Yeah I don't let any "hate" get to me. I have learned to just turn it off and it doesn't effect me. But I'm open to Constructive criticism anytime thats the best way to improve. I practice in front of the mirror for hours trying to see if i flash or where i need work, i also film myself to see it from the spectators view.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself. In the past 2 years I've been carefully shaped and molded by the top magicians in the bay area. I got to learn with, John Bodine, Will Chandler, Johnathan Steigman, Josh Logan, Theron, Ricky Smith, Curtis Kam, Lee Asher, Brian, Kim Silverman, Steve Silverman, Scott Emo. I've talked to James Randi and Daniel Garcia. I've also talked to Cyril. One of the magicians i meet with every Friday started magic with Cyril when they were kids growing up in L.A.
So basically I've learned SO much in just 2 years. I've had a little bit of everything. I'm always learning everday. Practicing everyday. Performing everyday. And working on my DVD to perfection. It will have a houdini/urban modern vibe. James Randi and John Bodine will be consulting for this dvd to make sure i only film the best effects. I also plan to do a lot of my own effects that I've been working on in the past 2 years. So I'll have some help by some very experienced magicians along the way. Every Friday night i meet up with around 10 magicians. They have taught me pretty much everything I know. I've been to a few lectures and I always have DVDs provided for me to watch.
Dvd's on the side steal, double lift, the pass, Daniel Garcia project, Greg Wilson, Mcbride, card palming etc. etc. Magic has become my life. But i don't do it for applaud. I think thats too meaningless. I do it for those people who NEED to be happy. For the people who are stressed with life, work, friends, family..and I've already had countless messages saying that I've changed somebody's life because of the way i look at magic. Its truly inspiring to see how far my reach has gone and how influential my little youtube clips have gotten.
To read my bio to get to know me a bit better check it out on my myspace page...
www.myspace.com/orbitbrown
Thanks for the topic dedication by the way. I appreciate it. :)
Smooooooooooooooooth
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
I don't really think that Brad was posting any hate.
I think he was voicing a pretty common concern about the state of magic.
I think he was voicing a pretty common concern about the state of magic.
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
I agree Elliott....I don't believe that Brad was slinging hate either....I would like to join him and Murphy for lunch, however, as I really would like to see Brad do a fifteen-minute balloon-poodle routine....tsk tsk..
opie
opie
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
I think that Brad meant "pendantic" in the sense of being too concerned with fine details and too ready with criticism. I think P.T. meant "pendantic" in the sense of a vain display of book learning.
And me, I think they're both right. Which means I better duck!
So, Chris, based on the names you dropped I'm guessing you live in the Silicon Valley. There's not a magic shop there, but Joe Pon (sp?) at Misdirections (in San Francisco) can help steer you to the next level. So can some of the folks you mentioned, of course, but if you're not already talking to Joe he's well worth getting to know. Good luck with your studies.
And me, I think they're both right. Which means I better duck!
So, Chris, based on the names you dropped I'm guessing you live in the Silicon Valley. There's not a magic shop there, but Joe Pon (sp?) at Misdirections (in San Francisco) can help steer you to the next level. So can some of the folks you mentioned, of course, but if you're not already talking to Joe he's well worth getting to know. Good luck with your studies.
-
Brad Henderson
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
There is no hate in my posts. Only observations about a trend in magic and concern about where it will lead.
There is a growing trend where the focus is on video editing and look/feel/vibe over quality/content. Evidence? How about any DVD release where the trick looks great from the one angle the webcam is held, but one cannot effectively get into or out of the trick. Nevertheless, because the video "looks good" people praise the trick - when (as David Alexander pointed out) it is for any intent and practical purposes useless in the real world.
When I was getting my degree in music, my teacher said, "The most important thing is the sound. Even if you miss notes, they can still say, "you sounded good." Well, in music thats a good thing. In the world of magic on video, it seems that it is more important that something "look good" than "be good." And I'm not even talking about the tricks and how they play. Poorly executed magic, when wrapped in a pretty package, still gets "your video looks good" from a percentage of the magic world. (Largely statements made on the cafe and youtube). Sadly, the veneer hides the quality of the substance. There are more important considerations in the world of magic than "your video looks good." If you are selling magic, we need to know that the tricks ARE good, that they are practical, and that the teacher can get through them from start to finish, this is not always the case.
So, there's the problem.
But to Chris's tape, he has collected a series of strong visual moments (not tricks, but moments) many of which read well on the screen. His handling of the color changes and double lift work is ok, but nothing extraordinary or even what I would consider having hit the bar to shoot for.
However, if this is meant to tease something else, I would need to know more.
Is it meant to generate work in the real world? In that case, it fails. Buyers don't hire hands, they hire people. Magic is a vehicle for a relationship between people. At no point in this video can I tell anything about the type of person Chris is, how he would act around my guests or my friends, and how he would manage any social dynamic involving the introduction of magic as entertainment. Couple that with the fact that the style and music choices would alienate a large portion of the public with the means to afford quality magic, and you have a video that I think would limit a performer's acceptance in the commercial (meaning, performance) marketplace. Finally, I see no real connection between the aesthetic elements of the video (music, feel, etc.) and the magic itself. This would lead me to believe that this person has not considered the larger picture of his or her magic. As Max Maven has said, "Everything Matters." Just because one uses urban music doesn't make their act cutting edge. I once saw a performer whose intro bragged that he was changing the face of magic. Well, doing a dove act while wearing leather is not changing the face of anything. I see standard card tricks, MTV style editing, and hear music with an edge. What am I to think about this person's magic? That it is edgey? Well, its not. It's card tricks. Should I think that he is hip? I don't know. All I see are hands. So, the package seems more of a pastiche than a presentation.
If his goal is to tease a video of instructional material, I would still say this fails. If we think of magic as the adventure of the props in the performers hands and we are merely looking for new ways to combine Hamman moves and double lifts, then this video conveys that. However, magic is more about a sequence of moves. It is about producing moments in which people are engaged and hopefully transformed - or at the very least amused. That takes relationship. It takes interaction. That is what I need to be a magician. That is what the best instructional materials provide - a better insight into the art of performing magic - while also teaching new, novel, and engaging material.
We get none of that from this teaser.
We see some well known card changes, a couple of variant changes, and a series of "routines" that are close enough to the originals to be instantly recognizable. Based solely on the DVD, I would be lead to suspect this represented the body of work to be contained. As Michael Close wrote, there are too many products offering not improvement, nor even variation, but personalizations. Consequentially, I would not feel any compelling desire to purchase the DVD it teases.
Now, as to offering something to help Chris move forward, I would suggest, "Slow Down." There is no good reason in the world for anyone to release a magic DVD, especially at the beginning of their career. If your goal is mercenary, then there is nothing I have to say. That is an attitude which I am not interested in. But, many young people think that there is fame to be found in the release of a magic DVD. Sadly, this has become somewhat true.
Years ago, people built a career PERFORMING for a living, developing a reputation for having original, novel material. Then, at some point, they released it and we all benefited from their years of experience.
Today, people create ideas with the sole purpose of selling them. They "Beta test" them, then ship them out. Of course, once they reach the marketplace, people start asking questions, finding problems, and seeing better methods and presentations. So, they create a web forum so others can share their work - work the "creator" should have done long before considering release.
Sadly, these people are still seen in our field as creative performers? Why? Well, because most people have not taken the time to learn the history of their art and the ideas on which it is founded. Most people don't take the time to really learn the tricks they buy. A visit to the Magic Cafe will reveal that - recently a self-proclaimed "rope magic expert" confessed he had no idea who Sands was and knew nothing of his routine. Other posts revealed that he had no idea where certain ideas had come from - attributing them to the most recent person to put them on DVD, rather than their creator. When this was pointed out, those posts were removed. I guess it is more important to be "nice" than protect the historical record. Nevertheless, this person speaks with authority and others look to him for advice.
Further, many people look at whatever incarnation of any routine and assume that the latest is the greatest without ever checking for themselves. They look at a 21 year old's watered down handling of one of Barrie Richardson's brilliant, mind thumping, card routines and they herald it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It does not matter that all of the psychology, the drama, and structure has been stripped away leaving only a course move that occurs under the cover of grotesque hand waving and at the wrong moment.
Nevertheless, people praise this bastard routine, calling it by it's "creator's" name, and yet have no idea that there is something out there which is so much better.
So, the person with the hot little video becomes idolized and the person who created a stunning routine which he has honed over thousands of performances gets forgotten. Maybe if he put out a video?!?
People don;t take the time to find out, follow credits, or learn what is already out - instead they choose to fantasize about what is due. As Michael CLose observed - you see them posting every day with baited breath, waiting for the latest book to come out. FInally, when it ships, you see the same people posting with baited breath waiting for the next book. No discussion of the tricks. Not commentary. Just something to put on their shelf.
The point is, just because someone becomes famous in our little world means nothing about them as a person or as a magician. Many assume that these "magic stars" perform their material in the real world, but independent verification reveals they do not. They created it for the sake of creating it. Why? To be famous? To make a buck? Because they want to give back to magic?
I suspect the former. However, if Chris really believes he wants to create an instructional video to give something back to magic, then he should wait. He should perform this material not for 2 years, but for 20. He should offer full routines, show us how he handles his audience, how he engages them, and transforms them. Sure, he may not appeal to the YouTube crowd, but the YouTube crowd isn't the group out there PERFORMING for real people - where magic is meant to be done.
In that 20 years, he should heed Michael Weber's advice: Before you write one book, you must read 100. I personally think the number of books should be raised to at LEAST 250 before you put out a DVD, AND you should have clicked in a couple thousand performances of each of your close up tricks. My close up reperatoire has been essentially the same for over 17 years. Nevertheless, I still find moments that can be improved, aspects of each routine to tweak. Had I released my ideas 17 years ago, I would have just added to the pile of average stuff for sale. That is not the way to "give back" to magic.
Until someone has put in that type of time, all the advice from experts - some with performing experience, some only with manufactured magic world fame - really gets YOU as the performer nowhere. What matters is what you have learned in the real world, from succeeding and from failing.
That takes more than a video camera and more than 2 years.
There is a growing trend where the focus is on video editing and look/feel/vibe over quality/content. Evidence? How about any DVD release where the trick looks great from the one angle the webcam is held, but one cannot effectively get into or out of the trick. Nevertheless, because the video "looks good" people praise the trick - when (as David Alexander pointed out) it is for any intent and practical purposes useless in the real world.
When I was getting my degree in music, my teacher said, "The most important thing is the sound. Even if you miss notes, they can still say, "you sounded good." Well, in music thats a good thing. In the world of magic on video, it seems that it is more important that something "look good" than "be good." And I'm not even talking about the tricks and how they play. Poorly executed magic, when wrapped in a pretty package, still gets "your video looks good" from a percentage of the magic world. (Largely statements made on the cafe and youtube). Sadly, the veneer hides the quality of the substance. There are more important considerations in the world of magic than "your video looks good." If you are selling magic, we need to know that the tricks ARE good, that they are practical, and that the teacher can get through them from start to finish, this is not always the case.
So, there's the problem.
But to Chris's tape, he has collected a series of strong visual moments (not tricks, but moments) many of which read well on the screen. His handling of the color changes and double lift work is ok, but nothing extraordinary or even what I would consider having hit the bar to shoot for.
