talkmagic.co.uk

Mandrake wrote:Having spoken to several professional performers at conventions etc the general consensus it that the lay public don't give a flying fez about exposure. Most of them aren't that interested in knowing how something’s done, many won’t remember the method for more than a day or so anyway. Where it does hurt is when unprincipled people copy/steal/rip off other people’s ideas and work and then give it away under the guise of ‘instruction’ or 'sharing'. We’ve covered this theft and piracy aspect many times and the sentiments haven’t changed.

AMEN

Lady of Mystery wrote:Madelon is so totally right! A while back, I bought my nephew a magic set. Inside it was a TT which everyone found very amusing, what a silly trick, how's that going to trick anyone? Five minutes later I performed some vanishes with a TT, not one person spotted it.

Exposure doesn't matter, out of all the people who see it, only a very small handful are actually going to remember the method. If you make the performance of that method into something a little different, even those few people are unlikely to pick you up on it. I know that I've had a couple of very good magicians get some really simply methods past me before now just because of their performance.

Knowingly ripping off people is a different thing altogether.

It's funny that you mentioned the TT, because when we first saw it in my son's magic kit, both my son and I also thought that it looked silly and wouldn't fool anyone.
But after viewing the dvd on how to 'properly use' it and performing with it in front of a mirror for a while, I was able to fool my wife and a couple of our friends with the TT.
My son needs to wait to utilize it though, because his t***** are way too small right now (he's only 9 yrs old).

I've never understood that, why do they always put a full size TT in a childrens magic set. Those things are too big for me, a 9 year old hasn't got a hope.

You pay for the effect, not the method. Just because the trick isnt "real" magic, doesnt mean you shouldnt pay.

Edit:this post was aimed at the-outlaws post on page one.

spooneythegoon wrote:You pay for the effect, not the method.

Whenever anyone tells me that about a specific trick, I always wonder how much the secret is worth versus the gimmick.

Perhaps Alakazam could just sell the secret for, say, 30% of the cost of the package. "It's a progressive anagram with a three-way out" is all you need to know.

In that case, can I sell you Alex Elmsey's favourite card trick?

Force a card using your favourite force, have the card returned to the deck and control it to the top using your favourite control, reveal the card using your favourite reveal.

Mandrake wrote:In that case, can I sell you Alex Elmsey's favourite card trick?

Force a card using your favourite force, have the card returned to the deck and control it to the top using your favourite control, reveal the card using your favourite reveal.

Don't need to sell me Mandrake... it's already my favourite..:p

Curses, Alex and I have been ripped off !

spooneythegoon wrote:You pay for the effect, not the method. Just because the trick isnt "real" magic, doesnt mean you shouldnt pay.

Edit:this post was aimed at the-outlaws post on page one.

Fair enough.

spooneythegoon wrote:You pay for the effect, not the method. Just because the trick isnt "real" magic, doesnt mean you shouldnt pay.

Nice spin on the old Magic Dealer's mantra of "you pay for the secret and not the effect". . . seems they didn't care much about people who already knew the method insisting on a steep discount.

Truthfully, what you pay for when going to a Magic Merchant of any sort, is THE LIE... the same lie you will find in any merchant type business and especially so with any specialty store -- development costs, materials, storage, transport, sales commissions. . . the list really gets DEEP.

People like us willingly cough up $50.00 for what becomes viewed as a "worthless piece of "beep"" five seconds after we've bought it -- our "buyer's remorse" (typically coupled by a spouse chewing us out for WASTING MORE MONEY ON THAT MAGIC STUFF) is what brings on temporary bitterness & resentment. . . then too, there is the issue of having to be talented enough to actually present said effect in as clean a manner as the jerk doing a pseudo-presentation on the Video. . . "pseudo" in that very few sales videos these days actually show you AN EFFECT other than nifty jerky editing and film flash rather than the damn thing they are trying to sell you. . .

. . . not that anyone around here would do such a thing

Then again, magic has NEVER seen much in way of integrity when it comes to advertising, has it?


T H U M B T I P S?

I remember an argument between Vernon, Larry Jennings and a few others that sat in that "let's kiss the Professor's crinkled hinny" corny of the Castle over the famed plastic thumb. . . don't recall all of the details just remember that a couple of "youngsters" of the day started doing all kinds of silly bits using a TT -- some were painted in day-glow paints (bright Orange & Lime-Green being the most popular) and at least one Chrome plated unit made its rounds. . . NO ONE ever caught the use of such and that goes for the guy (I want to say it was Bruce Cervon) who stacked six of them on the same thumb while doing a sponge & silk routine.

It's an amazing little weapon in the hands of an adept but a serious joke when looked at by half-wits, wannabes, and the yet initiated.