Blog
Episode 12 – Propless Mentalism
Please wait while you are redirected...or Click Here if you do not want to wait.
The podcast has ended and is no longer available online. It is available as a USB Package, click here for more info.
Do you use any propless mentalism? Do you have any propless mentalism disaster stories? C’mon, share them 😉
Very interesting episode and great to hear your thoughts on this topic, thanks for answering my question! I agree with a lot of what you’ve said but at the same time I’m not sure propless deserves as much flak as you’ve given it. I agree that in a professional setting there’s very little place for it (I think as a macro effect opener with the right character a Psy Force can work great though), but casually out and about knowing some propless can be a great asset.
I’ll start off my thoughts regarding process. I agree that a majority of effects out there have far too much talking for too little payout, but not all. I’ve been lucky enough to experience a lot of ideas on the other end of Skype calls and these have been things that have taken maybe a minute or two, allowed me free choice of thought (Think of any actor) and I’ve been hit with a double revelation. I don’t know if its because as a mentalist I have a different appreciation than regular participants but I’ve always found those experiences enjoyable and they’re what I aim to do in my own propless. I think its entirely possible to have a short process that gives a big result.
I use propless myself, when I’m out and about and someone inevitably finds out what I do, if for whatever reason I don’t have my invisible props on me I have routines I can go into and still provide an entertaining experience. I think the trick is not to go into a trick, but treat the routine as conversational. I find that by having a conversation that ends in a reveal, there’s less expectation on a result and therefore greater impact when I deliver. Maybe I’ve just been lucky though.
Finally, its not surefire and if you’re only doing one effect it can be a real anti climax should it miss. Regardless of that being the fault of the process or the participant (I once had someone spell Peter Pan as Pe’er Pan in their mind which led to everything going wrong), it’s our job to take that failure as our responsibility and that can be damaging if there’s not much time to impress someone.
Like yourself I think it has its place, and I think it can be a great tool when used in the right place, and when used sparingly.
Also, I’m very interested in this idea of you taking on students 😛
Very welcome, thanks for asking it 🙂
I may give it a little more flak than most as I really dislike the idea that it will start to change the public perception on mentalism.
For micro-effect openers things like psychological forces work very well. It’s the long winded process driven propless effects that I have issue with.
I’d love to see/experience the type of fast paced propless effects that you’ve taken part in over Skype. I’ve just not see anything that would be fast paced, big payoff with a guaranteed outcome. Could you help steer my ship regarding this?
What propless effects do you use when caught short? Any recommendations?
The lack of a surefire outcome is a big problem for me. In the extra content I share a story about the time I was caught short in a sauna and wanted to impress a potential client. Which is how I developed the effect in the extra content, but it is 100% surefire.
I do take on students, drop me a message 🙂
Also, ouch on the Pe’er Pan thing 🙁
I was able to turn the Pe’er Pan event into a running gag that evening so it still worked to be entertaining 🙂
If you want some examples of quick and hard hitting propless, have a chat with Peter Turner (who I see has commented below), I’m sure he’d love to discuss with you over Skype (and we’d love to find a recording of that conversation!).
I’d like to hope that with a few more years, and a lot of refinement, we start seeing consistently hard hitting propless stuff. Until that happens though I’m going to stick to my few core routines and continue with the traditional stuff 🙂
I actually had a Skype with Peter. The vast majority of things he showed me we all using invisible props. I liked them, some a lot. But I wouldn’t have put them in the propless category, and I was pleased to say, neither did Peter. We both agreed the place for propless items is to support effects with a definitive outcome 🙂
Glad to hear you guys had a chat, that must have been some meeting of the minds =)
And I get the distinction between propless and invisible props, I suppose when I’m the participant, if I assume propless at the end then the effect has done its job 😛
I think you two summed it up best in the comment thread below. As supports or method confusion techniques they can be great. Standalone performances are just no though.
Great episode, as always, Paul. I’m pretty much in agreement with what you say about propless mentalism. I think folks spend way too much time arguing about the other end of the spectrum–whether the act uses too many props and becomes “mental magic,” rather than mentalism. But this extreme–propless–can be just as bad. I think that you are right that mentalists, myself included, get too enamored with holy grail techniques of propless to impress ourselves or other mentalists. I think some of that comes from boredom or mentalist’s guilt: “I’m using such simple and elementary principles. I should be doing something more advanced.” This loses sight of what you said our goal is–to entertain. Bravo! It reminds me of a joke that I heard a comedian tell many years ago. “I had an old girlfriend who said to me once, ‘Hurt me. Please hurt me. So I did. I told her that her dog was dead.'” No audience member wants me to prompt them to conjure up the memory of a favorite dead aunt or childhood pet so that I, as the mentalist, can share an “emotional experience” or whatever claptrap you call it. That’s not only not entertainment but also, in my opinion, irresponsible. That’s why I love and use stuff like your Networker Deck and Loyalty because they don’t look at all gimmicky, yet the routines give the audience something to look at rather than just me blathering on. Stuff like that is in the middle of the spectrum, but closer to propless than full-blown mental magic like using a Mental Epic board or Baker slate.
And while I am on this topic, I find that I not only hate propless stuff that is heavily “process driven” for the audience, but also anything that is heavily process driven for me. (Cardicians–I’m a recovering one–seem to relish heavy process–first I take a break, push off cards, do an Elmsley County, and use the Olram Subtlety, before classically passing into the Biddle Maneuver for the final color change. 🙂 If I ever see another card effect that has dealing cards into multiple piles or spelling, I’m going to kill myself.) I recently watched a new DVD by a noted mentalist. He did a bunch of effects with ESP cards that not only had dubious entertainment value but were like progressive anagrams of conduct for the mentalist: “If the spectator makes this choice, it’s scenario 1, and you have to do A, B, and C to finish the effect. If they choose this, it’s scenario 2, and you have to do Q,R, and S. If scenario 3…” My eyes glazed over because not only was I not going to put in the amount of effort to learn these routines dead cold for so little reward–and a high chance of error– but also there are much easier ways to accomplish the end result. I think the methods were pure complexity, existing only to show off and impress other mentalists. Yet, if you go on-line, you’ll see rave after rave review about how brilliant these routines are. Has anyone other than their creator tried them out on a live audience? Does anyone actually enjoy doing them? Do audiences respond enthusiastically? I think that the truth would be the sound of crickets chirping…
Anyway, keep up the good work. And I love the added content!
Thanks Christian 🙂
I agree, people worry a great deal about the use of props in many forms, when in truth they should focus on the entertainment. I think it stems from guilt, either about cheating or being caught, but could be wrong.
You hit the nail on the head with ‘Holy Grail’ techniques. I had to give up some years ago when I realised that I was chasing ghosts. The thing I do the best and entertains regular people the most is a simple drawing duplication. It never impresses people in the know, because they focus in the method. It’s the entertainment factor that makes it strong, not the method.
Couldn’t agree more about emotionally affecting people for the sake of ‘entertainment’, it is irresponsible if done incorrectly.
Thanks for the kind words about the ‘Networker Deck’ 🙂 I think it’s nice to have visual elements to what we do.
I can’t talk about how boring I find card tricks (some ESP tricks too), it will anger me lol I assume you’ve listened to Episode #5 where I talk about playing cards and mentalism?
Sometimes I feel that when people spend money on a product that they don’t like, they convince themselves that they do in order to justify the purchase.
I have indeed listened to your cards and mentalism lecture. I used to be one of those insane card guys until I realized that I was only fooling myself–like most card guys. It’s like the story I always tell where the card guys go, “Tsk-tsk, look at the mentalist. They’re such simple souls. Look, he’s using a Psychomatic Deck to force a card. I can force a card 50 different ways, including this really difficult method by Marlo that took me two hours of practice every day for five years to master.” And they go off in a corner and try to one-up each other because they can do all this complicated stuff to little end. Meanwhile, the simple soul mentalist Luke Jermay uses something “silly” like a Franklin Taylor Peek Deck from the 1940s to enthusiastic response. To me, that ends the discussion between card magicians and mentalists. (As an aside, I have about a dozen methods to do a drawing duplication, which is always a great, strong effect. Maybe I’m headed down that bad road where I’m over in the corner showing off all my methods to other mentalists… LOL)
Richard Osterlind makes the same observation you did in one of his lectures. The performer spends all this money on an effect that’s really only good for about 20 seconds, but he drags the routine out for 5 minutes to validate to himself that he got his money’s worth.
I’m glad that you managed to ‘see the light’ regarding cards 😉
It can be simply to start looking for multiple methods and Holy Grail searching with mentalism as easy as with playing cards. I have two drawing duplications I use. I will probably never change. But I still have fun looking at what other people are doing with them.
I often think that most effects can just be streamlined using a secret writer lol
Oh and really, REALLY, glad you like the Extra Content effect, it’s fun and packs a punch 🙂
hey paul i thought this podcast was really interesting i do have a couple of prop-less effects saved away (i dont do them at gigs so much) but i do have some things along the same line as the carrot psy force but i might add in a line or two maybe to eliminate all the green vegetables or something like that (just using that as an example) but i dont tend to go for extremely long winded anagrams and stuff ….. unless i find somebody who i really think that would work with and i just keep those in my head for opportunity like that but i personally think if it is used right propless stuff can be really good but maybe as something to add onto an effect rather than just solid mind reading
also i know a lot of mentalists agree missing on information can actually be quite powerful to make what your doing seam more authentic so i have my psy forces (short ones) hidden in between a few effects i know will work so im comfortable if it doesn’t hit and iv got outs for it!
but i think if its used right it can be quite powerful
i also like to make prop effects seam propless sometimes using certain justifications and in the audiences mind its exactly the same effect, but just a lot safer on my part!!
but iv had the same debates with myself so it was cool to hear somebody else point of view on it 🙂
also about half way through you mentioned a separate topic that you said could make another podcast if somebody asked and i thought to myself “ohhh that sounds interesting id love to hear it” and it got to the end and i cant remember what it was haahah i had a scroll through but couldn’t remember where you spoke about it! do you remember what it was??
Glad you found it interesting Thomas, thanks for listening 🙂
I’ve not seen a green veg elimination, but can guess how it would go, that’s nice.
I agree that propless items could be used in an interpersonal way during a conversation. But I always think, “Why not just do another surefire piece of mentalism?”
With missing things I like to try and work those moments in rather than let them be random. But if you have an ‘out’ for a miss then it’s technically a hit 😉
I can’t remember what the separate topic was either. Hopefully, someone will see this and remind us; or you can listen to it all again lol 😉
i don’t actually have one for green veg but it would be a slightly nicer way of slightly nudging the odds in your favour!
and yeah that makes sense i guess it depends on the kind of performer, im just saying so because iv seen people use it really well (more people who go down the psychic line i guess) but at the same time it is very risky but i think if your prepared for those risks then that makes them not risks…. if that makes any sense hahaha like you said yeah it is a hit 🙂 but it was a very interesting listen 🙂 and yeah i hope somebody remembers other wise i will listen again 😉 i just remember it made my ears prick up hahahah
Aww, what a shame, I was really hoping for a cool line…I guess I will have to ponder on that myself 😉
Hey Paul – I’ve listened to your podcast (each of them in succession) and each of them are great, insightful and full of good information.
I have a few points I’d like to add to this subject as it is an area I’ve done extensive research into and drawn specific conclusions from – some of which sit in line with your thinking and others which stray slightly outside of.
Let me start by expressing a few points that are key (Expressed in a volume of Prop-less mentalism effects that I wrote as part of a larger series).
Firstly let me be honest from the off, I am NOT an advocate for propless mentalism. I have seen it wrongly written many times by people on the forums that I am somehow the poster boy for this type of material – Which couldn’t be further from the truth.
I think it is one technique or tool (like all techniques and tools) that should be used when the time is right ALONGSIDE methods that utilise props such as billets.
Take note: I am expressing the points I am about to make walking down the center line between both camps (Prop based mentalists / prop-less Mentalist’s) – so there are well rounded series of views offered from all perspectives.
–
I feel that prop-less mentalism does have a place in live contexts – if it is blended correctly with other methodologies – One example, if I am asking a spectator to write down a place, a name or a piece of information that is meaningful to them that there is no way I could know and I hand them the billet and pen there is no better way to kill dead time than turning to another participant at the table and nailing their starsign using the trusty anagram.
– The anagram when done correctly takes no more than 10-15 seconds and is as reliable if performed correctly as any prop driven piece of material and most females (who are more inclined to resonate with such things) absolutely find revealing this information as valuable as revealing a random two digit number that means nothing to them.
Not only does it kill dead time but it also kills the fact that the second participant wrote anything down at all as each method cancels out the last – That is the way that prop-less mentalism should be utilised.
I think that type of thinking when applying this type of material Is key. It should be utilised sparsely and correctly. Not dismissed entirely.
One might argue that when drunk someone will not know the letters in their own starsign – The same then can be said for them following your instructions to write something down cleanly – badly written information or the participant not writing anything can be as deadly to a performance as someone who can’t follow verbal instructions.
You made a point about having to change the perception of a client who’d witnessed a performer who used prop-less mentalism.
– I think you only scratched the surface on defining the problem – The problem was not the material, it was the performer that came before you. They shouldn’t have been performing at all if they were doing such a disservice to their client by not understanding what material to use in a live context – One can hardly blame prop-less mentalism for that.
I whole heartedly agree with your point about long drawn out processes that make no sense – They do not have a place in any context of mentalism. I myself have been suspect of experimenting with such ideas in the past and I am the first to agree with this sentiment. That being said, there are many, many pieces of quick almost surefire pieces of prop-less mentalism that hit hard. You just have to find the right material and one should not discourage others in their search for this material by dismissing it all as bad.
I am not going to be as egotistical as to direct people towards a few prop-less mentalism routines of my own that I am massively proud of because they adhere to a lot of the stringent specifications I set myself when creating that type of material – also it’s rude to use your platform to promote my own work.
–
Luke Jermay has a wonderful piece of propless mentalism – ‘Touching on Hoy’ that has been the staple of Luke’s for over a decade and is I feel a brilliant representation of how Prop-less mentalism even has its place in a stage context.
Using a psychological force as a ‘macro’ when performing to a group or a full audience is a fun and interesting way for new comers to this type of material to test the water and not have to worry about failure – There is a host of psychological forces that are as surefire and quick as the carrot force yet a million times more impactful.
The red apple/ ball force being one – When I discovered this it blew my mind, I later went on to discover Andrew Gerard had reieased this effect – In my opinion it is one of the best and quickest pieces of mentalism one could hope to perform. The participant simply holds out their hand and imagines ANYTHING inside of it and boom you nail them with what it is or influence the entire group to think of the same/ a very similar thing. Quick and they don’t need to pick something from a restricted category.
‘Psychological subtleties’ is a great starting point for anyone interested in psychological forces that are mostly surefire. Things have forwards leaps and bounds since then – One only has to look towards Michael Murray’s ‘Comparative uncertainty principle’ or ‘CUPS’ to see how reliable certain prop-less principles can be.
I feel too much of anything can be bad – props/ propless and here is a quick story that expresses that sentiment –
This story takes place in ‘Davenports’ which resides in London – A story which I am sure Daniel Young (worker at said establishment) would verify if anyone was doubtful of the authenticity of what occurred.
I was midway through one of my bi-annual visits to Davenports when a gentleman who looked like a businessman walked into the store. I was stood near the glass counter talking to Dan when after a moment of looking around the store the businessman approached the counter.
I stepped back and allowed the gentleman to talk to Dan. The man confidently asks Dan if he had any books on someone writing something down and ways to secretly read it. He explained that he was interested in magic he had seen a mentalist do it and was so amazed by it he wanted to learn all about it.
Dan explained to the guy to talk to me concerning all things mentalism related. I proceeded to performing a couple of effects that required the performer to not write things down in the traditional sense (like the phone pin unlock, star sign revelation, spider psychological force) and the guys reaction was insane.
After calming down the guy responded to my performance in a way that I would NEVER have anticipated. He said something to the tune of “You must be on a different level to the guy we have booked for the last three years. We have XX in come in and entertain at our corporate events and after seeing him a few times I’ve figured he must be able to somehow secretly see what someone has written and it’s not really mind reading. I have no explanation for what I have just seen. Can I take your business card and give you a call about potentially booking you instead of XX? It will be a refreshing change”.
I shall not name the performer and all I will say is that this performer is a well known mentalist who I know charges a huge amount of money for what he does.
Did I take the gent up on his offer?
No – it is rude to step on someone else’s patch.
I did however insist a few things in my response to the gentleman. I simply told him that I am not on another level and that I closely follow XX’s work and have learnt a lot of things from him. I also explained that to my knowledge there is no way to secretly read what someone has written because if there was a way to do that it would save me one hell of a task.
I then lent in a little bit as though to let him in on a secret and said in a quieter voice, “If I’m being really honest, the reason that we get people to write things down is so that the information is the last thing that they have thought about consciously and it makes our lives so much easier to get someone to give off what we need even by accident than it does if it is mixed amongst a series of other random thoughts”.
The guy looked seriously impressed that he had been let in on a secret – which we all know wasn’t really a secret but to him it appeased his sense of logic and he left the shop with what he came in looking for (without giving him anything).
Not only that, the next time he watches XX it re-instils the sense of wonder that he experienced when he first watched XX perform.
–
He had drawn his own logical conclusions based on the repetitive patterns that the above performer had become accustomed to utilising in his set.
Performers should understand what the client wants, what THEY can make work and should not accept the work if they cannot deliver what the client is looking for – A bad performer makes good material look bad.
I whole heartedly agree with you Paul – if a piece of prop-less mentalism takes more than a minute or so to come to fruition dismiss it. If it doesn’t suit your character – dismiss it. If it doesn’t logically make sense and it’s going to take too long to frame a logical presentation around it- dismiss it.
But don’t lump it all into the same box.
There was a wonderful moment in Derren’s international lecture where he asks someone to name a card out loud just after he had lit up a cigarette and the audience member calls out a card and Derren laughs turning around the lighter and says “If that would have hit, you would have been up all night wondering how it worked”.
IF Derren hadn’t of mentioned that there was a prediction on the lighter and missed and simply said smiling “You’ll be perfect for this give him a hand as he makes his way onto the stage”.
Not one person would have ever even thought about that moment as being anything other than a probing question. If it had of hit then like he said it would have been a miracle – Granted the prediction was on a lighter so I suppose it’s not prop-less but was does prop-less mean anyway?
I suppose he could have said “You’re not thinking of the queen of hearts are you? If the participant said “no” and you laughed saying “it would have been a miracle if it was, I think you’ll be perfect for this as you don’t fall into the category of being statistically predicatble”,
Again ten seconds but fun and there’s no consequence for missing and prop-less.
As for building something up for ten minutes and nailing each participant being the strongest thing someone can do – Atlas Brookings ‘Train Tracking’ makes it possible to do that with certainty and is prop-less.
– It is initially wrote out to be performed on one participant BUT with the simple readjustment of playing a game of ‘Chinese Whispers’ and each participant at the table thinking of one letter and creating thoughts from that letter then you reveal all the thoughts of each of participants and then bring the routine to a huge crescendo by revealing the word that they are all thinking of. This is just one example of how prop-less material can work like that.
I think that people who dispise prop-less mentalism or the creators that like to write about prop-less mentalism assume that, that is all that those writers perform and that is not the case. They just a lot of the time enjoy writing about and exploring that subject.
One thing I don’t agree with is that prop-less mentalism is hurting mentalism – let’s look at it from a polar viewpoint in the long run of things.
Let’s use the analogy of ‘deep sea diving’ – at one point the sea/ oceans and creatures that reside in the those areas were as foreign to us as space. It wasn’t until we designed equipment – that at first wasn’t as good as it is now that we started to uncover the beauty of the things that have been there the entire time. We wouldn’t know half of the things we now know if we didn’t explore and create/ re-create the equipment to do that research.
Question: What was the tallest mountain in the world before we discovered Mount Everest?
Answer: Mount Everest – It had just not been discovered.
It was there all along and if mankind hadn’t even bothered to look for it, it would have never have been found (unless of course it was discovered by accident).
There is something that trumps the prop-less/ non-propless debate and that is understanding that your material is only a small representation of you.
If you are lovable, entertaining and convincing (which you are Paul) then that’s trumps whether you are using a billet or not. When it boils right down to nothing YOU are the most important quality about your performances.
Long been a fan of yours and following your work as always –
Peter Turner
Hey Peter,
Thanks for the support for the podcast 🙂
I’m glad that I can be another resource for people to see what you are saying about not being the propless ‘poster boy’. I hope it helps change opinions.
100% agree that using propless items as time filler and method confusion can work. I often use psychological forces in this way. When I dismiss it, it is not as a potential tool in this manner, but as the only tool to be used.
With regard to propless mentalism having a negative impact I think it does. You are correct that a competent performer would know better to pitch material like this. However, I know competent performers who have bought into the propless dream (it’s a lovely dream) and fallen short.
I do like ‘Touching on Hoy’ but again, it is not without it’s problems in the corporate arena that I predominantly work. Great for theatre shows though.
I’m all for fast psychological forces in supporting roles and can remember the time that Andrew Gerard performed his wonderful force over Skype with me. Beautiful.
Re: Davenports – You handled that situation well and honorably.
I’ve no problem at all with people exploring propless mentalism, I think it is part of our art as I mention in the podcast. However, I don’t think propless mentalism as a single stand-alone event without props is something that works in the corporate field of entertainment.
What I think is hurting mentalism is the idea that an act can be built purely on propless items, which seems to be a message put out there and/or a Holy Grail to strive towards.
Completely agree, the entertainment is in the person not the material…but it’s nice to get both the person and the performance to be entertaining.
Thanks for taking the time to write this and for jumping on Skype to show me some cool stuff, although I wouldn’t call it propless 😉
And on Banachek’s Penguin Lecture tonight, the first thing he discussed was the lost art of pocket writing. Just sayin’ LOL
It’s not lost, it has been abandoned 😉
I was impressed with that enough that I’m now walking around with “things” in my pocket and practicing at work during the day. It won’t work if you’re wearing jeans or something tight, but my work clothes (business casual) have enough room that I can easily do it. And it’s so much more practical than carrying a swa____ (just realized this is public, so made the above more generic).
And as long as I’m here…
Do you really dislike propless mentalism, or do you dislike long and boring effects? Because they DON’T have to be the same thing, from what I’ve seen.
Too funny! I don’t have my copy of 13 Steps handy. Is pocket writing even mentioned? (If it is, it has to be in that chapter on lip and pencil reading. LOL) As I recall, the first place I heard someone mention it was in one of the late Bob Cassiday’s lectures where he suggested that you use vellum board as the writing medium. The only take-away I got from that was that I bought a ream of vellum board, and it makes good billets for doing a center tear when you cut it up. No pocket writing for me! 🙂
And it’s “Bob Cassidy.” I can’t type. 🙂