|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
For a moment, let's give Paul the benefit of the doubt. Let's suppose that he's doing this exposure for theatrical reasons, with the idea that he can make his version of MacDonald's Aces look stronger by contrasting so-called 'sleight of hand' with 'real magic.' Let's give him further liberty by supposing that he can make this work; it really does enhance his performance of MacDonald's Aces. (Don't get me wrong; although this is his goal, I don't think that he's accomplishing this. But let's not get sidetracked.)
Then, why oh why, for heavens sake, does the explanation have to be TRUE? We're magicians; what's the problem with a little theatrical LIE? From a theatrical point of view, wouldn't a FAKE explanation be more effective? I can easily imagine ways to make a fake explanation into something that would be funny, outrageous, and over-the-top -- and much more effective than the real explanation that Paul uses. Maybe this would even make his performance of MacDonald's Aces seem more magical. It's just an idea...
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
ixnay66 Inner circle Denver 1525 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-07 01:07, MickeyPainless wrote: New flash, this is a magic site. This isn't the home page of google.com. People seek this place out because they're interested in, or already are, doing, learning and performing magic. |
|||||||||
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-09 18:37, ixnay66 wrote:New flash, this is a magic site. This isn't the home page of google.com. People seek this place out because they're interested in, or already are, doing, learning and performing magic. Ixnay, Mickey and I put this issue to bed shortly after that post was written. You are a little late to the party
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
g0thike Special user 722 Posts |
CAIN & Peeps,
Magic has been around for 3000 years. Most magic secrets are availabe for FREE on the internet. Long gone are the day of the Master and Apprentice Magician structure. You have to get over yourself and realize that magic is about entertainment. Most people sing or have played some type of musical instrument but they still pay money for concert tickets to their favorite music group. My clients still pay for my services even though they are smart enough to figure out the secrets behind the magic. Some of them perform simple tricks themselves and they appreciate my set. I don't know Paul Nathan, but seriously leave the guy alone. All you are doing is actually making the guy more popular. SOMEONE LOCK THIS THREAD.............. |
|||||||||
Dorian Rhodell Inner circle San Francisco, CA. 1633 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-09 19:49, g0thike wrote: I would disagree with this post and here's why. 1) The length of time magic has been around has no relevance in it's ability to perform it's main function. 2) Not all secrets are free on the internet. The secret is not always in the mechanical workings of an effect. Very rarely can you find what could be dubbed "the real work" on certain effects and / or moves. 3) The magician and apprentice structure are and can still be found in todays society. I had two that you may have heard of. Seeing as how I'm not 500 years old, and the fact that I know of other magicians that do have mentors, your statement can not be true. 4) Magic is about entertainment. But if you ain't fooling them, then it ain't magic. 5) If your clients can figure out your magic, maybe you should get a mentor. Sorry if this sounds rude. You could and probably are a very good entertainer. But you just told a thousand magicians that your lay audiences are smart enough to figure out your effects. That gives the impression to the readers that your magic leaves something to be desired. It is possible for people to appreciate your set while you still fool them very badly. If you can't attain this goal maybe magic is not the right entertainment vehicle for you. Best, Dorian Rhodell |
|||||||||
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts |
G0thike,
Your comparison of a band to magic is like apples to oranges. Most people go to see bands they like and they like to sing along with the band. Most lay people go to see magicians because they don't know how the magic works and they want to feel the mystery of magic. Sure, it is our job to entertain them, but it is also our job to fool them via mystery. You make a valid point that the internet is changing the Master & Apprenctice structure, but it certainly has not eliminated it. It might in the near future, but that day has not happened yet. Personally, I hope it never does.
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
Robert M Inner circle 2482 Posts |
I think exposing double / multiple lifts and DF cards is equally bad. And, I can't believe that some "magicians" on this forum are defending exposure.
