2 person mentalism

[Guest]

Does anybody know of any present-day two person Second Sight type of acts?

[Guest]

The award winning team of Jeff and Tessa Evason come to mind. They might not admit it due to their modesty however they are probably the best in the world at present.

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat
AB Stagecraft
http://www.mindguy.com/store
Where Mentalists shop for unique material

[Guest]

Here's another: Brian Gillis & "Sue"

http://www.gillismagic.com/

[Guest]

I thoroughly enjoyed, and was befuddled by, Simon and Ginny Aronson's act at this year's TSD convention. His site is here .

--Randy Campbell

[Guest]

No doubt Paul feels that Jeff and Tessa are "the best in the world" because they are members of the PEA. It is one of the rules of this organisation that you must say the other members are wonderful. In public anyway. In private you are allowed and indeed expected to do as much backstabbing as possible.

As I have already explained before some demented Israelis started jumping up and down I think they are merely adequate. Good but they do need improving. 15 minutes of them is good but the trouble is that they do much longer. And they are very, very serious just because the PEA rules say that they must be. A little humour would not go amiss.

Magicians get very excited about them because they have nobody to compare them with. I have seen quite a few two person acts in my time only one of which was worse than the Evasons. Naturally this was another Canadian act.

Yes, I do have an axe to grind. This Evason personage has been most impertinent about me on other groups. Excitable chap. Still, I always had my opinion of his work before he was impertinent. I am merely voicing my honest opinion in a spirit of great vindictiveness.

In a spirit of great gossip I will relate to you all a tale of how they tried to get work in a psychic fair by trying to pretend to the promoter that they were actually psychic. They approached the organisor outside the fair and asked for space. The promoter said he was full but he would keep them in mind for future events. He asked their qualifications whereupon they foolishly coded the serial number of a bill. The promoter was quite insulted since real psychics never do this sort of thing.

He knew the whole thing was a trick and came and complained to me about the matter. He said he would never have them in because it was obvious they were magicians and used trickery unlike the other spiritual people in the fair like myself.

There. Never let it be said that I have not learned the great Canadian habit of backstabbing.

Reverend Mark Lewis
Free Spiritualist Church of Canada.
www.marklewisentertainment.com

[Guest]

Thanks for the suggestions. I had a look at The Evansons website. They have a video online. They are very good! Also Brian Gillis' website had a video and it was also impressive.

Last year I had the opportunity to see Jeff and Tessa Evason perform live at an event in New York City. I would say that they were most entertaining. They had the audience of medical professionals eating out of their hands!

I'm not sure about this Mark Lewis "psychic" person and I don't know what the PEA is. Nor do I care. Especially after taking a look at Mark Lewis' website. It's clear why he would be jealous. Too bad. Very amateurish. A wanna-be at best.

[Richard Kaufman]

Oy, Mendoza, you'll pay for that remark about Mr. Lewis.
Continuing the thread, however, the best (and by FAR the best) people I have ever seen do a two-person code act are Danny and Jan Orleans. They spent a lot of time with Eddie Fields, then changed much and made it their own. Their behavior and language is utterly natural and it is inconceivable that information is being transmitted. Much better than anyone else I have ever seen.

[Steve Bryant]

Brian Gillis and Sue also studied with Eddie Fields, and they are excellent. A very tight routine. Alas, few of us ever got to see Eddie and George work the act, by accounts the best ever.

[Guest]

The Evasons are it!
I've said this before, but what some of the best 2-person acts, like Brian Gillis and his mentor, Eddie Fields did, is downsize the sender's role, so it looks like a one-person act...spectators are wondering how that (one) performer read their thoughts, rather than how did those two communicate with each other.

[Richard Kaufman]

The Evasons pale in comparison to Danny and Jan Orleans.

