The pass (dah, dah, daaaahhhh!)

[Shodan]

I notice that the pass discussion has made it's way over here by now. Here's my thoughts:

You should practise the sleights that power the effects in your repertoire. Only two of my current effects use variations of the pass, but that means that they have to be as smooth as possible. I use the Backstage Pass, the Riffle Pass and the Charlier Pass and all of them work well with or without misdirection - for laypeople.

Magicians catch a flash, and they know you've done a pass. Laypeople see a flicker of something, and they dismiss it if they consider it unimportant. And whatever you consider unimportant...so do they.

It is a utility move, it's almost always replaceable (I ONLY use it when it's the only tool for the job) and it's difficult. But so's a double lift, or an elmsley, or a jog shuffle...etc. etc. The problem is that people think these are "easy moves" because they are more accessible than others, but they require just as much attention. I am still not happy with my injog overhand shuffle! One of my good friends is a Mixed Martial Arts Coach, and he has a saying that he's very fond of with regards to training, which I think applies well to magic as well:

"There are only two types of techniques: basics, and gimmicks".

Basics are your fundamental skills, "high percentage techniques", and should be drilled in and improved upon - forever.

Gimmicks - in this context - are "low percentage techniques" - ones that you rarely have the opportunity to use. It is interesting to note that many martial arts schools spend more time on gimmicks than on basics. Why? Because they are more glamorous, and more fun, and often more showy. It is often the case that a gimmicky move can be replaced with a basic move to the same or better effect.

Now maybe you consider that the pass is a basic move, but I would be inclined to disagree, and I'm definitely not alone. If you want to be a good card worker, there are many more fundamental techniques to work on than the pass - for instance those mentioned above. Every now and then you will encounter a situation where the pass is necessary, but we have the luxury of choice - you can decide whether or not you want to add that effect to your repertoire, and if so then you then have to commit to practising the pass until it is at a performable standard.

It is also worth noting that harder sleights do not make better effects. Some of the best card tricks out there are self working! There is no correlation between technical difficulty and strength of effect.

My point is simple. If you have an effect that you really want to be able to do that uses a version of the pass, then make sure you can do it well. If that's not the case, then you would be best served reinforcing your basics, the moves that you do all the time. One day if you need a pass, your solid knowledge of the basics will make learning it much, much easier as well, so you win all ways around.

Cheers,
David

[drorange]

thx man
i totally agree there is no point added the pass into your rountine unless its almost perfect there are plenty of other methods you can use

[MaxDeVill]

I personally love the pass, it gets things done in a ridiculously quick amount of time in a tiny space. And with just a bit of "ha ha" misdirection its over and done without anyone noticing.

The turn over pass is fantastic too, alls they see is the deck turning over so you can "show them all sides of the deck to prove I'm not doing anything funny"... bam its done and you can do whatever else you want now.. false shuffle, ACR, etc..

It may be hard to master, and I haven't yet... but I personally think its one of the most powerful moves I have.

[Shodan]

This is exactly the kind of thinking you need to be careful of. Pass followed by false shuffle? Why not just do the shuffle to control the card?

Using a move without understanding the correct context leads to very inefficient, ugly methods. And why are we talking about the pass as a seperate entity? It's a sleight and should be done in the context of an effect.

[Brundo]

I don't really use the pass a lot in y performances. It's more to show of to my magician friends then anything else :p

[Slevin]

Personaly I like Pass. I think every magician, who respect himself, should do at least a Classic pass smooth. Where do I use the Pass? Let`s see...
In ACR, when the card is face-up, no misderection, you want them to burn your deck with eyes.... half a second and spec`s card visualy jumps on top.
To control a single card, insert in the middle and... that`s all. Spec. thinks, that his card is really buried in the middle (but we know the truth)
If you have stacked cards, they cut a deck, you make a pass - everyone is happy!
In my opinion, even if you don`t like this utility move, you just have to know how to do it. Charlier Pass rocks...he-he:)

[Arthur Pitt]

Its a fun move, and I like to practice it.

But there are better more convincing controls out there.

... Topper, much?

[Shodan]

*Beats head repeatedly against the wall*

When was the "discussion" removed from the title "discussion forum"? Rather than state how great you think the pass is, how about actually contributing something meaningful to the conversation?

[off topic]
I was under the impression that topper was primarily used as a switch force. X card is outjogged, top card is removed/shown. Although switches can be used as controls, there is a difference. Control implies locating or moving specific card(s), whilst switching is exactly that. If you switch for an X card, then you do have control of the original, but that's not its primary function.
[/off topic]

[Eddie]

Its a fun move, and I like to practice it.

But there are better more convincing controls out there.

... Topper, much?

I agree.

Even if you can do the pass like Akira Fuji, its still a little suspicious how you handle the deck after you do the pass. There are better ones out there.

[Tricky Nicky]

I use the Classic Pass frequently, and I have never been caught. Using just the slightest misdirection, the pass is finished without a thought. Now yes, there are sleights that accomplish the same thing, but from the perspective of the spectator, to see a card put in the middle of the deck, and then (in their eyes) produced, is just a fantastic feat. A cut or shuffle could imply to certain spectators that there's a control going on, no?

[Shodan]

Indeed it could. That's down to your presentation.

Now how about the dozens of other controls that don't include cuts or shuffles? Take for example the spread cull, the side steal, the convincing control, the diagonal palm shift, tilt...and many, many more.

[MaxDeVill]

/me defends self

Pass and then false shuffle crying? C'mon... you pop the pass and then you can do whatever you want because its already at the top. You can sit back, false shuffle, false cut till your fingers bleed and the sepctator has no clue, they just see shuffling and cutting being done.

As for "that kind of thinking" I think my thinking is perfectly sound and more importantly it works. I'm not a move junkie, I do what needs to be done and then enjoy the conversation with the spectator... false shuffling and false cutting gives you something to do with your hands while talking, which covers damned near anything else you WANT to do with the cards... if you just stand there like a log, any time you move they're going to be watching you for a slick move.

[Shodan]

The point is that if you're going to shuffle ANYWAY you might as well use the shuffle to control the card.

Selection -> deck. Break held

Shuffle to the break. Card is on top (or bottom depending on method)

Continue to false shuffle/cut/whatever. Your actions will appear identical, but you have eliminated a move.

The whole point of using the pass as a control is that nothing appears to have happened - it is an "immoveable control". You lose that one advantage if you continue to shuffle the cards.

So the choice is clear:

1. Pass the card and DO NOTHING - taking advantage of the nature of the sleight.

2. False shuffle and control the card in the process - simple and effective. Only reason for not doing this is if you don't want to shuffle the cards.

3. Pass the card, then shuffle - inelegant use of the sleights involved and adding pointlessness to difficulty is hardly jusifiable any day of the week.

[MaxDeVill]

As previously stated, I am always doing something with the cards, even if its just riffling them in order to keep my hands moving and keep my spectator used to me moving the cards around. The pass is a method to get a card to tthe top. There are other methods too, and personally I enjoy the knowledge that its over and done with and all the heat is off of me. Additionally, most people see a riffle shuffle and think, wow, there is no way my card can be found now.

And I don't do ACRs.. so maybe thats part of the difference.

[Shodan]

Way to go - you didn't address any of the points made in my last post.

[MaxDeVill]

Guess I have to break it down Barney style for you...

1. Pass the card and DO NOTHING - taking advantage of the nature of the sleight.

2. False shuffle and control the card in the process - simple and effective. Only reason for not doing this is if you don't want to shuffle the cards.

3. Pass the card, then shuffle - inelegant use of the sleights involved and adding pointlessness to difficulty is hardly jusifiable any day of the week.

1. I don't do ACR's, and passing the card to the top does give you a lot of options, such as a top palm in order to allow the deck to be shuffled by the spectator and then yourself. It is one of the best convincers you can do because as a magician the spectator knows you can control the cards... you're a freakin' magician.

2. I do this too, I don't ALWAYS use the pass. Keep it fresh, keep it different, keep them thinking.

3. Inelegant? I think not. Elegance is defined:

1 a : refined grace or dignified propriety : URBANITY b : tasteful richness of design or ornamentation <the sumptuous elegance of the furnishings> c : dignified gracefulness or restrained beauty of style : POLISH <the essay is marked by lucidity, wit, and elegance> d : scientific precision, neatness, and simplicity <the elegance of a mathematical proof>

What you think is elegant may not be what the spectator sees as elegant. A false triple cut that looks good is an elegant move for them. A standing one handed riffle shuffle is an elegant move to the spectator. With the card passed to the top you've got all the heat off of you to do whatever the hell you want to do.

Inelegant? No. Inefficient maybe. But its entertaining to the spectator and that is what you are supposed to be doing, not entertaining yourself with how efficiently you fooled them.

[Shodan]

When I refer to elegance I refer to elegance of method - in the scientific or mathematical sense; I should have made that clear. Hence, method 3 is considered inelegant under this definition.

In order then:

1. Do nothing more that re-orders the deck - so yes, palming the card and handing the deck out for shuffling is valid. Crimping is often better though - eliminate three difficult/risky moves (pass, palm and replacement) by using one easy one. And, none of this has anything to do with whether or not you or I do the amibitious card routine.

2. Method should be dictated by effect. Why are we talking about techniques as a seperate entity here? Give me an example of two different effects which lend themselves to the two different methods of control (the efficient and the inefficient to be precise). Keep them thinking? There should be no difference in appearance between methods two and three...assuming you execute the techniques properly.

3. Efficiency of method allows you to focus more on the job of entertaining the spectator, which is - as you pointed out - what you are there for.

Controlling the card to a specific position in the deck ready for your effect does allow you to relax and "do whatever you want to". All that I'm contesting is the method, or combination of methods, used to achieve this goal.

[MaxDeVill]

I use the ACR as an example due to the fact that pretty much everyone knows the routine, and knows many methods to achieve the routine.

I agree with you on pretty much all of your points except that effect should dictate the method. There are many ways to accomplish the same effect with many different methods. You could do an ACR with nothing but false cuts, many different passes, or with a few Ed Marlo moves. Thus, the effect does not necessarily dictate the method.

Thanks for keeping this conversation civil.. I was beginning to think it was getting out of control their for a second.

Now, back to the original topic of the thread...

The pass is an effective tool to control a card, and as many people have pointed out is not the only method. This should not mean that the pass should only be used on certain effects, but when it would be the easiest method or the most amazing.

[Shodan]

Exactly. But I submit that the move is over-used because it has been bigged up as "the" sleight to master. You should use the most appropriate tool for the job, and often that simply isn't the pass.

I am also baffled by your disagreement over effect dictating method. Yes, any given effect can be achieved in a variety of different ways, but surely you always practise your effects the same way? Practise isn't just about perfecting sleights, but about being able to execute the required sleights in the required order in order to achieve the final effect. All the effects in my performing repertoire are always performed using the same method - one which does the job as efficiently and elegantly as possible - and are now so well practised that they happen on auto-pilot.

The only exception to this rule should be "jazzing" and that's not really what's on the table here.

I use the pass in two effects.

1. A location effect; two aces are thrown into the deck one at a time and are found to have landed with only one card in between - the spectator's selection. The effect uses a control to top or bottom - either an application of the drop addition or a spread cull - followed by a charlier which simultaneously catches the first ace and places it next to the selection. Next a riffle pass is used to reset the deck ready for the next ace, and the same charlier is used to catch and place the next ace. There's no other combination of moves that will achieve this effect in the same way, so I'm stuck with them. Interestingly, the very open charlier pass goes un-noticed because of an interesting persistence of vision - the audience is left with the impression that you merely opened the deck to recieve the thrown card.

2. A colour changing deck routine. Penultimate phase: a card is chosen at random and replaced into the centre of the deck, where it is seen to change colour. A backstage pass is used to place the odd backer into the centre, control the selection to the top and reinforce the colour of the deck.

In each case, each usage of the technique is well motivated and/or serves several purposes that only that variant of the move can achieve (at least to the best of my knowledge). This falls into the criteria of easiest tool for the job, but most amazing? A sleight cannot be considered "amazing", only the effect which it achieves. I believe both effects are magical enough to include in my performing repertoire, and they cannot be achieved without the pass.

[PjPinsonnault]

I have to take Shodan's side on the points being made.

Max, you're saying that once you do the pass, you can do whatever you like, which is true, but you're missing the effect of the pass on the spectator, in my opinion.

I ask: Why use a pass, a sleight designed to create the illusion that a card placed in the deck is indeed exactly where you claim it to be, only to shuffle and cut till your fingers bleed, actions that are designed to randomly reassign the cards throughout the deck? After a pass, the card (in their mind) is exactly where you put it; in the middle. After a shuffle/cut sequence, the card could be anywhere.

If you do a pass, shuffling/cutting negates the illusion that pass just created for you.

Nice discussion, guys, I'm glad to see an interesting topic not get ignored and shuffled into the pages of the forum-abyss!

Pj

[Shodan]

I'm not a great technician. I mean sure, I can hold my own, but why do something that's technically difficult when there's an easier tool for the job?

More specifically, why invest time and energy in learning how to do a difficult move when an easier one will do? Another martial arts comparison:

Learning to box effectively (punching) is supposed to take a couple of years.

Learning to kick effectively is supposed to take anywhere from 6 to 10 years.

Learning to use Aikido effectively is "supposed" to take 10-20 years (although I tend to think that even this is optomistic for an art that doesn't "do" any kind of real pressure testing...but anyway...).

Obviously there are people who defy the statistics, but in general those figures appear to be fairly accurate. What it means is that a well rounded boxer should have the advantage over a similiarly skilled kicker provided that they have been training an equal length of time. There's nothing wrong with learning how to be a great kicker, but it is at the expense of not being able to fight effectively for a while. So in this case you have two possible goals: do you want mastery of a particular technique, or do you want the outcome of being able to fight? When advising people on self defence, I always tell them that the quickest way to develop useful physical self defence skills is to take judo and boxing classes...and the longer you train the better you get.

Back to the magic...if two "similar" people start out learning card magic from square one, and the first guy devotes his time to mastering the pass (amongst other sleights of course) and the other one is not allowed to go anywhere near the pass, after the same length of time training I submit that the non-pass guy will have the advantage through having spent more time on fundamental techniques. Yeah, the pass guy might be getting the hang of a more challenging sleight, but the non-pass guy should be more solid on the sleights that will allow them to perform.

Is it about performance, or is it about move-mastery for the sake of it?

[Tricky Nicky]

Beautiful analogy Shodan! I agree, someone who has just started off in magic shouldn't go anywhere near the pass. For me personally, I didn't start working on the Classic Pass until I had been performing for several months. Plus, I made sure I had practiced it enough before I performed it. I didn't just learn it and use it the same day. I used other controls until I had practiced the pass enough to use it. So putting a huge emphasis on learning the pass right off the bat isn't a good thing, but it's certainly a sleight every card worker should be able to execute, sooner or later.

[Beans25]

So this was the first video I saw of the pass, ever since I've been astounded at how insanely hard he makes it look, and frown upon my own pass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GusduqfKcs8

~Beans

[MaxDeVill]

I see both of you guy's points. The pass can be used as a single move that causes an effect to be done if you want. Placing the card in the middle and *bam* its on top without any other moves.

I also see the point that you can control the card using any other method you'd like in order to get it to the top. But as I said, my personal opinion is to get it done quickly, so I know that its completed and to the top.

With every move you have the chance of jacking it up, and although false cuts and false shuffles are easy, I find the pass to be the easiest, quickest, and most effective way to control a card to the top.

I always like to palm the card off the top and give the deck to the spectator to shuffle on most effects, especially something like Indecent.

So I feel you both, and I understand your logic. Guess I just do things differently.

[Bizzaro]

The pass is one of those things that started as a good idea and got stuck in a lot of people's throats.

On one side of the fence you have the "good enuff to get by" guys who believe the pass works with the right misidrection so if it's not perfect such is life.

Then we got the "must be invisible on camera" passers. The ones who see the pass as an art unto itself and want to be the best they can be at it.. which is admirable. However, like religion, it's unfair to force their beliefs on you when you do not agree.

So be happy with where you stand on the subject. Don't be an asshat to anyone who doesn't agree or stand up to your passing standards.

(Personally I prefer the pass Fearson used on his "Magically Delicious" video. He didn't teach it... you just have to watch carefully.)

[MaxDeVill]

Wow, who knew that a single sleight would cause so much controversy and discussion?

I am a firm believer in misdirection during the pass, it makes it easier to accomplish and due to the nature of the move, it is fast... and to be honest, I don't think I'll ever be able to have it completely invisible on camera. I think I'm just not that dexterous.

[conjure_pitch]

I prefer to use the pass without any false cuts or shuffles afterwards. In the middle, bam, to the top.

But I am not even going to begin thinking I'm good enough to question other magicians method.

[Shodan]

I think the pass has been seriously over-hyped, and that is why it causes so much "controversy and discussion". So let me state:

If you've taken the time to perfect it, then why not use it?

The point is that people are trying to learn it too early on in their careers - because of the hype/mystique that surrounds it, courtesy of our friends over at Ellusionist.

"and in that move...it was done..."

I guess my issue is that often it strikes me as using a boulder to crush an ant. There are loads of "*bam* on top" controls of varying degrees of difficulty aside from the pass. Controlling to the bottom is often easier, just as effective - and in some circumstances the better choice for palming too, if the you're comfortable with a gambler's cop. The pass can get so much done - as illustrated in one of my previous posts - that I wouldn't want to use it just as a control. And not just because its inefficient/inelegant/whatever, but because if I don't want to over-use any one sleight - and so I'll reserve it for when it can create maximum mayhem :)

Max - have you never considered using a crimp for your spectator shuffle sequence?

[MaxDeVill]

I agree that Ellusionist has put a large emphasis on the pass, I mean one of their video's is basically dedicated to it, Ninja 1 or 2, I can't remember... and it does deserve its own DVD due to the complexity of the move and how difficult it is to actually pull off.

I do use a crimp for spectator shuffles on occasion, if the effect would be better with it. I do a lot of "card to impossible place" routines tho, and getting it out of the deck fast is how I accomplish most of them.

I fully agree that younger magicians get too concentrated on mastering the pass. There are tons of other mechanics that you can do in order to accomplish the same thing and if you learn 10 ways to control a card as opposed to perfecting the pass, you'll be better off.

But you have to admit, having the card where you want it right away has its perks.

[Shodan]

...which is why I like the drop addition control and the spread cull so much!

That's also fair enough on the impossible location techniques as well. I think all in all we're pretty much on the same page...and it only took three pages of bitter arguing to realise it!

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=MaxDeVill;11687]There are tons of other mechanics that you can do in order to accomplish the same thing and if you learn 10 ways to control a card as opposed to perfecting the pass, you'll be better off.QUOTE]

How 10 sleights which all accomplish different things? Control to top, bottom, false shuffle, false cut, changes, switches, multiple shifts, false counts, displays...etc etc.

[MaxDeVill]

True, but at least it was the most interesting and intense discussion I've seen on this board yet. I'm just happy that there is finally an outlet to discuss these things without having Nazi mods ruin all the fun. :)

[Shodan]

It's good to be able to really get stuck in to something, for sure.

[PjPinsonnault]

I'm a page behind, so bear with me as I catch up.

Shodan, your point about learning a move for the move's sake is well put and taken, and I think Bizarro hit the nail on the head with the example of the "video passers." If you plan to never use it, why bother learning it?

I think the trouble with other moves is falling into the "move junky" mentality. I've seen guys in the club meetings that want so many moves to do the same thing that they're lousy at all of them. In my opinion, a good double is just as demanding as a convincing pass and should take at least as much dedication. Yet I see more people working on their pass than their double.

Like in martial arts, basics in magic seem to bore magicians once they've learned a few and practices a little. But if you watch, say, the UFC, a guy like Randy Couture can keep winning at 45 years old because he has mastered his basics and he fights guys who figure youth will be their ace in the hole. I think we could all take a lesson from Randy in this regard.

Back to the pass. To me, it's a matter of choice. Sleights are like tools in a tool box, and as long as you have the right tools for the tasks at hand, and the tools suit you, then there's no problem.

Nice thread everyone.

Pj

[Shodan]

The UFC as an analogy for card magic...rock on!

[Tricky Nicky]

This has been quite an exciting discussion. I really liked Bizarro's points. Great analogy Pj!

[Glenn West]

. . .

Magicians catch a flash, and they know you've done a pass. Laypeople see a flicker of something, and they dismiss it if they consider it unimportant. And whatever you consider unimportant...so do they. . . .
Cheers,
David


Sorry to edit down your post, but I have to disagree with you here. If a layman sees SOMETHING, they know you did something. they won't know WHAT, but all they need to know is that you did something, and for them that's enough.

This is generally my problem with a pass done with no misdirection. Spectators will see that something was done.

[Shodan]

I understand what you're saying, and certainly in many instances you are correct. I was actually thinking of my experiences with the riffle pass at the time - there is a tell-tale break between the transposition of the packets and the riffle when I do it, which to magicians is a dead giveaway. However, I have made a point of demonstrating the technique to my more knowledgeable and observant "test spectators" - the group of people who are in on a lot of my magic- and they don't believe that I'm doing what it is that I'm actually doing. Just looks like a riffle from the centre of the deck to them. That's what I mean about the difference between a magician's perspective and a layperson's perspective.

Also, dismissing something as unimportant can get you a long way - attitude plays a huge part. I've managed to get away with some almighty flashes right out in the open and they've just sailed by.