Setting the Record Straight and Crediting

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Tim Trono » 04/15/02 03:27 PM

Just to set the record straight the Gypsy Thread done with dental floss belongs to Lonnie Chevrie, a fabulous magician from Texas. Lonnie invented this in 1975 and taught it to one of his friends, Charles Green, in 1977 or 1978. Charles used it extensively in his trade show work, popularized it, and eventually published it without Lonnie's approval (though this has since been cleared up). Since then, there have been several unauthorized versions and crediting has been misplaced with Charles Green for inventing this or no credit has been given at all. In my opinion (and several well respected magicians including Chad Long, Eric Decamps, Barrie Richardson, Roger Klause, etc. who just saw Lonnie Chevrie do this piece at the Dallas Close Up Convention), Lonnie Chevrie's handling is vastly superior to all of the unauthorized rip offs that have been put out without credit. Lonnie's handling will be on a video that Brian O'Neill is releasing as well as in a book that is being prepared on Lonnie's superb magic.

I recently purchased an effect by Alex McLittle called Gypsy Floss. What frustrated me was that Alex did not take the time to acknowledge the appropriate credit and he obviously did not even take the time to contact Charles Green as Charles would have obviously let him know the proper credit (i.e. Lonnie Chevrie). I mention this not to pick on Alex but to raise a point I think it is extremely important to seek credit/approval if you are releasing a variation of someone's effect. Charles has put advertisements in some of the major magic magazines, has an easily locatable web site, etc. so he is fairly easy to contact. Just mentioning his name and that it had previously been published in "some" issue (not bothering to research the specific issue) of Magic Menu is really not sufficient in my opinion. If the credit/source had been someone who is deceased or you cannot track down then that is understandable. However, when crediting a book or magazine I think the person owes it to consumers to not be lazy and put some effort into the research. When you know where you learned the initial piece from, I think it is only right to TRY to contact that person to receive permission to release a variation. In most cases the creator is more than happy to give such permission and will be thankful you bothered to have the courtesy to contact them.

I hope people will take a take the extra time and effort to PROPERLY and fully acknowledge those on whom they have used as stepping stones.

Just my two cents

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Guest » 04/15/02 03:44 PM

Can you tell me who invented "Twisting the Aces" using kings. I really want to perform this effect, but not without permission, as I don't want to offend anyone.
Guest
 

Postby Q. Kumber » 04/15/02 04:12 PM

And let us not forget that Billy McComb came up with the idea of using thicker thread (or yarn) so the effect was more visible on stage.
Q. Kumber
 
Posts: 868
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Manchester, England

Postby Guest » 04/15/02 04:19 PM

At the recent NEMCON convention tom jones of wild magic taught this without any credit.

Noah Levine
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/15/02 04:20 PM

Although he may have referenced it in the notes they were selling.

Noah Levine
Guest
 

Postby Bob Farmer » 04/15/02 04:21 PM

I agree with Tim. Given the economics of the magic business, often the ONLY "payment" a creator will get for his idea is proper credit. Whether any particular effect, method or presentation requires crediting is a matter of informed opinion. The more you know about magic, the more likely you will make the right decision.

Obviously, "Twisting" with kings rather than aces is not suffciently inventive to warrant a credit (though it might, if the presentation was improved in some way).

In cases of doubt, always give credit.

As Tim notes, crediting is not always easy to do -- there is no magic database with all the answers. There are, however, lots of people you can ask -- and then there's just plain common sense (if you suspect it's a Vernon trick, look in the Vernon books).

Your crediting may not be perfect, but at least you can honestly say you tried.

Sometimes, particularly with marketed tricks, your crediting might have to be somewhat obtuse lest you reveal the secret of a marketed effect (the marketer will thnak you for the credit and for not revealing too much).
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Bill Duncan » 04/15/02 06:07 PM

I have to say that using floss instead of thread for a broken and restored string trick doesn't seem like something that warrents credit... UNLESS the person publishing the routine was directly influenced by another, in which case they have a moral obligation to provide the credit.

I had the idea of using floss years ago inspired by a conversation with Eugene Burger who, as I'm sure everyone knows, bit the thread with "vampire-like teeth".

I've never heard of Lonnie Chevrie. Am I bound to seek out his credit on such an obvious idea?

I agree that one should credit EVERY inspirational source and make sure that when you redescribe moves or inspirational effects the originator of both should be credited (eg. "inspired by LJ's handling of Vernon's ...")