[Guest]

I've been fortunate to have seen the Gillis', The Orleans and The Evasons. Each have their merits. I was also able to see Eddie Fields and the Tuckers. Fields was basically a pitch act for horoscopes and IMO, very , and here I coin a phrase "unclassy" Not uneffective though. I wake up in a cold sweat thinking about the Tuckers act, it was that good. The Evasons are students of the Tuckers and have carried the act in to the 21st century. The Gillis also provide a totally professional performance. I have different taste than Mr Kaufman, because, the Orleans are my least favorite. Jan has fantastic stage prescence, which is to be expected as she hails from NJ, I believe. I didn;t care much for Dan's role, but it's all a matter of taste
As to the fans of the self proclaimed all knowing Marc Lewis, my only comment is Bwa ha! Ha ! ha , Ha
from
Ford

[Jon Racherbaumer]

Ford is right about the kind of venues Fields-Martz worked. Martz came out the the pool-hall subculture and actually owned one in Florida. Fields was raised in the carny tradition; however, he was able to upgrade it a bit and smooth out the rough edges. In their hey-day, they worked some high-rent gigs and even performed for some presidents and rich folks. Otherwise, they preferred the hoi polloi and spent their latter years working dime-stores, pitching horoscopes. In the 50s and 60s this was lucrative.

Yes, Eddie believed that the second banana be almost invisible. Most of the crowd did not directly connect him to the "professor." Instead, they thought Eddie worked for Woolsworth.

In their prime, George and Eddie could work 8-9 "ahead" and their cuing methods were very subtle.

As far as I know, Eddie taught the Fields-Martz code to only Orleans and Gillis...although he met with Michael Weber and Ricky Jay.

I think that the Aronsons, although they do not regularly work as professionals, do one of the best two-person acts around...in terms of the code and methodology, plus the alacrity-factor.

Onward...

[Guest]

What about King & Zorita - anybody familiar with them? A few weeks ago somebody was selling their brochure on ebay.

[Guest]

King and Zorita were another successful mindreading act, that isn't as well remembered as others. They worked theaters,niteclubs,private events, and might have also done a scope pitch on the Jersey shore.
I once heard Ross Johnson talk about them appearing at a magicians convention and attendees marveling how she called out their names...they thought they knew the M.O....but just to hear her call out name after name was a special experience.

[Guest]

Eddie Fields must have been the best. I don't even need to have seen him.
Why?
Because he was a GRAFTER! Grafters are always the best.What the hell do you think that Vernon was? A grafter.He even talked like one.
A silhouette Carnie. He did the fairs. A grafter.

I well remember a whole bunch of alt.magic ninnies arguing with a Mr.Irving Feldman on that board of intellectuals. It even developed into profanity. They cursed him and said he knew nothing about magic. The argument was something about Brian Gillis, I remember and second sight acts in general. I am not quite sure what the argument was about.

I instantly recognised the real name of Eddie Fields though.The idiots had no idea who they were screaming at.I told them all after he died. I don't think they have quite recovered yet from the shock.

I have never seen Danny Orleans do the second sight act but I am quite sure he and his wife do a better job of it than the Evasons. Ford doesn't like them no doubt because they are not members of the PEA. Unless they are of course whereupon they may not be any good after all.

I have seen Danny Orleans work at trade shows I have performed and attended at. I have even supplied him with psychics on various occasions for hospitality suites. Anyway he seems to have a vague idea of what he is doing so I expect he knows how to do the second sight act well especially if he has been trained by Eddie Fields, the master.

Ford's remark about Danny being non charismatic and devoid of stage presence echoes my feeling about Jeff and Tessa exactly. She is the one with the personality. He is the one with the charisma of a dead fish. Of course he is Canadian so naturally this is to be expected.

As for this twit Mendoza's remarks about my website I should tell him that I barely know what a website is or what it is actually supposed to be for. I believe I have one since the person who put it together informs me that I have one. I am not quite sure what I am supposed to do with it. I have noticed that a good website is usually a sign that the performer is bloody awful.

I know as much about websites as Mendoza knows about magic. I did not post about the Evasons because of "jealousy". I posted out of vindictiveness. I don't like the bastard.

