|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2014, Xpilot wrote: Okay, this conversation is heading in a direction I don't like. You can tell me that you disagree with my statements, and you can tell me that you think my statements are wrong, but please don't call me or my statements "ridiculous." I believe that word is meant to demean and ridicule people, which I prefer not to use against anyone here and I prefer that other people don't use it against me. Please understand, I believe you are an intelligent person whose ideas are valid and intelligent; therefore, I will not call your ideas ridiculous even if I disagree with them. However, I also believe that my ideas are also valid, intelligent, and not always correct. Because of this, people have a right to pick them apart and analyze them, but I do not appreciate having them called emotionally charged words like "ridiculous." One thing I like about The Magic Café is the discussions that take place in a logical fashion. Every day people toss around ideas, people agree, and people disagree. But as soon as words are used that are designed to emotionally ridicule people or their ideas, that logic breaks down, and I want no part of that. If you want to hear about where I'm coming from and why I believe the way I do, then please don't call my ideas ridiculous, even if you think they really are. I won't call your ideas ridiculous -- partly because I think you are intelligent, partly because you have given a lot of thought to your ideas, and partly because I think every member here deserves more respect than that -- and I hope you do the same for me. Thank you. |
|||||||||
Waterloophai Inner circle Belgium 1368 Posts |
Xpilot never called you ridiculous. He even never called your argument ridiculous. He wrote: "it is BECOMING ridiculous".
By that I think he ment that discussing "over and over again" the same arguments, become a little.... I think you made your point concerning the BCS stack very clear and you have all the right to. But there is no need (in my opinion) to repeat it once again in another ten posts. No hard feelings and succes with the BCS ! (excuse me for my bad English grammar) |
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2014, Waterloophai wrote: You're right. He didn't call me ridiculous. But certain words like "ridiculous" and "stupid" are emotionally charged, and if people don't realize how damaging they are, arguments can escalate quickly, abandoning the logical side of discussion for one less mature. (A co-worker of mine banned the use of the word "stupid" among his family, as if it were a bad word. Now, I don't normally regard "stupid" as a vulgar word, but I definitely see how its use can have negative effects in relationships. Basically, nothing good comes from it. And likewise, I don't think anything good calls from calling someone's long-thought-out arguments "ridiculous.") In other words, "ridiculous" a word that's meant to hurt feelings. And instead of firing back with what I think is logical insight (which is tempting to do but risky, since feelings have been wrangled, and what I think is logical right now might not seem so logical once I'm in a different frame of mind), I think it's best if I just let it be known that I don't appreciate the comment. Quote:
No hard feelings and succes with the BCS ! Thanks, and thank you for providing a cooler head (which is a good thing) with a different perspective. |
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Let me boil down what I'm saying about the BCS more succinctly. That way, if anybody disagrees with any part of it, they can point out what they disagree with in what I've written here:
I've seen this pattern of posts several times here on the Café: 1. Someone mentions Richard Osterlind's BCS. 2. Someone mentions that he/she really likes the BCS. 3. Someone asks if the BCS can be used as a memdeck. 4. Someone replies that the BCS can indeed be used as a memdeck, if it is memorized like one. 5. Someone mentions that he/she prefers a (non-BCS) memdeck "...because it (a memdeck) can do anything BCS does plus more." 6. Sometimes this puts off a person from learning the BCS as a memdeck. While the preference stated in point 5 is a perfectly valid preference, the claim that "a memdeck can do anything BCS does plus more" I personally believe to be incorrect. Why do I believe this is an incorrect claim? Because I have seen two tricks (one of which I've performed myself) that can be done with the BCS stack, but cannot be done with just any memdeck. It can't be done with the popular Aronson stack, nor the Nicola stack, nor the Joyal stack. (And for the record, it isn't just a silly trick, either. It's one where magicians have raved that "it's worth (at least) the price of the book (it's printed in).") And in my opinion, the claim made in point 5 is the claim that most damages the BCS's reputation. (I could be wrong about this; but it is my opinion.) Because potential BCS-as-memdeck adopters may be made to believe the incorrect claim that the BCS has no tricks that can't be done with any memdeck (like say, with the Aronson stack), they may end up abandoning their desire to use the BCS as their memdeck. And honestly, I believe that's unfair to the BCS, to Richard Osterlind, and to the people who were previously excited about memorizing the BCS but were persuaded against it. Thank you for your time in reading this. |
|||||||||
Steven Keyl Inner circle Washington, D.C. 2630 Posts |
It hasn't been my experience that knowledgeable people on this subject would say that a BCS MD is not as good as other MDs.
In general terms people will say that a MD is more versatile than a sequential stack, and they're right. Obviously, if you memorize a sequential stack then the argument is moot. To quote Doug above: Quote:
I have always felt that it's more important for a stack to be arranged in such a fashion as to make broad classes of effects easier, rather than specific items. This is a key point in all MD work. Whatever stack you use, it behooves one to really dig in and find all of the peculiarities of that stack and maximize those features. The stack I use contains features discovered long after first memorizing it and after playing with this stack for so long I realized that my routines wouldn't work with either random stacks (like Aronson, Tamariz, and for this discussion, the BCS) or stacks that are cyclical with a periodic suit rotation (Si Stebbins, 8 Kings, etc.) I suspect sequential stacks like the BCS have a lot of built-in features that have gone undiscovered for a long time. One could get a lot of mileage out of a BCS MD but you will have to be the one to dig out those hidden treasures. As an aside, many MD workers also know a handful (if not more) of tricks that deal with sequential stacks like BCS or Si Stebbins. If I were handed a deck setup in either stack, I wouldn't be at a loss for material. In other words, it's not an either/or proposition.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!
B2B Magazine Test! Best impromptu progressive Ace Assembly ever! "If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain |
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2014, Steven Keyl wrote: Well put, Steven. I think I discovered one or two of those hidden features in BCS myself. And as far as I know, these features don't have specific names, so it's difficult to discuss them in depth. I only know of two tricks that take advantage of one of the features, but there's no real limit as to the number of tricks that could be made out of them. Just like the Gilbreath principle, these features aren't easily understood but can be exploited when creating new tricks. And since they're not widely understood, it can be a challenge to convince others that they're even there, if not worthwhile to look into. But then, features like these (that aren't widely understood) often work for the benefit of the magician! And I like the way you used the phrase "dig out those hidden treasures," Steven. Your words do a great job of describing the way I feel about these features. :) |
|||||||||
Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2014, J-L Sparrow wrote: Perhaps you can post a link to the thread where that's actually happened. Perhaps. But I doubt that you could show where it's happened "several times". |
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2014, J-L Sparrow wrote: Quote:
On Apr 16, 2014, Xpilot wrote: Challenge accepted! Seriously, though, it's kind of hard to tell if (and when) point 6 happens, as people don't normally post that they've become discouraged in learning the Memorized BCS. And as for points 1 through 3, they are often lumped together, or part of several posters' posts out of order. So I'm going to focus on points 4 and 5, which I think are the most defining points of the pattern I listed above. Here are three examples: 1. This thread certainly qualifies. We've already mentioned that the BCS can be used as a memdeck (point 4), as well as mentioning that a memdeck can do anything the BCS does plus more (point 5). 2. http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......orum=159 The whole post is about learning the BCS as a memdeck (point 4). Post #2 shows enthusiams for learning the memdeck (point 2). And post #3 discourages the use of BCS as a memdeck (point 5) by saying, "...it makes no sense to memorize the BCS." (Post #10 goes on to agree with "I'm with you on this one.") Post #3 even goes a bit farther by prefacing the post with, "I know this ground has been trod before, but here goes." So evidently similar patterns/conversations/arguments have been encountered before by other users. 3. http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......m=205&20 It's kind of unclear whether the user is asking if the BCS should be used as a memdeck, or instead of a memdeck. Either way, posts #2 and #3 satisfy point 5 with: "The memorized deck can do every thing the b.t.c.s. can do plus so much more" and "A memorized deck can do everything the BCS can, and more." Now, I realize that with the last two quotes the posters probably meant "memorized deck" as in "any memdeck (the Memorized BCS included)." But as I've posted before, I believe the statement that "a memdeck can do everything the BCS can do and more" to be erroneous, as there definitely exist tricks that can be done with BCS, but not with just any memdeck. So, yes, this talk of putting down the BCS as a memdeck and the claim that "a memdeck can do anything BCS can do and more" has been seen before. Have a Blessed Holy Week, Xpilot! |
|||||||||
Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts |
You gave a pattern of 6 points that you said had been repeated several times and failed to produce a single example of that pattern (unless we don't count point 6 and interpret what someone might have meant when they said something else). Even if I were to accept those two incomplete samples you fall short of "several" (which has the (pertinent) definition of "more than two but fewer than many".
