The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Handing out the rings (2 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9637 Posts

Profile of funsway
Another appraoch, not yet mentioned, from an old magic book ...

start with your two singles ties together with silver thread at two spots so that they appear to be linked. You visibly separate these and immediately hand them out for a spectator to try to join. Later you take them back an immediately link them.

I think I'll work on a routine where all of the rings appear to be linked in the beginning -- somebody famous did that, I just can't remember who.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
Donal Chayce
View Profile
Inner circle
1770 Posts

Profile of Donal Chayce
Quote:
On 2010-07-07 13:02, Laurent van Trigt wrote:
...Others argue that the way one handles the rings can be deceptive enough to conceal the secret, for example by adding visual phases of rings passing through each other (as in Richard Ross' routine).


For the record, in addition to his renowned three ring routine, which was performed as part of a silent stage manipulation act, Ross had a six ring routine that did, in fact, involve handing the rings out to the audience. It incorporated most of his three ring routine and included a couple of additional sequences as well.

Instructions for both routines are included in Ross' hard-to-find book The Ring Routine.
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3392 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 15:22, Donal Chayce wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-07 13:02, Laurent van Trigt wrote:
...Others argue that the way one handles the rings can be deceptive enough to conceal the secret, for example by adding visual phases of rings passing through each other (as in Richard Ross' routine).


For the record, in addition to his renowned three ring routine, which was performed as part of a silent stage manipulation act, Ross had a six ring routine that did, in fact, involve handing the rings out to the audience. It incorporated most of his three ring routine and included a couple of additional sequences as well.

Instructions for both routines are included in Ross' hard-to-find book The Ring Routine.


This is an approach that I might appropriate in the future. My silent 3 Ring routine is the opener to my show -I think it would be interesting to revisit the Rings later in the act with a variant of the esteemed Mr. Haydn's 4 Ring routine with audience participation.

It might be too much time spent on the Rings in one act. I'm not sure. I'm going to give it a whirl and see how it plays.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Laurent van Trigt
View Profile
Regular user
160 Posts

Profile of Laurent van Trigt
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 13:12, gaddy wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 11:58, Laurent van Trigt wrote:
To those of you who say the rings do not need to be examined, I would like to know why you think so. Do you have other elements in your routine that you think make the effect convincing enough?


A number of reasons lead me to this decision:

1. My routine is mostly silent, and done at a distance, with no audience interaction. Handing out the rings would defeat my purpose of "demonstrating an elegant illusion" rather than "proving a magical effect having taken place". It's a different impact I'm trying to make on the audience.

2. I use a number of different "shows" of the rings at various times in the routine (names made up as I don't know what these moves are called) -there is a "rounding-up" classic showing, there a is a "flip-over" showing, there is "hand-off" showing... and although the audience does not get to use a magnifying glass to inspect the rings, when I have asked people after the fact -no one who doesn't already know how the effect is done suggests the method, and the ones who do know the method seem genuinely confused as to the specifics.

Maybe they're all being extremely nice and oh-so kind and not telling me how obviously I expose the method... But, given the environment I perform in, I don't think so!

3. "Proving" anything is not a priority to me, and it's not something I feel I need to do. My effects are strong and they leave very little room for interpretation beyond "He did it by magic" or some other irrational explanation. People will always offer their half-baked solutions to the puzzles you set before them. The only solution, as I see, it is to be so immensely entertaining that any such thoughts only occur long after your performance is over, and any recollections the audience has are tinted by an emotional response of happiness, joy and wonder.

If they're thinking about holes in the middle of your ring routine, then you're not doing it right!


Gaddy, Personally I am a bit skeptical when it comes to listening to what laypeople say at a performance as I am aware of the usual politesse. In psychology people do surveys rather than making assumptions about what people think. In magic, no one says something about a hole and we conclude no one thought of it. But how can you tell for sure? Have you ever done a routine in which some of the rings were handed out, like a linked pair, and observed their reactions?
About what you are saying in your 3rd paragraph, are you saying there isn't a single effect out there that can fool unless it is accompanied with other entertainment, like theater, showmanship, gags...? I have something to respond here, but I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I pitch in.
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3392 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 18:52, Laurent van Trigt wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 13:12, gaddy wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 11:58, Laurent van Trigt wrote:
To those of you who say the rings do not need to be examined, I would like to know why you think so. Do you have other elements in your routine that you think make the effect convincing enough?


A number of reasons lead me to this decision:

1. My routine is mostly silent, and done at a distance, with no audience interaction. Handing out the rings would defeat my purpose of "demonstrating an elegant illusion" rather than "proving a magical effect having taken place". It's a different impact I'm trying to make on the audience.

2. I use a number of different "shows" of the rings at various times in the routine (names made up as I don't know what these moves are called) -there is a "rounding-up" classic showing, there a is a "flip-over" showing, there is "hand-off" showing... and although the audience does not get to use a magnifying glass to inspect the rings, when I have asked people after the fact -no one who doesn't already know how the effect is done suggests the method, and the ones who do know the method seem genuinely confused as to the specifics.

Maybe they're all being extremely nice and oh-so kind and not telling me how obviously I expose the method... But, given the environment I perform in, I don't think so!

3. "Proving" anything is not a priority to me, and it's not something I feel I need to do. My effects are strong and they leave very little room for interpretation beyond "He did it by magic" or some other irrational explanation. People will always offer their half-baked solutions to the puzzles you set before them. The only solution, as I see, it is to be so immensely entertaining that any such thoughts only occur long after your performance is over, and any recollections the audience has are tinted by an emotional response of happiness, joy and wonder.

If they're thinking about holes in the middle of your ring routine, then you're not doing it right!


Gaddy, Personally I am a bit skeptical when it comes to listening to what laypeople say at a performance as I am aware of the usual politesse. In psychology people do surveys rather than making assumptions about what people think. In magic, no one says something about a hole and we conclude no one thought of it. But how can you tell for sure? Have you ever done a routine in which some of the rings were handed out, like a linked pair, and observed their reactions?
About what you are saying in your 3rd paragraph, are you saying there isn't a single effect out there that can fool unless it is accompanied with other entertainment, like theater, showmanship, gags...? I have something to respond here, but I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I pitch in.

As a street performer my audiences are not are not polite. They have no reason to love me or to spare my feelings. When I fail to fool them, you can bet your last dollar they're going to tell me. Every time. And usually in a rather unpleasant manner...

I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a great degree, but it doesn't apply here.

RE: 3rd paragraph -I don't deal in absolutes. So I will not say, categorically, that there is *NO* anything. But in my philosophy, magic tricks that have no entertainment/ emotional hooks are rather pointless. Perhaps akin to one of those iron "Tavern Puzzles" or a "bar bet"?

Yes, pointless effects can fool a great many people, and those same people might take great pleasure in being fooled in such a way, but one can say the same thing about a clever riddle or a movie with a surprise plot twist...

But that ain't magic -not how I see it, anyhow.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9637 Posts

Profile of funsway
I am suddenly confused, Gaddy --

you seem to say that"Pointless effects" only designed to "fool people" are not magic -- "But that ain't magic -not how I see it, anyhow." -- yet say that your job as a street performer is to fool people. Earlier you spoke about an opening silent act with rings -- is that what you do on the street? or some other type of show? Do your values about magic change with your audience? Can it be that the lack of respect you get from your street audience is because you don't respect them? -- or the "tricks" you do for them?

Guess I must have misread something ...
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
During the performance of a ring routine, if an audience member (acting as a committee of one to represent the rest of the audience) doesn't handle some or (apparently) all of the rings and find them to be solid, then linked or unlinked at the performer's command, then the audience will believe the rings to be cleverly gimmicked in some way that makes the illusion possible -- and they will be right.

They won't know HOW the rings are gimmicked (well, some won't) but they will have a plausible explanation in their minds for how it's done, so the magic ceases to be.

That's not say that a routine without "proving" can't be lovely to watch and entertaining for an audience. It can. If well done the audience will appreciate the "eye candy" aspect of the choreography and performance. It's just more of a dance, rather than a magical effect, in my opinion.

- entity
Mr. Mystoffelees
View Profile
Inner circle
I haven't changed anyone's opinion in
3623 Posts

Profile of Mr. Mystoffelees
I agree, entity, but the "proving" can be done in ways other than passing the rings out for examination, no?
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
Agreed, mandarin.

I made a point of saying that the rings are "handled" rather than examined. If the performer hands rings to a spectator to hold or so that the participant can attempt to unlink the rings, etc., during the course of a routine, the rings are seen by the audience as having been "examined" without anyone having to say so.

- entity
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3392 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-07-09 06:41, funsway wrote:
I am suddenly confused, Gaddy --

you seem to say that"Pointless effects" only designed to "fool people" are not magic -- "But that ain't magic -not how I see it, anyhow." -- yet say that your job as a street performer is to fool people. Earlier you spoke about an opening silent act with rings -- is that what you do on the street? or some other type of show? Do your values about magic change with your audience? Can it be that the lack of respect you get from your street audience is because you don't respect them? -- or the "tricks" you do for them?

Guess I must have misread something ...


You didn't misread anything, but I think you're trying to stitch together two separate arguments. Please don't do that Smile

Obviously, as a magician it's our job to fool people. At the same time, fooling people is easy -and there are many more profitable ways to go about fooling people than doing magic... I still maintain that the best way to be a successful magician is to establish an emotional connection with your audience - basically to be their friend! Handing someone a puzzle does not make you their friend; it merely engages them in a problem-solving exercise.

Funsway, you ask if my values change with my audience -indeed they do! And I think that is a very astute observation on your part! My (mostly) silent three-ring routine is part of my street performance act. Which is a very different animal from my bartending magician act. And when I think about it, I see that, indeed, the very notion of what I consider to be magic shifts in a slight, but very real, way.

When you speak of a "lack of respect" for/by street performers -unless this is something you, yourself, have done, it's impossible for you to fully understand what I'm talking about. In street performing, no one has "invited me" into this space. No one has paid for a ticket. No one knows me, and unless I give them a reason to do so, no one "loves" me.

The only way that I have found to do this successfully is to "make friends" with my audience -and you can't very well be friends with someone you do not respect. On the other hand, any such relationship I forge with my audience is tenuous and conditional at best. It's based on me showing them a good time, but it's also based on me fooling them. With magic. And, unfortunately, there are many people out there whom, despite our best efforts, will never be our friends.

In the public arena this generally translates to heckling. And on the street, that can get rather nasty. I would be remiss if I did not admit how that can color the perceptions and observations of a street performer.

In the above paragraph you mentioned the possibility that I, somehow, might not "respect" the magic tricks that I do. I humbly suggest that that would be akin to a carpenter hating his hammer, or a master chef with no respect for his Cuisinart... A bit of an absurd proposition, don't you think?

I hope this clarifies some of my earlier statements in your view.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
9637 Posts

Profile of funsway
Many thanks for that stuff --

if you whack a Pinata good stuff falls out ;-)

no, I have an appreciation for those who, by their wits, have a different perspective on things -- ideas poorly explained on an internet venue. I am sure if I ever saw you perform live I would have no questions.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst

eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com
Laurent van Trigt
View Profile
Regular user
160 Posts

Profile of Laurent van Trigt
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 21:48, gaddy wrote:
But in my philosophy, magic tricks that have no entertainment/ emotional hooks are rather pointless. Perhaps akin to one of those iron "Tavern Puzzles" or a "bar bet"?

Yes, pointless effects can fool a great many people, and those same people might take great pleasure in being fooled in such a way, but one can say the same thing about a clever riddle or a movie with a surprise plot twist...

But that ain't magic -not how I see it, anyhow.


Suppose you place a coin in someone's hand. You snap your fingers and the coin turns into a hamster, visually. No showmanship, no emotional hook, and entirely pointless. You snap your fingers and there is a hamster. I guarantee you it will elicit an strong emotional reaction in your spectator. They will never forget this moment. Magic is inherently entertaining and unlike a clever puzzle a magical effect is experienced emotionally. Same with Linking Rings. Imagine you hand out 2 rings for examination. You link them visually and hand out the linked pair. You unlink them again, and again they may examine the rings. Next you borrow 2 finger rings and 2 bracelets and proceed linking them too.... There are many good reasons why it is a good thing to add showmanship to what we do. But I fear that a lot of the times when magicians say it's not about the tricks but about the entertainment, that this simply reflects our magic doesn't look like it is supposed to look. We need to put the coin inside a box which we wrap inside a silk and tap it with a wand and eventually there is the hamster... We can link 2 rings together but don't hand them out because 'there is no need for that'. I think that the more proof we give, the more people will appreciate it. If Copperfield wouldn't have gone through a hoop while he's flying, it wouldn't have had the impact it had, no matter how theatrical it went.
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3392 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-07-09 18:51, Laurent van Trigt wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-08 21:48, gaddy wrote:
But in my philosophy, magic tricks that have no entertainment/ emotional hooks are rather pointless. Perhaps akin to one of those iron "Tavern Puzzles" or a "bar bet"?

Yes, pointless effects can fool a great many people, and those same people might take great pleasure in being fooled in such a way, but one can say the same thing about a clever riddle or a movie with a surprise plot twist...

