The GOOD GLOMMKEEPING Seal of Approval

We are firmly entrenched in the era of online magic demos. It's a far cry from the early 90s when I was first seriously getting into magic. Back then the information you had about an effect was limited. You were lucky if you had a vague description in a Hank Lee ad and a fucking illustration of what the effect may look like (based, apparently, on the recollection of one stoned spectator, weeks after the performance). 

There are some old fossils out there who will make a convoluted argument that it was somehow better when you didn't know what you were buying. There is no rational argument for this. This is just the blathering of people who conflate "different than what I grew up with" with "bad." This is a mental illness and is essentially a form of narcissism. "This is how thing were when I grew up, so this is how things should be. Cryptic, nebulous magic ads. Real bread, baked in an oven, by my loving mother. Songs you can understand the lyrics to. Basketball players in silky shorts, with a tidy part in their hair, making crisp bounce-passes to their teammates for a proper set-shot. Polio. Institutionalized racism. This was the America of my youth. And it's the proper America." 

That's not to say most magic demos are any good. They stink, of course. It's a lot of arty farty bullshit, followed by a couple out-of-context shots of the trick with some weird film effect laid on top, then some reaction shots by people hamming it up for the camera. (If you make any magic purchase based on the reaction of spectators in a demo, you're a total sucker. Even when the reactions are genuine (and they're often not), they're filtered through the role they're playing of "impressed magic spectator.")

But magic marketers are in a tough position. Often a complete uncut demo will—upon multiple viewings—reveal the method to a trick. Or a moment that would otherwise fly by people in reality will draw attention to itself in a demo. Or you might be selling a presentation more-so than a method, so a full demo would almost be giving the trick away for free. And so what we get are chopped up demos that give you no idea of what the trick looks like in performance. Or you get a mostly full demo with one big, honking cut in the middle and you're thinking, "What on earth happens at that point?"

It's a problem for both marketers and consumers, but I have the solution.

The Global League of Magicians & Mentalists is the largest magic organization in the world. And it's a completely unbiased organization (unless you're a sex-criminal or an asshole).

Now, this is one of those things that I'm 100% serious about but people will think is a joke. And by "one of those things," I mean, "everything I write on this site."

I'm completely genuine about The GOOD GLOMKEEPING Seal of Approval.

Here's how it works. Let's say you're a magic production company. Let's say you're SansMinds. You have this effect you want to put out but you know a full, un-cut demo will ultimately be worked over and scrutinized to the point where people will understand the basics of the method and with that, people will think they know all they need to know. You want to put out a demo that won't reveal the method but that people will know is still an accurate representation of the effect.

So you email me and apply for the GOOD GLOMKEEPING Seal of Approval. What that will entail is you performing the effect for me over Skype. I'll ask you to perform it as if you were walking up to me to perform it cold. So if you need to borrow items, you can't already have them in your hand set to go. I'll want to see you get into and out of the effect.

Essentially, the GGSoA is a way to put out a demo that is incomplete in some way, but to have an independent 3rd party verify that whatever was cut out is not something that would be noticeable to a lay audience when presented by a competent performer. 

Why am I the person to be that independent 3rd party? Well, because I don't give a shit about any of you, good or bad—at least not as far as your magic releases go. I have no real grudges or loyalties. I have nothing to gain by saying something is good if it isn't. I'm pathologically rabid about being fair in situations like this. And I'm smart enough and have enough performing experience to recognize a legitimate withholding of information (e.g., "we cut the switch of the billet because it's noticeable on video, but wouldn't be when properly executed in person") from an illegitimate withholding of information (e.g., "We cut out the part after he says, 'Name any number,' when he says, 'under 50, with two odd digits, that are different.' People never remember those limitations." (Oh yes they do.))

To be clear, the Seal of Approval doesn't say it's a good trick. That's too subjective. The seal is there to say it's a fair demo. This allows magic companies to produce a demo that doesn't give away a trick. And it allows consumers to know the demo isn't keeping anything from them that would be a dealbreaker if they knew about it. So, while I might think the trick stinks, it's not because of a misleading demo.

If you are a magic producer you have nothing to lose. Apply for the seal by emailing me. We'll set up a time to have you demo it for me. Either I'll award your product the seal, or I won't. If I don't, you're no worse off—there is no anti-seal of approval. And if you get it, you can let people know that you received this seal of approval, from a pretty well-known, independent source, stating your demo is fair. There will also be a post on this site indicating your product has received the GOOD GLOMKEEPING Seal of Approval, with your demo embedded in the post. It's essentially a free ad on the most popular (by a long-shot) magic blog on the internet. 

If you're a magic consumer and you see a demo that is obviously incomplete and the person behind it is on the message boards saying, "No. No. You can place your pre-order. I swear, what we cut out isn't important." Feel free to suggest they apply for the GGSoA. If they refuse, you can be pretty sure they've got something to hide.

