 
It's not about stooping down low to fumbling with cards like laymen would do - but instead look at it as being us trying to speak a language they can understand. A DL should be a simple, non-odd/fancy act that gets the job done and flies by undetected - doing an odd looking DL would negate that. Just my 2 cents.
You've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth criminal.
Singapore's Hairiest Corporate Comedy Magician! |
|||||||||
|
domcoke New user 35 Posts
|
Ok, to stick my oar in...
I perform "a" push-off DL. I practised it for months, getting the feel of two cards under my thumb, and the precise point on my thumb which would facilitate pushing two cards off, but my squaring motion is different, and I think, much more natural and less flourishy than the push-off taught on Ellusionist. It doesn't have the "twist" to square the cards, it simply turns over, and I use the ball of my thumbs, and the index finger on my "taking" hand to square them. To me, it looks natural, and when consulting friends who are very very critical and analytical, they have agreed. I saw the DL on Ellusionist after I perfected mine, and I was unimpressed, because the twist looked completely bogus, and was a clear tell that there was a move happening, whereas my version looks a lot less flourishy - I say "mine", I'm sure that it has been established before I did it, but I kind of learnt it on my own without reference to any published material... There is NO substitute for a natural DL, and I don't like the strike double because it inevtiably has to fall back onto the deck, which in itself looks weird, I much prefer to have the card in my hand, away from the deck, cos this consolidates the feeling in the spectator's mind that nothing fishy is going on, whereas a turn back onto the deck could give the game away. So in short, the Push-Off double is the ultimate, but without the annoying twisting motion which quite clearly sucks. Dom. |
|||||||||
|
ziatro Veteran user Havant, England 322 Posts
|
Isn't the real problem with magicians, our inability to see the world of magic as a lay person would see it. We try to see it with their eyes, but generally fail miserably because we analyze the problem from a magicians perspective. Make a video of 4 or 5 tricks,incorporate a D.L. you think to be natural in one trick, and one you think not so natural a few tricks later. Show it to some friends and ask them for an honest opinion on each trick and any part therein. You might be suprised at the results. I've done it myself and was highly suprised.
Honest feedback from lay people and sometimes magicians, is what most magicians lack, but is something that ultimately will make you all the better for it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be at the time. |
|||||||||
|
Vraagaard Inner circle Copenhagen, Denmark 1479 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-05-31 09:01, ziatro wrote: I agree. That would be very valuable. Moreover, that's what we also try to give in this forum, allthough not on video - simply to give our best of recommendation - for other magicians to use or disregard at their own comfort. Quote:
On 2005-05-31 08:38, domcoke wrote: Hi Dom. I believe Steve Draun (and probably also Ed Marlo) finetuned it they way you are describing. So just be proud to be in their league on this move. I would love to see your handling - it definately sounds like the natural handling of a single to me. |
|||||||||
|
Paul Sherman Inner circle Arlington, VA 1511 Posts
|
Could someone tell me what's so odd-looking about a stud-turnover? I still don't get it. Also, if the answer is "the pivoting on the base of the left thumb" (in regards to the Dingle and Nash turnovers), then do you also consider the Vernon "New Theory 2nd Deal", which uses an identical pivoting in the context of a stud second-deal, to be unnatural?
"The finished card expert considers nothing too trivial that in any way contributes to his success..." Erdnase
some youtube videos |
|||||||||
|
dchung Special user Montreal 616 Posts
|
I'd like to hear someone's argument about this as well. Nobody seems to have addressed Paul's question directly. As far as I can see. There's nothing wrong with a stud-turnover, certainly no more so than a book-style turnover.
