In your opinion, guys.... do you think:

1. If we have a choice, we should always use the simplest method to achieve an effect. Eg: Double Undercut vs Pass.

Or

2. We should use the more advanced methods to let the audience feel a "superior form of magic."

Ok, for the latter view, I was paraphrazing something I read from Marlo. He mentioned that using simpler methods is actually depriving audience of seeing better magic (provided you know the harder ones).

I'm more for the first view.

Whadaya think?

If u can acheive the effect by using a simpler method y brother using another method.

Personally, I always stick by the principle of keeping an effect as simple as possible.

The magic can even be MORE superior when simple, because the audience would see less manipulation / be less confused.

Of course it also depends on what effect is performed and who the audience are. OK...Shall stop here cos' a full essay can be written on this topic. B)

If the end effect can be achieved using simpler methods, I would use the simpler method because that would leave more attention available to presentation. However, it doesn't mean that i would always use the simpler method, in cases that eg. i know your audience is more 'magic-savvy' then i would say to go with using the more difficult (and thus assuming less probability of being known by the audience) methods.

In my opinion, if the end effect was to be the same, then there wouldn't be any issue about the so-called 'more superior form of magic' because afterall, what the auadience see, regardless of the method, is the same effect.

A.

The debate on double undercut vs pass has mainly centred itself on the simplicity of the move to the magician, instead of the audience. But, if done properly and in the right context, the pass is supposed to be undetected and hence, it may appear 'simpler' to the audience (less detectable 'moves').

As a performer, i suppose one has to accept the difficulty of the methods to present a simple effect to the audience.

So my take is to ideally use the method that appears the simplest to the audience, regardless of whether or not it is simple to achieve. And I would agree largely with Marlo then, assuming those 'advanced' methods are advanced in that they achieve the same effect more economically to the audience, or they achieve a stronger effect.

I think instead of 'simpler' and 'difficult' methods, the way to approach an effect would be to determine which is the method (be it simple or difficult) that is the most imperceptible and makes the effect seem 'impossible'. That would be then be the 'better' method to achieve the effect.

AdrianLee

This is a great topic, I believe I might write quite a bit so I appreciate your patience... ^_^ So here goes:

Does Simplicity naturally equate to Beauty? I would definitely say YES, not just in magic but in many other arts & crafts or even technolgy. Only after having the privilege of reading and watching the legendary Tommy Wonder, do I realise that simplicity is such a difficult concept to grapse.

You see, there has always been a strong misconception of simple is actually "easy". This is really the greatest misconception that exists. In fact, simplicity is a concept that is so difficult and tedious to attain that it has to take substantial amount of time, effort and experience. Let me use magic here as an analogy. Very often, we see our level of experience and expertise in whatever we do as a ladder that we have to climb. We start from the very bottom and move our way up. From beginner to intermidiate to advance to professional to mastery etc... Instead of a ladder to climb I totally agree with Tommy Wonder that learning magic is not a straight line path but one of a circular motion.

You see, it starts at the beginner stage where you learn the the most elementary ideas, proceed to the advance, difficult and complex concepts and finally up to the extremely difficult. Once you've reached this stage, then it grows simpler and simpler, until the student attain full mastery which enable him to do magic in a simpler manner. This simplicity concept can only be reached through the completion of the circle, finishing at where you started from.

Therefore, by using a Double Undercut vs Pass to determine the concept of simplicity would not be accurate. As magicians, we know that a Pass is a much more advance sleight than a Double Undercut and we immediately associate it as a Stronger method. However, we sometimes fail to realise that stronger does not mean its better or simplier. A Double Undercut can actually be more superior but it really depends on what picture you want to paint in the minds of your audiences.

Remember, magic is what happens in the minds of our audiences and not what happens in their eyes. It is was what we magicians present to their eyes that paint a surreal reality in their minds that the magic is interpreted.

My 2 cents worth of comment and my apologies for the long post ... :D

Cheers
Jerome

I would use the simplest method given that it is most convincing and keeps the plot direct. However, if the more difficult method is more deceptive. Then I would opt to use that instead.

I think alot of times, we may opt for harder methods to fool our ownselves, magicians. It's probably satisfying for ourselves to know that we've attained a certain standard. But is that necessary for a layman audience?

The reason why I say this is because sometimes for us magicians, simplicity is not beautiful. Rather, the more complicated and harder it is to figure out and perform, the more beautiful it is.

