But if those magicians are entertaining/amazing their audiences, why would they have to, or even want to attempt what you "The amazing knuckle buster wizard" is doing anyway? You are speaking from that 'personal gratification' mindset I described above. It is not about you, it is about your audience.

Until many of today's magicians learn this, I am afraid their magic will have far more limitations than they even realize. Sure sleights are fun, impromptu, and usually overall pretty practical. But they are not the last word, and nor should they be overused just for sake of trying to impress oneself, or other magicians.

We are not talking about 'other magicians' being impressed, we are not talking about 'other magicians' not trying what you are doing, we are talking about obtaining the most stunning, and miraculous, magic effect possible, and utilizing any tools necessary to achieve it. Not how impressed "Joe the great" who just happened to be sitting in the back corner, was with your undetectable retention pass.

Some of my strongest effects consist of using sleights, and gimmicks, in which I already clarified. Especially my own cap in bottle routine that I devised, as well as a few variations to other existing effects, such as healed and sealed, and color monte. I use both whenever possible, and will always try to substitute gimmicks with sleights if at all possible. But this is never a pre-determined mindset based on pompous ignorance, it is based on the practicality of the moment, which in a sense is "impromptu" in itself...

agreed.

Sleights vs Gimmicks

Revised and resurrected.

I noticed recently that there is a lot of talk about how gimmicks are supposedly inferior to pure sleight of hand. So let’s take a look at the comparisons, and differences between the two. Although they should not even be being compared in the first place, only unified together as a whole to produce the strongest magic possible; and provide the most impact.

Some magicians, or even better yet “magic hobbyists,” may feel as though they are too “advanced” to deceive, or entertain an audience with “simple” methods. They assume they must employ sheer sleight of hand prowess in all their magical workings, or possibly be able to fool magicians in order to prove their interest is legitimate. However it is the audience/laymen who compensate us for our performance, not other magicians.

Some may want to be able to perform “the pass” simply because they want to impress their magic colleagues, and sort of obtain a right of passage so to speak. Although proficiency in sleight of hand is an essential part of any serious magician’s arsenal, I also have found that simple methods can accomplish “simply amazing” results. Is the personal gratification of pulling off a difficult sleight more important to you than doing so by any means necessary, and regardless of the difficulty of the method involved?

To anyone who is adamant about their study of this art, they know that both sleights and gimmicks have their place in magic, and they both can be beneficial to all skill levels. Yes a strong foundation in sleights is important, but why should it have to be “extremely difficult” so to speak, to amaze or entertain an audience? Personally I use whatever works, or will best fit the present scenario.

Maybe I will even mold a gimmick, or gaff to fit the current situation at hand, should the need to be impromptu arise. In the end, the method is not what the audience will be talking about, at least we hope not; but the magic that happened before their very eyes. For one to think that very difficult sleights are a necessity to fool or entertain someone, I believe it is them who are actually being fooled. I say this after twenty-six years of experience in having consistent success utilizing both sleights and gimmicks, not one or the other.

If one passes off another due to preconceived speculations that one is superior over the other, due to its method or the skill level of the performer, thus actually taking the harder route when not necessary; just how advanced is this performer? Sometimes gaffs do provide results and advantages that are not easily replicated with sleight of hand, or are impossible to accomplish with sleights altogether. I believe most budding performers all start with a gimmick in a sense, that of a magic set.

What this set of “gimmicks” can allow is for a beginner to have some instant success and gratification with the handling of magic props, and provide him/her with a little confidence to continue on their magic journey; and possibly incorporate some basic sleights into their arsenal later on. If most beginners start out this way, I believe they can make the gradual progression needed in order to learn more difficult sleights, and develop more magic knowledge as a whole in the long run.

To assume the title of “magician” requires the utmost desire and dedication to the art in its entirety, not just trying to find the easiest ways around advanced technique, or all the other facets of magic as a whole. However it also requires that you be open-minded to all the possibilities, regardless of how simple they may seem to you. Now after I received my first magic sets, and worked with them for awhile, I personally strived for much more knowledge later on than just settling for a few gimmicks.

I wanted to absorb as much magic knowledge as possible, regardless of the method used to achieve the results. I began searching for magic books, and studied them with a relentless passion. I wanted to be sure I was well grounded in all the basics before I ordered any apparatus, or too much expensive magic equipment from a magic shop. All my studies began at the local Public Library, and School Libraries as well. It was there that I found my first magic gem of literature, The Amateur Magician’s Handbook by Henry Hay. I then bought Mark Wilson’s Complete Course, along with The Magic Book, by Harry Lorayne; and many of Bill Severn’s books after that.

