October Issue--with Dan and Dave Buck

[Josh Mandel]

BTW, regarding the Bucks' "Collectors" effect on page 51.

Is there something missing from this description, or am I very confused (or both)?

If the four aces start off face-up on the bottom of the deck, and you riffle down the upper left side of the deck until you see the last face-up ace, there are no more cards below that. The last face-up ace is the bottom card of the deck.

In illustration one, though, I see a block of face-down cards beneath the face-up aces.

So I'm guessing that, at some point, you're supposed to transfer a block of cards from top to bottom after setting the aces.

Yes? No? Maybe?

--Josh

[Guest]

Yo Josh,

I don't have a magazine to look at, still waiting for my copy to show up, but I'll do my best to try to get you on the right track.

Yes, at some point you do indeed need to cut the deck, thus transferring the ACE-STACK to the center. This is done after the two selections are made; therefore while the spectators are looking at their cards you cut the deck.

Hope that helps

danbuck

-you can always email me if you have further questions.

[Pete Biro]

The cover graphic is just that... a graphic, designed to cause someone seeing it to pick it up... covers need to be grabbers.

I remember the sage words of Andre Laguerre, the first boss at Sports Illustrated. He always picked the covers and more often than not picked one with red uniforms, saying "Red is the best color on a cover... you need to get someone to see it and to pick it up... and then buy it."

You should see how much thought and work goes into selecting covers at major magazines.

[Richard Kaufman]

First question answered: We didn't design either the cover or the article on the Bucks: that was done by Cathy Daly and Chris, as credited in the issue. As far as the cropping on the cover goes, I believe it was meant as an homage to the "Matrix Reloaded" poster showing the two ghost brothers. The cropping is purposeful and NOT a mistake. If I was going to be on the cover of a magazine I would definitely want my face to show, however to each his (or their, in this case) own. We had no problem with that.
Second question answered: The Buck brothers don't do mentalism, so ha ha ... NOT. I assume that since they loved the first two movies they assumed that the third wouldn't change their assessment. (Frankly, I thought that the second film was so bad that the third couldn't help but be better.)
Third question answered: Apparently there is cut missing in the description of the Collectors. Matt Field pointed this out to me today. Dan Buck has already responded to this above. We try to proofread everything really well, but there is only so much time we can devote to it since we have such a limited time in which to prepare an issue before we must start on the next month's issue. Sorry for the error. Sometimes, when Earle Oakes is doing the drawings, he finds these types of errors in the text and keeps me from looking bad.

[Josh Mandel]

Dan,

That does the trick, so to speak. Thank you kindly!

Richard,

I was being flip about the mentalism and the Matrix trilogy. Ah, to be young enough to have such faith in a filmmaker that, based on one film, you just KNOW the next one's gonna be great. I remember feeling that way about George Lucas once. But that was a long time ago. In a galaxy far, far away.

No problem about the cut missing from the Collector's description. Dan came to the rescue. I figured it was a simple cut, either before the two cards were selected or afterwards. Makes sense to do it while they're looking at their cards. Good 'nuff. Tell Matt I said hi and that I'm still waiting for his next Albany visit.

--Josh

[Guest]

Did part of the Bio get cut off also? It says continued on page 58, but page 58 is the magic zone add, and the pages after that don't contain any part of the artical. Just wondering if that got cut off at all.

[Richard Kaufman]

Ben (from Not Available): Nothing was "cut off." The part about the cut in the "Collectors" was accidentally not put in; "Continued on page 58" at the bottom of page 56 refers to the rest of the Buck article. Page 58 is not the Magic Zone ad (which is on pages 56 and 57), but is in fact the continuation of the Buck article as stated. And, no, the biographical material ended as it should on the bottom of page 55.

[Steve V]

I think Cathy Daley is beautiful, can she be on the cover? I'd even accept Simon as an insert photo if Cathy got the cover.
Steve V

[Q. Kumber]

I think the cover of the October GENII is probably the worst cover I've ever seen on a magic magazine. It is graphic design gone mad.

This doesn't matter too much for postal subscriptions but it certainly wouldn't have me picking up a copy in a magic shop. When mine came in the plastic bag I could only identify it as GENII by Denny's ad on the back cover.

Firstly and if for no other reason the GENII masthead is almost invisible and illegible. Look at any bestselling magazine (non-magic). They all have headlines on the covers, from National Enquirer to Business Week To Men's Health to Cosmopolitan to Reader's Digest. That's what makes shoppers pick them up to have a look, not the graphics.

Please Richard, in future GENII's at least let's have the masthead clearly visible.