Think about how many times you've seen an amazing effect being marketed, and when you buy the effect, you go...uh... *disappointment* that's it?

I agree with Jerome.

When you just started magic, you want to know the hardcore of magic, every difficult thing you want to try, the impossbile pass, the ulitmate single hand cut, etc.

But when you looked more and more, you realise that after learning so many complex move, nothing beats the outcoming of a simple act.

But not all Simplicity is beauty. Complexity has its advantages also. Since we into this topic, I can talk more about Complexity also.

Complexity can help to build up the tension, and also can help to build a safety line for you, its not a barrier, its a shout out to people that "hey this guy is for real". Complexity also helps you to realise what you good at, angles that you should handle, and from there, you learn that complexity can make simplity complex, but versa, simplity can make complexity simple.

From here, Its easy to use simple methods throughout your routine, focusing on mainly your presentation. Yes, its good, but very soon, you run out of motivations and drive. Thats where complexity comes in, the successful execution of each move, makes you proud, let you understand the hardwork put on it. Its great,

In my view, I love simple magic, but i never neglect the power of complexity, I look into a magic, look at how complex it is, the delivery power of it, and then from there, I think back, can i make it simpler for me? Thats makes the drive for me, and motivation to create my own routine. Take note, making a complex routine more complex, will only tire you out in the day, a mixture of the 2, will let you realise the importance of several acts and reasons behind the move.

Oh Jlowhy! You hit right at the spot!

After all we are entertaining the laymen not magicians. ;)

Just after I wrote on this subject, I watched the "Impossible Card Magic" by Ray ???.

After watching the video, I realized I really know nothing what is called a "advanced" sleight. Most of the sleights inside are nothing I've ever seen and to think, most of us (ok, maybe only me) think that a pass is called advanced.

Eg: A move which can show a card (sticking halfway in the deck) rising visibly up to the top.

Now I start to appreciate the beauty and application of very complex sleights.

That's Ray's Rise. Some consider it to be the hardest card sleight ever invented.

The funny thing is, I saw a magician performing it once to a layman. I don't know if it's a presentation issue, but let's just say a twirl change caused a much bigger reaction.

I love sleight of hand. I think its beautiful, but I still think that whether an effect hits hard is not dependent on the difficulty of the 'move'.

The magician's disposition, patter, etc. all work together to determine how strong an effect is.

O nce upon a time, in a land not that far away, I bought a Hypnotism flavoured effect from a land far far away. (Ok, so much for my Shrek tribute).If you read the effect description, it sounds very NLP like, very much like a Suggestion type effect. It sounded powerful, which I thought was too good to be true.

When it arrived, I opened the box and in it was a sheet of paper and a certain something. And I couldn't even use the something due to certain reasons which i shall not reveal. The instructions on the piece of paper was 2 or 3 paragraphs long. It was very very simple. No script, no NLP, no wonder words.

I was very disappointed but decided to perform it anyway so I searched for an alternative to the "gimmick".

I tried it out on a group of magicians, and I got really good reactions for it. Everyone was stumped.
I tried it out again 2 weeks ago on a real audience during a stage performance at a luncheon, the reactions were very good. I've since modified it and I'm gonna use this as my closer as I feel it is very strong.

The beauty of it is, it was so simple, that I almost didnt have to do anything at all during the performance, and I had a 10 minutes act. That freed me up to concentrate on my presentation instead..so I hammed it up with the "suggestions" theme totally, which was a total misdirection.

I am a believer of Simplicity is Beauty. Truly.

Matt, you are right. Raise Rise is an extremely difficult sleight and gaining mastery in it is considered a great achievement. That's why it is something that magicians would be "wowed" by because we understand the skill and work that goes into it.

Unfortunately, layman aren't exactly that impressed by it. An ambitious ending with a bent card would probably surprise them more than raise rise.

IF you could get the same respond doing it the easily way why do the harder way?

Simple to magician or simple to audience?

For example, to get ready for a DL, would you:
1) do a thumb count, and transfer to pinky b***k
2) pinky count
3) push over get ready that is so common
4) do a strike DL that doesnt require a get ready.

in order of simpliest too most difficult for magician would be:
3,1,4,2
the most moveless for audience would be:
2,4,1,3
(feel free to disagree)

my point is that many of us think that we can use any method to accomplish a DL get ready for example, the reality is that they are different in the spectator's mind. Many of us feel that since we know the easiest method to do a sleight, we would not bother to learn the more difficult ones that would accomplish the same thing. But if you think about it, when you do something that seems as sleightless as possible, than it becomes more magical?