However, if this is meant to tease something else, I would need to know more.
Is it meant to generate work in the real world? In that case, it fails. Buyers don't hire hands, they hire people. Magic is a vehicle for a relationship between people. At no point in this video can I tell anything about the type of person Chris is, how he would act around my guests or my friends, and how he would manage any social dynamic involving the introduction of magic as entertainment. Couple that with the fact that the style and music choices would alienate a large portion of the public with the means to afford quality magic, and you have a video that I think would limit a performer's acceptance in the commercial (meaning, performance) marketplace. Finally, I see no real connection between the aesthetic elements of the video (music, feel, etc.) and the magic itself. This would lead me to believe that this person has not considered the larger picture of his or her magic. As Max Maven has said, "Everything Matters." Just because one uses urban music doesn't make their act cutting edge. I once saw a performer whose intro bragged that he was changing the face of magic. Well, doing a dove act while wearing leather is not changing the face of anything. I see standard card tricks, MTV style editing, and hear music with an edge. What am I to think about this person's magic? That it is edgey? Well, its not. It's card tricks. Should I think that he is hip? I don't know. All I see are hands. So, the package seems more of a pastiche than a presentation.
If his goal is to tease a video of instructional material, I would still say this fails. If we think of magic as the adventure of the props in the performers hands and we are merely looking for new ways to combine Hamman moves and double lifts, then this video conveys that. However, magic is more about a sequence of moves. It is about producing moments in which people are engaged and hopefully transformed - or at the very least amused. That takes relationship. It takes interaction. That is what I need to be a magician. That is what the best instructional materials provide - a better insight into the art of performing magic - while also teaching new, novel, and engaging material.
We get none of that from this teaser.
We see some well known card changes, a couple of variant changes, and a series of "routines" that are close enough to the originals to be instantly recognizable. Based solely on the DVD, I would be lead to suspect this represented the body of work to be contained. As Michael Close wrote, there are too many products offering not improvement, nor even variation, but personalizations. Consequentially, I would not feel any compelling desire to purchase the DVD it teases.
Now, as to offering something to help Chris move forward, I would suggest, "Slow Down." There is no good reason in the world for anyone to release a magic DVD, especially at the beginning of their career. If your goal is mercenary, then there is nothing I have to say. That is an attitude which I am not interested in. But, many young people think that there is fame to be found in the release of a magic DVD. Sadly, this has become somewhat true.
Years ago, people built a career PERFORMING for a living, developing a reputation for having original, novel material. Then, at some point, they released it and we all benefited from their years of experience.
Today, people create ideas with the sole purpose of selling them. They "Beta test" them, then ship them out. Of course, once they reach the marketplace, people start asking questions, finding problems, and seeing better methods and presentations. So, they create a web forum so others can share their work - work the "creator" should have done long before considering release.
Sadly, these people are still seen in our field as creative performers? Why? Well, because most people have not taken the time to learn the history of their art and the ideas on which it is founded. Most people don't take the time to really learn the tricks they buy. A visit to the Magic Cafe will reveal that - recently a self-proclaimed "rope magic expert" confessed he had no idea who Sands was and knew nothing of his routine. Other posts revealed that he had no idea where certain ideas had come from - attributing them to the most recent person to put them on DVD, rather than their creator. When this was pointed out, those posts were removed. I guess it is more important to be "nice" than protect the historical record. Nevertheless, this person speaks with authority and others look to him for advice.
Further, many people look at whatever incarnation of any routine and assume that the latest is the greatest without ever checking for themselves. They look at a 21 year old's watered down handling of one of Barrie Richardson's brilliant, mind thumping, card routines and they herald it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It does not matter that all of the psychology, the drama, and structure has been stripped away leaving only a course move that occurs under the cover of grotesque hand waving and at the wrong moment.
Nevertheless, people praise this bastard routine, calling it by it's "creator's" name, and yet have no idea that there is something out there which is so much better.
So, the person with the hot little video becomes idolized and the person who created a stunning routine which he has honed over thousands of performances gets forgotten. Maybe if he put out a video?!?
People don;t take the time to find out, follow credits, or learn what is already out - instead they choose to fantasize about what is due. As Michael CLose observed - you see them posting every day with baited breath, waiting for the latest book to come out. FInally, when it ships, you see the same people posting with baited breath waiting for the next book. No discussion of the tricks. Not commentary. Just something to put on their shelf.
The point is, just because someone becomes famous in our little world means nothing about them as a person or as a magician. Many assume that these "magic stars" perform their material in the real world, but independent verification reveals they do not. They created it for the sake of creating it. Why? To be famous? To make a buck? Because they want to give back to magic?
I suspect the former. However, if Chris really believes he wants to create an instructional video to give something back to magic, then he should wait. He should perform this material not for 2 years, but for 20. He should offer full routines, show us how he handles his audience, how he engages them, and transforms them. Sure, he may not appeal to the YouTube crowd, but the YouTube crowd isn't the group out there PERFORMING for real people - where magic is meant to be done.
In that 20 years, he should heed Michael Weber's advice: Before you write one book, you must read 100. I personally think the number of books should be raised to at LEAST 250 before you put out a DVD, AND you should have clicked in a couple thousand performances of each of your close up tricks. My close up reperatoire has been essentially the same for over 17 years. Nevertheless, I still find moments that can be improved, aspects of each routine to tweak. Had I released my ideas 17 years ago, I would have just added to the pile of average stuff for sale. That is not the way to "give back" to magic.
Until someone has put in that type of time, all the advice from experts - some with performing experience, some only with manufactured magic world fame - really gets YOU as the performer nowhere. What matters is what you have learned in the real world, from succeeding and from failing.
That takes more than a video camera and more than 2 years.
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Great Feedback, its up there in the top 5 replys i have ever received. I agree and see differently in other parts of your response though. I'm only 21, yes. I've only been doing this for 2 years. yes. But the thing here is this...
This dvd is not ME with a camera man. Think of me as a beat up old car...that could never race against the other experienced cars. The Magicians that are consulting with me are souping me up. Replacing the engine...the tires....the exhaust. So though i may look like nothing now, nobody will be expecting the speed i will generate. Through this metaphor i mean this... It won't be just ME doing this dvd, I have magicians that will make SURE that this dvd won't flop. Plus, its just a performance dvd. Just performing.
The Hands thing is true. Nobody wants to see hands. I've studied the psychology pretty deeply, which is why I'm making ANOTHER video to be put on the front page of youtube. Its a message. About Iraqi people and US troops...it will involve magic, and no spoken words from me. It will be about 30 seconds. And it will be very impacting. I had this talk with John Bodine about this very thing. This is how it went...
John: Who's the most famous magician in the world right now?
Chris: uhh...David Copperfield.
John: RIGHT! And whos your favorite magician...
Chris: David Blaine, he started me.
John: Ok, why do you like David Blaine more than Copperfield?
Chris: Cause i can relate to his story and we share the same type of style almost.
John: How much do you know about copperfield?
Chris: .....Nothing really.
John: ok, How much do you know about Blaine?
Chris: Well i read his book twice so i know quite a bit about him...
John: And thats how you make an impact
Basically, John told me that if i NEVER tell anything about myself the people wont care about me really... But if i go the opposite route like Blaine, you gain a much stronger support. How well you know somebody > Popularity. THATS what i'll be doing. Those are just card tricks. Thats not magic. Thats sleight of hand. But when you make somebody confused about what they just saw, and you make them smile and wonder about the bigger picture. THATS magic. I do that when i do bar magic or party magic. I never do the same thing twice. I always leave them wanting more, then i leave. I've studied this in depth. I will continue to learn and study deeper as this DVD progresses.
John is taking a huge part in teaching me. He pretty much knows EVERYTHING when it comes to magic. Its amazing. He has the biggest library in the bay area. He has a whole room for books, dvds, cards, supplies...all that. Paul Harris is to David blaine as John Bodine is to me. Do you think Blaine did all that on his own? He had a lot of help.
So what i'm trying to say is...no matter how young somebody is, or how short they've been in magic. If they're doing it for the right reasons, it doesn't matter. I WANT to learn more. I WANT to get taught more. I WANT to become more knowledgeable in the field of magic. But i cant learn everything overnight. And trust me, i know exactly what i'm doing. I have a plan for youtube and the people.
oh and another thing, i dont think ANYBODY should ever disregard the power of youtube. You can easily say "He's a youtube magician" When in actuality... (i'm not being arrogant here, I'm far from it) My card magic video that now has over 2 million views... My audience is larger than a lot of magicians who do shows COMBINED. See what I'm saying? Do you see the reach this has? So when you say I'm not ready for this dvd, i AM. Because I wont be doing it alone. I hope you see where I'm coming from. And EVERYTHING I'll be doing, I've been practicing everywhere i go, I've been getting critiques at the Friday night workshops.
Now watch this "weak car" go from 0-60 in 3 seconds. I owe everything to the magicians who surround me. EVERYTHING. Without them, I'm nothing.
Another thing is this...I see some magicians who have been doing magic for 30 years, but they do the same exact routines as every other magician does. They provide nothing new, they just follow. I'm more into CREATING new things....thats why a huge portion of this DVD are idea's that came from my head. That doesn't mean that they've NEVER been invented...because thats near impossible in magic. But just have faith. And enjoy the show. I know exactly what I'm doing. Just believe me when i say that I'm 2 steps ahead of youtube, my friends, family, and everybody else. Which is what a magician is SUPPOSED to do. Real Magic lies within the Reactions...expect to see some real magic in this dvd.
i'm planting seeds right now that nobody realizes that i'm doing.
I'll let you in on a little secret though... I've been talking about the DVD with a well known psych professor who is good friends with James Randi. And i'm also being fed psychology for this dvd and the rest of my clips on youtube.
Chris
This dvd is not ME with a camera man. Think of me as a beat up old car...that could never race against the other experienced cars. The Magicians that are consulting with me are souping me up. Replacing the engine...the tires....the exhaust. So though i may look like nothing now, nobody will be expecting the speed i will generate. Through this metaphor i mean this... It won't be just ME doing this dvd, I have magicians that will make SURE that this dvd won't flop. Plus, its just a performance dvd. Just performing.
The Hands thing is true. Nobody wants to see hands. I've studied the psychology pretty deeply, which is why I'm making ANOTHER video to be put on the front page of youtube. Its a message. About Iraqi people and US troops...it will involve magic, and no spoken words from me. It will be about 30 seconds. And it will be very impacting. I had this talk with John Bodine about this very thing. This is how it went...
John: Who's the most famous magician in the world right now?
Chris: uhh...David Copperfield.
John: RIGHT! And whos your favorite magician...
Chris: David Blaine, he started me.
John: Ok, why do you like David Blaine more than Copperfield?
Chris: Cause i can relate to his story and we share the same type of style almost.
John: How much do you know about copperfield?
Chris: .....Nothing really.
John: ok, How much do you know about Blaine?
Chris: Well i read his book twice so i know quite a bit about him...
John: And thats how you make an impact
Basically, John told me that if i NEVER tell anything about myself the people wont care about me really... But if i go the opposite route like Blaine, you gain a much stronger support. How well you know somebody > Popularity. THATS what i'll be doing. Those are just card tricks. Thats not magic. Thats sleight of hand. But when you make somebody confused about what they just saw, and you make them smile and wonder about the bigger picture. THATS magic. I do that when i do bar magic or party magic. I never do the same thing twice. I always leave them wanting more, then i leave. I've studied this in depth. I will continue to learn and study deeper as this DVD progresses.
John is taking a huge part in teaching me. He pretty much knows EVERYTHING when it comes to magic. Its amazing. He has the biggest library in the bay area. He has a whole room for books, dvds, cards, supplies...all that. Paul Harris is to David blaine as John Bodine is to me. Do you think Blaine did all that on his own? He had a lot of help.
So what i'm trying to say is...no matter how young somebody is, or how short they've been in magic. If they're doing it for the right reasons, it doesn't matter. I WANT to learn more. I WANT to get taught more. I WANT to become more knowledgeable in the field of magic. But i cant learn everything overnight. And trust me, i know exactly what i'm doing. I have a plan for youtube and the people.
oh and another thing, i dont think ANYBODY should ever disregard the power of youtube. You can easily say "He's a youtube magician" When in actuality... (i'm not being arrogant here, I'm far from it) My card magic video that now has over 2 million views... My audience is larger than a lot of magicians who do shows COMBINED. See what I'm saying? Do you see the reach this has? So when you say I'm not ready for this dvd, i AM. Because I wont be doing it alone. I hope you see where I'm coming from. And EVERYTHING I'll be doing, I've been practicing everywhere i go, I've been getting critiques at the Friday night workshops.
Now watch this "weak car" go from 0-60 in 3 seconds. I owe everything to the magicians who surround me. EVERYTHING. Without them, I'm nothing.
Another thing is this...I see some magicians who have been doing magic for 30 years, but they do the same exact routines as every other magician does. They provide nothing new, they just follow. I'm more into CREATING new things....thats why a huge portion of this DVD are idea's that came from my head. That doesn't mean that they've NEVER been invented...because thats near impossible in magic. But just have faith. And enjoy the show. I know exactly what I'm doing. Just believe me when i say that I'm 2 steps ahead of youtube, my friends, family, and everybody else. Which is what a magician is SUPPOSED to do. Real Magic lies within the Reactions...expect to see some real magic in this dvd.
i'm planting seeds right now that nobody realizes that i'm doing.
I'll let you in on a little secret though... I've been talking about the DVD with a well known psych professor who is good friends with James Randi. And i'm also being fed psychology for this dvd and the rest of my clips on youtube.
Chris
-
Ian Kendall
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Damn, I was just about to say that...
Brad's point about the peer status of being published is not a new one, however. I remember Steve Hamilton saying to me 'go on, show me something. Get your name in print' back in the days of Profile. How serious he was we shall never know, but I recognised the sentiment.
Around the same time I was asked by someone in the Magic Circle what was in my lecture. When I explained that I had fewer than six or seven years in and didn't lecture it was greeted with an incredulous, and now somewhat contemptous look. Obvuiously, in the early nineties it was de rigeur to offer lectures...
In an old Opus interview Pat Page gave his opinion of the early adopters; he called them two year old magicians. I've seen this referenced a couple of times in unrelated pieces, but Pat makes essentially the same points as Brad (and Mike and Michael). Fifteen years ago it was not uncommon for convention sessions to be full of people touting self published manuscripts to offset the cost of the dealers' hall. These days photocopied notes are replaced by digital wares, but the idea is the same (and I'm as guilty, if not moreso than most, of this).
In the past, however, one needed to pitch the notes personally, and your customers knew either you, or your work. A live demonstration was essential to close the deal. Reputations were built on ability with the hands, not the edit suite.
Another quote of the period was 'on the internet, noone knows you're a dog'. Nowadays we have web video, of course, so canine mistakes are fewer, but as has been said before, we rarely see the whole story. Web celebrity is not going to go away, so I fear we are in a vicious circle. In an even more pretentious act than I am used to, I'd like to offer a word to the masses by paraphrasing/plagiarising/bastardising one of my favourite poems;
You would not tell with such high zest, to children desparate for some ardent glory,
The old lie; Dulce et decorum est, to put out a three DVD set by next Thursday.
Take care, Ian
Brad's point about the peer status of being published is not a new one, however. I remember Steve Hamilton saying to me 'go on, show me something. Get your name in print' back in the days of Profile. How serious he was we shall never know, but I recognised the sentiment.
Around the same time I was asked by someone in the Magic Circle what was in my lecture. When I explained that I had fewer than six or seven years in and didn't lecture it was greeted with an incredulous, and now somewhat contemptous look. Obvuiously, in the early nineties it was de rigeur to offer lectures...
In an old Opus interview Pat Page gave his opinion of the early adopters; he called them two year old magicians. I've seen this referenced a couple of times in unrelated pieces, but Pat makes essentially the same points as Brad (and Mike and Michael). Fifteen years ago it was not uncommon for convention sessions to be full of people touting self published manuscripts to offset the cost of the dealers' hall. These days photocopied notes are replaced by digital wares, but the idea is the same (and I'm as guilty, if not moreso than most, of this).
In the past, however, one needed to pitch the notes personally, and your customers knew either you, or your work. A live demonstration was essential to close the deal. Reputations were built on ability with the hands, not the edit suite.
Another quote of the period was 'on the internet, noone knows you're a dog'. Nowadays we have web video, of course, so canine mistakes are fewer, but as has been said before, we rarely see the whole story. Web celebrity is not going to go away, so I fear we are in a vicious circle. In an even more pretentious act than I am used to, I'd like to offer a word to the masses by paraphrasing/plagiarising/bastardising one of my favourite poems;
You would not tell with such high zest, to children desparate for some ardent glory,
The old lie; Dulce et decorum est, to put out a three DVD set by next Thursday.
Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall Close up magician in Edinburgh and Scotland
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Seems like the quickest way to negate criticism these days is to label it "hate," and the criticizer a "hater." It's the new magic word and a terrific way to appear to gain the moral high ground.
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Dude, i wasn't talking about hate on here. I was talking about on youtube.
"Sleeving! GAY! EASY! YOU SUCK! DO IT WITHOUT SLEEVES FAG!"
THATS hate. When i was talking about "hate" I was talking about in general, go look at that video...you'll know what i mean.
"Sleeving! GAY! EASY! YOU SUCK! DO IT WITHOUT SLEEVES FAG!"
THATS hate. When i was talking about "hate" I was talking about in general, go look at that video...you'll know what i mean.
-
John LeBlanc
- Posts: 903
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
-
Brad Henderson
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
A key problem in this discussion as it relates to Chris's specific offering is that we have no idea what he is trying to accomplish with this video.
Of course, that speaks in my mind to its failure -aside from being just a piece to generate YouTube views. The video on its own is unclear as to its intent. But that is one of the great challenges of putting together a video of any type.
So, I will ask, what is it that you are trying to do, Chris? Are you trying to get a TV show? Are you trying to put together and sell a DVD of you doing magic? Are you trying to put together a DVD for magicians? For Laypeople? Is it for entertainment, is it for instruction?
Once we have an idea of these answers, then valuable criticism can follow. Until then, the discussion best centers around the larger phenomena of which Chris's video is an example.
Having said that, I think it is great that You have decided to seek guidance from others. However, depending on your intent, the guidance may or may not prove critical. For example, if you are trying to create a TV show, then yes the combination of your vision and theirs should prove useful to getting you to your goal more efficiently.
However, if your goal is to sell something to the magic community, then I would suggest that speeding up the process only serves to cheat you from the lessons that the process can provide. (And please, this statement is directed not just to Chris whose intentions may be otherwise, but to the larger population of people who may wish to follow a similar path.)
Sometimes when we go from 0 to 60 in three seconds, we run the risk of burning out our engines, building a car thats good for the drag but not for the marathon, or we simply miss the view just outside our windows. Those race cars are amazing machines, but there's a reason we don't use them to drive to work. They can do things my car can't, but mine can do many things they can't.
There is no reason to rush.
I'd rather have a 60 year bottle of port over a can of soda, any day.
Besides, what value comes in selling to magicians, aside from mercenary means? What are you trying to produce, and why?
And along the way, here are some things to consider. Each stems from a statement made in your most recent post:
1) Popularity and quality are do not always follow from the same source. Millions of people saw the movie "garfield" but that did not make it any less awful. Besides, there are bigger issues than popularity. Charles Manson was popular, he fascinated people. But does mere poularity mean commercial or artistic success? Brittney Spears is popular, but how many people really want to get to know her...as a person. Being popular and being a good magician who is appreciated by either his peers or the public are two very different goals.
2) Staying power and immediate rewards often require different skill sets. Copperfield has done something right. We have no idea how Blaines star will rise or fall. But even without current media exposure, people still swoon in Copperfield's presence and he gets people to hand over real money for the chance to spend an hour or so with him.
3) New is not always better.
4) What artistic satisfaction comes from copying so one else's approach and is there ever any guarantee it will work for you?
5) Being fed psychology is not the same as understanding the structure and dynamics of magical performance.
6) Education is not a product, its a process.
7) Confusion is not magic.
8) You can win the battle but loose the war. Having a goal is great, but achieving it in a manner which foresakes your larger magical education is foolish. Be careful.
Of course, that speaks in my mind to its failure -aside from being just a piece to generate YouTube views. The video on its own is unclear as to its intent. But that is one of the great challenges of putting together a video of any type.
So, I will ask, what is it that you are trying to do, Chris? Are you trying to get a TV show? Are you trying to put together and sell a DVD of you doing magic? Are you trying to put together a DVD for magicians? For Laypeople? Is it for entertainment, is it for instruction?
Once we have an idea of these answers, then valuable criticism can follow. Until then, the discussion best centers around the larger phenomena of which Chris's video is an example.
Having said that, I think it is great that You have decided to seek guidance from others. However, depending on your intent, the guidance may or may not prove critical. For example, if you are trying to create a TV show, then yes the combination of your vision and theirs should prove useful to getting you to your goal more efficiently.
However, if your goal is to sell something to the magic community, then I would suggest that speeding up the process only serves to cheat you from the lessons that the process can provide. (And please, this statement is directed not just to Chris whose intentions may be otherwise, but to the larger population of people who may wish to follow a similar path.)
Sometimes when we go from 0 to 60 in three seconds, we run the risk of burning out our engines, building a car thats good for the drag but not for the marathon, or we simply miss the view just outside our windows. Those race cars are amazing machines, but there's a reason we don't use them to drive to work. They can do things my car can't, but mine can do many things they can't.
There is no reason to rush.
I'd rather have a 60 year bottle of port over a can of soda, any day.
Besides, what value comes in selling to magicians, aside from mercenary means? What are you trying to produce, and why?
And along the way, here are some things to consider. Each stems from a statement made in your most recent post:
1) Popularity and quality are do not always follow from the same source. Millions of people saw the movie "garfield" but that did not make it any less awful. Besides, there are bigger issues than popularity. Charles Manson was popular, he fascinated people. But does mere poularity mean commercial or artistic success? Brittney Spears is popular, but how many people really want to get to know her...as a person. Being popular and being a good magician who is appreciated by either his peers or the public are two very different goals.
2) Staying power and immediate rewards often require different skill sets. Copperfield has done something right. We have no idea how Blaines star will rise or fall. But even without current media exposure, people still swoon in Copperfield's presence and he gets people to hand over real money for the chance to spend an hour or so with him.
3) New is not always better.