Granted, this is obviously more offensive to magicians who actually use the sleights or tricks being exposed. But, c'mon... exposing magic secrets is not a good thing. You're living in a fantasy world if you don't think that this hurts other magicians, including yourself. I don't care if you can access it on the Internet or read it in a book. Paul Nathan is giving it away for a cheap thrill and hurting other magicians in the process. Robert |
|||||||||
Tina I Regular user Oslo/ Norway 194 Posts |
I'm not the least worried by this kind of exposure. As someone mentioned above I'm usually thoroughly fooled when I see an effect that I don't know by heart. I might be able to 'rewind' it in my head thinking that he probably used a Jordan, a DL or whatever, but during the performance I'm as clueless as any layman. Very rarely am I able to reconstruct the entire effect/ routine although I know (and can do) every single move used.
The "He must have had five cards and not four" or "He must have forced the card on me" etc etc does not in any way ruin the effect for me. And when it comes to laypeople those thoughts are ever present anyway. It's in the human nature to try to find explanations to what you see. It doesn't matter if it's correct, we just don't handle the unknown very well. It's the same thing as when people see a light in the sky. One tend to create an explanation. It does not mean that the explanation is correct, we might not even believe our own explanation, but nevertheless we need it. Knowing our 'secret' methods does not an ant way enable someone to dissect an entire effect. If you have the time, take to the streets and ask five thousand people if they know what it means when a magician palms something. An astonishing number will know. Then do some effects involving palming and ask them to call out whenever you are indeed palming something. You will probably find the following: - The smartass that will call you on a palm all the time regardless if you are palming or not. - The "I don't want to look stupid" one that will call out more or less at random. - The honest one who will not call you on it because he will not see it (which is what you want) - The very honest and observant one who will catch you. None of the first three poses any kind of threat to magic in general. Some may have knowledge of some moves and methods but the have next to no knowledge of how to apply it. The fourth person is probably already a magician on some level. Personally I have no idea how many times I have fallen 'victim' of a classic force when I have been at the local dealer and been given demonstrations. But without knowing the exact workings of the effect I can not know. I can, based on my general knowledge, assume the card was forced on me but I can not know. That's why magic works even on magicians. Actually I'm kinda surprised about the exposure hysteria seen in the magic communities. I would think that *we* would be the first to know that knowing a few secrets does not in any way ruin a magical experience. Or am I the only one that let my self be amazed by a well performed AC or a surprising ending to a C&B routine? |
|||||||||
Tina I Regular user Oslo/ Norway 194 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-10 04:02, Alewishus wrote: I honestly don't know how to respond to such a post... but I'll try: I'm sure she won't be seeing something that she haven't seen before. And I think I'm out of here. Never have I seen so many people with their head *so* far up their behinds in one place. Magicians? Bah! |
|||||||||
Alewishus Inner circle parts unknown 1226 Posts |
There is a willfulness about exposure.
It's not about necessity. When you're exposing something, you're not being a magician. Are you a magician? Who here is a magician? A.
Sack subs, ok Ross?
We miss you asper. |
|||||||||
Magicmike1949 Special user 643 Posts |
It seems to me that Mr. Nathan could easily achieve the same purpose for setting up his McDonald's Aces routine by the use of effective patter and without the need to expose anything that the average layperson doesn't already know or at least suspect. Something like: " I'm sure many of you may have seen magicians on T.V. who use sleight of hand or perhaps even camera tricks to deceive you. I urge you to watch very closely as I perform this next effect. Obviously there are no cameras, and I will move slowly and deliberately, so that you can follow my every move. What you are about to see can only be regarded as real magic." Then do the trick.
|
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-09 19:49, g0thike wrote: This is not a compelling restatement for reasons already mentioned. Quote:
I don't know Paul Nathan, but seriously leave the guy alone. All you are doing is actually making the guy more popular. Well, I thought I was relatively charitable. Others have criticized the venue/audience response without knowing the circumstances, and his performance without knowing whether or not it was representative. That's a misguided approach, in my view. If we're discussing the morality of the situation, then one must strip things down to the essentials and challenging the strongest possible argument: Suppose a person could put together a strong act that critically relies upon exposing well-known sleights/principles. I agree magic is about entertainment, but that is vague to the point of being meaningless. More importantly, you need to get to why magic is entertaining. Is magic most entertaining when people are already familiar with some of its more fundamental workings? You're not supposed to give away the secret. We do not advertise things about ourselves that can be found doing a "FREE" search on the Internet. I'm sure through a lot of searching some person could discover that I am "S. Colbert" on the second most popular forum dedicated to "Tall Women Lifting Heavy Things." Again, there's a major difference between availability and exposure.
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!" |
|||||||||
Robert M Inner circle 2482 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-05-10 10:31, Magicmike1949 wrote: Exactly. I also like Barry's idea of using a fake explanation. The audience laughed when Paul said "Mexican Turnover" because they thought it was a joke. You could really have some fun with this, and not expose a darn thing. Sure, lay people know about palming and sleeving. And, you can still fool them with these sleights. But, they don't know about DLs, DF cards, Ascanio Spreads, Pinky Breaks, Buckles, etc. So let's not tell them about them, OK? Robert |
|||||||||
Harry Lorayne 1926 - 2023 New York City 8558 Posts |
I'm against exposure, of course. But some of that can be used to make us better. I'll talk about that later. Here are three stories, which I've written about before so it may be a bit redundant to some. Anyhway, they seem to fit in this thread, so for what they're worth...
1. I was doing an impromptu (I do no other kind) ace assembly. I saw a woman in front get a gleam in her eye as she stared at the leader-ace packet. She had, obviously, some knowledge of the gaffs used in MacDonald's Aces. She whispered to her partner every once in a while, eyes still on that packet. I purposely ended the effect by turning over the 4-ace packet as you would when doing MacDonald's Aces. She, as expected, grabbed the aces as the eye-gleam got brighter. She was going to show the group how smart/knowledgeable she was. She started to exclaim as she spread the aces - "See, there's a differe..." Stop, mouth agape, she was looking at regular cards. Her embarrassment - as I stared at her expectantly - was very obvious. "But, but..." She didn't know what to say, so she shut up. But she looked at me with an awed expression on her face. I came across much stronger than ordinarily. No big thing - just wanted to mention it. 2. I was mc'ing a show at The Players (Club) in NYC. I introduced everyone in the audience to the acts they were about to see - by calling off everyone's name, and I did other memory pieces between the acts. Anyway, Penn & Teller were on the show. During one routine, Penn exposed a number of card things - a force, a break, and more. Part of my "deal" was to do some card stuff at the bar downstairs after the formal show. Everyone, including Penn & Teller came down to watch. I used every one of the things Penn had exposed. For example, I had a break over a selected card (and I "do" large breaks) and I pointed it out, as I said, "Now, Penn told you about magicians doing this - so I can't and I won't; I'll really shuffle the cards." Which, so far as they were concerned, I did. I was, obviously, "using" the break. Also, I said, "Penn told you about being able to force you to take a particular card - don't let me do that." And I forced the card! I fooled everyone in that large, enthusiastic, crowd, including Penn & Teller! Alfred Drake (actor/singer of Broadway fame) was president of the club at the time. He sat right in front as I worked. I have a letter from him saying, "You were incredible. I'm still gasping for breath." The point? Obvious. I did/used everything Penn had exposed (including a palm)and fooled all. 3. Dr. Stanley Jaks was a good friend. Aside from his close-up work, he was a quite busy platform/stage performer. He did mentalism and about 85% (if not more) of his work was based around the nail ******. This is many years ago. There was a large exposure of the nail ****** in one of the current (at the time) popular magazines - about three or four pages of exposure, pictures, etc. Stanley called me - in tears. He said that he was going to kill himself! I'm not making this up, nor am I exaggerating - he was, literally, crying and talking of suicide. He felt that his life was over - how could he possibly do his act now that everyone knew about the nail ******? I said, "Stanley, I understand. But do me a favor. Before you kill yourself, do your act at least one more time. Okay? what have you got to lose? You're going to kill yourself anyway." I made him promise. He had a scheduled appearance the following week. He did it. He called me the next day, happy as a lark. He said, "Harry, I got a standing ovation; nobody said anything about the nail ******." He decided that he wouldn't kill himself! He continued to do the same act. As I said, for what they're worth. And, it was because so many people knew about the setup for Out Of This World (way back all those years ago) that I devised Out Of This Universe, just to fool those "in the know." Many knew about double lifts. So, if you check out REPUTATION-MAKERS, you'll see that I felt it necessary to devise a few ways of starting a double lift or double turnover with a SINGLE CARD. (Double-Lift Breakthrough and Evolution of a Sleight.) And, that also led to the my Ultra Move, which I gave away years later in AFTERTHOUGHTS. The original basic thought behind it and the others being that you could let the spectator handle the SINGLE CARD before it changed. Of course, I devised many more sophisticated effects utilizing it, but that was the basic reason for its evolution - fooling those who "thought they knew," who had been "exposed" to the concepts. So, I'm against it of course, but any exposure can perhaps force you to think of ways of getting around that exposure. To repeat - for what it's worth. HARRY LORAYNE.
[email]harrylorayne@earthlink.net[/email]
http://www.harrylorayne.com http://www.harryloraynemagic.com |
|||||||||
MickeyPainless Inner circle California 6065 Posts |
Wonderful post Mr Lorayne, Thanks!
|
|||||||||
dune Regular user 126 Posts |
Really great post Harry -- and a reminder of how style and performance can trump mechanics any day of the week. A lot of food for thought there.
I was recently at the Player's Club at a private party - and in the bar downstairs as well. Man - I wish I was there the night you performed... |
|||||||||
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts |
Harry,
That is definitely food for thought. I wish I was half the performer that you are. I doubt that I could have pulled off the same effects that you did. I don't think that makes me a bad magician, it just means that I am not as good as you. I doubt that many people on these boards are as good as you, but I don't know that for a fact. If I had been working the bar downstairs after Penn & Teller's routine then I probably would have been in a little bit of trouble. I probably would have pulled out my ring and string, and not focused as much on cards I am glad that you weighed in on this topic. Thank you for taking the time to do that. You have given much to the magic community, thanks for all you have done over the years. -Rick
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
Harry Lorayne 1926 - 2023 New York City 8558 Posts |
Rick: I didn't have ring and string, or anything else, with me - not that I'm anywhere near proficient with ring & string - and the "talk up" had been about my "great card work." So, no choice. Put it into the category of "necessity being the mother of..." etc. My cliche has always been to "never stress the obvious" (you know, "I have here an empty glass" or "I have here a regular deck of cards" - sure you do!) but in this case, stressing the obvious bassackwards worked. HL
[email]harrylorayne@earthlink.net[/email]
http://www.harrylorayne.com http://www.harryloraynemagic.com |
|||||||||
spatlind Special user still moving 863 Posts |
Harry, loved your post above, but a quick question. How did you feel about what Penn did on the night in question? Even though you were/are suitably able to deal with it? Cheers
Scott
Actions lie louder than words - Carolyn Wells
I believe in God, only I spell it Nature - Frank Lloyd Wright. |
|||||||||
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts |
Harry,
I use the line "I have here an ordinary deck of magic cards, the kind you can get at any good magic shop like Frankels" (Frankels is a local Houston shop), it always gets a laugh and gives a plug to Frankels. I started using that line after I had countless number of people ask if I was using a trick deck.
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
|||||||||
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] |
[ 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 < |