(Close Window)
Topic: Whats all the fuss about new mentalism effects when same reaction can be get going back to the roots
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Jun 25, 2012 01:18PM)
I am wondering why do so many new effects appear in mentalism that are basically the same and some are quite talked about even if the same reaction can be get from a similar effects that you can start doing after going trough the first step of 13 steps to mentalism?

Take International Pocket Change or the other similar effect.

The spectator says one number between 1 and 100...the mentalist has that many cents in his pocket.

Now take this effect:

The mentalist tell the spectator to name one number between 1 and 100.

The spectator name a number. (for example 55)

The mentalist starts saying:

Now think about it...you could have chosen 23, you could have chosen 76, you could have chosen 62...there were so many choices...any number between 1 and 100.

As you know I am a mentalist and one of the things that I do is if I have a dream at night and I wake up I note small details about that dream on a post-it note from a pad which I keep near my bed along with a pencil.

And you may not believe this, says the mentalist gesticulating with his hands, but I had a dream about meeting you last night. And I dreamed that I was asking you to think of a number beetwen 1 and a 100 and you said 55. I woke up at that moment and sleepy right there in the darkness I wrote that number on the post it note pad and went back to sleep.

I took the pad today with me and when I saw you I knew one of those strange coincidences where dreams become reality was gonna happen.

Greg, ( or name of a spectator) please reach in my right pocket and take the pad of post it notes that I have there.

The spectator takes the notepad from your pocket and his number is written.

Whats the difference? Is there a diference in the eyes of the spectator?

Regards, Marian
Message: Posted by: John C (Jun 25, 2012 01:23PM)
Different effect. One's a prediction actually the other could be influence or the other way around.

Different effect to the audience. Do the one you find most interesting, fun and managable.

But for Gosh sake don't make them magic tricks.
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Jun 25, 2012 01:25PM)
Where did I make them magic tricks?
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (Jun 25, 2012 01:29PM)
The main difference is that most of your audience will have never read 13 steps. So, it all comes back to one thing, irrespective of what book you've read, or the effect you are doing - your "Presentation" is what really matters!
Message: Posted by: John C (Jun 25, 2012 01:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 14:25, LoveKey1988 wrote:
Where did I make them magic tricks?
[/quote]

no one said you did bro. just advice.
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Jun 25, 2012 01:35PM)
Yes presentation is what really matters how true is that. And yes my audiece will not read 13 steps but I expect most people doing mentalism did.

Regards, Marian

[quote]
On 2012-06-25 14:29, innercirclewannabe wrote:
The main difference is that most of your audience will have never read 13 steps. So, it all comes back to one thing, irrespective of what book you've read, or the effect you are doing - your "Presentation" is what really matters!
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (Jun 25, 2012 01:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 14:35, LoveKey1988 wrote:
Yes presentation is what really matters how true is that. And yes my audiece will not read 13 steps but I expect most people doing mentalism did.

Regards, Marian

[quote]
On 2012-06-25 14:29, innercirclewannabe wrote:
The main difference is that most of your audience will have never read 13 steps. So, it all comes back to one thing, irrespective of what book you've read, or the effect you are doing - your "Presentation" is what really matters!
[/quote]
[/quote]

You'd be surprised! ;)
Message: Posted by: Phil Ainsworth (Jun 25, 2012 02:17PM)
13 steps will always be a solid source of material in the world of mentalism, and contains enough methods and effects to keep any mentalist going for a while.... however, I'm a firm believer that INNOVATION is the most important thing to focus on, for any performer...

It is our duty to create, adapt and innovate... we owe it to our audiences, ourselves, our craft and each other.

I have to say, I disagree with your statement that "the same reaction" can be achieved by going back to the roots.
Times change, audiences are MUCH more sophisticated (in a sense) in modern times... however, they are also much more naieve in another...

I believe that credence and pseudo-explanation is of a far greater importance to a 21st century audience... In Corinda's day an amazing effect could be performed, and the performer would leave the audience wondering if they had "special powers"...

A modern audience (of teenagers and adults, I mean, children are a different case) will immediately rule out the "special powers hypothesis.... we are far too cynical in the 21st century to believe in real magic. Therefore, modern performers tend to sacrifice outstanding, inexplicable effects for those which are impressive, but still credible... if the audience buy the pseudo-explanation...

I guess I'm saying that I believe that we can't get the same reaction today by performing effects straight out of Corinda's (or Annemann, Dunninger or Fogel, etc) because the mere repetition of method ISN'T enough, anymore... modern audiences want to know HOW we do this (or they want to THINK they know how, at least)... and that just wasn't a consideration of mentalists back in the 50s and 60s (IMHO).

Also just look at the leaps and bounds mentalism has taken in the last 20 years... the work of Banachek, Derren Brown, Max Maven to name but a few... look at the developments both in technology and in concepts such as "dual reality".... we must continue to push forward and move further in our craft.

Just my 2ps worth, anyway :)

Enigma, Mind Writer
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Jun 25, 2012 02:19PM)
New materials often offer new handling, new twists, new applications and adaptations to longtime content, and can also offer new reactions. Yes, there are the same primary principles, but new and updated spins on these keep it continuing. It's similar to music. One would think after all these years those same eight notes would have been used written, played, applied and grouped in all possible combinations, yet new and updated ideas and material still is coming out and going strong.

Plus much of what comes out is really magic or mental magic, as opposed to what many purists consider to be true mentalism. I think this is evident and is happening due to the trend targeted towards the many magicians desiring to come over into mentalsim. However, many of these people think that just by doing these mental magic tricks or effects somehow makes them a mentalist. This is where the confusion, interpretation and often frustration begins. I talk to younger all the time that believe they are doing mentalism when in fact they are doing a trick with a mental theme, and nothing more. I had a guy send me his demo DVD just in Mid may for consideration claiming to be a up and coming mentalist. Upon viewing it he is performing much of the exact same material several of our magicians are doing just with the premise, or backstory of being mentalism.

You must also remember the content in those standards (books) offer the mechanics and principles, but mentalism is all about the performers' believability and performance that creates the true impact. So ultimately it's what you do with this info. This too is why new releases continue, so others can offer what they've done with these tools.

I also think Richard Osterlind showed us in his 13 Steps DVD set and his upcoming new set, how these old classics can still work, yet also offer updates which many consider improvements and advances. This kind of makes the timeless, trendy again.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 25, 2012 02:24PM)
We tend to love things new.

But hey, if they all work, use them... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Jun 25, 2012 02:28PM)
I also think that audiences are more sophisticated, smarter, resourceful, and (and impatient) therefore it takes more to amaze or blow them away. By taking these longtime classics and and adapting them allows them to better suited to play for and amaze for today's audiences
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Jun 25, 2012 02:40PM)
I have to disagree with the affirmation that people today stopped believing in supernatural and the power of the mind. I know that I only performed some simple mentalism effects at times and I had people especially girls asking me to tell them their future, read their palm and etc. and they really believed I could do it.

Also I did not say that new mentalism should no longer be published and that there is nothing new. On the contrary there are a lof of great new thinkers that amaze with thier thinking and we can learn from one another.

The only thing I said is that some effects are basically the same effect that can be done very easily with a nw and I wonder why do so many people talk about them like they are much more powerful that something you can do with the old nw.

And by the way people today may be more sopisticathed but I think that pocket change looks more like a magic effect than a simple writing on a piece of paper.

I do not think that effect is bad. It's good for someoe that wants something different.

Regards, Marian
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Jun 26, 2012 05:42AM)
If you only have one method you can only predict one or two things in the same show... or use repeatedly the NW. The more methods you have in your arsenal, more presentations you'll be able to perform. I mean, if in a routine you need to predict a name, a city and an amount of change you can use the NW three times... Leaving aside the fact that this is artistically very boring and poor theater, you are repeating the same technique three times in a row.
Message: Posted by: saurabh (Jun 26, 2012 08:22AM)
A user above pointed out the difference between two effects saying one's a prediction effect while the other is an influence effect. With reference to that, if I can force a card on someone, then gaze into their eyes intensely and 'read' their mind, and reveal the card.
Also, I can predict a card, use the same force and show that the prediction matches. Would the two classify as different effects or the same?
The ability demonstrated by them is different, yet the method is identical. How does one classify this?