Will anyone take me up on this? I won't hold my breath, but we'll see.

I think these kids are about to jump this squirrel.

An Apology

First, a book update. It's at the printer now and is hopefully going to be in my hands, ready to be shipped out at the end of August. This is my first time publishing a book and what I'm learning is that it's a series of small delays that you have no control over. That's why I like writing a blog. There's no one else to rely on. At the moment there is a delay in the processing because the way I'm doing the cover requires them to stamp flat sheets so that the debossing can bleed. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!! That has been the most difficult part of this process—the fact that I know nothing about the process. I'm doing this primarily by myself with the help of a couple friends who are handling the interaction with the printer, but they don't have any book publishing experience either. But, thats also the fun part for me—learning something new. And I wanted to farm out as little as possible on the book because I wanted it to feel like the blog feels, like there's a person behind it that you can recognize.

So, anyway, my point here is I can either just say, "You'll get it eventually," or I can give estimated dates that may have to be pushed back depending on the printing/delivery process. I've chosen the latter. As of now we're looking at an end of August delivery, I'm hoping.

Now I want to make an apology. Once or twice a week I'll get an email that says, "I just found out about your site, is there a way I can still get the book? Can I get it with the bonus book? And the app? Can I get the newsletter? Can I pay via the Coffee Club." Or similar words expressing the idea, "I'm late to the game, is there still some way I can get on board with what you have to offer?" Going forward, the answer to this is sadly going to be "no." And it's not NO because I'm trying to be a dick. It's NO because I'm trying to be fair to the people who were supporting this site early on. 

I was never selling a book. In October of last year I gave people the opportunity to support the site to keep it around for the coming year. In return, early adopters got a year's subscription to my review newsletter, the iphone app, the Amateur at the Kitchen Table book, The Jerx Volume One, and I'd write a post about anything they wanted. I was following the public television model. Pledge your support and get these things in return. 

After that initial donation period, anyone who pre-ordered would get the iphone app, TAATKT, and the Jerx Volume One, until the point where the book was sent to the printing company.

It's always been super important to me honor my pledge to the people who supported this site early on. So I've taken the bonuses off the table as those offers passed. And while it may seem like a dick think to do, for example, to not offer the newsletter for free to those who bought the book recently; I'm not trying to be a dick to those people, I'm trying to be fair to the people to whom I said, "You'll get this free, but only if you order now." You know?

Now that the book is at the printers, all of that is off. There are still ways to get all of these things individually but they're even more expensive. And that's where the apology is coming in.

But first, I want to mention why the book project didn't go off as I originally planned. I was explaining this to a friend of the site via email recently so I'm just going to copy and paste it here:

I think, originally, my plan was sound. I was going to see how many orders came in and if I reached a certain level I would continue the site and then gather the best posts for a book at the end of the year. And if I didn't reach that certain level I would stop doing the site, and just write the book in my free time for those who did order. 

Then, when the initial orders came in, I was just under where I thought I wanted to be to keep the site going and I made the dumb decision to continue the site but to keep all my strongest tricks going forward for the book. So instead of just duplicating the posts from my site in the book with some rewrites and illustrations, I was in a position of making fresh content for the site and fresh content for the book. I doubled my work like a numbskull. 

So, instead of the book just becoming a "best of" from this site, the book became it's own thing. And I think it turned out pretty damn good. And so my apology is to those people who find out about this site and the book sometime in the future and they want their own copy and they find out it's now $1200 or something ludicrous. That's only because, at that point,  I'll be selling one of my last few copies that otherwise would go to my grandkids or something.

The high price and exclusivity of the book is not intended to punish late-comers, its only a result of keeping a promise to the people who had my back early on. Had I known I would be writing one of the greatest magic books ever and the bible for 21st century magic, I probably would have planned a different distribution strategy, but it is what it is. 


For those Jerx completists out there who are late to this site, here is how and when the various bonus items are available.

The Jerx, Volume One - Is currently $300 with no extras. I know, crazy, right? And it's only going to go up (with no warning) from here. See the link at the top of the page.

The Amateur at the Kitchen Table - This will be a 36-page physical book, available separately in a month or two for $20ish, shipped. Essentially it's a compilation of my thoughts on the presentation of amateur/non-professional magic. The content is all new, but the ideas are similar to what I've proferred throughout this site.

The X-Communication Newsletter - Goes to people who donated last October. People who ordered the book at a later point can also get all this year's issues for a $12 donation. Email me if you're interested.

The Friends of the Jerx post - This is essentially like an ad or sponsored post (and is marked as such), except with two differences, one good and one bad. The good difference is it actually gets read. The bad is that I write it and you have no editorial control (this is why it gets read). Email me for a price point because I just base it on the average number of readers. 