But crediting the guy who first publically used a baseball card instead of a playing card for Ultimate Rip Off... ?

If Alex McLittle was inspired by seeing Greene's handling then he should be called to task for not crediting him at least.
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Tim Trono » 04/15/02 06:30 PM

Bill, I agree that Lonnie Chevrie may not be well known but it is fairly well known about Charles Green doing the gypsy dental floss. And Charles did publish it so he should be receiving "some" calls in reference to authorization but alas, that is not happening. If that had been the case, Charles would have most definitely mentioned Lonnie Chevrie. The gypsy dental floss is NOT just using a different thread... using the dental floss 1) offers interesting patter 2) puts the whole thing in a container set for the trick and 3) provides the stick necessary for the bundle. It really does make the trick significantly better... just ask the people who are using it with permission such as Johnny Ace Palmer, Charles Green, etc. This is actually all beside the point though as I simply was using this as an example of crediting. Obviously one doesnt have to go insane crediting but one should make an attempt. On a recent video we shot we used a Vernon effect and contacted David Ben who is the curator of the Vernon items. David very graciously gave his consent and even provided further information on the item. I think that proper crediting and seeking authorization only shows respect for an art that hopefully we all do respect. Once again one doesnt have to go crazy and discuss every sleight (ex. classic palm, double lift, etc.) but if you are using someones idea generally as a springing board its just good ethics to acknowledge them and get permission.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Pete McCabe » 04/15/02 10:06 PM

As we've seen, there are some "inventions" that don't really warrant a full credit. Somebody invented the French drop to vanish a coin. Then somebody uses it with a ball. Does that deserve a credit? What if I am the first person to use the same vanish with a quarter instead of a half dollar?

But there is one aspect of magic that always benefits from full credits, and it's one that I rarely see mentioned in these discussions. It is the reason why I always credit everything I possibly can. It's this:

It helps the reader.

If you are reading my description of a trick which uses a Jay Sankey move, and you like the trick, then you'll probably want to check out the Sankey video where the move originally appears. Maybe you'll be inspired to create a new trick using it, as I did. Or maybe you'll learn something about performing the move -- something I didn't mention in my description. Maybe you'll think, damn that's a clever move, let's see what else that Jay Sankey has come up with.

This is, in my humble opinion, the most important single reason to be scrupulous in crediting. Because it helps the reader to learn more about magic, about the long chain of magical invention, and about the links that connect every trick we do today with the foundations of magic many years ago.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2068
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby David Moore » 04/16/02 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Tim Trono: "On a recent video we shot we used a Vernon effect and contacted David Ben who is the curator of the Vernon items."

David Ben is the curator of the Vernon items? What does that mean?
David Moore
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Jersey

Postby Tim Trono » 04/16/02 07:53 AM

Great point Pete. When I am learning a routine I try to look up all of the available information I can on the subject thus such background information helps and as you mention, it's nice to look into what was originally described to get details that otherwise might be missing.

David- basically David Ben is in charge of the Vernon material and was appointed to do by Vernon's family.

Tim
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby David Moore » 04/16/02 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Tim Trono:
David- basically David Ben is in charge of the Vernon material and was appointed to do by Vernon's family.

Tim
Tim

What is this "material"? Was the effect that Ben gave you permission to use part of this material? What I'm getting at is that this effect wasn't something in the public domain (already published) was it?
David Moore
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Jersey

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 04/16/02 08:34 AM

Originally posted by David Moore:
What I'm getting at is that this effect wasn't something in the public domain (already published) was it?
Whoa! Public domain and previously published items are entirely different things. Just because it's been published, doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Items become public domain either by intention of the author (ie, it's stated outright that the item is in the public domain when it is published) or by the fact that it is so old that either the copyright has expired or the originator cannot be established.

It seems as if all Vernon's items - either published or unpublished - are currently owned by David Ben. (At least, this is my understanding from these posts.) What this means is that he would have publishing rights to these items and also if you're looking to publish a variation on one of Vernon's item (or just one of his items with no variations), you would need to go to him for permission, like Tim did.

That's my understanding of the whole thing - please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Tim Trono » 04/16/02 08:46 AM

I'm not a lawyer but believe Jim is correct. Irregardless of this, I think this is precisely the point of my initial post - it doesn't hurt to ASK and get permission. In this case Vernon's family has basically asked Mr. Ben to "be in charge of" [my words - not his] Vernon's material. This is most likely due to David Bens knowledge of the Vernon material, his knowledge of the magic community, his respect and devotion for Vernon, etc. So, in my opinion, it's only right to ask - end of story. And I feel this applies generally.

