talkmagic.co.uk

Seige , I think smarvell's point is that the course is "too" complete and that a lot of stuff in the back section of the book a bit dated and has no relavence to the person who dose close-up at home and friends.

And where he agrees that its a good solid foundation even now days, the fact is he rather be doing the newer stuff thats out there.

All though you can see my post and my review defending the book I know its not going to be to every ones taste. And Smarvell's taste is diffrent to ours.

Markdini wrote:Seige , I think smarvell's point is that the course is "too" complete and that a lot of stuff in the back section of the book a bit dated and has no relavence to the person who dose close-up at home and friends.

And where he agrees that its a good solid foundation even now days, the fact is he rather be doing the newer stuff thats out there.

All though you can see my post and my review defending the book I know its not going to be to every ones taste. And Smarvell's taste is diffrent to ours.

You're right. And I took on board exactly what you said.

However, I was implying that the book is WORTH a read to anyone who's interested in a broader range. It stands that anyone—even modern 'smoke puffing, coin thru can wielding baggy trouser wearing' street kids could benefit from learning a few of the basics.

It's not unusual for pros to go and revisit 'oudated' or 'irrelevant' texts for inspiration.

I was not defending the book, and neither was I intentionally opposing Mr Marvell's review—I was elaborating on WHY the book may not suit everyone... basically re-inforcing the review and saying 'this is a COMPLETE course, not a specialist book'.

Seems I failed on that score!

I disagree seige. I think this is a complete course in old school magic which is highly relevant to contemporary magic, but there is a lot more to contemporary magic than can be found in this book.

This book does not give the user an informed choice about where to take direction unless the root point of their choice is in the book (which is rather self fulfilling).

Take me for instance. I have no idea what a TT looks like, how you use it or what scope of tricks can be done with it. But three people have told me I need to get one.

I would expect to find this item in a complete course in magic.

I do like the baggy trousers coment...

I am in a agreement as my above post said that it may not be every ones cuppa tea. And books are very much a matter of opion.

And magicians revisiting old stuff, wasnt strange traverlers 70 odd years old well the priciple behind it.

Yes and it is worth a read.

I think all sides of the coin have been shown now.

I have this wonderful picture of a baggy trouser wearing street mage performing a levitation, coin through Sunny Delight bottle and then Fatty Man, the hip hop hankerchief, stiff shoe laces and then producing a crow from his beenie.

OK, I'm hanging up my soapbox now.

I was actually trying to justify your post—not oppose it, smarvell!

Suffice to say, as my final comment:

DO BUY THIS:
If you want a look at how magic techniques over a range of genres is implemented correctly and with flair. A useful history lesson if nothing else, and a snapshot of an era.

DO NOT BUY THIS:
If you just want/desire fast self-working effects and care not about the origins of magic effects such as cups and balls etc.

Sorry if I appeared to stir things up.

(There's a lot of love going on in here, just thought I'd share some )

Hahaha i can see it now,

This is a very good point that it should include a TT but where do you stop? There isnt a section on card manipulation (cardini type) but you wouldnt need a TT idont think if you could master all the tricks in it. Actually very few DvDs that I own mention a TT at all,

2 of sankeys.
Trickery by Dave Forrest
Darwins Encyopedia of TT magic.

Now the TT is a great tool i have about 12 myself. I dont know why the TT isnt spoken about in the book. Maybe a TT section should have been included.

Although a TT routine isn't mentioned in the book there is a set up for a full which does a similar job (page 279). The method used to peform it is very similar to how you would peform the silk vanish with a TT. Aswell and this some of the comments and suggestions after the tricks would help when using a TT. I think it excludes the TT as a gimmick simply because alot of people that are new to magic (who have bought the book) don't want to be told they have to buy other things to perfrom the tricks in the book

Just a thought

Sam

smarvell wrote:I read this as you implying that me, like many new magicians, don't appreciate the solid basics and foundations of magic and that we dismiss old style tricks out of hand as irrelevant, rather than just dated.

Ah I see what you mean now, the intention was completely the opposite! No worries, I love you too.
(But purely in a professional, brotherly and masculine way, of course. No tongues or anything like that.)

seige wrote:I was actually trying to justify your post—not oppose it, smarvell!

I am aware that, and I love you.

seige wrote:DO BUY THIS:
If you want a look at how magic techniques over a range of genres is implemented correctly and with flair. A useful history lesson if nothing else, and a snapshot of an era.

Yes indeedy.

seige wrote:DO NOT BUY THIS:
If you just want/desire fast self-working effects and care not about the origins of magic effects such as cups and balls etc.

This is the bit I object to. You and others imply that if you're not into cups, balls, napkins and rabbits then you're into unskilled, expensive self working tricks, which is not the case at all.

If that had read:

If you just want/desire fast self-working effects OR care not about the origins of magic effects such as cups and balls etc

... then I'd not have taken such a stand. It's they way people link them that annoys me.

See what I mean?

I don't want to perform cups & balls, sponge magic or have doves shooting out of my jacket. I don't want to perform on stage. This does not mean I don't care about skill, nor that I want all my tricks self working or gimmicked.

Sir_Digby_Chicken_Ceaser wrote:I think it excludes the TT as a gimmick simply because alot of people that are new to magic (who have bought the book) don't want to be told they have to buy other things to perfrom the tricks in the book

That's a hard call. I'm not sure about that, given that you can buy a TT for the same price as a couple of decks of cards, a set of sponge balls or a few silks.

I think a complete course should be complete, irrespective of whether or not there is a requirement to spend money. You'd have to spend money on those doves anyway

I'm just so misunderstood.

(so I'm told by my therapist, wife, dog, fish, friends, brother, car, squid...)

We understand you Seige kinda.


Anyhoot i think Smarvell would be better of getting one of them new fangled street magic books, I hear Zennon's is a good one.

so here we have it old school vs new, cups and ball vs coins in a soda can. street vs the stage. the old guard vs the new. only joking but I my self the great Markdini found things people have raved about not to my liking i brought strange travelers and the raven ( though the raven is a 50/50 half the people love half dont.) and found out they wasnt for me,

New effect require skill too yeap no doubting that.

It's true Markdini, there is a divide and there is overlap.

Those of you who like the old school routines and adapt to modern materials or routines will love the book (8/10) and those who do not care for them will not (4/10).

In the future, I may well return to the book and look back at this and see that it was a good purchase and that I do like it; that I can adapt things for modern routines and I do find it useful. However, it will still remain the fact that I have the mindset now that I do not wish to perform this type of magic and that money is better spent on other books.

I will not be selling this book, of course.

You know what, you chaps' passion has inspired me to reread this book and adapt some of the effects for a modern audience with contemporary materials.

Thankyou, once again.