Here are some of my thoughts on this matter. Logan, you say there is only one way to turn a card over on top of the deck. But let's remember that it's not the point of the move. The point of the move is usually (but not always) to show your audience the face of the (double) card. That's why you're doing a DL. You're asking the spec the wrong question. You should be asking him "How do you show the top card of the deck to an audience?" In this case, I defy you to find a layman who will turn a card over on top of the deck in order to show it around. So even this you have to motivate. For instance, I use my now free hand to gesture or pick something up. This makes everything logical, but this type of management is not exclusive to the book-type lift. As for a stud turnover, it makes perfect sense to do it when you want to look at the card first. For instance, consider the following script "Here on top of the deck, we have (start stud lift, with the face now pointing to you) the ace of clubs (continue lift to display the face to the audience). That seems pretty logical to me. Ask anybody comfortable with cards to look at the top card of the deck, and he'll almost invariable lift it stud-style. Notice here how motivation makes both actions logical and natural. People will offer that your DL should look just like your regular lift. I can offer the same advice that was given to me regarding the second deal. You can either make the false action look more like the true one OR vice versa. Cmon people. Give some justification for your opinions. Saying I like this or that without telling why is not as helpful as it could be. And using an reason like it's more natural doesn't help unless you can define exactly what you mean by that. We probably won't come to a consensus, but the careful reader can make an intelligent decision based on the dialogue. |
|||||||||
|
Logan Inner circle 2290 Posts
|
Dchung,
You make intelligent points. Let me first point out though that I already stated that it was just my personal opinion regarding the bookstyle lifts. Also, the stud-style lift seems odd to me due to where I stay (Asia) where lifts like that are not practiced - no one plays Stud here (or I haven't seem them anyways!) It's the same in the Western world, where the Hindu shuffle is mostly used by magicians - whereas in Asia, the hindu shuffle IS the shuffle. Most Westerners don't recognize a hindu shuffle as being a shuffle - it may look odd to them, I know I've read a few posts regarding how odd the hindu shuffle appears, it's the same scenario here, for me anyways. But upon reading your post, it WOULD make sense with the proper scripting, so I thank you for bringing that to light. My justifications regarding the bookstyle lifts? As I stated in earlier posts, bookstyle lifts, when done smoothly, appear extremely innocent and have a 'light' touch to it, i.e. no big squaring motion or unnecessary spinning. Now, my position on the stud-turnover has definitely changed, thanks to yourself and Paul, but I still wouldn't use it solely because I still feel it's still odd to me and it is alien here. Can anyone give me sources of stud-lifts so that I may get a better understanding of it? Please PM it to me if you feel you would clog up this thread. Thanks guys!
You've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth criminal.
Singapore's Hairiest Corporate Comedy Magician! |
|||||||||
|
Nosher Loyal user 261 Posts
|
There have been some good posts on this topic.
I find the stud-turnover is a very natural looking DL, the book-turnover not so much. I think though, that it is FAR more important that your DL is imperceptible, 'naturalness' comes second. I had to change my DL recently because of some nerve damage in my elbow. My little finger has permanent 'pins and needles' and is now useless for counting. Now I use a thumb count and the DL where the card is rotated over the pack between the thumb and middle finger of the right hand, with a little help from the left thumb. (I'm not sure of the correct name, I pinched it from a magician on the television). This DL looks a little flourish-y but I try to convey a "this might be different to the way you do it, but it's the way I always do it" impression to the spectators. The key word here is always. When lifting a single, I still display it in this manner. Even after the initial gl**e in Dr. Daley's, where the set up is perfect for nearly any type of DL you can imagine, I still make sure I use the same DL as always. This consistency resonates with the audience. Stud-turnover,book-style,strike,push-off or stolen off the telly ; as long as your DL looks like your single AND you are confident and comfortable doing it - I don't think anyone will ever pull you up on it. Cheers, Nosher
Escapemaster-in-chief from all sorts of houdingplaces - Finnegans Wake
|
|||||||||
|
Nik_Mikas Regular user Toronto, Ontario, Canada 159 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-05-31 04:33, Logan wrote: You're kidding, right? You say the Dingle Double is unnatural, even though it emulates a natural action, and then go onto recomend three of the most unnatural techniques ever published? If you are striving for naturalness, the techniques you mentioned are terrible. Not only would nobody EVER turn over a card in the same manner as the Snap double, the Strike, or the Diving Board double, they would never turn over a single card in a manner that ever RESEMBLES any of those techniques. Perhaps you should re evaluate what natural is... |
|||||||||
|
Logan Inner circle 2290 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-05-31 23:00, Nik_Mikas wrote: Nik, I don't think you've read all the posts that I submitted after that one. In the posts that follow I detailed why I felt Dingle's was odd to me. I know many do not agree with me, and that is why, I say again, it is just my personal opinion. Paul and dchung have shed a lot of light on the matter to me. I think it boils down to personal preference and habits of people where you live, i.e. what they are used to seeing. Where you live, Dingle's may look natural, but in Asia, it isn't, no one (or at least to my knowledge) plays Stud and therefore all the DLs I had listed would be a lot more convincing to the people here than Dingle's would.
