Magic Skool

[Tim Ellis]

Goat, I did answer your question about what harm it does. (See several posts above and I'll re-quote below)


"Well, any kids who watched that exposure of the back palm will be way less mystified when they see a magician produced cards from thin air, no matter how skillful he or she is.

And no Goat, I don't think backpalming a card is considered a "simple kids trick", and the "thimble move" he taught in clip two is an effect created and marketed by Garrett Thomas. (Though I understand how you may not recognise it when Christopher performs it)."


An you replied in post #219771 - try to keep up!

Then Christopher brought up GoogleAds, I replied to him, you told me I was wrong.


All I can see is that the thread is gradually being derailed.


Bottom line:

I don't like the fact that a full-time magician here in Australia is teaching CERTAIN tricks on national TV and on YouTube as his 'Magic Skool'.

It's not a big deal to you, it is to me.


I can see a difference between "teaching" and "exposure".

You don't see a difference.


Your mind won't be changed, neither will me.


Everything else in this thread (especially Christopher's attempts at justification and misleading statements) is derailing.




Your last post, re Google, appears to be intentionally confusing.

You claim a YouTube clip needs a certain number of views to get ads on it, yet Christopher's only has 500. Yet somehow you are claiming that I am the "straw man" here. He has 500 hits AND ads. Fact. How can you debate that? Yet you imply I'm contradicting myself?!

Re: Advertisers - I advertise on GoogleAds too. As I said a few posts ago: Advertisers can choose what types of SITES to advertise on (YouTube in this example) but not which SPECIFIC YOUTUBE CLIPS. And yet somehow you are implying I contradicted myself here too?!


And you're accusing me of being the Straw Man here?!

I guess your next post will be, ironically, accusing me of not understanding the Straw Man concept!

I'm done with this.

Enjoy your final say.

[Eugene2]

Is Michael Weber not genius? itricks boys also expose. Not just TV kid show.
Mr. Tim is right! Giving away what not yours is bad.

[mrgoat]

I can see a difference between "teaching" and "exposure".
You don't see a difference.

Yes I do. One is malicious, one is educational. This is educational.

Still don't understand why you care quite so much and still you haven't said how it is harming you.

Now I guess this mystery will never be solved.

Never mind eh?

xx

[Eugene2]

Mr. Goat Tim is better man. Does Saigon Lady teach too?

You kill mystery in magic.

What goatmans favorite trick. I make youtube and expose. You become better magic man?

[Gary Kosnitzky]

Mr. Goat Tim is better man. Does Saigon Lady teach too?

You kill mystery in magic.

What goatmans favorite trick. I make youtube and expose. You become better magic man?

I am curious. Who is this 'Saigon Lady'?

[mrgoat]

Mr. Goat Tim is better man. Does Saigon Lady teach too?

You kill mystery in magic.

What goatmans favorite trick. I make youtube and expose. You become better magic man?

You are really funny!

This is probably the most obvious fake account here for years.

Well done, Sir!

[Eugene2]

Saigon Lady work oldest of jobs. Gives valuables away for self gain.

Mr. Goatman This is real account. Not fake. I am Eugene.

Can I watch your show? Then I make youtube so all can know your secret. OK? I will teach.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Saigon Lady work oldest of jobs. Gives valuables away for self gain...

She takes from the rich and makes promises to the poor as she plots to take over the town?

[Tim Ellis]

Sorry to resurrect this thread after I said I was done, but this is a comment from a guy at the lecture we did last night - very relevant especially because Goat was asking "what harm does exposure do?"

This guy does several college shows a week and closed with Healed & Sealed. However, due to an increasing number of people saying "I know how that works I saw it explained on YouTube" he ended up having to drop it out of his show.

That's the sort of harm these exposures cause.

May not mean much to you at this stage Goat, but when it directly affects your act, you'll understand.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Tim,

IMHO giving audience members a sense that things are not as they seem - perhaps even for setup/feint purposes - is truly not in their best interests. The mechanics of guile is not trivia. The distinction between the method we use for a card trick and the means by which malice and harm can happen are entirely contextual. IMHO it falls to us to offer delights and distract the curious from exploring what we do behind the scenes to make the magic happen.

Please, don't tell them that fairies are really fireflies and that we adults use euphemisms to help deal with difficult subjects and awkward matters.

Stepping off the soapbox,

Jon

[mrgoat]

Sorry to resurrect this thread after I said I was done, but this is a comment from a guy at the lecture we did last night - very relevant especially because Goat was asking "what harm does exposure do?"

Oh dear. Never good saying you will stop posting only to post again.

I asked what harm the exposure of a backpalm and that thimble move did.

Unless the man you seem to hate so has exposed healed and sealed I am unsure of the relevancy of your hearsay?

As an aside, I have had stuff in my act exposed LOADS of times. Never stops me. At a wedding last year I did linking rings and someone came up to me afterwards and said "I saw that explained on the telly, but that bloke had a ring with a hole in it, I have no idea how you did that!!"

Another time I was doing some thumbtip stuff. A bloke in the audience claimed he had seen someone do something similar but they had a massive plastic thumb on and they had no idea how I did it.

Oh and finally I was talking to someone who had seen redhotmamma explained on youtube, the best trick in the world. I then did my handling and floored him.

I guess exposure might harm you if you are bad.

[Dustin Stinett]

I have not been reading this thread. Its just another among countless others on this and other magic forums on a subject that will never go away.

Its kind of like a drunk brother-in-law who doesnt know its time to leave your house.

So if I merely repeat something thats already been said here forgive me because, frankly, I doubt theres anything in this thread thats never been said before anyway.

Theres nothing wrong with keeping the secrets of our craft secret. There are many that are still indeed secrets (have not been released even to the community of magic en mass).

Theres nothing wrong with explaining the secrets of magic to the general public in a way that elevates the craft (think Modern Magic and countless other sources that were once decried by the community as exposure).

Theres nothing right about the gratuitous of exposure of the secrets of magic; revealing them just for the sake of doing it. Its like an obnoxious kid who taunts others with I know something you dont and then spills the beans just to prove he can. In my opinion, there is no argument can be made in its favor.

But I also believe that the best thing we can do is ignore it: Giving it the time of day calls attention to it.

No one called attention to the first masked magician. His name was Andy Kaufman and he exposed secrets on national TV long before Val Valentino did.

Everyone made a big friggin deal out of that masked magician and he got a five-picture deal. The magic community gave himso by extension exposureweight and credibility.

Mr. Goat is right: performing good magic is the best defense. If Perform Good Magic was our First Rule (versus never reveal the method), keeping secrets would be much easier. And if while you are performing some guy blurts out, I know how thats done! do what I do: invite him to perform it.

Dustin

[Jonathan Townsend]

Some idiot showed the monkeys how to make fire from two rocks or some sticks. Now look what they are pretending to. Word is it that's he's still doing a self-serve of liver pate to ungrateful customers.

Some time later as part of establishing rule on this continent it was demonstrated to the locals that the new bosses could burn water - and would if the locals did not behave and do as they were told. Unfortunately some idiot in that party showed the locals that there is a substance that looks like water but it burns - hence the name they still call it, fire water.

Now kindly stop exposing stuff that's not even your secrets to share.

I can't beleive they exposed the secret to fire. Now look at what's become of this world.

[Tim Ellis]

Tim,

IMHO giving audience members a sense that things are not as they seem - perhaps even for setup/feint purposes - is truly not in their best interests. The mechanics of guile is not trivia. The distinction between the method we use for a card trick and the means by which malice and harm can happen are entirely contextual. IMHO it falls to us to offer delights and distract the curious from exploring what we do behind the scenes to make the magic happen.

Please, don't tell them that fairies are really fireflies and that we adults use euphemisms to help deal with difficult subjects and awkward matters.

Stepping off the soapbox,

Jon

I have no idea what relevance this has.

[Tim Ellis]

I guess exposure might harm you if you are bad.

Ah yes, you're right.

Only us hacks should object to exposure.

[Tim Ellis]

Dustin,

I do agree with you on your definitions of "good exposure" and "bad exposure".

The point of this thread is that the magician in question, an experienced professional, is doing bad exposure. A "masked magician with the mask" and defending it as "teaching".

I don't agree with the "run to the network" approach which gave the MM the notoriety he was seeking, but I do believe we should be able to speak about these issues "in house" as it were in this forum.

