My Favourite Magician!

[Tarotist]

You have to be old and British to know who this is. It is very long so I don't expect you to watch it all. Still, watch as much of it as much as you can.
He wasn't particularly wonderful but he was always (and still is) my favourite magician. The British public loved him. He was a household name in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K7gcTvTap8

The above was in the days of black and white television but here he is a fair bit later. I think this one is even better. Loads to watch here. Hopefully some of you will watch as much as you can. His gentlemanly and courteous style is such a refreshing change from all the arrogant and aggressive styles you see nowadays. I particularly love the way he calls volunteers "Mr" and "Mrs" in the old fashioned British manner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri87YLzTgRo

[Philippe Billot]

Eh oui ! It was another time!

Nostalgia, when you hold us...

[Tom Moore]

There’s some real gold in his tv shows and the DVD collection of the show is worth every penny for the inspiration it will give you.

[Tarotist]

I bet many American magicians have never heard of him but they should check him out. He was a household name in Britain. I think he was absolutely wonderful!

[MagicbyAlfred]

Any magician who is resourceful enough and has the cajones to palm 15 stranger cards and load them onto a brand new deck after having a spectator open and shuffle the deck, prior to a poker deal trick, is alright in my book.

[Tarotist]

SShhh..........It is supposed to be a secret! I haven't seen that bit yet, however I do know that he was a master of the Nap Hand trick. It sounds as if that was what he was doing. It was the standard way of doing that trick in those days. Another master of the trick was Lionel King. I know Billy Mc'Comb also used to do it but not by the method under discussion.

[Brad Jeffers]

Any magician who is resourceful enough and has the cajones to palm 15 stranger cards and load them onto a brand new deck after having a spectator open and shuffle the deck, prior to a poker deal trick, is alright in my book.

Technically, in order to avoid a possible disastrous outcome, it would need to be 19 cards (to account for the draws).

[Tarotist]

Whereabouts is this sequence and which video is it? The black and white one or the coloured one?

[MagicbyAlfred]

Whereabouts is this sequence and which video is it? The black and white one or the coloured one?

It's in the black and white video, and it begins at the 4:00 minute mark.

For the 5-card poker "game," he deals three hands of five cards each. Each of the two spectators predictably opts to draw one card, while David stands pat on his hand.

He certainly is an affable and engaging chap. I got a kick out of his line while the spectator was shuffling the cards: "Not too much, I've got a living to make, you know."

The loading of the stack, of course, happens in the process of his completion of the spectator's cut. I love sneaky moves that are accomplished under the guise of fairness.

[AJM]

I remember watching the David Nixon shows back in the day when I was knee-high to a grasshopper.

I guess that’s where I caught the old magic bug.

[Brad Jeffers]

Technically, in order to avoid a possible disastrous outcome, it would need to be 19 cards (to account for the draws).

Upon further reflection ...
By dealing each player two pair and an X card, you are assured they will draw only one, and therefore will only need 17 cards.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Technically, in order to avoid a possible disastrous outcome, it would need to be 19 cards (to account for the draws).

Upon further reflection ...
By dealing each player two pair and an X card, you are assured they will draw only one, and therefore will only need 17 cards.

Yes, and I went back and watched again to see if he allowed the player on his left to draw first, and he did, which would be important to do to avoid the possibility of being called out by the participant(s) or an audience member. This would also mean that the sixteenth card down in the stack would need to be the one that completed a full house for the player on the dealer's (magician's) left, while the seventeenth card would obviously be the one to complete the full house for the player on the dealer's right.

IMHO, this is one of the strongest gambling tricks one could possibly perform for laymen, vastly superior to routines where the magician does the shuffling, and although magicians would be very likely to realize, al least after the fact, what happened, the palming and loading procedure itself, being so brazen, and if smoothly executed (as it was by David Nixon), might likely fly by a lot of them.

As an afterthought, I think it would also be important to determine before selecting the participants, whether they have at least a modicum of knowledge/experience in poker. David asked them about this only after they came up and sat down, so either he was lucky, or he knew ahead of time that they had played at least some poker.

[Joe Lyons]

As an afterthought, I think it would also be important to determine before selecting the participants, whether they have at least a modicum of knowledge/experience in poker. David asked them about this only after they came up and sat down, so either he was lucky, or he knew ahead of time that they had played at least some poker.

If you replay it you'll see that he asked for two gentlemen that played poker or at least were familiar with card games. It would have worked of course regardless of their choices, but the effect is much stronger when they act as he plans.

He certainly is an affable and engaging chap. I got a kick out of his line while the spectator was shuffling the cards: "Not too much, I've got a living to make, you know."

Agreed, very charming. I read that he was also popular in pantomimes.

[Tarotist]

He got his main TV fame at the beginning of his career not so much because of magic but because he was a panelist of the British version of "What's My Line?". I remember the other panelists were Isabelle Barnett, Barbara Kelly and grumpy old Gilbert Harding. Here is an entire episode where Nixon is on the panel. This show had a lot to do with him becoming a big star.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Thk2OZ6lAY

[MagicbyAlfred]

Joe Lyons Wrote: "If you replay it you'll see that he asked for two gentlemen that played poker or at least were familiar with card games."

Yes, you are right, Joe. I must have been listening out of the corner of my ear.

It does strike me as odd, though, that he asked, "Do we have two gentlemen that play poker?" and then he immediately followed up with, ""It doesn't mater if you don't play poker, as long as you understand cards in general." That could end up being hit or miss.

[Tom Moore]

One of Davids secret weapons was that he was incredibly good at making spectators do what he wanted and wasn’t in the slightest bit phased when something went wrong. In his tv shows (which were taped as-live) there’s plenty of errors, mistakes and tricks that just completely fail but he effortlessly made it seem like it was all intended to happen like that on the rare occasion he couldn’t nudge spectators to do what he wanted.
He’s the greatest example of the idea that the magicians personality is a hundred times more important than his technical skills.

[Tarotist]

He did indeed make loads of mistakes but it didn't make the blindest bit of difference. Magicians used to criticize him for it but they were focusing on the wrong thing. Audiences want you to be human rather than perfect. My favourite mistake is on the black and white video at 55 minutes in!

Something else occurred to me which I rather liked. You can tell he was not working to a tight script. He was talking like a normal human being and was all the better for it. I am sure there were rehearsals but there would never have been time to learn tight scripts for all the newish material that he used. I have seen modern television magic shows and the obvious strict scripting stands out like a sore thumb. I am not in favour of it. You should have a rough idea of what you are going to say and then bloody well say it without talking like a robot. David Nixon was a master of this.

[Jack Shalom]

Talking like a robot has nothing to do with having a script or not. It has to do with basic performing skills.

[Tarotist]

Everyone I have seen who works to a TIGHT script talks like a robot, particularly on television. I am not a against a "script" although I detest the word since it has pretentious connotations. I far prefer the word "patter" as it is the correct word used for decades. However, the script (if we have to use that horrible word) should be a flexible one and not one learned by rote and even worse sound as if it was learned by rote.

I am well aware of the theory that actors use tight scripts but as Wilfrid Jonson pointed out actors are in a different position than magicians. Quite frankly I consider acting training to be detrimental to being a good magician rather than an asset. As for "basic performing skills" I do claim to know something about that from sheer experience. And that experience taught me never to work to a TIGHT performing script particularly on television. TV is an intimate medium and tight scripts stick out like a sore thumb.

Still, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Do it any way you like.

[Richard Kaufman]

Magicians are not actors.
Magicians are entertainers.
Actors are not entertainers: they are actors.

[Tarotist]

Magicians are not actors.
Magicians are entertainers.
Actors are not entertainers: they are actors.

I very much agree with this!

A lot of people have misinterpreted Robert Houdin's dictum of "A magician is an actor playing the part of a magician" and think it is something to do with acting. The quote is usually taken out of context. He was actually fussing about too much in the way of flourishes and fancy handling. Here is the quote in context ""A conjuror is not a juggler; he is an actor playing the part of a magician; an artist whose fingers have more need to move with deftness than with speed. I may even add that where sleight-of-hand is involved, the quieter the movement of the performer, the more readily will the spectators be deceived."

[Paco Nagata]

Magicians are not actors.
Magicians are entertainers.
Actors are not entertainers: they are actors.

I very much agree with this!

A lot of people have misinterpreted Robert Houdin's dictum of "A magician is an actor playing the part of a magician" and think it is something to do with acting. The quote is usually taken out of context. He was actually fussing about too much in the way of flourishes and fancy handling. Here is the quote in context ""A conjuror is not a juggler; he is an actor playing the part of a magician; an artist whose fingers have more need to move with deftness than with speed. I may even add that where sleight-of-hand is involved, the quieter the movement of the performer, the more readily will the spectators be deceived."

It is also a matter of point of view.

The audience's point of view versus the magicians's point of view.

Robert-Houdin wrote his book for magicians, likewise any magician that write a book is generally for people that want to learn magic as entertainer.

I think that from the point of view of the audience, magicians are not actors. However, from the point of view of (other) magicians, magicians are actors. I think that's the origin of this terrible famous and universal misunderstanding.

[MagicbyAlfred]

He did indeed make loads of mistakes but it didn't make the blindest bit of difference. Magicians used to criticize him for it but they were focusing on the wrong thing. Audiences want you to be human rather than perfect

Thank Heaven for that, as it kept me working when my humanity far exceeded my technique and experience.

[Tarotist]

I make mistakes at every performance. It doesn't matter a darn and in fact it helps my effectiveness. I have known for a long time that perfection is a lack of perfection in itself.

[Brad Jeffers]

I make mistakes at every performance. In fact it helps my effectiveness.

I've seen magicians who performed flawlessly, and it didn't seem to hurt them too much.

[katterfelt0]

I make mistakes at every performance. In fact it helps my effectiveness.

I've seen magicians who performed flawlessly, and it didn't seem to hurt them too much.

Cardini comes to mind, and Channing Pollock.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I make mistakes at every performance. In fact it helps my effectiveness.

I've seen magicians who performed flawlessly, and it didn't seem to hurt them too much.

Cardini comes to mind, and Channing Pollock.

And, as far as contemporary magicians, Bill Malone, although he is actually very humble in "real life," and would likely disagree with me.

[Tarotist]

Cardini and Pollock were doing silent acts. There the more perfect you are the better. However, if you are talking you will find that being too perfect can be detrimental especially in close up work. Your sleight of hand should be perfect but the rest of it doesn't have to be. In fact I would go far as to say that it shouldn't be.

I can assure you that I know what I am talking about. I have been doing this stuff a long, long time. Audiences like you if you are a little bit imperfect. Note I said "a little bit"--you can have too much of a good thing (or a bad thing if you wish to look at it that way)

There. That is MY version of the too perfect theory!

[Tarotist]

I find a common fault of people who do things "flawlessly" is that they look far too pleased with themselves! Not all of them of course but a hell of a lot of them! I do remember Vernon himself saying that absolute perfection is not really obtainable. Anyway here is something I once wrote about 40 or so years ago. I included it my my Annotated Royal Road to Card Magic:
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

I once saw two mind readers appearing on television within weeks of each other. One
seemed to give a far more polished performance than the other, doing what seemed
stronger tricks, less long-winded patter, and all the telepathy worked whereas the other
fellow seemed to have a high failure rate. Yet strangely the slick performer did not get
half the reaction that the less polished mind reader did. The reason I think was that the
first telepathist was TOO impossible, TOO perfect and TOO slick. He had to fight all that
“defensive resentment”. The second mentalist on the other hand seemed to have trouble
getting his clairvoyance to work. However, when something did go right it got a
sensational reaction from the audience. This, I believe was because the failures
generated sympathy; the “defensive resentment” evaporated and when something did
work it caused an enthusiastic audience response.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I think Tarotist makes some excellent points, and they are consistent with human nature and psychology, as well as being based on experience.

By the way, it wasn't uncommon for Chan Canasta to make mistakes, but he had people, including big celebrities, eating out of his hand. Bill does too, but for different reasons -- while his magic is rooted in flawless sleight of hand, he's just so dang hilarious and entertaining,

[Tarotist]

I was actually referring to Chan Canasta in my excerpt.

[Dave Le Fevre]

I've often noticed how almost-perfect mentalism is better than perfect mentalism.

It's partially the sympathy from the audience when they do eventually get it right. And it's partially that it seems more authentic, in that the performer really struggles the divine the information.

I'm sure that everybody has noticed this too.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I've often noticed how almost-perfect mentalism is better than perfect mentalism.

It's partially the sympathy from the audience when they do eventually get it right. And it's partially that it seems more authentic, in that the performer really struggles the divine the information.

I'm sure that everybody has noticed this too.

Agreed, Dave. Look at the vast majority of popular films and novels, for example. Their creators understand human nature and emotions. There is usually a formula that involves overcoming adversity before getting to a happy ending. If the guy got the girl (or vice versa), or the battle won, or the goal l achieved, without a struggle or intervening crisis/crises, these works would be vanilla, lacking in drama, and likely fall flat. To put it another way, it has been observed that contrast is the first law of all art, and I think that applies to the art of magic and, I would think, especially mentalism. And people identify with and root for the underdog. However, I don't mean to imply that a performer can be successful if he/she is consistently sloppy or incompetent. We are, in a way, telling the story of us when we perform and telling (or selling) that story well is an art in itself.

[Tarotist]

Not just mentalism. It helps in magic too. There is often a vague subconscious irritation in the mind of a layman that the magician has fooled him especially if the said magician is too triumphant about it. However, if the performer indulges in some small screw ups like dropping something accidentally or forgetting a word or something, or getting the odd trick wrong it assuages this feeling to some extent and this can only be a good thing. David Nixon is the proof of this. However, small screw ups -----not major ones!

[MagicbyAlfred]

Not just mentalism. It helps in magic too. There is often a vague subconscious irritation in the mind of a layman that the magician has fooled him especially if the said magician is too triumphant about it. However, if the performer indulges in some small screw ups like dropping something accidentally or forgetting a word or something, or getting the odd trick wrong it assuages this feeling to some extent and this can only be a good thing. David Nixon is the proof of this. However, small screw ups -----not major ones!

Yes. And it's tough to beat finding the "wrong card," acting worried, and placing it into their hand face-down, as you clumsily ask for another chance - then to have it change into the right card. Laymen go bonkers over that.

[Tarotist]

[

Yes. And it's tough to beat finding the "wrong card," acting worried, and placing it into their hand face-down, as you clumsily ask for another chance - then to have it change into the right card. Laymen go bonkers over that.

Yes--and oddly enough that is also a great strategy to use on a persistent heckler. They mock you for failing then when the tables are turned and they fall into your trap there is only one way to assuage their hurt ego and oddly enough it is to change sides and become your biggest booster. I have used this tactic on many occasions. Far better than saying rude things to them or trying to fight them. It sets a very jarring note.

Oddly enough I came across something today which I first read in one of my first books on magic. I had forgotten all about it and it makes me wonder if this is where I first got my idea of underplaying things and letting them underestimate me. It was in Wilfrid Jonson's book on conjuring and was part of the preface. Here is the extract:
"You will avoid presenting your tricks with an air of challenge and you will also avoid an air of superiority. You can best do this by appearing a little amused and puzzled by the effects you produce by appearing to conduct experiments in an art which you have not altogether mastered and which at times astonishes you"

The key phrase is "an art which you have not altogether mastered". THAT is why it is sound practice to fumble a bit here and there and not try to be too flawless. It is sound psychology which I have used my entire life especially in my younger days. Let them underestimate you and then go in for the kill! I highly recommend this approach especially in working impromptu.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Old Wilfred Johnson clearly had an understanding of psychology/human nature, and that advice (if heeded) was more valuable than any single trick he may have taught. I still commonly see magicians giving presentations that include comments like, "You weren't watching," or "OK, I'll slow it down for you," or "Here, I'll do it again," or "See if you can catch me," and/or "Look, I'll make it easy for you," etc. No wonder a fair amount of people are defensive, unreceptive, or even hostile towards magicians. Tarotist, I think it's fair to say that your wit is matched only by your wisdom -- to phrase a coin.

[Tarotist]

Oddly enough Alfred is exhibiting psychic ability since it occurred to me after rereading the other day what Jonson wrote that this tiny bit in the preface was more useful than any of the tricks he wrote in the rest of the book.

I have often come across great snippets of wisdom in forewords and prefaces in books and they aren't always written by the authors. I never ignore forewords and prefaces for that very reason.

[Paco Nagata]

Great thoughts in this thread.
Very interesting and helpful.

When it comes to entertaining I reckon that imperfection comes along with naturalness, whereas perfection turns out being too artificial.
Artists are not robots, but human.
Some magicians are imperfect even on purpose, precisely to convey realism/naturalness.

Gerald Deutsch's magic is a good example of it.
His legacy teaches us a very important concept to take into account.