It has been "fashionable" of late to declare that there are no bad tricks, only bad magicians, there are no bad effects, only bad presentations.

What do you guys think? Are there really no such thing as a bad trick? And all effects done with the right presentation can be good?

Someone explain to me how the 21 card trick can be good...

Watch Andrew Wimhurst's version of it and you'll see. ;)

Now on the other hand, stuff like Ariston's Arising... god :mellow: :mellow:

There are no Good or Bad Effect, Just Cheap and Expensive.

Cause there are only GOOD and BAD Magicians, it depend on yourself to make the effect good or bad.

Ok. Looks like I've gotta name a worse effect. How about. Tell me how can the globalized jumping rubberbands be a good efffect?

hmm.. no idea, but why would any magician come up with a bad effect ? Haha would you guys come up with 1 ?

I would just say it's personal taste and personal presentation for certain effect.

I guess the presentation is one of the factors that determine the result of the magic... :rolleyes: can't imagine if a magician paused in the middle of the trick thinking what to do next..... :ph43r:

well i do sometime, when i do mentalism effect. Mind reading -_- Hahaha

but i do sometime thinks some effect is bad, but i think its just my taste. I think it just rely on someone taste and character and are they able to perform the effect. Some effect might not be visual, so some people said its a bad effect cause they like visual effect.

So overall i just think its just personal taste and character about choosing the correct effect to perform. ^_^ *Peace* LOL

it can.. i got really good reactions out of it, provided a small bit is added at the end.

Some people said it all depends on your presentation. Where a trick is pretty lame, if preseted well, can create huge impact. On the other hand, any stunning trick can be spoiled with poor showmanship.

Are you talking about the one on the fingers that jumps around? Well, if it is part of a larger routine (look for Raoul) and you add the locking of fingers to make it more impossible its quite a good effect.

Well, i subscribe to there are only bad magicians and no, okay, maybe a few bad tricks. Its quite sad, when i saw one guy did an ambitious card, oh man~ it was such a pain to see him do it, even thought he is technically very efficient, i cant wait for his 'performance' to be over.

Well, the 21 card trick can still be nicely done with nice presentation, and like what rh89 said, if you add alittle trick on the revwalation its a solid effect. Even little tricks like, Jack's Party (that self working one), can be done and people still enjoy it.

Bascially, I too agree that its all up to your style, if you like it, you would enhance a simple effect to get it to work.

I cant think of a bad effect... hmmm Truefly? (judging from the reviews, i supposes it isnt such a good effect)

personally, i do not entirely agree with this.

IMO, there ARE such things as good and bad effects. and to judge this, u have to look at the effect itself, the psychological flow (motivation, purpose, etc), simplicity and perhaps more.

but, good presentation can enhance a good effect, and make it even better. a bad presentation can also ruin a good effect. To a certain extent, presentation can affect effects. so the best way, is to present a good effect well.

the reason why its getting "fashionable" is because ppl are more interested in theory. and frankly, too much theory can be quite lame. i know some ppl who keep talking to me about theory, theory and theory. u cant imagine how irritating it can be, especially when theories do present many logical fallacies such as over-generalisation or of equivocation.

im not saying that theory is dumb though, i also read on on theory and apply those which are good. but some theories seem to be just to make the theorist look good (eg. If audience are not behaving, its the magi's fault). it can be the magi's fault, but not neccesarily.

i have not gotten tommy wonder's book, but i have heard that the same problem applies. and that he's rather preachy and stuff.

my suggestion is that we shud evaluate all theory, see which are always true and important, which are always true and useful, which are mostly true ... etc.

list them down and prioritise, concern urself with those at the top.

Hmmm in my opinion, good and bad tricks seperate the professionals from the amatuers. Some card tricks look like normal card tricks that any Tom, Dick or Harry ( 'Darren, Ali and Velayappan' in Singapore's case ) would know how to do. Seriously now, when you think about it everyone knows how to find a selected card but very few can change a selected cards colour ( eg. from red to blue).

Nick.

There are tricks YOU shouldn't do, there are tricks that I shouldn't do, not because there is anything wrong with the trick, but just that it is wrong for me and my style of presentation, or because it's not appropriate for the audience I have before me.

For example, I enjoy doing the jumping rubber bands... for little kids.

If an older kid comes along and says "I can do that, too," I proceed to the "locking" version and blow them away with that.

If they know that one, then penetrating rubber bands will get them.

I saw David Copperfield perform the penetrating rubber bands on his TV special, right after doing some huge Illusion. He also did a version of the old "Animal Hunter" trick on national TV. I bet a lot of magicians went back to their closets to find it after seeing his presentation.

Just when you start thinking a trick is "bad" (and you realy mean "bad for YOU"), you'll see one of these guys do it on TV and discover that maybe it wasn't so bad after all. It's just a matter of matching the right audience with the right presentation.

Good post Spellbinder!

I think we need to understand what we mean by "effect". I once read a description of an effect: "The magician magically changes a piece of paper into a dollar bill".

