Hey guys.. I would like to know..
How do you guys view the use of gimmicks VS just pure sleight of hand?
Pls share what you think..

Well, gimmicks heighten the impact you can have on your audience if you use them well.

You can say that the highest level of gimmick based magic should have more impact on your spectators than the highest level of pure sleight of hands.

To use gimmicks well is to give the people watching you none to minimal suspicion of the gimmick/s involved. They should be appreciating as if something miraculous has happened without the aid of gimmicks.

For me, as i get more and more into magic, gimmicks start to play an important role in my magic.

What's more important is, how you perform for your audience. You can claim that the whatever ring is magical and can make things disappear or you can just make the things disappear without calling attention to the ring.

You choose.

People who are strictly against gimmicks are called purists. They believe that magic should be all REAL SKILLZ, and condemns the usage of gimmicks. Then debateing, they are quick to point out that they can perform the same effects under conditions less favourable than practised. These people have a closed mind on issues. Don't be like them, just use gimmicks whereever applicable.

Of course, don't become a walking magic shop.

I started out as a purist. Once I saw any effect that needed any form of a gaff or gimmick, i instantly switched off.

As I went by, I realised gimmicks or no gimmicks, it depends on the type of effect you want to achieve. Basically, use gimmicks if it is the most direct and the simplest way to get to where you want. If the gimmick does not help or hardly helps in any way, then use your sleight of hand.

My mindset is, you cannot always have your gimmicks with you, but you have your hands and brain with you (unless you lost them in a freak accident of some sort).

Example: An NFW effect, twisting the aces plot. Would I rather use a gimmick (NFW) or would I use a gimmickless, pure skill method (Kevin Ho's Re-Turn of the Kings, Twisting the Aces, my own Royale Twist)? Although NFW is cleaner when counting the cards and all that, audiences are equally amazed by your Elmsleys. So I would use a gimmickless method here.

Actually it depends on how "deep" you want your magic to go.

I mean if I can vanish a coin with sleights, why would I bother to spend the money to get a Raven? My take is, any effects that can be accomplished by hands, don't use gimmicks.

Of course, I do have my share of gimmicks (dark card, IT, ID) and I agree that you need some gimmicks to achieve certain effects which are impossible by using hands alone but usually I find I very rarely used it again, unless under special occassion (as I am not a pro perfomer).

It would be more pratical and cost-saving for people like me. Just my humble opinion.

if you're not working, not performing for public, i'd suggest you go for no gimmick.

sleight of hand will do
but surely, gimmick will give a much more bigger impact and you cant focus on your presentation and showmanship if you're using a gimmick.

yep, i agree too

for starters, jsut use sleights, improve your presentations, usually effects with gimmicks would take you more time to master (varies on gimmicks), your style should be so good that no one actually thinks of examining the gimmicks.

My take is to use gimmicks all the time because sleightless magic kicks ass. Of course make sure it doesn't affect your style as a magician, both dressing and flow of effects.

Gimmicks or not doesn't matter so much to me.
I think i will take whatever that will have the best impact on the audience.
Presentation would be more important i think...

Though i will generally agree that if the trick can be accomplished by sleight of hand, sleight will be a better option.
(considering that you'll be able to do it anytime and you end clean.)

A.

I really feel that if it fits your presentation and style, gimmick or no gimmick doesn't really matter.. No point being a purist.. Whatever works best.
But then again, no matter where you are or what you do, this kind of arguments always come up.. Like being a designer, there are always people who use plugins while others slog with pure photoshop skills.. Ha..

Ah yes, just to add.. Like my friend always say, whatever makes you happy man!

Tommy Wonder said something about this in his book, Books of Wonder.

He said there are 3 Pillars of Magic: Psychological, Manipulation (sleights and moves), and Mechanical (gaffs and special gimmicks).
To bring out all the potiential, one should be well versed in all 3 pillars of magic. Because to neglect one is to be greatly disadvantaged. To neglect one is to close door to a whole world of possibilities.
It is a waste to focus too much on one aspect and neglect the wisdom of the other pillars.
One is not better than the other, they are just different possibilities and tools to use.

For the most potent magic, all 3 aspect should be deployed, even better if they can all be employed in the same effect (ala The Ring, The Watch, and The Wallet).


A little side-track, but according to Tommy, magic is possible with Psychology and Manipulation, or Psychology and Mechanical, but magic is NOT POSSIBLE without Psychology (i.e. Manipulation + Mechanical).
Therefore, psychology is the most important element, and sleights and gimmicks are just tools to assist the psychological aspect of an effect.

"Being weak or unknowledgeable in one or more of the three pillars of magic is not uncommon. If you are not well versed in psychology, however, you can stop right now. Magic will not be possible. For, as we have just discussed, how can you hope to change your audiences' thoughts without the use of other thoughts. So if one is not well versed in psychology, one must learn it or forget magic completely. Coin collecting is a pleasurable hobby too."

Makes you think doesn't it? It sure made me think. Compared to the time we spent on practising sleights and researching/finding gimmicks, how much of our time we spent on understanding the psychology of magic, the most important element. B)

And i don't have photographic memory. I just happen to be re-reading his book recently :g:

that was a good piece of article, aloy

very true

this topic makes me think of another one.

Gimmick vs Setup

would you rather do a setup before a trick performance or a gimmick?

For example, a card trick that require a four of a kind to be setup on top of the deck, or even worst a whole deck stack.

lolz abit :off:

http://forums.singaporemagiccircle.com/ind...?showtopic=4100

Probably my earlier thread can give you an answer. B)

A pro once told me that as you do more and more magic (maybe professionally), gimmicks are a way to help save time, conserve energy, and ensure better success. Imagine having to do pure sleights for maybe 4 hours straight. It would be tiring...

I think learning sleights are important because it teaches you misdirection, angles, the value of hard practice, inspires creativity, and most of all, teaches you some basic principles of magic.

For instance, a certain move one sometimes see in an ACR can be accomplished via a double-b****r card or an impromptu double-b****r (by putting two cards together f*** to f***). The first method is definitely easier, while the second method forces you to think of how to get rid of the reversed card.

The different dynamics coming into play here are: For the gaffed method, you can focus purely on presentation and don't have to worry as much about getting spotted or screwing up; while the gaffless method will force you to pay more attention to misdirection, angles, getting used to preformance pressure etc.

I don't think it's just a coincidence that most people who uses gaffs or gimmicks are already accomplished magicians who are skilled in sleight of hand. This actually reminds me of the story of how Lennart Green was disqualified from the FISM competition (I think) because the judges were convinced he was using stooges to shuffle the cards for him. The next year he came back, insisted the judges themselves shuffle the cards and very easily won the competition. :P

Anyway, building upon the previous para, I don't think it's a coincidence either that most beginner magic books/courses/dvds teach and advocate learning of sleights first THEN introduce gaffs.



And Aloy has just tempted me to get Books of Wonder. :( :( :( Sighhhhh....

On a side-note, I blame the new slew of "street" magicians for this! :P
Having totally visual effects that stun, shock, and "kill" people is but one part of a total magic performance...

And oh I hope people don't take this "psychology" to mean what Derren Brown claims to be doing... That's erm... something else.

I suggest people who are interested in this and more try some of the older literature that are available on the net. Try "Our Magic" by Maskelyne and somebody else I forgot, and also the Fritzkee Trilogy.

More contemporary stuff would be Ken Weber, Henning Nelms, and Darwin Ortiz. Books of Wonder has been mentioned above liao, and if you feel ready to take on the heavy stuff, try Kenton Knepper. :lol:

recently, whenever me and some of my buddies are discussing an effect or a routine, we started developing a habit of asking :-

"what does the laypeople audience see?"


then start from there and find a way to fine tune it.

I've always pretty much been a purist.
Sleight of hand has offered me an extremely rewarding life thus far.
That said, I still use gimmicks to a certain extent.
I work on effects using the sleight of hand approach, and when I see that a gimmick would neaten or tighten things up and eliminate illogical sequences, then I'd use it.
I just approach the use of gimmicks (and anything else in magic and performance) by it being a performance choice and as a tool, and not because it's available or it makes things "easier".

I just approach the use of gimmicks (and anything else in magic and performance) by it being a performance choice and as a tool, and not because it's available or it makes things "easier".

Haha.. Nique.. That's a little profound over there.. Hm.. Mind elaborating a little more?

Sure...

Meaning to say, for example...

I'd use a gimmicked card if it were to serve my purpose, and not because it's available or it makes things easier from a technical perspective.
I can only think of it as using it because the look of the effect calls for it, and not "for the sake of it".
I know some who abuse their use because it makes things easier or because they have it, or so they don't have to practice so hard. While that may be true, it's the wrong mentality to have to towards the use of gimmicks.

Hope that's better?

hmm... gimmick vs. ungimmick? personally, i prefer ungimmick.

1st of all, it's normally cheaper. Being a student, that's a huge plus point for me! hehe...

2nd, ungimmick is usually a skill or sleight of hand, in which case, when facing a heckler, there's always a way to slip a lil and you can make the heckler think the trick was something else.
Like when doing ambitious card, if you simply riffle the cards, often, the heckler thinks that your move was in the riffle.

BUT ultimately, the best reason for using ungimmicked props is, they can be examined at the end of the trick! it'll definitely be weird handing out a Svengali deck, but if you just do an ambitious card routine with a normal bike, the spectator will be more confused later one, coz, let's face it, they ALL try and find out how it's done!

just my 2cents worth...