The iPhone app - This will be officially available at some point in the future. The version people have now doesn't have the main functionality, but it will at the next update around the time the book is released. There is a routine in the book that uses the app, but it's a utility app that can be used in a bunch of different situations (stage, close-up, street). I have been using it for the most convincing faux-hypnosis routine recently and it kills people. It's such a subtle idea; very different than any other magic app out there at the moment. And, as a bonus, it leaves a souvenir of the effects on their phone. There will be a free ebook with additional ideas released when the new version comes out. 

 

Presenting the Unpresentable

For me, there is almost a meditative/therapeutic quality in the process of going through a new card magic book and working through the effects. This is especially true with tricks that are self-working. I count the cards, deal the cards, cut the cards... go through whatever process the trick requires and at the end something amazing—or at least interesting—has occurred. 

In the past, these tricks that I've found so pleasant to follow the steps and see how they play out, are the same tricks that I would never show real people. "Dealing tricks" and "counting tricks" or any other process-heavy tricks are often dismissed by magicians. "No real magician would do it like that." And that's true. But no real magician would be doing any of these card tricks we're doing, so that's not really a good rationale. 

In my opinion, the reason for not doing these types of tricks was simply because my audiences didn't seem to like them. If I would tear and restore a card, they were on board for that. But if I said, "Deal the cards into a pile. Stop wherever you like. Now bury the top card in the center. Turn over the new top card. Whatever the value of that card is, deal that many cards to the table," that sort of thing would, understandably, come off as rather dull.

So I spent a lot of time looking for ways to disguise the procedural elements of these sorts of tricks because I felt there was some magical merit to the ending. And if I could just get them to the end, then that would justify the time-consuming build up. But in the past couple of years, and especially so in the past 6 months, I've come around to the exact opposite position. 

The way to make a process-heavy trick interesting is not to hide the process but to focus 100% of your attention on it.

To do this you just need to create some rationale for the existence of this process and that is accomplished by a simple formula:

The name of some ethnic group or subculture
+
Some broad, intriguing concept
+
The word process or procedure (or other, more interesting, words to that effect)

You're not asking them to see a card trick. Instead you're saying:

"Shuffle this deck up. There's this Amish custom called the Rite of Fate that I read about and want to try."

"Can I get your help? In the early 20th century there was a gypsy love-beckoning ceremony that swept the nation. Supposedly my grandmother met my grandfather after performing this. I want to see if there's anything to it."

"Have you ever heard of something called the Nazi Luck Protocol? I saw it on the History channel. It used a deck of cards...."

I've found that you can generate great interest for process-heavy tricks from the type of spectators you might never suspect would sit still for this sort of thing as long as you concentrate their attention on the process. 

If you approach someone and say, "Would you like to see a magic trick?" and then commence a procedure with a lot of counting and cutting, it's understandable that they're not engaged, because that's not what they associated with anything magical.

But if you say, "I want to try this old Apache coincidence ritual I read online." Then they become interested in the process itself. What is an Apache coincidence ritual? I don't know, but it sure sounds intriguing. And even if the process consists of the same dull actions, it still presents some level of fascination because it's not clear where it's going.

If you've ever read someone's tarot cards you find they invest a lot into the mixing and cutting involved, even if they don't believe in that sort of thing. They want to invest in the process because you've given it some importance. That's what you're doing here too. "I found the instructions for this old Carnie Good Fortune procedure folded up on a sheet of paper in my grandmother's bible. Apparently if you follow it something pretty crazy happens." 

Below is the video for John Bannon's Collusion from his recently released Move Zero DVD.

On the Cafe, Ross W writes:

Clever, Very, very clever. But my God, boring. "You cut some cards, now you cut some cards, now count them, we combine the numbers.. no, wake up, we're only halfway through! Blah blah blah zzzzzzzz"

How many of you EVER get to perform tricks like "Collusion"? It's long, procedural, and (dare I say) confusing. When on earth does someone perform this stuff? More to the point: WHY? I can understand it if the reaction you seek is, "Hmp. Interesting." But otherwise, in my experience, there are very few times when people are sitting down, attentive, sober and dead keen to see a longish trick that requires a lot of explanation. 

On one level, Ross' criticism makes sense. This is not the effect you would do if you wanted to create the most "magical" impression on someone and you had one trick to do it with. But, as I wrote in my July 15th post, I want a repertoire with material of varying intensities. This is, I think, a low intensity trick, but one that fools people. And it's a perfect trick to focus on the process and get them intrigued with the process. Think back to the Rick Lax videos that have 50 million views. They're not the ones with the strongest/most straightforward magic tricks. They're the ones that engage the watcher in a process that they take an integral part in. You can do a similar thing with these "long, procedural, boring" card tricks too. Especially when presented in casual situations.