The person in question, I believe, wants to do the right thing but has surrounded himself with those who are willing to support him in any venture.

If he was approached by magicians who felt exposing the backpalm on TV was wrong and told that perhaps he could find more appropriate material to "teach" the kids on TV, I believe he would respond in a positive manner.

But instead, we have Goat & co saying "it doesn't matter what he exposes, it doesn't hurt me".

Of all the paths to success in magic, it might be wise to encourage fellow magicians to choose paths other than exposure.

But that's just my wacky, old fashioned, belief.

It may or may not "hurt" the art in the short or long term, but what good does it do?

As Richard said, the argument about exposure has been going on for a century or more. But back in 1912 (for example) if you saw a trick and wondered how it was done, it was quite a challenge to seek out the method. Now you just google what you saw and there you go, you can watch some idiot on YouTube telling you how it's done.

Goat might suggest it creates "more magicians".

The college worker I was speaking to last night might disagree.

I realise that the "genie is out of the bottle" so to speak and every trick that is released as a book, dvd or even performed on TV will be exposed on the internet within a week. But what really annoys me is when our fellow magicians make a conscious decision to expose secrets... just because everyone else is doing it I suppose.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Dustin,

I do agree with you on your definitions of "good exposure" and "bad exposure"....
I realise that the "genie is out of the bottle" so to speak and every trick that is released as a book, dvd or even performed on TV will be exposed on the internet within a week. But what really annoys me is when our fellow magicians make a conscious decision to expose secrets... just because everyone else is doing it I suppose.

or to cut through the sophisticated denial that folks outside our craft can't fathom:

It's "good exposure" if you are planning on getting paid for it and "bad exposure" if you know you are not going to get paid for it.

Others already know the meaning of the word "venal".

[Michael G]

I realise that the "genie is out of the bottle" so to speak and every trick that is released as a book, dvd or even performed on TV will be exposed on the internet within a week. But what really annoys me is when our fellow magicians make a conscious decision to expose secrets... just because everyone else is doing it I suppose.

Surely this is taking things a little too far? Every trick that is released as book or DVD? I haven't ever seen a single trick I do exposed for one simple reason. I've searched through books to discover the hiddem gems, as I'm sure many people here have. This stuff is never exposed because it has been hidden in print.

[Brad Henderson]

Healed in Sealed didn't come out of his act because of the masked magician.

It came out because of the way magicians choose their material and their inability to keep secrets.

[mrgoat]

I realise that the "genie is out of the bottle" so to speak and every trick that is released as a book, dvd or even performed on TV will be exposed on the internet within a week. But what really annoys me is when our fellow magicians make a conscious decision to expose secrets... just because everyone else is doing it I suppose.

Surely this is taking things a little too far? Every trick that is released as book or DVD? I haven't ever seen a single trick I do exposed for one simple reason. I've searched through books to discover the hiddem gems, as I'm sure many people here have. This stuff is never exposed because it has been hidden in print.

As I said, if you are good, exposure doesn't harm you.

[mrgoat]

The point of this thread is that the magician in question, an experienced professional, is doing bad exposure.

You are calling it that. To me, it seems he has spent 4 years teaching kids magic on a national tv show and that is brilliant.

Have you got a personal issue with him, as honestly, you can't *really* think that a SINGLE MAGICIAN in Australia has lost a gig because he has taught a back palm. Can you? Really? I mean, really, hand on heart, magicians' pledge. Stand up Tim and say

"I, Tim Ellis, honestly believe magicians have lost paid gigs because of this idiot have the audacity to teach children a back palm on a kids' tv show".

But instead, we have Goat & co saying "it doesn't matter what he exposes, it doesn't hurt me".

I didn't say that, Tim, did I? If you are going to use quote marks, quote what I said. Which was that teaching a back palm and a thimble move on a kids tv show will cause no harm to anyone.

It may or may not "hurt" the art in the short or long term, but what good does it do?

Encourages the children that watch the show to take up magic?

Oh the humanity.

As Richard said, the argument about exposure has been going on for a century or more.

And yet magicians still get paid to do magic tricks? How the hell does that work? Surely by NOW after a 100 years of malicious exposure we would have nothing left to entertain the public with?