talkmagic.co.uk

Beardy wrote:STOOGE!

No, he's a genuine psychic!

1. The reason I didn't want to say "it was on the card" is because thats obvious exsposure.

and

2. If it WAS on the card, then I'm surprised the woman didn't just say "It was on the card" or something. This was how the cat called Blakey was identified... but the dress seems more obvious.



Tom
xx

it's isn t exposure to say thats maybe she wrote that she got the dress on ebay on her question card. it's the main concept of Q&A, and for the woman not reacting well a lot of cold reading routine would end up like "yeah you repeated what i wrote", it"s the fact that he s able to guess the question without reading it that the spectator found "unbelievable".
Some spectator management and showmanship are required to prevent those kind of reaction from the public.

anyway we ll never find the true method, for one reason, we can't really know what happen in the break between the two acts.

Feel free to delete this if it constitutes exposure but there's some interesting insights in the comments section on this blog about the DB show in question :

http://wongablog.co.uk/2007/05/02/derre ... s/#respond

Sean

interesting read indeed !
i recommand to read the dr Crow series from Bob Cassidy as well, he got an interesting bit about reading trough sealed envelope.

At the end of the first act we were told to watch out for ushers with 150 cards. Recipients were asked to write a question for Derren on the card, seal it inside the supplied black envelope and note their initials and row on the front. They were then to check the envelope was truly opaque before walking onto the stage and placing it into a glass bowl, which remained in full view of the audience throughout the interval.

...hmm... Then how does he glimps them? IP? :s


Tom
xx

lets not tip-toe through the exposure lillypad please...

IAIN wrote:lets not tip-toe through the exposure lillypad please...

Fair point...


QUICK ROBIN! TO THE CORINDA MOBILE!

This has to be both, the funniest and saddest thread on the Q&A I've ever read.

I'll just mention two or three names here that may help the newbies in their quest;

Jack Kent Tiller, John Riggs and Jerome Finley

Ok... I'll give you a thumbs up for George Anderson too, with a touch of Jack Dean tossed in for the sake of some roundedness to things.

I don't think it's sad, I don't think it's practical to expect every 'newbie' to have heard of some/all of the mentalists that get bandied around as 'expected reading'.

Here in the UK, people like Derren Brown have really opened up the field of mentalism to all sorts of folk who weren't really interested in it before. It's only natural that they're going to use those performers as a reference/yardstick.

It's great that we have forums like these to discuss things on but I don't we should be getting too down about the fact that some people won't have read some of the more, dare I say, arcane names that get mentioned sometimes!

I actually think this is one of the more enjoyable threads I've read recently!

luxeomni wrote:interesting read indeed !
i recommand to read the dr Crow series from Bob Cassidy as well, he got an interesting bit about reading trough sealed envelope.

- I haven't read that book for ages. Had another glance through last night and I'd forgotten all about the f***l***t technique!! I'm not sure if that's how Derren may have performed at least some of the Q&A act.... but it's certainly bold enough for him to use!!

Klangster1971 wrote:Here in the UK, people like Derren Brown have really opened up the field of mentalism to all sorts of folk who weren't really interested in it before. It's only natural that they're going to use those performers as a reference/yardstick.

Do understand that most of us in the States see the whole Derren Brown thing in the same light we viewed Copperfield & Company during the 70s & 80's and of course David Blaine and Criss whatshisname in more recent years... the guy that's in everyone's face and thus, "the way" everyone envisions themselves as being... .they parrot in other words.

Peter Pit used to joke about all the "Clones" of magic in that there were three key type (on stage) -- the Copperfield or Sigfried & Roy styled Box Pusher, the Chavez/Channing Pollack automatons, and the obnoxious big mouth "comics"... (they weren't funny without magic and their magic was so poor they had to rely on the comedy to make it work...)

The "issue" is how folks used the Copperfield specials back then and the Brown/Blaine & Angel shows today, as a kind of Tv Shopping channel.

It's great that we have forums like these to discuss things on but I don't we should be getting too down about the fact that some people won't have read some of the more, dare I say, arcane names that get mentioned sometimes!

Agreed, but when someone starts off implying that he knows all the ins & outs on a particular act, sometimes you need to feed them a few leads that will allow them to recognize the fact that they haven't a clue... they're but babes in the woods, so to speak. The attitude set into the first post, at least as I read it, seemed to say that the poster "knew it all" but couldn't see how Brown pulled off his act... he went a step further, reinforcing what I said above... wanting to replicate what Brown does vs. doing his own thing... and as others have suggested, starting with what he has and evolving it.

Hands Down, the Q&A is one of the most devastating bits of Mentalism anyone can master but it takes years to smooth it out and find your own comfort zone when it comes to working it. I don't care if you're just doing a classic "Answers" styled act akin to what you'll see Dr. Gene Scott (Cicardi) do on his video (see [url]mevpropsho.com[/url] for details) or something more John Edwardesque such as how Jerome Finley does his shows (up to 2 hours of nothing but Q&A).

You will find that some of the best Q&A workers out there are fairly "full-time" Readers as well, which is part of the deeper secret when it comes to doing affective stage Readings that aren't "canned" or scripted (which can get you into more trouble than not).

I'd recommend anyone seeking to walk into this type of act to invest a solid year into doing some serious study. It's going to mean dropping a couple hundred dollars on study material and loads of time practicing and walking through the information, but once you've done this you will have a very solid, very real feeling bit of pure Psychic Entertainment.

I'll not go into a list unless someone asks, but you can start with the list I gave previously.

If someone is looking for some good beginners resources on Q&A I found Lee earle's Q&A Teach-in (like much of his work) very good. Eddie Bourke also had a booklet explaining the basic techniques. Bob Cassidy was also useful to me.
Paul Voodini's Reader of Minds should also be looked at. After that people will have the understanding to go after whatever specific more advanced resources they need.

a book i forgot about, Projected Answers - R. A. Nelson...thats fairly cheap, and its predominantly about how to deliver the answers in various ways...

I love Osterlind's Q&A routine in 'A Very Modern Mindreader'......