|
|
willtupper New user 57 Posts |
It's weird. The older I get, the more I suspect the questions I have are, in fact, quite dumb. But, I care less about how I look asking them.
So, I guess (hope!) that's progress. As I continue to read and study, I find more and more that the same effects keep popping up in various places, under different names. As an example (as this was the first place I noticed this), the effect "Turnover Card," in Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic is identical to "Circus Card Trick" in Royal Road to Card Magic. It's... I guess the word I'm looking for here is "frustrating." As somone who loves studying, and tracing things back to their recorded origins, seeing an effect in "new clothes" without any credit given to it's "old tailor" feels wrong to me. Is it... ethical, to do this? The way it's done? There are a TON of books that I just love, but feel like they could have been made SO MUCH BETTER with a bibliography, listing the sources of what's being taught. But then I think of how that might hurt a person's business. If AUTHOR A sells BOOK B featuring EFFECT C. And if s/he ends the book by saying I got EFFECT C from SOURCE D, well... It would probably cut into the sales of BOOK B. And it would probably (due to the Internet, "word of mouth," etc) increase sales of SOURCE D. It seems analogous to music. MUSICIAN A can play SONG B with new lyrics they wrote. But they still have to give credit (and money) to the original writer of SONG B. Yet that doesn't seem to happen in magic. And I guess I'm asking, should it? Could it? Hope that makes sense. I know this is all philosophical / hypothetical / rhetorical. But I think about it a lot. Thanks for reading. Hope you're having an amazing day. |
Wizard of Oz Inner circle Most people wish I didn't have 5150 Posts |
Just to be clear, are you talking about effects that are the same, but the method may be different? Or effects that are the same and the method is also the same?
There are a lot of effects and routines over time that have evolved in the hands of different magicians as they added their own style and spin. If they publish or sell the effect they should get permission from the original creator and perhaps share the profits. At the very least they should supply a complete list of credits. Too many times none of these things happen.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
|
willtupper New user 57 Posts |
I'm talking where the effect is the same, the method is the same, but the NAME of the effect is different. "Customized," if you will, to the published book.
Another (albeit this time hypothetical) example: There is a wonderful "self-working" effect at the beginning of Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic called, "The Fantastic Five." Of course, I don't call it that. I usually call it, "Ghostbusters." Why? Because the late, great Harold Ramis (who costarred and cowrote "Ghostbusters") once told a story in an interview about what inspired the film. His Grandmother, he thought when he was a kid, was a witch. And she was capable of "summoning" cards out of a deck. Here, let me show you. (Trick takes place). That's... that's not your card? Well, what Harold's Grandmother said, was that sometimes ghosts don't come right out and reveal it. No. Sometimes, they give hints. And maybe if we count (1, 2, 3...) Sometimes... if this works... (Big reveal). And of course, if we look between... what was that line in the movie? Oh, right. "Who you gonna call?" (Second big reveal. I use 4 Jacks instead of 4 Aces, for the Ghostbusters). NOW... Say I was going to publish a book. Say it was going to be a book of magic effects. Say I included "Ghostbusters" in that book. Say I chose NOT TO CREDIT Mr. Mark Wilson AT ALL in my book. That's what I'm talking about, here. That complete... It's like everyone (or at least, lots and lots of people) want to build the house again, AND claim they invented houses. They never want to reveal that the blueprints, the foundation, were there before they got there. And I guess I've always had trouble with that. "Turnover Card" in Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic... "Circus Card Trick" in Royal Road to Card Magic... "Circus Trick" in Tarbell Course in Magic. And yet, they're all the same thing. Say I rerecorded the Beatles "White Album," called it the "Caucasian Album," and gave NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER to the Beatles... it seems like that happens rather often in magic. And it's frustrating! Plus, I suspect it ultimately hurts magic. Because it destroys lineage. In his second book, "Show Your Work!" New York Times bestselling author Austin Kleon writes, "Credit is always due." He talks about the importance of giving proper attribution in everything you do. Because if you don't, you not only cheat out your reader (audience member, whatever) of knowing more about where your work came from, you cheat out the creator who inspired the work itself. And to be blunt, that sucks. I wouldn't sing someone else's song, and claim it my own. Wouldn't read someone else's poem, and claim it my own. And I sure wouldn't publish an effect, even one that's kind-of "public domain" (I'm pretty sure some effects have been around so long, proper attribution at this point might be impossible. Like, Houdini popularized the escape act. But did he invent it?), and claim it as my own. I guess I just wanted validation. That I'm not the only one who notices this. Thanks. PS - that Harold Ramis / Ghostbusters story is nonsense. 100% made-up, inspired by MWCCIM's "The Fantastic Five." |
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
No two people ever came up with the White Album independently, but people independently come up with the same magic effects and methods all the time. What's possible in order to achieve a particular magic effect is pretty narrow, unlike the way you can arrange notes, chords and words to come up with a music album. There are only so many ways to produce a card. It's kind of the nature of this particular beast. Not to say a few folks don't appropriate with bad intent, but I think that's refreshingly rare in magic. One of the things I actually love about magic is how devoted it is to history and attribution, much more so than most other arts.