ZiAn

I just do a DL without any preparation or pinky. What for? It only makes it more suspicious. If you can do it naturally without any pinky break, just do it.

Back to the topic, Tommy Wonder a master of magic says that we should not strive to make magic more practical. The more practical it is, the less beautiful it gets.

Extremely difficult sleights, mastered technically, should look beautiful. The reason why most 'complex' magic does not look as wonderful as 'simple' magic is because we have not mastered the complex sleights.

Thats what I think at least.

Sorry Blackwing, care to elaborate a bit more?

I don't exactly get the meaning of the more practical it is, the less beautiful. Perhaps you could give an example.

Does being practical necessarily sacrifice beauty?

i think he means practical in the sense that it is easy for the magician to do. So if we always search for the easiest sleights to do, it may sometimes undermine that beauty of the effect.

for example, if you do a classic f****, it would be different with a riffle f****, right? although it accomplishes that same thing.

Blackwing i hope i got what you were trying to say

ZiAn

ZiAn, you are almost right.

In Blackwing's comment, it means that, the more we try to make it simple, more sense(to us magicians, not the audience) It will diminish the effect on the complex tone.

The example is not right. Practical as in, we made the task easier for us, but it will affect the flow of magic somehow. Some effects, though the sleights are extreme difficult to master, but because of the sleights, it makes the effect sensable, and understandable, making it much easier for us, may tell the audience, "is that it?"

But all by all, not all effects is true for simplicity, but its how perfect we want to carry out the effect to the audience, because alot of time, we forget how the audience will think but always think in terms of magicians.

I'd use the method "Most convenient" and "most magical"

While it is more simple to do the double undercut,
I'd rather do a Pass and remind the spectator that I haven't done anything to the pack.

R™

I think the most important thing is YOURSELF !!! and where your level is at magic !

i've seen people do passes that are sooo invisible and amazing but then their presentation sucks !

i've also seen people ( including myself ) that do double undercut that looks pretty suspicious and dodgy!

so just find the stuff that u can pull off the best at ur level while u practise that pass till u're ready to do it !

tha'ts more important ! finding stuff u can pull off really well !

Simplicity may be a form of Beauty as in design or programming and so on, but in magic I think the key is, is it entertaining?

Advance or complication sleight/method is prove to your good dexterity and flexibility of your character, but I think it also leads to is it entertaining or boring to your audience?

Following the script or methods provided, practice and test it out, after sometime, I think you should evenually change or edit those mostly used to suit and fit into your character on performance. :)

I think the problem here is that everyone is viewing simplicity on a one-dimension level and I strongly suggest reading Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles.

Ortiz talks about two different realities: The outer (audience) reality and the inner (magician) reality.

A summary of what I have read is, in order for it to be most magical, you must use the ones with the least moves with regards to the outer reality, regardless of how it is in the inner reality. I believe this describes it best.


One example:

In the inner reality, the double undercut and the pass are just one sleight.

In the outer reality, the pass is zero moves, while the double undercut is two moves. Which is more magical? The pass, of course. The audience thinks, "I just put it in the deck and it went right to the top. What the F?" How much more magical can you get?

Added:
Ortiz also says that we magicians tend to think of things in only one dimension: magicians. We forget that the audience, without our magical knowledge, tend to go for the most obvious and logical reason, no matter how illogical the move may be. How did that card get in there? He palmed it of course! So in order to create a magical effect, eliminate the most direct way, either by changing the time at which you do it, or other various methods. For a more comprehensive answer, please do read this book of his. It is worth your money and time!

I hope this helps.

I think this quote that a popular indian magician once said would pretty sum up my exact sentiments regarding all this debate...

I can't remember where I read this, but I'm quite sure I've quoted it correctly.

Manuj Chandra Sharma once said this,

"You have in your arsenal one of the most powerful concepts to create an aura of disbelief for your audience. But no. You don't care about your audience.

You want to prove to yourself that after weeks of practice you can pull a fancy move so that you can feel great that others can't do it and that you are more dedicated and hard working than the rest.

But from the Audience point of view, that proves nothing.
The Audience does not see the sleights... they see magic"

Thus I sincerely believe that it's really up to the individual.
And personally I'd rather go for simplicity or rather...
Things that "seem" simple :)

R™

Haha, and I'd go for the one that seems the most magic! :)