Tricks vs. Routines - What do you do?

A routine is something that has more than one phase. Everyone has a morning routine that they follow religiously. They do it over and over, and it involves multiple steps, i.e. shower, getting dressed, eating breakfast, brushing teeth, etc.

An example of a routine is the ambitious card. The card rises to the top a few times, and each time it gets more impossible. That builds the suspense to where it seems that the magician just can't possibly get the card to the top of the deck again, yet they always seem to find a way. Another example of a routine would be cups and balls. The balls vanish and appear under the cups, jump from cup to cup, change color, and finally turn into lemons or oranges.

Both of those examples are routines, and have a climax at the end. In order to have a climax, you must consistently have built up the magic. We'll use cups and balls for this example. The balls are vanishing, appearing, and jumping around. That's magical. The climax of the trick is the final loads, and rightfully so. Without the first few stages though, the final loads just turn into another trick, and that defeats the purpose of a good climax, to let the audience know when the routine is over.

A trick is something quick and to the point. More or less has minimum building up the suspense, and one "magical" phase. Most tricks aren't meant to be stand-alone pieces, and require more to make it into more of a routine. A good opener, middle, and closer.

Some example of tricks that most of you are familiar with are Fraud, Kaos, Indecent, Witness, etc. I don't own most of those, but the core of it seems as if it's a trick. With Kaos, the card goes through the window. Indecent, the card goes through the bag. Witness, the card changes inside the bag.

When I think about turning tricks into routines, the first thing that comes to my mind would be Weighted Aces by Gregory Wilson. Weighted Aces is his version of Dr. Daley's Last Trick. Greg takes a basic (but strong) color-changing aces trick and turns it into a routine, which plays out like a game about which ace is where. This is a very strong routine with 2 phases. The first phase is pretty straight forward and the audience plays along with it. But when the climax hits them, they're stunned.

That's the difference between a trick and a routine. But you as the magician need to take it a step further and not quit now. Instead of just doing something like an ACR or Weighted Aces, put the tricks into a routine itself. Go the whole 9 yards and take the time to put together a solid routine, consisting of an opener, middle, and closer. People say they do this, but then I hear how they just performed 2 card monte and left. Or the guy thought that Panic was just "a neat little trick." The reason for that is you're just doing tricks, and not performing magic.

Basically what I'm saying is that I'm sick of seeing magicians perform tricks. Why stop there? Do yourself a favor, and your audience, and start putting them into routines. How is a magician able to build any rapport with their audience? How is a magician suppose to gain any credibility as a good performer, instead of just Uncle Harry at Thanksgiving?? How are they able to do anything productive if they're just doing a trick and leaving?

Truth be told, you can't. By simply doing hit and run magic, it's hurting you, the performer, in the long run. You're not learning how to adapt to a specific type of audience, how to exit gracefully, nor how to open and close a full length set, which is a lot more different that just a 2 minute magic trick. Especially if you mess up, there's no way to recover with another trick, unless it's planned. There have been numerous times I've completely blown a trick, but luckily for me and my audience, I'm able to move on and recover easily enough, because I know exactly what my next move will be.

Case in point...there is a big distinct difference between doing tricks and performing magic. One of the things that separates the two is how you present it...do you do tricks or routines?

If you read through all this, than I truly hope you got something useful from it and it helped change the way you think about certain things.

Best.
Steve
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 2, 2007
246
0
Norway
I do tricks. I don't perform magic.

I chain together tricks that goes well together.

Like if a trick ends with me having produced all the aces. I'd do a trick that involves just the aces.
 
Dec 5, 2007
376
0
It depends on what "trick" Im performing. There are some really strong effects that i think is best to do as a singel "trick" like some mindreading and mentalism effects.

But if om doing coin magic or card magic i think its better to do routines.

It also depends on the situation, sometimes even if i have a whole routine planed i stop att the first trick becaus i have got some insane reactions from the trick. So i think its better to just stop there and just let it sink in to them.
 
A lot of the magic I do, is Hit-And-Run. But, I did find the time to compile a small routine, which I believe flows into eachother nicely and will leave your audiences stunned.

I start off by coming up to them and performing Panic. Although, I use my own method of switching the gimmicked cards for regular ones. From there I move into David Stones Traveler which is an Invisible Palm routine which ends with the 4 kings turning into the 4 aces. Using my newly acquire aces I perform the Asher Twist, which is a personal favourite of mine. Then, with a little preparation I perfrom Hofzzy Osbourne, always a good reaction piece. And end with an ACR.

