talkmagic.co.uk

Well... this is turning out exactly like another thread! lol.

Just to point out, Jerry's style of manipulation is much more like Cardini I would say than to De'vo. De'vo takes flourishing to the extreme, hence Extreme Card Manipulation, XCM. So I wouldn't say there isn't a difference between XCM and flourishing.

I love Jerry's way of presenting flourishing and other stuff. On XB you can see him using fans to do manipulations like vanishing the deck or producing cards. He's a funny man and a good magician I would say. If you listen to his radio thing on MAGICbroadcast.com, you'll see that he talks about magic as well and patter that he uses. People email him about magic related questions and he can answer them.

I understand that De'vo is a bit in the weird side but I understand that it's his style of working. Okay, he has a thing against magicians (you'll understand if you saw his latest video). So what? It's his style and he can do what he wants with it! We can take his card manipulation techniques to incorporate it with magic! It's all good!

Also, the Buck Twins. They are magicians! They just like to incorporate their flourishes into their magic and from the magic videos of theirs that I've seen, they're great! e.g. Their collectors idea.

And this computer is really annoying me as I type with all these popups coming up...

with all these popups coming up...

Extremely annoying, isn't it ! Try using Crazy Browser for web access or download Pop-Oops! which helps to limit them quite a bit.

Mog - you keep focusing on pure XCM, the point of my last post is that XCM moves (or flourishes - remember they are the same thing) can be applied with great success to card magic and should definately be discussed on a forum about card magic. Pure XCM will never be discussed here, that's pretty clear, people will go where their interest in appreciated.

Mandrake - I assume you're slightly joking when saying we must be careful about hard and fast rules around abbreviations?

Context is everything - if you're on a magic forum and see the term XCM you don't start thinking they must be refering to 'Extra-Curricular Magazine' in the same way that on a motorsports forum when you see the term 'TT' you don't suddenly think of that thing that might fit on the end of your thumb.

Mandrake - I assume you're slightly joking when saying we must be careful about hard and fast rules around abbreviations?

You assume incorrectly. The point was to show that your earlier definitive mathematical X=Y therefore Y=X statement was flawed inasmuch as XCM can mean other things under different circumstances. As you previously mentioned , XCM is De'Vo's marketing speak and not necessarily from the same stable as TT or other known abbreviations in magic which would apply regardless of the source. It's understandable that you will support the view in favour of flourishes but, whilst they can certainly be extremely entertaining, skilful and hopefully lucrative for those who do them well enough, by themselves they are no more magical than any other card sleight, pass or move.

I feel stupid asking but what is TT?

Also what does that IMO that I here everyone saying stand for?

ok lets take this to the extreme.. if i was to post a 5 minute video of me and 3 friends playing poker but at some point i did a charlier pass and a couple of split fans then it would be ok to post it here since flourishes are a part of magic. OR i should use the handlordz forum to post loads of magic effects but do a cobracut halfway through then that would also be ok?

probably the answer to both questions would be a resounding NO so what im saying is "everything in its place" ...magic here.. flourishes elsewhere.

And Kev Stevebos video wasnt deleted because there isnt really a reason to delete it...BUT if there was to suddenly be more "Xcm" videos appearing then they just might vanish as they simply dont belong on a magic forum.

Blade Master wrote:I feel stupid asking but what is TT?

Also what does that IMO that I here everyone saying stand for?

TT= TT
IMO= In my opinion

I have to say that from from a magicians viewpoint I enjoy watching XCM only because when XCM is performed well, then I'm impressed with the dexterity of the performer.

Other than this, I'm with Mog and my opinion, for what it's worth is also that XCM has no place in magic in the context of what XCM is all about (hope that makes sense).

The occasional flourish in order to compliment a piece of card magic is fine with me, but as stated, flourishing to the extreme, which is what SCM is all about to me is not magic and doesn't always sit well on a magic site.

Personally, I don;t mind seeing some XCM on TalkMagic BUT, I definately wouldn;t want to see it begin to get anywhere near to taking more of a share.

Whilst I could watch Rune's card magic ALL DAY, I couldn't watch more than ten minutes of XCM.

OK, before I respond to specific points, a few people seem to have concluded that XCM is just move after move after move and that's all it can ever be - WRONG!