[Carl Mercurio]

A good magazine cover gets people talking. So you'd have to conclude.... ;)

[Guest]

It would be nice to have someone from the other side of the pond.Someone like Peter Duffie,or Roy Walton, they are quite a few good guys over here so come on Richard take a chance!Lennie :whack:

[Guest]

If you are in Scotland wouldn't the other side of the pond be North America? How about we compromise and put Simon on the cover, he lives here, is from there.
Steve V

[Richard Kaufman]

Roy Walton was already on the cover in August, 1998, though his head was the size of a pin so you'd be hard pressed to spot him.
This was the last issue (prior to the farewell issue published after we bought Genii) prepared by Erika Larsen.
And I'm tired of hearing about Simon Lovell so cut it out.

[Keith Raygor]

I found the layout and design of the article to be refreshing and enjoyable.

I found the subject matter interesting.

The defender's post made me wish I'd stuck to the article's version of 'real life'.

I think a in-depth feature on Paul Harris would be enlightening. There are many questions to be asked toward understanding his thought processess. And a further look at his life may provide for most interesting and well-rounded reading.

[Ian Kendall]

Ironically the August 98 issue got lost in the post to Roy's shop, so most of the Scottish contingent (who get their magazines from Roy) missed that one...

Take care, Ian

[Dave Egleston]

Earlier in this thread - I stated I was just going to glance at the magazine and file it

I don't normally try to make artistic criticism, however, though the subject of the cover art is of little interest to me as far as learning or performing goes (I like watching a few minutes of flourishing ), I thought the MATRIX derived cover was innovative and eye catching and the article about the Bucks was well written.

Particularly interesting to me was the different layout for the trick description with some very clear pictures - (Though I question the decision to use yellow text and red heading/intro with an orange matte) - I would like to see a book published using this same technique along with Ms Reich's great illustrations.

I think the whole magic world would accept and applaud these young men if they would just perform and discard the silver-back style of self aggrandizing.

Dave

[Guest]

I just saw the cover and I like it, actually it's very artistic.
Steve V

[Richard Kaufman]

Ian, we have plenty of copies of Roy's issue, so if you know some guys who want them, just total up the number and we'll send them off to Roy's shop. :)

[Guest]

Alright, no problem. I was just curious. I just read it wrong. BTW, I changed the location part in my profile for you.

[Ian Kendall]

Richard,

Superb! I don't talk to the folks round here much anymore, and it was five years ago, but I'd definitely want one, and I'll ask around (although most of the regulars are at IBM this week).

Thanks, Ian

[mop krayz]

Maybe they just saw a screener of "Matrix Revolution"...

[Guest]

on page 48-49 there is a picture of hands, a big close-up and my question is what card is this one with 3 diamonds diagonally across it?
I am not familiar with this deck so ...

[Guest]

The deck I'm using is known as the DI or Dessert Inn playing cards. As the Dessert Inn was destroyed a few years ago you can no longer get them. However, I do see them on ebay every now and then.

If I could pick two decks to work with for the rest of my life, this would be one of them...they are that good.

later, dan

[Yves Tourigny]

I have not yet receive my issue but I had the chance to see my friend's issue. It is very good looking and I just dig the way the trick are explained. Excellent issue again! Now if Richard could just read what I have planned for him for the Genii Covers. ;)

[Ian Kendall]

RK typed:

Ian, we have plenty of copies of Roy's issue, so if you know some guys who want them, just total up the number and we'll send them off to Roy's shop.

Richard,

I've put a post on the CC forum and got two replies (!) so the current list is three; one for me, Richard James and Peter Maclanacan (?sp after umpteen years I _still_ don't know his name...)

When you send them through you might want to put in a note explaining to Roy why they suddenly appeared, and who for!

Thanks again, Ian

[thecardman]

Richard

Thanks for the information on the Roy Walton issue. I can't wait to read it.

Also, Ian - it's McLANACHAN. OK? Don't worry, though as most people I know still cannot spell it correctly!

Take care.

Peter
:)

[Richard Kaufman]

I sent an e-mail to Roy and he said he didn't want me to send them!
So, I'll individual addresses for those in Scotland who didn't get the Roy Walton issue and want one. We'll send it free of charge.
Send your info to:
genii_mdaham@mindspring.com

[Ian Kendall]

Thanks everso. Info is in the post.

Ian

[Brad Henderson]

I think an in depth article on the Flourish movement would be interesting. I know almost nothing about it except for the few times I have seen the Bucks, and that which I've seen on the web. I will say that at the 2002 LVMI I enjoyed the Bucks magic and thought the flourishes were fitting.

How about a history of flourishes in magic as well as profiling the recent movers and shakers in that field. I would be interested to know what the flourishmen really think they are doing, and what their artistic goals are (magic, juggling, performance art). Though an oft discussed topic, I would like to see a brief synoptic history of the flourish v. not to flourish arguement as well as profiles in current thinking. I think it could be an interesting glimpse into what may or may not become a sizable force in the direction magic is moving.

[Richard Kaufman]

Brad, that's a good idea.

[Brad Henderson]

Here's a question I'd like to see asked of De'vo, et. al.,: What do you think magicians think of you and your work? Why do you think they think this? and What would you like them to think of you and your work?

If I can help in any way, just let me know!!!

Brad

[Ian Kendall]

Superb!

Personally, I started magic and juggling around the same time (mid eighties) and I'm an unashamed flourisher. Part of me sees it as juggling with cards - there is the same idea of lots of practice to achieve something flashy that few people can do, part of it is the joy of learning something difficult, part of it is having ice breakers during a show and part of it is having a magical effect as part of the flourish.

I've had a _lot_ of criticism from magicians over the years for being a juggler, but most of the time the digs come from people who cannot do the moves...also there is a section in the overt/covert skill school (incidently, I'm easily conviced that this is the reason that so many people do gambling exposure shows; there is the huge dilemma of having all that skill and hiding it - the gambling show allows them to demonstrate the skills they have worked for).

I look forward to that article. In the meantime, keep cutting :)

Take care, Ian

[Rennie]

Richard,
Still have not recieved the October issue in California. How long should I give it ?
Rennie

[Richard Kaufman]

Rennie! It's not even October yet!
But it will be tomorrow. :)
Seriously, even though we mailed the October issue weeks ago, because of the way second class periodical mail works, it can take until the 21st of the month that the issue is dated (in this case, October) for you to receive the issue.
So, you'll have to wait awhile.
We don't replace issues until the 21st of the month, because we can't be sure they're lost until then.

[Rennie]

Richard,
Thanks for the quick reply, I will wait until October 21st and hopefully it will be here before that.
Rennie, in far away San Jose, Ca.

[Guest]

I think Dan & Dave's article is one of the best I've ever seen in a Magic Magazine. It's stylish and fresh (something that is lacking in a lot of magic today)
Those critical of D & D have most likely never seen them work. Its scary how good they are.

[Guest]

Brad had a GREAT idea about an in-depth look at flourishes. And Brad, I think that De'vo's answer to your questions would raise alot of controversy!lol. I think he would tell you EXACTLY what he though.lol.

I would love to see about the history of flourishes in magic, and the emergence of the new super-flourishers.

Pro flourishers(like De'vo, Jerry, Yoseph, Ulmen4, Marius etc..), and those that combine many flourishes with magic both(TG Murphy, Brian Tudor, Chris Kenner etc..). And Brad's interview with the master(De'vo) :eek: .. and you may want to wear a bulletproof vest! :D
Mark

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
The thing that, to me, differentiates Dan and Dave Buck from the other "superflourishers" (as you put it) is the way the flourishes and juggling (that's not a putdown--there's simply no other word for it) are integrated into some great magic.

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Cap, Swiss does not think that all young people are lousy magicians, but when young people whom he does feel are lousy magicians deserve criticism, he gives it, just as he would to anyone of any age.
I thought that the display given by the Buck twins at the MAGIC Live! convention was a horror. It wasn't magic, just two kids looking down at their hands and juggling (note that I did not use the obvious word here instead of "juggling," which you used in a thread I have deleted--though it might be applicable). Not at all what I think should be advocated in the world of magic. I would've enjoyed seeing the boys do some magic.

Am I missing something? I know little about these guys but I'm in two minds about whether to order this Genii!

[Guest]

I am not sure that "integrating flourishes with magic" is a good thing.
They are separate events. If you must do flourishes then do them separately. When you do them together you can dilute the magic. People will say (or at least think) "he's clever with his hands" and dismiss what you do.

I have no problem with the "juggling" Juggling is good entertainment. I have a problem with the juggling weakening the effect of the magic.

If you are doing a movey type trick and incorporating little flourishes throughout you are asking for a lack of reaction from laymen.

I am of the school of thought that "art should hide art" If you give the impression of great skill to laymen you are not doing your job properly. If you are obviously skilful the layman will not be surprised by the result of the trick.It will be obvious that you were using mere sleight of hand.
Chewing gum for the eyes, that is all.

However, I am not against flourishes. I use a lot of them myself. Spectacular ones too. However I try to use them intelligently and at the right time.

I have no energy to elaborate. I am sure you can all figure out what I mean by "intelligently and at the right time"

Or can you?

[Jeff Haas]

I've seen several of these routines done live. They're more than juggling, they're good magic.

Done right, the flouishy aspect is minimized and you just think, "Wow, where did those Aces come from??"

It's hard to appreciate on the printed page.

Jeff