talkmagic.co.uk

Let me echo thoughts here so far. This is amazing and for a working performer and you like the effect you should not even be thinking about the price. If you are, put your prices up or give up. Just get onto Marc and order one direct. He will appreciate it since he will make a few extra sheckles.

If you are a hobbyist and genuinely have no money look out for the Alan Shaxon lecture at a club near you. An excellent version which has stood the test of time. Marc Leveridge has another superb one which is available in several versions depending on whether you make it up or buy it already done. Very cheap for what it is.

Ferrari, if you're still out there, hang out in real life with some working magicians instead of blasting guys on line. I've performed invisble deck for 20 years and nobody has ever asked to look at the cards. The magic is in you not the tricks. If they ask to look a the envelope you are doing it wrong mate. This is the big problem with Ellusionist and some such sites - they try to tell you its the tricks. It aint and thats from a very successful magic dealer.

Sean Taylor

Any performer knows that you put your spectators in a position whereby it is very difficult to ask to examine the props. Usually you make it either impractical or impolite. This doesn't mean that they don't want to examine the props. Which is why so much work goes into switching, ending clean and so forth at the end of effects. If you're going to show people something special, let them see it. Anything that has been touched by magic can be touched by the spectator.

If a spectator has an opportunity to look at the props and doesn't ask to, they are either unimpressed or worried they'll spoil the illusion. If you find some people that are impressed and don't think to look at the props, well... you don't need to be spending money to impress those people.

I can understand why new performers might want something like this wallet. Something quick and easy to get the audience on their side. More experienced perfomers will know that you don't need to buy this wallet to achieve that.

So much ado has been made of this prop examination thing... in my opinion, far TOO much!

It all goes back to the difference between a real professional magician doing a show vs (as most of us are) amateur "magicians" performing magic from friends, family, and colleagues. In the case of the latter, spectators will obviously be more inclined to want to examine your props because they KNOW you and surely the person they all know so well couldn't have done that magical thing... so they will be impolite, rude, the worst sort of hecklers, etc. In the case of professionals (good ones anyway), they project a certain aura of "don't touch" or "don't ask". Spectators generally behave better and have more of an appreciation for MAGIC, and not "a cool trick that their friend just did".

This effect, along with a great many others, is probably best suited for the working pros, hence the high price. And yes you don't NEED this effect to achieve the reactions that it can get, but let's not take away from the impact this one would have in the proper setting.

Amateurs need to wow their audiences because they have the toughest crowd. The amateur's audience is one who knows them and will demand to see any props.

Professionals have an audience dynamic that means they can get away with a lot more. Their audience will not demand to see any props.

This wallet effect has the 'wow factor' an amateur needs, that the professional does not, but not the inspectibility the amateur needs, that the professional does not.

Almost all magic is designed for professionals and sold to amateurs.

Exactly.

copyright wrote:Almost all magic is designed for professionals and sold to amateurs.

(except for some of the stuff of Ellusionist-type sites... clearly NOT marketed toward the professional)

I agree. This thread has lead so many into strange postings. I sence bitterness from a few. Is it bitterness because they think this is too expensive or because it has received such good reviews? Hmmmm...

I have performed Bang On for a few weeks now and I have never ever been asked to show the wallet or the envelope for inspection. I think it depends on how you present it, and mind you... I'm not a professional magician. I show occasionally for friends and family.

I had this problem a year ago, when a nephew of mine (17) always tried to reveal (if he could) what had happened. I just stopped showing him magic tricks and if he was around I didn't do magic. He then asked me if I was stopped showing magic. I said No, only to you. I don't like showing to burners that try to reveal, instead of enjoying. It turned out that he missed seeing magic tricks and I showed him one, he was like a different person during the performance and after. He wanted to be included in the audience and his heckling is history now.

So I was wondering why copyright is so darn interested in Bang On, but still so negative. Almost like heckling... I found hardly an introduction from him, but in January 2006 he wrote:

copyright wrote:I work in academia for a living. In my spare time I create magic tricks and effects and plan to release some of them soon. I'm currently working on a mentalism project.

So... are any of them out? When is soon? Are you selling some yet? Have they received any reviews? Please share!

gunnarkr wrote:I agree. This thread has lead so many into strange postings. I sence bitterness from a few. Is it bitterness because they think this is too expensive or because it has received such good reviews? Hmmmm...

I have performed Bang On for a few weeks now and I have never ever been asked to show the wallet or the envelope for inspection. I think it depends on how you present it, and mind you... I'm not a professional magician. I show occasionally for friends and family.

I had this problem a year ago, when a nephew of mine (17) always tried to reveal (if he could) what had happened. I just stopped showing him magic tricks and if he was around I didn't do magic. He then asked me if I was stopped showing magic. I said No, only to you. I don't like showing to burners that try to reveal, instead of enjoying. It turned out that he missed seeing magic tricks and I showed him one, he was like a different person during the performance and after. He wanted to be included in the audience and his heckling is history now.

So I was wondering why copyright is so darn interested in Bang On, but still so negative. Almost like heckling... I found hardly an introduction from him, but in January 2006 he wrote:

copyright wrote:I work in academia for a living. In my spare time I create magic tricks and effects and plan to release some of them soon. I'm currently working on a mentalism project.

So... are any of them out? When is soon? Are you selling some yet? Have they received any reviews? Please share!

gunnarkr, you seem to be finding it very difficult to grasp my point. Why is it though, that on a discussion forum, you are allowed to express your point of view freely but when I express mine I'm accused of bitterness? I think it is more likely that you are being overly defensive of a product you have bought that some people don't like. Why else would you be sniping so much at anyone who challenges the wallet?

I have posted on two issues, the value of the effect and the related issue of examinibility. When it comes to value, people have made two points: (1) the power of the effect (2) the quality of the props. When I comes to the second point, I have accepted that the quality of the wallet may well justify the asking the price. So that isn't an issue. As for the power of the effect, this I have questioned. I don't think it is a good as several, much cheaper alternatives. The question of examinibility now comes in, which is a related issue.

This is a general point about magic and so how it is related to bitterness, I don't know. I think I've made my position clear on examinibility and spectator management, which your posts so far have done nothing but support. For instance you say you performed to a dentist who works on the same floor as you, a spectator who can be trusted to behave. And you have refused to perform for someone who demands to see props. So you agree with me on a theorectical level, that the issue of spectators wanting to examine props needs to be addressed on some level.

Which brings us back to the product in question. Due to the nature of the effect, it needs a certain degree of spectator management and accordingly doesn't pack as powerful a punch (in my opinion, something I assume you don't think I'm allowed to have) as other alternatives.

Since you've taken an interest in me, in quite a stalkerous fashion, I will tell you that actually, I've released material to several people on this forum. There is a review somewhere on talkmagic. The reason I haven't put any out on the market is quite simply that it isn't worth the hassle. However, since you're so eager to sample my wares I can see a quick sale. I'll let you have my Russian Man Scam for $75.00. If anyone who has a copy wants to sell it to gunnarkr second hand for $37.50 they are more than welcome to.

Not sure why this particular disagreement arose here, but as someone who performs professionally, I really like this effect and look forward to performing it. It provides me with the opportunity early on my show where I do a few quick fire effects of different varieties to establish the tenor of the evening.

I like the conccept and the quality of the product, as well as the different routines that Marc supplies with the effect. He has gone to a lot of trouble to think about this and I value the result. He has also got me thinking about a whole range of other applications, so for me, this was a valuable investment.

Wow... where did this one come from?

copyright wrote:gunnarkr, you seem to be finding it very difficult to grasp my point. Why is it though, that on a discussion forum, you are allowed to express your point of view freely but when I express mine I'm accused of bitterness?

Who said that your oppinion is bitter?
Not me. I only said that I sence bitterness from some of the people and wondering why. But if you are, in your own oppinion, then you are the best one to determine that. Good to have that established

copyright wrote:I think it is more likely that you are being overly defensive of a product you have bought that some people don't like. Why else would you be sniping so much at anyone who challenges the wallet?

Some of the people that attacked Bang On, didn't have it, didn't know how it works and were asking questions that forced reveiling situation. I even got a handfull of PMs asking for revealing answers. I bought it, I like what I bought and so do all the others that I know. It seems that only the "none-buyers" were tearing dowh the product.

copyright wrote:As for the power of the effect, this I have questioned. I don't think it is a good as several, much cheaper alternatives.

I didn't buy the cheap stuff, so I don't even know which you are comparing this with, but judging from a few posts here from some others that can compare, Bang On is by all means far better than at least some that have been mentioned here in the thread.

copyright wrote:Due to the nature of the effect, it needs a certain degree of spectator management and accordingly doesn't pack as powerful a punch (in my opinion, something I assume you don't think I'm allowed to have) as other alternatives.