What would I couch the process for this trick in? I don't know... maybe, "Have you two ever heard of Scientology's Relationship Compatibility test? Well, you know all those scientology relationships are completely bogus, it's all for show. But they still want to put together people with some sort of chemistry and apparently L. Ron Hubbard created this test to find if people we're on the same wavelength. I'm sure it's nonsense, and the odds of it working out are astronomical...but it's fun to try."

"I wrote down the instructions. Let's see... Ok, Amy, take the deck. Imagine you're on an elevator going up and down in a 20 story building. You stop on one floor, the doors open, and Tom is waiting there. Look up and note what floor you're on. Deal that many cards. Now Tom, you do the same..." blah, blah, and so on and so on. "The two of you have come together to create a card which no one could have known. And the two of you have come together to create a number which—at this point—no one does know. In Scientology, depending on how far away your card is from that number, that would indicate your suitability. According to Xenu, at least."

I'm just spitballing here. The point is not to come up with a premise for the trick. The point is to come up with a premise for the process. Don't even worry about the trick aspect. That just happens at the end. "Wow, you found the mate to every card in the deck." "Wow, you dealt to a four-of-a-kind." "Wow, the one card you created together is at the number you created together."

"Maybe there is something to this Bald Knobbers purification ritual."

Stepping Out Onto the PATEO

The PATEO force has its detractors, and rightfully so. The process-y nature of the selection can come off as a bit odd in its indirectness. And the last elimination, as it's traditionally made by the magician, is often seen as a weakness because it seems questionable that the magician is the one to make this final choice.

As far as the procedure goes, I think it has its place. (And I will get into that when I write more about process heavy tricks and how I've been performing them recently in my next post.)

Regarding that last elimination, I feel it's actually a mistake to change things up at the end and turn it into bad magician's choice ("Hand me either object"). You've gone from a very deliberate and explicit process where you're both clearly indicating which item you want to be eliminated to a wishy-washy meaningless action. Not good. 

What follows is the way I get into the PATEO force. It has two benefits to it. The first is that it makes the whole procedure seem a little more free from the start. And the second is that it lessens the notion that you had to be the person doing the picking at the end, because it seems like it was the spectator's choice that determined that. I've been doing this technique for years and I thought it was pretty standard, but it wasn't mentioned in Jason Messina's recent ebook that exhaustively covers the PATEO force, Mental Zen: Volume One. And when I performed it recently for a couple knowledgable magicians, they hadn't seen this way of getting into it before. So maybe it's not standard (if you've seen it before, let me know so I can credit it or—more likely—remove this post altogether).

Here is the normal way of getting into the PATEO force as taken from Messina's book:

The first rule to remember is, when there are an odd number of items on the table, the performer must go first. When there are an even number the spectator goes first. By going first, I mean the person will select two items and then the other person will eliminate one of them. "Eliminating" means you set it aside from the main group of items.

But in reality, each "round" of the PATEO force involves both people, so you can apparently give the spectator the choice of who "goes first." 

Here's how that would sound:

"We're going to narrow this group of objects down to one, and here's how we'll do it. We'll go back and forth with one person nominating two items for elimination and the other person eliminating one of those items. Do you want to pick first or do you want me to?"

If there are an even number and she says she wants to pick first, you say:

"Okay, pick two items and I'll eliminate one." 

If there are an even number and she says she wants you to pick first, you say:

"Okay, I'll go first. So you just have to nominate any two items and I'll pick which one is eliminated."

If there are an odd number and she says she wants to pick first, you say:

"Okay, you'll go first. I nominate... this one and this one.... Pick which one goes."

If there are an odd number and she says she wants you to pick first, you say:

"Okay, I'll pick... this one and this one.... Which one do you want to eliminate?"

You see what we're doing here, yes? We're taking the two actions—the nomination and the elimination—and depending on which one we need them to do, we're applying the verb "pick" to either action.

Not only does this allow you to start with any number of objects, it also allows your spectator to seemingly pick the order you do things in. And that means when you get to the end you don't have to justify why you're doing the final elimination. You're doing the final elimination because that's the order she chose to go in. 

I share the belief of many that the PATEO force should only be done with (apparently) indistinct objects: face-down playing cards, things in envelopes, things in bags, business cards with things written on them face down. Done with distinct objects, presented openly, the force will be transparent to a certain percentage of people no matter what verbal or psychological subterfuge you bring to it.

As for what to do with the PATEO force, that's kind of up to you. I don't usually use it on its own. It's a small part of a couple much larger effects I do that I may write up some day. Although I do think it's perfect for some "minor effects" (as discussed last week).

