talkmagic.co.uk

I am sure that this has been discussed before. But the more I hear peoples views on it the more I cant decide where to draw a line.

EXPOSURE

I understand legal implications regarding copyright and intellectual right and some exposure is illegal. What I have been thinking about is if some shows a trick on youtube which explains how it is accomplished it is classed as exposure and some people take it very seriously and want to stop it.

Then we have Wilsons course on magic, bobo's book etc that expose a lot of secrets.

What is the difference?

Was there outrage when tarbell published his course on magic, Bobo his book and Mark Wilson his?

(Edit for spelling)

Nic Castle wrote:What is the difference?

Money.

Most magicians have a problem with exposure because they are fixated on technique. It is all they have.
The truth is that magic would die without exposure. Which is why some of us are willing to teach others, to lecture, and to write books.
The only real issues with youtube exposure are these; sometimes the magicians are exposing things which are not theirs to expose because they are the intellectual property of others; sometimes the guys doing the teaching are not good enough for the task; and knowledge has a value. Giving it away for free is a little silly.

TonyB wrote:Most magicians have a problem with exposure because they are fixated on technique. It is all they have.
The truth is that magic would die without exposure. Which is why some of us are willing to teach others, to lecture, and to write books.
The only real issues with youtube exposure are these; sometimes the magicians are exposing things which are not theirs to expose because they are the intellectual property of others; sometimes the guys doing the teaching are not good enough for the task; and knowledge has a value. Giving it away for free is a little silly.

Those were my thoughts, it is easy to get your thoughts muddled when some people go on about exposure. I am not sure I understand Robbs comment of "Money" as some people pay on information some paid and it may or may not be exposure.

Nic

The hard part for any beginner magician is how to find out how to do the tricks you want to perform, without paying 75 quid to discover its some technique you will never be able to master or have no intention of learning.

What would be a better deal is if you can get some kind of hint when you enquire about the trick as to if its worth the money - eg. this trick involves a certain level of sleight of hand - ergo the 50 quid price tag.

Im sitting on a small pile of cash now wondering what to buy with it as there is a lot of interesting stuff i want to try but dont want to waste my money on it until i know i can perform it.

Exposure is tricky with magic as once the knowledge is passed on you cant erase it from someones mind and if they havent paid for it your stuffed.
That said, Freedom of speech does tend to sway ppl to let on secrets they have no right to let on.

There's another side to this, though. One that makes a certain type of 'exposure' not a bad thing.

You could buy one of a small collection of old books (often recommended on this forum) for under a tenner each and learn tonnes. Or you could buy single effects from a 'certain dealer' for over a tenner. And as it turns out, often those single effects are included in one of the books, making the deal particularly poor value.

This is why the reviews section here is so useful. You can find out if something is a rip-off or not before you spend.

All that said, if some kid wants to stick a video up of his performance and explanation of the Erdnase colour change, that's fine with me. The book is out of copyright anyway, and few non-magicians are going to spend the time finding the video on YouTube. Those who do will not retain the important information.

Learners can find the information on YouTube, practice it and maybe be inspired to find and buy the original book to discover more useful techniques that will be, dare I say it, better described than in the majority of YouTube demos.

And finally, magicians are supposed to use misdirection, which should distract from many methods. Even if someone does know about marked cards (for example), perform correctly and they won't even suspect that gimmick as the method.

T.

Heavy on the Magik wrote:The hard part for any beginner magician is how to find out how to do the tricks you want to perform, without paying 75 quid to discover its some technique you will never be able to master or have no intention of learning.

What would be a better deal is if you can get some kind of hint when you enquire about the trick as to if its worth the money - eg. this trick involves a certain level of sleight of hand - ergo the 50 quid price tag.

Im sitting on a small pile of cash now wondering what to buy with it as there is a lot of interesting stuff i want to try but dont want to waste my money on it until i know i can perform it.

Exposure is tricky with magic as once the knowledge is passed on you cant erase it from someones mind and if they havent paid for it your stuffed.
That said, Freedom of speech does tend to sway ppl to let on secrets they have no right to let on.

Ah, but if more got themselves down to their nearest bricks and mortar shop, and bought magic there, rather than by watching a youtube clip, they would then find that the dealer will offer advice in how difficult an effect is.

ok, some shops are more expensive.. but you pay for the service. You could also try asking dealers over the phone.. but face to face is best.

I am not comfortable about exposure but I won't go out in the street with a sandwich board protesting about it. And neither will I drive myself nuts sending letters to television stations asking them not to do it.

However, the very first rule a magician learns is not to tell how a trick is done. A good trick is like a precious diamond and the secret should not be given away. It is like a burst balloon-there is nothing left.

On the other hand a magician has to learn his art somewhere. If I hadn't come across "Magic as a Hobby" by Bruce Elliott I would never have become a magician in the first place. And I do believe there was some fuss among magicians when that book was first sold to the public since a lot of the material was from a magicians magazine that Elliot had edited.