Tim
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Tim Trono » 04/16/02 08:54 AM

BTW check out Paul Cummins post on this forum and TSD looking for credit references THAT is admirable. If you dont know, ask around. Paul is VERY knowledgeable and extremely ethical but he understands the importance of research and asking for help.

Tim
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Q. Kumber » 04/16/02 11:05 AM

Pete McCabe points out credits help the reader check additional resources. Another way it helps the reader is to show how the effect evolves. How someone adds something, smooths the effect, simplifies the handling or sometimes confuses the effect.

Studying the evolution of methodologies can help you with your own creativity. Max Maven is particularly good at this, not just to give credit where it is due, but to point the evolution.
Q. Kumber
 
Posts: 868
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Manchester, England

Postby CHRIS » 04/16/02 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
As Tim notes, crediting is not always easy to do -- there is no magic database with all the answers.
There IS a database of magic lineage. It does not have all the answers, but it is a good start and has already more than 160 entries, some of which are very well researched and quite extensive. Check it out at http://www.lybrary.com/mlp/ - The Magic Lineage Project or Geniiology.

Please consider contributing to this effort.

Chris....

Lybrary.com preserving magic one book at a time
CHRIS
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 01/31/08 01:00 PM
Location: las vegas

Postby Bill Mullins » 04/16/02 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
There is no magic database with all the answers.
Even if there were, so what? Crediting done simply by listing predecessors may meet the letter of ethical conventions, but not the spirit. Informed research of the credits benefits the one who does it and those to whom he reports -- see evolution of lineage above, and it is the only way to figure out who the real contributors are, and eliminate those who "improved" a French drop by using a half dollar instead of a quarter.

Bill Mullins
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby CHRIS » 04/17/02 06:23 AM

Bill,

it just depends on how the database is done. It could capture the complete lineage with commentary, thoughts and any further details necessary to thoroughly document how things evolved.

You will find in the Magic Lineage Project some very well researched entries which rival the best ever published records.

Chris.... Lybrary.com preserving magic one book at a time.
CHRIS
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 01/31/08 01:00 PM
Location: las vegas

Postby Bill Mullins » 04/17/02 07:21 AM

If it captures with commentary, then the commenter has done the research, and everyone else is taking advantage of it ("copying" it may be a better way of phrasing).

What I mean is that the _process_ of researching is invaluable, not just the results. Copying lineage from database will give proper credit to originators. Doing the research yourself, though, will benefit you as a writer, performer, creator.

Bill
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby Jon Racherbaumer » 04/17/02 08:12 AM

This is an engaging, important thread.

Having been involved in the often vexsome problem of "crediting" ideas and trying to chart the EVOLUTION of ideas and how variations are wrought and "wrung out," I appreciate the diversity of everyone's remarks and observations on this subject.

The problem really gets "sticky" when we publish "finesses" and slightly different approaches. For example, substituting Kings for Aces (in Twisting the _____) is creativity of an extremely low order. However, I think that the "poster" of this message was alluding to Roger Smith's variation where the Aces CHANGE to Kings at the end (?).

Sometimes a given "finesse" is critically important. As a lad, I remember reading countless explanations of the French Drop and concluding that this sleight is transparent and would not fool anyone. Then I read THE DAI VERNON BOOK OF MAGIC, namely pages 32-34, and it was inspiring and revelatory. Should Vernon get credit for THIS?
Or using 20-20 hindsight should we conclude that such a finesse is obvious and not worthy of a mention?

Perhaps.

But I humbly submit that the SIMPLE and OBVIOUS are often hidden and less obvious than we assume.

Just a thought...

Onward...
Jon Racherbaumer
 
Posts: 812
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Orleans

Postby Guest » 04/17/02 11:16 AM

Dental-Floss can be found in the February 1987 edition of The Linking Ring.

