talkmagic.co.uk

stepSeven wrote:

the reason none of them are mentioned is because Criss Angel/Oz Pearlman/Blaine/Derren Brown (although those of us in the know know that he does) etc DONT do them and so theyre deemed unworthy by of all the masterful magicians that spring up from the youtube era....sadly

Criss Angel/Oz Pearlman/Blaine/Derren Brown - Is that all that is is discussed in the "Secrets" Area then?

Can't those that do deem said subjects worthy not start the odd thread on them?

it was just something i've noticed over the time i've been on here that's all...maybe thats why some, or even myself havent started threads on them, cos the majority dont mention them much/at all during other posts...so who would they discuss them with?

moonbeam - you've not got a jardin ellis ring then? a TT only costs a couple of quid, and look at what you can do with that...i wouldnt dismiss something just cos it's cheap...

sorry! im in a cantankerous mood so far today...

I have to say abraxus - I love your new avatar. Really slick!

Abrax, I agree with your OP, these are some worthy but overlooked topics there.

I wasn't suggesting you should start threads on them - that comment was a response to mog's whining.

wasnt whining... just stating a simple fact which is most of the new users to this board within maybe 5 or 10 posts are asking questions about the guys i mentioned because they are viewed as the "hip and cool" magicians of today. what they dont realise is without folk like Marlo/Erdnase/Anneman/Bobo is that the majority of stuff that the "yoof" magicians do wouldnt exist.

As for starting threads about the "old masters" theres no point as they quickly slide down the thread list cos of some adolescent asking how criss angel picks his nose.

ive started many threads about folk like Allan Ackerman...Darwin Ortiz...Ed Marlo but for reasons mentioned above they got passed over. and thats not a whine either.. just another fact

Maybe the forum needs a 'play-pen' where the discussion on Nu-Magic can take place.

The rest of us can then get on and talk about old duffers that know nothing

abraxus wrote:moonbeam - you've not got a jardin ellis ring then? a TT only costs a couple of quid, and look at what you can do with that...i wouldnt dismiss something just cos it's cheap...

I did have one but I got rid of it - it just wasn't my cup of tea .

Each to their own I suppose .

and while im on a bit of a rant about it its the same way that certain effects are perceived as being out of fashion... how many nu magicians do you see doing cups and balls/linking rings/chop cups/even Spongeballs are considered old hat or beneath many of the younger generation. all that matters is the "latest" fad.. it really annoys me at times (was going to say something a lot worse there but i didnt want to offend the kiddies)

My magic was revolutionized when I took it from the boring Penguin Magic/Ellusionist c*** (not the best) I bought and transitioned to cups, balls, ropes, silks, rings, and sponge balls. I think Blaine, Angel, and Pearlman are jokes, personally, but I'll leave it at that.

I do, however, give Derren Brown and the brains behind his work (Andy Nyman, Max Maven, Luke Jermay, the clever camera editors, and all of the others that have contributed) make one amazing performance that actually engages the audience by getting "inside your mind" to make them participants rather than mildly bewildered spectators like in Blaine's specials.

One street(?) performer I sincerely enjoy is Cyril Takayama. He takes things beyond what Americans or Englishmen would consider "street magic" and transcends the "wanna see something" <insert vacant stare here> model of what is "trendy." Of course, as part of their culture, the Japanese just react amazingly well to anything, so perhaps it's not quite engaging as it looks, but it's still better than "check this out... pick a card..."

Ciao,
Rob

I eat my Cadbury's Creme eggs all in one go. I had six in a row on Easter Sunday and needed at least 8 pints of tea to counteract them.

Cup and Balls is about the least magicial thing a performer could do. Everyone in the audience knows how it's done and however impressive the performer practically everyone sees something they shouldn't at least one. This isn't to say that watching a skillful perfomer working the cups and balls isn't good entertainment but it's closer to juggling than magic.

Similarly, rings, ropes and sponge balls are old fashioned and it's more a problem of how the audience perceive them than new magicians.

I'm always up for an Annemann discussion, perhaps I start a thread and see where it goes.

Cup and Balls is about the least magicial thing a performer could do. Everyone in the audience knows how it's done and however impressive the performer practically everyone sees something they shouldn't at least one. This isn't to say that watching a skillful perfomer working the cups and balls isn't good entertainment but it's closer to juggling than magic.

b*ll*cks!

lol.. i love cups and balls..

havent learned it yet but should . I am getting magus capsules andI think that will be more my style

the_mog wrote:

Cup and Balls is about the least magicial thing a performer could do. Everyone in the audience knows how it's done and however impressive the performer practically everyone sees something they shouldn't at least one. This isn't to say that watching a skillful perfomer working the cups and balls isn't good entertainment but it's closer to juggling than magic.

b*ll*cks!

Nice.

the_mog wrote:b*ll*cks!

In 1977, I think it was, John Mortimer QC successfully defended The Sex Pistols against a charge of obscenity with the defence that "b*ll*cks" is medieval name for a priest. Hence the phrase "Never Mind The b*ll*cks, Here's The Sponge Balls".

Mortimer went on to write "Rumpole of the Bailey" and a million other brilliant things in the evenings while still drawing fees as a Silk. I think he has some sort of association with the Magic Circle. Class geezer or what?

The fact that the word could also mean Priest was used to prove that the word b*ll*cks could have many meanings and didn't necessary refer to testicles. Given the context, 'nevermind the priest' doesn't make sense, so the word must refer to something else, Mortimer argued that it meant 'nonsense' as in nevermind this nonsense about finding a title for the album, here's the Sex Pistols

However, the word b*ll*cks is still considered obscene, in fact a joint commission carried out in 2000 by the ASA, ITC and others ranked it the 8th most offensive on their list, with prick at #7 and @rseh@le at #9.

This being so, I think it's safe to say that the mog is an @rseh@le but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a prick.

However, I still find it unfair to slate cups and balls.

Folks may know it, and be bored to death by it, so why not up the ante?

That's what real magic is all about. A twist and a turn makes the mundane a miracle.

Cups and balls is probably one of the most overlooked little effects these days because of it's old-fashioned simplicity.

I recently had the pleasure of watching Ricky Jay's '52 assistants' tape, and his cups and balls finale is mesmerising.

Things I wish we'd hear more of on these forums are:

"I would like to offer this lovely little piece of knowledge on the xxxxx routine, which is my own variation of an Acer/Slydini/(insert *real* magician) effect"

People are all for taking on here these days, there's just not enough creativity or forthcoming from probably about 85% of members, who are literally just here to ask dumb questions.

And there's far too much testosterone flying around most of the time.

And that, sirs, from what I remember of biology, is produced by b*ll*cks.


However... I do believe in the context Mog was using it was derived from an old English word, 'b****k', which was used to refer to the clergy, as they were often thought of as talking rubbish.

In truth, it's only applicable in British English I think, as anyone else from the US or Europe (or anywhere else) will possibly not understand it.
And it's usually used in spoken language, not seen in print... in which circumstance it's usually acceptable.
Hence, it could be considered something of a colloquialism.

Knowing several 'Scots', I can safely say that the word is quite commonly used in almost everyday rantings.