Very nice description. But the actual instructions involved envelopes, a gimmick, and a fishy-looking pass behind the back to acheive the effect.

So is the effect bad? No, of course not. It's amazing to change a piece of paper into a dollar bill. But the series of events that occur before the transformation takes place is not ideal for everyone.

I could use the same description for a variation of a Bill Switch, using a piece of paper as the initial and ending with a dollar bill. Now the effect is the same, but the series of events is much nicer to look at.

I don't think we can consider an effect bad. Sometimes they may be in bad taste (Copperfield's Zombie Panties routine is one) but just "bad" is an incomplete description.

It's very important to match the effect with your presentation and your audience. No gambling tricks for 3 year olds, and no Magic Colouring Book for 30 year olds. You could possibly still perform for them, but you won't receive as good a reaction as when you tailor yourself to them.

Then of course it comes down to a matter of taste. You can be the most skilled and talented card magician in the world, but if your audience hates card magic, then you're redundant to them.

It's all about context.

Aloy, this is a good thread!

Well people, the magician has many responsibilites. He, or she, has to mystify, be a good showman (or showwoman!), entertainer, and (often forgotten) respect the audience.

The debate is on. No bad tricks, just bad magicians?

I believe many of us agree, regardless of how we express this agreement. I agree with gordie's interesting post about theory being the new in-thing for talking about magic, and how it's just sick. We are a nation of whiners yeah. talkingcock, indeed.

In the end, a civilian magician will just stick with whatever theory fits him best, no right or wrong answers, just right or wrong magicians. Sparring about theory, like he said, can be bleddy irritating.

A magician today is not merely a magician anymore. He becomes a conduit for the mystique. Magic audiences either want to heckle or they want to be wowed. A dang common act of ACR will lead to boos and giggles from the youngest audiences today. Blaine's version was memorable at first right? Not because he was good :) , but because he was the first one to do it so publicly, and he did it with a stylish flair that wowed his audiences behind the goggle box (other than the stooooooooooges).

But still, good magicians don't have to give anyting to theory talk. He regards himself as just a model in front of his audience that does minor miracles. He must also tailor these miracles to his audience! You just do not do lewd magic tricks to senior citizens or impose a 10 minute table trick on a couple having a quiet candlelit dinner. Give your audience what they want, not what you want them to see. Good for you, Raoul, Spellbinder.

Ergo, a good magician has all these qualities. He can effectively break the confines of a bad trick, and push its effect up several notches if he creates a synergy of respect in his performance. People will pay attention, people will give great reviews to the lousiest tricks. And I do mean lousy.

Therefore, quod erat demonstrandum, yeah. Bad tricks will turn into works of the supernatural given a good magus. And a fine trick will be blasted to bits in the hands of an oaf.

i believe that there can be bad effects. although we mostly talk about bad presentations and psychology OUTSIDE of the effect, and thats because thats usually where the problem lies, sometimes, the effect is just bad.

the entire 1st chapter of Strong Magic by Darwin Ortiz is dedicated to explaining what a good effect is. it doesnt take much to deduce that if there are good effects, there must be bad effects.

perhaps this is because we define the word effect differently. i am heavily influenced by this book, and one of the points of agreement is what constitutes a good effect. i believe what darwin ortiz means as a effect (and i agree with this) is what the audience see and feel. Hence, his criterias for effects as stated in the book are:
1. Clarity
2. Conviction
3. Suggestion
4. Substantive Meaning
5. Situational Meaning
6. Dramatic Structure

Frankly, seeing these terms again reminded me that i have to reread the book.

another point, i also accept raoul's explanation of effect. to me, effect has a dual meaning in different contexts. in order to perpertuate another school of thought, i earlier chose one explanation over the other. raoul is not wrong though, depending on what u determine as "effect"...

in this context, where the title says "There Are No Bad Tricks?", when people say "tricks", they actually mean effect in the larger context (the one im trying to explain), inclusive of handlings and everything. hence, when we evolve a different handling of an effect, we say, its a different trick, although it may have the same effect in the narrower sense of the word.

You're all very perceptive!

Blaming the badness on the magician, as I tended to do, is just a little too crude and artless, though let's face it. It's true. :(

Good or bad, the effect is but a fraction of the entire trick. The audience watches the magus, and some small part of them delights in being fooled. The fooling (not foolery) comes with the effect. The effects are, therefore, the hallmarks of magicians.

Despite all this, I do not entirely suppose that the effect can make or break a magic trick. The magician is behind it all, both the good or bad effect. Given that both extremes of effects exist (yuck), it is the magician's duty and responsibility to subvert the foul nature of the bad effect, and create an dazzling showcase of magic.

If that be possible, go for it. If not, drop the trick. And, since that trick's dropped, it must be consigned to the "bad trick" bin.

The discerning audience may still be wowed by the magic of bad, or inappropriate, effects, but the prime reason they return for, or avoid, more shows is really the magician, and the synergy of all aspects of the magical persona, and the oft-cited magic word presentationpsychologyetcerarara.

Sigh. Who ever said magic was easy?

:lol: