Comments on: The Classic Pass – Another Approach

By: aaronfishermagic

aaronfishermagic — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:26:51 +0000

Thanks for the comment Tony – I think you’re absolutely right.I absolutely love opportunities where it’s really appropriate to do the kind of work you’re talking about here. That’s the reason I got into magic in the first place.

Gratefully,

Aaron

By: Tony Noice

Tony Noice — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:28:07 +0000

Sorry, I’ve been away a few days and the replies have been piling up. I’d like to thank everyone for the carefully considered posts. First, let me say that I never meant to imply that I believe that a pass should never be used as a covert move under misdirection. Rather, I believe that if one has put in the years necessary to perform a pass in which a face up card or cards VISIBLY change, the result is truly magical and should be used in that way – one card literally seems to melt into another. Many examples of a burnable pass are around including those by Ken Krenzel, Howie Schwarzman, Peter Duffie, Jamy Ian Swiss, and the sorely missed Derek Dingle. A good, smooth pass that can be done under misdirection can be learned in a fraction of the time required for a burnable pass. Therefore, I do believe that if one has invested the years necessary to perform this type of pass but never uses it for a visual change, one has wasted valuable extra time that could have been used to acquire other sleights that he or she WOULD use. Indeed, I believe the visible use is the only one that justifies the enormous amount of practice for a burnable pass. Otherwise, why not just learn a good, smooth, pass that will be perfectly deceptive with a modicum of misdirection?

By: Matthew Field

Matthew Field — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:43:04 +0000

Sorry — I left out the Diagonal Palm Shift as another control that looks neutral, and there are some others. But the Pass is a great move.

Matt Field

By: Matthew Field

Matthew Field — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:05:30 +0000

I’ve got to disagree with Tony, at leaat on one level, when he says the Pass is not worth doing UNLESS the hands are being burned.

There are several uses for the Pass. The one Tony is using it for in his Ambitious routine is as a Color Change, and it is certainly effective in that role.

The other common use is as an invisible card control. We can debate till the cows come home whether the Pass is better than a Side steal in this regard, but what each of these controls has to offer is that there is no change in the appearance of the deck before and after the move, that is, nothing appears to have happened after the spectator replaces his card in the deck.

No other controls allow that (at least none that come to mind) and to limit the use of the Pass to a Color Change is to tremendously restrict the options for the worker.

Anyway, that’s my view.

Thank you, Aaron, for a stimulating discussion, and for your insightful writing.

Matt Field

By: Matt G.

Matt G. — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:13:19 +0000

It all comes down to what kind of performer you are and what kind of trick you are doing. Now I’m not an expert on the pass, I’m still in the R&D phase (as Aaron would call it) of a pass that suits me. But I agree it can be amazing to see a card visually melt to the top of the deck because to a spectator, even to a magician who knows the secret, if done correctly it looks absolutely amazing. Now is it better to perform a pass in the midst of mass misdirection or underfire? It all depends on the performer, their skill level (not only technical skill but audience managements), and the trick. For me if I would use a pass I would do it when no one expects it however some people perfer to do it underfire. So for me personally, I would have to agree with Aaron. Tony has some very good points though so if you can preform the move invisibly to create visual miracles then you should by all means do it like Tony says. So to conclude, there is no right or wrong answer because every single performer is different. So see what suits you personally and the trick your trying to do. Have Fun and don’t worry to much about the technical details because in the spectator’s mind it does not really matter if the card is face up or face down when the card rises to the top.

Cheers,

Matt. G

By: Intensely Magic

Intensely Magic — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:00:47 +0000

Aaron,

After watching magic for over 50 years, I’m convinced that an invisible pass exists only in the mind of the performer. Certainly some are better, much better, than others, but EVERY pass I have seen has a hop – a flick – a noise – something that tells the spectator something has happened and that is as bad as knowing what happened.

Covers such as jerky movements, many riffles and/or turns are so contorted and contrived that they are nearly comical.

i/m

By: Dennis van den Hove

Dennis van den Hove — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:49:56 +0000

I couldn’t disagree with Tony more. Inviting a spectator to watch closely as you do a sleight, comes close to the puzzle mentality that is frowned upon by many.

We are supposed to do MAGIC. That implies we don’t use any trickery or sneakiness to accomplish the effects we do. Our audiences are, with a few exceptions, far from stupid; they KNOW magic is impossible. However, why would one not just downplay the magic, but actually ask them to try and catch you just as you are about to execute any technique? That completely dispells all magic!

We’ve all heard the phrase “running when one isn’t being chased”. If I understand Tony correctly, he asks people to please chase him before he even starts running.

By: Michael Kelley

Michael Kelley — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:17:45 +0000

Hi Aaron – I apologize as I never got the chance to post on the previous article. Anyway – I think Tony has a point. I think the Pass has it’s place in visual performance. An undetectable pass while someone is burning the deck making it truly seem as if the card just appeared face up on top of the deck, can be visually stunning. The problem lies here…how many people can REALLY do a pass that sweet? Completely undetectable, in someones face – CONSITANTLY. The answer? Not many – or at least not nearly as many who attempt it for people.

The following is a comment I made to a discussion on an ACR and using the pass. The individual who’s name I’ve **** out believed their pass good enough to use as every move of their routine. Sadly, there are many youngsters out there that feel this is appropriate. Here is one of my comments.

The pass is over rated, over attempted and over used – and generally not nearly as hot as the performer thinks. This isn’t to impune your pass *****. However an ACR consisting of nothing but passes can’t be that entertaining. The pass if used as *A* single part of the routine can make for a nice appearance…especially if face up. Any more than that means you are working too hard to achieve results better gained by other moves.

The problem is how and when it is used. There’s a big judgement call. I tend to more agree with your original article, but as I noted – if and when it’s good enough, using it “visually” (if you get my drift) can be very magical.

Great topic.

By: Ray Jaegers

Ray Jaegers — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:29:30 +0000

I suppose an argument could be made that you are both right. Tony is correct that the riffle pass to apparently show a face-up card traveling to the top of the deck is a stunning, visual move. It presupposes that eyes are glued on the deck. However, you notice he said the spectator looks down at the top of the deck through the arch of the right hand. What about the other spectators? Are they at angles where they can get this same view? Probably not. Would they perhaps see the ‘tells’ that a pass occured? Maybe, maybe not. So what I take from Tony’s point is that for an individual or a small group, his approach works.

I also believe that you are correct in saying that the classic pass needs misdirection. Any move benefits from misdirection. Since nothing should be seen and nothing suspected, why require that the audience look at the deck? Panering to one’s own vanity is a good answer.

Finally, I have seen several top-flight card workers perform the pass and they all had ‘tells’. Whether a dip or a flash, there was some indication that the pass had taken place. To be fair, I’ve also seen some that were amazingly invisible. I knew a pass occured but did not see any evidence of the fact.

This age-old debate will continue thoughout time. It is a healthy debate and the only winners are the ones who go into the real world and perform effectively–whatever method they choose.

Thanks for the interesting topics!

Ray
St. Louis, MO

By: aaronfishermagic

aaronfishermagic — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:58:54 +0000

As far as I’m concerned, both of these approaches require misdirection.

My classical approach, as Michael Vincent so effectively put it, requires “macro” misdirection. Tom’s idea above fits into this category.

Tony’s approach also uses misdirection, but on a “micro” level. I wrote on this topic a great deal in The Paper Engine. I was specifically talking about the misdirection you can apply with one finger to make an audience, if only subconsciously, focus on another finger. The audience still has a sense that their attention has been focused on the pack. But even in looking at the pack itself, it’s possible to control which part of the deck will draw focus.

With Thanks,
Aaron Fisher