talkmagic.co.uk

Madam. You surprise me. Still, in Manchester I have been told that the men are often like women and the women are often like men. I should have realised this.
Besides it is all your fault for having a funny name.

As for Banacek being one of the biggest names in Magic I am afraid the chap puts me to sleep when he works. Far too much "umming" and "ahhing". You would think he would know how to do his act by now.

Anyway being well known in magic is on a par with being well known in your apartment building.

With regard to the discussion I have no objection to good modern magic. It is just that I haven't seen any. All I see is old stuff rehashed.

I cannot quite understand the 'apartment' metaphor? What I meant by mentioning Banachek was that he has taken old principles and they are the foundation of his work and he has developed them and built onto them, it had absolutley nothing to do with his performance.
And yes, I can hardly deny that the new stuff is old stuff rehashed. But that is what I am saying, they are old stuff being developed, and updated. I cannot at all agree though that there hasn't been any good new magic. I should at this point mention, that what I perform is probably 80% mentalism, simply because the other 20% is better filled with 'magic' from an entertianment perspective and also from a reaction perspective. The thing with mentalism is that people can have the tendency to go 'I get it, you can read minds, go away. So you have to rely more on charisma, and interesting themes and personally I wouldn't classify myself as a mentalist because that could be limiting and damaging. The reason why I mention all of this, is because from that heavy influence of mentalism, I can see how much it has changed over the years, vastly so and that is pretty much the perspective I take for this debate. The changes however, are less apparent in 'magic' nearly all of which is incredibly old.

(I say 'magic' because I don't want to disguinish between magic and mentalism too much, but also I need them separate in order to communicate to some degree of clarity)

I asked Paul Pacific about this today and he was irritated that I disturbed him from admiring his own feet. However I persisted and asked him if Banacek had improved on old principles. He was terribly polite about it but basically he said "NO". He said he had changed things but of course that does not necessarily mean he improved anything.

In other words just as I said. Rehashed old things from before 1954. Methinks he should spend his time more productively learning not to hum and ha.

If young Samuel wants to know anything about mentalism he should ask Paul Pacific. He knows more about it than anyone else here.

Thank you
Can I just say, that I was simply using Banachek as an example because he was the first accesible source that popped into my head. But I still think he has contributed to magic a great deal.
An example that perhaps would be better suited is Guy Hollingworth- he came up with a lot of very origional magic. Perhaps a better example, although I suspect you will be as stubborn as I am being and stick to your guns

Guy Hollingsworth talks so posh that it puts me off. As a result I have never looked at any of his material. Still I shall take your word for it.

I can cope with his accent, but the sniffing can be irritating. I'm more interested in his magic in all honesty though. Luckily, books don't have accents.

I've only ever seen a few clips of Hollingsworth and I must confess I quite like the accent and haven't noticed any sniffing (I probably will now, though!). What I like about the performances is the elegance with which he appears to handle the cards and the performance, probably because this is the opposite to me - all fingers and thumbs and dropped cards.

But going back to the discussion about old and new magic. I simply find it impossible - in terms of time and money - to keep up. Looking through forums such as this, one is bombarded with product reviews and suggestions of new effects and routines and favourite tricks and DVDs and must-do's and must-avoids and so on. And as a new-comer, there's a massive backlog of all of this stuff, too. To stay on top of what's out there and what's coming out, who's out there, who's coming out, is nigh on impossible unless one dedicates every waking hour to it (which, I guess some professionals can do).

For me, a book like RRTCM is enough to last a lifetime. That's not to say I haven't bought any more recent books. I have and I will no doubt buy many more. But in terms of building a repertoire that entertains then I find my time is best spent on working on patter, performance, and making sure that the few effects I do are done well rather than by trying to keep up with the latest movements and releases in magic. Sure, I'm no doubt missing a few gems - but when you already have a trunkful of gold what's another dubloon?

That said, I've not dated the few effects I use regularly. So modern or old, it's all about finding a handful of pieces that fit one's personal skill-level, personality, performance style, and feelings about magic. Whether the effects come from 1954, 1854, or 2004 is irrelevant to me. I like to know the history and the original creators if possible, but a good effect is a good effect.

Finally, I much prefer to watch performance only pieces these days so thank you to Mark for posting this.

Kind regards,
Codge

Old Codger is of course correct and he has probably posted the most sensible remarks on this thread.

As for professionals having more time to keep up with things this may be true in theory but not in actual practice. Professionals generally stick to the stuff they already know works and keep to the act they have been doing for donkey's years. Occasionally they will interpolate a new feature but this is the exception rather than the rule.

It is actually the enthusiastic amateur who is always trying out the new stuff and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I envy them the fun they have and it is indeed how the art develops.

As for Guy Hollingsworth's accent he talks posher than the Queen. Methinks Old Codger is American and generally speaking the Yanks love posh English accents far more than the British do.

I agree completley with codge as well!

Strong magic = strong magic is something we have all been saying, but we have just taken different perspectives on this.

Methinks Old Codger is American and generally speaking the Yanks love posh English accents far more than the British do.

Good old English west country boy, me, Mark. I suspect it's some residual genetic class system thing from a previous life when I tipped my cap and tugged my forelock before embarking on a torn and restored ration book or a stalk of straw to mouth routine. Not to mention the four sprouts across climax.

Codge