I think you've made whatever point you're trying to make to whatever audience you think you're playing to, or they've quit reading. Now it's just repetitious. If you have nothing new to add there's no point repeating it again. And definitely no need to make further claims which turn out to be less than true. Best I can figure is you're getting paid by Osterlind so he can sell more copies of BCS. Happy Easter. |
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2014, Xpilot wrote: No, I am not. I have never even met Osterlind. I just want to correct a common claim that I believe to be erroneous. I think you can appreciate that, as I see in you a desire to defend what you believe to be right, which is a good quality to have. Quote:
Happy Easter. Thanks! I hope you have a happy Easter, too! |
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 7, 2014, J-L Sparrow wrote: As you've already found out about 70-75% of the material could be adapted to other stacks fairly easily. Quote:
... That's an impossible question to answer unless you provide a thorough definition of what you consider to be 'traditionally difficult moves.' So let me provide a different perspective. Just buy Mnemonica. You won't be able to do everything in the book, but that's OK. If you study this book carefully, you'll learn important ideas that you can use in all of your performances. Some of the effects will require moves that you can't do, but they may inspire you or make you think about a difficult move in a new way. You'll find yourself drawn to some effects more than others. Those effects, the ones that 'sing' to you, will tell you which 'traditionally difficult moves' will be worth your time to learn. And if you have a good reason to learn a difficult move, you will be much more likely to stick with it long enough to learn it. Buy the book because it will help you to understand Juan's passion for this type of magic. Buy the book because it has the potential to inspire you, even if you never perform any of its tricks.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
tomboston New user Fort Lauderdale, FL 90 Posts |
Mnemonica is one of my favorite books! Several years ago, I did a rough count of the tricks in the book and found that about 75% of them can be done with any memorized deck. This agrees with some of the previous posts. However, in regard to the faro shuffle, I found that only about 10-15% of the tricks require it. Maybe people are getting put off by the descriptions near the beginning of the book of going from NDO to Mnemonica which does require several faros (or anti-faros). But as you read deeper into the book you will find most tricks do not require faros.
On Tamariz's Mnemonica Miracles DVD, he does about 25 tricks from the book, and by my count 20 of which can be done with any memdeck and only one uses a faro. I hope this information is useful to someone. |
|||||||||
lcwright1964 Special user Toronto 569 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 25, 2014, tomboston wrote: I recently memorized Aronson, for many of the reasons noted above by some (including me, I think!). Vincent Hedan was just in my city, and at his lecture he turned me on to investigating Mnemonica more deeply (though Hedan has long used a stack of his own devising). I picked up the book today and I have to concur with much you say, and I can't disagree with the rest because I don't know enough myself yet. I can't do perfect faros yet (but I am working on it), but despite the daunting sound of the term an anti-faro entails merely dealing out and reassembling the deck in a certain order--easy peasy--and the essentials are covered in text and in an appendix. I set up a new deck in Mnemonica from NDO using the anti-faro approach in a leisurely few minutes. Now, to memorize it, and to keep it straight from Aronson. (I know a lot of people agonize over this, but I think by following the suggestions Tamariz gives in Chapter Two learning a new stack cold without a big risk of confounding it with another stack is scarcely outside the realm of possibility.) I am a great lover of Aronson's work--I have the four main books--and have learned so much from his highly detailed and colloquial style. Mnemonica, though informal in style in many ways, comes across as encyclopaedic and scholarly. Of course, as an Aronson man, I went to the chapters that don't mandate Mnemonica as the memorized deck, and there is so much there. I do agree with other observations that Mnemonica seems to assume at least a moderate proficiency already in cardsmanship--e.g., the vitally important task of surreptitiously locating and controlling a particular card, such as in an ACAAN effect, is not explored in detail within the body of a trick description, though in another appendix Tamariz gives an extensive summary of techniques--glimpses, passes, cuts, etc.--from which one can construct an approach. Ironically, Mnemonica does NOT seem to instruct in how to do a perfect faro, and off the bat the term out-faro is used without definition, assuming the reader knows what that is (I had to look it up). Overall, even if I don't follow through on my wish to memorize Mnemonica in addition to Aronson, I scarcely regret acquiring the book. I am a hobbyist, yes, but card magic is a fairly inexpensive pursuit as far as hobbies go, and I sure have spent seventy bucks on dumber things in my life. For serious magicians who make all or part of a living from card work, I frankly don't see why anyone would NOT want to possess the book as a sensible business investment. Some individual effects can go for around as much--I got the Kennedy Mind Power Deck (50 bucks) and Jon Allen's Rule of Three (about 70 bucks) without flinching or regret--so in comparison the awesome Mnemonica (as well as the impressive Aronson collection) is a bargain for anyone with even a passing interest in memorized deck stuff. Besides, there is a saying that one should aspire to get good books even if one never reads them. Too many good magic books out there Les |
|||||||||
Waterloophai Inner circle Belgium 1368 Posts |
For some, there is still the misunderstanding that Mnemonica by Juan Tamariz is exclusively for users of that specific stack and that the books by Simon Aronson are exclusively for users of the Aronson stack.
Of course that there are tricks in those books that are exclusively for those specific stacks, but the majority of the tricks in those books can be done with ANY stack. (maybe with exception of "Try he Impossible", 2001, by Aronson that is predominantly Aronson orientated) In my web-eBook I wrote, I quote: """ Those books are the real basis and EVERY MD-worker has the moral obligation to study this works thoroughly if he takes his work seriously. It is only then and with that foreknowledge that you can begin to explore further possibilities, variations, nuances and experiment with other approaches. """ Tomboston and Icwright1964 mentioned in their posts that Tamariz does not describe the Faro shuffle in his book and that he barely uses the faro himself. There is a very good reason for that. I explain it in depth in my eBook. It has everything to do with ketchup and mayonnaise (and that is not a joke) . Icwright1964 wrote in his post above very rightly that """the vitally important task of surreptitiously locating and controlling a particular card, such as in an ACAAN effect, is not explored in detail""". Until recently you will not find a satisfactory answer to that question. All the authors restrict themselves to the concept "estimate, glimpse and adjust". Although, there are other solutions... I am a magician of the old school. I don't like (and I am not going to) to discuss the content of my eBook. I have asked the buyers of my eBook not to comment either on forums and such. Until now, they have respected that and I thank them for that. He who seeks, will find... With this post I broke my own rule but I felt it was needed. I promise, I will not do it again |
|||||||||
teetacat New user 12 Posts |
On the bottom of page 82 of Mnemonica for the classic acaan, it says to subtract 8 from 53. Shouldn't it be 8 from 52? When I subtract from 53, I'm always 1 card off.
Take care, William Bragg |
|||||||||
pnielan Regular user Northern California 154 Posts |
I've read every page of Simply Simon and Mnemonica many times. What great books about card magic! Doesn't matter which stack you have memorized. For example, Mr. Tamariz's ideas on the half stack are very general. Much care, knowledge, and experience went into these books.
As someone wrote above, card magic is not expensive compared to many other hobbies. You can have both of these books for less than the cost or a new golf driver, or an NBA ticket. |
|||||||||
alecStephenson New user 69 Posts |
Quote:
On Jul 8, 2016, teetacat wrote: Good spot. That section is a bit vague, maybe lost in translation. It's not clear what "find the card at X position" actually means in each case, so you end up with inconsistent equations. Nick Pudar's stackview software has a good ACAAN trainer in the Tools menu. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Juan Tamariz's "Mnemonica" book: How stack-independent is it? (7 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |