The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Rings, strings & things » » Ring off Stick revelation (2 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
tonsofquestions
View Profile
Special user
711 Posts

Profile of tonsofquestions
Quote:
Tons - thank you so much for clarifying that your responses are only based on your "reading between the lines." I ma a simpler sort, I guess.


Don't play simple here, funsway. You like to infer, nitpick, and poke at details, too. Communication often requires reading between the lines, and I've seen you do it many-a-time.

Quote:
I fail to see where anyone asked a question about any detail. "pushed" was your term. I have receive several PM request for more details. They will be answered.


Really? Here's an ask for some more detail:
Quote:
Hard to say more without seeing it performed. Please consider sharing so we can give you feedback. Maybe it should be PMed, so if you want eventually to market it, it isn't exposed to the world.


Here's another albeit less politely put:
Quote:
The constraints, if they are accurate, make this particular effect an impossibility.

I'll phrase it more nicely: "That seems impossible. Are those constraints accurate? Give me some more detail!"

Quote:
On Oct 16, 2017, funsway wrote:
While I do not feel you speak for the "people" you allude to, you may have closer alignment to what many magicians feel today about performing and magic.


I never claimed to speak for all. But I apparently read the beginnings of this thread differently than you do. And while I admit I used "people" unclearly a couple of times at the end of my previous post, I was largely speak of the other posters in this thread.

[quote]I was not describing a magic trick here. I posed ideal conditions against which an optimum effect might be framed.
After many tears of playing and pondering I came up with a solution. Is it practical for every one? Will a typical audience even notice the refinements?
[quote]
The sart sure was certainly framed as describing a particular method for the effect. And to answer the question: no, a typical audience won't notice. Because if performed properly, the notion of a duplicate ring (or who removed the ring from the stick) shouldn't even enter their mind - because the magician should convince them it's an impossibility (even if that was how it was done)!

Quote:
You offer the opinion that, "for most magicians, seeing is believing." My opinion is that if you can't role-play the effect in your imagination you are not a good magician (not to be confused with an entertaining trickster). If I decide to publish the approach (even for free), it will contain all of the explanation and detail necessary for mastery. The entire question is whether or not the effort is worth it.

An "effect" in magic is what the audience sees or remembers - not necessarily what the performer does. For me, the competent performer is concerned with audience engagement as much as the skill of manipulating props. There is no confusion except in your own projections. It is the very fact that today's audience might not see or remember what I desire them to that lead me to pose the questions I did.


As you've been so sharp to point out, the effect is a "ring off stick by spectator". The method has to do (or not) with duplicates, timing, and other elements. It's easy to role-play the former, but much more difficult to do the latter without anything more to hold on to. Your intial presenting of the issue is already inherently flawed by mixing the two. You talk about the ideal presentation (effect), and then focus on features of the method. But then switch back to pointing out that all of the initial requirements are actually subjective, since they're in the mind of the spectator!

Here's one (intentionally ridiculous) method: you've connected everyone into a computer simulation, and altered their memories. Nothing actually happened, and instead you just convinced them something magical did. Not very practical, but it could work!

Quote:
It has been surprising to me that most posts have jumped to making guesses as to method that do not meet the stated conditions. Why?
Instead, most attack the conditions because they cannot fathom an easy solution - and nastily at that. Why?
If one wants clarification on a thought, why not ask for clarification? What is the value in re-defining a word or misstating a phrase, and then attacking you own view?

I now realize that I am tarred by the brush of what many marketers have done in misrepresenting their product. Why?


We spoke in the other thread about re-defining words and phrases. Many people are guilty of it here. I didn't view any responses as particulraly nasty, just disbelieving. If you make large claims, you're bound to have some who don't believe it without evidence more than words.

And you're tarred by the brush because you did something very similar - you made a bold claim without any evidence, and many other similar situations have happened over time, making people doubtful and suspicious of statements that seem too good to be true.

Quote:
But, let me clarify further about how I create a new magic effect (based on imagining how the audience will see or remember). I create a theoretical model of an ideal demonstration of the "inexplicable phenomenon" represented by the use of props or theme. I observe/study existing presentations and compare them to this standard. Then I either study why the "popular"method succeeds despite its less than optimum approach, or explore alternative methods that would overcome the possible flaw. Often times I can come up with a superior method, but one that is too difficult to learn vs the popular method, or would only work in certain settings. Occasionally, I find a method that is greatly superior (meeting the conditions) and may even be simpler that the popular method. These I write up and get into the hands of earnest performers. I request a response as to workability of the method so that I can refine it.

What is missing, perhaps, is my inflicting a partially developed effect on an unsuspecting audience and then pretending that their response has value. I thought to rely on "magicians helping magicians" on the Café before putting in the work to market a fully developed product (sold or gifted away).

I posted such ideal conditions against which I developed this new method. They are accurate, complete and read require no reading between the lines or assumptions.
I claim that I have an approach that provides a magic effect that meets those conditions. Why doubt that? Why challenge the conditions?