Mind you the book was no bloody good to me but it got me started and I read Scarne's Magic Tricks and then Wilfrid Jonson's book on card tricks followed by Royal Road to Card Magic all sold to the public at large.

However there is a world of difference between a textbook on magic and those awful acne ridden teenagers on You Tube who should be euthanised immediately. And yes. Robb is correct. Money does make a difference. If anyone actually pays money for a secret they are at least showing interest in the subject of magic and somehow the exposure is more justified because of that.

I am terribly old fashioned and hate to see 9 year old kids doing the zombie and the linking rings as you see nowadays. I would prefer it if the little brats would stick to the ball vase and the 21 card trick.

Yes, let the secrets out but carefully and sparingly to those who deserve to know because they show serious interest in the art. And they shouldn't run before they can walk.

Exposure has never harmed magic in the past because people soon forget the secret even if they have been told it a week or so ago but I still don't like it. And with the internet age even more secrets are getting out there.

I have sold thousands upon thousands of svengali decks over a long career and have started a few people on magic because of it. However although I have sold other tricks from time to time I have always drawn the line over certain items such as TTs, paddle tricks and certain items which are not traditional pitch items and that give away a principle of magic.

I have often thought I should be nominated for sainthood.

There is another aspect that I believe comes into play when we look at exposure. That is "motive" Why is someone exposing a method or technique. There are people who expose effects and techniques to people for no other reasons than money or because they can.

Then there is exposure that is good, that is what keeps the art of magic moving forward. They may financially benefit from it ie books to teach magician (Mark Wilson I believewrote his book primarily to benefit the art especially beginers, and obviously money. He did not write it for the sake of exposing magic techniques and effects)

As with all lines that are drawn that involve motive and morals there is a grey area that people often disagree on. I have heard people support the people who post on you tube, personally I can not understand it and think it is wrong along with the exposure tv programs.

Very difficult to define this with any accuracy. If a well known magician stands on stage performing his range of effects and then not only tells the audience how they're done but sells them written details, its exposure. If the same magician stands on stage and performs his range of effects then explains how they're done and sells written instructions to a group of magicians at a convention, it a lecture, education, passing on the secrets etc.

If the same magish performs to lay audiences and then, by arrangement, does 'back of the room' sales of 'easy' magic tricks to anyone interested enough to spend the cash than it's usually regarded as a bit of astute business in increasing revenue from the same gig.

After that it all gets rather complicated.....

I recently had a discussion that kind of touches on this issue and a couple of the things I've seen in the above likewise hit the proverbial nail on it's nogg'n

MONEY & POLITICS are two of the biggest factors here, when it comes to which is viewed as being "more right than wrong". If you don't stand in good favor with certain political elements within magic and you have an effect/method that is "obtained" by someone that is better connected after the fact... you loose!

Eddie Joseph, for an example, is better known for PREMONITION than its actual originator, George Armstrong. . . was Joseph just stealing something neat and taking credit for it, or was he "exposing" Armstrong's effect?

Then too, you have the social associations; Armstrong gains stronger recognition & endorsement in the UK (primarily) where Joseph's accolades exist mainly in the States where Percy Abbott promoted his name (while making things look legit)

In other words, perspective along with who is getting the greatest sense of benefit and who has the strongest standing social-political recognition, can have a lot to do with the issue of both, thievery and/or exposure.

But Then We Have Magic Books. . . :twisted:

During that "Golden Era" of magic (mid-1800's through the late 1920's) many of those greats were complaining about publishers making magic books to easy for the general public to get their hands on (sound familiar?)... Harry Houdini seems to have been one of the more outspoken on the issue even though, for PR reasons, he penned a few of his own. Then again, nearly all of the yesteryear greats produced at least one small Pitch-Book sold at their shows with several (Dante, Blackstone & Mandrake most particularly) had comic books in which tricks were explained.

I believe it was Kenton Knepper that did an article about a decade back, addressing this issue and the fact that there is not a single major name in magic who isn't guilty of "exposure". One of David Copperfield's early year PR bits was "Project Magic" in which simple tricks were taught to people (senior's mostly) as a form of physical therapy; Blackstone teamed up with Oreo Cookies as well as Jiffy Pop and other such companies over the years with live shows, premiums and "lessons" in how to do magic... Mark Wilson did the Magical Burger King promotion in the 70's that again, taught magic in a very public manner. . . there's the Ronald McDonald shows that have given away tricks as well as booklets like 101 Magic Tricks You Can Do (which were a common give-away for Birthday Show performers for decades). . .

So... why are all of these demonstrations of blatant exposure "OK" while the Boobs on YouTube aren't?

#1 -- Look at the money & the Brand Names (clout)
#2 -- The fools on YouTube are simply idiots that have NO respect for magic or magicians. It is this lack of respect that I feel, pizzez most of us off (aside from the fact that most get bent when a piece they just dropped good money on is suddenly FREE TO ALL)


BALANCE is the important thing!

A degree of exposure is actually healthy in that it brings new blood into the craft; this is what the bulk of the methods & routines shared by both Blackstones, Dante, Wilson, etc. did; it planted seeds that fueled the imagination. Those little premium tricks and booklets given away by the birthday performer does the same exact thing while likewise allowing him/her to befriend the kids and over the years, cultivate a multi-generational market advantage. . . not to mention availability for teaching kids how to do magic and to help the more talented to rise to the top by getting them into the clubs, etc.

Even having books in the public library or in noted book stores like Barnes & Noble, has its advantages when it comes to sustaining and evolving magic. The important point to bear in mind here is the fact that rarely will anyone buy or borrow those books UNLESS they have a genuine interest in learning about Magic vs. "a trick"

The downside is where the imbalance exists; Bit Torrent/File Share networks along side the philosophy that "Information Should Be FREE to Everyone No Matter What It Is" (thank you Wikileaks & Friends). Worse, are those that steal material that belongs to others, for the sake of personal gain, be it financial (by selling copies of said material on eBay or similar sources) or by using the material in Barter for other bootlegged material. Sadly, such situations have resulted in the more innocent act of borrowing & loaning books/discs between friends & club members a negative thing, but innocents always seems the thing lost quickest when gross abuse comes to the fore... again, the issue is cash in pocket.

Abuse is the Key and WE (all of us) are part of the problem. Our desire to possess any and all we can get our grubby paws on is why these File Share sites are so abundant and worse, why they have so much material that belongs to most every industry out there. . . though everyone denies it, someone is supporting such things or it wouldn't be and the "shared" files wouldn't be accessible/posted. . . or the bootleggers in business. This is the great truth most of us ignore and I'm betting it's due to guilt in one form or another.


The Masked Magician type exposure is a touchy issue for me in that Val was a dear friend at one point in time (and no, it wasn't his shows that changed things, just distance and time with lots of "life" getting in the way). His logic for the original 6 or so shows was something more than a few notables actually supported at first. . . and if you look around, his "challenge" seems to have been heard given how far and fast illusion design (grand illusion, not hand tricks) has changed; stepping away from the older, more "traditional" modes we relied on for well over 100 years -- magic has benefitted!

The new version of the Masked Marvel I do have issues with in that he is exposing some of the newer (less than 30 year's old) systems vs. the older "Vaudeville era" pieces seen in the original series). I believe that the more contemporary technology MUST stay as secret as possible so as to protect the people whose livelihood depends on it; no one takes things lightly when a $10,000.00 prop is exposed on national TV. It's not just the lost value in the effect but the investment suddenly looses its value as well. I don't know about you, but 10 grand out of most people's pockets isn't something to take lightly; especially when the majority of magic buffs rarely own a brand-new grand illusion and at that, few own more than 6 such pieces in their life-time. . . and that's before you get into those effects popularized from the mid-1980's to present.

Pardon the rant

I do however hope this shines some light on the issue for you and anyone else that's willing to weigh things.

Personally, I don't like the idea of kids picking up magic easily through 'simple giveaway tricks' - svengali decks, magic sets, etc...

I would prefer it if magic was difficult to find out about. It's difficult to do well, and there are too many people who are more concerned with knowing how to do magic, than rather doing it.
I don't like the fact that people can pick up magic, find out a whole bunch of secrets and then throw it away afterwards.

Let the kids do a circus workshop, I say.

I was surpised to be told of a torrent/ fileshare site that is soley for magic media whether it is books, ideo or audio. That alone shows that there must be people out there who support these sites or they would not exist. Personally I find it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth that people are willing to download these items. If it was there work and livelyhood I am sure the view would be different. Whether it is a £10,000 illusion/prop, a video, audio or book it is someones livelyhood and should be respected.

With regards to You tube, I understand that some young person may be excited and what to put is performance whether it is good or not online, but I still do not like the disrespect they show towards magic when they expose hoiw a trick is done. As a child I remember seeing magic and being told "A magician never tells how it is done." It is a shame that this is disregarded now.

Then there are people who start sites likelearn magic tricks for free sites that are online and selling ripped off effects on ebay. Not going into that.

Don't forget that presentation is of utmost importance. A silly little deck of stripper cards can do wonderful things in the right hands, for example.

T.

Nic Castle wrote:I am sure that this has been discussed before. But the more I hear peoples views on it the more I cant decide where to draw a line.

EXPOSURE

I understand legal implications regarding copyright and intellectual right and some exposure is illegal. What I have been thinking about is if some shows a trick on youtube which explains how it is accomplished it is classed as exposure and some people take it very seriously and want to stop it.

Then we have Wilsons course on magic, bobo's book etc that expose a lot of secrets.

What is the difference?

Was there outrage when tarbell published his course on magic, Bobo his book and Mark Wilson his?

(Edit for spelling)

Sometimes exposure can be a good thing i.m.o.
For example;
I was going to pay $19.95 plus shipping and handling for the illusion entitled 'pressure'. I saved myself some cash by researching the illusion online until I eventually found the 'secret' behind the illusion via exposure from a disgruntled buyer on YouTube.
$19.95 for such a simple illusion is highway robbery i.m.o. I'm very happy that I saved that money! =-)