|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 | ||||||||||
David Bond Regular user Maple Valley, WA 107 Posts |
Lewis Ganson wrote about TTTCBE: "Dai Vernon has been performing a certain trick for many years. It produces the type of effect which other magicians dream about because the result is so staggering. I had heard about it from many sources and had been told that Dai only performs it on those occasions when he feels it is necessary to produce something exceptional."
I got the impression when I read about it (correct me if anyone knows differently) that Dai Vernon used it to knock the socks off of other magicians and did not use it in performances for the lay audience. I believe the more knowledgable the spectators are about card magic the more impressive TTTCBE is. As an effect, the invisible deck is as impressive to the lay audience and is certainly more consistent in effect. TTTCBE is certainly more challenging for the performer and more fun to perform. |
|||||||||
Ben Train Inner circle Erdnase never had 4639 Posts |
Um, Id say fluke.
You'd say it wasn't. I'd say repeat it. You'd say "a good magicians never repeats a trick, and neither do I!!1!1! Lol!!!!" And I'd say "I didn't think people said "lol" in the real world" And you'd respond "I am a robot. Beep Beep". And I'd say "I knew it!" I STILL think there are better effects then that. And, you only hit that effect 1 OUT OF 52 times. If a card is removed from the pack and placed on your body, one left in the card box, you peak the top AND bottom card, that STILL only gives you info for FOUR cards OUT OF 52. So, why not use Closes Trick that CAN be explained, which allows you to do the effect you mention almost every time, rather then missing and falling on your face. And, I think it can be JUST as strong, if not stronger, to have the card appear in your pocket or wallet, the named card, which can be done EVERY TIME without a miss. I am heading to the C.A.M. convention. I challenge all you promoters of the effect to fool me with it. This isn't a boastfull claim, but rather I am open to learning or experiencing something new. I look forward to seeing you all there!
If you're reading this you're my favourite magician.
Check out www.TorontoMagicCompany.com for upcoming shows, and instagram.com/train.ben for god knows what! |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts |
The trouble with the "The Trick That Can't Be Explained" is that its mystique overshadows its power. Had the trick not come from The Professor, and had he not fried magicians with it time and time again -- and maybe if it didn't have such a provocative name -- people, I gather, would be much less inclined to heap praise upon it. What was that aphorism Vernon would cite? "An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance."
I did read Eric Mead's little book, and he devotes a relatively lengthy section to TTTCBE and its method. This includes performance tips and how he tilts the odds in his favor for the big finish. The final effect is very nice, but it involves a fairly extensive set up (by my standards). For me, I prefer to construct an effect where a very specific outcome is intended the vast majority of the time -- what I count on -- but once in a while you can produce something better than good. A decent example of this line of thinking might be Ortiz's "Last to Laugh," although that too involves what I'd consider a laborious set up. I use it merely to illustrate the idea that you know the effect you want to produce, but under certain auspicious circumstances you can crank it up a notch or two. In addition to Ganson's explanations, I have seen volume 7/8 of the _Vernon Chronicles_, and I found the Professor's explanation less than thrilling.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
Ben Train Inner circle Erdnase never had 4639 Posts |
See, I KNOW this is going to strike a chord with many people, and I am already antcipating a lashing out, but back then it was EASIER to fool magicians then it is now.
Think about it- fooling them with double lifts (Which they hadn't seen), gaffed cards, mathematical principals that weren't well known, thick bases, etc. So, it stands to reason, that the trick that couldn't be explained really couldn't be. Vernon was SOOOO far ahead of his time that it worked. But, I can't see it working any more. Sorry boys, but that ship has passed.
If you're reading this you're my favourite magician.
Check out www.TorontoMagicCompany.com for upcoming shows, and instagram.com/train.ben for god knows what! |
|||||||||
Lance Pierce Special user 878 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-02-02 02:22, Nordatrax wrote: Well, it's more a point of view than an argument. I think, though, you're either failing to understand what I wrote or you're subverting my position. For instance, I didn't say there were no better methods than Vernon's for Triumph or that there were no methods that were just as good. What I'm saying is that just because a method for Triumph is imperceptible to the audience, that doesn't automatically mean it's as good as Vernon's -- or even viable. Methods bring constraints, and an effect can be considerably weakened by a completely invisible method simply because the conditions aren't the same. This is what I meant when I wrote that methods have an effect on the effect, seen or not. It's quite possible to do the Trick That Can't Be Explained surefire. You just give it a framework that guides you to the same end every time. It's only what happens in between that's improvised, but what happens in between is a series of effects in itself (and not just a series of methods) that all lead to the end. In other words (and I mentioned this already in my previous post), it's not just making up methods to get to the prediction, it's making up effects that all build to the prediction. That's a big difference. Cheers, Lance |
|||||||||
SWNerndase Regular user 168 Posts |
Nordatrax is right about it being easier to fool magicians 50 years ago. There is no question that quality information just wasn't available and widespread like it is today, and even great magicians had larger holes in their knowledge. I don't know if it's stricly true, but I suspect a magician who has studied for three years today (has a collection of books and DVDs) knows more about secret methods than most lifeling professionals at the turn of the last century. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but maybe not. Certainly though it was much easier to fool magicians in times gone by.
I often open with a named card appearing in my pocket by sleight of hand. I know it is a powerful effect. There are countless powerful effects that do not rely on multiple endpoints as method. Agreed. TTTCBE is not an effect. It is a method, an approach, and an altogether different way of achieving an effect. It provides a different "tone" and a different experience for an audience than other methods. If it's a tool you don't see a need for, or just don't care to have in your toolbox, fine. I don't carry around a card index but I know a magician who does, and presents really astonishing effects using it. An index is not a tool I care to work with. To each his own, and I wasn't trying to convince anyone that Equivoque is a tool everyone should be using. Nord--fooling you at a convention with a multiple out effect would prove nothing. Well, it would prove that under some circumstances you can be fooled by TTTCBE. So that's something, I guess. But who cares? If you wanted to understand why proponents of it are adamant that it is in some cases a superior approach, you would be best served watching it repeatedly in front of real people in the paying lay public. Even then you may not care to work on it for it yourself, but it becomes impossible to deny the astonishing effect it has on an audience. Oddly enough, it cannot be explained. SWN |
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-02-02 13:16, Nordatrax wrote: I find myself in complete agreement with you on this point. It was much easier to fool other magicians in the past. Today, we have progressed to the point where we don't need other magicians to fool us. We do a very good job of fooling ourselves. (Ducking as folks start to throw rotten fruit, etc.)
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
rpierce Inner circle New Hampshire - USA 1220 Posts |
This entire thread on TTTCBE has me fascinated. Is anyone aware of any videos on-line if this effect being performed, or where I could find them?
|
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3226 Posts |
See also: The Trick That Cannot Be Explained.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
Bobby Forbes Inner circle virginia beach, VA. 1569 Posts |
Do yourselves a favor if you already haven't....pick up "weapons of mass destruction" they are the best set of free notes available anywhere. http://www.expertcardtechnique.net/products.html
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » The Trick That Cannot Be Explained (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |