I'm interested in this because I do lectures. Which do you prefer and why?

Do you prefer the standard perform an effect and then explain it....

or, perform maybe 2 or 3 things, then explain them all.....

or, perform the whole lecture, then explain everything.

#2

#2!

I like the variety, especially when it's a 2 hour lecture.

#3

If they're truly related, #2. Otherwise #1.

I'd rather see a short set, and then have it explained. If you wait til the end it's not fresh in my mind, and I may have forgotten questions that I wanted to ask.

I like #3.

I like to see people perform, and I like to see the transitions they make from one effect to another.

I prefer #2 or somewhere between #2 and #3, so I can see how you routine a set and transition between effects. As John McLaughlin said, too long and my middle-aged mind loses some of the details. Doing a short set helps to put things into a broader context.

I perfer the third option. That is, if they actually fool me. Perhaps its hindering to the magician doing the lecture that way because people are trying to figure out how he did the last trick without really paying attention to one he is currently performing.

Two

Two.

I've seen guys who perform the effect and then explain it. I get bored watching it that way.

On lecture vids - three

On lectures - two - because then you get some time to think about it, and try and work it out - and at the same time you'll remember you'r own reaction better later

If I go to a magic lecture I am really not there to learn to do effects or even how they are done. I will purchase the lecture notes or DVD's or whatever if I decide I want to perform the effects so that I can study and work with them at my leisure. I really cannot *learn* the effects at the lecture. So I am there first to experience that performer as a layman would, or as close to it as I can. Second, I want to see how that performer controls attention, how he gets into and out of his effects, how he manages his props and his audience. So I would want to see a full set of what you do for regular people, followed by your explanation of your thought process in how you get from a rough effect to a polished effect ready for audiences. I'm probably in the minority, but I would rather see inside that thought process for a few of the effects you perform at the lecture than a "this is how it's done" for all of them.

None of the above. I hate trick lectures. I know enough tricks.
I want to know the real work. Max Howard's lecture is the best I have ever attended. 5 hours and he only taught 3 tricks. It was the other stuff that was so valuable.

The only exception to this rule was John Carney. he did a trick lecture at SEAM, but it didn't feel like a trick lecture. His thoughts on subtleties and motivations, etc. made it really enjoyable and relevant to me.

Perform then teach.
Teaching a few (3) effects is enough. All too often, lecturer's tend to go open forum and teach basic moves. I find this rather daunting.
There is always one person who wants private instruction on how to do an Elmsley Count. If I had a magic wand I'd use it for devious deeds.

I agree with the statements above that I'd actually prefer LESS explanation, period. This situation seems to be better for the lecturer as they could make more money from sales...except I think they'd suffer reduced attendance.

If instruction is going to be given, I prefer it to be done in sets where possible, especially if it's a routine that flows together. If it's done in two completely seperate segments then, as stated earlier, the performance is no longer clear in my mind and if it is trick - explain, trick - explain, trick - explain I think it's too broken up...

Honestly, I'd love if the magician did the effects, talked about theory or the business side or something like that and just left the explanations in the book.

To that end, how many people have attended a lecture and used some (or ANY) of the material FROM that lecture without buying the notes? Did you take your own notes or do you just have a phenomenal memory?

E

One.