Also, I can speak for my country so far, the modern, key word here 'modern' audience is indeed not so gullible. If I were to introduce myself, the first thought in their mind would indeed be trickery. After a few hard hitting effects, I may be able to instill a slight doubt at the very best. Of course, parts of the country are not so urban, and their the story is different.
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Jun 26, 2012 08:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 15:28, Mindpro wrote:
I also think that audiences are more sophisticated, smarter, resourceful, and (and impatient) therefore it takes more to amaze or blow them away. By taking these longtime classics and and adapting them allows them to better suited to play for and amaze for today's audiences
[/quote]

Agreed!

Pete
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 26, 2012 08:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 06:42, Cristobal wrote:
If you only have one method you can only predict one or two things in the same show... or use repeatedly the NW. The more methods you have in your arsenal, more presentations you'll be able to perform. I mean, if in a routine you need to predict a name, a city and an amount of change you can use the NW three times... Leaving aside the fact that this is artistically very boring and poor theater, you are repeating the same technique three times in a row.
[/quote]

And the more methods you are proficient at, the less likely anyone will look for "the method", as each method should cancel out each other's possible explanation. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: John C (Jun 26, 2012 09:09AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 09:50, Peter_turner wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 15:28, Mindpro wrote:
I also think that audiences are more sophisticated, smarter, resourceful, and (and impatient) therefore it takes more to amaze or blow them away. By taking these longtime classics and and adapting them allows them to better suited to play for and amaze for today's audiences
[/quote]

Agreed!

Pete
[/quote]

I don't agree entirely. Whenever I think they know it all I find they really were impressed. Don't give them that much credit. Look at society. You think they are more siphisticated and more intelligent? Look at me I can't even spell siphisticated.
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Jun 26, 2012 09:21AM)
Times change, therefore presentations, effects and method must change. It's a nice point to view from (thinking everyone knows everything) even if only for self improvement.

Pete
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Jun 26, 2012 09:40AM)
REALLY sit and watch Osterlind's updates on the 13 Steps. Do it with your copy of the book on your lap.

Watch the reactions of the modern day audiences, and tell me if they are not utterly delighted and mystified by what they see...and PLEASE don't trot out the old argument that L&L audiences are selected to be friendly to the performer. If you've worked these particular 13 Steps ( :) ) then you know that they are still hugely effective on the audiences of today. Osterlind and Sisti just put a modern spin on Corinda's material. But it's all essentially the same method.

Watch Osterlind performing the Mental E*ic -- a comparatively old effect -- and watch the audience reaction. (There's a link to this presentation right here in Penny.) No electronics...just an "innocent" blackboard. Does this NEED updating?

Of course we have to update and innovate. But do the METHODS necessarily change? Not as much as many people think.

How many versions of Sneak Thief are out there -- each one different -- each one essentially the same method? How about NW routines...or billets...pendulums? How many of these are still being used every day by performers to mystify?

I love stuff from ProM*stic. It adds a component to my shows that I would not have otherwise. But if I were forced to choose between the new electronic stuff and the "classics" -- there'd be no question. I'd go with the classics -- and not out of some misguided sense of loyalty. I'd choose them because the classics work. That's why they're called 'classics.'

David
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Jun 26, 2012 09:46AM)
Exactly what I am saying.

Regards, Marian

[quote]
On 2012-06-26 10:40, David Thiel wrote:
REALLY sit and watch Osterlind's updates on the 13 Steps. Do it with your copy of the book on your lap.

Watch the reactions of the modern day audiences, and tell me if they are not utterly delighted and mystified by what they see...and PLEASE don't trot out the old argument that L&L audiences are selected to be friendly to the performer. If you've worked these particular 13 Steps ( :) ) then you know that they are still hugely effective on the audiences of today. Osterlind and Sisti just put a modern spin on Corinda's material. But it's all essentially the same method.

