talkmagic.co.uk

Vanderbelt wrote:

A_n_t wrote:Would you consider the same effect presented in a completely different way to be something different?

More importantly, would your audience?

I think there's a presentation/method axis upon which originality hangs...

If you wanted to do a 'lie detector' routine and used a Kurotsuke-style method to do so people would just point towards Brown. However, if you really wanted to do one (and there's no reason anyone shouldn't just because Brown has done it) and do so with a different method and 'wrapping' then I say you're fine.

When I do a Psychic Murder Mystery dinner party I use a Kurotsuke-style effect to select a murderer from the guests. Same 'trick' totally different presentation and no "oh, that's just like Dezza B* did a few years back".

* Don't ask

I agree, ironically of course, the lying thing comes from Nyman, which in turn came from Becker, so who's to say who calls dibs.

I remember something that Stephen Long wrote somewhere once about how anyone could want to do someone elses routine word for word... why would you want to in the first place? Making it yours is half the fun, and I have to say I agree with him 100%

Oh and P.S I can't believe that someone else uses that nickname... I thought I was just being weird.

I did initially miss the point of your argument actually Freddie, I'll admit to that. And maybe I do have a rose tinted view of things because I'm still at the stage where I'm learning and any creativity I apply will almost certainly be either fruitless or simply reinventing things other people have already done and I didn't know I could just learn from a book.

But like people have said, if magicians are in your audience they'll do your bit - possibly less effectively (like a wannabe comedian down the pub stealing a joke from a professional and not telling it right) or possibly more effectively.

If you perform something for other magicians at a club meeting and they all start doing the same method/effect/performance then why wouldn't the same be possible if they'd just gone to your show? Unless you have a strict rule of no magicians at your performances, you'll never be able to stop people trying to emulate you.

I think the club I'm in is pretty much made up of decent people, I don't think any of them would just go about stealing each other's material. A whole lot of sharing goes on, most of it with self developed ideas.

I'm really proud to be a member of the Pentacle Club.

If your magic club is full of act stealers and one-uppers it's probably not a very good club. Clubs are supposed to be about like minded people sharing in a common interest right?

I always kind of assumed that behind the scenes, magicians of all styles and levels of skill could at least feel some sort of kinship just through that common interest. The magicians I've met all seemed to have that sort of genuine bond to other magicians they've met. I assumed that backstage after the filming of Fool Us all the contenders got together for a drink to swap stories.

Maybe I've only met the good ones?

And, as you said, that's NOT my name. My name is Stacy. Everyone spells it Stacey. Even people who have seen it written.

What's with that...

Oh and yes, I am new to this, but I'm sure you were new to this once, and you seem to have turned out okay.

The4thCircle wrote:and you seem to have turned out okay.

Freddie will be the first to admit that's still up for debate.

Lord Freddie wrote:It would make you look like a poor Dynamo.
If you have original stuff that they haven't seen before they will want to see more of YOU rather than ask you to repeat something someone else has done.

For instance, if you were in a band and people called out for other artists songs, would you go away and learn a weak cover version or come up with your own which is unique?

I understand the point regarding people modifying tricks to their own presentation, but many magicians just copy patter as is without any concession to originality.

VERY good point ... and tbh, part of the reason that I dont do tricks like that is because a) I dont want to be branded as a copycat street magician in a bar and b) because my style REALLY wouldnt fit those type of tricks

PS Sorry Stacy

Dan

Arkesus wrote:

The4thCircle wrote:and you seem to have turned out okay.

Freddie will be the first to admit that's still up for debate.

There's no debate - it's all made me made as a hatter!

Stace, I admire your enthusiasm (my psychic vibes were right thinking you were new to all this), however a few years down the line, if you peruse the art, you will no doubt be agreeing with me. I'm old fashioned, I don't look at another performer and think "what can I have for myself?", I admire their performance yet do my own thing. Certainly people have inspired me and given me golden advice, but I don't think by changing one part of a routine it's suddenly my own.

This whole thread, and the magicians response to Fool Us, is representative as to what's wrong with many magicians - fully focussed on method whilst performance is overlooked.

phillipnorthfield wrote:I agree, ironically of course, the lying thing comes from Nyman, which in turn came from Becker, so who's to say who calls dibs.

Your audience do.

phillipnorthfield wrote:Oh and P.S I can't believe that someone else uses that nickname... I thought I was just being weird.

You are, I was just showing off some gimmickless mind-reading

Blimey, how far back was the last post about P&T?

Lawrence wrote:Blimey, how far back was the last post about P&T?

My friend Richard was at the show which is apparently being shown next week ... he claimed that a trick went so bad that he doesnt think it'll be shown on TV (blamed a bad audience member picking stuff up off the table when she shouldnt, changing her mind randomly) ... should this have NOT been shown on TV?

Thoughts?

Dan (hopefully this thread is back on track )

Interestingly I went to see John Soliman last night in Brighton and he performed the Colin McLeod invisible book routine that Colin did on P&T (not sure of the exact name) so I guess he wasn't worried about the method being exposed. Sitting at the back I was wondering if there would be a disaffected rumble from the audience but it actually went down very well (despite the volunteer almost fluffing the trick, which is why it's essential to have outs I suppose).

This isn't exposure in a masked magician way, it's very much in the parlance of the magician so I wonder if lay folks really know how things are done from the explanation Penn gives?

The4thCircle wrote:To be fair, the main purpose of the magic community is for people to learn from each other and teach each other, to share ideas and concepts.

I thought the main purpose was to buy gimmicks from each other

I was enjoying this show until they put on a quick change act. Even an audience knows how its done, still an amazing act to watch but to try and fool anyone with it is totally bonkers.

Mancunian Lee wrote:I was enjoying this show until they put on a quick change act. Even an audience knows how its done, still an amazing act to watch but to try and fool anyone with it is totally bonkers.

It didn't help having the camera go around the back and reveal more than I'm sure they'd have liked (you'll know what I mean I'm sure).

the problem with the quick change act, is the costumes. They look like they are made from heavy fabric, which is why you get the bulk. they should all be silk. To me it looked like the lass,( who is very atractive) went from Jordan to twiggy in 8 minutes.

and what they also miss out on, is the little extra thing D & D do, which is to include low cut frocks in the set. technicaly they are the same, with a bit added.


(maybe that should read a couple of bits added.)

Magical_Trevor wrote:

Lawrence wrote:Blimey, how far back was the last post about P&T?

My friend Richard was at the show which is apparently being shown next week ... he claimed that a trick went so bad that he doesnt think it'll be shown on TV (blamed a bad audience member picking stuff up off the table when she shouldnt, changing her mind randomly) ... should this have NOT been shown on TV?

Thoughts?

Dan (hopefully this thread is back on track )

Just to clarify something here Dan. Your friend Richard saw 5 acts filmed, 3 of which have already been shown (Matthieu Bich, Alan Rorrison, Gazzo) The one that went horribly wrong, and the one that is going to be shown next week. Next week's show is very much like all the others in that it will be varuious performances from different recording sessions cut together to make one episode.

Lord Freddie wrote:
This whole thread, and the magicians response to Fool Us, is representative as to what's wrong with many magicians - fully focussed on method whilst performance is overlooked.

It's also representative of what is wrong with the show itself - not only the magician's response, but also that of the viewer, is about method. The show is set up to 'find out' the workings. It asks the viewer (albeit through Penn and Teller) to work out how the effect (sorry trick) is done.

This de-values presentation itself. For example, I really loved Piff's act and really didn't want to see P&T de-construct the method. I just wanted to see the act.

I really dislike cryptic clues pointing to methods.

What's wrong with simply enjoying a moment of magic and performance?