Is there a happy balance between patter and performance? 

I was inspired to compile this lecture by my good friend Donnie Golson based on comments he made during a Project Magic Performance. After watching me perform Three Card Monte (Color Monte) over a period of a few years Donnie said: “Rick, that trick seems to last forever.” I asked him how long it took, he couldn’t tell me he just said: “Long”. The scripted trick takes 2:50 to perform. The original Patter of Color Monte is 1:48 without any lead in or introduction to the trick. I asked if the audience enjoyed it. Donnie said: “Yeah, but it’s long”. Is it time that is the issue, presentation, entertainment value or all? Time. There is objective time – how long it actually takes and subjective time – how long it seems to take. We have all had enjoyable experiences where time just “flew” by. Does entertainment value accelerates subjective time? That subject is good enough for an essay on its own. Hold that thought. Before I go further, I want to acknowledge Merritt Ambrose, West Evans, Mark Hatfield, and John Miller for their review and feedback. Thank You for your comments and insights.

There is a lesson to learn before we even begin this lecture as observed by John Miller. Magicians are generally too nice to each other. If Donnie hadn’t commented, I probably would never have made my improvements to the trick. I was not displeased with Donnie offering his constructive criticism. It was healthy feedback and because of that, I’m sharing my discoveries with you. Based on Donnie’s comments I began to question and revisited the effect: Was I wrapped too tightly around my research and patter development? Was my presentation too wordy — Magic vs. Story? Was Donnie frustrated by seeing me performing the same effect performance after performance over the years? Was the trick just a poor trick? Was my presentation really entertaining?

Someone said that there are no poor tricks, just poor magicians. Must have been a magic dealer.

Here is the bottom line as I saw it — was it entertaining? “Entertainment First” as our Dean George Schindler would say. Did it elicit the responses I wanted to bring out of the audience? Specifically the following objectives:

1. Accepting me, the entertainer, by identifying with a shared experiences (visiting New York City) and thereby willing to give me their time to take them on a magic journey.
2. Develop empathy for my misjudgments as they observe me going places and doing things that they would never consider doing.
3. I wanted them to see that I was being taken advantage of before I realized
4. Could they reflect on my self-justifications – the grandfatherly anecdotes rather than an instinct to just run and get out of there.
5. I wanted laughter to relieve the stress of my get-rich-quick

What makes us unique magicians is our ability to take an effect and make it our own. All too often we see our peers go to magic conventions and watch a silver tongue pitchman present a trick, we purchase it, bring it back to our club meetings, and present our newest trick as the pitchman did. Seldom do we ever make it our own. This is all too true when people learn magic from DVD’s. How often do we see copycat magicians mirror script, movement, patter, and even dress as their DVD magic idol. This level of presentation should all be far behind us by now.

Making the effect your own often requires a major rewrite or abandoning the patter purchased with the trick. At times it may be just adapting it to our style. Making it your own is making it fit you. At this point we already have a handle on our own style, our character, we know how to script, we know how to routine, and we have a pretty good grip on psychology. If you don’t think you’re there yet then you got some good leads to explore.