Watch Osterlind performing the Mental E*ic -- a comparatively old effect -- and watch the audience reaction. (There's a link to this presentation right here in Penny.) No electronics...just an "innocent" blackboard. Does this NEED updating?

Of course we have to update and innovate. But do the METHODS necessarily change? Not as much as many people think.

How many versions of Sneak Thief are out there -- each one different -- each one essentially the same method? How about NW routines...or billets...pendulums? How many of these are still being used every day by performers to mystify?

I love stuff from ProM*stic. It adds a component to my shows that I would not have otherwise. But if I were forced to choose between the new electronic stuff and the "classics" -- there'd be no question. I'd go with the classics -- and not out of some misguided sense of loyalty. I'd choose them because the classics work. That's why they're called 'classics.'

David
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: TonyBrand (Jun 26, 2012 09:48AM)
Excellent post, David. While I agree that it is necessary to put a "modern spin" on the classics, Osterlind shows that it can be done quite effectively. And, might I add, he does this on his other DVDs as well (i.e. ETMMM).

I agree that presentations must change in order to stay relevant, but I am not so sure about methods. I am not saying that mentalists should not strive to innovate, but sometimes the most effective/direct methods are those that have been time-tested.

-Tony
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Jun 26, 2012 10:03AM)
No one's saying old methods do not work anymore, but thankfully there are new ones. Not better nor worse. Some will work better for some things and others in some other cases. If you only have a hammer all problems seems nails. I have the same feelings when I see people trying to reproduce all kind of effects using a NW when there are other better methods to accomplish some effects.

Disclaimer: I LOVE and use billet working, pendulums and all the classic stuff.
Message: Posted by: TonyBrand (Jun 26, 2012 10:15AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:03, Cristobal wrote:
No one's saying old methods do not work anymore, but thankfully there are new ones. Not better nor worse. Some will work better for some things and others in some other cases. If you only have a hammer all problems seems nails.
[/quote]

Agreed. However, I fail to see the point of using another tool to pound a nail if using a hammer has been continuously proven effective - just for the sake of using another tool. Then again, if the performer feels the other tool is more effective for him or her, he or she should use it. In the end, I feel it all comes down to using what works best for the individual.
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Jun 26, 2012 10:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:15, TonyBrand wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:03, Cristobal wrote:
No one's saying old methods do not work anymore, but thankfully there are new ones. Not better nor worse. Some will work better for some things and others in some other cases. If you only have a hammer all problems seems nails.
[/quote]

Agreed. However, I fail to see the point of using another tool to pound a nail if using a hammer has been continuously proven effective - just for the sake of using another tool. Then again, if the performer feels the other tool is more effective for him or her, he or she should use it. In the end, I feel it all comes down to using what works best for the individual.
[/quote]

You hit the nail in the head (sorry I couldn't resist!)

Pete
Message: Posted by: TonyBrand (Jun 26, 2012 10:22AM)
[quote]
You hit the nail in the head (sorry I couldn't resist!)

Pete
[/quote]

Ha! I was thinking of writing a similarly horrible pun. Well played...you [i]nailed[/i] it! :)
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Jun 26, 2012 10:48AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:22, TonyBrand wrote:
[quote]
You hit the nail in the head (sorry I couldn't resist!)

Pete
[/quote]

Ha! I was thinking of writing a similarly horrible pun. Well played...you [i]nailed[/i] it! :)
[/quote]

:D
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 26, 2012 10:49AM)
My advice ... have at least 2 methods for every effect. Each will appear different than the other slightly. Between the two is where IMPOSSIBILITY LIVES!!!
Message: Posted by: Shrubsole (Jun 26, 2012 10:49AM)
I think commercially it's to look like you are doing something new. That's a must if you play the same venue (too) often.

But then that doesn't of course mean that you have to buy something new all the time. If you know all the basic principles and many twists and turns, you should be fully able to do a performance that looks like a new routine to the audience, yet is as old as the hills.

Another problem with doing the latest 'fad' trick, is that everyone else will be doing it as well and that's never a good thing in magic and very detrimental in mentalism. You are meant to be a mind reader/etc and not doing any sort of trick. This is blown wide open if someone in your audience has seen exactly the same 'trick' (often with the same words) performed by someone else.

That is also why if you do buy the latest fad, work on it until it doesn't look like how the instructions say it should before performing it.

So be unique, be inventive! A whole act lasting a lifetime can be done just using the classic ideas and you own imagination. Buy less and think more!
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jun 26, 2012 11:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 15:40, LoveKey1988 wrote:
I have to disagree with the affirmation that people today stopped believing in supernatural and the power of the mind. [/quote]

I agree with you - in fact, almsot anyone can go back to the fears of the unknown and create the strangest explanations in the right contexts and the right stresses... IMHO
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jun 26, 2012 11:55AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 06:42, Cristobal wrote:
If you only have one method you can only predict one or two things in the same show... or use repeatedly the NW. The more methods you have in your arsenal, more presentations you'll be able to perform. I mean, if in a routine you need to predict a name, a city and an amount of change you can use the NW three times... Leaving aside the fact that this is artistically very boring and poor theater, you are repeating the same technique three times in a row.
[/quote]

Although even with one method - you can have multiple effects and presentations - that is truly the key.

Anyone read Ascanio vol 1?
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jun 26, 2012 11:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:03, Cristobal wrote:
No one's saying old methods do not work anymore, but thankfully there are new ones. [/quote]

True - but not as many as people might be led to believe
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Jun 26, 2012 01:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 12:55, Dr Spektor wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 06:42, Cristobal wrote:
If you only have one method you can only predict one or two things in the same show... or use repeatedly the NW. The more methods you have in your arsenal, more presentations you'll be able to perform. I mean, if in a routine you need to predict a name, a city and an amount of change you can use the NW three times... Leaving aside the fact that this is artistically very boring and poor theater, you are repeating the same technique three times in a row.
[/quote]

Although even with one method - you can have multiple effects and presentations - that is truly the key.

Anyone read Ascanio vol 1?
[/quote]

Of course I read it. I have the two first volumes of "La Magia de Ascanio" right here (the original spanish edition). It's obvious that with one method you can accomplish multiple effects (if not, there would be more methods than routines, which is absurd). I don't get your point... I did not say otherwise. I usually imagine an effect and then choose the best method to accomplish it, not the other way.

[quote]
On 2012-06-26 12:56, Dr Spektor wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:03, Cristobal wrote:
No one's saying old methods do not work anymore, but thankfully there are new ones. [/quote]

True - but not as many as people might be led to believe
[/quote]

Of course...

[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:15, TonyBrand wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 11:03, Cristobal wrote:
No one's saying old methods do not work anymore, but thankfully there are new ones. Not better nor worse. Some will work better for some things and others in some other cases. If you only have a hammer all problems seems nails.
[/quote]

Agreed. However, I fail to see the point of using another tool to pound a nail if using a hammer has been continuously proven effective - just for the sake of using another tool. Then again, if the performer feels the other tool is more effective for him or her, he or she should use it. In the end, I feel it all comes down to using what works best for the individual.
[/quote]

Absolutely true! But anyway, I think that trying new methods (just for the sake...) is a good thing in order to experiment and try to improve, or to find something that you are more comfortable with.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jun 26, 2012 01:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 14:27, Cristobal wrote:
I don't get your point...
[/quote]

You thik I do??!?!
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Jun 26, 2012 01:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 12:55, Dr Spektor wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-26 06:42, Cristobal wrote:
If you only have one method you can only predict one or two things in the same show... or use repeatedly the NW. The more methods you have in your arsenal, more presentations you'll be able to perform. I mean, if in a routine you need to predict a name, a city and an amount of change you can use the NW three times... Leaving aside the fact that this is artistically very boring and poor theater, you are repeating the same technique three times in a row.
[/quote]

Although even with one method - you can have multiple effects and presentations - that is truly the key.

Anyone read Ascanio vol 1?
[/quote]

By the way, have you read Juan Tamariz' "La Vía Mágica"? He show about 20 methods to do one effect, and explain why to study all the possible methods for an effect ;)
Message: Posted by: mindshrink (Jun 29, 2012 01:57AM)
These days I see multiple methods in use to achieve just one effect....just increasing the level of difficulty in the eyes of the spectators.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 29, 2012 02:32AM)
ROSHAMBO uses four or five mathematical methods yet there is NO math. Hiding the syringe is the key to the Dr.s SECRET!!!!
Message: Posted by: Paul (Jun 30, 2012 08:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 14:18, LoveKey1988 wrote:
I am wondering why do so many new effects appear in mentalism that are basically the same and some are quite talked about even if the same reaction can be get from a similar effects that you can start doing after going trough the first step of 13 steps to mentalism?
[/quote]

Going back to the original post, rather than some of the weirder interpretations of it, I would think a number of the newer people interested in mentalism are simply unaware of the older stuff or think a lot of it 'dated' (and in some cases not as easy to access) whereas it is much simpler to shell out on the the latest mental masterpiece or start building up your library from the latest 'cutting edge' material.
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Jun 30, 2012 08:25AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-30 09:11, Paul wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 14:18, LoveKey1988 wrote:
I am wondering why do so many new effects appear in mentalism that are basically the same and some are quite talked about even if the same reaction can be get from a similar effects that you can start doing after going trough the first step of 13 steps to mentalism?
[/quote]

Going back to the original post, rather than some of the weirder interpretations of it, I would think a number of the newer people interested in mentalism are simply unaware of the older stuff or think a lot of it 'dated' (and in some cases not as easy to access) whereas it is much simpler to shell out on the the latest mental masterpiece or start building up your library from the latest 'cutting edge' material.
[/quote]

I agree completely Paul! My favourite book is (and I think will always be) Practical mental effects. I have said openly any of these routines are only a stones throw away from being totally cutting edge (in this day and age).

Pete
Message: Posted by: Paul (Jun 30, 2012 08:42AM)
I should add that I'm not knocking the newer stuff, whilst I always thought if something worked it didn't need fixing, variety and personal interpretation are always welcome. For a time it seemed like every mental act was starting to follow the same format and seem very similar (with simply showmanship and presentational skills lifting some above the others), but I think mentalism is moving into another cycle now. Although the cycles tend to be driven more by presentational approaches rather than methodology.

Practical Mental Effects was a favorite of mine too, Peter. If you don't have it, you should try and obtain a complete file of "The Jinx" (from which the material in the book was drawn). It can be picked up quite reasonably in pdf format on disc.

Paul.
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Jun 30, 2012 08:51AM)
I have them, they are genius :D

I agree as well about if something is not broken don't fix it! I invent new things for me (though I always have the classics as backup)I Pm'd you :D

Pete
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Jun 30, 2012 05:53PM)
Something that James Randi said and I agree with this:

"Don't make an act up that just uses a dozen different ways of demonstrating telepathy, and expect the audience to view each method as a miracle. The actual miracle to them is the whole routine as a unit - ' that man can read minds - he did it with a dozen people ' , they will say, not: ' he can read minds - and he did it twelve different ways.' "
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Jun 30, 2012 07:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-30 18:53, LoveKey1988 wrote:
Something that James Randi said and I agree with this:

"Don't make an act up that just uses a dozen different ways of demonstrating telepathy, and expect the audience to view each method as a miracle. The actual miracle to them is the whole routine as a unit - ' that man can read minds - he did it with a dozen people ' , they will say, not: ' he can read minds - and he did it twelve different ways.' "
[/quote]

He did it with twelve different identities
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Jul 1, 2012 02:26AM)
Ha ha...thats funny :P

[quote]
On 2012-06-30 20:00, Dr Spektor wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-30 18:53, LoveKey1988 wrote:
Something that James Randi said and I agree with this:

"Don't make an act up that just uses a dozen different ways of demonstrating telepathy, and expect the audience to view each method as a miracle. The actual miracle to them is the whole routine as a unit - ' that man can read minds - he did it with a dozen people ' , they will say, not: ' he can read minds - and he did it twelve different ways.' "
[/quote]

He did it with twelve different identities
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Jul 1, 2012 03:25AM)
I disagree with the basic premise of the original question. I think the real issue comes down to the difference between mental magic and mentalism, and the type of performer likely to do either.