I also, do many of David Stones coin magic, because it's simple, direct and packs a punch. I start with Mulberry a 4 coin production, and ask the spectator to hold a coin for later. Then proceed with the other 3 coins to do his effect called "Coin Glass" I believe, where 3 coins travel from one hand and into a glass one at a time. The I use the single coin to do his One coin routine, but, I usually leave out the kicker ending, for those who know of the effect.

Those are 2 routines I perform, and just goes to show you that even the simplest 3 effects can turn into reputation makers. You don't need the latest and greatest thing to be a great magician.

-RA69
 
Nov 8, 2007
1,238
3
The problem with the argument here is that it's being set-up that "Tricks" = Uncle Joe, Routines = Magic.

That's not exactly a fair argument to put forth. David Blaine doesn't tell longwinded stories and make a bunch of bad jokes when he performs, but I'd hardly say that makes him Uncle Joe just doing some "tricks." Magic has changed a lot over the past decade, and some people just aren't openminded enough to see that change for what it is--a new genre, a different approach. I'm not saying it's a change for the better (or worse), or even that everybody should embrace the change, but it has changed. Young magicians are much more into performing simple one phase effects these days--taking one strong effect that is explicitly easy to follow and milking it for all the astonishment its worth. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

On the scales of Astonishment vs. Entertainment, young magicians are much more interested in astonishment these days than they are entertainment. So funny clothes, longwinded stories, and bad jokes all woven into an uncomfortably contrived act isn't the fad so much these days as "hit and run magic," which I'm assuming is supposed to be a euphemism for Street Magic. Street Magic is like punk rock--it's not about following rules and getting bookings and making people clap their hands, it's about creating a raw emotion for its own sake--you know, the old French aesthetics' "Art for art's sake" philosophy. And there isn't anything wrong with that. It's a different style is all--something that doesn't comes along often enough these days in magic.
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
What a narrow minded little opinion you've managed to express there!

Let me do a quick list of the negative sentiments towards "traditional magic":
"longwinded stories" - twice
"bad jokes" - twice
"funny clothes"
"uncomfortably contrived"

and now the positives:
...
......ummm....

It's very sad that you can't appreciate what has come before (or rather, what is still by far the majority position). In fact I feel sorry for you, for you clearly haven't had the pleasure of seeing any even half-decent magicians doing their thing "old-school" style.
 
Nov 8, 2007
1,238
3
What a narrow minded little opinion you've managed to express there!

Let me do a quick list of the negative sentiments towards "traditional magic":
"longwinded stories" - twice
"bad jokes" - twice
"funny clothes"
"uncomfortably contrived"

and now the positives:
...
......ummm....

It's very sad that you can't appreciate what has come before (or rather, what is still by far the majority position). In fact I feel sorry for you, for you clearly haven't had the pleasure of seeing any even half-decent magicians doing their thing "old-school" style.

I thought it was obvious I was illustrating an example of the extreme, as Steve did in his initial post, with my rebuttal. I'm really glad you picked up on it too, as you are exactly right--neither side is right or wrong. One phase effects and multi-phase routines both absolutely have a place in magic. That was exactly my point (if you go back and read my initial post again). It's a matter of style is all.

And thanks for insulting me right off the bat with your kneejerking response.
 
The problem with the argument here is that it's being set-up that "Tricks" = Uncle Joe, Routines = Magic.

That's not exactly a fair argument to put forth. David Blaine doesn't tell longwinded stories and make a bunch of bad jokes when he performs, but I'd hardly say that makes him Uncle Joe just doing some "tricks." Magic has changed a lot over the past decade, and some people just aren't openminded enough to see that change for what it is--a new genre, a different approach. I'm not saying it's a change for the better (or worse), or even that everybody should embrace the change, but it has changed. Young magicians are much more into performing simple one phase effects these days--taking one strong effect that is explicitly easy to follow and milking it for all the astonishment its worth. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

You might be right to an extent, and I can see what you're saying, but to anyone that takes magic seriously and hopes to go far, this just won't cut it. By doing a hit and run style, it's hurting them in the long run. Sure, "milking it for all the astonishment it's worth" is a good thing, but why not save that piece for your closer? That way, you're consistently building up your reactions to be bigger and bigger, and by the time you close your routine, BAM!