How can I be "jealous" when it is perfectly obvious to everyone except a brain dead chemist in Philadelphia that I am already one of the greatest magicians that the world has ever seen.

The website is nothing to do with me. I was forced into having one by a certain nameless person who chattered something to me about "getting into the twentyfirst century" This person is the one responsible for the said website and is the one to whom the accusations of "amateurishness " should be made. This person has had firearms training and lives in the USA where shooting people is socially acceptable so Mr.Mendoza had better hide.

I do not approve of the twentyfirst century as it is well after 1954. I certainly do not approve of the magicians in it. They are all as incompetent as this Mendoza fellow who has obviously never done a show in his life.

The person who cannot be named on the grounds of not wishing to be associated with me not only did the website but also forced me to buy a computer even after I threatened to throw it out of the window.

This same person has now regretted persuading me to purchase the thing since I have now discovered that computers are very useful for upsetting people the world over instead of just locally.

I am referring to an ex-employee that I trained in the wicked ways of the world in the hope that some of this wickedness would rub off. It hasn't. A complete waste of time. You can't get good help nowadays.

This person now hob nobs with the supposed elite of the magic world and is in mortal fear of being associated with Mark Lewis.

Some people forget their roots.

[David Penn]

Mr. Psychic:
I think the term you were looking for is grifter, not grafter. A grafter whould relate to one who unites (a shoot or bud) with a growing plant by insertion or by placing it in close contact. A grifter is one who obtains money dishonestly.

[Guest]

Mr Penn.
Do pay attention, old chap.
I am referring to GRAFTER, not GRIFTER.
"Grifter" is a silly Americanism which refers to people who are scam artists.
Grafters are often grifters but do not have to be. Grifters are not always grafters.

I really do think that it is about time Americans learned how to speak English properly and stopped trying to form their own language. Since American schools are 3 years behind the British education system and one year behind the Canadian system I rather think Americans should learn to read and write before they invent their own words without the permission of the British Empire.

A grafter is what silly Americans call a "pitchman"

In Her Britannic Majesty's Realm of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we do not refer to "pitchmen". We refer to "grafters"

I shall expect you to do likewise.
Now do try harder, Penn. There's a good chap.

[Guest]

I see that Ford is making rude remarks about me again.
I also see that he has posted the same thing twice in a spirit of great senility.
That is why I shall treat his meanderings with great tolerance.
One must make allowances for the aged and incompetent.

Incidentally I have discovered that Ford is no longer on the board of his hallowed PEA. Whenever I have asked people why I have been greeted with nothing but silence.

I am overcome with curiousity about the matter. Did he storm off in a huff over something or did he do something terribly wicked which has caused them to kick him out?
Since nobody will tell me I must appeal to the great man himself for information concerning the matter.

Did he fall or was he pushed? I understand that he is writing a secret book containing great denunciations of some sort or other.
If it promises to be sufficiently libellous I might even buy a copy myself.

[David Penn]

Dear Mr. Psychic:

Im sure you are correct about everything you say. Afterall, one who earns his living as a palmist, tarot card reader, psychic and astrologer certanily is an intellectual powerhouse with whom we simple Americans could never compete. This would be true even if our Education system was 3 years ahead of yours!

[Guest]

I am indeed correct in everything I say.
You however are not.
I do not earn my living as a psychic or astrologer anymore.I am far too important for that sort of thing now.


You are however correct in saying that I am an "intellectual powerhouse"
For example I know how to spell "certainly" properly. You do not. This is obviously because you are as you state "a simple American" and your education system is 3 years behind the British one.

I shall forgive you for your sins though because I am a psychic reverend even though I do not do readings anymore.
However, I am amazed at the amount of people who request readings from me privately just by seeing me post on magic forums. I am quite aghast at the matter because these are experienced magicians.

As soon as I mention money though they do disappear rather quickly.

[Guest]

There was another act, the Piddingtons I believe, from Australia. Has anybody here ever seen them work? From what I understand, their stage show was not as good as their work on radio.

There is an old saying that goes something like "It doesn't matter what they say, just as long as they talk about you". So I suppose mr. Psychic is doing the Evasons a favor.

[Guest]

Guys what is it? The Genii Board or a war room? Anyway I am thinking of working on a second sight act, can anyone recommend any good books to get started? Also I wonder how long of a time limit people give themself who are working on a second sight act?

I was suprised that no one mentiond Falkenstein & Willard Act, they are good too. But in this day of age, people are smarter then we think, I lot of people know that codes are used, but they don't know how

[Steve Bryant]

Re "starting a code act," if you want a card code, there is an excellent one in Steinmeyer's Alan Wakeling book, discussed elsewhere on the forum.

[Guest]

The Piddingtons were a sensation in England in the post (WWII)years. Their broadcast shows created a national compelling interest, for their shows & publications. Mrs. Piddington, was a special guest last month, at The Los Angeles Conference on Magic History, and attendees were treated not only to newsreel footage of their feats, but Jim Steinmeyer interviewed the gracious Mrs. Piddington, as well.
Audiences do have brains, and remember codes have been exposed and parodied by comedians. That is why The Evasons and The Gillis's are so good at having the audience focus on the ONE person reading the audience's minds, rather than focusing on how those TWO performers are communicating.

[Guest]

It should be noted the Piddingtons had acheived (thru their own efforts) enough fame and success, that "magicians" with The Magic Circle in England, sought attention for themselves, (with what the Piddingtons had accomplished with THEIR OWN efforts.) by trying to "expose" and hammer two true artists, by going after someone else, because they didn't do anything the public cared about themselves. (Sound familiar?)
Fortunately their was a good ending,in that decades later, Mrs. Piddington said The Magic Circle welcomed them and honored their accomplishments.

[Frank Yuen]

Anyway I am thinking of working on a second sight act, can anyone recommend any good books to get started?

Four easily accessible products that will get you started in the code act are:

T for Two by Falkenstein and Willard available from L&L Publishing.

Vols 1 & 2 of Falkenstein and Willard's video tapes by L&L Publishing.

Mentcode by Lee Woodside. I don't have contact info handy but it was reviewed by Michael Close in the May 2001 issue of Magic Magazine.

Lastly, there is a chapter on code work in Corinda's 13 Steps to Mentalism .

Frank Yuen

[Guest]

I would think that the simple fact of The Evasons, the Gillis' and the Orleans are full time working pro's speak for themselves as to how good they are. They all work continually for REAL WORLD people and are thoroughly enjoyed by all. Despite what MArk Lewis says he has no idea who is or is not a member of the Psychic Entertainers Association (PEA) because two of those three ARE members and one of the others was and may return to the fold soon. All three of these acts are great in their own right and each have their own appeal with their audiences.

Also, despite what Lewis seems to beleive, the simple fact that the Evasons wowed a showroom full of magicians and went on to win at a World Magic Seminar speaks for itself as to how good they are because we all know that a room full of magicians are the toughest, hardest audience to impress yet the Evasons did just that.

Since this forum is NOT supposed to be a mudslinging pit for wrestling and since the "editors/moderators" seem to have a distaste for "ignorant rants" perhaps they might look at locking this thread to prevent further rants from you know who.

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat
AB Stagecraft
http://www.mindguy.com/store
Where mentalists shop world-wide

[Guest]

Mr Mendoza should note that far more people talk about ME than they do about the Evasons. And so they should.
Mind you, I am not sure it proves anything. They talk rather a lot about Osama Bin Laden but I on't think he ever did much of a second sight act. They also talked a lot about Hitler and look what happened to HIM

As for the Piddingtons I am amazed that Mrs.Piddington is still alive. She must be older than God.

They were indeed a most wondrous act and terribly, terribly famous. I remember that silly old goat Francis White, the president of the Magic Circle tried to expose them which shows that some things don't change.

Which reminds me. A local mentalist in Toronto who is even more boring than the Evasons tried to expose them in the newspaper here. Not that I am the gossiping type of course.