4) What artistic satisfaction comes from copying so one else's approach and is there ever any guarantee it will work for you?
5) Being fed psychology is not the same as understanding the structure and dynamics of magical performance.
6) Education is not a product, its a process.
7) Confusion is not magic.
8) You can win the battle but loose the war. Having a goal is great, but achieving it in a manner which foresakes your larger magical education is foolish. Be careful.
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Wow, everyone is all worked up about youtube... I would have to agree with Brad in asking "What is the target market?" Who sells a performance DVD of card tricks?? If it is marketed to laymen, then why would they buy it when youtube exists? While Chris's chops are really above average on the youtube scene (from what I have seen at least) they are not close to being world class, and I can only think of a handful of mostly card workers that I would pay to watch perform on DVD. I enjoyed watching the video, but why would I pay to purchase a video like this? Just my $0.02.
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
I found this funny:
"In that 20 years, he should heed Michael Weber's advice: Before you write one book, you must read 100. I personally think the number of books should be raised to at LEAST 250 before you put out a DVD"
Last time I checked Jerry Andrus said he'd read fewer than 20 books on magic, most of which he'd written himself, and Slydini hadn't read any.
Thanks for the Michael Close comments, I think your point about "What is your goal?" is most poignant.
"In that 20 years, he should heed Michael Weber's advice: Before you write one book, you must read 100. I personally think the number of books should be raised to at LEAST 250 before you put out a DVD"
Last time I checked Jerry Andrus said he'd read fewer than 20 books on magic, most of which he'd written himself, and Slydini hadn't read any.
Thanks for the Michael Close comments, I think your point about "What is your goal?" is most poignant.
-
Richard Kaufman
- Posts: 27058
- Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
- Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
- Location: Washington DC
- Contact:
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Drey, you shouldn't find it "funny"--that only shows you don't understand the point.
Anyone can cite exceptions to a rule, like Andrus or Slydini. That's easy.
Anyone can cite exceptions to a rule, like Andrus or Slydini. That's easy.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Next step - how do we get the other 100 (?) youtube card magicians to read this?
-
John LeBlanc
- Posts: 903
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Same way Chris became part of this process. That seemed to work out okay.
John
Escamoteurettes -- my blog
John
Escamoteurettes -- my blog
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
OK, folks, time for a little reminder. Dai is dead. It's the 21st century, not the 20th. "What can you do with tricks that only look good from one (video) angle?" How about "GET A $5 MILLION CONTRACT WITH A NETWORK." Would THAT be reason enough?
Yes, there are people playing instruments, dancing, singing, and doing magic all over the Internet. Much...no, MOST of it is deplorable. So what? Most of what YOU forced upon people when you sucked...wel...sucked.
But there's a point that seems to have been missed. PT mentioned that Chris' vid had TWO MILLION views? Sounds like a decent way to get your name out there to me. And by any definition, two million views qualifys as "getting your name out there."
Someone, was it Brad?, asked Chris 'What ARE you doing?" to which the proper answer is "None of your damned business, Mr. Nosypants McSitsisnjudgement!" Whatever Chris' plan for world domination is, it seems to be working to the tune of 2,058,000+ hits. If Brad wants to know so badly, let him pay Chris for the "Here's How YOU Can Get 2,058,000+ People To Watch YOUR Stuff" instructional DVD.
P&L
D
Yes, there are people playing instruments, dancing, singing, and doing magic all over the Internet. Much...no, MOST of it is deplorable. So what? Most of what YOU forced upon people when you sucked...wel...sucked.
But there's a point that seems to have been missed. PT mentioned that Chris' vid had TWO MILLION views? Sounds like a decent way to get your name out there to me. And by any definition, two million views qualifys as "getting your name out there."
Someone, was it Brad?, asked Chris 'What ARE you doing?" to which the proper answer is "None of your damned business, Mr. Nosypants McSitsisnjudgement!" Whatever Chris' plan for world domination is, it seems to be working to the tune of 2,058,000+ hits. If Brad wants to know so badly, let him pay Chris for the "Here's How YOU Can Get 2,058,000+ People To Watch YOUR Stuff" instructional DVD.
P&L
D
-
John LeBlanc
- Posts: 903
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Millions and millions of people watched the Anna Nicole train wreck on television over the last couple of weeks.
What's your point?
John
What's your point?
John
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Richard
"Drey, you shouldn't find it "funny"--that only shows you don't understand the point.
Anyone can cite exceptions to a rule, like Andrus or Slydini. That's easy. "
Apparently you missed my point. It's funny because it's so obviously ridiculous. Of course there's a point, but the framing is all wrong, technically this isn't important so long as we all understand each other, but most of the time there's misunderstanding and thus accurate articulation is a worthy goal when possible. This is perhaps where the Michael Close quote about personalization was so poignant. When is it a good idea to release material? When there's improvement.
I'd cite one other important consideration. Yes, a lot has been written about magic over the last hundred years or so and much of what is released is nothing new, someone's come up with it before and quite likely even published it before, which is fantastic if you can get a hold of those resources and learn from them, or if you're aware they exist. Sadly, this is not the case, probably the majority of what's been published is no longer in print and extremely difficult to track down. In such cases, it makes sense to re-release the same types of material even if it isn't new, it creates new awareness and makes the material accessible. If you wish to argue that the old material should be reprinted instead, I'd agree with you fully, I'd love it if all the old out of print classics were made available again, but until that time comes we have to do the best we can with what we've got.
With this in mind, I do have to compliment you on the efforts to make Genii back issues available, I think it's a fantastic initiative, it would really be nice to be able to refer to all the years of contribution electronically, search through past publications for relevent topics and then order the material of interest. It would probably also do a lot in terms of promoting the magazine.
"Drey, you shouldn't find it "funny"--that only shows you don't understand the point.
Anyone can cite exceptions to a rule, like Andrus or Slydini. That's easy. "
Apparently you missed my point. It's funny because it's so obviously ridiculous. Of course there's a point, but the framing is all wrong, technically this isn't important so long as we all understand each other, but most of the time there's misunderstanding and thus accurate articulation is a worthy goal when possible. This is perhaps where the Michael Close quote about personalization was so poignant. When is it a good idea to release material? When there's improvement.
I'd cite one other important consideration. Yes, a lot has been written about magic over the last hundred years or so and much of what is released is nothing new, someone's come up with it before and quite likely even published it before, which is fantastic if you can get a hold of those resources and learn from them, or if you're aware they exist. Sadly, this is not the case, probably the majority of what's been published is no longer in print and extremely difficult to track down. In such cases, it makes sense to re-release the same types of material even if it isn't new, it creates new awareness and makes the material accessible. If you wish to argue that the old material should be reprinted instead, I'd agree with you fully, I'd love it if all the old out of print classics were made available again, but until that time comes we have to do the best we can with what we've got.
With this in mind, I do have to compliment you on the efforts to make Genii back issues available, I think it's a fantastic initiative, it would really be nice to be able to refer to all the years of contribution electronically, search through past publications for relevent topics and then order the material of interest. It would probably also do a lot in terms of promoting the magazine.
-
Andrew Martin Portala
- Posts: 324
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Toledo,Ohio
- Contact:
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Man,I 'm still reading Al Baker and The Leipzig book.
The ocean is very deep
The ocean is very deep
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
John in fairness I don't think there was a point. Which I think was the point. :)
_______________________________________________
The arguement that YouTube or anybody posting clips on line is hurting magic is ridiculous. Magic survived the Inquisition(s)for gosh golly's sake... AND it survived guys like Steve Wyrick and some of the other shows that invaded Las Vegas (of all places)...it will survive YouTube.
_______________________________________________
The arguement that YouTube or anybody posting clips on line is hurting magic is ridiculous. Magic survived the Inquisition(s)for gosh golly's sake... AND it survived guys like Steve Wyrick and some of the other shows that invaded Las Vegas (of all places)...it will survive YouTube.
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
John wrote>>>Millions and millions of people watched the Anna Nicole train wreck on television over the last couple of weeks.
What's your point?>>>
My point is that more people are aware of Chris Brown than are aware of John LeBlanc, PT Murphy, Brad Henderson, and Dee Brennan put together.
"I don't care what you say about me, just be sure you spell my name right." (Either Barnum or George M. Cohan---I'm too tired to research the quote,)
P&L
D
What's your point?>>>
My point is that more people are aware of Chris Brown than are aware of John LeBlanc, PT Murphy, Brad Henderson, and Dee Brennan put together.
"I don't care what you say about me, just be sure you spell my name right." (Either Barnum or George M. Cohan---I'm too tired to research the quote,)
P&L
D
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
And yes, PT is absolutely correct. YouTube is here to stay. You can either piss and moan about it, figure out some way to exploit it to your own advantage, or ignore it.
Come on, folks. Most of you sound like a bunch of Vaudeville troupers sitting around going "Ahhhh, this "movie" stuff is crap! LIVE performance will always be the Gold Standard."
Well, guess what?
P&L
D
Come on, folks. Most of you sound like a bunch of Vaudeville troupers sitting around going "Ahhhh, this "movie" stuff is crap! LIVE performance will always be the Gold Standard."
Well, guess what?
P&L
D
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Last thought...If I were Chris, I'd address the 4,000+ posts arguing whether sleeving or editing was involved by rolling up my sleeves, putting an analogue stopwatch on the table, and doing the same sequence again, but better.
I'd title the vid "Suck THIS, Bitches!" (Orwhatever the young people say these days.)And I'd sell watermark space on the vid to Ellusionist, Penguin, or Richard for 2 cents per impression.
Anyone else got a potential 3-minute, $40k gig cooking?
P&L
D
I'd title the vid "Suck THIS, Bitches!" (Orwhatever the young people say these days.)And I'd sell watermark space on the vid to Ellusionist, Penguin, or Richard for 2 cents per impression.
Anyone else got a potential 3-minute, $40k gig cooking?
P&L
D
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Nope, sorry. One last-last thought.
Chris, the same people who pretend to be able to "advise" you are the exact same people who would have pooh-poohed Blaine when he decided to go 90-degrees away from what every other TV magician was doing at the time.
"Conventional Wisdom" is a ticket to mediocrity in magic. Do what you do, and ignore anyone who turns their nose up at something they fear.
There's power in 2,000,000+ hits. Harness it and use it for YOUR purposes, no one elses.
P&L
D
Chris, the same people who pretend to be able to "advise" you are the exact same people who would have pooh-poohed Blaine when he decided to go 90-degrees away from what every other TV magician was doing at the time.
"Conventional Wisdom" is a ticket to mediocrity in magic. Do what you do, and ignore anyone who turns their nose up at something they fear.
There's power in 2,000,000+ hits. Harness it and use it for YOUR purposes, no one elses.
P&L
D
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
"I don't care what you say about me, just be sure you spell my name right."
- Houdini
- Houdini
-
Brad Henderson
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
And if that is your goal, Chris, then I am sure 2 million hits may help you get there. However, I do encourage you to consider the points made in my previous post. They are not answers. Some not even questions. But hopefully they may lead you to find what questions you want to eventually ask yourself. Ultimately what you decide to do is completely up to you, but as you value the input of others, I would encourage you to take advantage of the experience on this board.
But, to the later posts, I do not understand Dee's antongonism. Dee, Chris can do whatever he likes, however as it is done in a public arena it is subject to commentary and criticism.