You've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth criminal.
Singapore's Hairiest Corporate Comedy Magician! |
|||||||||
|
KidCrenshaw Special user USA 537 Posts
|
Sigfried: But Roy, that's not how a layperson would reveal the lady-to-tiger illusion!
Roy: Do laymen do magic? I thought they paid to see professionals do things they couldn't. Sigfried: But it looks suspicious when you do it that way Roy: is it not suspicious that I make a woman turn into a 400lb. tiger? You gys just need to relax. I think people get hung up on this stuff way too much. People expect to see you doing something differently. The same thing goes for a lot of Vernons ideas. He lived in the Vaudeville, and circut eras where costumes, and apparatus were the standard. He came along and made the same things happend with ordinary objects. I seriously doubt that he meant to "do things the way they do." I think he meant just do it, and do it professionally. Now, on to this business of the stud-style turnover looking fishy. Well you've just got to be plain out of your mind. I don't care if you think it is an issue of opinion or not. Where are you from for you to feel that it is "obvious." You said somewhere in this thread Asia. What part of Asia?
"Put your faith in Providence, but always cut the cards"
|
|||||||||
|
Logan Inner circle 2290 Posts
|
Michael,
I'm in Singapore and I lived in Brunei for most of my life as well. Either way, stud turnovers are new to me - and thus, look odd. By the way, never in my entire posting on this thread did I say it was 'obvious', I said it looked odd and unnatural - and I believe I have every right to feel that way considering my lack of exposure to stud turnovers. Just because most of you have had the privelage to know different types of turnovers doesn't brand me 'out of my mind'. I am starting to look into stud-turnovers, just so you know, so I can have a better knowledge about it. Before this thread, I just thought that Blaine's turnover was weird beyond anything, now I stand corrected - and if I'm not wrong, that's what this Café' is for. By the way, I like your bit with Sigfried and Roy.
You've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth criminal.
Singapore's Hairiest Corporate Comedy Magician! |
|||||||||
|
Jordini Inner circle 2765 Posts
|
I still thing the Diving Board Double is the best out there. EVERYONE BUY IT NOW and stop arguing.
|
|||||||||
|
KidCrenshaw Special user USA 537 Posts
|
Ashers double is amazing. I'll give you that. But I really don't care to pay money to do it. If someone down the line shows it to me, fine. I probably still wouldn't use it unless I was showing off to magicians though. If you were watching from a laymans point of view, it wouldn't be any cooler than card spinning or the Simple Switch flick.
You could accomplish the same thing in a specs mind by doing the same flick of a single followed by a pass. Has anyone ever tried doing the Simple Switch flick with a double? I tried it out and got it down almost flawless. I was feeling pretty good until I fould out many before me have tried it. And if I'm not mistaken, there is a trick marketed the utilizes it.
"Put your faith in Providence, but always cut the cards"
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Blaine style double lift (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 31, 2005 09:05 am 
| [ 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 < 
|