If you're ever sitting around with someone wondering "what should we do tonight" you can write down a bunch of suggestions on index cards or business cards, then go through the PATEO process to "leave it up to fate." Every card that gets eliminated has something on it like, "Drop in at the old-folks home and sing them some songs from their youth," or, "Go door-to-door collecting canned goods for the soup kitchen," or, "Read our favorite bible verses to each other." But the one you end up with is something like, "Taste test my cum before and after drinking a gallon of pineapple juice." 

"Well, fate has spoken," you say as you drop your pants.

More Magic Crapé

Apparently kissdadookie has responded to my last post on the Magic Cafe. I haven’t read it because… well… because I don’t really give a shit. There are a ton of people on the Cafe I disagree with, but I don't have the time to argue back and forth with them. And besides, that style of performance that he is advocating—a style predicated on you assuming your audience is too stupid to put two and two together—is not even worthy of debate, in my opinion. It's really a mindset that has held back magic for a century. Out-of-touch performers, underestimating the people they perform for, and alienating their audiences. It doesn't bother me that kissdadookie or anyone else wants to perform in this way. I think it's great. It makes me look so much better by comparison. Keep doing what you're doing.

Regarding Decibel. Like most every other trick it has flaws. That doesn’t mean it's bad. But it’s hard to address those flaws when you have your head in the sand. Or—as is apropos in the case of kissdadookie, someone whose screen-name glorifies the fecal-oral route— your head up your ass. 


Speaking of Classic Cafe, the Cafe has been deleting posts and entire threads in order to protect someone they deem above the usual riffraff on that site… just like the good old days!

Here is one of the emails I received on the subject:

Bob Cassidy (I’m still a fan) has written, or so he claims, an ebook on drawing dupes. Only 50 copies available. They would be sent 5 days after he received payment because he had to encode some security measures into each book. In a couple of days, the book was sold out, but up until now no one has received it.

His excuses: a flood in his apartment, an abduction, and a cold. Multiple times he promised to deliver in a couple of days. Some buyers became unhappy (including me) and we posted our thoughts in the thread where he posted the first announcement. It was already 5 pages long. This thread is now gone (but still in Google’s archives), just as our questions on his facebookpage.

So, legendary mentalist, Bob Cassidy says he has already written an ebook on drawing dupes. 50 are available and they’ll be sent out a few days after those 50 are sold. The 50 then get sold and now it’s weeks later and there’s no sign of the ebook anywhere and any questions about it on the Cafe are immediately deleted. 

Now look, I have no problem with the Cafe deleting threads about this site. I like it. They’re doing me a favor. They’re just reinforcing my brand. Those goofballs. It would be like if I worked for Gatorade and some fan of the drink left a bunch of bottles of Gatorade on a table at the mall. And then the people at the mall were like, “Haha, we’ll show you! We’re going to go out and quench a bunch of people’s thirst with this Gatorade!” It’s like, yeah, that’s the point. The fact that the Cafe still deletes threads about this site is a point of pride for me. Keep at it dumdums. 

The Bob Cassidy ebook release is probably completely legit. And he has probably just had some unforeseen setbacks. That’s all fine. But what makes it not seem fine is when there is a policy in place on the Cafe to delete any posts/threads that question what’s going on. Then it seems sketchy as fuck. And it boggles my mind that Bob Cassidy, whose career is theoretically based on understanding how people think, doesn’t get this. Asking the Cafe to delete threads that might raise some concerns or put you in a not-so-great light is one guaranteed way to be seen as being not on the up and up. 

The correct way to deal with this situation—the correct way to deal with any situation where you fuck up—is to just mea culpa all the way and then go about making it right. To try and cover your tracks and delete any evidence of your transgressions, those are the actions of a scumbag. (Which I don’t believe Bob is. And he is certainly free to clarify the situation with me if he wants and I’ll post it here.)

The Cafe certainly has the ability to control the narrative in these sorts of situations. They can delete posts to make it seem like certain things never took place and certain promises never were made. But that seems like a monumentally douchey thing to do for a site that claims to be about "magicians helping magicians." 

I would like to encourage people in Bob's situation to take corrective actions rather than evasive ones in these types of situations, so I have a new policy here. Any time the Cafe chooses to delete a thread to cover for someone, rather than let the details of the situation remain for all to see, I will make a post about the situation on my site. So, if you’re going to petition the Cafe to remove any posts that make you look bad, you’ll be rewarded with a post here talking about how you’re getting the Cafe to remove posts that make you look bad. And guess what… this site has more readers than any given Cafe thread. And the posts have more longevity. So you’re shooting yourself in the dick if that’s the route you take.

I'm just a magician helping magicians.


Do any of you who have paid for a “Broadcast Message” on the Cafe remember how much it costs to have Steve send out your ad copy in order for it to be immediately deleted by every member of the Cafe? I’ve always been curious about that. 

