talkmagic.co.uk

One of the great things about other areas of human creativity is the secondary products that spring up. Consider mobile phones and the businesses that sprung up first making ring tones then apps for them. In computing, the first home computers saw the birth of companies like Microsoft and Apple, and millions of others over the years. There are literally thousands of other examples.

What continues to surprise me is that there are so few secondary products in magic. Why do you think that is? Why are so few people writing material for really useful utility devices like imp devs and NWs, for example? OK, Corinda covers these examples, but so many really good devices languish in drawers and boxes seemingly for the want of ideas. Not many performers are creative in terms of genuinely coming up with their own material from first principles. They rely on people to write for them, just as big name comedians do. It seems clear to me that some serious opportunities are going begging.

Isn't part of it that the magic community thinks people should create their own unique routines? So the idea that selling just routines is somewhat frowned upon?

Besides there are a few, I agree it's odd there aren't any for N/W or imp pads but there's switchcraft for billets, various books and essays on duel reality, IT, cold reading, stacked decks etc.

I think the question is why is the swami so underused despite being so highly regarded? So few mentalists actually use it in either stage or close up, myself included, I sometimes bring it with me when I go to perform at parties, but I never end up using it except as an out.

What the N/W really needs is some new flashy high end version, the coinvexed 3 or tarantula of swami's, something to get the magic community all excited about it again.

How about make a metal T.T with a device similar to those multi-pens, but with one for a pencil and one for a flame wick, add in a small strong magnet and a laser pointer under the nail put together a 3 hour DVD of routines and call it 'The sorcerer'. 'You can do everything but fit your thumb in it'.

I totally agree with you Tomo, it'd be lovely to see people thinking up interesting and new ideas around existing ideas. The problem I think it that as soon as someone releases something like that, based on an old idea 101 people will jump on their back for not being original enough.

People seem far more interested in trying to reinvent the wheel and come up with an elaborate way to do something that's you can already do for have the price using old methods than actually sit down and think up new uses for those old methods.

I guess I read the original post wrong. I was thinking of uses for magic stuff and not used for magic. To which I would say we actually have a pretty rich history. For example, without magic and magicians we wouldn't be very far along in the movie business as it was a magician who created the first projectors and films. Also special effects are often a result of magic.

As for magicians creating new effects with older props. It is always done. There is very little that is actually new in magic. The problem is if we are direct with it, magicians start screaming about being copied.

As for industries being built around magic. Well Slush powder is a by-product that was found to be of use in the sanitary world. Now a large part of it goes to magicians and the entertainment world in general. Same thing with flash paper. And let us not forget cards. Who would have thought that playing card companies would make runs especially for magicians? hey it happens.

Okay, still not sure of the question.

I suspect part of it is the fear of reprisals, or the difficulty in releasing products that are based on existing products. I can only think of a couple of cases where someone has taken a particular technique and released an anthology of applications for it that other people have come up with, and those have been released by the original creator.

It's far from impossible to release effects that build on existing effects; the trick is to write around the method, and ensure you're marketing it to the right people, i.e. people who already own the original effect. This could be as simple as explaining the effect and allowing the reader to apply the existing method. I daresay some creators will welcome these sorts of releases, as they add value to their creation, whereas others will see it as trading off on their name or idea.

I love the extractor gimmick. But I wonder what alakazam would say if I published a book/DVD about extractor routines. Should they be pleased? Would they want a cut? I'm not sure? Incidentally I do have some cracking extractor routines so if you're reading this Pete, let me know and I'll write that book!!

K

kevmundo wrote:I love the extractor gimmick. But I wonder what alakazam would say if I published a book/DVD about extractor routines. Should they be pleased? Would they want a cut? I'm not sure? Incidentally I do have some cracking extractor routines so if you're reading this Pete, let me know and I'll write that book!!

K

Pitch it! It's in both your interests.

Hmmmmm.... It's certainly given me something to think about!!!!

K

On my bedside table, in the leaning tower of books, are Secret Impressions and The Nail Writer Anthology, so these books do exist.

Taking it further, as you mentioned magic, there are loads of books and DVDs about using sponge balls, ESP cards, marked cards, or stripper decks (ahem). So is your issue really just things like nail writers and impression devices?

I think there are a number of reasons why more is not written. I will say that the following statements are generalisations!

First, magicians like methods. It doesn't matter if they have five already and are happy with all of them, they will be interested in learning about a sixth. So, a product that doesn't offer a method might not be popular. This applies to creators too; I think people often spend ages thinking of new methods, rather than new presentations. And, when a performer repackages a method into a new presentation, Jay Sankey gets slated for it. (To be fair, this is normally because it is not advertised as a new way of using a previous method.)

Last week, Potty the Pirate was shown on Paddy's TV Guide and it reminded me of how he joined us here for a while, but found few people interested in talking about presentation, so left.

Second, overall there is more interest in books and DVDs with variety than in resources that cover merely one thing. I think people would rather have a book that could perhaps furnish them with an entire act than one that covers lots of possible ways of (in essence) showing the same trick lots of times. I, on the other hand, do like ideas for a specific prop and as I stated above, there are actually a lot of resources that look at a specific prop or plot in depth. The World's Greatest Magic series is devoted to this concept, for example.

Third, there is the whole copying/crediting problem. Tricks with common props may well have been submitted to magazines, anthology books etc. and it can be hard to trace the credits. Then again, this doesn't seem to stop people from producing "new" card tricks.

Part-Timer wrote:Taking it further, as you mentioned magic, there are loads of books and DVDs about using sponge balls, ESP cards, marked cards, or stripper decks (ahem). So is your issue really just things like nail writers and impression devices?

No. There's no subtext here; it's just a general question.

I wrote quite a lot for the stripper deck back in 06-07. Both books still sell quite well. I know there's a market for knowledge because, let's face facts here, most performers aren't really that creative. That's not an issue. No one is expecting them to be so. But it seems to me that there's a market not being addressed. If someone has gone to the trouble of developing and releasing an effect based around a new principle for which a second person can see new uses, it benefits both of them to hook up. If nothing else, it extends the product's "tail".

The one that sticks in my mind most clearly is the follow-up book that came out for the Reality Twister (including a contribution from our very own Dale Kingston), but that was published by the same people who released the lens. It is a bit trickier relasing something for the Extractor (say) if you don't do it through Alakazam, but I am not sure that you are doing anything wrong if you don't expose the method.