|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 11:31, Jay Alexander wrote: Jay, No offense to you at all. Barry made an unfair critique of Paul's video and in comparison he gave your video as an example. My point was I too could unfairly critique your video. It did not mean a thing to you personally. I was purposely being unfair. I can see how coming into the discussion now you may be offended but I didn't mean anything I said. It was only to make a point. Sorry if you were offended. But I think you taking offense to my comments drills home my point even more. Barry was out of line for making the assumptions he did about Pauls video and Paul would certainly take offense to it. , Jonathan |
|||||||||
Dorian Rhodell Inner circle San Francisco, CA. 1633 Posts
|
I'll enter this lively conversation. After having performed at different venues with both Paul Nathan & Jay Alexander, I can say through experience that part of Barry's post above regarding Jay being a consumate professional is spot on. Anyone that knows Jay will testify to that.
On the other hand I found Paul to be rather un-professional. Adult humor in front of children, sloppy dress, poorly executed magic, half-way decent presentations and forced humor with a tone of arrogance...and exposure. Again, this is my personal experience which has obviously shaped my personal opinion. But at least it's first hand. Best, Dorian Rhodell |
|||||||||
Tim Jahn Special user South Florida 911 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 11:30, Robert M wrote: I agree with you completely Robert. Well stated. Heres a question for any one of you who thinks that its "No big deal". Do you, After performing...... An Ambitious Card routine lets say... Then proceed to show everyone present exactly how the card keeps appearing on the top of the deck? In the middle of a short set, Do you suddenly stop and say "Oh by the way.. This is a DL... And this is called ATFUS" and so on. If yes...Why? If no... Same question.. Why? I'm betting most of you will say no. And, if you say no, Ask yourself why you don't expose your sleights to your audience. Perhaps in this case looking inward would provide the best answers. Tim
Andrew, (ASW)
The effects on the DVD and lecture notes are far beyond your abilities. (They require mastery of the mechanic's grip.) It would only break your heart. Sincerely, Darwin Ortiz.......(This post has got to be in my top 5.) |
|||||||||
|
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 10:37, DStachowiak wrote: As professionals we have to deal with run of the mill jerks everyday. I work in a bar from 7pm until 2:00am so I see them all. What we are talking about here is layman who have been given secret information. Many seem to think they will throw it right back in our faces disrupting our shows and ruining our performances. This just isn't going to happen if you are a likable performer. If the people were jerks to begin with then that's a whole other story. How a layman effects your show is completely up to you the performer. If they ruin your show it's your fault because you let them. Quote:
On 2008-05-08 11:30, Robert M wrote: Did you see how he exposed the double lift? If that is how you do your double lifts then you need to learn a new technique. I personally would not hesitate performing for this group and I use a lot of double lifts. I have amateur magicians and knowledgeable layman come in all the time to see me. Simply knowing a move isn't going to help them. We know how to use the move they don't. Nothing better than fooling a spectator with a move they just told you they saw on TV last night. , Jonathan |
|||||||||
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts
|
Jonathan (Kam),
Here is a simple question: Do you feel like Paul Nathan's routine is exposure or not? Thanks, -Rick
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
Robert M Inner circle 2482 Posts
|
Kam - This has nothing to do with technique. It's about exposing multiple lifts to lay people.
Robert |
|||||||||
|
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 13:43, Robert M wrote: Actually, it is about exposing multiple lifts, Ascanio Spread, buckles, peeks, Elmsley count, Biddle count, etc., all in one routine. -Rick
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
|
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 13:35, rick727 wrote: Is he exposing moves. Yes. Is he exposing magic? No. Quote:
On 2008-05-08 13:43, Robert M wrote: With proper technique you can still fool an audience that has been exposed to the very move you are using. Quote:
On 2008-05-08 13:48, rick727 wrote: You ask that audience the next day what he gave away and they will not remember. They don't know what Ascanio spread refers to or Biddle Move or buckle. They just heard him rattle off a bunch of unfamiliar jargon while he quickly showed different holds and spreads and breaks. They don't know what it all means or how it is used to effectively fool an audience. Half the stuff they won't believe as legitimate moves and the other half they will forget. People aren't taking notes. People are more worried about when their salad is going to arrive. Please you guys are making way too much out of this. |
|||||||||
Simon Bakker Special user the Netherlands 587 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 12:50, Tim Jahn wrote: I find it unethical and unrespectful what Paul Nathan does. And yes I think he is exposing sleights and magic (as I said in my earlier post)and as I magicain I resent exposure. I stand by the point that THIS EXPOSURE by paul Nathan will not do a lot of damage in the long run (the original poster told about the damage it had done in the short run with Scott Wells). Why do I think this? Because they will probably forget 99% of the stuff they saw there. And I think that you will be able to do a fine set of card magic for the very same people. First of all the explanation sucked, and even if it didn't I think they will have forgotten it within a week or so (probably earlier). I agree strongly with what Derek Dingle said in the geni article. Simon |
|||||||||
|
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts
|
Simon, Kam,
I have one exception to the "people won't remember most of it" theory. If you spread cards in an Ascanio fashion and point out there are only 4 cards, I am certain that these people would remember the display and immediately think the magician is hiding a 5th. The Ascanio display is so unique that it is almost unmistakable. However, the more I think about this the more I am starting to agree with Derek Dingle in the Genii article.
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
|
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 10:37, rick727 wrote: I have met and seen Scott perform several times. He is a great performer. If the person spoke in a foreign language how do you know what they were pointing at or talking about. If this is your evidence of the effect Pauls performance had on the audience it's pretty week evidence. |
|||||||||
MickeyPainless Inner circle California 6065 Posts
|
Rick,
Since you've been in contact with the guy do you think he might accept an invitation to join the Café and weigh in here? |
|||||||||
|
JHNelson Regular user Portland, Oregon 120 Posts
|
Kam, this position you are taking seems to contradict your postings on YouTube exposure. I read the whole thread on the YouTube issue yesterday, and you seemed fairly adament about exposure as a whole and YouTube specifically. Maybe I'm missing something here (and it's distinctly possible). I am against exposure in magic. When Bill Malone let's people in on a trick he makes up an outragous way of doing it (see his ultimate monte and matrix effects on his On the Loose DVDs). And that's more of a gag than anything else. As I recall the Magicians Oath states that we wont expose the workings of an effect through exposure or negligence. That's a paraphrase of it from memory, I'll have to look it up to get the direct quote. Just my 2 cents.
James |
|||||||||
|
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 16:10, MickeyPainless wrote: Mickey, as soon as I posted it I e-mailed him directly with the link to the post. He read it and replied to me in a pretty harsh e-mail, as you can imagine. We have traded e-mails over the last couple of days. I even called him to discuss it with him on the phone, but he did not answer (he was working a trade show so I suspect he either had his phone off, or could not answer at the time so I left a voice mail). During my posts here I have relayed his comments that I felt were pertinent to the discussion. Basically, his premise is that he did the explanation as a way to dazzle the audience. He feels that he is not really exposing anything even though he is showing how it is done. He has done this routine for 12 years professionally and he claims he always get good reactions (I bet the audience loves it!). He said I was the first person to complain. He said that he discussed the idea of the routine with Paul Harris and Paul thought it was a good idea (I don't know that Paul Harris has seen the result of the "discussion" or not). He also said that he has discussed this routine with other magicians and they all think it is a great routine, that it is not really exposure. He also agreed that I did make some valid points and he will consider them. He asked me to do a test: show someone his video, then do a routine using some of these sleights and see what the audience thinks. I told him I would consider his option, but I did not agree to any specific time frame (I don't have any paid gigs lined up right now - I am an engineer, not a full time magician). Let me restate what I have said several times before: The performance that I saw was slower than the Youtube video, and much clearer in terms of explanation, and certainly the view was clearer because the audience was very closeup. I watched the audiences reaction to what he was showing, and they were nodding approvingly. They nodded in an "oh, I see" manner, and also in a laughing way indicating that they understood how they were fooled the first time. He paused and gave time to absorb certain aspects, especially the Ascanio spread. I don't know if his timing was to impress me, or if because he was tired after working all day, or if this is how he usually performs it. The performance I saw was exposure. The Youtube video is just to give you a taste of what I saw.
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
DStachowiak Inner circle Baltimore, MD 2158 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 13:13, kammagic wrote: I realize that most of the people who witnessed the exposure of sleights that apparently forms an important part of Mr. Nathan's repertoire will not proceed to immediately bust the next magician thay see, as most people have at least some notion of manners. In fact, it's likely that most of those who were in the audience at this or any of his other shows, will most likely forget what they were shown in fairly short order. Most. Not all. The very ones who will remember are the ones who feel resentment at being "made a fool of" by magic. (There ARE those who feel this way regardless of the performer's intent. The very fact that you can do something they don't know how to do eats at them) I promise you, someone like this WILL remember what they saw. I agree, we are responsible for whether or not we let some jerk ruin the show. But why give them tools to attack us with? Getting away from whether or not anyone ever openly "busts" a magician with this knowledge, a demonstration of the techniques we use cheapens them. Yes, we use simple means to effect wonderful results. That's what it's about. Our audiences are not fools (at least mine aren't). They know we use tricks. Is it necessary to show them just how simple so many of these tricks we use really are? It turns the wonderful into the mundane. "Mr. Jabez Wilson laughed heavily. "Well I never!" said he. "I thought at first you had done something clever, but I see that there was nothing in it after all." " begin to think, Watson," said Holmes, "that I make a mistake in explaining. 'Omne ignotum pro magnifico,' you know, and my poor little reputation, such as it is, will suffer shipwreck if I am so candid." -"The Red-Headed League" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Woke up.
Fell out of bed. Dragged a comb across m' head. |
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts
|
One problem with demonstrating exposure is that the "simple means" look simple and easy and stupid but it's not followed up with any explanation of the actual dedication required to make it all invisible.
"Ya just take 2 cards instead of 1". Gee how simple and easy. It's not followed up with ".. but it takes years for a magician to learn to do it deceptively". This does cheapen what we do. As I mentioned earlier, he uses exposure like a vegas stripper uses exposure... to get attention. It works because it is what it is. Exposure. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate or necessary. Anyone can get up there and get gasps by vanishing a silk hanky (which is why we do it). Why promise to later explain the TT just so your audience will stay put? Surely there are other ways.
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
|||||||||
|
kammagic Inner circle 1304 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 16:24, JHNelson wrote: My stand on youtube exposure came from a personal attack. It was my hope that a ban of exposure would get rid of this guy that was making personal attacks at me and Daniel Garcia. We found it was best to just ignore him. But I personally have never been bothered by magic exposure. |
|||||||||
|
silverking Inner circle 4574 Posts
|
Lots of interesting discussion in this thread, but regardless of what your take is on his actions, he's exposing things that absolutely do not belong to him.
The definition of "sleight" being "A clever or skillful trick or deception; an artifice or stratagem" might demonstrate fairly conclusively that magicians would like such sleights to remain unknown to the layman. He is, in effect stealing from magicians everywhere. He's simply a hack. |
|||||||||
|
adamc Regular user Sydney, Australia 138 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-05-08 16:55, DStachowiak wrote: I agree with this completely. The main issue I have with his presentation is that it makes the experience less magical. Instead of the audience being amazed and mystified, it's now been reduced to the simple mechanics involved. While exposure is certainly interesting and will captivate your audience, I feel it's the wrong way to gather their attention, unless of course it's done as a sucker effect (which seems to be the intention of this, since the next effect is presented as "real magic" with no sleight of hand trickery, although the problem is that the audience wasn't given sucker sleights, they were given the real thing). My goal is to leave the audience in awe, with no clue of how anything was achieved. Otherwise, I compare it to when I was younger and purchased my first few magic tricks. Initially I was completely mystified by the effect. Once I purchased the trick and found out how simple it was, I was almost annoyed at myself for having fallen for it. Of course being interested in magic, this is something you need to come to terms with and accept, but I think it's best to shield the audience from this type of realization. Anyways, those are just my thoughts |
|||||||||
|
JHNelson Regular user Portland, Oregon 120 Posts
|
Ok Kam. Thanks for explaining that to me. I hope I didn't sound confrontational as that was not my intent, but I do want to see where people are comming from.
But I feel that Exposing sleight of hand inorder to make a gaffed trick seem even more magical is comletely "bass-ackwards". Don't get me wrong, I think Mcdonalds aces is a heck of a trick. But to tip some fine cardwork inorder to make it seem magical is not a good idea. This magician has sacrificed several good card effects to make one decent trick a little better. It seems a little like tipping the work on 3 card monte inorder to make ultimate monte seem even more magical. I don't think it's nessacery, or respectful to other magicians. Again, this is my opinion. James |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Blatant exposure by Paul Nathan - Tradeshow magician » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 8, 2008 04:32 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|