Perhaps the problem here is that your process is not understood by everyone. Perhaps to you it may be obvious, but that's not necessarily the way many others approach their magic. Nor is it clear which step you had reached when you posted. To me, it certainly was not clear that you it "wasn't refined" or "partially developed". You posed it as something to be "documented and marketed". Yes, there was a "perfected" in there, too, but it's not clear where on the spectrum it is, or what kinds of extra conditions/requirements it has that are unstated.

We go back to many releases (both recent, and an onslaught over the past years) that over promise and under deliver. You claim it's "accurate, complete and read require no reading between the lines or assumptions", but that's a big statement to believe without any additional evidence. There is so often a hidden catch.

Quote:
All I asked for was opinions as to how such an effect might play with today's audience. Can a performer "imagine" themselves performing such an effect, and what audience might be suitable?

So, I start again. I have a method for performing the described effect that meets these stated conditions. Period! Those desiring to explore this effect can contact me at ken@eversway.com
Be prepared to convince me that such communication is worth my time. I am busy building a deck for a hot tub.


And again, without knowing other limitations, it's not always so trivial to answer what would be suitable. This is why there are so often "are there any clothing restrictions?" "is the watch necessary?" "can you do it on a different-colored table?" types of questions when there are new releases.

Our job is not to convince you that exploring your method is "worth bothering" with. It's to give feedback on whether we think there's potential - and then you have to determine what to do with it. But I tire of this meta-argument. Should you decide you want feedback on the actual method from someone who's communication style is a known quantity, you know how to reach me.
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
7536 Posts

Profile of funsway
Of course, I never requested any feedback on "the actual method."

of greatest interest within all of your diversions is the notion that spectators might ind such an effect "too good to be true."

Isn't that what a good magic effect is supposed to do? The objective is not just to provide a demonstration that they cannot figure out (should they choose to try),
but to have them accept that there is "no possible explanation." To present an "inexplicable phenomenon."

I will readily agree than many magicians derive pleasure from trying to figure things out. The large number of "never used" tricks for sale might indicate that they were purchased just so that
the magician can "learn the secret" with little intention of performing. But, that has little to do with what spectator's think or do.

Yes, I do feel that a good magician can (and should) role-play a planned effect from the assumed/projected/desired view of the potential audience. I did not "mix the two" in any flawed manner -
both are essential (opinion). Are you saying that most magicians can't do this? Or do not want to?

So, back to the beginning. I have made a claim that I can perform the stated effect under the stated conditions. Do you have any evidence that this is not true?
You may not like the conditions. You may not like me. You may not have any interest in ever performing such an effect. You may just be having fun.

but, your assuming/inventing that there is any "our job" for all readers with you as a spokesman is ludicrous.

Yes, I can evaluate your "communication style" and find little reason to value any opinion you might have about magic.

It is obvious you are craving to learn my method. Why? You would never perform this.
"there is real merit in the magician who tries to be creative – from such endeavors magic sustains its life energy." Harold Rice



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
tonsofquestions
View Profile
Special user
711 Posts

Profile of tonsofquestions
Quote:
of greatest interest within all of your diversions is the notion that spectators might ind such an effect "too good to be true."

Again, I speak not of the spectators (who should always thing an effect is unbelievably good) and instead of the other magicians (specifically in this thread) who believe your claims about the effect/method are "too good to be true"

Quote:
but, your assuming/inventing that there is any "our job" for all readers with you as a spokesman is ludicrous.


Your words about requirements, not mine: "Be prepared to convince me that such communication is worth my time." I don't claim to speak for all, but don't put the burden of proof on us, those you've asked for feedback from.

Quote:
Yes, I do feel that a good magician can (and should) role-play a planned effect from the assumed/projected/desired view of the potential audience. I did not "mix the two" in any flawed manner -
both are essential (opinion). Are you saying that most magicians can't do this? Or do not want to?


I'm saying that this is your believed requirement about magicians, but not by any means an actual necessity (although it helps). I'd hazard that there are many who cannot, yes. And previous posts in this thread suggest to me that others were confused by the distinctions that you thought were clear.

Quote:
Yes, I can evaluate your "communication style" and find little reason to value any opinion you might have about magic.


Fun. Sometimes you value my feedback, but not when it's about magic? (Why does communication style need quotes?)

Quote:
It is obvious you are craving to learn my method. Why? You would never perform this.


Now who's reading between the lines, and inferring details? I personally don't care of your method; it's not likely something I would perform, as I have only passing enjoyment for the plot. But you asked about role-playing the effect, which I can do, even if I wouldn't bother with it in real life. We talked talking about so long that I thought I'd offer, but clearly it was not appreciated. I've spent too much time on this, now. I'm going to go off and feed the ducks instead.

I have no doubt you'll put in your last word, like always.
funsway
View Profile
Inner circle
old things in new ways - new things in old ways
7536 Posts

Profile of funsway
I'll let you have the last word - a quote of your post above.

You said, "Too good to be true for a magician means that it's even more likely to be viewed as too good to be true for an audience! "

Now you say, "I speak not of the spectators (who should always thing an effect is unbelievably good) and instead of the other magicians."
"there is real merit in the magician who tries to be creative – from such endeavors magic sustains its life energy." Harold Rice



ShareBooks at www.eversway.com * questions at funsway@eversway.com
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Rings, strings & things » » Ring off Stick revelation (2 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2017 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.21 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL