talkmagic.co.uk

AAAAHHHHRRRGGHHHH!

Right: Firstly, we're about to suffer overkill of opinion here.
Secondly, we're on the verge of 'analogies taking over analysis'.

The point is this...
If sleights/moves/subtleties were common knowledge enough that they DIDN'T NEED INCLUDING in packet effects and the like, then there'd be no point us needing to learn would there?

Cars, cookery, DVD, video—most of that stuff is COMMON SENSE and COMMON KNOWLEDGE. AKA progressive intelligence/learning.

Magic, on the other hand, is solely reliant on secrecy.

I totally agree that writers should NEVER assume or take for granted that a sleight or move is common knowledge.

A predominant rope/sponge worker buying a packet effect would be mightily put off by the Elmsley count if it weren't explained. Because they'd then have to research and buy a textbook explaining the count.

I write magic. And practically everything I've written contains step-by-step explanations of the sleights or moves needed.

Why go the extra mile and spend the time doing it PLUS the cost of reproducing an extra 2 pages?

Because I want people to learn. Because, the more people that learn, the richer the magic community will be.

I know experienced magicians who say "Blimey—so THAT'S a double-undercut!!!" or "OH! So, that's a French Drop!" and they are suddenly enlightened. It's a valuable learning tool.

Not only does this extra instruction give added value to your purchase, but it will theoretically give you confidence in moves which you would have otherwise hidden from.

AND! If all that weren't enough, it ALSO can assist in teaching you that there are more than one way to skin a cat, by showing different magician's methods of performing the same move.

This whole analogy of 'if cookbooks followed the path' or 'if cars came with a highway code' is simply ridiculous.

Magic is something which has hidden corridors, portals and gems. Ever day is a new progression in your journey.

And personally, I think that giving conclusive and precise magic instructions should be an expectation, not a bonus.

And to prove my point?

Hands up: All those who bought NFW and would have gladly paid an extra £5 if there was a video demo of the Elmsley Count included...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Hmm... I may be here some time counting...

Hands up: All those who bought NFW and would have gladly paid an extra £5 if there was a video demo of the Elmsley Count included...

I have both hands fully aloft! It would have saved buying not only a sleights vid but also a sleights book. However, the book and the vid show a lot more that the Elmsley so.........I'll shut up!

PS If you're considering buying a second effect, would you buy from the source who gave you the full monty on your first purchase or would you prefer to go where you only got 95% of what you needed? OK, I know - analogy overkill junction dead ahead!

While I agree that some things shouldn't need explanation, like a classic palm, there is no reason the directions cannot give a basic explanation and include where to look to find such information.

In one effect that I bought (many years ago, sorry, I don't remember exaclty whick) the directions explained that I had to "cull the card" to the top. What? I had absolutely no idea what a "cull" was, let alone how to do it.

If you're going to sell an effect, it is your job to teach that effect, pure and simple. If you can't do that, then you don't need to teach it to anyone. And, of course, once you realize that the directions are useless to you, you are just out of luck, because, "You bought the secret, not the equipment!"

Mike.

seige wrote:This whole analogy of 'if cookbooks followed the path' or 'if cars came with a highway code' is simply ridiculous.

I still have to disagree with you. I don't know why you think magic is so different to any other area where basic technique must be learnt before it can be applied.
Someone said something about 'reinventing the wheel'. Having to explain every sleight used in every effect as part of the package of the effect isn't reinventing the wheel; it's explaining how the same old wheel works - over and and over and over again.

seige wrote:Hands up: All those who bought NFW and would have gladly paid an extra £5 if there was a video demo of the Elmsley Count included...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Hmm... I may be here some time counting...

And hands up who thinks you'd be a lot better off paying £20 for one of Daryl's encyclopedia DVDs (or a number of other books or DVDs) that teaches not just the Elmsley count but 40 or 50 other sleights and never having to pay another £5 to learn the Elmsley count again?
The Elmsley is a basic sleight. It's not some weird thing that was created to make NFW work (in which case it certainly should be explained). It's used in hundreds of effects. If you work with cards you need to know it so do yourself a favour and find a really good place to learn it from and learn it well rather than wishing that it was included in some effect instructions as a 1 paragraph afterthought with a couple of scribbled illustrations.
The argument here seems to be that no-one should ever have to buy Card College or RRtCM or ECT or the Encyclopedia of Card Sleights or Basic Card Technique if they want to do card magic because every effect you buy should teach you everything from the ground up. I disagree with that partly because of the practical arguments above and partly because I just think it's lazy to want to learn a trick without wanting to bother to learn about card magic. By my analogy it's wanting to play music without bothering to learn to play an instrument. (Btw I know RRtCM doesn't have the Elmsley in it because it's too old, but practically everything written on card sleights in the last twenty years does).
I'm arguing against people whose views I have a lot of respect for here so I do feel like I'm going out on a limb a bit. I'll leave it there I think now I've completed my opinion dump and respectfully disagree.

Apologies if I upset anybody.

Apologies if I upset anybody.

No need to apologise at all but thanks anyway, this is a good thread and worthy of discussion time. If we all agreed over everything, there would be no point and no positive development. I think there's a gem of common agreement in all the postings so we're just discussing the finer aspects, so to speak!

As Mandrake says, there's no RIGHT or WRONG here... they are opinions.

And it's my opinion that as correctly stated by Mr Jay (ello!), the casual purchaser who buys an effect will be much happier if it's complete.

A cardie wanting to add a coin routine to his repertoire would possibly be mightily put-off if he had to buy Bobo's or a Roth DVD just to learn the French Drop.

I hear what you're saying—but sometimes it's not desirable to buy an entire sleight encyclopaedia just to learn one move.

And as far as analogies go, I would be quite happy to take your Windows GUI off you and let you work via command-line instructions. Or perhaps leave your car with 5 identical holes without labelling which one is water, which is oil, which is brake fluid.

Or, perhaps a sell-by/use-by date on your food is not entirely needed, because, as we are all adept in the skills of microbiology and bacterial germination prediction, we'd know that our sliced cheese will take approximately 3 days to go 'off'.

(meant in a lighthearted way, of course)

Charles, far from upsetting anybody you have aired your views and your opinion is as relevant as everyone elses.

There is no doubt a fine line between whether or not to explain obvious moves and one of the problems is defining what is an obvious move and what isn't.

For example, if the effect said shiffle the cards, we woulnt expect to be taught a basic overhand shuffle, but to be honest I tend to agree with the concensus that if a trick is being sold as a self contained packet effect, it should include ALL the sleights needed.

It's all very well saying "Force the card using your favourite method", but does it really hurt to follow that with one example of a force that could be used. Yes of course we all have favouite forces, some for forcing a top card, some for forcing a bottom card, some even for forcing cards from the middle, but there is no reason why this little extra bit of information should be used.

I personally feel Mandrake was right when he said that if you bought two similar effects from different places you are more inclined to rebuy from the place who's instructions are the best. Surely people selling these effects what to sell more in the future?

Also, it's all very well saying that if we were seriously into card magic we would own the books and dvd's, and indeed those seriously into it do so, however we are all eager newbies at one time. We all have to start from somewhere, and whereas I agree that we would be better off buying the classic starter books (RRTCM etc), that's not normally how it works. We are usually too eager to do it that way. We want to buy some effects. It may be the wrong approachj, but I reckon most of us did it that way.

So if you bought a trick like twisted sisters for example. You would get the full explanation and you would maybe do it with the EC first, but after a while you would practice and think "Wow! thats a really nice move" and maybe THAT will get you eager to learn more sleights and start buying books.

If you have ever read any of Seige's magic you will know that with the instructions you always get comprehensive details of ALL sleights involved. Most of these will be glossed over and not even read by the experienced cardicians, but in my opinion when I see them there I just think how professional it is,and how I know without a shadow of a doubt that anything I buy from that stable will always be of the same quality. I AM therefore much more inclined to keep buying his effects.

On the other hand, you buy something and you have to do a lot f additional work to try and get it to work - you will be less inclined to buy from the same person.

Michael Jay gave an example of a "cull", I had a similar experience with a "tilt" move, and I do have a lot of books and it took me adges to find out what the heck a "tilt" move was. ok, I feel embarrassed for not knowing now, but I had never come across it before at the time and it simple meant that I couldnt do the effect in question.

The thing is that if it had been explained, I may have thought, ok, I can do that or maybe I can do xxx instead, but at the time I didnt really even know what it was trying to achieve.

As it happened in this case, I emailed the author and got a great explanation back, but how difficult would it have been to include that in the book?

just to point out.... i recently bought "counts, cuts, moves and subtlety" by Jerry Mentzer which has the following as the foreward

Counts, spreads, secret moves etc abound in card magic. Quite a number of the secret maneuvers are most applicable to the realm of "packet tricks." In this sort of trick with only a few cards in use instead of a full deck, the secret stuff comes into its own.
In this book is an accumulation of many of the basic moves used in packet tricks. he book is intended to serve as a reference work for the beginner in the field of packet tricks as well as for the magician who has some experience, but is not familiar with all the secret maneuvers packet tricks require"

i bought it purely because there are moves that i dont know for certain effects, but what im trying to say is i dont grudge buying it because its a useful thing to know especially if i intend to go on and make up my own effects!


Alternatively "the complete walton" has a whole chapter dedicated to sleights and counts at the back of book 1 BUT these only cover the effects that are used in his books.

Jerry Sadowitz's "Cards on the table" has a brief description of "some" moves required but not all of them.


However (i could be wrong on this) but isn't there also a matter of copyright infringement if someone prints the workings of a sleight without authorisation from the creator? for example someone could write an effect which uses "Mighty Mogs Power Ranging Utility move" But without my say so, couldnt reproduce instructions? (instructions are available on request )

my point is that i have a card trick from steven tucker that comes with one page of instructions which bearly explain the set up of the trick and dos't explain the one move that makes the trick work just keeps saying do the em or do the em than show......
what is particularly frustrating to me is that thease are jumbo cards so a regular handleing of the emsley is wrong and as such i think this a special case and would not have cost any more to use the other half of the page to print an explanation.

i would be, and have been put of buying any ohter steven tucker magic item because of this lack of explanation which is in direct contrast to pips a popping which takes a few lines to explain even basic slieghts by way of example and takes a whole page to explain a spell-bound change which is a vital part of the routine at no real extra production cost.

oh and ps guys thanks for all your help with the elmsley pointers but I'm still left witha trick i can't use.

I think many of the common slieghts (Elmsley count included) must be public domain.

Usually when I have seen the lesser known moves on dvds, they have not only been credited to the originator but included with the originator's permission. But then the only one I can think of off hand is Bill Symons prochecy move.

so I think if any one did want to do Mighty Mogs Power Ranging Utility move on a dvd, or teachj it as part of a packet trick, I would hope that they would ask first, and I am sure you would give your permission as it would be more publicity for you...

incidentaly, I look forwad to seeing it in "techniques" later today

knew i shoulda kept quiet... hehe

As a newbie I find it really frustrating to buy a trick (especially cards) and then find that I have to spend another 20 or 30 quid just to find out how to do a simple move that evryone "should" know, when I haven't got a clue about this or that sleight.

OK.. I do have a lot of reference material like the RRTCM and a few other DVDs that I think are incredibly useful but not all the books or DVDs cover everything and I've ended up buying stuff with some overlap in places.

I am not complaining about overlap, it's nice to see different ways of achieving the same thing and I've learnt a lot about presentation as well as the techniques, but I would like to be able to learn a trick without having to look somewhere else just to accomplish the trick and then spend the time developing other ways of doing it. For instance, like setting up and doing a DL, learn it first to do the trick and then evolve other ways of doing it so that I don't keep doing it the same way

To me it's like learning to drive a car using a book or DVD but then not being told how to use the windscreen wipers so I can't drive in the rain, or just saying "change gear" without any explanation of how to do this.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be without the reference material, but it would be nice to have all instructions included and have a different take on certain techniques so that i have a broad knowlegde and don't repeat the same way of doing something too often.

Just my view as a beginner.

Slippery

Charles Calthrop wrote:The argument here seems to be that no-one should ever have to buy Card College or RRtCM or ECT or the Encyclopedia of Card Sleights or Basic Card Technique if they want to do card magic because every effect you buy should teach you everything from the ground up. I disagree with that partly because of the practical arguments above and partly because I just think it's lazy to want to learn a trick without wanting to bother to learn about card magic. By my analogy it's wanting to play music without bothering to learn to play an instrument. (Btw I know RRtCM doesn't have the Elmsley in it because it's too old, but practically everything written on card sleights in the last twenty years does).

I do card magic. I don't own any of the books on cards that you've mentioned. I do very little card magic but what I do, I do well. And, I entertain my audience. If I'm going to buy a specific effect, that is a packet trick, then I should be told BEFORE I buy it if there is something that I need from a specific book, or I'll just be out of luck and out of my hard earned cash.

So, basically, I'll go along with what you're saying, as long as I'm told, prior to paying for said effect, that I will need to own specific books.

Regarding your analogy, that'd be like buying a book of guitar music, then finding out that it is useless to me if I can't play a piano. Well, with all due respect, horse hockey. I have the right, as a consumer, to be able to buy something that gives me what I need to use that item, or be told BEFORE the purchase that I will need further items before the product in question will be useful to me. I'm not going to buy a car that doesn't come with the key (or requires that I go to a lock smith before I can use it).

Further, to say that I'm lazy because I don't want to learn every card sleight before I should be able to do card magic is elitist. Sorry, Bro, I don't need to learn a pass to do what I do. And, I practice what I do, so don't call me lazy. I don't waste my time with technical stuff that I don't need, I spend my time on presentation. If I am completely useless and boring with my presentation, I sincerely doubt that my audience will be entertained when I explain that my pass is invisible.

Again, to your analogy of musical instruments: Is it lazy for a rhythm guitar player to decide to skip learning how to play leads? And, if that rhythm player is very good at what he does, is he lazy because he can't play leads? Why should that guitar player be mediocre at rhythm and leads, when he can be exceptional by playing rhythm to the exclusion of everything else?

Sorry, I don't find your argument compelling. I find it to be elitist and just another way for any schmuck to sell his ideas without teaching the buyer a single thing.

Mike.

Sorry Charles, but I'm going with everyone else too!

I am a competent card magician, well versed on sleights. Most of what I do uses a full deck of ordinary cards, and for those effects I have never needed an elmsley count, in fact I'm not even sure I have any description of how to do it. If I then went and bought a packet trick I would expect, since it is a trick that comes in a packet, to be told how to do it.

As it happens I can do an elsmley count, though I forget where I learned it, though it was certainly before I bought a packet trick. Despite the fact that I knew how I was still disapointed for the sake of others that the couple of packet tricks that I bought did not describe it.

as a slight moral to the story loony bin sent me printed instructions with photos for the emsley count after my complaint which was very nice of them.
only problem is that they are for normal cards and not jumbo ones but hey at least they offered to help.