The effect by Lonnie Chevrie was written as a short story much like the popular Clayton Rawson novels.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/17/02 01:48 PM

... substituting Kings for Aces (in Twisting the _____) is creativity of an extremely low order. However, I think that the "poster" of this message was alluding to Roger Smith's variation where the Aces CHANGE to Kings at the end(?).
Jon, my remark was not alluding to Mr Smith's effect or to any actual effect at all. It was a facetious comment, the inference to be, that the substitution of dental floss for thread is as consequential to the Gypsy Thread effect, as the substitution of kings for aces would be in Twisting the Aces. I consider this sort of "improvement" somewhat trivial - to quote you, "creativity of a very low order". It is the sort of thing, that many people have most likely come up with independently. Certainly not worth all the hoopla.
Guest
 

Postby Tim Trono » 04/17/02 02:31 PM

I'd strongly disagree with you about the thread... there is a BIG BIG difference between the cards and the floss that you use as your example. The floss is a significant improvement... just ask the people like Johnny Ace Palmer, Charles Green, etc. who use the floss regularly. Ask any of the well posted magicians such as Chad Long, Barrie Richardson, etc. who just saw Lonnie do this and raved about it. They understand. There IS a reason it's better... its NOT just a change in the prop (one card for another, halves instead of dollar coins, etc.). First the floss has MEANING, it is something we can all relate to, you break pieces of it off every day (hopefully), etc. When you pull out a spool of thread there IS no meaning (unless you are a seamstress). Second, from a logistics point it allows you to have a container that fits and can be part of the presentation (protecting and carrying the set up). Third, the waxed thread makes the handling work better (the bundle sticks together naturally and it makes sense that it sticks...people are used to waxed floss... the bundle sticking doesn't become its own little mini magic trick). But as mentioned above the main point is that it makes sense! I don't know that being facetious gets us anywhere but raising a question does... then we can examine it. I wasn't quite sure where you were going with your comment either.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Guest » 04/17/02 04:47 PM

I just want to point out that I think ONLY the concept of using dental floss instead of thread, is trivial. If Mr. Chevrie has devised new methodologies based on the particular properties inherent to dental floss and it's container, and ESPECIALLY with regards to any unique presentational aspects he has developed based on the use of dental floss ... well, that's a different issue. He certainly deserves credit for his own handling and presentation, and no one should use this without his consent, but just because I see another magician doing a version of Gypsy Thread using dental floss, I would not conclude that he ripped off Mr Chevrie. As I said, I feel sure that many people have independently come up with the idea of substituting dental floss for thread, and most likely for the same reasons as those which inspired Mr.Chevrie to make the switch. And by the way, if there ever is a place for facetiousness, it would be here! Next time, I'll be sure to add a winky face! ;)
Guest
 

Postby Dave Shepherd » 04/17/02 08:06 PM

As a devotee of the Lonnie Chevrie method, let me just chime in and confirm that this is a fundamentally different method. I have seen several lecturers (magicians of note whom I respect greatly, whom I will not name here) teach what is basically a "classic" handling of the Gypsy Thread. Indeed, attendees of the 2001 IBM Convention in Orlando saw at least two lectures containing essentially the same method, not to mention the same effect (with a minor variation).

IMHO, it would behoove any serious student of this effect to seek out the February 1987 Linking Ring and study Mr. Chevrie's Parade in which this effect appears. It is very engaging reading (someone pointed out its similarity in style to Clayton Rawson), and you will have access to one of the more practical versions of the Gypsy Thread in print--with the possible exception of Londono's version. However, the Chevrie version culminates in the classic unwinding of a restored thread, which the Londono version does not.

The difference in the Chevrie method is most definitely NOT limited to the use of dental floss as the torn and restored substance.
Dave Shepherd
 
Posts: 423
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: 15 miles w. of Washington, DC

Postby CHRIS » 04/17/02 08:20 PM

Originally posted by bill mullins:
What I mean is that the _process_ of researching is invaluable, not just the results. Copying lineage from database will give proper credit to originators. Doing the research yourself, though, will benefit you as a writer, performer, creator.
Bill, I fully agree with you. However, not everyone can thoroughly research everything. It just isn't possible. And a database, at least the way I see it, is a living thing. New tidbits will be added and so the lineage and commentary keeps growing and becomming evermore detailed.

Put differently, if everyone would research one move or routine to the fullest and share it for example through the Magic Lineage Project, we would all benefit a great deal from it.

Chris....
Lybrary.com preserving magic one book at a time.
CHRIS
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 01/31/08 01:00 PM
Location: las vegas

Postby Guest » 04/23/02 09:20 PM

Just a thought. A central data base of verified originators where each one produced recieves a fee. those that build or duplicate this ploicy pay and give credit to the originators for their ideas and any variations there of. These products or puplications would contain a special notation of compliance. this would be simmular to the music industry. if the mda sam and ibm joined on this could this be possible. with the support of all reputible manufactures and publishers.

Please forgive spelling and grammer long day and even longer night. please look at the thought . and comment on that...

reesman
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/05/02 08:55 AM

I was at the same NEMCON convention and I believe Tom Jones did mention something in his lecture about the crediting of the effect.

In any event, he DOES give credit in his notes to Lonnie Chevrie, who was the first person to invent this effect.

It seems though, that Mr. Jones also independently invented this effect, albeit about eight years later, which is why he gives Mr. Chevrie credit as being the first person to come up with the idea of using Dental Floss to do the effect.
Guest
 

Postby Tim Trono » 05/05/02 10:31 AM

Yes, Tom Jones did develop this separately and when he found out the effect belonged to Lonnie Chevrie he called Lonnie to get approval. THIS is the way to do things. Tom is a very ethical person and understands the importance of this. Of course, as with most creators, Lonnie gave Tom his blessing to use the effect. Bob Neale and I were discussing this subject recently and he advised that occasionally he gets a call from someone asking if they can publish a variation, etc. of one of his ideas. He typically advises "yes, and THANKS for asking". Most inventors just appreciate being asked.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Richard Kaufman » 05/05/02 08:43 PM

First, it's Charles Greene with an "e" on the end.
Second, I would appreciate if Wasshuber would try and make at least one post without referring us to his website!
Third, if anyone knows Lonnie, call him and ask him if we can put his handling on the Forumn for all of us to read, so we have some idea what we're talking about.
Personally, I don't save The Linking Ring. The issues are too heavy and take up too much room!
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20006
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Elwood » 05/10/02 09:53 AM

Why the big deal about crediting every routine you do?

Unless you are on TV or video, when the world sees you, and many other magicians are likely to watch, waiting for you to miss a credit so they can slag you off on message boards like this, does anyone really care who invented a particular routine?
The general public haven't heard of most of the magicians who invent stuff (ask anyone in England who Michael Ammar is, the majority look at you as if to say "Who?). Is there any point in crediting someone no one has heard of if you are just performing in a restaurant, where people will not even remember your name a few weeks later, let alone the name of the guy who you learned a fabulous way of cutting cards from!
It's different on TV/video, sure, but 99% of working magicians are small scale. I really don't think it's neccessary to namedrop (sorry, give credit) for every single routine/trick at this level.
Elwood
 
Posts: 54
Joined: 12/13/08 10:46 AM

Postby Craig Matsuoka » 05/10/02 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Elwood T. Johnson:
Why the big deal about crediting every routine you do?...does anyone really care who invented a particular routine?
Forgive me if Im misinterpreting your post Elwood, but I think youre misunderstanding the scenario here. No one is saying you should follow up all your restaurant or nursing home performances with a tip o the hat to the Professor or anyone contributing to the success of your routine. That would be silly. Its when you start publishing or teaching that serious ethical issues arise. In addition to the excellent point Pete McCabe brought out earlier, theres an even nobler spirit behind proper crediting - gratitude. Its all about gratitude, Elwood.

You call it name dropping. I call it acknowledgement. Its the least we can do to show our appreciation for all the work thats already been done for us. Usually, thats the only repayment one receives for sharing anything with the magic community. So dont you think we should be thankful when someone saves us the trouble of being creative? Sure, some people use crediting to show off how much they know. But for the vast majority of us, I like to think that were just reminding ourselves how creativity rarely flourishes in a vacuum. Of course, its not possible to be correct 100% of the time. Oversights will happen. Opinions of provenance will differ. But showing evidence that you cared enough about the memory of your predecessors to do the extra research goes a long way toward building your credibility as an innovative performer yourself.

This holds true no matter how famous you or the people youre crediting are. Just because someone isnt a giant of the art doesnt mean they dont deserve to be remembered. Its the mark of a true lover of the art. I read your profile so maybe this illustration will hit home for you. The general public knows little if anything behind the history of the electric guitar. Nor do they really care. But true enthusiasts of the six string certainly do. Wouldnt it be wrong if the guitar players of the world paid no respect to Les Paul, Leo Fender, Floyd Rose, or even really obscure artists like Michael Hedges?

Fame may be a vanity, but its a tragedy when you're forgotten.
Craig Matsuoka
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 03/13/08 05:13 PM
Location: Kailua, Hawaii

Postby Bob Farmer » 05/10/02 01:56 PM

[QB]Why the big deal about crediting every routine you do?

Damn--I can't remember who said this, but it doesn't really matter, does it -- after all ideas are so easy to steal, why go to all the trouble of actually giving someone credit for original and creative thought.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Craig Matsuoka » 05/10/02 02:04 PM

LOL!

Yeah. By the way Bob, when are you going to release that new trick of yours. You know, the one that's based on Jay Sankey's "Juicy Fruit" routine, but going one stage further? I think it's the one where the spectator's card appears inside a sealed up chewing gum packet? All the other sticks in the pack are genuine gum, so everything is examinable (before and after)? Didn't you call it "Card In Chewing Gum" or something like that?

You invented that right?
Craig Matsuoka
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 03/13/08 05:13 PM
Location: Kailua, Hawaii

Postby Bob Farmer » 05/10/02 02:11 PM

"The general public knows little if anything behind the history of the electric guitar. Nor do they really care. But true enthusiasts of the six string certainly do. Wouldnt it be wrong if the guitar players of the world paid no respect to Les Paul, Leo Fender, Floyd Rose..."

In keeping with the theme of accurate crediting:

The Les Paul was designed by Ted McCarty, John Huis, Julius Bellson and Wilbur Marker, not Les Paul -- which is why when Paul Reed Smith put out his version of the Les Paul, he called it a "McCarty." McCarty put Les Paul's name on his invention because -- Les Paul was much more well known.

Les Paul is much more important as an inventor of many recording devices and techniques than he is as a guitar hardware guy (though he did invent a solid-body electric guitar, but not the guitar that bears his name).

Michael Hedges was the electric harp-guitar guy, wasn't he?
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Tim Trono » 05/10/02 02:16 PM

Elmwood... wow... with all due respect I think it is precisely this thinking that brings down our art. You are right that magic is a much smaller scale than some other art forms but that does not make it any less important to those of us who love it, live off of it, live by it, etc. If it had not been for the creative thinking and sharing of many many people throughout the years can you just imagine where magic would be right now? There would be no Genii, MAGIC Magazine, Linking Ring, MUM, magic clubs, magic conventions, videos, books, etc. Why would people want to share anything without at least a little acknowledgement for their time, effort, etc? Why would Vernon, Marlo, etc. share if no one cared?

I would disagree with you on another level as well. Obviously you are not going to mention Mike Ammar, Daryl, Dai Vernon, etc. when performing BUT people (laymen) ARE fascinated by how you learn magic, about the "brotherhood" of magicians, etc. Often we don't bring this up in our presentations but I can guarantee you that people ARE interested and fascinated. If you perform for "real" people you will undoubtedly get questions about this. And there ARE some performers who DO mention people who have inspired them (ex. Vernon, etc.) in their presentations as they understand people are interested.

It's a shame that you seem to care so little for the work and effort that others before you have put in.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Craig Matsuoka » 05/10/02 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
In keeping with the theme of accurate crediting:

The Les Paul was designed by Ted McCarty, John Huis, Julius Bellson and Wilbur Marker, not Les Paul -- which is why when Paul Reed Smith put out his version of the Les Paul, he called it a "McCarty." McCarty put Les Paul's name on his invention because -- Les Paul was much more well known.
Good point. It's always the "others" who are forgotten in the crediting shuffle. Hey, just look at the Gilligan's Island song..."and the REST"? What was the deal with THAT? Fortunately, they fixed this outrageous crediting oversight later. Man, it's always the lil' guy innit? :)
Craig Matsuoka
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 03/13/08 05:13 PM
Location: Kailua, Hawaii

Postby Bob Farmer » 05/10/02 02:36 PM

"Didn't you call it "Card In Chewing Gum" or something like that? You invented that right?"

No, it wasn't me -- it was Ellwood Johnson. As you may not know, he has contributed a ton of ideas to the magic world and seldom, if ever, gets proper credit.

Remember, "Greater Magic," "Triumph," "Sponge Balls" -- yup -- all Ellwood's stuff.

Also, "Card College" (all four volumes)--Ellwood, again.

And does a minute pass without someone, somewhere doing Ellwood's Classic, "Color monte."

And finally -- need I tell you that "S.W. Erdnase" is actually an anagram of -- well, I'll let you figure that one out, but the initials are "E.J."
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Elwood » 05/28/02 04:35 PM

Drunken sarcastic ramblings removed. ;)
Elwood
 
Posts: 54
Joined: 12/13/08 10:46 AM

Next

Return to Buzz