I'm starting this topic over again for a couple reasons.
First, it has merit. Crediting is an important issue in the world of magic.
Second, the original discussion was in the middle of another topic, and when moved, lost some of it's original content.

Someone has mentioned that a lot of the younger magicians do not realize that for the most part, the effects on Ammars Easy to master... series do not belong to him, even though this is noted both on the video/DVD packaging, and verbally on the media itself.

To a degree, I have heard the young one's at conventions mentioning an effect, and saying things like; "I love Ammar's Twins trick", which of course is not Ammars, but Brother Hammons.

I find that magic is not the only area that this sort of thing occurs.
As an example, we could use the music industry. Often new artist will do a cover or remake of a classic song, this is very common indeed. Some teenager buys it, and believes the song belongs or was created by said artist, even though the original author is clearly printed on the label.

Is this the artists fault? Maybe, maybe not. It depends. Has the artist/magician done everything possible to insure others know the true origins? If so, fine...if not?

A funny story that, as a beginner, I can relate to is that I just recently bought 'Real Magic' by Jay Sanky for the CMH (though he doesn't call it that). And I was perusing the forums on strings and things and kept hearing about the 'Professors Nightmare' rope trick. I was almost ready to buy it when I came across a description, and realized to my chagrin that this was on the Real Magic video under a different name.

In fact none of the routines he shows on it acknowledge the Magi who invented it.

I'd like for the magi that show tricks to indicate if they created it or not, if not then who did, and any other names the trick might be commonly refered to as.

Luckily this forum saved me money by not purchasing a trick that I already owned.

This same phenomenon has happened with David Blaine.

“How do you do David Blaine’s torn and restored.”
“Isn’t that just David Blaine’s two-card monte?”
“I like Blaine’s twisting arm illusion.”

Well, with people it's a little different. They just remember the last person who did it. And beginners such as myself don't know the history, most of the time I just assume the trick isn't originated by the one doing it, but never really know for sure. Blaine is such a big name that I would think he had to come up with unique stuff to get so popular (I have yet to see a performance of his... but everyone talks about him).. so when he does stuff I have to wonder.

That is another mess, Chess.

I believe it is a very important topic. It gives respect, it shows you care. To be fair, it is not an "Ammar issue." It could well be a Daryl issue, an L&L issue, an overall issue.

We humans dig up bodies, desecrate holy land, excavate complete civilizations all because we are driven to learn more about our own history.

Why can't Magic care enough about itself to respect its own roots and development? I believe it can, and it should.

As Steve points out, Ammar seems to go to considerable lengths to give credit where it's due. It cannot therefore be his fault if people get it wrong....
Ross

How could the purchaser possibly know that both Earl Nelson and Simon Lovell have routines in ETMCM that they gave no permission to use?

Aha! This purchaser didn't! Two queries:

1. I wonder why, given Ammar's apparent thoroughness in crediting, these guys don't get a mention?
2. What are the routines that you refer to, Randy?

Regards

Ross W

One might not just wonder about the credits, one might better wonder why the routines were included at all.

Rather than get my interpretation of events, those who care can get it first hand from Mr. Nelson and Mr. Lovell.

One does wonder what the effects in question are, but one doesn't have access to Mr. Nelson and Mr. Lovell.

Ones curiosity is piqued...

Flip,

Simon Lovell is easily contactable at simonlovell.com, and as you might know - - Earl Nelson is quite visible as the house magician at the “Magic Castle.”

I'm always glad to hear the correct credit, and I've made a couple of incorrect ones in the past (no-one's perfect). After being notified I've usually been able to correct them in future publications and been glad to be able to do so.

I am told it states on the Ammar tapes that permission was asked of all living originators to the effects disclosed, though Peter Kane remarked he was not asked about one of his effects so assumed Ammar thought he was dead. Many a true word can be said in jest. Roy Walton was telephoned for instance, so obviously some attempt was made on the early tapes.

Obviously the first three tapes contain the better material, as they were the first "great" tricks they thought of for the collection. Then they had to scratch their heads and think what other good tricks they could include on follow up tapes.

People crediting Ammar with the tricks is not Michael Ammar's fault if they are credited on the video box, but perhaps on tapes there should be more verbal crediting in the explanations. And certainly, permission should be asked regarding inclusion of other peoples material.

Whether you like the idea of the tapes being released or not is water under the bridge now. They are an excellent collection of card magic, though I didn't bother with them myself, already knowing most of the content..

Paul.

Er, some of us don't visit the castle on a regular basis. Nor do we keep up with the websites for individual performers. However, if you don't wish to *or can't* speak about it, I have no real desire or need to waste these gentlemen's time...

That being said. I do agree *and have always agreed* that every reasonable attempt should be made to give credit where it's due.

True enough. The thread should not single out only the Ammar tapes, though they are easy targets.
For those who need titles, see "Sleeve Aces" by Earl Nelson in his excellent book, "Variations." Other material was included without asking as well. Peter Kane, clipped more than most (in many ways) was a contributor as you have said, whether he liked it or not. Simon Lovell was an "accidental" contributor as well. It is apparent to those who have read "Simon Says." Page 33 does not appear to be a Michael Weber routine to me. "Permission" in many cases could only have been granted through a quality spirit medium.

If the majority of consumers do not care one way or the other, expect more of the same.
It is the "Easy To Master" title that is most wrong-headed concept of all.

Moving on.