I say again, XCM *moves* can be applied to enhance an existing card effect, e.g. Shaun David's video. A discussion about about pure XCM moves with no magic doesn't belong here - but a discussion about how certain XCM moves (or flourishes - same thing) can accent card effects does IMO - BECAUSE it make the magic more entertaining. Watch Shaun's video to see exactly what I mean.

Don't get hung up on XCM being a new abbreviation and something completely new and different. It's just a term used to describe flourishes (which have been around for 100's years, e.g. Charlier, Fans, Armspreads etc) done back to back in a routine. If you don't like the idea of flourishes done back to back fine, but at least open your minds as to how they might be applied to improve your existing card effects - WHERE APPLICABLE!

Specifically...

the_mog wrote:ok lets take this to the extreme.. if i was to post a 5 minute video of me and 3 friends playing poker but at some point i did a charlier pass and a couple of split fans then it would be ok to post it here since flourishes are a part of magic.

Incorrect example mog - because playing poker isn't part of magic - that's obvious. The example I gave of Shaun's video - IS card magic PLUS flourishes. You're example is Poker plus flourishes, not the same thing at all.

the_mog wrote:OR i should use the handlordz forum to post loads of magic effects but do a cobracut halfway through then that would also be ok?

Handlordz is a forum specifically for pure XCM, no magic. It's very very clear on that. You wouldn't go to a classic car forum and post about magic would you? In the same way pure XCM doesn't belong on TalkMagic - we've clearly established that!

I say again, XCM moves, e.g. a charlier, fan etc CAN be part of card of a magic effect and SHOULD be discussed about the best way to apply them in a card magic forum. Pure XCM, e.g. JUST XCM moves done back to back doesn't belong here.

I hope you have an open enough mind to understand the difference between the two approaches of presenting XCM-type moves.

I do urge anybody following this debate to look at Shaun's video as it perfectly illustrates my point - that flourishes can improve your card magic. This is what we should be discussing here - not semantics.

Now lets not make this a argument here and I hope this doesn't twist things any deeper than they should be. But I think Nubbin is talking more about a Brian Tudor type of magic, in which fast moves are incorporated to improve the visual mood of the effect. Take a look at one of his videos in Penguin and look at how he performs his passes and other tricks like WTHHT Sybil (thats a doozie of an ampreviation).

http://www.penguinmagic.com/product.php?ID=938

the_mog wrote:And Kev Stevebos video wasnt deleted because there isnt really a reason to delete it

Phew! lol

Personally, I thought that XCM referred to solely card moves (e.g. just a fancy cut without any magic) whereas "flourishes" referred to card moves in the context of an effect - e.g. LePaul spread to have a card signed, false cuts to 'lose a card in the deck'...

If so, XCM has no place on TalkMagic as it has nothing to do with magic, any more than, say, poker!

I may be wrong about that but that was my impression of the term.

Kati

The easiest way to think about this is it's all flourishes - this is the term most people are familiar with.

Flourishes can be added to an existing card magic effects to make them visually more appealing and entertaining to spectators, e.g. Shaun's Video. Which flourishes to use and how to apply them to existing card magic does belong on a card magic forum IMO. It's a new and interesting topic and often comes up here on TM and also on other magic forums such as MagicBunny, Magic Cafe etc.

Flourishes done back to back, with no traditional magic component within them is often referred to as XCM (Xtreme Card Manipulation). A flourish is an XCM move, an XCM move is a flourish.

XCM discussions don't belong here - we've clearly established that!

TheMightyNubbin wrote:The easiest way to think about this is it's all flourishes - this is the term most people are familiar with.

Flourishes can be added to an existing card magic effects to make them visually more appealing and entertaining to spectators, e.g. Shaun's Video. Which flourishes to use and how to apply them to existing card magic does belong on a card magic forum IMO. It's a new and interesting topic and often comes up here on TM and also on other magic forums such as MagicBunny, Magic Cafe etc.

Flourishes done back to back, with no traditional magic component within them is often referred to as XCM (Xtreme Card Manipulation). A flourish is an XCM move, an XCM move is a flourish.

XCM discussions don't belong here - we've clearly established that!

I second that!

Kati

I do to think that that is logical.