talkmagic.co.uk

Was pointed at this by GoMagicGo podcast ... Breakthrough Magic.

To be honest I'm a little bit concerned about how its all going to turn out...

Why concerned?

Part of my concern is that I don't know how its going to run, but I can certainly imagine a worst case. Don't get me wrong, I think its admirable for anyone to encourage creativity within the art, but how is that creativity going to be guided.

Question: are most magicians wannabee Vernons or simply undiscovered Vernons. (Insert magician you respect as you see fit).

Unless the submissions are filtered then we're likely to get reinterpretations, rediscoveries or rehandlings of old effects. I get enough of that from commercial outfits, never mind the undiscovered. I'm sure the odd gem will pop up from time to time, but all we really need is more noise in the already murky creative magic pot.

Let me use an example that everyone here should understand. Everyone here knows the Biddle Trick from Oz Pearlman Born To Perform. But its not Ozs trick, its actually called Wow! and is by Dick Ferguson. Even in saying that I maybe wrong as there maybe other work which predates this, that I don't know about as my historical background is limited. The point is that slowly the Biddle Trick is associated with Oz and not its creator. I doubt this is Ozs intention, but there are no references given on the DVD so why would anyone assume it wasn't his effect. If it seems that I'm picking on Oz, I'm not, I really like Born To Perform, I just wish some background on the effects were given. In reality, I find it difficult to name any DVD that I own that does contain references to the effect originator. That maybe why I tend to work from books, nowadays.

So we're loosing any sense of history, ethics and perspective thanks to commercial magic. Now we want to let the amateurs loose. Again, I'm supportive of anyone who is trying to create original work, but whats the definition of original and who says. I, like most, have my own little creative moments, but I wouldn't dare consider publish because apart from the fact that my creations are probably a bit s***, I dont know enough to even start considering it.

This could be a great opportunity to get some of this nonsense out in the air and actually teach people about ethics, and history. I know I need the education. I fear, despite everyones good intentions that it may not work out like that.

Sorry if I'm bring everyone down, at least today I'm just frustrated and not grumpy. Again, I'm not picking on Born To Perform, I highly recommend it as a DVD, and to be honest there are far worse offenders I could have selected but thats another story.

Let's face it, most of the submissions will be like the terrible X Factor auditions we all laugh at, but just a small handful will have something truly fabulous.

I totally understand your point, now pd - just looking for a clarification.

I agree that we do lose a sense of history when people just claim things as their own. However, I see no problem with a "repackaging" of an effect, so long as the variation does enough to further promote/enhance the original.

I don't advocate just ripping off the entire effect and selling it as your own. However, variations to patter/storyline, handling are all fine, so long as the true creator is referenced and pointed out.

I'm working on a manuscript of my own - and I can almost guarantee that none of my work is groundbreaking, never before seen material. However - I feel they are strong enough to stand on their own - and in each and every instance where my effect stems from an existing effect, I have sought the permission from that creator, and will reference them in my notes.

In regards to DVD's - I would point out Michael Ammar and John Guastaferro as two professionals who take the time to credit and reference the inventors and/or inspirations behind the effects they perform. Ammar's ETMCM series is a perfect example of this, I think.

You're not bringing anyone down, and your opinion comes from a true love of keeping the history of magic intact - something that I think all of us should bear in mind. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr. Sankey - so I will put my faith in him and trust that he won't allow such things to happen.

I am looking forward to it - but thanks to your comments, I will be keeping a watchful eye on what comes from this project.

Thanks for taking the time to write down your views. Personally, I guess I'm just becoming a little disenchanted by the whole community, between the internet download kiddies and the general state of the commercial side.

Congrats on attempting to publish your own material, and your strong ethical stand. And of course your right, there are those who provide full references as part of their work. There just isn't many of them.

pdjamez wrote:Thanks for taking the time to write down your views. Personally, I guess I'm just becoming a little disenchanted by the whole community, between the internet download kiddies and the general state of the commercial side.

I may be having a grumpy day as well but IMHO you're not on your own there by any means. Other threads from time to time here and on other discussion forums have touched on this, the high cost of one trick DVDs which turn out to be reworkings of old classics and standards, the rush for newcomers to publish' 'their' stuff' well before they fully understand about history and giving proper dues to the original inventors, and the 'must have' promotion by the commercial outlets to constantly push new items on a weekly (or more frequent) basis. Very reminiscent of the 'pop charts' as they used to be 20 or 30 years ago - lots of hype and not a lot of substance.

Certainly this initiative will produce the odd gem or two but, as has been mentioned, there will be shedloads of chaff to eliminate along the way. The UK based Magic Notes site was innovative in providing a publishing and sales facility for new routines but it's increasingly difficult to produce something which is genuinely new rather than a 'take' on something else. I'm equally pessimistic but I'd love to be proved wrong.
(OK, I'll go and blow the dust off my signed photo of Victor Meldrew)

I totally agree that this is an accident potentially waiting to happen!

How many more 'coin in can', 'mega flourish', 'watch me levitate' or 'anticlimax' tricks can we handle?

The term 'magician' is getting diluted. When I were a lad ('Hovis theme plays'...) a magician was someone I respected because of their skills... Canasta, Daniels, Vernon, Maven, Slydini, Dobson, all names from my past (from a much longer list).

However, a 'magician' now seems to be someone who produces a killer effect which sells well commercially. Magician's of yesteryear were passionate, hard-working and dedicated. Ed Marlo springs to mind.

Their goal wasn't fame and fortune—it was an ambition to be better than they could be, to invent, to perpetuate, to create.

Sure, there's a lot of creative people around. And I have to agree that there's a lot of good things coming out of it all.

But what is frustrating me is the shift from *real* magic to *commercial* magic. A lot of the real magic is being overshadowed by what can only be termed as 'garbage'. But this stuff is selling well, and then it surely must be good, right?

Taking the X-factor analogy further - it best i would think it produce maybe 1 or 2 sucsesses...but for how long? a year at best...then away into obscurity again...

a flash in the dove-pan...

i think talent is talent...there's plenty of lesser known bands for example who are/were infinitately more talented and original than some more famous ones...

...maybe in this day and age of pdfs and sites such as these, there could be an online library created... Yes, it would take quite a while to build, but it would be nice to document all the past-masters of magic in some way for future reference and that they dont get forgotten or overlooked...

not so it exposed how they did something, but what they achieved and why/what they are so respected for...

I spoke to a media-type person from the Magic Circle a while back, he did mention that they were raising the bar for acceptance into the Circle...

But again, with music and magic, i would think it's very hard to be completely original anymore...perhaps its more on the delivery rather than the actual mechanics...

abraxus wrote:...maybe in this day and age of pdfs and sites such as these, there could be an online library created... Yes, it would take quite a while to build, but it would be nice to document all the past-masters of magic in some way for future reference and that they dont get forgotten or overlooked...

Wow, I'm a little happier today now I know I'm not the only one. There have been a number of attempts at the library but they haven't really worked for one reason or another. Its odd that this should be what wikipedia is about, but their own ethics are at odds with our own.

This would be an outstanding research tool, I've got the hosting space, if anyone is interested in contributing. Obviously we need people with a solid magic background and the ethics would have to be clearly defined.

I suspect most people wouldn't be that interested, but its worth asking the question. If we actually want to protect the knowledge for future generations, and our own sanity, its going to take some work.

wikipedia are not my favourites since i read the exposure on it, nor their nasally whinging when i complained about it...

might it be worth rattling off an e-mail to the magic circle for a start off? then maybe try and contact a respected gent from each sub-strand of magic (bizarre/mentalism/cards/so on and so forth)...

oooh imagine a nice family tree so you can track each branch of magic from its roots...

enough tree puns...

...actually, if anyone ever used to watch "rock family trees" then that would be ideal to my mind...from the fore-fathers to the obscure to the sub-divisions...

even mentioning the Egyptian hieroglyphics with the magician performing cup/ball routines, gali gali men, history of tarot and influences on playing cards...then onto the fore-fathers and so on...

wikipedia is obviously not the place to start. The magic circle has already been contacted about this, do a search and you'll see their response.

As for contacting respected gents, well wikis don't quite work like that, which is good because it means we don't have a heavy dependence upon a few people. The load is shared amongst a larger community. I guess thats why I asked the question, without a larger level of support, any library project will eventually die.

The other point of wikis is that you can organise the information in multiple ways, so your magic family tree is entirely possible.

why not a restricted site that only magicians could update - like a magic wikipedia...a living document, but only updated by people who actually know something about it? That way you could control the access...

Magic Castle/Circle and so on...

imagine a nice memoires section from who worked with who...

magikapedia...

I guess thats what we're both aiming at. But you've now hit the first problem. Who says who has access?

Either we restrict the content, which we would have to do anyway or we're in breach of our protectionist ideal. This would allow us to be more open.

If we restrict the content and lock down access, then I would worry that we just become yet another exposure site, just a little more organised.

I'm not sure this is workable? Although there is undoubtably a need.