Classic Cafe: Decibel

The Magic Cafe was so much more fun back in the day when I was writing my old blog. There was really nowhere else to go so everyone mingled there: amateurs to professionals, young to old, standard brain-dead morons to the functionally retarded. 

These days it's more like that mall by your house. You know, the mall people used to go to before they built the good mall? Yeah, that one.

But you still get some classic dumbfuckery at the Cafe and every now and again readers of this site will direct me to something at the Cafe. This weekend a couple of people wrote to tell me about the thread for the new Ellusionist effect, Decibel, because it includes one of my favorite things on the Cafe. And that is when someone is questioned about something and their response is "audience management." 

Q: "How do I get the audience to not want to look at the deck of cards after it changes color?"

A: "Audience management."

That is the equivalent of this:

Q: "We're down by 6 points. The ball is on the 40-yard-line. There are three seconds left. How do we score a touchdown on this defense that has stopped our run and pass game all day?"

A: "Strategy."

It's an identical answer. You're offering a generic term for a group of techniques because you can't suggest one of the actual techniques that would help. It suggests you have no clue what you're talking about. I hesitate to point this out because I love when dumb people use it on the Cafe and I don't want them to get wind of the fact that it identifies them as being dumb. 

Decibel is an effect where you take the the spectator's unplugged headphones in your fingers and cause them to hear audio coming from the headphones. If you have an accomplice you can cause them to hear pretty much any song they can name, without one you are limited to causing them to hear a forced selection.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the effect. As presented in the abhorrent 7-minute demo (get an editor, Ellusionist), the effect is that a spectator freely names a song and that song comes out of their headphones. I'm not sure if the effect is supposed to be that the magician is causing the spectator to think they're hearing the song or if the magician is causing the headphones to play that song while apparently not plugged into anything. In other words, is the effect "I'm messing with your mind" or "I'm messing with electronics"? I suppose it could be either one, but I'm not sure this particular effect is ideal for exhibiting either phenomenon. 

If you say, "I can make these headphones play even though they're unplugged," any reasonable spectator will say, "Ok, just let me see that they're unplugged.." 

If you say, "I can cause you to hear any song as clear as if music was actually coming from these headphones." I think you will find people think, "I think music really is coming from the headphones. I bet they're plugged into something."

That's not to say you can't adjust to their thinking, I'm sure you can. BUT...

You need to be realistic enough and smart enough to anticipate the average spectator's train of thought or you will NEVER be able to present convincing magic. 

There is one guy in that Cafe thread by the name of kissdadookie, who is clearly a master of Grand Illusion. Sorry... my voice recognition software messed up. There is one guy in that Cafe thread by the name of kissdadookie, who is clearly a master of Grand Delusion.

When someone mentioned that spectators might question why they can only see the plug before and after the effect and not during the effect, he wrote:

"How is it that it matters most to be clean when the music is playing?"

Yeah, why would that matter? Why would it matter to be clean when the effect is happening? Also, why do we put a hoop around the lady while she's floating? Why not before she lays down and then at some point later that evening?

Kissdadookie then gives us more wisdom into the workings of a spectator's mind.

 When the music/audio is playing... your spectator will be in shock because this is truly an impossible thing which is happening....There's no heat on you. 

The MOMENT when they hear audio coming out of their seemingly unplugged headphones, they will react and start thinking about what is happening perhaps how it's happening. HOWEVER, they are busy doing that during that moment but none of that actually leads for them to go "hey let me see that plug!"

The assertion that an audience will be too amazed by the impossibility of a trick to notice if what's happening is actually impossible, is one of the dumber things posted on the Cafe in its history. And that's saying something. I'm surprised he can't follow that logic to its obvious conclusion.

Kissdadookie: The audience will be so amazed they won't think to look if the headphones are plugged in.

The world: What are they so amazed at?

Kissdadookie: That there is music coming from the headphones.

The world: And why is that amazing?

Kissdadookie: Because they're not plugged into anything.

The world: So wouldn't they have to see the naked plug to know that?

Kissdadookie: Uhhh... no... they're too amazed to want to look at the plug.

Okay. That makes perfect sense. Usually the audience would have to understand something impossible is happening before being amazed by it. But kissdadookie's audience comes in pre-amazed. That must makes things a lot easier. 

When he's called out on this logic he falls back on the prototypical dipshit's argument: Only someone who "lacks performing skills" and "audience management" would be worried about an audience suspecting the earphones are plugged into something. 

Sure. You just need to manage your audience into not suspecting the headphones are producing sound by the way all headphones produce sound... being plugged into something. My style of "audience management" is to beat them in the head with a brick until they can't make this connection.

No. What you need to do is recognize a trick's flaws and compensate for them. You can tell people like kissdadookie never actually perform. It's much easier to be forgiving of the weaknesses of an effect when you never put it in front of anyone.