After finding a few of Bill Severn’s books at the library, I was hooked on them. Most of the effects were very practical, and required no special props that could not be made using items found laying around the house. I then purchased the expensive Tarbell Course by Harlan Tarbell, which quickly became one of my most prized magic possessions. I guess a better question is, does the magic enthusiast want to do the required work to become a great magician, or do they simply want to be “tricksters” who only know a few tricks?

Examinability of props may be a plus, but is rarely ever a problem. Especially if you do mostly small stage/parlor shows. However I do a lot of close-up as well, and hand out stuff from time to time; or rely on audience assistance often. So they assume all is legitimate regardless, otherwise why would the magician risk handing out his secret gadgets to them? He/she could be very embarrassed should they find out the workings behind the alleged miracle! It is all about psychology, misdirection, and self-confidence—that is why the magician can get away with it; especially a competent one.

I guess it all depends on how much we practice our “methods” and how well we can switch out gaffs, or make transitions to non-gaffs in a flowing routine. Sometimes a “visual examination” is all that is needed—or even a few examinations of non-gimmicked items will usually be enough to convince the skeptic that there is no foul play. I once handed out a few objects at the audience’s request which were luckily ungimmicked. Later on I took a big risk, and floored them with a gimmicked effect, and followed by asking them if they wanted to “examine” that too? They simply said no, and that they “would not find anything” regardless.

It is important not how we amazed the audience, but DID we amaze, and entertain them? Close-up workers seem to be expected to hand out their items often, whether the expectations are by audiences, or even the performer themselves. But just how far do we need to go in order to prove we are truly doing real magic? What is next, stripping down naked to prove we have no concealed pockets, vests, or pulls? I think that constant examination actually throws a hindrance into many acts, and tends to stagnate them more so than make a routine flow. Are we entertaining, or are we just presenting confusing puzzles to the audience, and asking them to try and solve them?

True, method does “affect” effect, and may also even affect the performer’s total confidence while performing. However one should not limit themselves to any given effect(s) simply based on whether or not the method appeals to them. Also sometimes there is an added assurance at the end of an effect that was accomplished with sleight of hand, that you are “clean,” and there is nothing to find.

However I don’t think we should be limited to just that type of magic skill, as there are some great gaffs/gimmicks out there that simply just cannot be recreated with sleights. Again, BOTH are an invaluable asset to me as a professional magician/entertainer. As I also stated previously, sleight of hand is indeed an integral part of a magician’s arsenal. In fact during my teenage years I too thought that sleights were the “only way to go.”

I got so caught up in the self-gratification of being able to astound people with pure sleight of hand, that I simply excluded gimmicks from my arsenal for a long time. However later on in my magic journey/career, I felt something was missing. I found that neither sleights, nor gimmicks could fully replace the other, and they should not be expected to. As I matured as an individual, and a performer, my magic also matured. I realized that to simply disregard what was seemingly a powerful effect solely because it involves some gimmick, or hidden contraption if you will; was actually placing a lot of limitations on my magic’s potential.

In fact one could even argue that your hands themselves are gimmicks, being they are being used for covering, misdirecting, and pantomime to just name a few. I have found in my experiences that the combination of gimmicks, and sleights tend to be the most powerful overall—as opposed to utilizing them separately. Whatever “gets the job done,” and is able to bring forth the magic I am creating in my audience’s mind, to the most stunning and astonishing conclusion, is all that really matters—not HOW I was able to do so. To only do sleights because they do not utilize any type of physical gimmick so to speak, is doing nothing more than inhibiting your magic’s growth and fullest potential. You also are inhibiting your own growth as a magician.

Basically you are engaging in “magical masturbation,” and stroking your own misguided ego. If one can obtain the same results with a certain method, gimmick, or gaff without having to execute a difficult sleight, what other reason would they have besides basking in the glory of self-admiration? The audience is unknowing regardless, and why run if you’re not being chased? Items such as the TT are more so a universal utility than a gimmick, as it has many more uses than a stand-alone gimmick would. However being it is never seen, or known to the audience, I assume it could be characterized as a gimmick as well.

I been through the whole “sleight geek” stage many years of my life, and although I do find the practice and performance of sleights to be quite pleasurable from a technical, and emotional perspective; I no longer feel the need to limit myself to just sleights. There is no shame whatsoever in deceiving, entertaining, amusing, or baffling a spectator by “any means necessary” to get the job done. This is not to undermine, or question the importance of sleights, but more so the importance of implicating and utilizing whatever tools that make the magic work the most effectively—not just the most “advanced” way of doing it.