As he came to the forum and asked for more feedback, I think my request to learn of his intent - in an effort to do a better job providing it - was reasonable and did not warrant any name calling, as you advocate. However, regardless of Chris's intent (and my [in]experience at generating 2 million hits), he has offered an artifact and that artifact will be perceived in different ways by different people. Ideally, those perceptions will jive with the creator's intent. However, one of the most valuable lessons I learned in Fitch camp was the importance of learning to see yourself as other's perceive you - not how you intend or imagine yourself. To that end, hearing what others think, and seeing if it matches your intent, is a valuable process.
I will also say that not everyone here, myself included, feels that we should ignore 21st Century technology, nor do we think any change from the "way things were done" is a bad thing.
However, I think we can all agree that things are now different, and exploring "what", "why", and the impact of the "what" and "why" is (or can be) a worthy pursuit.
Brad
p.s. Although the 'spell my name' quote is often attributed to Houdini in our field, research reveals that it is unlike to have originated with him.
p.p.s. P.T. if you meant pedantic in the sense of "a vain display of book learning" then yes, that's totally me. But I would like to think it is less vanity and more an attempt to access the ideas of smart people who think on a larger scope than just magic. And yes, I meant pedantic in "the sense of being too concerned with fine details and too ready with criticism." I hope we can move forward, as it seems we are doing.
But, to the later posts, I do not understand Dee's antongonism. Dee, Chris can do whatever he likes, however as it is done in a public arena it is subject to commentary and criticism.
As he came to the forum and asked for more feedback, I think my request to learn of his intent - in an effort to do a better job providing it - was reasonable and did not warrant any name calling, as you advocate. However, regardless of Chris's intent (and my [in]experience at generating 2 million hits), he has offered an artifact and that artifact will be perceived in different ways by different people. Ideally, those perceptions will jive with the creator's intent. However, one of the most valuable lessons I learned in Fitch camp was the importance of learning to see yourself as other's perceive you - not how you intend or imagine yourself. To that end, hearing what others think, and seeing if it matches your intent, is a valuable process.
I will also say that not everyone here, myself included, feels that we should ignore 21st Century technology, nor do we think any change from the "way things were done" is a bad thing.
However, I think we can all agree that things are now different, and exploring "what", "why", and the impact of the "what" and "why" is (or can be) a worthy pursuit.
Brad
p.s. Although the 'spell my name' quote is often attributed to Houdini in our field, research reveals that it is unlike to have originated with him.
p.p.s. P.T. if you meant pedantic in the sense of "a vain display of book learning" then yes, that's totally me. But I would like to think it is less vanity and more an attempt to access the ideas of smart people who think on a larger scope than just magic. And yes, I meant pedantic in "the sense of being too concerned with fine details and too ready with criticism." I hope we can move forward, as it seems we are doing.
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
-
Ian Kendall
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Drey,
There's more to things than just a willingness to publish, it's the knowledge of history that stops the republishing in the first place.
An example; in the five years or so you say you've been in magic you have obviously studied some classic texts, and are able to reference them in debate. However, before last week you had no knowledge of Wild Card, which is a fairly standard plot. Thinking hypothetically for a moment, late one evening you are playing around with some cards and create a routine which you name 'Vadrey's Amazing Changing Cards'. You publish this and it sells like hot cakes. Now, the scores of people who buy this effect from you associate the plot with you and not Peter Kane or Frank Garcia. A small peice of history is lost. Now, after our conversation last week you know about the plot, and history is saved for another week.
If you think this is far fetched, it happened twice last year; someone reinvented Terri Rogers' Rainbow Cascade (a version of Roy Walton's Cascade) move for move. Someone else put out a routine that is identical to a published trick from around 1986. Independant reinvention happens all the time, heck - when I was learning the Ghost count for Cascade I came up with 90% of Elmsley's four card trick. The thing is to know whether something has been done before, and that can only happen with research. The alternative is embarassment; the Cascade trick was (I understand) recalled after the first batch was sold. The other trick is, I think, still available.
In a Magic Marketplace column a couple of years ago Mike Close peppered his reviews with the phrase 'how did I know that?'. This was in comment about yet another Easy to Master tape that had come out, and how the current crop who feed on these compilations lose out on the background of the routines. Tricks get renamed, and in so doing they become another degree away from their true identity.
A few years back someone lectured in Glasgow and taught 'the favourite trick he had ever come up with'. It was Card Warp (and yes, Roy was there...) I've posted in the past about young kids showing Roy his own tricks, totally unaware of their origin (or real name, come to think of it). At least Ellusionist changed their DVD from Voodoo Zone to Voodoo Zone (also known as Card Warp)
The idea of waiting before publishing means that one can have a better understanding of what has gone before. A huge library is not essential, a lot of the knowledge comes through a type of osmosis, although the interweb does speed things up somewhat. And it also lets us know if the improvements that we wish to publish have already seen the light of day.
Take care, Ian
There's more to things than just a willingness to publish, it's the knowledge of history that stops the republishing in the first place.
An example; in the five years or so you say you've been in magic you have obviously studied some classic texts, and are able to reference them in debate. However, before last week you had no knowledge of Wild Card, which is a fairly standard plot. Thinking hypothetically for a moment, late one evening you are playing around with some cards and create a routine which you name 'Vadrey's Amazing Changing Cards'. You publish this and it sells like hot cakes. Now, the scores of people who buy this effect from you associate the plot with you and not Peter Kane or Frank Garcia. A small peice of history is lost. Now, after our conversation last week you know about the plot, and history is saved for another week.
If you think this is far fetched, it happened twice last year; someone reinvented Terri Rogers' Rainbow Cascade (a version of Roy Walton's Cascade) move for move. Someone else put out a routine that is identical to a published trick from around 1986. Independant reinvention happens all the time, heck - when I was learning the Ghost count for Cascade I came up with 90% of Elmsley's four card trick. The thing is to know whether something has been done before, and that can only happen with research. The alternative is embarassment; the Cascade trick was (I understand) recalled after the first batch was sold. The other trick is, I think, still available.
In a Magic Marketplace column a couple of years ago Mike Close peppered his reviews with the phrase 'how did I know that?'. This was in comment about yet another Easy to Master tape that had come out, and how the current crop who feed on these compilations lose out on the background of the routines. Tricks get renamed, and in so doing they become another degree away from their true identity.
A few years back someone lectured in Glasgow and taught 'the favourite trick he had ever come up with'. It was Card Warp (and yes, Roy was there...) I've posted in the past about young kids showing Roy his own tricks, totally unaware of their origin (or real name, come to think of it). At least Ellusionist changed their DVD from Voodoo Zone to Voodoo Zone (also known as Card Warp)
The idea of waiting before publishing means that one can have a better understanding of what has gone before. A huge library is not essential, a lot of the knowledge comes through a type of osmosis, although the interweb does speed things up somewhat. And it also lets us know if the improvements that we wish to publish have already seen the light of day.
Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall Close up magician in Edinburgh and Scotland
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Pedantic Schmedantic! :eek:
Who is this Gordon character and why does he feel the need to point out the dual meaning of the word pendantic? HOW PENDANTIC!!!
Brad it is all good. More later after I digest Dee's posts. :)
Who is this Gordon character and why does he feel the need to point out the dual meaning of the word pendantic? HOW PENDANTIC!!!
Brad it is all good. More later after I digest Dee's posts. :)
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Ian said - A few years back someone lectured in Glasgow and taught 'the favourite trick he had ever come up with'. It was Card Warp (and yes, Roy was there...) I've posted in the past about young kids showing Roy his own tricks, totally unaware of their origin (or real name, come to think of it).
........................
This to me has been a long time problem that magicians as performers have had for a long time. In the old days magicians would watch a magician on TV and then copy the tricks that a performer did and add them to their own show. Often in magic (and show business) an idea is copied so much the guy that came up with the idea is forgotten. But the idea lives on - somehow?
It seems to not matter if the trick or idea was published or not.
Then came the video tape recorder and it made copy magic from TV even easier. Because if it is good there are magicians that will copy what the successful performer does. Because that is easier than coming up with their own stuff.
Now we have the internet and the world wide web and video of magic on web sites. You Tube has magicians on it both good and bad. Some magicians want to do this kind of a thing as a performance and others want sell magic over the web.
One of the things that I would like to add to this conversation is that magic is two different worlds. Both of the performer looking for the wider audience the video on the web can offer. And the person selling magic to the two worlds of magicians that buy and the lay audience that might buy.
Now I would like to say a few words about the "History" of magic. This is a hard subject to write and read the truth about. The reason is in my opinion that there are magicians both past and present that will and have - taken credit for coming up with ideas that are not their own.
And then there is the problem of magic and the magicians ability through need - to improve what is out there. A lot of magic is a knock off of a knock off of a knock off and it continues.
I myself don't believe everything I read when it comes to the truth in the history of magic. Often it can come down to "who do you like or a choice of who do you believe?"
........................
This to me has been a long time problem that magicians as performers have had for a long time. In the old days magicians would watch a magician on TV and then copy the tricks that a performer did and add them to their own show. Often in magic (and show business) an idea is copied so much the guy that came up with the idea is forgotten. But the idea lives on - somehow?
It seems to not matter if the trick or idea was published or not.
Then came the video tape recorder and it made copy magic from TV even easier. Because if it is good there are magicians that will copy what the successful performer does. Because that is easier than coming up with their own stuff.
Now we have the internet and the world wide web and video of magic on web sites. You Tube has magicians on it both good and bad. Some magicians want to do this kind of a thing as a performance and others want sell magic over the web.
One of the things that I would like to add to this conversation is that magic is two different worlds. Both of the performer looking for the wider audience the video on the web can offer. And the person selling magic to the two worlds of magicians that buy and the lay audience that might buy.
Now I would like to say a few words about the "History" of magic. This is a hard subject to write and read the truth about. The reason is in my opinion that there are magicians both past and present that will and have - taken credit for coming up with ideas that are not their own.
And then there is the problem of magic and the magicians ability through need - to improve what is out there. A lot of magic is a knock off of a knock off of a knock off and it continues.
I myself don't believe everything I read when it comes to the truth in the history of magic. Often it can come down to "who do you like or a choice of who do you believe?"
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Brad wrote>>>Ultimately what you decide to do is completely up to you, but as you value the input of others, I would encourage you to take advantage of the experience on this board.
But, to the later posts, I do not understand Dee's antongonism. Dee, Chris can do whatever he likes, however as it is done in a public arena it is subject to commentary and criticism.>>>>
Yes, indeed so. My goal was simply to warn Chris of the perils of "taking advantage of the experience" of a bunch of people who couldn't sell a hard ticket to save their lives.
Myself included.
Now, in all fairness, if he wanted to know the provenance of a particular sleight, then yes, this is definitely the place. But advice on how and what he should put before the public? Come on, Brad.
P&L
D
But, to the later posts, I do not understand Dee's antongonism. Dee, Chris can do whatever he likes, however as it is done in a public arena it is subject to commentary and criticism.>>>>
Yes, indeed so. My goal was simply to warn Chris of the perils of "taking advantage of the experience" of a bunch of people who couldn't sell a hard ticket to save their lives.
Myself included.
Now, in all fairness, if he wanted to know the provenance of a particular sleight, then yes, this is definitely the place. But advice on how and what he should put before the public? Come on, Brad.