By doing this, you're feeding off the reactions of the previous effect, and increasing your reactions tenfold by the time you end.


-------------------

While I agree with your ultimate point, your examples were poor. An Ambitious Card Routine, while referred to as a routine, is really just one effect with multiple phases. The same goes for Weighted Aces. Weighted Aces combined with Be Honest, Which Hand is it? (More commonly and incorrectly know as Two Card Monte) is a routine. Card Under Glass followed with an Ambitious Card is a routine.

A routine is built up of multiple effects that flow from one to another. The effects do not require a common ground, but the scripting does.

Let me put it this way. Effects are like short films. Each one has a separate and unique story. Throwing together a bunch of short films would not make a movie. A movie is one cohesive plot. Each part flows from one part into another. There are great movies that seem to be disjointed. You don't know why it keeps jumping around from character to character, each seem to have no similarities, but at some point it all comes crashing together. There are other movies that jump from character to character where you can easily find their common ground. Then there are the movies that most are adjusted to. Everything in them have a natural flow.

I will admit that an ACR can be a routine, but the way it is usually performed it is merely an effect with multiple phases. Even on those rare occasions, I would argue myself as to whether I believe it to be a routine or an effect.

/paul.f

Yes...I agree too that my examples could have been better. But I kind of did that for a reason, as people these days tend to say things like "here are all my routines I know: stigmata, kaos, fraud, etc."

I realize that a true routine consists of an opener, middle, and closer. I just had to change my words up for this particular post.

-------------------

If you compare it to writing. A trick is a sentence, a routine is a paragraph, an act is multiple paragraphs, a show is a book. (I got nothing for chapters)

All that is simply nomenclature.

I perfer to perform routines and sets by my words.

Excellent way of looking at it....
Thank you! :)

-Steve
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
If it were obvious you were illustrating an example of the extreme, I wouldn't have responded the way I did - my powers of observation and deductive reasoning are pretty sharp.

That said, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to you and apologise for the tone of my response.

On a personal note, give me entertainment AND astonishment please! It's quite possible to combine the two - I do it on a regular basis. I like getting booked, having people show their appreciation with applause and following the "rules" of performance art that have helped thousands of magicians be successful professionally.
 
Nov 1, 2007
95
0
The problem with the argument here is that it's being set-up that "Tricks" = Uncle Joe, Routines = Magic.

That's not exactly a fair argument to put forth. David Blaine doesn't tell longwinded stories and make a bunch of bad jokes when he performs, but I'd hardly say that makes him Uncle Joe just doing some "tricks." Magic has changed a lot over the past decade, and some people just aren't openminded enough to see that change for what it is--a new genre, a different approach. I'm not saying it's a change for the better (or worse), or even that everybody should embrace the change, but it has changed. Young magicians are much more into performing simple one phase effects these days--taking one strong effect that is explicitly easy to follow and milking it for all the astonishment its worth. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

On the scales of Astonishment vs. Entertainment, young magicians are much more interested in astonishment these days than they are entertainment. So funny clothes, longwinded stories, and bad jokes all woven into an uncomfortably contrived act isn't the fad so much these days as "hit and run magic," which I'm assuming is supposed to be a euphemism for Street Magic. Street Magic is like punk rock--it's not about following rules and getting bookings and making people clap their hands, it's about creating a raw emotion for its own sake--you know, the old French aesthetics' "Art for art's sake" philosophy. And there isn't anything wrong with that. It's a different style is all--something that doesn't comes along often enough these days in magic.

Here's the problem - while I agree on your punk / street magic comparison, most of the generation that is embracing this philosophy does not have the presence or charisma to pull it off. They really do come off as poorly-practiced teenagers who bought the Trilogy and also know a by-the-book ACR, with some E tricks tossed in for good measure (please don't misunderstand me, I am not including all of us in that lump, but we've all seen the Youtube magicians, be it on webcam or in public, that I refer to. And unfortunately, their presence takes up a large bulk of street magic, which might be why it's so ill-received by some). And if you're going to present a single or very few tricks, you need to back that up with charisma, charm. Be Justin Miller performing Silver Dream: talking to the audience, playing off their reactions, relaxed and comfortable. Be Danny Garcia at the bar in the DGP, funny, appealing, getting everyone talking about you. By focusing on street magic, you sometimes lose the audience connection and rapport you'd get from more traditional shows of magic - and if you want to elicit an emotional response, then the audience has to care.

The problem is that the old guard of magic was seen as unfeeling and cheesy with their performances, and most newcomers want to shy away from that (not necessarily an accurate assesment of traditional magic, but I do think there's the combo Bill Malone / Jay Sankey types, cracking bad jokes and coming off like underpaid Vegas showmen). So they see street magic and, without truly embracing its ideals or giving it the proper respect, immediately enlist, thus giving the public the wrong impression of street magic and rousing the ire of more traditional magicians (and rightly so!) But, really, if street magic could actually be what it says it is, there wouldn't be as much contention and hate for it as there is now.

Point is, magic, like any art, has to update with time. There has to be different genres within the art to accomodate different personalities, but they all need practice, originality, and dedication. I agree that bad, longwinded stories can hurt an effect, but Blaine rarely approached someone, did one trick, and left. He performed different things for the same audience, creating brief routines. Tangent: and he does have patter (for those who say otherwise), he just keeps it minimalistic and to-the-point. He more so just narrates what's happening, letting the effect display itself.

But, yes - you can have the best of both worlds: developed routines and street philosophy. It's just that most don't seem to care enough to competently combine the two.
 
Nov 1, 2007
95
0
On a personal note, give me entertainment AND astonishment please! It's quite possible to combine the two - I do it on a regular basis. I like getting booked, having people show their appreciation with applause and following the "rules" of performance art that have helped thousands of magicians be successful professionally.

That's the key phrase, "performance art", that makes a magician something special. It separates "just entertainers" from "entertaining artists", for those who actually want to perform magic as art. Though I am curious as to what your mentioned "rules" are?
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
I was just referencing the post I was responding to. As far as I'm aware, there's no "hard and fast" rules written down anywhere...the likes of David Stone and Bill Malone have excellent advice to offer on the subject though. By the way, the critisism of Bill Malone in this topic is nothing short of hilarious.

I guess you could consider the correct use of lines, timing, body language etc. in order to make a group of people respond in a certain way a set of "rules". Your conduct, the way you dress, how you deal with the people who book you are all part of the "rules" as well. When you're talking about routining, there's a set of "rules" for that as well; punchy opener, changes of pace throughout the routine, call backs, running themes (which can include running jokes), finishing with a very strong item.

You make your own rules in many respects; when doing strolling or table hopping (95% of my bookings fall into this category) I start with an introduction, asking if they're having a good time/if the meal was good/something else relevant; I've got a deck of cards in my hand and then say "would you care for a little entertainment?" which I've found gets people thinking in the right way about what I'm about to present for them. I also have rules about what kind of effects I perform for what kind of people; strong self workers for tough cookies (maybe then branching into more sleight-heavy stuff). I have magic that can be performed silently (came in very handy for a table of deaf people at a recent function!), magic that needs a table, magic that can be done in the hands, funny stuff, serious stuff, spectator-involvement stuff...anything to cater to the situation at hand. The reason I chat to them first is so that I can make the right first impression, but also to assess what out of my repertoire is going to be most effective for the audience in front of me.

Getting people to clap is important if you want the client to be happy about their decision to book you, and potentially book you again.

I am two magicians really. The obsessive amateur is who people see if I'm performing for them "at random" - say my students, or friends at a party. In a professional situation I live and die by the rules that experience has taught me. If I get to a real good place with a crowd, I may be able to let the obsessive amateur out for a bit, and show them something really special; but you've got to have the right audience, in the right situation, for that to work well.
 
Nov 1, 2007
95
0
If you meant me, I wasn't attacking Bill himself, but rather those magicians who badly copy his presentation and persona, only watered down and dated. It comes off forced, unfunny, and just eeyuck.

Though to be honest with you: he's a great technician, no doubt - VERY good! But personally, I despise his presentation. Just a matter of opinion. I always find him annoying, what he attaches to his tricks. Again, though, different strokes for different folks.

Pretty solid philosophy, there. It's an approach I wish more would follow. Connecting to your audience as a person helps your magic do the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
Each to his own, as you say. I really like Bill's style, but there's NO WAY it would work for me! Studying his style has helped me with my own though.

Regardless of your personal preference, you've got to hand to to the man - his audiences really get into it.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results