Okay, how about:


Many magicians prefer to present the famous cups and balls routine with a single cup and ball instead of 3. No matter how many times the magician removes the ball, places it in his pocket or makes it vanish, it always appears back under the little cup (sometimes actually passing through the solid wall or bottom of the cup.) Eventually, after much byplay, a much larger ball or pieces of fruit appear under the cup; sometimes too large to even fit inside!



I know I have said bottom of the cup, but to laymen it is the bottom, not the top. It's us mages that have things confused! Also, I don't like it when magicians introduce "The Chop Cup Routine" or perform a trick with a "Silk," etc., so I simply called it a cup and ball trick.

I don't actually think there are any right or wrong answers to this. I just hope all our efforts help you on your quest, James.
Bri

A cups and balls routine that only uses one cup and one ball. There are some surprises along the way.

Tom, trust you to say it better than anyone else in so little words! Clever cloggs!

He's a Scot. What else is there to say?

Too true, Bill, too true!

Thanks to everyone (Bill Palmer, Pete Biro, Bri, Tom Fenton, Jonathan Townsend, leaycraft, DDecae, Rannie and funsway) who posted here. Your contributions do help in a big way. I really appreciate the help.

BTW, Tom Fenton, that is really a description with the least words , and a big thank you to you again for helping out.

Usually.... It's a game you can't win, operated by a magician.

I know, I'm late to the party.




On 2009-10-30 18:07, Michael J. Douglas wrote:
I thought more about this while I was out mowing the lawn. It's more akin to the three shell game or a monte than the cups and balls. The cups and balls is a presentation of magical effects (vanish, production, translocation, penetration, transformation, etc.), whereas in the shell game, the spectator can never keep track of the pea. Sure, the final loads are similar to a cups and balls routine, but the basic chop cup presentation is like a one shell game (actually two with the pocket, and three if you give the choice of your hand). There's even "the lie" and "the proof" like a shell game or monte; the lie that you take the ball from the cup and place it in your pocket, and the proof in showing the (second) ball is actually in the pocket.

I had never thought of it in this way before. Thank you for making me think, James.

Thanks, Michael, for your input too.

What can I say, I'm a Scot and don't like wasting words.

Seriously, thank you for the kind words.

James, my friend, glad to be of help.

Tom

Thanks, Tom.

Anything for you, my friend!

This is actually a very thought-provoking discussion.

To tell the truth, the cups and balls is actually more closely related to the shell game than the chop cup is. The chop cup is just more focused and has less distraction.

Don Alan had a great explanation for it. He said it was a little game played with a cup and a little ball. The idea was to take the ball out of the cup and place it into the pocket. Then, he had to get the ball back under the cup without their seeing it.

He would then say: "Do you understand? Then, we will start. Am I working to fast for you?"

I agree with Bill, this thread has got me thinking.

As magicians, I think that we tend to over-complicate effects in our minds. Look at how many ways we have of describing a chop cup routine!

I have read for years that we should strive for clarity of effect, and I think that until we have a clear idea of what laymen perceive the effect to be, we cannot have a clear idea ourselves.
If we don't have a clear idea, then we cannot truly have clarity of effect.

This thread has made me realise that to achieve this lofty goal, I had better do something.

What I have done is, of the few effects that I always perform, I have tried to write out the effect in layman's terms in one, short paragraph.
This is not as easy as it sounds, but it has helped me to understand what lay people see an effect to be.
This could still be wrong, as I am putting words into their mouths, so to speak.

One thing that I intend on doing that may avoid that is getting lay people to describe the effects I perform a short time after they have been performed for them.

Many thanks to James for starting this thread.

In any given effect, the common mistakes made by many is to see the effect from the magician's point of view, which usually includes the technical and mechanical aspects. We tend to forget that the audiences do not know anything about those technicalities.

If we see an effect from the lay audience's perspective and work from there - we will be able to deliver the magic the public expects or wants to see. And that includes the entertainment, as well. Don Alan's routine is a great example.

James, you got it!

Was it Vernon that said, "Confusion isn't magic"? I think we can (and I certainly AM) taking a lesson from your thoughts here, Tom. Thank you.

Bri

So the "Great Confusion of Cups and Balls Magic" is not what we should be focusing on, is it?

Hey, leave my site out of this!!!

Seriously, though, I have already done this with my cups and balls routine. I must have spent a good few months just focusing on the blocking alone with a spectator's view in mind, simplicity of plot, etc.

This is why I never liked routines with different coloured balls. In an effort to make it easier to follow, it often gets more confusing. Kent's routine is an exception, a stand out.

I am glad Tom reminded me of this. Often we can slip and end up performing for ourselves...

Nice line, James, and quite pertinent to this thread too.

I have seen some C&B routines that confused me.

If there is alcohol involved, three cups and three balls can be a bit too much for some to follow.
In that situation, I will perform a chop cup routine.

This is not to say that all C&B routines are confusing. It is very much up to the performer to make the routine as easy to follow as possible.
Two or three phases can be quite enough to entertain and mystify.
For example:
The balls appear,
The balls vanish,
The final loads appear.

There are many other effects where confusion can creep in, cards being constantly counted out, coins being slapped on the table innumerable times.
Someone much smarter than me once said, "Get to the effect!"

All of the counting, etc., is there because the magician must do a secret move.
If the routine was better planned, then much of this could be eliminated and the confusing elements could be minimised.

Bri,
Thanks for the kind words.

By the way, in my opinion, the best description of a Cups & Balls routine is to be found in "The Book Of Secrets" by John Carney. The effect is called "Muscade Magic" and is Lesson 7 in that wonderful book.
The whole effect takes five sentences to describe.

If the routine cannot be described in simple sentences the audiences can understand, then I believe the audience may have difficulty following. In addition if the presentation, timing and pacing, script, technicalities, etc., are not in place ... I just wonder, what would the audience be watching?