Of course everyone is intitled his or her oppinion. But to base an oppinion on a foundation is always better, don't you agree? If you read what all the buyers (so far) of Bang On have said, they are very happy with the product and nobody has had any problems what so ever with spectators, examinability or heckling. But you don't seem to want to accept that as a fact and you have every right to suspect us of dishonesty in our reviews.

copyright wrote:Since you've taken an interest in me, in quite a stalkerous fashion, I will tell you that actually, I've released material to several people on this forum. There is a review somewhere on talkmagic. The reason I haven't put any out on the market is quite simply that it isn't worth the hassle. However, since you're so eager to sample my wares I can see a quick sale. I'll let you have my Russian Man Scam for $75.00.

Stalkerous fashion? Hmmmm... It's interesting that you stoop so low, as to use this term. (Tells me a lot about you.) I just thought to myself: Who is this copyright, that tries what he can to find even the tiniest flaw against this product? So I decided to take a look at your "introduction". Perhaps you are a famous magician or a professional performer? You know, everybody can take a look at the profile of anyone in the forum and read his or her previous posts. That is actually not called stalking, it's rather checking facts.

And if you think that asking what products you have made and if they are available and asking you to tell us more about your products... equals " so eager to sample my wares" and that you can "see a quick sale", is actually scary. A person of complete stability would never equal this.

That is actually not called stalking, it's rather checking facts.

Where were you when Asad Ahmad needed you

Stalking is easy (personally I like Rich Hall's selective walking) you need a neat phrase for getting the guy you're having an affair with to be allowed a pre-recorded 'soft' interview on the show you produce and one for getting your parent's business plugged on air.

Marc showed me this one at the South Tyneside Magic Festival, and I've been kicking myself for not buying it ever since. I put my order in today.

I find the criticisms quite entertaining though. When I saw the effect - close-up and on stage - I didn't feel any burning need to examine anything. I'd been stunned in a 'bloody hell he pulled my card from his wallet' kind of way. handling and inspecting the props never crossed my mind.

And the suggestion that professional, experienced magicians don't want high-impact effects such as Bang On is funny.It reminds me of a product manager in the high-end video editing market who once tried to assure me that 'professional video editors don't use or want effects'. Of course they bloody do. They might not use them as often and as mindlessly as amateurs do, but they still have their uses when used in an appropriate context.

I can't imagine any professional magician dismissing a trick or routine on the grounds that it has too much of a wow factor!

pcwells wrote:And the suggestion that professional, experienced magicians don't want high-impact effects.
I can't imagine any professional magician dismissing a trick or routine on the grounds that it has too much of a wow factor!

Who has suggested this

I looked into the thread on Marc Oberon’s ‘Bang On’ and noted that there are many, many postings on this effect. It is natural that, as magicians, we are interested in ‘impossible’ type effects mainly because we don’t know how they are done. Dealers will use the phrase “This will make your reputation” etc. I will agree that looking at the video clips it really is an amazing effect from a magician’s point of view and “Well done” to Marc Oberon for creating it. It is so straight forward, clean, and just about impossible from a magicians point of view.

However, do remember we are there to entertain and amaze the lay public and there must be thousands of effects that, to the general public, are amazing and impossible. When they go home they will repeat what they have seen you do to their friends, only so often they will only repeat what they think they saw and even elaborate on that. Your reputation as a worker of the impossible will be enlarged so much without you doing a thing about it.

Let’s take the most simplest and well known of effects, the bare hand vanish of a cigarette in a TT. “Old hat” “Boring” I hear you cry! To magicians, yes, but to the public an absolutely impossibility. (Oh dear, what will I do when there is absolutely No Smoking at events?) One could go on with so many effects that are ‘impossible’ to the paying public.

Just think – virtually any Card in Wallet routine could be remembered by an audience as virtually the same effect, especially if the card has been signed. WE know it’s not the same, but Joe Public????

Mentioning this to a colleague this morning and he e-mailed me the following.
Supreme Magic put out an effect called "Thought Explosion Wallet" attributed to Billy McComb. In essence you opened a wallet and showed it contained a single playing card back out which was removed but its face not shown. The wallet was seen to be empty and the card replaced. A spectator named any card, the card was removed from the wallet and shown to be the card selected and the wallet was then empty. Please note the strong point in that the card was not named prior to the wallet being removed from a pocket. In fact you never needed the wallet to ever be inside a pocket at all. Well there we are – all those years ago. To the public, the same effect.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not in any way decrying Mark Oberon’s work or talents. He is rightly entitled to be fully rewarded for creating this wonderful trick and others like it. However, don’t feel that you have to spend £70.00 to convince your audience that you are a miracle worker.
Mark

Folks...

Can we get back to the actual subject of discussion, rather than the general psychology of performance?

Perhaps if this is such a great talking point, a separate thread is needed....