Page 1 of 1
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 2:58 am
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 12:17 pm
Interesting and coincidentally --- I just started a thread on The Magic Cafe about someone doing my Impromptu Linking Card on YouTube - terribly; really exposing the concept! In most cases, I sure wish people would do their own creations, not louse up mine. Now this one here is not that terrible - but it's not really my original FOURSOME. My original is MUCH better - the handling, the patter, the denoument, and etc. (My OPINION, folks.) If you care, you can see me do it (I think) if you go to www.youtube.com/harrylorayneonvideo
. It wasn't performed under the best of circumstances, but you can see the original handling.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 1:18 pm
I like Philippe's eye contact and demeanor. I admire the elegance of how Philippe handles the cards -- they look pretty and graceful in his hands. I also appreciate how he omits unnecessary words.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 1:24 pm
The tricks bear little relationship to one another, just as the performances (and the circumstances in which they are performing) bear absolutely no relationship to one another.
Apples and oranges, say I, and there's no reason to have to make a choice! That's why magic is a wonderful vehicle for performance: it accomodates almost anyone's style.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 1:28 pm
I have nothing against Phillippe's eye contact, etc. (Since there's no other person there, where else could his eye contact be?) And you're entitled to your opinion, of course, as am I. He may omit unnecessary words (I assume you're saying that I use unnecessary words!!) but includes the WRONG words. For example, I never mention that I need to find "Four cards." Wrong. And I would never use a dl in that routine, nor did I ever teach it that way. Again, in my opinion, that's WRONG. It doesn't fit the concept. Incidentally, I couldn't hear it too well, but nowhere did I hear a credit to me - which may be a good thing!
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 1:40 pm
But Richie, it says "Foursome" at the top of that thread - and that's the title of an item of mine, so there certainly is a "relationship." I don't think it's "style" that bothered me.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 2:49 pm
Harry Lorayne wrote:For example, I never mention that I need to find "Four cards." Wrong.
Hi Harry. Do you mean that you should not mention "four cards" at all?
Phillipe says, "In order to find your card, I will use four cards."
In your video you say, "Sometimes within four cards I can usually find your card."
Is there a large difference between these two statements?
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 3:02 pm
Yes, there is a difference. But if someone doesn't see the difference, that's okay; certainly not a big problem. I just mentioned that "fleetingly." It's the over-all handling I simply don't like - not something I would ever do. I think it's okay for me to say that about "one of my own." But no longer sure - maybe not.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 3:08 pm
It's also the WAY the remark re: four cards is made that's important. At least, important in my opinion. But, to each his own.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 3:40 pm
1) While "Foursome" is mentioned in this thread's title, Harry Lorayne is not.
2)Neither "Foursome" nor Harry Lorayne is mentioned on the YouTube page, which would have been nice to have been included.
3) While it's a stylistic difference, I do see how Harry is attempting to minimize the effect of picking four cards from the deck by playing on the idea of "the odds are that I can usually find a card within, say, four or so cards." Subtle / "fleetingly", but I like it.
4) Conclusion: Styles are what they are, even to the point of adding a double-lift. But Phillipe's vid might have raised fewer HaLo hackles if there had been better crediting here and especially at YouTube, yes?
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 4:11 pm
A point you have, Steve. Obviously, people are led to believe that it is his basic idea. Let's be honest, that may have added a little bit (but only a little bit) to the raising of HaLo hackles. Of course, the nitty-gritty is that if I had my "druthers" I'd a) "druther" not have seen it at all, or b) seen it the way I originally taught it oh so many years ago, and the way I've performed it for decades, with PROPER credit. My feeling is, that in this new world of I-pads, I-pods, I-peeds and YouStoops - sure, obviously it's progress, but we've also taken a few specific steps backwards.
I read, somewhere, an interesting sentence some time ago --- "The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." It doesn't fit "exactly" here, but you know what I mean. (I hope.)
The foursome strikes again
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 4:23 pm
Hi Mr Lorayne,
I apologise, I should have given explicit credit to you for the idea of the effect. You are now also credited in the description of the effect posted on you tube.
All the best,
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 4:28 pm
When publishing, attaching author and title to referenced items is mandatory.
But for a performance, attaching author and title to referenced items is giving the audience the exact search terms they need to look up the methods.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 4:51 pm
Your point is well taken, but I think the chances of someone actually giving a published reference during a performance for laypersons would seem pretty remote--especially given how little many magicians care about appropriate crediting in the first place.
Then again, so many performers use searchable terms like "ambitious card" and "invisible deck" it's a wonder more aren't busted right then and there by iphone wielding spectators.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 5:01 pm
Okay. Again, not the way I teach MY effect. I don't use a force for this, nor do I use culls for this. As a matter of fact, one of the "goals" I had when I originally devised the routine Foursome was NOT to use culls. Know why? 'Cause I can't do 'em!! Also, sure there's credit here, but who gave this person PERMISSION TO TEACH MY ROUTINE??!! Sorry, I don't get it. Perform my concept, okay within reason, but TEACH IT? Sorry, but it's a new world. Whatever happened to "Hey, you want to learn this - go to" (such and such a book - if that book is still in print, or available - AND MINE IS). And, if you are going to teach it, at least teach it the way I TEACH/perform it - NOT the way YOU perform it. Am I terribly wrong here? People watching this will assume that I teach a force, cull, etc., (never mind the patter!) WHICH I DO NOT. Hey, maybe this guy's performance is better than mine - but THAT'S NOT THE POINT I'm trying to make here.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 5:03 pm
Re: the post that arrived as I was doing mine, by erdnasephile...I was under the impression that only magicians, or aspiring magicians, saw these things. This brings up a bit more bile.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 5:04 pm
He doesn't need permission to perform and explain his version of your routine, Harry. And the method is not the same, so I wouldn't get worked up about it.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 5:55 pm
Unfortunately true that permission is not needed. Right; the method is not the same, but viewers will THINK IT IS. That's supposedly what he's teaching - It says "Harry Lorayne's Foursome, doesn't it? That does get me a bit "worked up." But not much - only enough to say what I think about these things.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 5:57 pm
erdnasephile wrote:Your point is well taken, but I think the chances of someone actually giving a published reference during a performance for laypersons would seem pretty remote
I'm suggesting that a world-viewable YouTube performance is also a performance for laypersons, and clear crediting on a YouTube performance leads more directly to exposure than anywhere else.
So I would discourage
clear crediting on performance videos posted on the web.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 6:01 pm
Oh, and incidentally, he doesn't say that it's his version of my routine. That's make a small bit of difference in the way I'd look at it. When and if I perform or teach an item that isn't mine there are two things usually (if I'm aware of them) involved. a) I have permission to do what I'm doing - it was most likely contributed, either to APOCALYPSE or BEST OF FRIENDS. And b) I will always say which part I've changed/added/eliminated. That's usually what my AFTERTHOUGHTS are for. Oh, and c) I usually or most likely have a bit more experience than the "lovelies" I've seen on YouTube. Particularly a recent view of some idiot teaching my rubber band thing, Snap!, with no mention of me - and probably the most stupid piece of video I've ever seen - so far.
Posted: August 26th, 2012, 6:03 pm
Ted M: Wish I had a solution. Only one I can think of - let's get rid of computers, I-pads and I-peeds and You Stoops!! Or, let's make it illegal to do anyone else's material on public media, without permission. Punishment might be...no I'd better not.
Posted: August 27th, 2012, 2:55 am
This one here is not that terrible
I suppose I can take that as a compliment :grin:
Posted: August 27th, 2012, 3:08 pm
Harry, he's not doing your handling, but another handling. Since many of your books contain handlings of other people's handlings, I don't understand what the problem is.
Posted: August 27th, 2012, 5:48 pm
Sure does seem obvious/simple - to me, anyway. I don't do other peoples' tricks on a public media (whichever "handling") without their permission. Whatever appears in my books appears there with permission. And if it's an entirely different handling of someone else's original idea - I say so. And I don't call it by the name of their original item. I'm on YouTube doing some of my things - but EVERY one of them has been put there by other people. I never put anything on YouTube - know why? - 'cause I don't know how! (Also, I know some will differ - but I don't know of any that have been put on the internet that louse up someone else's trick. Oh, yeah, there are a couple I'd like to erase if I could.)