By my definition (YMMV), mentalism is an effect or act based on the concept that the performer possesses and/or demonstrates some sort of paranormal abilities. Mental magic is presented as a trick, often part of a series of tricks (often unrelated to anything giving the impression of paranormality), which has something to do with the mind.

Doing an effect where you appear to read minds is mentalism. Doing an act of reading mind, making predictions, etc., it mentalism.
Doing some card tricks, some rope tricks, and then reading someone's mind is mental magic.
I don't want to get into a big discussion about the difference as there have been threads on this, and besides, there is a lot of overlap and no fin line. Many tricks that most people wouldn't call mentalism could be given a presentation that makes them mental magick or part of a mentalism routine.

As a general rule (individuals are always different) magicians who do magic (including a mental effect) are always looking for new secrets and new methods. Many seem more interested in fooling magicians than in entertaining audiences.
As a general rule (individuals are always different) mentalists look to give good effects that fit their presentation or acts, and will use any method, new or old, if it works.

This is not to say that mentalists are "better" than magicians who do mental magic. They just have different approaches.

So I would say that people doing mentalism tend to use the simplest, most direct, and most effective way of achieving an effect. Magicians who do mental effects often look for something new, often with a goal of fooling other magicians.
Message: Posted by: Shrubsole (Jul 1, 2012 08:57AM)
I always find that the big picture is always ignored on threads like this like the elephant in the room.

Methods, to an audience shouldn't matter at all as they are not meant to see them!

So whether it's the latest electronic gadget you use, some trendy all new move or something that is as old as the hills to achieve mind reading or any other effect, all shouldn't matter one jot to the audience.

So should we not be concentrating totally on what the audience perceives rather than how we do it? So how we do it, is of very little importance and can be new or old or anything inbetween.
Message: Posted by: Shrubsole (Jul 1, 2012 09:04AM)
In Richard Osterlind's DVD "Live: Without a net" does he not open with linking rings and then amongst others go on to do Mental Epic Board?

Now Richard is by any sense of the word a Mentalist, not a Mental Magician.

I don't think the lines are as clean cut as some make them out to be.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 1, 2012 12:02PM)
As has been noted repeatedly over the years, Dunninger himself often opened his performances with the linking rings or an egg bag variant. These demonstrations, however, were clearly presented as magic tricks by a performer who already had a long and established reputation as a mind reader.

It's exceptions, they say, that prove the rule. An unknown performer opening with a magic trick or mixing magic and mentalism will most likely be perceived as a magician.
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Jul 1, 2012 12:12PM)
Using magic as a demonstrative comparison would work with the right audience.

You can show one then the other and point out the difference, Richard is a mental magician (I don't care if I get flack for that comment). He is excellent at what he does, as proven by his many followers. I am sure he won't mind me saying that he is a master of both.

The lines are subjectively drawn; you see them as one thing, I might see them as another and neither of us are wrong. Method is of course a relevant factor, if it wasn't, we would use the same method repeatedly to achieve everything. It is not the important factor, but is a factor to consider none the less.

Pete
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 1, 2012 02:02PM)
Another way to look at it is just like there are new, more advanced electric guitars made, but they all make music basically...

Just because the older designs are still good, you don't stop people inventing newer designs.

If you don't want to use them, don't.

Don't stop others who want to.

Just remember, it ain't the guitar in the end, it's the music being played. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Jul 1, 2012 09:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-01 10:04, Shrubsole wrote:
In Richard Osterlind's DVD "Live: Without a net" does he not open with linking rings and then amongst others go on to do Mental Epic Board?

Now Richard is by any sense of the word a Mentalist, not a Mental Magician.

I don't think the lines are as clean cut as some make them out to be.
[/quote]

Which is why I wrote, "there is a lot of overlap and no fine line."