Hacking The Pass!

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.

Postby Guest » 11/01/04 06:07 AM

Hello folks! I've posted some demonstrations
of the pass on my website. I don't think you've
seen these before unless you've met me in person!

http://www.cardguy.net/demos.htm

Oh Crap! Did I post this on RICHARD KAUFMAN'S Site?!?!?! I'm a DEAD MAN! :help:

Steven Youell
www.cardguy.net
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/04 07:33 AM

When a man can create a video at half speed and it still looks impossible you know he has earned the title of 'Stud'.

Bless you Mr Youell, and all those that sail with you. Ol' blue eyes would have loved it.
Guest
 

Postby Pete Biro » 11/01/04 12:53 PM

Youell you still have it... too good. Makes me want to buy a deck of cards.
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Guest » 11/01/04 03:21 PM

The demos are awesome! I can personally speak to Stevens teaching method, which is absolutely amazing. Steven takes the time and care of someone that truly wants nothing but the best for his students. He leaves nothing out of his explanations so I can only imagine that if you want to learn the pass, or fine tune - this video will be the way to go.

Thanks Steven!
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/01/04 08:49 PM

Wowsers!!! These clips were very impressive to say the least. Of particular interest for me were The Mongrel Pass, Cardini Multiple Shift and those Top Palms. Sweeeeet!

Roberto
Guest
 

Postby Andrew Martin Portala » 11/02/04 02:55 AM

Very nice.The Cardini multiple shift you really blew me away.I notice you used different decks.Is one deck better doing the passes and the other better with other moves?
Andrew Martin Portala
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Toledo,Ohio

Postby mark » 11/02/04 09:05 PM

Andrew, when I spoke with Steven during a recent workshop, he said that he was working with Aviators in an attempt to reduce the healing time between gigs. He has some tendonitis in his hands, and for the most part has been able to balance his time between work and healing. His condition is much improved, though I don't know if Aviators are a large part of the difference, or just a small part of the recipe.
mark
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 08/28/08 05:59 PM
Location: Washington State, U.S.

Postby Guest » 11/04/04 10:12 AM

I wonder what Howie Schwartzman would say about those passes.
-T
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/04/04 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Todd Ziegler:
I wonder what Howie Schwartzman would say about those passes.
-T
Why?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/04/04 12:51 PM

Originally posted by pchosse:
Originally posted by Todd Ziegler:
[b] I wonder what Howie Schwartzman would say about those passes.
-T
Why? [/b]
Casue he's the pass master!
I thought I had a good pass until Howie gave me a new one about it.. I learned a lot. For me, it dosen't matter how the pass looks becasue the spectator shouldn't be looking there at the time of the pass anyway.
-T
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/04/04 07:40 PM

For me, it dosen't matter how the pass looks becasue the spectator shouldn't be looking there at the time of the pass anyway.
That's just silly. If you really believe that,
then why do a pass at all? Why not just cut the
deck? If this statement is taken seriously, then
there is no reason for most sleights to exist.

Side-Steal? Nah-- just take the card out!
They shouldn't be looking at your hands...

Peeks? Nah-- just look at the card!
They shouldn't be looking at your hands...

I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea....

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Pete McCabe » 11/04/04 10:00 PM

"Years ago I believed that technique was everything, and that misdirection was merely insurance against "flashing" or inadequate technique. I now believe just the opposite. Distracting the eye and the critical judgment of the spectator is most important. Technique, which should be developed to the best of the performer's ability, provides the insurance that is essential, should the misdirection not take its full effect."
-- John Carney, Carneycopia
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Guest » 11/05/04 12:20 AM

Mr. McCabe:

And your point is.....?

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 11/05/04 02:35 AM

I was going to post something earlier this afternoon, but then self-control got the better of me. However, now Im tired and in a weakened state, so Im going to let loose:

Earlier I wanted to say:

Steven,

I congratulate you on your fine demos and your smooth, invisible technique. I would prefer, though, to see the moves demonstrated within the context of a magical effect. Not that you have to do a trickjust what exactly leads into the move as a control, color change, whatever, and then leads out of it. From your demos, I cannot get a feel for just how long your hands remain togethera critical issue for meand the justification for that togetherness since they are together the entire time. But that could be the result of your doing one pass after another, after another, and not of the technique. Sorry, but the demos are not clear in that respect.

Now I want to say:

The Carney quote should be self-explanatory. Frankly, Im surprised by your apparent criticism of misdirection. Impeccable technique is even more so when properlyand naturallymisdirected. I would think you would agree with that. It almost sounds like you advocate calling attention to the move just for the sake of being able too. Calling attention to the moment is not the best way to go about things. Your arguments above fly in the face of the teachings of Erdnase, Malini, Ramsay, Vernon, Carney: I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 11/05/04 05:12 AM

Dustin:

Could you please point out in any of my
posts or even anything I've EVER published
in which I state that misdirection is not
important? Or where I disagreed with the
Carney quote-- in ANY context?

I am deeply offended by your assumptions
that you could know anything of me or my
work by a few clips posted on the internet.

I am also insulted that you presume to
judge me or my work when it is obvious
that you never have seen me work or read
anything I've published.

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Andru Luvisi » 11/05/04 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Steven Youell:
...your assumptions...
...you presume...
It's funny, you now. The art of deception is, at one level, the study of bad assumptions. Yet even those who study and exploit bad assumptions in others still fall prey to them from time to time...

Andru
Andru Luvisi
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 04/14/08 01:34 PM

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 11/05/04 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
"Years ago I believed that technique was everything, and that misdirection was merely insurance against "flashing" or inadequate technique. I now believe just the opposite. Distracting the eye and the critical judgment of the spectator is most important. Technique, which should be developed to the best of the performer's ability, provides the insurance that is essential, should the misdirection not take its full effect."
-- John Carney, Carneycopia
An appeal to authority presented as if to defend technical incompetence is not likely to improve the reader's opinion of either the one making the appeal or the authority cited. From his studies of John Ramsay's work, Mr. Carney would likely acknowlege that sleights need to be invisible to the mind, and to that goal, should be invisible to the eye as well.

I have seen John Carney do some routines that use sleight of hand and it seemed to me that he makes the effort to ensure the sleights he uses are as smooth and imperceptible as possible. I suspect Steve Youell has similar intentions and has offered these videos as a means of assisting others.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6792
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby mark » 11/05/04 09:56 AM

Okay, this is one situation where I believe we are perpetuating an argument where none exists. I cannot claim to speak for Mr. Youell, though I have been to a couple of workshops with him, and I have learned more than I can say. I have to believe that if he posted his work on the pass within the course of a routine, there would be more posts here stating that, "Heck, I thought your lesson was supposed to be on the pass, what's with the five minute effect?" "I don't have broadband, how long is this effect going to take, and when will I get to see your pass?" Sad to say, when teaching on the pass in the course of putting together a DVD, in today's market there had better be plenty of work on the pass, expecially in light of so many other fine videos teaching the pass. Mr. Youell's pass is that good, I can attest to it. Mr. Youell's misdirection is also very effective, and I can attest to that, as well. I suspect the audiences at the Castle and at California Magic and Novelty would agree as well. (Where I also attended a lecture and workshop given by Mr. Carney.) Neither magician contradicted the other, and I feel better prepared for having attended both workshops. I don't know his intent for this course, but Steven has prepared the Compendium guys very well with effects to utilize the sleights that he teaches us. If he holds true to form, perhaps he will be kind enough to include one or two so that we can see just how long his hands stay together, why they came together to begin with, and why they separate. I think we have some conflict here where none exists, and if I have shed any light on Steven's C.V., my posts will not have been wasted.
mark
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 08/28/08 05:59 PM
Location: Washington State, U.S.

Postby Michael Kamen » 11/05/04 10:00 AM

I have seen Stephen work at the Magic Castle and found him to be a very entertaining performer. There was nothing remiss in his direction or misdirection. Stephen's demo is clearly intended for magicians only. The issue of hands together is important no doubt, but the ability to pull off what Stephen does in his demo is also an important and useful achievement in the context of performance. How much imagination does it take to appreciate this? Stephen did not purport his demo to be an example of a complete performance. Thank you Stephen, for sharing your elegant technique and reminding us of what is possible.

"Many things are necessary to do magic; but make no mistake, skill of the hands is four-fifths of them. He who depends upon his hands alone is a master of his craft and needs no protection against the predatory instincts of the guild. Merchants will not barter his wares in the market-place, nor pitchmen hawk his secrets in the streets.
-- From the Journal of the Great Jaggard"

Greater Magic, p665, first page of section entitled "Coin Magic."
Michael Kamen
User avatar
Michael Kamen
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: SF Bay Area

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 11/05/04 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Michael Kamen:
...He who depends upon his hands alone is a master of his craft and needs no protection against the predatory instincts of the guild. Merchants will not barter his wares in the market-place, nor pitchmen hawk his secrets in the streets.
Perhaps that was true at one time.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6792
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Pete Biro » 11/05/04 10:52 AM

Huh?
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Pete McCabe » 11/05/04 11:05 AM

This thread has sure gone to hell.

My post was meant to disagree with Todd Ziegler. I believe, as John Carney wrote, that even if the audience shouldn't be looking there when a move is performed, it still matters how the move looks.

I thought this agreed with Steven Youell.

I am baffled by Jonathan Townsend's response that I have made "An appeal to authority presented as if to defend technical incompetence." As I interpret John Carney's quote, it does not defend technical incompetence, but expresses exactly the opposite view. I thought that the words "Technique, which should be developed to the best of the performer's ability, provides the insurance which is essential..." were, as Dustin suggested, pretty self-explanatory.

I still think so.


Pete
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 11/05/04 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
"... Technique, which should be developed to the best of the performer's ability, provides the insurance that is essential, should the misdirection not take its full effect."
-- John Carney, Carneycopia
I believe Steve is offering some tips on technique to help ensure the move can go by without triggering the VERY sensitive motion detectors in our peripheral vision.

What are we arguing about?
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6792
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Dustin Stinett » 11/05/04 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Steven Youell:
Dustin:

Could you please point out in any of my
posts or even anything I've EVER published
in which I state that misdirection is not
important?
Sure (and as I said apparent criticism of misdirection):

Originally posted by Steven Youell:
For me, it doesn't matter how the pass looks because the spectator shouldn't be looking there at the time of the pass anyway.
That's just silly. If you really believe that,
then why do a pass at all? Why not just cut the
deck? If this statement is taken seriously, then
there is no reason for most sleights to exist.
[Emphasis mine]

Side-Steal? Nah-- just take the card out!
They shouldn't be looking at your hands...

Peeks? Nah-- just look at the card!
They shouldn't be looking at your hands...
I knew my lack of self-control would get me in trouble. It always does. It was never my intention to offend you to any depth. But if what you wrote above cannot be considered an apparent criticism of misdirection, what do you call it? I hope it was not your intention to merely offend Todd Ziegler by calling his comment silly by using silly examples. Perhaps your point would have been better served had you simply said that misdirection, no matter how good, is not an excuse for sloppy technique (a point on which, I suspect, we both can agree), though Im not at all convinced that Mr. Zieglers comment was an endorsement of sloppy technique. I saw it more as an endorsement of misdirection. When looked at in that light, I hope you can see how I can take your post as a criticism of misdirection.

Originally posted by Steven Youell:
Or where I disagreed with the
Carney quote-- in ANY context?
Again, only in the context of your post I quoted above. You questioned Pete McCabes point: I said that I believed the quote spoke for itself. It does. When you put together your two posts (your replies to Mr. Ziegler and Mr. McCabe), the belief that you apparently eschew misdirection becomes stronger. It was my belief that Pete McCabes use of the Carney passage was in direct response to that apparent disdain shown in your reply to Todd Ziegler.
Originally posted by Steven Youell:
I am deeply offended by your assumptions
that you could know anything of me or my
work by a few clips posted on the internet.

I am also insulted that you presume to
judge me or my work when it is obvious
that you never have seen me work or read
anything I've published.
Again, I never meant any offense. I sit in judgment only of your clips as a prospective consumer of what you are selling. I simply told you what I neededas a consumerto be compelled to purchase your product. Your clips currently do not compel me to purchase that product. Being unable to get a clearer idea of the moves within the context of an effect might be a failure of my imagination. But isnt it also possible that it might be a failure in conveyance? Youre correct: Ive never seen you work (and I suspect that I am not alone in that category), so as a result, from your clips alone, I am unable to get a clear picture of what it is you are trying to sell me. You are, after all, trying to sell something are you not? These demos are linked to the ad on your site for the pass CD and are not just a set of clips showcasing your impressive skills. As a consumer, I would hope that you might consider listening to what was meant only to be constructive criticism of your marketing tool. Obviously you are free to ignore it. But please do not take offense particularly when none is offered.

Regards,
Dustin

PS: What I meant in regard to my lack of self-control was to post something that was actually off-topic. That is not my role here and I apologize to everyone.
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 11/05/04 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Pete McCabe:
[QB] My post was meant to disagree with Todd Ziegler. I believe, as John Carney wrote, that even if the audience shouldn't be looking there when a move is performed, it still matters how the move looks.
EXACTLY! THAT was the point of clarification I
was looking for!!!!!

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/05/04 01:46 PM

But if what you wrote above cannot be considered an apparent criticism of misdirection, what do you call it?
I call it an apparent criticism of Todd's
statement-- which could be too easily
interpreted as meaning that misdirection can
cover sloppy technique. But rather than ask
me to clarify my point, you just "went off".

Tell you what-- why don't you go find out
a little bit about who I am and what my
qualifications are. Ask people-- there are plenty
of people here with outstanding
reputations here who have seen me work.
Some of their comments are actually posted
on my site.

THEN come back and apologize. Or at least
admit your post was inappropriate and
delte it. That's what I'd do if I had been
as rude and as unthinking as you have been.

But hey-- maybe you're different...

I'm done here.

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/05/04 02:28 PM

Mr. Youell:
I think I need to clarify that the dynamics of the pass are two fold, physical (technique) and psychological (misdirection).

I think I was misunderstood in saying that it didn't matter how it looked. It does, but that is only half the story. I am sorry that I misrepresented myself and I should have known better.

I also didn't need to by chided by you despite your reputation and/or credentials.

-Todd Ziegler
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/05/04 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Todd Ziegler:
I think I was misunderstood in saying that it didn't matter how it looked. It does, but that is only half the story. I am sorry that I misrepresented myself and I should have known better.
Dear Todd,

I deeply care about the art. Perhaps I over
reacted to your cavalier remarks, but I really
feel that such remarks made in public forums
can do damage to the art. I apologize if I
offended you.

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/05/04 02:52 PM

Maybe I should just stop posting here and leave the conversations to you pros. Too bad, I thought this was a place to learn. You just made me feel stupid and rubbed it in. That is why it's hard for me to buy your stuff.

I accept your apology, I guess.
-Todd Ziegler
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 11/05/04 03:27 PM

Steven,

Rude? I dont think so. Critical? Absolutely. Theres a big difference: Im very sorry if you are too thin-skinned to see that difference. That is an example of being rude, but I have been pushed to that by your rude post. Ive been called a lot of things, but never disingenuous. I said that I did not mean any offense and I meant it.

Yes, my original take on the misdirection issue was incorrect. But again, my use of words like apparent and almost and surprised were meant to show an unclear perception on my part. They beg for clarification. Im sorry that my usage of them failed youthat would also be my fault. Perhaps I just should have said, huh? Better yetI never should have posted. I knew better going in. Again, what I meant by letting looseas I said in my PS above, was that I knew straight away that the post was off topic and yes, inappropriate to the thread (and could help lead to thisa place this thread should never have gone). I was not letting loose on you personally: I was letting loose on the thread. That was also a poor choice of words on my part.

However, my criticism of your demos is not rude. It is critical from the standpoint (in my opinion) of what it is I thought they are meant to do. If I am wrong about their purpose, then I apologize. Am I wrong as to their purpose? Are they or are they not meant to help sell your CD on the pass? If they are, they dont work for me. I thought I said that above. I am not being disingenuous in any way. I am expressing an opinion based on what has been presented to me in your ad. Isnt it your job to sell yourself and your product to me and also to those not familiar with you and your reputation? Of course, I doubt if you care now whether or not I buy your products anyway, but what about those others?

One thing is for certainthis isnt the proper place to do this. I screwed up by posting in the first place. I was wrong in my take on the misdirection issue and I was wrong in expressing an opinion on your demos here. I apologize for posting out of place, but I will not apologize for my opinion.

Dustin

PS: If I delete my original post, I will also have to delete everything referring to it (mostif not allof what appears after it). If that is what you want me to do, then let me know.
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6024
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/05/04 03:58 PM

I'll lock this thread for now and let Dustin and Steve sort this out privately.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21092
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC


Return to Close-Up Magic