Your favorite type of magic?

[Josh Redstone]

I was wondering which brand of magic is everyone's favorite. By the way, this question is directed at magicians and non magicians :)

I myself like close-up magic, the reasons being that you can do it pretty much anywhere using everyday items. It's literally 'close up', allowing the spectator to see it first hand right under their nose - there's no audience being separated by a stage from the performer.

I also enjoy stage magic but I find because of where I live, it's difficult to find resources on it, which is why I mostly study close up magic.

How about everyone else?

[firecoins]

I think every magician gets started in close up because you can just walk up to someone and try a trick out.

That being said, close up is indeed the best. This is because spectators can not go on stage and check things out. I don't believe spectators take it as seriously because of this. Its like watching tv.

[Josh Redstone]

I think every magician gets started in close up because you can just walk up to someone and try a trick out.


I also get the impression that close up magic is a well respected type of magic within magic circles. In fact, one of the times I heard this was while watching a recording of one of James Randi's lectures at a University.

[firecoins]

I also get the impression that close up magic is a well respected type of magic within magic circles. In fact, one of the times I heard this was while watching a recording of one of James Randi's lectures at a University.

Thats because everyone does it. :crowded:

[Stray Cat]

This is because spectators can not go on stage and check things out.

Unless you go to Penn & Teller's show... where they positively ENCOURAGE people up on to the stage before the show to carefully examine the two boxes in the opening trick.... They even sell a CD "Music for Examaining Boxes to" Pure genius!

My favourite type of magic is that which is well done and which I am watching live at that point in time whether close up, stage, cards or whatever. My favourite to perform is anything that involves blood or fire and produces that astonished look that you only get when performing magic. :)

[Garrette]

I enjoy watching close up the most. Rightly or not, it appears to be the most skill-dependent and therefore impresses me to no end when done well.

I equally enjoy a well-presented mentalist act. IMO, mentalism is the genre of magic most dependent upon presentation and the easiest to make incredibly boring and unimpressive.

[firecoins]

I equally enjoy a well-presented mentalist act. IMO, mentalism is the genre of magic most dependent upon presentation and the easiest to make incredibly boring and unimpressive.

Couldn't agree more. I think Mentalism is great but I can't watch for more than 10 minutes. At some point you just start saying to yourself "I get it. You can read minds."

[Stray Cat]

At some point you just start saying to yourself "I get it. You can read minds."

I start thinking "Obviously you can't read minds or you would read that we are all bored with this now and would like to see something else" :)

Max Maven presents his show well though.

[Garrette]

Actually, I enjoy mentalism in two forms only:

1. A few relevant, impromptu effects in an informal setting.

2. In a creepy atmosphere.

[firecoins]

Max Maven is awesome.

After seeing a mentalist perform so many seemingly impossible effects...it gets boring unless they change things up a bit.

[Josh Redstone]

Actually, I enjoy mentalism in two forms only:

1. A few relevant, impromptu effects in an informal setting.

2. In a creepy atmosphere.

Same here pretty much. It's also good to keep it varied, maybe with one mind reading trick, another telekenesis-type effect, etc.

[magicflute]

Mentalists are incredible magicians! They have been know to put me to sleep in minutes!

P.S. Closeup is my favorite. It is what I do. I find that people are impressed the most by it. They always asume that stage magic is done with some type of aparatus, but with closeup they see everything (or so they think! heheh)

[ranson]

Always a big fan of closeup and card magic. I can't remember his name, but I saw a special some time ago with a gentleman that had use of only one arm performing some of the best close-up I've ever seen. That impressed me for life (so far).

[Stray Cat]

Always a big fan of closeup and card magic. I can't remember his name, but I saw a special some time ago with a gentleman that had use of only one arm performing some of the best close-up I've ever seen. That impressed me for life (so far).

I'm guessing that would be Rene Lavand from Argentina, his appearance on the Ed sullivan show keeps cropping up on TV magic specials.

[Bob Klase]

I'm guessing that would be Rene Lavand from Argentina, his appearance on the Ed sullivan show keeps cropping up on TV magic specials.

More recently, he appeared on the World's Greatest Magic in 1995.

[Bob Klase]

IMO, mentalism is the genre of magic most dependent upon presentation and the easiest to make incredibly boring and unimpressive.

Whether mentalism is a genre of magic might be debated by a lot of mentalists.

Most magicians find mentalism boring. Probably because it doesn't use a lot of cool props, has a much smaller range of effects than magic, and a much, much smaller range of methods.

Many non-magicians find mentalism much more interesting than magic. With magic they known it's tricks. With mentalism, they're much more likely to think "maybe it's real".

And mentalism generally pays more than magic. Gary Kurtz pretty much quit doing magic in favor of mentalism because he could 10 times as much money for less work.

[Lady Edenbolake]

I am an hereditary , so I prefer my family practices rather than most I find in other's books. I have hundreds of books by authors but I always go back to the family book when it comes to magickal workings.

blessings Lady Edenbolake

[Garrette]

Whether mentalism is a genre of magic might be debated by a lot of mentalists.You may be right, but this is not my experience.

Most magicians find mentalism boring.This, however, is my experience.

Probably because it doesn't use a lot of cool props, has a much smaller range of effects than magic, and a much, much smaller range of methods.I think these are rationalizations. I think it is fairly clear cut that most mentalism is considered boring for the simple reason that it is boring.

This is a presentation issue.

Many non-magicians find mentalism much more interesting than magic. With magic they known it's tricks. With mentalism, they're much more likely to think "maybe it's real".Agreed.

And mentalism generally pays more than magic. Gary Kurtz pretty much quit doing magic in favor of mentalism because he could 10 times as much money for less work.If only I had gotten into it sooner and with more enthusiasm…

[Garrette]

I am an hereditary , so I prefer my family practices rather than most I find in other's books. I have hundreds of books by authors but I always go back to the family book when it comes to magickal workings.

blessings Lady EdenbolakeMight I suggest that there is another, more appropriate sub-forum for this?

This particular sub-forum is for performance magic, that which is admittedly not-paranormal.

If you are discussing, as I think you are, magick that you purport to be actual magick, then perhaps you could try the sub-forum: "General Skepticism and the Paranormal."

And welcome to the board.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
Probably because it doesn't use a lot of cool props, has a much smaller range of effects than magic, and a much, much smaller range of methods.

I think these are rationalizations. I think it is fairly clear cut that most mentalism is considered boring for the simple reason that it is boring.

[FONT='Times New Roman']This is a presentation issue.

I agree that it's a presentation issue. But I don't agree that it's rationalizations. A lot of magicians are boring, but most magicians will sit through a boring magic show and be satisfied if they see new effects and new methods- particularily if they're fooled. They might do the same for a mentalism show if they saw new effects and new methods, but there are rarely new effects and methods in mentalism and magicians are much less likely to be fooled.

It is a presentation issue because mentalism depends much more on the presentation than magic. But even a well presented mentalism show tends to be more boring to magicians because they're usually not fooled and they know there's no chance it's real.

[Garrette]

I don't fully agree still, but I see neither the difference nor my expertise as great enough to justify continuing a debate. So I will concede the point.

[Azrael 5]

More recently, he appeared on the World's Greatest Magic in 1995.

More,more recently he appeared on Secret World of Magic series(UK) a couple oif years ago.;)

His cup and tiny balls trick is amazing.One hand!!! Unbelievable.

[gnome]

I like humble, vaudville-style prestidigitators with seemingly simple acts and lots of surprises. Something like the stuff I've seen Harry Anderson do.

It's when they pull off something simple, but seemingly utterly impossible, that really gets gasps from the audience. Or when they escalate what seems like an ordinary trick into something that is more amazing.

[firecoins]

Rene Levand is amazing! I went to a lecture he did in 1998? 1999? at NYU. His oil and water...:jaw-dropp

As for mentalism....most magicians and mentalists have no idea how to entertain a crowd. They perform effects which are great but have no idea how to talk or listen to an audience, they hide behind the effects too much.