If a magician believes that only sleights are the ultimate answer, and completely disregards gimmicks based on the fact that they have some type of concealed mechanism within them, I believe they are doing themselves a true injustice in the long run. They are also doing an injustice to those people they will be performing for in the future. They are only deceiving themselves by believing in this delusional misconception that great magic cannot be achieved through anything other than “knuckle busting” prestidigitation.

I strongly believe, and base my statements from my experience that combining both is almost as close to real magic as one can get. Not to say that each individually cannot hold their own the majority of the time, but this factor is also based on the ability, and overall skill of the performer. A lot of magicians talk about being able to do things on a “moment’s notice,” and how they must always be “impromptu,” and end “totally clean.” Well I know one magician who is a very successful stage performer, and specializes in doing kid’s shows. His entire act consists mostly of props/gimmicks, and he is almost never any of those things.

I always ask him, “Doesn’t bother you if someone comes up to you after a show, or at some other point and time, and asks you to just do something right then and there?” He simply replied, “Nope, I already received my check by that time. Doing freebies for passerby’s are not what is earning me my living, doing my full-time stage act for paying clients is.” Of course it could only help to be able to do something on a moment’s notice no doubt, and you will definitely handle your gimmicks with far more proficiency if you are well grounded in sleights.

However as we can clearly see, sleights are not a necessity to be a magician, or even a successful one. It always helps to walk that extra mile, but you can’t really argue with the facts. He is just as much of a magician as one who relies mostly on sleights is. I guess his audiences do not care too much about all his props/gimmicks, as he gets more callbacks and referrals than he can keep up with. Why? Because he did his job as an “entertainer.” Personally I love sleights, but I also love clever gimmicks and gaffs.

I will not hesitate to utilize any tool that will enhance my overall performance value. I am more concerned about being able to present the most magical, and entertaining effect possible—and by the most practical and simple manner, as far as mechanics go. Thus I can focus on my presentation/showmanship even more so. Nonetheless, this magician is shunned for not having the ability, or simply choosing not to incorporate advanced sleight of hand into his repertoire.

I know he is very content however with his ten to twenty shows per month, earning at LEAST five times what he did as a “wage slave,” and is closing in on four years now in the business. Even I did not assume it was possible to earn a living performing solely with props/gimmicks exclusively. However his presentation and showmanship, combined with his little “disgraceful elaborate props,” has transformed these inanimate objects into something far much more; entertaining magical masterpieces.

Which in turn has become a very lucrative prospect for him, and led to a full-time career. This is all the proof that I will ever need that gimmicks are only as strong, or weak as the performer’s own skill level, presentation ability, and imagination. Gimmicks don’t do anything themselves, hence the term “inanimate object.” They are merely a “byproduct” of the performer’s magic persona.

I don’t believe that sleight of hand is the “final stage” as many would assume it to be, but only the foundation of the magic house—and just the beginning of a better, and fuller understanding of magic. One should continue to build upon that foundation, not stop before the construction has been fully completed. To do so would only leave you with an unstable, and unfinished building project—and the same can be said about the type of performer you will be as well.

Wow. I liked the essay the first time around, and it's even better now! Great essay, and I'm the same way... I have to have a healthy of balance of sleights and gimmicks... not just one or the other.

Another excellent essay, sirbrad.
Magicians who limit themselves to pure sleight of hand are rejecting many incredible effects, foremost among them, the Invisible Deck. I defy anyone to duplicate that one using only sleights. You might create something similar, but it will lack the full impact.
A few years ago I posted a description of my favorite packet trick, Wild Card, which would be ideal to illustrate your essay, as it is a perfect hybrid of gimmick and sleights. Soon after my post, my inbox was bombarded with excited responses, all of them asking "but does it end clean?" I replied, honestly, that Wild Card requires gaffs, but that my personal handling of it appears to end clean. I might as well have answered simply "gaffs", because all interest evaporated with that one ugly word. It's a shame too, because it's a beautiful effect, but simply cannot be duplicated using pure sleight.

I do an ungimmicked ID from Michael Close's Ultimate Worker's, although I find that it is not usually necessary. Unless you perform for other magicians full-time. If they would yell out asking me if I "ended clean," the deck would already be in my pocket by that time. Then I would pull it back out, and say "why sure!"

Ending clean is usually for those who over-obsess, and are insecure with themselves, especially if they lack audience management skills; as there props are in danger of being grabbed at anytime. You need to take attention off of the props and place it on "you" the performer. A better example as far as trying to replicate a gaffed effect would be "Presto Printo" as I have said many times in the past. Good luck. Another trap that many magicians fall prey to is ,"over-proving" what does not need to be. I wrote another essay on that in my book that has not been published publicly yet.

There are thousands of effects out there you will never replicate with sleight of hand alone, but if you combine them, that is lethal...

While I agree that both sleights & gimmicks have their place & both should be implemented, the crux of the matter as you said comes down to the enjoyment of the effect. If the effect can be done as powerfully with a sleight as it can with a gimmick then the slieght should be used simply based on the fact that you're much cleaner afterwards & thus the effect is that much stronger. If the effect is not as strong as a gimmicked method then then by all means use the gimmick.

It is a fact though that you can use sleights anywhere, you do not have to carry them. So by this reasoning alone the impetus should be given to sleights & gimmicks should be secondary. I also disagree with your analysis of the guest that he/she has a "sleight of hand" way of thinking. If you can exactly or nearly so, duplicate the effect of a gimmick by sleight of hand, then you should use the sleight because again you are cleaner. I agree with him or her that as many gimmicked methods as possible should be converted to sleight of hand methods. Is it easy? No it's not but it sure means you can do alot more than someone who has to rely on a pocketfull of gimmicks doesn't it?

I also disagree with your assertion that magicians who obsess over ending clean are insecure about their props being grabbed. While it's true that ending clean can prevent this to some degree, the problem with a gimmick is usually in the middle of the effect not the end.

As an example, if I use a TT for a given effect I'm not worried about the audience seeing it AFTER I have disposed of it. I'm worried about someone in the audience who is at a bad angle to my hand seeing it DURING the time it is out. I would like to point out that I frequently use a TT.

Another thing your essay seems to miss is that even with the best audience management skills, you cannot control everyone in all situations. Case in point is when you're doing impromptu magic & are totally surrounded. It is entirely possible that someone with a little knowledge of magic WANTS to bust you out. Those folks may or may not let you know via their actions or words that is what they intend to do until it's too late.

There seemed to be the usual conversion errors with penguin, so I reposted the essay again as I noticed lots of weird symbols as I have with other posts from awhile back. It is fixed now. I think you actually agree with my points if you actually read my essay. Sleights and gimmicks should not be separated, or thought of as being separate; but unified as one entity. I think there is actually very few sleights/gimmicks out there that can replace the other anyway, this is simply a theory for the most part.

I based my opinions/facts off of 26 years of real-word experience, using both combined. Both are merely tools for me to reach the most dramatic and stunningly amazing conclusion possible.



I am not sure what you are even talking about here. Again, you should not be trying to duplicate a gimmick/gaff, if it is a good enough gimmick/gaff you won't be able to. Being clean is pointless unless you are in the constant habit of handing out everything for inspection, which as I also already stated, is very time consuming and unnecessary. It hinders the fluidity of your performance. A pocket full of gimmicks? I have a suitcase that contains whatever gimmicks I am using, and this also depends on what venue I am doing, it is not universal.

If I am doing restaurants I will most likely have no more than three of four gimmicks on me, the rest all natural items. I am a sleight of hand artist by trade, but I never disregard a great gimmick. I combine both for maxim impact. Again, show me an effect stronger than Presto Printo or some of the Masuda effects using pure sleight alone. Not happening.



This may true for those who have not mastered the effect/routine. However for the most part people tend to grab and want to examine "after" the alleged magical feat, not during it. They are still waiting to see what is supposed to happen. It is not until the end that they go searching for proof, but only if you provide them that luxury, and if your presentation and continuity is weak. There are rare exceptions to every rule of course, but for the most part I have not any problems with either phase.

I don't present my magic as challenging "puzzles" that call for critical analysis, I present my magic as astounding and entertaining miracles. Not in the aspect of "OK there you go figure it out." Also I consider a TT more so a utility/tool than a gimmick. Although it still remains hidden in plain view at times. This is also an insecurity issue, as the audience has no clue what to look for, of course with the rare exception of some punk who learned about that may or may not say something.



I am not sure my essay misses anything regrading this, however it is not an essay on audience management. It is an essay about sleights being used as a replacement for gimmicks, and most of the time for no good reason except ego. You cannot control everything, but you can control A LOT. This is something that comes with years of experience. I don't do a lot of impromptu/free magic much anymore, I am far too busy doing gigs. But as a kid doing free magic, I did not encounter these issues at all. No one else even studied magic in my entire school that I knew of.

However the more skilled you are, the more easily you can switch in/out gaffs and gimmicks. The fact that you cannot control "everything" need not be said anyway it should be common sense.

ok so i realize that this was last talked about like 3 years ago but this is a really good point that i think i have overlooked. im a sleight whore i admit, the only gimmick i use is a spongeball but i dont even know if that should be considered a gimmick. and im not a big card fan either, mostly work coins rings and spongeballs and i have been working on some mentalism here and there. Personally i dont like cards because i think its a bit overdone and MOST of the time the trick is the same "hey look i found your card" which is kind of amazing because even though the end result is the same the sheer amount of methods that can be used are so vast, and the same goes for the reactions. ive been very tempted to get a coin shell because from my viewpoint thats a very mild gimmick, i suppose my main problem with gimmicks is the self working stuff. i personally feel like someone should be able to use some amount of skill in order to perform some trick. however i had not thought of it this way. in using a gimmick one could focus a lot more on presentation which i agree is one of the most important factors of magic. i kinda wanna go out there now and get one but i really got no clue where to start and what to try. but i think this could be the start of something really really really nice.

thanks for bringing this up and as always i hope y'all have an awesome day!
-dave

I probably shouldn't focus on this since it isn't the main gist of your post but I just thought I might mention that there is no need to "Justify" why you do or don't like some form of magic. It is an art form and by that nature subjective. I hate sponge magic. I could point out that the problem with sponges is the limited plot line...all I have ever seen is appearance, disappearance, and multiplication...but it is obvious people can do a lot with those plot lines. I just leave it at this. I don't like sponge magic. I would never be so pretentious as to attempt form some "argument" as to why I like or don't like it. As for your argument, I have some bad news for you. Sponge magic was old when I was a kid 20 years ago, coin magic was overdone 50 years ago when my Dad was a kid. Sponges, Cards, Coins, and Cups and Balls, have all been around for a while and are all "Overdone," but they are all classics so they all deserve a nod and none should be dismissed because they are "overdone." If you want to complain that card magic seems to be flooding the market right now...I will empathize with you there.

As for gimmicks... I am a big fan of "utility" gimmicks but I only perform about two effects that require a "one trick wonder" gimmick. It all depends on how powerful it is and if it accomplishes something sleight-of-hand cannot.

I do agree with you that the impact and overall variety of a magical performance is greatest when incorporating both gimmicks and slights. I also agree with you that the practice of handing out items for examination can decrease the flow and smoothness of a performance.

But I would like to state that in my performances I do have some selfish practices. I do not only consider the audiences impression of an effect but also my own willingness to do the effect. Because the audience are not the only people in this effect, I'm there too.

I am not willing to do certain effects because of the gaffs involved. To me a trick that can be accomplished by slight of hand alone, SHOULD be done by slight of hand alone. Because it makes no difference to your audience if you do singularity or the invisible deck because the end effect is the same, but it matters to ME if I do the invisible deck or singularity.

I would NEVER throw all gaffs out altogether. Some are worth it, we are magicians and not wizards after all. I love the stealth pen and the out to lunch principle, they're my reputation makers.

But since I am selfish and like to "masturbate" as you put it, I greatly prefer slights. I'm a move monkey, and proud.

And you have also expressed your opinion that a magician should not strive to accomplish things for another magician. I "magician fooler" is not important because magicians are not the people that supply your pay check. But to me, fooling magicians is something that I strive for right along with entertaining people. I was inspired when I heard the tale of Dai Vernon fooling Houdini, to me that was something to strive for.

But I enjoyed your essay

Keegan

Before I lost mine (still steaming over that) I liked to use mine for coins across, and a coin through hand penetration. But the possibilities are endless, mess around with one and I'm sure you'll find some plots you like.

If you are an unselfish person (the way I am not) and only care about what your audience sees and feels.

ok good point i appologize, did not mean for an arguementbut when i mean overdone i meant when you ask somebody about magic they usually go towards cards not to many people seem to expect coins or sponges nowaday, but thats just from what ive seen. i know there is alot of really awesome card stuff out there and perhaps i should look a little more into that before makeing any claims. its just a personal thing, coins feel alot better in my hands than cards do but as they say to each their own. im sorry if i offended anyone with that.

also i get the utility thing. i kind of really wanna get a "bite quarter" or half dollar, and a shell. and perhaps some cups and balls, but im also thinking of doing that with coffee cups when i dont feel like spending tons on nice cups (i so would if i had the money to spare but college sucks away your moneys in a jiffy)

lastly ill try out some more card stuff, to become a little more well versed in it

As a person who does not use gimmicks in performances i was very interested reading this essay. Despite the fact i did not find my reasons for not using gimmicks represented here, i hope it is a thought provoker for others. Well done SirBrad.