There some other stupidity floating around in that thread.

This guy works for Ellusionist. I don't believe for a second he actually performed it like this, but imagine if he did. You're in the audience and a spectator is brought up on stage (in a previous post he mentions there was a stage, here he says it was busking). You're told what song to project to the volunteer. The volunteer is, inexplicably, given headphones to wear. And then they claim to hear the song. Well... who is this effect for? The audience will rightfully assume she heard something through the headphones. They're too far away to tell if the headphones are plugged into anything with the plug hidden in your hand. So for them the effect is, "Someone put on headphones and was able to sign the song we were thinking of." 

It's only maybe an effect to the spectator. And then only if he un-blindfolds her. But no performer would blindfold someone, write a song on a white board, then un-blindfold her. You'd just have her turn around. Not waste a bunch of time with a blindfold. AAHHH!! Why am I looking for logic in this bogus story that never happened. 

Although he claims:

"It rocked the crowd, everything from applause to stunned, opened mouthed silence."

Here's how I imagine that stunned, open mouthed silence. 

Listen, everyone, it's so rare that you have something that is potentially this organic. A trick where you just borrow the spectator's headphones and apparently have nothing else on you. I do not understand the compulsion to add in a deck of cards or a fucking pad with force locations on it. 

And most people will have headphones on them so they can listen to music. So why take this out of the realm of music into a card trick or some other magic-y junk? (It's especially a bad idea now that Marc Kerstein has created an app that allows for a solo presentation of any song named coming from the headphones.) It is such a magician's way of thinking to remove the music aspect and turn it into some shit card trick. "Music is too personal and vital to people. Let's remove that element completely." Smart.

You guys know how earbuds work, right? First you make a little incision in your inner ear, then you jam the earbuds deep into the gooey, bloody, damaged flesh.


I may still get Decibel, I don't know. I feel like my need for a music related impromptu effect is satisfied with Marc Kerstein's Earworm. With that effect I can have my spectator think of any song and I pick up on it. Or I can send them a song I sing in my head. Those are both very powerful effects for me. 

I don't know that the "headphones are playing but they're not plugged into anything (as far as you know)" is super strong, unless the cord is dangling without you holding it. I heard about a friend of a friend in NYC who has been showing this around and every layperson has asked to see the plug when the music was playing. But maybe he's clumsy with the gimmick, I don't know.

There is one killer presentation for this that avoid all of the pitfalls. Now, this presumes the gimmick can be turned on and off with pressure. And that you could generate that pressure with your sphincter. 

Setup: Put the decibel gimmick up your butthole.

Presentation: 

"So I was out running the other day when it started to rain. Then it started to downpour. There was thunder and lightning."

"I don't really know what happened but one second I was running and the next I found myself waking up on the sidewalk. I could smell ozone and burnt hair. I think I was struck by lightning. Or it struck my iPhone or something. Look."

You take off your shirt and there is a dark burn mark in the shape of an iPhone, above your heart, where a breast pocket would be.

"And ever since this happened, I can do the craziest thing. Can I borrow your headphones?"

You undress completely, take her headphones and plug them into your butthole (and into the decibel gimmick).

"Here," you say, handing her a marker. "Write the name of any song on my chest."

She does.

"What does that say... Porcupine Pie by Neil Diamond? Hmmm... have you been listening to my sex mix? That's the first song on it."

You have her put her headphones in.

"Now press my left nipple," you say.

When she does you throw your head back and scream. That dies down after a moment but you continue to writhe and groan. After a few seconds she hears her song coming from the headphones plugged into your butt. 

After some time has passed you ask her to press your right nipple. She does and the music stops. 

You unplug her headphones and hand them back to her. 

"You can keep those," she says.

The Hedonic Treadmill and the Art of Not Always Doing Your Best

I used to think I only wanted to perform miracles. And I would look at all the material that was released to the magic community and wonder what the point of most of it was. A lot of it was good, but why perform anything unless it was absolutely devastating? Sure, maybe a restaurant magician wants to do magic that isn't overwhelmingly powerful. For the same reason restaurants have pleasant mariachi musicians stroll around and not GG Allin cover bands. 

But I was wrong about this. Even for the amateur, non-pro performer—perhaps especially for the amateur, non-pro performer—you want to have a repertoire that includes magic of various levels of astonishment. This is for the sake of getting the strongest reactions to your strongest material.

It took me longer to come to this conclusion than it should have. If you often perform for friends and family, and you only perform the most astonishing tricks, then, over time, your most astonishing tricks will start to elicit their average reaction. 

This is similar to the concept of the hedonic treadmill in psychology. If this is your introduction to the term you may find it the most empowering or the most depressing idea you've encountered in a while. The concept—or my bastardized interpretation of it for our purposes—suggests that happiness is something of a fixed state and once we adapt to a new circumstance we revert to that level of happiness. So if you win the lottery or if you have your hand blown off by a firecracker, you will at first deal with the highs or lows of that situation, but then you'll eventually return to the level of happiness that is your natural set-point.

If, like me, you're a generally positive, happy person, then this is great news, because it means no matter what bad things happen, you will likely, eventually return to that positive state.

If you are an unhappy person and if you think happiness is around the corner once you get married or get a particular job or something, this is bad news because it suggests your long-term happiness won't be found in these external circumstances. But maybe you can flip that around on itself as well and say, "I'm unhappy. And I thought I was unhappy because I'm not in right circumstances. But if circumstances don't really create that type of happiness, then maybe I can just choose to be happy where I am now." I don't know. This isn't a self-help blog.

Whenever I think of the hedonic treadmill, I think of the remake of The Dawn of the Dead. That's a near perfect horror movie in my opinion. And one thing I think they got right, that you don't see in a lot of zombie movies, is the montage where things have just sort of settled down a little. These people are living in a mall, surrounded by zombies, but eventually that just becomes your new reality and you go back to being the person you were before.

Where am I going with this?

My point is that if you're always doing big, hard-hitting magic effects for the same people, then that becomes the new normal and you will find reactions regressing to the mean. You will still get good reactions but you will be getting good reactions to material that should get great reactions. To avoid this, you need to 

I'm not saying you should do shitty magic—I only do tricks that I think are good—but it's a question of intensity.

I think of magic like sex. (This makes perfect sense, of course. When you're world-class at two different activities it's completely understandable that you would conflate the two.) If you're having two hours of tantric sex every night, that's going to lose its charm real quick. It might always be pleasurable and you might always enjoy it, but it will become too common to be magical.

Dammit... I keep forgetting my audience here. I can't use sex analogies. Oh... I know... let's think of a reverse situation. What if you didn't cum every time you masturbated? What if masturbation was just something you did as a mildly pleasurable activity and then 1 out of 20 times you had an orgasm? In what way would that affect you? Well, Andy, I'd masturbate 20 times more frequently. Ok, yes, I get it, no one is going to deny you your orgasm. My point being, if that was something that just occurred a few times a year it would be the highlight of your week. 

You need to hold back some with your audience. For your benefit and for theirs. If you have people in your life that you perform for regularly, think of your performances for them as one long work of art that plays out over the course of, maybe, 50 years. You don't want to be too predictable. You want them to not know if what they're about to see is a gentle brain-fingering or a true hardcore mind-fuck.

Again, this is not an excuse for doing bad magic, boring magic, self-indulgent magic, or magic that doesn't fool people. It's just about giving people different experiences with magic.

Here is, generally, how I'm trying to look at my repertoire these days.

50% - Are what I consider minor effects. 
These are primarily effects that don't involve a huge investment of time or energy from the spectator. There is an emphasis on quick, visual moments. Things done in the "Distracted Artist" style would fall into this category. On the other hand, process heavy tricks would also be in this category. I agree with the notion that process can take away from the feeling of magic, but I still like performing these types of tricks (for reasons I'll talk about next week). This category would also include things like interesting optical illusions, unusual demonstrations, and teaching tricks to the spectator.
Examples: Mark Elsdon's Conversations as Mentalism series, a quick levitation or animation with Loops, Collusion by John Bannon, Stegosaurus by Phill Smith

40% - Are what I consider major effects.
Whereas the quick tricks or the process heavy tricks in the minor effect section have no real premise or a convoluted one, the tricks in the "major effects" category have a clear premise a spectator can easily digest. The tricks in this category should also have no real "magic-y" compromises that are visible to the spectator (convoluted processes, mathematics, obvious "magic" props)
Examples: French Postcards by Chris Philpott, Earworm by Marc Kerstein, Invisible Palm Aces by Paul Harris.

10% - Are what I consider immersive effects.
These are tricks that involve a greater investment of time and/or energy on the part of the spectator. They usually have to take a more active role in the effect. And the effect is generally performed one-on-one. The result of their ownership and investment in the effect, and the one-on-one nature of the performance, will often be a more profound experience for your spectator.
Examples: At the moment, this is kind of my own schtick. There aren't really a ton of resources for this type of material other than this site and the book coming out. So... from this site: Limitless Ahead, Multiple Universe Selection, Bazillion Dollar Bill Mystery. From The Jerx, Volume One: Talisman, Pale Horse and Rider, Dream Weavers, among others.

The purpose of performing in this way is not to get you more praise. This is an audience-centric concern. You want these big effects to feel special to people. By not making it too commonplace you are giving the weight to the experience that will make it even more amazing to your spectator.