P&L
D
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
With all due respect to Brad Henderson and in the shared hope/spirit of amicable debate, my perception of conjuring history (or any kind of history for that matter) leads me to believe that his discussion and explication of mannerist and revolutionary periods creates a largely false dichotomy.
Can anyone identify a truly revolutionary period in magic? Or, to use one dictionary definition, what period of magic history was radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.? Since were talking about a period in magic, its not enough to identify a single event one must identify a string of truly revolutionary events. No doubt, my knowledge of the history of magic methods and principles would pale in comparison to what Brad and many of the rest of you know. But based on what little I know, the development of magic (like any other human activity or knowledge) is almost exclusively evolutionary not revolutionary.
Magic is in no more or less of a mannerist period than it ever was. And to the extent exposure underpins the anxiety about YouTube, the expression of such concern is itself mannerist, the object of periodic recycling dating back to at least 1584.
My apologies to Brad for the bluntness of this post thats all the time I have right now!
Clay
Can anyone identify a truly revolutionary period in magic? Or, to use one dictionary definition, what period of magic history was radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.? Since were talking about a period in magic, its not enough to identify a single event one must identify a string of truly revolutionary events. No doubt, my knowledge of the history of magic methods and principles would pale in comparison to what Brad and many of the rest of you know. But based on what little I know, the development of magic (like any other human activity or knowledge) is almost exclusively evolutionary not revolutionary.
Magic is in no more or less of a mannerist period than it ever was. And to the extent exposure underpins the anxiety about YouTube, the expression of such concern is itself mannerist, the object of periodic recycling dating back to at least 1584.
My apologies to Brad for the bluntness of this post thats all the time I have right now!
Clay
-
Brad Henderson
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
(This is quickly written as well)
Clay,
While there are works in music some consider revolutionary, I think 'evolutionary' or even 'reactionary' is a better word to describe the pendulum swing of the mannerist dynamic.
In music, for example, we have the continual ebb and flow from simple to complex. It seems that the idea to make one's music clear and simple was considered "a change" if not revolutionary, after all we see the exact same idea popping up again and again. Whether it was Caccini, Palestrina, Lully, even Schoenberg. Each was an attempt to simplify - a reaction against music that was form/technique over content. (The means of expression having become so pervasive nothing ends up being expressed).
I can't think of any period in music as 'revolutionary'. I do see works and artists that introduce ideas that catch on and we see the larger field change and evolve, but revolutionary is far too strong of a word (especially when you start digging. It is not hard to find the seeds of these 'new' ideas having been planted years before).
Each of the above men affected change in the larger development of music, but these changes were gradual. While we can point to men and pieces as a pivotal point, it is the growth from that moment which became critical to where music went. And it is that growth, and the exploration of the tools that the men/ideas introduced that invariably led to a mannerist period followed - yet again, by another man/idea.
More importantly, while the specific manifestations of these changes introduced by these men/ideas were appropriate to their times and technology, the essential concepts behind them were not 'revolutionary' by any stretch. Most were simply a reaction against the mannerism - and an attempt to simplify back to meaningful expression.
In magic, I think there are periods that have mannerist qualities. While I do not think magic experiences these as thoroughly or pervasively as other arts, I think there are reasons for it. For one, the coin magician and the illusionist are both magicians, but live in different worlds.
I also think that what we are dealing with in THIS case is a largely 'non-magical' mannerist period. We are not dealing with mannerism of technique (which I feel we may be with the current state of coin magic) but a mannerism period of magic video. Blaine revolutionized the way we saw magic on video. Also, some other the early video work of Dan and Dave Buck introduced a new level of video possibilities into the production of magic video for our field (though if someone wanted to point to other sources, that is fine. I do not know who was really the first to bring MTV/cinema type editing to magic videos, but I know Dan and Dave have tried to be on the edge of video technique in their work).
The introduction of these ideas at the beginning was not a bad thing, quite the contrary. They opened up possibilities. But as people have explored and adpoted the tools available, we find products that use the tools for the sake of using the tools - not for the content or quality the tools provide. We have magic videos with menus so complicated you have no idea where to start. We have instructional tapes with so many transitions/fadeaways/cut aways and color changes that it looks like someone dropped film stock for 4 decades on the floor and someone picked them up willy nilly. We have shakey camera and odd angles that serve nothing other than to be shakey and odd. And we also have brilliant products like Coin One. So the problem isn't with the tools - it is with our understanding and application of those tools.
So, the means of expression have become so pervasive nothing ends up being express. That, is a mannerist period.
Have their been other mannerist periods in magic, one's actually "magical"?
I think so.
I think we can see it in the development and application of magical technique in the various closeup fields. When you have perfectly good card tricks being made into packet tricks just because they can be made into packet tricks -to the detriment of the original - that is the mannerist dynamic at work. The of course, there was the post packet reaction. People made fun of packet tricks. Well, they were making fun of it, because it fell prey to the mannerist dynamic.
I think you can find the mannerist dynamic in the history bizarre magic. I know that in Mystery School (to take a slice of the bizarre magic world) we saw presentations swing way too wide at times - so wide you left wondering, "was there a trick?" You saw attempts at performance where the technique was so poorly considered that it was shameful. But eventually, the concepts of the Bizarrists made their way into other fields. Burger's emphasis on making people care about magic was finally heralded. It is my understanding that the first time he gave a lecture espousing some of these theories (as related in a little white pamphlet he released) they weren't met with open arms. People stormed out of the room.
Jeff McBride is now a loved figure, but at the time, he and others were made fun off. I think in part because a lot of the Bizarre/context type material was swinging a little too wide to be of practical use. The means of expression was more important than that which was being expressed. But, Jeff and Eugene kept at it, people began to see the essence of the message, a lot of the people performing some of the wackier things began dialing it back a bit, and now magic is a different place.
The 'context driven' performances of Derren Brown (which I think were a more developed application of the basic concept behind Blaine's move to the street) are fine examples of how someone could take something that was swinging far too wide (the idea of giving simple tricks context- an early bizarre tenet), and as a reaction, simplify into something that was VERY effective and now pervasive...so much so it is becoming almost mannerist. "Check out my extreme hot rod routine. I do it on the street...werd!)
Now, none of these ideas were revolutionary. We can see where Maskelyne and Cook essentially detailed the essence of the Bizarre philosphy. Nelms talked about context. But it was the revisiting of these ideas in reaction to the current state of the art AND their adoption by others in the field and the direction it took from there that make them pivot points for changes - changes away from a mannerist period.
(You also may see a reactionary response in the field of illusionists. Copperfields narratives - and later hip music and clothing - were in contrast to the pervasive box spinning and finger snapping of so many sequined others before him. I think Henning was an attempt as well. But Henning's style/ideas were not as easy for others to 'adopt' as Copperfield's were. )
While it would be a great study to go through the timeline and place names and dates, I don't have time either. (Though it was a focus of several papers I did while getting my music degree). But I do feel that the mannerist dynamic is present in magic and we can see pivotal moments when the way we think about a field changes. These changes in ideas may not be "revolutionary" in that they have not come before (magical illusion plays were popular 100 years back, Robert-Houdin wrote about the importance of naturalness long before Vernon)but they are reactionary to a trend that no longer communicates.
Clay,
While there are works in music some consider revolutionary, I think 'evolutionary' or even 'reactionary' is a better word to describe the pendulum swing of the mannerist dynamic.
In music, for example, we have the continual ebb and flow from simple to complex. It seems that the idea to make one's music clear and simple was considered "a change" if not revolutionary, after all we see the exact same idea popping up again and again. Whether it was Caccini, Palestrina, Lully, even Schoenberg. Each was an attempt to simplify - a reaction against music that was form/technique over content. (The means of expression having become so pervasive nothing ends up being expressed).
I can't think of any period in music as 'revolutionary'. I do see works and artists that introduce ideas that catch on and we see the larger field change and evolve, but revolutionary is far too strong of a word (especially when you start digging. It is not hard to find the seeds of these 'new' ideas having been planted years before).
Each of the above men affected change in the larger development of music, but these changes were gradual. While we can point to men and pieces as a pivotal point, it is the growth from that moment which became critical to where music went. And it is that growth, and the exploration of the tools that the men/ideas introduced that invariably led to a mannerist period followed - yet again, by another man/idea.
More importantly, while the specific manifestations of these changes introduced by these men/ideas were appropriate to their times and technology, the essential concepts behind them were not 'revolutionary' by any stretch. Most were simply a reaction against the mannerism - and an attempt to simplify back to meaningful expression.
In magic, I think there are periods that have mannerist qualities. While I do not think magic experiences these as thoroughly or pervasively as other arts, I think there are reasons for it. For one, the coin magician and the illusionist are both magicians, but live in different worlds.
I also think that what we are dealing with in THIS case is a largely 'non-magical' mannerist period. We are not dealing with mannerism of technique (which I feel we may be with the current state of coin magic) but a mannerism period of magic video. Blaine revolutionized the way we saw magic on video. Also, some other the early video work of Dan and Dave Buck introduced a new level of video possibilities into the production of magic video for our field (though if someone wanted to point to other sources, that is fine. I do not know who was really the first to bring MTV/cinema type editing to magic videos, but I know Dan and Dave have tried to be on the edge of video technique in their work).
The introduction of these ideas at the beginning was not a bad thing, quite the contrary. They opened up possibilities. But as people have explored and adpoted the tools available, we find products that use the tools for the sake of using the tools - not for the content or quality the tools provide. We have magic videos with menus so complicated you have no idea where to start. We have instructional tapes with so many transitions/fadeaways/cut aways and color changes that it looks like someone dropped film stock for 4 decades on the floor and someone picked them up willy nilly. We have shakey camera and odd angles that serve nothing other than to be shakey and odd. And we also have brilliant products like Coin One. So the problem isn't with the tools - it is with our understanding and application of those tools.
So, the means of expression have become so pervasive nothing ends up being express. That, is a mannerist period.
Have their been other mannerist periods in magic, one's actually "magical"?
I think so.
I think we can see it in the development and application of magical technique in the various closeup fields. When you have perfectly good card tricks being made into packet tricks just because they can be made into packet tricks -to the detriment of the original - that is the mannerist dynamic at work. The of course, there was the post packet reaction. People made fun of packet tricks. Well, they were making fun of it, because it fell prey to the mannerist dynamic.
I think you can find the mannerist dynamic in the history bizarre magic. I know that in Mystery School (to take a slice of the bizarre magic world) we saw presentations swing way too wide at times - so wide you left wondering, "was there a trick?" You saw attempts at performance where the technique was so poorly considered that it was shameful. But eventually, the concepts of the Bizarrists made their way into other fields. Burger's emphasis on making people care about magic was finally heralded. It is my understanding that the first time he gave a lecture espousing some of these theories (as related in a little white pamphlet he released) they weren't met with open arms. People stormed out of the room.
Jeff McBride is now a loved figure, but at the time, he and others were made fun off. I think in part because a lot of the Bizarre/context type material was swinging a little too wide to be of practical use. The means of expression was more important than that which was being expressed. But, Jeff and Eugene kept at it, people began to see the essence of the message, a lot of the people performing some of the wackier things began dialing it back a bit, and now magic is a different place.
The 'context driven' performances of Derren Brown (which I think were a more developed application of the basic concept behind Blaine's move to the street) are fine examples of how someone could take something that was swinging far too wide (the idea of giving simple tricks context- an early bizarre tenet), and as a reaction, simplify into something that was VERY effective and now pervasive...so much so it is becoming almost mannerist. "Check out my extreme hot rod routine. I do it on the street...werd!)
Now, none of these ideas were revolutionary. We can see where Maskelyne and Cook essentially detailed the essence of the Bizarre philosphy. Nelms talked about context. But it was the revisiting of these ideas in reaction to the current state of the art AND their adoption by others in the field and the direction it took from there that make them pivot points for changes - changes away from a mannerist period.
(You also may see a reactionary response in the field of illusionists. Copperfields narratives - and later hip music and clothing - were in contrast to the pervasive box spinning and finger snapping of so many sequined others before him. I think Henning was an attempt as well. But Henning's style/ideas were not as easy for others to 'adopt' as Copperfield's were. )
While it would be a great study to go through the timeline and place names and dates, I don't have time either. (Though it was a focus of several papers I did while getting my music degree). But I do feel that the mannerist dynamic is present in magic and we can see pivotal moments when the way we think about a field changes. These changes in ideas may not be "revolutionary" in that they have not come before (magical illusion plays were popular 100 years back, Robert-Houdin wrote about the importance of naturalness long before Vernon)but they are reactionary to a trend that no longer communicates.
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Ian
What you say is true, but what do you suggest as a solution? The reality is that as more and more people are involved in magic and as more and more material is developed and released over an increasing period of time, knowing about the contributions of others becomes increasingly unmanageable. Like you said, independent discovery occurs every day, and it frequently gets miscreditted. Heck, suddenly you're listing twenty sources saying, "figures x, y, and z developed this independently, as did I, it was originally discovered by so and so, originally published in such and such, but also republished...." Your whole book can turn into credits and not everyone can be the scholar that the likes of Stephen Minch is. Then there's the reality that it's tough to determine what constitutes a change in the technique. When I read Wesley James' description of his side steal I thought "that's not a different move!" Take a look at Richard Kaufmann's "On the Pass", I believe it is the Dr. Daley pass which he describes as a variation of the Merlin pass (I could have the specific names wrong I'd have to check the video to be sure), watching it I'd have to say it's the exact same pass, framing it differently doesn't make it a different technique...evidently there are some who would disagree with me because they are creditted as separate techniques.
Suffice to say, there's a challenge, a challenge in knowing, a challenge in creditting, and a challenge in deciding when something is worth re-releasing. Osmosis is great, in my view that's partly the value of things like Youtube, and like internet forums. It allows you to bring people and ideas together in an accessible manner. Then again, run over to the magic cafe and look at how many times the same subjects are raised, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it illustrates how much trouble it is to go through all the old posts, trying doing a search for double lifts as an example.
I personally try to get only what seems to be the best material out there because the more I read the less interested I am in reading because the less new content I find. We can't all have a library the size of Darwin Ortiz's, I'd bankrupt myself buying it and spend my whole life reading it (as is I have a pile of probably 50 books waiting to be read, because for myself, and probably for most other people, there is life outside of magic).
Obviously, you're aware of all these difficulties. Your comment about osmosis is precisely the point regarding individuals such as Jerry Andrus and Slydini, among others. Over time, I think the problems multiply, as everyone is quick to point out, one case of poor creditting (or no creditting) extrapolates through the community. I can tell you I don't know who to credit most of the moves, effects, and routines I know of to, and frankly, finding out is hard. Most people don't seem that interested in helping, or simply don't know, I could give you a million examples here, and sometimes it's frustrating. Basically, this all comes down to my question, what do you think the solution is?
Waiting only goes so far, suffice to say, waiting only works if there is a gradual move towards this kind of discovery, and when do you decide? Look at the simple example of Marlo. From what I understand Marlo was a fiend for trying to get to print first (if this is wrong I apologize to Mr. Marlo). Why? Because then he gets the credit, he capitalizes on the market etc. At some point holding off actually hurts you.
So what's the solution? How do you decide?
Perhaps we should look at your CD, "TBS". Let's be honest, tons of material has been written on dealing seconds and tops, there are numerous video sources, but I think it's fantastic that you released yours. Why? Not necessarily because there were new ideas, but there was what I perceive as a need within the market for a quality product like that. Even if the ideas themselves weren't new, the detail and explanation of the material provides a valuable and needed resource absent elsewhere.
Maybe to me that's part of the question "does it serve the community?" I'll tell you something, in my view we still need a good resources on the pass, not because a lot hasn't already been written, the reality is that a ton has been written, but when someone comes to you wanting to learn the pass where do you direct them? Every source I've seen is very imperfect, I hesitate to recommend any of them and end up recommending a combination of three or more sources. A single source that does an absolutely superb job of all the details and subtleties would serve the community. Others might agree because it wouldn't be anything really new, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what the answer to this "problem" is.
What you say is true, but what do you suggest as a solution? The reality is that as more and more people are involved in magic and as more and more material is developed and released over an increasing period of time, knowing about the contributions of others becomes increasingly unmanageable. Like you said, independent discovery occurs every day, and it frequently gets miscreditted. Heck, suddenly you're listing twenty sources saying, "figures x, y, and z developed this independently, as did I, it was originally discovered by so and so, originally published in such and such, but also republished...." Your whole book can turn into credits and not everyone can be the scholar that the likes of Stephen Minch is. Then there's the reality that it's tough to determine what constitutes a change in the technique. When I read Wesley James' description of his side steal I thought "that's not a different move!" Take a look at Richard Kaufmann's "On the Pass", I believe it is the Dr. Daley pass which he describes as a variation of the Merlin pass (I could have the specific names wrong I'd have to check the video to be sure), watching it I'd have to say it's the exact same pass, framing it differently doesn't make it a different technique...evidently there are some who would disagree with me because they are creditted as separate techniques.
Suffice to say, there's a challenge, a challenge in knowing, a challenge in creditting, and a challenge in deciding when something is worth re-releasing. Osmosis is great, in my view that's partly the value of things like Youtube, and like internet forums. It allows you to bring people and ideas together in an accessible manner. Then again, run over to the magic cafe and look at how many times the same subjects are raised, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it illustrates how much trouble it is to go through all the old posts, trying doing a search for double lifts as an example.
I personally try to get only what seems to be the best material out there because the more I read the less interested I am in reading because the less new content I find. We can't all have a library the size of Darwin Ortiz's, I'd bankrupt myself buying it and spend my whole life reading it (as is I have a pile of probably 50 books waiting to be read, because for myself, and probably for most other people, there is life outside of magic).
Obviously, you're aware of all these difficulties. Your comment about osmosis is precisely the point regarding individuals such as Jerry Andrus and Slydini, among others. Over time, I think the problems multiply, as everyone is quick to point out, one case of poor creditting (or no creditting) extrapolates through the community. I can tell you I don't know who to credit most of the moves, effects, and routines I know of to, and frankly, finding out is hard. Most people don't seem that interested in helping, or simply don't know, I could give you a million examples here, and sometimes it's frustrating. Basically, this all comes down to my question, what do you think the solution is?
Waiting only goes so far, suffice to say, waiting only works if there is a gradual move towards this kind of discovery, and when do you decide? Look at the simple example of Marlo. From what I understand Marlo was a fiend for trying to get to print first (if this is wrong I apologize to Mr. Marlo). Why? Because then he gets the credit, he capitalizes on the market etc. At some point holding off actually hurts you.
So what's the solution? How do you decide?
Perhaps we should look at your CD, "TBS". Let's be honest, tons of material has been written on dealing seconds and tops, there are numerous video sources, but I think it's fantastic that you released yours. Why? Not necessarily because there were new ideas, but there was what I perceive as a need within the market for a quality product like that. Even if the ideas themselves weren't new, the detail and explanation of the material provides a valuable and needed resource absent elsewhere.
Maybe to me that's part of the question "does it serve the community?" I'll tell you something, in my view we still need a good resources on the pass, not because a lot hasn't already been written, the reality is that a ton has been written, but when someone comes to you wanting to learn the pass where do you direct them? Every source I've seen is very imperfect, I hesitate to recommend any of them and end up recommending a combination of three or more sources. A single source that does an absolutely superb job of all the details and subtleties would serve the community. Others might agree because it wouldn't be anything really new, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what the answer to this "problem" is.
-
Ian Kendall
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Morning Drey,
You make many valid points, I'll try to answer them in the context of this thread...
I don't have a single answer; the situation is getting to the point where I doubt anyone has. My comments were centred around the current vogue for publishing for Kudos - the desire, coupled with the relative ease, to get a product into the marketplace and thus boost one's standing in the community.
It is inescapeable that these 'two year old' magicians simply do not have the experience to know their subject fully (for all the reasons you state). Either the methods have not been road tested, or the crediting lapses come in to play, and it is at this point that I have to disagree with you on one matter. I think YooTube can be a hinderence more than a help with knowledge transfer. For example, someone in the backwaters of Fife can put an effect on YT and name it 'Wondee Dundee'. After two million hits it is now known as Wondee Dundee, and not Twisting the Aces. History has been (albeit hypothetically) diluted.
I suppose the closest answer has already been given; wait. Then, when you think you are ready, wait a bit more. The Interweb does have the advantage that we now have relatively easy access to some very knowledgeable people, who can check credits for you. The problem is getting this message to the youth looking for that desparate glory (I misquoted in my Owen pastiche. Sorry...)
On the subject of teaching techniques, I think the neophytes are less likely to put out a DVD on the Pass as one with routines that use the move. However, perfection _is_ in the details and one can often tell by the small tidbits that are dropped into a lesson the amount of thought that the teacher has given to the matter in hand.
Since Chris is making a perfomance DVD and not a teaching one, it seems we are all off topic anyway...
Take care, Ian
You make many valid points, I'll try to answer them in the context of this thread...
I don't have a single answer; the situation is getting to the point where I doubt anyone has. My comments were centred around the current vogue for publishing for Kudos - the desire, coupled with the relative ease, to get a product into the marketplace and thus boost one's standing in the community.
It is inescapeable that these 'two year old' magicians simply do not have the experience to know their subject fully (for all the reasons you state). Either the methods have not been road tested, or the crediting lapses come in to play, and it is at this point that I have to disagree with you on one matter. I think YooTube can be a hinderence more than a help with knowledge transfer. For example, someone in the backwaters of Fife can put an effect on YT and name it 'Wondee Dundee'. After two million hits it is now known as Wondee Dundee, and not Twisting the Aces. History has been (albeit hypothetically) diluted.
I suppose the closest answer has already been given; wait. Then, when you think you are ready, wait a bit more. The Interweb does have the advantage that we now have relatively easy access to some very knowledgeable people, who can check credits for you. The problem is getting this message to the youth looking for that desparate glory (I misquoted in my Owen pastiche. Sorry...)
On the subject of teaching techniques, I think the neophytes are less likely to put out a DVD on the Pass as one with routines that use the move. However, perfection _is_ in the details and one can often tell by the small tidbits that are dropped into a lesson the amount of thought that the teacher has given to the matter in hand.
Since Chris is making a perfomance DVD and not a teaching one, it seems we are all off topic anyway...
Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall Close up magician in Edinburgh and Scotland
-
Ian Kendall
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Another point about the teaching of techniques; using the example you cite I don't feel there will ever be a 'definitive' text on the pass simply because it is too broad a subject. Even if you concentrate on the classic pass and ignore the three hundred and seventeen other shifts, the mechanics of the move account for a small percentage of the effectiveness of the sleight. It is what you do _with_ the mechanics that matters, and it is here where the individuality of the student comes into play.
There is a camp who believe that the pass should be scrutinised at close range, and still be invisible. There is the camp that believe that the pass should only be made when noone is looking at the deck. There is the camp who are pefectly happy with the double undercut, thank you very much. Then there are the concerns of the student - which style would fit their personal body language/performance persona/hand size? And again, there is the skill level of the teacher. Since I fall squarely into the second category I would not be able to teach _effectively_ a slow burn pass, simply because I do not have the experience of the move.
And that touched on the biggest stumbling block of the whole idea - the vast majority of magicians simply cannot teach. The ability to put across coherently the type of complicated instructions that typify our art is not something that comes free in a cereal packet. Teaching experience is hard won, and it shows in the final product.
An example; if you were to compile a list of the 'best' magical authours in the modern era I am certain that the top five would include Steven Minch, Richard Kaufman and Harry Lorayne. Why are these men so good at explaining magic moves? Because they have been doing it for donkeys' years. Comparing issues of, say, Almanac, Apocalypse and <insert the last e-book you downloaded here> will make this point easily. And the average two year old magician does not have that experience.
We all have videos and DVDs in which the teaching is, frankly, atrocious. Ten minutes into the first watching and it is obvious that the teacher has never seen a lesson plan, much less made one for the routine he is teaching. Again, this comes with experience - and it's not just classroom time, there's life experience as well that plays a big part.
As for the best resource on the pass, that would be the one in the Virtual Sessions :D
Take care, Ian
There is a camp who believe that the pass should be scrutinised at close range, and still be invisible. There is the camp that believe that the pass should only be made when noone is looking at the deck. There is the camp who are pefectly happy with the double undercut, thank you very much. Then there are the concerns of the student - which style would fit their personal body language/performance persona/hand size? And again, there is the skill level of the teacher. Since I fall squarely into the second category I would not be able to teach _effectively_ a slow burn pass, simply because I do not have the experience of the move.
And that touched on the biggest stumbling block of the whole idea - the vast majority of magicians simply cannot teach. The ability to put across coherently the type of complicated instructions that typify our art is not something that comes free in a cereal packet. Teaching experience is hard won, and it shows in the final product.
An example; if you were to compile a list of the 'best' magical authours in the modern era I am certain that the top five would include Steven Minch, Richard Kaufman and Harry Lorayne. Why are these men so good at explaining magic moves? Because they have been doing it for donkeys' years. Comparing issues of, say, Almanac, Apocalypse and <insert the last e-book you downloaded here> will make this point easily. And the average two year old magician does not have that experience.
We all have videos and DVDs in which the teaching is, frankly, atrocious. Ten minutes into the first watching and it is obvious that the teacher has never seen a lesson plan, much less made one for the routine he is teaching. Again, this comes with experience - and it's not just classroom time, there's life experience as well that plays a big part.
As for the best resource on the pass, that would be the one in the Virtual Sessions :D
Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall Close up magician in Edinburgh and Scotland
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
:eek:
Brad-
I think you have started a trend as far as the length of a response goes!
Brad-
I think you have started a trend as far as the length of a response goes!
-
Guest
Re: Smooooooooooooooooth
Also with all due respect to my friend, Brad "I stole the Buddha" Henderson, I think there's a much bigger issue here that faces us, while we academically discuss the preferred artistic & ethical processes like angels on the head of a pin.
In my opinion, the nature of these changes lie not within Our Magic or the Final Cut tutorial, but within Marshall McCluhan's predictions outlined in Understanding Media, The Media is the Massage, and other books. (Also on his take on the Golem myth)
In a nutshell, he predicted (correctly) that emerging technologies of communication transform the uses and perceptions of the content of the media itself: "the media is the message". The technology (video, internet, etc.) can't help but alter the nature of the content (in this case, magic).
In other words, we are completely missing the point by asking "what is the market?" that Chris has created his video for. The market is the internet itself, larger and stronger than anything ever created. That's where Chris really "got it" and succeeded in that context so well: at the time I am writing this the video has received 2,089,488 hits.
Yes, I agree it is unfortunate that "the focus and developments of the means of expression are completely non-magic in nature, specifically videographic", as Brad said. But it is also inevitable that the "new media" (videos like Chris made, posted online) will continue to change and bend the form and understanding of our art, transforming magic (the content) in ways we cannot currently predict or control.
Wider exposure is not the issue, it's the overall shift to viewer created media in mass broadcast. To quote Matthew York in Videomaker magazine, March 2007- "Nearly 100,000 videos are uploaded each day to a videosharing site, Youtube. This amazes me. I am fascinated by the content of these videos. Much of it is comprised of things you can't see on TV, like people getting hurt in fist fights, car crashes, and accidents. I am torn about my fascination with watching these clips and that I am being entertained by the suffering of other people. I also see plenty of clips of animals, especially pets...I enjoy their funny behavior and I can relate to these videos.
"Most of these clips are short. It seems that watching homemade video on a computer is tolerable for just a few minutes. Very soon, the same content of these videos will somehow be accessible on every TV in every living room."
Youtube type viewer created media will overtake our current broadcast media any day now.
So that's a prediction of where it's going, what does that tell us about where we are? What do we do about this to protect the proper artistic nature of the art? Endless academic discussions on old media (text) based forums won't do enough, an opinion I formed after viewing a handful of the response to Chris' video.
Try
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbWl6mhn ... ed&search=
or the stoners at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ERlDx9C ... ed&search=
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPw661jv ... ed&search=
or the fun little video created with Chris' video as inspiration, by the other twins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICFmPYbb ... ed&search=
One other video (in japanese) made as a tribute to Chris got 98,182 hits in about two days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knh2wbD6J94
Watch some of these, then imagine Brad or any of us making a similar statement on camera as have been made on this forum, posted online, objecting to Chris Brown's artistic priorities etc. Yikes! Just please don't tell them to go sit at the children's table.
So, yes, Chris Brown joins the Genii forum; hopefully is enlightened, and becomes a positive force from this moment on for magic in the new media. That just leaves the makers of the other 10, 700 videos tagged as "card tricks" on Youtube tonight.
I have not the solution, I wish I did. I just want to point out that the cat is very much out of the bag, this is where we are. From this standpoint, how can we affect magic in this new media to the higher artistic good...?
This brings us to the Golem. McCluhan used the Golem myth to illustrate "there can only be disaster arising from unawareness of the causalities and effects inherent in our technologies." In the Middle Ages Rabbi Lev Ben Bezalel in Prague fashioned an artificial man of clay, the Golem. The Golem's modern reincarnation is the computer, that can calculate and create and broadcast anything in the world, even magic.
The Golem was rendered animate by the written name of Jehovah, placed behind it's forehead. Ultimately, when it's maker tried to make it work on the sabbath, it killed him. McCluhan's question was: what guiding
formula is built into the computer's pseudo brain?
For us, what guiding formula is within magic that will act as guide?
How do we communicate that formula, and the need for it in the first place?
And how do we do it yesterday? In the time it took to write this, for instance, 26 more people looked at the tribute video I listed!
Personally, I think Marco Tempest is the one who "gets" all this most of all, but that will have to be another post on another night.
Congratulations, Chris,
John Tudor
In my opinion, the nature of these changes lie not within Our Magic or the Final Cut tutorial, but within Marshall McCluhan's predictions outlined in Understanding Media, The Media is the Massage, and other books. (Also on his take on the Golem myth)
In a nutshell, he predicted (correctly) that emerging technologies of communication transform the uses and perceptions of the content of the media itself: "the media is the message". The technology (video, internet, etc.) can't help but alter the nature of the content (in this case, magic).
In other words, we are completely missing the point by asking "what is the market?" that Chris has created his video for. The market is the internet itself, larger and stronger than anything ever created. That's where Chris really "got it" and succeeded in that context so well: at the time I am writing this the video has received 2,089,488 hits.
Yes, I agree it is unfortunate that "the focus and developments of the means of expression are completely non-magic in nature, specifically videographic", as Brad said. But it is also inevitable that the "new media" (videos like Chris made, posted online) will continue to change and bend the form and understanding of our art, transforming magic (the content) in ways we cannot currently predict or control.
Wider exposure is not the issue, it's the overall shift to viewer created media in mass broadcast. To quote Matthew York in Videomaker magazine, March 2007- "Nearly 100,000 videos are uploaded each day to a videosharing site, Youtube. This amazes me. I am fascinated by the content of these videos. Much of it is comprised of things you can't see on TV, like people getting hurt in fist fights, car crashes, and accidents. I am torn about my fascination with watching these clips and that I am being entertained by the suffering of other people. I also see plenty of clips of animals, especially pets...I enjoy their funny behavior and I can relate to these videos.
"Most of these clips are short. It seems that watching homemade video on a computer is tolerable for just a few minutes. Very soon, the same content of these videos will somehow be accessible on every TV in every living room."
Youtube type viewer created media will overtake our current broadcast media any day now.
So that's a prediction of where it's going, what does that tell us about where we are? What do we do about this to protect the proper artistic nature of the art? Endless academic discussions on old media (text) based forums won't do enough, an opinion I formed after viewing a handful of the response to Chris' video.
Try
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbWl6mhn ... ed&search=
or the stoners at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ERlDx9C ... ed&search=
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPw661jv ... ed&search=
or the fun little video created with Chris' video as inspiration, by the other twins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICFmPYbb ... ed&search=
One other video (in japanese) made as a tribute to Chris got 98,182 hits in about two days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knh2wbD6J94
Watch some of these, then imagine Brad or any of us making a similar statement on camera as have been made on this forum, posted online, objecting to Chris Brown's artistic priorities etc. Yikes! Just please don't tell them to go sit at the children's table.
So, yes, Chris Brown joins the Genii forum; hopefully is enlightened, and becomes a positive force from this moment on for magic in the new media. That just leaves the makers of the other 10, 700 videos tagged as "card tricks" on Youtube tonight.
I have not the solution, I wish I did. I just want to point out that the cat is very much out of the bag, this is where we are. From this standpoint, how can we affect magic in this new media to the higher artistic good...?
This brings us to the Golem. McCluhan used the Golem myth to illustrate "there can only be disaster arising from unawareness of the causalities and effects inherent in our technologies." In the Middle Ages Rabbi Lev Ben Bezalel in Prague fashioned an artificial man of clay, the Golem. The Golem's modern reincarnation is the computer, that can calculate and create and broadcast anything in the world, even magic.
The Golem was rendered animate by the written name of Jehovah, placed behind it's forehead. Ultimately, when it's maker tried to make it work on the sabbath, it killed him. McCluhan's question was: what guiding
formula is built into the computer's pseudo brain?
For us, what guiding formula is within magic that will act as guide?
How do we communicate that formula, and the need for it in the first place?
And how do we do it yesterday? In the time it took to write this, for instance, 26 more people looked at the tribute video I listed!
Personally, I think Marco Tempest is the one who "gets" all this most of all, but that will have to be another post on another night.
Congratulations, Chris,
John Tudor