Diego is correct about the Magic Circle eventually sucking up to the Piddingtons. I saw the same thing happen to Uri Geller. He once turned up at a magicians convention and they all fawned over him in a spirit of great hypocrisy. A week before they were all cursing him as an emissary of the devil.

[Guest]

I see Alberstat is babbling again as I knew he would.
I can always draw him out even though he tries to ignore me. It must be agony for him to try and suppress his urge to post when he sees my great wit and wisdom. I get great amusement from his constant conflict with himself.

It is EASY to impress magicians when you are technically clever. I will admit that the Evasons are technically perfect in their work. However, they are not ENTERTAINING. I don't particularly mind that, since most mentalists are as boring as hell.No, it is not their lack of entertainment skills that I object to. I do not approve of this Evason personage because he is a backstabber.

Of course I have been led to believe that this is a requirement necessary to join the PEA.

Furthermore winning a competition for magicians and judged by magicians is always a sign of great incompetence. I have always said that only terrible acts win magicians competitions.

This is NOT an "ignorant" rant. It is merely an amusing one. And an honest one. I always tell things how I see them. I am not a member of the PEA.

Incidentally, Paul. Why is Ford not on the board any more? All I get is silence over the matter.

Go on. Tell us. I dare you. I am overcome with curiousity.

[Guest]

Oh! Look at the e-mail I just received.
I had better protect the identity of the person.I think he is fairly well known. I hope I do it right- I don't understand computers.

Here we are:
..................................................

Mr. Lewis:

Just following the thread about mentalism teams on the Genii forum... (But
there's no way I'm personally jumping into that narrow-minded and
ill-informed fray.)

I was delighted to see your low opinion of the Evasons. My only personal
exposure to them was on a badly produced magic TV show devoted to mentalism.
When their little bit was finished, I turned to my wife and went, "Huh?"
Their performance was as blandly discomforting as walking barefoot through
cold oatmeal. And not quite as stimulating.

I didn't get it.

And then I see all the praise for their tepid performing style in magic
forums. Sigh. Obviously most magicians don't have a clue about good theater.

[Guest]

Marc, Seamus, Cirky , whover, I apologise to the forum, for inmadvertantly sending the same post twice, stuff happens
I don't know if your unfamiliarity with the laguage, or just your desire to start trouble
had you twist my words about the Orleans. I said nothing to denigrate Dan, just that I didn't care for his role, compared to the others in the same capacity. The person in the audience, from the team, is supposed to be nearly invisible. But you "dead fish" analogy for Jeff Evasons is way off base. But you've repeatedly said the only performer you liked was yourself. So I assume, noe of the people you deuigrate are not like you

Re: The Orlean, I've seen in the magazines that Dan works as a High School Performer, so I assume they don't pursue the second sight act,
I'm open to correction from any one but Marc
from
Ford
BTW, PEA business is between PEA members, so silence was the proper response to your inquiry. But I will say, i didn't leave in a huff, nor was I expelled. My term of office ran out, I did not run again. The last term was two years. I had previously served a three year term. So, now Marc, might be the time for you to apply

[Russell Davis]

Not knowing where else the following might fit, I offer this trick which may be presented to a smallish audience as if it were a short demonstration AND explanation of two-person coding. Maybe even just mentioning the existence of coding is a bad idea. Or maybe by contrast it will strengthen the reception given to the (I hope) natural-seeming code routine with which you follow this bit.

Explain to the onlookers that a FALSE psychic uses a partner who communicates to the psychic by means of reverse psychology. The partner will include certain phrases in what appears to be ordinary conversation, those phrases being the EXACT opposite of the information the bogus psychic will discern and reveal. Rather than bore them with too much detail (which you'd only have to keep making up on the spot!), offer a simple, crude, and effective demonstration, using, oh I don't know, how about these cards here.

Force the EIGHT of spades on a spectator. Have them show it to all around, including to your nearby stooge / friend / mentalism facilitator (let's call him "Bill". No, "Jimbo". No, I guess "Bill".) but not to you. Explain that Bill (yeah, that was definitely the right choice) will relay the name of the card to you by saying things that are the exact opposite of that card's suit and value.

So Bill thinks a little and says maybe "orange rinds".

You consider the words, repeat them out loud, and ask for clarification from Bill ("Rind singular, or rindS plural?" "Plural", says Bill).

You conclusively say, "The nine of spades".

Bill pipes up, "I said rinds PLURAL!"

You: "Oops. EIGHT of spades."

Repeat routine once or twice with different cards and a different minor error. Or none.

Tell spectator that you have no doubt that they've caught on to the basic concept. Have THEM try. Force a card. (Let's call it "the three of hearts". No, "Jimbo".) (No, 3H.) Have them show it around but not to you, or for that matter Bill. Have them think of and then tell you something they consider MOST different from that card's actual identity or even its meaning to them.

Spectator says maybe "scorpion Twister".

You: "It's a red card?? An ace or a two of diamonds. No, hearts. Ace or a two? No? Wait! Ace AND two: it's the three of hearts!"

Compliment spectator for catching on to the code so quickly.

[Russell Davis]

Not knowing where else the following might fit, I offer this trick which may be presented to a smallish audience as if it were a short demonstration AND explanation of two-person coding. Maybe even just mentioning the existence of coding is a bad idea. Or maybe by contrast it will strengthen the reception given to the (I hope) natural-seeming code routine with which you follow this bit.

Explain to the onlookers that a FALSE psychic uses a partner who communicates to the psychic by means of reverse psychology. The partner will include certain phrases in what appears to be ordinary conversation, those phrases being the EXACT opposite of the information the bogus psychic will discern and reveal. Rather than bore them with too much detail (which you'd only have to keep making up on the spot!), offer a simple, crude, and effective demonstration, using, oh I don't know, how about these cards here.

Force the EIGHT of spades on a spectator. Have them show it to all around, including to your nearby stooge / friend / mentalism facilitator (let's call him "Bill". No, "Jimbo". No, I guess "Bill".) but not to you. Explain that Bill (yeah, that was definitely the right choice) will relay the name of the card to you by saying things that are the exact opposite of that card's suit and value.

So Bill thinks a little and says maybe "orange rinds".

You consider the words, repeat them out loud, and ask for clarification from Bill ("Rind singular, or rindS plural?" "Plural", says Bill).

You conclusively say, "The nine of spades".

Bill pipes up, "I said rinds PLURAL!"

You: "Oops. EIGHT of spades."

Repeat routine once or twice with different cards and a different minor error. Or none.

Tell spectator that you have no doubt that they've caught on to the basic concept. Have THEM try. Force a card. (Let's call it "the three of hearts". No, "Jimbo".) (No, 3H.) Have them show it around but not to you, or for that matter Bill. Have them think of and then tell you something they consider MOST different from that card's actual identity or even its meaning to them.

Spectator says maybe "scorpion Twister".

You: "It's a red card?? An ace or a two of diamonds. No, hearts. Ace or a two? No? Wait! Ace AND two: it's the three of hearts!"

Compliment spectator for catching on to the code so quickly.

[Steve Bryant]

An excellent idea, and one I've used to great effect. (Alas, it's been pre-thought of, by Simon Lovell, and is in his first big book from L&L, Simon Says, as well as in his prior Blackpool lecture notes.) Your details are great, and you will also like some additional procedural twists that Simon came up with. Check out his book; it's great. (The spectator variant is NOT in Simon's routine. That part is new.)

[Ross Johnson]

King and Zorita's act was the most engaging 2 person presentation I have ever seen. He was unassuming. She was regal. Audience members clamored to be the next participant.

Eddie Fields and George Martz were "real". They made believer's out of the most skeptical. They thought like real people and knew what real people were thinking. No jive. They didn't need much to make miracles. Eddie could look at most any effect and spot the stink. He was a true magical savant.