Best Queens Video

[frezzing aces]

i really liked that but the scary bit was you sound like dan (or dave?).

anyway the weirdness aside, i dont know how the clipshift is done and i saw squat. i think a specator would be fooled.

 

[Randomwrath]

Hate to be the negative one, but I really didn't like this particularly. Technically, it was amazing, but patter-wise I was bored out of my skull. I don't need somebody telling me what I can see. Sorry if I sound harsh, but I think you really need to rethink what and how you say when presenting this trick. At the moment, I think that the vocals detract from the amazing dance going on in your hands. I mean, whilst flourishing, you wouldn't say 'and we twirl this packet whilst passing this packet into a straddle grip and splitting that packet,' or whilst dancing you wouldn't be saying 'and I pirouette, leap and duck, whilst raising my hands to head height.' You get the idea. I personally think that the vocals should either be completely reworked, or left out. No offense meant, and this is just one person's opinion; feel free to take or leave it. I do want to say, however, that technically it was completely beautiful.

 

[Cadillac6595]

Be negative. We all need criticism, it helps us move forward in what we do. With that said, I want to point out the patter that Dan and Dave Buck use. It's very direct. It doesn't dance around with story lines or confusing patter to misdirect the spectators. Right, it does in essence just 'tell' you what is basically occurring in the hands, but what's the problem with that? The Buck's effects, generally speaking, can be worked without patter because of their visual nature, so why put in the effort to come up with clever and/or witty patter? My performance was respectively a mirror image of Dan's performance, I didn't make it 'my own', nor did I add anything to make it different in any way. With that said, I guess the question really is what do you think of the Buck's patter?

 

[The Wordsmith]

The answer really is: terrible. The Bucks patter is absolutly awful. No imagination or anything. I really do not like it. It is not magic, so much as magic flourishing. OK that did not sound quite how I wanted it to... You get it I hope. No mystery. No atmosphere. Almost Blainesque "Watch..."
Sorry. Autorant over.

 

[Sinful07]

Because its bloody visual. quick, Smooth and Visual.

 

[dejavu05]

Ownage to the maximum! (A.K.A. Nice Job!)

 

[Randomwrath]

I think it was presented really nicely. The ending was well done too, but as mentioned before - he flashes on the clip shift.

The answer really is: terrible. The Bucks patter is absolutly awful. No imagination or anything. I really do not like it. It is not magic, so much as magic flourishing. OK that did not sound quite how I wanted it to... You get it I hope. No mystery. No atmosphere. Almost Blainesque "Watch..."
Sorry. Autorant over.

Sorry, youwhat? Make your mind up...

Be negative. We all need criticism, it helps us move forward in what we do. With that said, I want to point out the patter that Dan and Dave Buck use. It's very direct. It doesn't dance around with story lines or confusing patter to misdirect the spectators. Right, it does in essence just 'tell' you what is basically occurring in the hands, but what's the problem with that? The Buck's effects, generally speaking, can be worked without patter because of their visual nature, so why put in the effort to come up with clever and/or witty patter? My performance was respectively a mirror image of Dan's performance, I didn't make it 'my own', nor did I add anything to make it different in any way. With that said, I guess the question really is what do you think of the Buck's patter?

I've never really liked the Buck's patter particularly. And you mentioned that they can be worked without patter - I agree. But I think that if you aren't using patter, it would be best to be silent. They are simple and direct as you mentioned; nothing complicated happens and therefore the audience doesn't need telling what's happening. My English teacher always says 'show, don't tell' when it comes to writing. I think the same is applicable here. If they're thinking about what you're saying, they aren't concentrating as much on what's happening in the hands. This is one of my main reasons of patter, built in misdirection to a certain extent. However, this isn't a misdirectionish trick, it's more impressive the more they watch the hands. Therefore I think that if you aren't using patter, not saying anything at all would be the best accompaniment for this trick.

Still a great performance though, keep up the good work

 

[Vior]

Honestly, the bucks' patter isn't that terrible. If you really think it's terrible, what do you suggest? I would love to read/hear it. Not saying anything is the worst in my opinion. Even the most direct and simple tricks require patter. Also, it's not always about misdirection, but also for the audience to follow and absorb the essence of the trick.

 

[Sinful07]

its more of a guidance thing if you ask me. Like signs on a pathway. we all know the path leads to the garden- but it helps if there's reassurance. as in signs saying "Garden 10 feet ahead" Etc.

likewise, if you tell someone that something vanishes (One of the queens) then they expect it- and you perform it flawlessly, therefore they are godsmacked. booyah. that's sinful's logic for ya.

 

[Randomwrath]

Honestly, the bucks' patter isn't that terrible. If you really think it's terrible, what do you suggest? I would love to read/hear it. Not saying anything is the worst in my opinion. Even the most direct and simple tricks require patter. Also, it's not always about misdirection, but also for the audience to follow and absorb the essence of the trick.

I beg to differ. As The Wordsmith mentioned earlier, it is almost Blainesque "watch..." Saying 'watch..." does not constitute patter. What the Bucks do, however, is rather than telling the audience to watch and find out what happens, they are describing what the audience can see. As I mentioned before, this is like a dancer describing what he or she is doing whilst doing it. Now I personally consider some tricks as much a dance as a trick, especially Buck style 'flourishy' tricks. This is not supposed to leave you with a life changing experience, if it was then it would have some patter to increase the impact. No, this is more of a showcase piece, supposed to be watched and admired, but not touched. If it needed patter, it could have patter, but if you are having patter, why not put a little more effort in to make it special? And if you don't want to do that, stay silent. You can agree or disagree, but everything I have said has been based on real life experience. Know what that experience was? Watching this video of 'Queens' and watching some Buck performances on the Trilogy. And guess what? I was bored. And if it bores me when a master of the trick does it beautifully, what d'you think would happen if somebody who hadn't quite perfected the trick tried it with this patter? And a real audience can't just pause the performance if they're bored.
As I have said, this is my opinion. It might not necessarily be the best, or it might not be right, but it's what I think. Argue if you want, but it won't change my mind.

Ps. About your post, Sinful, it's a good point. But the first vanish will make them jump and surprise them, then they will think 'ah ok, let's see if I can see what's happening here.' When they don't, it surprises them even more. And about the reassurance thing, this is personal preferance I suppose, but I find magic is more mysterious, more magical, if you aren't constantly reassured that the garden is ahead. Think of it as a story. If somebody was there, constantly recapping what you've just read whilst you're concentrating on reading the next bit, how irritated would you be? And say you've just read a really emotional bit, a really magical bit, and somebody was jumping up and down saying 'he just died, he just died. You know he just died because you just read it. Did I mention that he just died?' then the moment would lose half it's magic. Now this is a bit of an overexaggeration when it comes to watching the Bucks' patter, but any loss of the magic moment is a bad thing.

 

[The Wordsmith]

Alright Randomwrath, calm down. I was just saying earlier that it was performed very well, but the patter, like the Bucks', is just very plain and uninteresting. Also I find that trying to be mysterious can often distance you from the audience - I think it is better to only be mysterious if you are doing a mysterious/serious trick. One last thing: magic is not a dance. Flourishing could be compared to it, but in magic if a card vanishes, spectators do not actually notice with surprising consistency. You often have to take them through it like a dunce. Not like a dance. (Pun not intended, but left in on noticing)

 

[Vior]

I beg to differ. As The Wordsmith mentioned earlier, it is almost Blainesque "watch..." Saying 'watch..." does not constitute patter. What the Bucks do, however, is rather than telling the audience to watch and find out what happens, they are describing what the audience can see. As I mentioned before, this is like a dancer describing what he or she is doing whilst doing it. Now I personally consider some tricks as much a dance as a trick, especially Buck style 'flourishy' tricks. This is not supposed to leave you with a life changing experience, if it was then it would have some patter to increase the impact. No, this is more of a showcase piece, supposed to be watched and admired, but not touched. If it needed patter, it could have patter, but if you are having patter, why not put a little more effort in to make it special? And if you don't want to do that, stay silent. You can agree or disagree, but everything I have said has been based on real life experience. Know what that experience was? Watching this video of 'Queens' and watching some Buck performances on the Trilogy. And guess what? I was bored. And if it bores me when a master of the trick does it beautifully, what d'you think would happen if somebody who hadn't quite perfected the trick tried it with this patter? And a real audience can't just pause the performance if they're bored.
As I have said, this is my opinion. It might not necessarily be the best, or it might not be right, but it's what I think. Argue if you want, but it won't change my mind.

Ok, I would first like to state that I'm not tryingto start an arguement whatsoever, but to share my opinion instead. Honestly, for this trick, I find his "boring patter" quite apt. If you were to go for a more interesting patter, it might work. However, most of the interesting patters I've heard sounds quite contrived and it really loses the meaning. Also, keeping quiet will leave the audience trying to figure out what you are trying to do instead. Of course, an interesting patter will be preferred always. Nevertheless, it's nice to read your opinions.

 

[Randomwrath]

Alright Randomwrath, calm down. I was just saying earlier that it was performed very well, but the patter, like the Bucks', is just very plain and uninteresting. Also I find that trying to be mysterious can often distance you from the audience - I think it is better to only be mysterious if you are doing a mysterious/serious trick. One last thing: magic is not a dance. Flourishing could be compared to it, but in magic if a card vanishes, spectators do not actually notice with surprising consistency. You often have to take them through it like a dunce. Not like a dance. (Pun not intended, but left in on noticing)

Calm down? Calm down?!?!?! I AM CALM I TELL YOU!!!!!! DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN YOU INSOLENT LITTLE...
In all seriousness, I think magic can very easily be compared to a dance. Both are often called an art, both are a way of performing and entertaining, both are a series of choreographed moves, both are beautiful when done properly and hideous when poorly executed. But this is beside the point really. It's a matter of opinion. About your comment about mystery, take David Blaine. He gets crazy reactions from very simple tricks. How? Well to be honest it's probably because he's famous and he has a camera crew behind him. But before then, it was due to the mystery behind him. And doesn't every card trick have a degree of mystery behind it? How does the card fly out of the deck, how do the queens vanish? If they know what happened, it isn't magic. And if they don't, it's a mystery. I also believe there is no such thing as a 'mysterious or serious trick', it purely depends on preference of performance and how you sell the trick to your audience. A trick is as serious as you make it.

Ok, I would first like to state that I'm not trying to start an argument whatsoever, but to share my opinion instead. Honestly, for this trick, I find his "boring patter" quite apt. If you were to go for a more interesting patter, it might work. However, most of the interesting patters I've heard sounds quite contrived and it really loses the meaning. Also, keeping quiet will leave the audience trying to figure out what you are trying to do instead. Of course, an interesting patter will be preferred always. Nevertheless, it's nice to read your opinions.

I wasn't intending to suggest that you were starting an argument. Not my intention, sorry if I came across as aggressive at all. It was poor choice of words. Actually I am rather enjoying this discussion and seeing different people's views about patter. It's interesting to see that most people disagree with me.
To be honest, I don't think that there's ever a place for 'boring patter'. I agree that obviously contrived patter can take away from the trick, depending on how it's presented. Take Chris Kenner and Bad Credit. Does he honestly expect we'll believe that the four kings work for a collection agency and will run into houses and catch debtors? No. Of course not. However, it is still an enjoyable performance because he presents it very tongue in cheek. When somebody seriously expects us to believe that the four jacks are robbers, that's when the performance suffers in my considerably less than humble opinion. Personally I feel that boring patter takes away from the performance but doesn't add anything in return. I have often seen Dream of Aces performed in silence to music. Now imagine watching somebody saying '...and the ace vanishes from this pile. Next ace vanishes from the next pile. Third ace goes from the next pile...' I personally would be sitting there thinking 'No s**t!' You see the ace go in, you see it isn't there. You don't need someone to tell it as well. It's the same with the Queens. Because it's so visual, you don't need an explanation. Coming back to my example I mentioned earlier, about my English teacher saying 'show don't tell,' read the following bit of text.

She brushed her long, brown hair out from her eyes and gazed into the cracked old mirror. Her loving blue eyes gazed back, so warm and full of life.

As soon as you start to read that, you begin to make a mental image. Now read the same thing with a slight adjustment.

She brushed her long, brown hair out from her eyes and gazed into the cracked old mirror. Her loving blue eyes gazed back, so warm and full of life. She had brown hair and blue eyes.

Which is the better piece of writing? The first, because the unnecessary sentence at the end, telling you what you've just found out for yourself, detracts from the writing without adding anything. I'd say that this is the same as the patter thing.

 

[copperfield 14]

delete this post

 

[Randomwrath]

It wasn't complaining, it was constructive criticism.

 

[Vior]

.

I wasn't intending to suggest that you were starting an argument. Not my intention, sorry if I came across as aggressive at all. It was poor choice of words. Actually I am rather enjoying this discussion and seeing different people's views about patter. It's interesting to see that most people disagree with me.
To be honest, I don't think that there's ever a place for 'boring patter'. I agree that obviously contrived patter can take away from the trick, depending on how it's presented. Take Chris Kenner and Bad Credit. Does he honestly expect we'll believe that the four kings work for a collection agency and will run into houses and catch debtors? No. Of course not. However, it is still an enjoyable performance because he presents it very tongue in cheek. When somebody seriously expects us to believe that the four jacks are robbers, that's when the performance suffers in my considerably less than humble opinion. Personally I feel that boring patter takes away from the performance but doesn't add anything in return. I have often seen Dream of Aces performed in silence to music. Now imagine watching somebody saying '...and the ace vanishes from this pile. Next ace vanishes from the next pile. Third ace goes from the next pile...' I personally would be sitting there thinking 'No s**t!' You see the ace go in, you see it isn't there. You don't need someone to tell it as well. It's the same with the Queens. Because it's so visual, you don't need an explanation. Coming back to my example I mentioned earlier, about my English teacher saying 'show don't tell,' read the following bit of text.

She brushed her long, brown hair out from her eyes and gazed into the cracked old mirror. Her loving blue eyes gazed back, so warm and full of life.

As soon as you start to read that, you begin to make a mental image. Now read the same thing with a slight adjustment.

She brushed her long, brown hair out from her eyes and gazed into the cracked old mirror. Her loving blue eyes gazed back, so warm and full of life. She had brown hair and blue eyes.

Which is the better piece of writing? The first, because the unnecessary sentence at the end, telling you what you've just found out for yourself, detracts from the writing without adding anything. I'd say that this is the same as the patter thing.

True enough, although it sounds like a fragment from my narrative lesson.