But that ain't magic -not how I see it, anyhow.


Suppose you place a coin in someone's hand. You snap your fingers and the coin turns into a hamster, visually. No showmanship, no emotional hook, and entirely pointless. You snap your fingers and there is a hamster. I guarantee you it will elicit an strong emotional reaction in your spectator. They will never forget this moment.

I can do that trick, it's called Adobe Premiere video editor. It's great!
Quote:
...There are many good reasons why it is a good thing to add showmanship to what we do. But I fear that a lot of the times when magicians say it's not about the tricks but about the entertainment, that this simply reflects our magic doesn't look like it is supposed to look.

Well, I'm sure you know what my magic is supposed to look like, but I think I'll keep it the way it is, thanks.
Quote:
We need to put the coin inside a box which we wrap inside a silk and tap it with a wand and eventually there is the hamster... We can link 2 rings together but don't hand them out because 'there is no need for that'.
And with a good laugh line and a bit of time misdirection, the audience will hardly at all realize that that grueling, tortuous, procedure you just described took 8 seconds in actuality. In their minds it happened instantly, because the 8-second procedure was full of laughter and other interesting stuff.
Quote:
I think that the more proof we give, the more people will appreciate it.
I do too. I merely try to not over think and obsess about things that go far beyond my needs as a practical performer.

Thanks for a very interesting conversation.
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Laurent van Trigt
View Profile
Regular user
160 Posts

Profile of Laurent van Trigt
Gaddy, I wasn't talking about your magic. I was responding to the earlier statement you made in which you compared magic that has no 'emotional hook' to nothing more than a clever puzzle.
The Great Dave
View Profile
Regular user
My Wife said "It's Me or that Stupid Magic Website!" this many times.
192 Posts

Profile of The Great Dave
I never let the spectator's examine my props. Ever. Period. No exceptions. If you can't entertain around this rule then you really don't know how to make the trade offs that theatre requires when doing magic.

To me this a rookie and troll kind of question.

Whit must be bored to respond to this thread.

Dave
Academy of Magical Arts

Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! Whoops, wrong hat ...
Donal Chayce
View Profile
Inner circle
1770 Posts

Profile of Donal Chayce
Quote:
On 2010-08-03 21:04, The Great Dave wrote:
I never let the spectator's examine my props. Ever. Period. No exceptions. If you can't entertain around this rule then you really don't know how to make the trade offs that theatre requires when doing magic.


And this is why it's an ongoing debate. Smile
Laurent van Trigt
View Profile
Regular user
160 Posts

Profile of Laurent van Trigt
Quote:
On 2010-08-03 21:04, The Great Dave wrote:
I never let the spectator's examine my props. Ever. Period. No exceptions. If you can't entertain around this rule then you really don't know how to make the trade offs that theatre requires when doing magic.

To me this a rookie and troll kind of question.

Whit must be bored to respond to this thread.

Dave


My apology if you feel like you wasted your time reading this thread which I started. Magic for me is a journey and even though I have been doing it my whole life I feel I am at the very beginning of it. I put a lot of time in developing my magic thinking and every contributor to this thread has been of value in this regard.
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
3159 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
Quote:
On 2010-08-03 21:04, The Great Dave wrote:
I never let the spectator's examine my props. Ever. Period. No exceptions. If you can't entertain around this rule then you really don't know how to make the trade offs that theatre requires when doing magic.

To me this a rookie and troll kind of question.

Whit must be bored to respond to this thread.

Dave


Laurent is neither a rookie nor a troll.

There is also nothing wrong with the question. It deals with an important aspect of magic -- how spectators' view props that are introduced by the magician.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
I think the examination of the rings is very important. I built the spectator-assistant's role into the routine.

But, I think there are different ways to handle it. The non-examined ring routines are aided by the familiarity of the rings as a magic trick. People have seen it done where the rings are examinable, and assume that these might be as well.

In the same way, the slow and beautiful and optically very deceptive linking and unlinking of some of the non-examined ring routines, which makes up for the lack of examination, strengthens the examined ring routines as the spectators imagine the rings they are examining behaving like the rings they saw in another routine melting through each other.

I think these questions are very important. I don't think it is over thinking.

We wouldn't want to end up finding the audience did more thinking than the performer, would we?
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
3159 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
That's an interesting observation, how different routines by different performers employing different levels of proof can sort of have a symbiotic relationship with each other.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Handing out the rings (2 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.08 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL