Magic Pet Peeves

[Rastelli]

There are a lot of things to be annoyed by when watching a sub-par magic act. Here's one that sets my teeth on edge:

The performer refers to something as "ordinary."

What would you think if a friend said to you, "This morning I got up and fried some ordinary eggs." Personally, I would think something like, "That was an odd modifier. I wonder if those eggs really WERE ordinary?" Surely the magician inspires the same sort of thought if he or she says the "O" word.

I remember the worst magic act I ever saw, at a festival in Galveston TX. The guy had no patter except to describe what he was doing: "I put the dollar in my hand. I reach into my pocket for wooffel dust..."

Worse, he refered to every prop as "ordinary." "I take the ordinary milk pitcher and the ordinary newspaper..."

At one point, I swear to god, he said, "I have here an ordinary magic box."

Yeesh!

Rastelli

[SteveW]

I agree. The first sign of an amatuer is pointing out how ordinary everything is.

Guess I will have to throw out my gaffed quarters, newspapers and those woofle dusted eggs in the fridge.

[rustypouch]

Something that gets me is when I have a person select a card, and then they hold it close to their chest on the of chance that I might see it.

Never mind that most of the time when they do this they bend or fold the card, making my job easier!

I don't think these people know that I already know what the card they picked is, or else I manipulate it to where I want it in the deck.

I also despise people who learnt one or two tricks when they were kids, so think they know everything about magic.

They are constant interuptions, but most of the time their guesses are way off.

And here, I have some perfectly ordinary sponge balls...

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Rastelli
I remember the worst magic act I ever saw, at a festival in Galveston TX. The guy had no patter except to describe what he was doing: "I put the dollar in my hand. I reach into my pocket for wooffel dust..."


Is patter really necessary?
I saw a pretty good performance at the 25th anniversary banquet of Washington Society for the Jewish Deaf. The performer's hands were busy, the most he could get out while performing was non-manual modifiers. At one point, there was a noticeable *klink* as he dropped a prop into place in a cute elaboration of the shell game, but there weren't many people who could hear in the audience anyhow.
I think his pace and expression were more than enough to carry the show...

[volant]

Magic ads that lie. Of course, I don't think we will be seeing this anytime soon...
"*Your audiences may be somewhat entertained.
*It may fool magicians, we haven't really tried it out.
*Really just a version of an old trick with different patter & handling.
*Very hard to do, and not worth the many hours of practice.
*Not examible.
*Not angle proof, THEY HAVE TO BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!
*The card if forced, use your favorite force.
*Reqires long reset time.
*Cards made by kids in asian sweat shops.
*Lots of other tricks like this on the market, all are better.
*Priced significantly higher than other methods..."

And the 21 Card Trick, I curse whoever came up with it...

[Quinn]

Originally posted by volant
*Reqires long reset time.

I recently read trick where a deck of cards apparently petrifies into stone, then breaks into pieces when you drop it. Yes, you have to make a new petrified deck every time you want to perform it. It carried the disclaimer, "This trick does not reset."

Quinn

[Brown]

Originally posted by volant
*The card is forced, use your favorite force.Or, more generally:

*Includes only half the secret.

Other notices I'd like to see:

* Same trick as was recently exposed on television.
* Looks great on TV, but easy to spot in real life.
* Presented as an impromptu trick, but really requires a lot of advance preparation.

[wert]

Originally posted by volant


And the 21 Card Trick, I curse whoever came up with it... [/B]There are variations of this that are actually quite entertaining to layman.

[Peter S.]

Originally posted by volant
...
*Reqires long reset time.
...

There are a few tricks with long reset times that are worth the trouble. The Anderson Newspaper tear comes to mind.

I enjoy doing Michael Aamar's original floating bill routine, (no ITR). Every month or so I set up 20 or 30 of them so I can have them ready.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Rastelli
The performer refers to something as "ordinary." Almost as bad is when a performer tells you that something is impossible or extremely unlikely.

For example, a performer on "The Tonight Show" once did a math trick that was (to me, anyway) ridiculously obvious. But he asked Johnny Carson something like: "Now, you'd agree, wouldn't you, that the chances of that happening are astronomical?" and Carson (who should have known better) agreed.

[Gerri]

Peter,
send me some of that money:wink8:

[Dogwood]

How about, "So impractical, you can't do much of anything else and have to go somewhere else immediately."

I hate to say it, but I bought Andrew Harters "Bisection" because... well beacause it sounded cool and I wanted to support the guy. But after reading it, I couldn't imagine doing it anywhere due to it's highly bulky and impractical nature. I just don't think it would travel well.

[Richard G]

Not that my patter is bad..., when one is due, I usually have an elaborate explanation of the miracle as demonstrated and proven by the "college of psychic sciences in California" before the demonstation, which itself is preceded by the disclaimer of "everythig you are about to see is total horse ****.".

I have resorted to silent, totaly visual magic that requires no explanation whatsoever. It lends itself very well to adding music, which can amplify the emotion of the whole thing if matching the correct music with the act. If it isnt extremely visual, I don't do it, which is why have only 3 card tricks in my entire repatoire.

What a bore it is to ask someone to add their social security number to the reciprical of their birth date, minus 77, plus the number of times the cards have revealed the king etc. etc...makes me want to puke.

[Voob]

When someone does the equivoque or magician's force really obviously.

"Okay, please point to one of the piles."
Spectator does.
"Okay, that's the pile we won't use..."

or

"Think of a colour, red or black."
"Red."
"Red? Okay. Now think of a suit, hearts or diamonds."
"Hearts? That leaves diamonds. Now think of a number..."

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Rastelli
The performer refers to something as "ordinary." "And here we have a perfectly ordinary pair of white tigers..."

Another pet peeve: when almost the entire act requires tight angles, and I'm watching from OUTSIDE those angles. I once saw a performance of The Amazing Toyo at The magic Castle, and my (then-) wife and I were seated in the front row, exteme stage left. We were treated to watching item after item being handed to The (Not-so-) Amazing Toyo from behind the upstage curtain.

Another: When a magician insists on getting the audience/mark to agree with something that is patently not true. Examples:

"You would agree that it is impossible for me to know which card you have picked, correct?"

Well no, not really...

"You would agree that this torn piece of a card matches precisely with the hole in this card I just pulled out of my a**, would you not?"

It's pretty close, but "precisely?"... no, not really...

Another: When a magician uses an incredibly cheesy prop. I once saw (again, at the Castle) a moderately-well-known act, which ended up with the magician making a large silk appear, which had pictures of bunnies and hats printed on it, along with the words "THANKS AND GOODBYE!". It would have been okay for a kid's birthday party, or something...

And finally: When a magician does a really unamazing trick, and keeps pointing at it until the audience relents and givesa some half-hearted applause. In that same act mentioned above, this happened several times, and the magician would point to the trick and (I swear) say "Come on, that was pretty good!" Until he got the response he wanted. Ouch.

[Aoidoi]

Hehe, this is as much fun as listening to stand up comics complain about hacks in their business. :)

The post above reminds me of seeing The Amazing Jonathan while sitting extreme stage right. Couldn't see many of his tricks, but could see him taking the handoffs from behind the curtain (not that it mattered, he intentionally blows the trick at the end anyway for comedic value anyway). He also knocked over his little table (the stage was really tight for his act) and revealed the trick to the disappearing "magic dust." For a serious magician this would have been awful, for a comic magician (who's not exactly doing complex magic) it just added to the fun goofiness factor. :)

Oh, the angle pretty well ruined the "magic ball of India" (or whatever he called it) trick too. Not that I hadn't seen it (and I think done it) with the cub scouts a decade before the performance anyway... :D

[NoZed Avenger]

I like "ordinary," but only for irony/comedy. I.e., "Here we have a completely ordinary electric elephant / psychic lobster / disentegration ray / shemp."

A *huge* peeve is dealers using the magic phrase, "packs flat, plays big." Just STOP, already.

A minor peeve is "patter." "Patter" to me is like calling the effect a "trick." "Patter" is something Uncle Dave uses when he does a card "trick" for the nieces and nephews. That's just a personal reaction, and I do not claim it is a valid one. I just think it is better to think of it as a routine or script for your performance (or effect). As much goes into routining a magic act as putting together a stage play or a musical performance, so I don't like using terms that make it sound like something less. Again, its just a personal quirk.

NA

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Hehe, this is as much fun as listening to stand up comics complain about hacks in their business. :)


Once, back when I owned a video production business, one of my clients was a well-known local magician, who was pretty darn good by my inexpert judgement. I taped all aspects of his performance, to be edited later. As I was backstage right before his performance (I knew better than to have my camera) and was talking to him as he was "preparing", in the middle of it he stopped, looked at me very seriously and said, "What you see here, dies with you. Understand?"

I considered it a huge privilege to get to see what goes on behind the scenes, and if anything my admiration for magicians increased.

[Yahweh]

The following is clearly not the magicians fault.

I've been over to my sister-in-laws houses for parties and get togethers. Once, the TLC channel just happened to be on (by the way, when did that channel go from being educational to 24 hour home redecoration) and the "David Blaine, Street Magician" show is on. David Blaine does an "amazing" magic trick. My sister-in-law looks at me and says "Now how do you explain that". Well, clearly the answer is David Blaine has super powers...

[volant]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Well, clearly the answer is David Blaine has super powers...

Duh! How do you explain him dating Josie Maran? Huh? Yeah!
:p

[john_v_h]

Originally posted by Voob
When someone does the equivoque or magician's force really obviously.

LOL . . . that is so true. But the magician is not always to blame. Magic books are full of creaky old magician's choice routines that haven't fooled anyone since the days of Candid Camera.

[Bob Klase]

Is patter really necessary?

I saw a pretty good performance at the 25th anniversary banquet of Washington Society for the Jewish Deaf. The performer's hands were busy, the most he could get out while performing was non-manual modifiers.


Obviously patter is not always necessary, nor is it necessary for every performer in every circumstance. But why would you base a question like that on the fact that you saw a good performance without patter?

Is music really necessary? I've seen hundreds of good performances that don't use it. Is patter really necessary? Would Harry Anderson be rich and famous if he did a silent act? How much fun would a David Williamson performance be if he didn't talk.

Yes, patter is really necessary- for at least some performances of some performers.