You are also confusing copyright work with methodology, which doesn't really track for me. Additionally, some methods are so ubiquitous or lost to time that there is no attribution to realistically give. That may be the case with your Wilson/Tarbell/Royal Road example, for instance. This is particularly true in beginners' or general magic books, which are filled with traditional magic tricks for which (1) there might be no attribution possible, (2) the readers of these books wouldn't know or care about the attribution, and (3) the traditional magic tricks are done by so many people over such time that attribution is really unnecessary. Let me know when you come up with a completely original card trick. It's hard to do. I thought I had done it when I developed a "signed card to Twinkie" trick (signed card appears in a sealed Twinkie box of 10 Twinkies, random Twinkie selected, sealed Twinkie wrapper opened, Twinkie broken in half to reveal the signed card inside), only to discover later that someone else had used essentially the same method with another prop. Disappointing, but I did reinvent that particular wheel, not appropriate it.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts |
Refer to Fitzkee's "The Trick Brain". I believe that you are 'confusing' the terms,, TRICK and EFFECT, Fitzkee list 18 or 19 EFFECTS. (I sold my copy of "The Trick Brain" to a young man, whom I am mentoring, and, my "wrinkled old mental facility" isn't functioning too well, this AM, so, I can't recall whether it was 18 or 19.)
Anyway, Mr F. describes EFFECTS, such as PRODUCTION, VANISH, TRANSPOSITION, TRANSFORMATION, RESTORATION, PENETRATION, LEVITATION, ANIMATION, ETC. These are "generic" terms that describe, WHAT A SPECTATOR PERCEIVES. Those terms do not describe a specific TRICK. A TRICK only exists, while it is being PERFORMED. A PROP is used in PERFORMING most TRICKS. "cATALOG NAMES" of TRICKS, VARIED WITH THE WRITER OF THE CATALOG! --or sometimes, with the author of the book! (NOTE: IMO, you cannot PUBLISH an EFFECT! You can PUBLISH the METHOD of PERFORMING a TRICK. Mark Wilson's CCIM, is definitely not a "CCIM"!!! It was ghosted by a late friend, Walter Gibson. (Gibson wrote more books on magic, than anyone else!) The illustrations in the CCIM are "sequential", which makes it easier, IMO, for the learner to follow the instructions. If you've read TARBELL, you will recognize a lot of material, in CCIM, that Tarbell wrote, eons ago. ("NAMES" were changed to protect the innocent!) I knew Gibson, AND Tarbell. Perhaps, this little "essay" will help!
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
Sigh.... Here we go again.
I have to make a correction. Walter Gibson did not "ghost write" the Wilson Course. But he did help right it, and there is nothing "ghost" about it. In fact, he is substantially and specially credited in the book for his contributions, and he and Mark worked together for a long time, with many all-nighter sessions, working out many of the tricks and instructions for the book together. Anyone who owns a copy can find the credit right in the beginning of the book. I don't know why you keep repeating this falsehood. I generally try to ignore you and let you be, not commenting on your pedantic posts. But this particular little lie I will call out whenever I see it. So please don't continue to propagate this "fake news." The Fitzkee call is good, though. And it's 19 basic effects.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts |
So, we have a difference of opinion! You can call me a liar, if you wish. I have ignored many of your posts in the past several months, and, I'll continue to ignore this last one, except for THIS comment.
P.S. I own TWO copies of the CCIM. I keep one to lend out.
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
karnak Special user Connecticut 747 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 5, 2018, willtupper wrote: I was just thinking about this very sort of thing myself yesterday, reflecting upon how decades ago I purchased a gaffed-deck effect entitled "All The Same" from a local brick & mortar magic shop (now long defunct). It was only decades later that I subsequently discovered Doc Eason's "Impossible Opener." And that "All The Same" was exactly the same effect as "Impossible Opener." I'm assuming that the method is the same, as well (although I can't be 100% certain since I haven't also purchased Doc Eason's product). But even if the method was different, mightn't producing the exact same effect (even if by a different method) at least come awfully close to rip-offery/knock-offery -- at least in cases like this one, where the effect is so strikingly unique?
For a supernatural chiller mixing magic (prestidigitation, legerdemain) with Magic (occultism, mysticism), check out my novel MAGIC: AN OCCULT THRILLER at http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Occult-Thriller-Reed-Hall/dp/1453874836
|
Wizard of Oz Inner circle Most people wish I didn't have 5150 Posts |
In this guy's humble opinion, I think producing the same effect using a different method is completely above board and warrants unique credits to each inventor. Both the floating ball using th***d and the Zombie using a completely different gimmick are basically the same effect, a levitation (or anti-gravity as per the Fitzkee reference above), of a ball. They are obviously similar to the audience in what the perceived event is, but completely different in the magic community.
Now this may be a weak analogy, but consider all of the obscure patents on mechanical inventions that lead to the same end result (effect), e.g. golf club patents. There are literally thousands. End result...putting a ball into a hole, yet the nuances that make one club design a favorite over another are hotly debated. The same holds true when magician's describe the moves required to achieve a certain card effect. Listen to any convention session and hear the names thrown around and what each contributed to making an effect a classic, and you'll start to get the gist of it. ACAAN is a perfect example, or Torn and Restored Card...both distinct effects or plots, with dozens of variations. Now are there rip-offs. God yes. And in our little cottage-industry driven art form they run rampant locally, nationally, and internationally, as what magician on a magician's salary has the backing to sue to protect her or his intellectual property? Maybe a handful, one being the big C who just had his day in court and won (thank God). Anyway, I digress. This is tricky business. Pun intended.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
|
willtupper New user 57 Posts |
My goodness. Thank you all... Mr. Oslund, Ms. Douglas, everyone.
Working up the nerve (something I struggle with, still) to ask about this has taught quite me a lot. Ms. Douglas, this bit that you wrote: Quote:
On Jun 6, 2018, danaruns wrote: was particularly helpful. I read it earlier today, and have thought about it for a few hours now. And it makes sense. I guess a good musical analogy to it would be, pretty much every introduction to music book includes "Mary Had a Little Lamb," or maybe, "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star." No one (at least, I hope not!) is on Internet Message Boards, posting about frustrating it is that those authors aren't sourcing those songs. Some things have just been a part of the world for so long, that attribution would be impossible. I'm not sure it's 100% comparable, but how many magicians know 2 Card Monte? And how many of those same magicians know it was originally Eddie Fecther's "Be Honest, What Is It?" I've not read Fitzkee's "The Trick Brain" yet, but I will (my first Fitzkee was "Showmanship for Magicians," which I bought because of what Steve Martin said about it in his memoir). You're, of course, right. And I will recommit to read the rest of his Trilogy. Soneone else (I tread lightly, here) that got me thinking along these lines is the work of one Mr. Brian Brushwood. Now, say what you want about his "ethics," he is someone whom I feel is very good at what he does, and seems to me (from everything I've seen) to be a dynamite (and certainly successful) performer (his Penguin Lecture was wonderful). Now, he hosts shows on the Internet. And he features effects from so many places. And it's obvious (to me, at least) that when he features those effects (often featured in books I own), he intentionally calls them *other things* than what they originally were... for whatever reason. And while I'm a huge fan of his... that part has always rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it was a requirement when he "moved up in the world," i.e. to a more mainstream publisher (writing for a more general public). Because I know his very first book (which I guess he self-published, back when he was starting out) DID have a bibliography, listing the sources of the contents within, at the end (that tiny work is still available as a $.99 eBook on Amazon). karnak - You ask a good question, one I certainly don't have the answer to. But, maybe (ha). Perhaps it was a knock-off. But maybe also... I've worked for years in movie theaters. Like, a lot of years (what do you do with an English Degree? Ask people if they would like butter on their popcorn). And it does seem like whenever one studio has a movie coming out in a certain genre, so does every other studio. Like they don't want anyone to be too unique. Or when one car manufacturer comes out with a new truck, so does everyone else. And in tech, too. Apple releases a new phone. So, right then, does Samsung. Or Amazon. Wizard of Oz, I think your golf club analogy is a good one. And helpful. Certainly to me, at least. This is an issue that has been bouncing around in my brain for too, too long. I'm grateful for your time in helping me come to... maybe not a "final" resolution. But I feel I am much, much closer than I were before. I can finally send this particular Train of Thought back to the ol' Brain Station. And I couldn't have done it without you. Thank you, again. |
Blackington New user 63 Posts |
Wizard and dana - I think the history of 'competitive' magic (magicians) has a lot to do with the repetitive nature of effects and props. There are many other factors (such as, the time it takes to exceed our limitations) that come into play. Aside from those topics- magic is a theatre, escapism for entertainment.
More later...thanks. |
HeronsHorse Loyal user Scotland 207 Posts |
Hang on, Walter Gibson created Lamont Cranston?
I absolutely love listening to old episodes of The Shadow. Links to magic though! Who knew!?
Quote of the Month
Those who think that magic consists of doing tricks are strangers to magic. Tricks are only the crude residue from which the lifeblood of magic has been drained." - S.H. Sharpe |
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts |
Well, I KNEW! (and, so did a lot of young magicians "back then"!) Gibson also edited, or was involved in editing magazines, like the "Conjuror's" (it only lasted about 5-6 years, but, I read them (make THAT, "darn near, memorized them!) and, learned MUCH!
Walter traveled with Harry Blackstone Sr.'s illusion show in the '40s, and, wrote a column about some of the adventures. Every Sunday afternoon, I "glued" my ears to the radio for: "Who knows, what evil lurks, in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
Blackington New user 63 Posts |
Ah yeah - I recognize the page that's describing Gibson, in Wilson's CCIM. It's a great book!
|
Blackington New user 63 Posts |
Does anyone know about this book.. The Birthday Magicians Handbook by Dave Fiscus (?), and is it any good?
Thanks. |
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts |
I don't have it. I hear that it is good. I believe that Fiscus is an elementary school principal. You might want to get more than one opinion, --Preferably someone who owns it,
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
Doc Eason V.I.P. Aspen Colorado 429 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 6, 2018, karnak wrote: MANY (30+) years ago. I was working for a beer company and had a thousand blank faced cards printed with the company name and message. I consulted with Scotty York about a trick to do to use these cards... It was Scotty who turned me on to the trick that became .. .impossible Opener.. I have never claimed it was original and in the instructions iI credit Scotty with teaching it to me. I have never heard of this "all the same' trick ... I would be interested to know more about it. Whose is it? Does anyone know?
Doc Eason’s Rocky Mountain Magic
PO Box 50 / Basalt CO 81621 doc@doceason.com http://doceason.com http://doceasonmagicshop.com |
HeronsHorse Loyal user Scotland 207 Posts |
Thanks for the information Dick!
I wasn't lucky enough to live in that golden age but once I discovered The Shadow (and many other OTR Stars!), my household also would sit and hear "Who knows, what evil lurks, in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!" sometime in the evening for many years! Not sure why I stopped listening to old time radio. Going to dust off my OTRHUB membership. Wonder if cobalt club ever reconvened anywhere..
Quote of the Month
Those who think that magic consists of doing tricks are strangers to magic. Tricks are only the crude residue from which the lifeblood of magic has been drained." - S.H. Sharpe |
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 30, 2018, HeronsHorse wrote: Good to "meet" another listener from 'them good old days"! IIRC, ORSON WELLES was the first actor to play the part of Lamont Cranston (there's a "good" old Anglo-Saxon name!) Welles had a "voice". During WW II, he had a magic show in a big tent in Los Angeles. I THINK it was especially for soldiers, sailors, and airmen. On the road for 50 years, I would listen to local radio stations, and, occasionally, one would play recordings of old radio shows. It brought back a lot of memories! When I was in elementary school, in the late '30s and early '40s, I would "run" home after school, to hear "Jack Armstrong", "Captain Midnight", "Little Orphan Annie", "Tom Mix", et al! Boy hood treasures (decoder rings, and badges, etc, accumulated over those years, have long ago disappeared!)
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
HeronsHorse Loyal user Scotland 207 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 30, 2018, Dick Oslund wrote: Apologies for the delay. Good to 'meet' you too Dick! Wow Dick, you talk of a time that I,for some reason cannot help but romanticise! I'm born in 1974 and I suppose you could say I'm only appropriating the old time radio for my generation! Collected online from various places, now archive.org carries most shows, I built up quite a collection. My favourite shows are of course The Shadow (Orson is my favourite actor in that role) , Challenge of the Yukon, Dragnet, Quiet Please, The Whistler and probably about ten others.. From about 2001-2009 I collected, traded, mailed discs all over the world and read, studied and ruminated on old time radio! When I wasn't reading the OTR bible, that is! It's been a while! Lately, due to this very conversation, I've gone and grabbed a few episodes of The Shadow and The Challenge of the Yukon to listen to in bed, and discovered it's also great when I have to practice a mundane move, trying to build muscle memory via repetition...listening to shows then is a perfect combination! Ok, back to the cards I go.
Quote of the Month
Those who think that magic consists of doing tricks are strangers to magic. Tricks are only the crude residue from which the lifeblood of magic has been drained." - S.H. Sharpe |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » New to magic? » » A Deeply Dumb Question (Or, "What's In A Name?") (8 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |