(Close Window)
Topic: Mentalism Definitively Defined
Message: Posted by: paul180 (Oct 20, 2017 03:27AM)
Because it seems to be debatable, I offer this http://www.memidex.com/mentalism

What we think dosn't really matter although like in all professions, we may have our own vocabulary. It's why lawyers still use Latin, to keep us from knowing what they know.

So maybe our definitions matters more? A consensus would be helpful.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 20, 2017 04:22AM)
That's the definition relating to Philosophy, not the performance art.

The "mentalism" we are discussing here is the performance art that creates the illusion of supranatural powers, which grew out of the stage mind-reading and spiritualist acts who recreated the effects of "real" spiritualists and mediums in the mid to late 1800s.

There really is very little real debate about this. We have been offered no evidence that 19th century psychic readers, mediums and faith healers ever called themselves "mentalists"-in fact the evidence presented so far suggests the opposite. The earliest printed mention discovered so far of a "mentalist" in a mind-reading context was a performer, Mr Wm. Broderson, advertising himself as an "illusionist and mentalist" in 1906. Although there are adverts from the 1800s were performers are promoting themselves as "mind readers and anti-spiritualists". The history of scepticism in stage mind-reading and mentalism is a long and proud one.

Hope that may be of some help.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Oct 20, 2017 10:50AM)
So where do those who display what Corinda called “super mentality” fall in the supernatural description of mentalism? I’m not being argumentative, just pointing out that mnemonists and lightning calculators fit in somewhere, though I don’t know if it really fits in a definition of mentalism.

Years ago, someone here had a definition that said roughly “magic does the physically impossible, while mentalism displays the great potential of the human mind.” Anton James says “mentalism does tricks with the mind.”

Both of those are pretty broad, which is perhaps for the best, but they can also be a bit frustrating because such definitions lead to fuzzy edges. Would mental math be mentalism? How about readings? For both of those, there are people who say yes and others who say no. I tend toward inclusiveness.

Patrick
Message: Posted by: jstreiff (Oct 20, 2017 11:01AM)
F.W.H. Myers, one of the founders of modern scientific psychology said in the late 19th century that all mental abilities can be described as a continuum ranging from insight and intuition at one end to genius, savantism and mysticism at the other.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 20, 2017 11:40AM)
It's a tad bit more complicated and with America being a relatively young country, compared to England, the written history is less. Starting around 1848 there were traveling "medicine" shows springing up out in the west. These "shows" had varying degrees of entertainment associated with the primary function of selling "cures" which would later be known as "snake oil". Some of these showman displayed mental feats, memory, hypnosis (trances), fortune tellers, mystics.....etc.

The spiritualist movement started a bit later, followed by Vaudeville and then the magicians exposure of mediums era.

So an exact definition with an exact date is a bit of a problem. The term remains elusive in the context of a true performer (only) versus someone performing to setup the taking of a mark. The two were not mutually exclusive and many were related to each other.
Message: Posted by: paul180 (Oct 20, 2017 01:13PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2017, Martin Pulman wrote:
That's the definition relating to Philosophy, not the performance art. [/quote]

There are actually numerous definitions on the site, that range from Psychological to performance art.

RCP, I really love the historical context of your post and all around commitment to understanding the past. I also agree having read other posts of yours, that for one to understand the present, we must give homage to the past.

However, my intention with this post for US as a group of professionals and others, is to try to define OUR definition of the word. I'm hoping that this can be the beginning of a vocabulary the WE can all agree on, in an attempt to be clear and concise with ourselves.

We should I believe, include a historical reference to our modern day definition, to give a clear springboard to where we are now. Like knowing the meaning of the root of a word or it's main origin.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 20, 2017 05:50PM)
Not to belabor the point but as far as the general public is concerned a TV show has defined the modern day definition. An actor, who probably knows nothing about the subject, is The Mentalist.
Message: Posted by: George Hunter (Oct 20, 2017 07:35PM)
The show had consultants from the ranks of professional mentalism and the actor, who did an engaging job, was tutored. Most good actors learn something about the character whose role they play; some pay the price to "inhabit" their role.

George
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 21, 2017 07:35AM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2017, Mr. Woolery wrote:
So where do those who display what Corinda called “super mentality” fall in the supernatural description of mentalism? I’m not being argumentative, just pointing out that mnemonists and lightning calculators fit in somewhere, though I don’t know if it really fits in a definition of mentalism.

Years ago, someone here had a definition that said roughly “magic does the physically impossible, while mentalism displays the great potential of the human mind.” Anton James says “mentalism does tricks with the mind.”

Both of those are pretty broad, which is perhaps for the best, but they can also be a bit frustrating because such definitions lead to fuzzy edges. Would mental math be mentalism? How about readings? For both of those, there are people who say yes and others who say no. I tend toward inclusiveness.

Patrick [/quote]

Hi Patrick,

I wrote "supranatural", not "supernatural". That term covers memory demonstrations and lightning calculation effects.

Regards,
Martin
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 21, 2017 07:41AM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2017, George Hunter wrote:
The show had consultants from the ranks of professional mentalism and the actor, who did an engaging job, was tutored. Most good actors learn something about the character whose role they play; some pay the price to "inhabit" their role.

George [/quote]
Yes, Luke Jermay
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 21, 2017 07:43AM)
Martin, I cant find any info on your 1906 Mentalist, Mr Wm. Broderson? Do you have a source?

Thanks
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 21, 2017 12:39PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2017, paul180 wrote:
There are actually numerous definitions on the site, that range from Psychological to performance art. [/quote]

Yes, it's there too. Those definitions don't go much away from what happens.

This is how I define mentalism when people ask me about it:

It's the study and reproduction of mental phenomena for entertaining purposes. It has 3 approaches:

1- Behavioral Psychology / Non-Verbal Communication
2- Illusionism Principles / Unorthodox Methods
3- Esoterism / Arcane Techniques

Works for me.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Oct 21, 2017 02:38PM)
Thanks, Martin. I did, indeed, misread it.

Patrick
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 21, 2017 09:29PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2017, Max Hazy wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 2017, paul180 wrote:
There are actually numerous definitions on the site, that range from Psychological to performance art. [/quote]

Yes, it's there too. Those definitions don't go much away from what happens.

This is how I define mentalism when people ask me about it:

It's the study and reproduction of mental phenomena for entertaining purposes. It has 3 approaches:

1- Behavioral Psychology / Non-Verbal Communication
2- Illusionism Principles / Unorthodox Methods
3- Esoterism / Arcane Techniques

Works for me. [/quote]



"As a mentalist, you must become accustomed to perpetrating outright swindles without so much as a twinge of conscience...”
Tony Corinda.

That works better
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 21, 2017 09:45PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2017, RCP wrote:
"As a mentalist, you must become accustomed to perpetrating outright swindles without so much as a twinge of conscience...”
Tony Corinda.

That works better [/quote]

I thought we were defining mentalism, not mentalists (or what mentalists must become accustomed to, to be specific).

I don't think that would work better for me at least, because my main language isn't english, so it gets a very different connotation.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 21, 2017 10:05PM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls
;)
Message: Posted by: Godzilla (Oct 21, 2017 10:22PM)
That RCP fella, 'DOES KNOW', Jack ! :-)
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 21, 2017 11:14PM)
LOL
Message: Posted by: funsway (Oct 22, 2017 05:22AM)
Looking at Max's triple definition, I seek some clarification.

I have often performed demonstrations of "little known or unexplored human abilities" of a mental variety. Innate abilities is another possible phrase.
Most in an audience would perhaps accept these as "mentalism." I have shared some of these with known mentalists (including Bob) with no definitional glitch.

However, such demonstrations are not supernatural, supranatural or in any was connected to the 1800's history/approach.
So, where does such a demonstration fit into this definition?

One obvious example is a pendulum. Anyone can do it. It is a very natural ability even if the why/how of it is mysterious.
The fact that some mediums or performing mentalists have pretended to control it thought "unnatural agency" or "personal power"
does not make of it anything except a natural, universal and innate ability.

So, why is it performed by mentalist? Where does it fit in these definitions?
Certainly, a pendulum demonstration can be made very entertaining by adding some mysterious hoopla,
and one might infer/claim that some people have a greater ability than others. No problem. But, is it mentalism?
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 22, 2017 12:27PM)
[quote]On Oct 22, 2017, funsway wrote:
Looking at Max's triple definition, I seek some clarification. [/quote]

Pendulum work can be framed both as superatural or scientific. Such elements, including developed skills (e.g. super memory, intuition, etc) could fit in Unorthodox Methods, Non-Verbal Comunication or Arcane Techniques depending on how the performer framed it. That, of course, in my definition.

About readings, it is a bit more personal. I do think readings has classifications that don't fit. For instance, I consider Cold Reading as mentalism but I don't consider Psychic Readings to fit in the mentalism realm. Just like mentalism has things relating to magic, readings has things relating to mentalism, but both situations don't fit in entirely. It doesn't even has to be in the supernatural side to be the case, it also goes to the psychological approach (e.g. I don't consider Graphology Readings to be mentalism, but it could also be included in a mentalism act).

As to why such cases are performed by mentalists, it's even more personal. In my case, I'm fascinated by mystery and human mind. So whatever involves it, calls my attention. From illusions to subliminal messages and pareidolia, etc. If I had to describe myself 100% accurately, I would call me a prestidigitator, mentalist (in all senses of the word, including philosophical), hypnotist who also do palmistry, cartomancy, cold reading and body language reading, among other stuff. Too many things to care about being defined by a single word (artist maybe). I do refer to myself mainly as a mentalist simply for the sake people knowing that most of what I do relates to the mind, not only for actually doing mentalism. But people are much more familiar with the term magician, which technically, I am too. Plus a reader, so I had to adapt the definition to my reality and make people closer to understand it, without derailing it's actual meaning.

BTW, notice that I don't consider graphology or psychic readings to be mentalism, but it actually fits elements of my definition of mentalism (e.g. psychic readings is esoterism / arcane technique and graphology relates to Behavioral Psychology and Non-Verbal Communication). Any further generic case could fit in Unorthodox Methods. There are special cases, for instance, Psychic readings wouldn't always apply to the definition because it's not always for entertaining purposes (but can be too).
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 22, 2017 01:24PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2017, Godzilla wrote:
That RCP fella, 'DOES KNOW', Jack ! :-) [/quote]

actually it was Jill I knew ;) nice to see you posting again Godzilla
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Oct 22, 2017 01:48PM)
Personally, I define Mentalism as:

"Mystery Performance in which the entertainer exhibits special mind abilities in a realistic and credible manner"

That simple definition covers both the natural demonstration (rapid calculations, body language, etc) and the more supernatural ones. I came form the school of thought of Bob, in which credibility is essential to the practice of Mentalism. For that same reason the difference between a Mental Magician and a Mentalist in our understanding is fundamental.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Oct 22, 2017 03:26PM)
I like that definition, Amira, but don't the demonstrations of the proclaimed Mentalist and the Conjuror doing a mind-based effect both fit?
There may be fundamental differences for you, but what about the audience? They will see a demonstration of "special mind abilities" in both cases.

What makes a performer "credible" in the minds of a spectator or chance observer?
Promising to do something seemingly impossible and then delivering on the promise leads to credibility.

On re-read, "how can any such demonstration be "realistic?" Artificial and contrived setting. Special condition. Predictions. Metal bending.
Certainly, any presentation can be framed for the need of special conditions, but how is that "realistic?"
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Oct 23, 2017 08:16AM)
[quote]On Oct 22, 2017, funsway wrote:
I like that definition, Amira, but don't the demonstrations of the proclaimed Mentalist and the Conjuror doing a mind-based effect both fit?
There may be fundamental differences for you, but what about the audience? They will see a demonstration of "special mind abilities" in both cases.

What makes a performer "credible" in the minds of a spectator or chance observer?
Promising to do something seemingly impossible and then delivering on the promise leads to credibility.

On re-read, "how can any such demonstration be "realistic?" Artificial and contrived setting. Special condition. Predictions. Metal bending.
Certainly, any presentation can be framed for the need of special conditions, but how is that "realistic?" [/quote]

If a "conjuror" creates a credible demonstration of mind abilities, in my definition he is also a Mentalist. Several of our heroes in Mentalism also did Magic effects, but I can model from them the understanding of observing both Magic and Mentalism using a solid subtext of what they were doing. Sadly most of the time in Magic that subtext is not observed, but we can defend that important aspect to Mentalism.

Recently I release a book in Spanish about my conceptions in Mentalism and one of the essays was called "A Magician cant be Mentalist" and touches the notion that the same as a soccer player and a basketball player, a Magician entering to the world of Mentalism needs to understand the core differences of this allied mystery practices. If that doesn't happen, we will still see "Mentalists" doing the classic Magician cliches that puts the act in the realm of fantasy, theatre and suspension of disbelief that Mentalism doesn't reach, or touch with sparks of doubt.

From the audience perspective (and I have proven this ideas for years while working with a Magician friend in a Magic and Mentalism show), they understand the differences, and they are not subtle.
A Magician invites the audience to a new reality (suspension of disbelief) based in illusion and fantasy.
A Mentalist invites the audience to open their perception to the shared reality ("activation of belief"). I am doing what I am saying. I am not an actor playing the role of a psychic. I am a Psychic who is offering entertainment.


Regarding credibility, the more incredible your acts are, the less credible. For that reason if a path of "credibility" is taken, the inner study of subtext and congruence is very important. I need to constantly ask "How I am doing what I say I am doing from the audience perspective?"
Maybe I am watching their thoughts in ambiguous manners, or I am manipulating energy to bend metal, etc....

This is a long topic, but intriguing and fascinating to those interested in touching new areas in our craft. All this is not about constructing belief about "PSI phenomena", but to elicit mystery using those themes, and I have found that Mentalism nowadays has the advantage to be credible because people wants to believe in the expansion of our consciousness, of the non-dualistic paradigms or reality and all those interesting aspects of human existence.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Oct 23, 2017 10:04AM)
Very nice response and clarification, Amira.

In support of you last paragraph, my experience is that every person has some personal memory/story/connection with an event that most would consider "other than normal" as to mental abilities.
Often they are reluctant to share these experience, but the come to see a Mentalist with an expectation of their experience being validated in some way.
Thus, it may not matter if they suspect trickery is involved in a demonstration. Most people's daily life is filled with deception in many forms.

I remember the phrase for somewhere - "plausible impossibility." People do seem more ready to accept such more on the mental side than the physical.
Is this because folks year to be more than they are right now? or, that they sense others are and they do not wish to be left behind?
Another view is that all technology stifles imagination and creativity. Observing another person challenge the impossible is a substitute for personal imagination/creativity.
Playing with "mental enhancement" is more credible than changing physical laws - less fearful at any rate.

Children used to dream of flying. Now they dream of reading a professor's mind so that they can avoid having to study. ;)
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 23, 2017 12:16PM)
Without mystery, mentalism is finished.

And the mystery is being lost at a frightening rate.
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (Oct 23, 2017 12:53PM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2017, Martin Pulman wrote:
Without mystery, mentalism is finished.

And the mystery is being lost at a frightening rate. [/quote]

Not sure that I fully agree with that. It is and always has been up to the performer to create the mystery. Sure the level of exposure these days by cretins is at an all time high -but I still use many effects that have been "exposed"many times and I still get the desired results. The flip side of your comment is that there are a lot of performers as of late who almost seem apologetic and somewhat embarrassed to call themselves mind readers. They call themselves illusionists or the like, and what this does is condition their audience or interviewer to accept that there is no mystery, its all tricks. That is a BIG part of the problem and one of the main reasons to the decline.
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 23, 2017 04:39PM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2017, innercirclewannabe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 23, 2017, Martin Pulman wrote:
Without mystery, mentalism is finished.

And the mystery is being lost at a frightening rate. [/quote]

Not sure that I fully agree with that. [/quote]

I'm not sure I agree with that too, but not for the same reason. Sometimes I raise credibility exposing other techniques that has nothing to do with the method or trickery. For instance, I have done a which hand divination with 6 participants and I was pointing out real body language stuff but this had nothing to do with the method, it's simply to teach people some stuff and also raise the credibility of the act. Since people was "knowing how it was done", I don't think there were mystery there, but it was entertaining. For instance, people usually laugh a lot when I spot a liar trying to trick me swapping hand.

I hope this example illustrates my point. Mystery is not always necessary, particularly if you want to build credibility in the psychological approach. On the other hand, if this was referring to exposure, I agree 100%. Mentalism's having raised popularity might be beneficial on one hand and dangerous on the other hand.
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Oct 25, 2017 03:01PM)
I've always thought that you mentalists saw mentalism as being; 'The creation of a suspension of disbelief for mind based illusions and effects where the intention is to have that disbelief extend beyond the theatrical setting in which it is performed.'

Feel free to use that as a definition if you feel you need one or if it helps. :)
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 25, 2017 04:31PM)
That would be a magician doing "mentalism". Nobody paying to see a mentalist wants to see "the illusion of a mentalist."

If I received promo at my agencies stating that, it would go in the round file right away.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Oct 25, 2017 04:41PM)
I like the phrase "round file".... :)
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Oct 26, 2017 11:20AM)
Mindpro; How can the definition I gave relate to a magician doing "mentalism"? (I would use the term mental magic as magicians don't perform mentalism but, "mentalism" is what you wrote)

To me the definition I gave is the antithesis of that..... and it is so specifically because magicians don't look to have the suspension of disbelief that they create live in people's lives beyond the theatrical setting in which they perform. They might want the mystery to endure but not the suspension of the disbelief. It's a mystery to me how you can derive this from the definition I offered.

I'd be interested to know the thinking behind thi comment in your post.

I'd also be interested to know why you say... " Nobody paying to see a mentalist wants to see the illusion of a mentalist." .... because while as a sentence it 's fine and I agree with it, I don't understand how this comment stems from the definition I offered when nothing to the effect of the performer creating the illusion of being a mentalist is mentioned or suggested within it?
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 26, 2017 12:26PM)
Sure. It's really quite simply as Osterlind, Cassidy and others have said - no one whats to see a fake-mentalist. When someone is doing the "illusion" of a mentalist it is a fake mentalist or in most cases a magician doing mentalism (and audiences can detect this a mile away). Not sure why the confusion. Hope this better clarifies.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Oct 26, 2017 02:26PM)
Why is it that 65 years ago Ormand McGill could combine conjuring and mentalism in a show, get rave reviews and world wide bookings.
with no one apparently confused or "off-put" by his demonstrations of the "Mystic Arts." Yet, today there is implication that an audience can't handle the combination,
or that performers can't. He did eventually separate the two parts of the show with the Mentalism demonstrations coming last - something he considered to be a natural
progression of astonishment for the audience. Is there a different expectation of audiences today? Appreciation?
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Oct 26, 2017 03:04PM)
I'm afraid it doesn't clarify anything at all.

You have merely stated the same thing again. As I said, as a sentience I agree with it. I have no issue with it or difficulty understanding it. I am happy to say the same thing along with Osterlind and Cassidy. Someone endeavouring to create the illusion of a mentalist when they aren't one doesn't create mentalism. So presumably we agree on that.

So with that out of the way.... What I still don't understand and what you haven't clarified is how you derive this as a response to the definition I offered. Your comment that my definition describes a magician doing "mentalism" just doesn't make any sense to me as the definition is the antithesis of what a magician does and intends with their performance of lets call them otherworldly effects.

There is however, implicit in the definition I gave, the notion that mentalism uses methods.

These methods play a part in creating a suspension of disbelief that is intended to live beyond the theatrical setting of the performance. Implicit in this is that this suspension of disbelief takes the form of an actual belief. (Or maybe some form of quasi-belief) Those that fail in this objective, but hold it as their intention, as far as this definition is concerned, fail as a mentalist. That doesn't automatically make them magicians anymore than it makes them ventriloquists. It makes them bad mentalists.

Magicians do, and set out to do, something different. They create a suspension of disbelieve within the theatrical setting with no intention of it extending beyond this setting. When they do this successfully it isn't mentalism, this is mental magic.

So I'd still be interested to know how you derived your response from the definition I offered.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 26, 2017 03:10PM)
It was defined a hundred years ago, by those that created it, all the greats before have understood what it was (is).......why do you any of you think you know better?
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 26, 2017 03:51PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2017, Sealegs wrote:
I'm afraid it doesn't clarify anything at all.

You have merely stated the same thing again. As I said, as a sentience I agree with it. I have no issue with it or difficulty understanding it. I am happy to say the same thing along with Osterlind and Cassidy. Someone endeavouring to create the illusion of a mentalist when they aren't one doesn't create mentalism. So presumably we agree on that.

So with that out of the way.... What I still don't understand and what you haven't clarified is how you derive this as a response to the definition I offered. [/quote]


You stated "...suspension of disbelief for mind based illusions..."

This is what I was referring to. "Illusions" says fake, unreal, pretend, pseudo, deceit, etc. - Magic!

As I referred to the round file, any time we receive anything that says "Psychological Illusionist", "Mind Magic", "Magic of the Mind" "the illusion of...", Mind To Mind Illusions" or anything similar, as I said immediately into the round file it goes. Don't even get me started on the word Parlour!

I operate from an industry perspective not a personal perspective, a magician's perspective or an artistic perspective. That is not how people operate or respond to purchasing/booking mentalism. I deal with many buyers a week and I know what they think, feel, perceive and believe. So while everyone is entitled to their own PERSONAL beliefs and perceptions, in the real world for performance selling, marketing and bookings from an industry perspective, it may be quite different than your personal opinions. This is also the difference between a hobbyist or enthusiast and commercial operations.
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Oct 26, 2017 04:00PM)
Maybe we don't know what this hundred year old definition is? You haven't offered it up anywhere in any of your posts in the thread so far.

I've read all through the thread and can't see that anyone has suggested that they know better than anyone else other than, perhaps ironically, in your own last post. Those posting in the thread, including myself, appear to be simply offering up their thoughts on the subject at hand and seeing what those reading and participating in the thread think of their contribution.

So don't be a tease... tell us what the century old definition that can't be bettered is. Then we can wrap this thread up and end this interesting and engaging exchange of ideas and thoughts.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 26, 2017 05:06PM)
The Nelsonian School of thinking regarding Mentalism. Don't wait for the penguin video. Go back one generation to Alexander, the most successful performer monetarily, of the day. Do your own research instead of tearing down what you don't understand.

"Mentalism is a commercial-mercenary. If you wish. It functions only for
profit.”
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 26, 2017 05:35PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2017, RCP wrote:
The Nelsonian School of thinking regarding Mentalism. Don't wait for the penguin video. Go back one generation to Alexander, the most successful performer monetarily, of the day. Do your own research instead of tearing down what you don't understand.

"Mentalism is a commercial-mercenary. If you wish. It functions only for
profit.” [/quote]
But what's the hundred-year-old definition?
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 26, 2017 05:40PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2017, Martin Pulman wrote:
But what's the hundred-year-old definition? [/quote]

I'm not sure if there's one that would withstand that much time. If you go back 100 years back, the majority of the people doing what we consider mentalism today didn't do it for entertaining purposes. This changes everything.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 26, 2017 05:45PM)
All of you magicians doing mental magic take the heat of the real work, good job👍
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 26, 2017 05:51PM)
RCP, with my last post I was thinking of references such as Abbott. In the context I put, "real work" becomes "pretending to have super powers".

Mentalism don't have to rely on trickery and CAN be VERY real, but that wasn't the norm 100 years ago. Anyone can confirm that from the very old books.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 26, 2017 05:58PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2017, RCP wrote:
All of you magicians doing mental magic take the heat of the real work, good job👍 [/quote]
And the hundred-year-old definition?
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 26, 2017 06:00PM)
Given multiple times, you just don't like it
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 26, 2017 06:02PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2017, RCP wrote:
Given multiple times, you just don't like it [/quote]
What is it? The suspense is worthy of Hitchcock!
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 26, 2017 06:45PM)
Okay martin you have wore me out, it's a secret penguin item.. Its a nuclear powered red sponge bunny that transmits using a quantum satellite to a special brain implant. Now it codes it multiple times along the way and you end up with either a sweet or salty taste in your mouth so you know where the red bunny is. but be careful with your pre-show work ;)
Message: Posted by: Last Laugh (Oct 26, 2017 11:38PM)
Man this forum can be exhausting and tedious at times...
Just the name of this thread took a few days off my life.

I think that people get so locked into to caring what other people think, that they forget that they are free to think for themselves. But then again, that's probably that last thing most people want to do.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 27, 2017 04:33AM)
Nothing wrong with mentalists on a mentalism forum discussing the origins, history, meaning and significance of their art form. Personally, I find all the buying and selling of products and "get your pre-order in now!" and "my pre-order IS in!* threads far more tedious. But each to their own.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Oct 27, 2017 05:34AM)
One might find some useful thoughts in an old thread on the Café (2011)

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?forum=15&topic=410713#9
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Oct 27, 2017 05:52AM)
Sometimes it feels like it's not a discussion or exploration of thoughts...

It's more a "you don't get it, the way I think is the real and true way"...

Most people aren't interested in having a reasonable and fun debate over the differences which is a shame...

Let's all go back to putting two fingers to our foreheads and a hand fan of ESP cards...oh and a little goatee...
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 27, 2017 06:15AM)
[quote]

Most people aren't interested in having a reasonable and fun debate over the differences which is a shame...

Let's all go back to putting two fingers to our foreheads and a hand fan of ESP cards...oh and a little goatee... [/quote]
That's not real mentalism.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Oct 27, 2017 06:31AM)
Ok, mullets too...
Message: Posted by: Amirá (Oct 27, 2017 08:28AM)
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, IAIN wrote

Let's all go back to putting two fingers to our foreheads and a hand fan of ESP cards...oh and a little goatee... [/quote]

Oh wonderful and needed goatee

and ! don't forget the little devils on the shoulders
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Oct 27, 2017 09:24AM)
Mindpro, on the previous page of this thread you took a partial quote from the definition I offered: "...suspension of disbelief for mind based illusions..."

Your clarification was as to why this is a magicians definition was, "This is what I [Mindpro] was referring to. "Illusions" says fake, unreal, pretend, pseudo, deceit, etc. - Magic!"

Illusion does indeed say fake, deceit etc but your jump to that being, 'magic' doesn't make any sense to me. We are discussing a definition of mentalism not how magicians and mentalists promote themselves.

The methods of Cassidy, Osterlind et al are the means by which they create the fake/unreal/pretend/pseudo, illusion of genuine otherworldly phenomena or abilities that are presented as not being fake unreal pretend, or pseudo. Unless you are claiming Cassidy and Osterlind didn't/don't use methods in their work your position, that utilising some form of illusion must result in 'magic' rather than anything else, would make Cassidy and Osterlind magicians and not mentalists.

You seem to be treating the offered definition at it as if was a description someone might give of themselves in their publicity materials. This is (to my mind) a bizarre leap to make. The two things are not the same.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 27, 2017 10:46AM)
Cassidy and Osterlind are magicians. You don’t have to believe me let’s look at Richards own words.

“If you're looking for new, cutting-edge ideas in magic and mentalism, you've come to the right place!”

http://www.osterlindmysteries.com/

Do your own research for bob, I’m tired of casting pearls before swine.......,
Message: Posted by: Last Laugh (Oct 27, 2017 07:00PM)
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, IAIN wrote:
Sometimes it feels like it's not a discussion or exploration of thoughts...

It's more a "you don't get it, the way I think is the real and true way"...
[/quote]

Yeah that's exactly what I mean.

I absolutely enjoy good discussion where people are having civil discourse and sharing pertinent info, but that can be a small percentage of posts at times.
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Oct 27, 2017 07:04PM)
Who knew Ratners did pearls?

RCP; I read a post of yours in [url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?forum=15&topic=652139#14] another thread [/url] where you said that all performing mentalists are magicians. So... if a mentalist is in a forest and there's no one there to see what they're doing, could what they are doing be mentalism? :confused: :bg:

Totally agree Last laugh. It's rare to have an actual exchange of differing points of view. On those occasions where this has happened in this section of the Café it has been quite illuminating. Unfortunately darkness tends to prevail.

I'd be up for discussing the merits or otherwise of what RCP put forward, that all performing mentalists are magicians.... or maybe even more generally that all mentalists are magicians.... but with such a supercilious way of expressing a point of view there seems little point.
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 27, 2017 07:48PM)
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, RCP wrote:
Cassidy and Osterlind are magicians. You don’t have to believe me let’s look at Richards own words.

“If you're looking for new, cutting-edge ideas in magic and mentalism, you've come to the right place!”

http://www.osterlindmysteries.com/

Do your own research for bob, I’m tired of casting pearls before swine......., [/quote]

OMG... Cassidy a magician... and he was the greatest defender of mixing things = different perspectives.

I was going to talk about marketing strategies of including the word "magic" when promoting or being known as something before doing something else, but reaching this point, it became a waste of time. The topic, the discussion, the complainers... pretty much helpless.
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 27, 2017 07:54PM)
History is history. You can ignore it or try to redefine it but it's still the actual factual reality of what came before. What someones point of view is doesn't matter , invent your own facts, tear down statues, live in an imaginary world. The history of the art is well defined. While all those that lived it are now gone they left us an enormous written record to understand how the split occurred, why it occurred and who profited from it. What is really amusing is all the hot new items in mentalism from penguin are straight out of the old works. While technology makes some things easier there is nothing new under the sun. Why "mentalism" works hasn't changed in 6,000 years but probably even goes back to the dawn of man.

"So... if a mentalist is in a forest and there's no one there to see what they're doing, could what they are doing be mentalism?"

Since any no talent bum can call themselves a mentalist they can believe whatever they want in a forest ;) or on a stage
Message: Posted by: Sven Rygh (Oct 28, 2017 03:05AM)
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, Max Hazy wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, RCP wrote:
Cassidy and Osterlind are magicians. You don’t have to believe me let’s look at Richards own words.

“If you're looking for new, cutting-edge ideas in magic and mentalism, you've come to the right place!”

http://www.osterlindmysteries.com/

Do your own research for bob, I’m tired of casting pearls before swine......., [/quote]

OMG... Cassidy a magician... and he was the greatest defender of mixing things = different perspectives.

I was going to talk about marketing strategies of including the word "magic" when promoting or being known as something before doing something else, but reaching this point, it became a waste of time. The topic, the discussion, the complainers... pretty much helpless. [/quote]

Cassidy was absolutely not, but Osterlind indeed is
It is enough to have a look on the "things" he markets and his performing style to understand that

- but by all means, magicians can be cool people too!
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 28, 2017 09:56AM)
[quote]On Oct 28, 2017, Sven Rygh wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, Max Hazy wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, RCP wrote:
Cassidy and Osterlind are magicians. You don’t have to believe me let’s look at Richards own words.

“If you're looking for new, cutting-edge ideas in magic and mentalism, you've come to the right place!”

http://www.osterlindmysteries.com/

Do your own research for bob, I’m tired of casting pearls before swine......., [/quote]

OMG... Cassidy a magician... and he was the greatest defender of mixing things = different perspectives.

I was going to talk about marketing strategies of including the word "magic" when promoting or being known as something before doing something else, but reaching this point, it became a waste of time. The topic, the discussion, the complainers... pretty much helpless. [/quote]

Cassidy was absolutely not, but Osterlind indeed is
It is enough to have a look on the "things" he markets and his performing style to understand that

- but by all means, magicians can be cool people too! [/quote]

Count the number of times magic or magician is used.

http://www.magicana.com/news/blog/take-two-9-bob-cassidy

Bob was a great performer. There were a lot of magician mentalist especially early on. They worked both sides, With instant news its harder to be both (a true mentalist) now.

These discussions started 3 or 4 threads ago about ethics in mental-ism. You don't have to take my word, lets see what the greats said?

"As a mentalist, you must become accustomed to perpetrating outright swindles without so much as a twinge of conscience...”
Tony Corinda.

“Mental-ism is a commercial-mercenary. If you wish. It functions only for
profit.” Robert Nelson

The notion of "for entertainment only" or I am using "psychological tells and muscle reading" had nothing to do with being ethical. Municipalities passed laws against fortune telling (tellers) these and using religion were shams to get around being arrested while plying the trade.

There is nothing wrong with being a magician. There is something unnatural about trying to be something your not.
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 28, 2017 11:57AM)
[quote]On Oct 27, 2017, Sealegs wrote:
Mindpro, on the previous page of this thread you took a partial quote from the definition I offered: "...suspension of disbelief for mind based illusions..."

Your clarification was as to why this is a magicians definition was, "This is what I [Mindpro] was referring to. "Illusions" says fake, unreal, pretend, pseudo, deceit, etc. - Magic!"

Illusion does indeed say fake, deceit etc but your jump to that being, 'magic' doesn't make any sense to me. We are discussing a definition of mentalism not how magicians and mentalists promote themselves.

The methods of Cassidy, Osterlind et al are the means by which they create the fake/unreal/pretend/pseudo, illusion of genuine otherworldly phenomena or abilities that are presented as not being fake unreal pretend, or pseudo. Unless you are claiming Cassidy and Osterlind didn't/don't use methods in their work your position, that utilising some form of illusion must result in 'magic' rather than anything else, would make Cassidy and Osterlind magicians and not mentalists.

You seem to be treating the offered definition at it as if was a description someone might give of themselves in their publicity materials. This is (to my mind) a bizarre leap to make. The two things are not the same. [/quote]




In many of your posts you seem to cross the line back and forth between us as in the community and the public/lay meanings and perceptions.

As I said, I operate from an industry perspective of providing buying and selling mentalism for the consumption of a public or lay audience, not mentalists, magicians or “the community.”

Yes, I referred to promotional materials, as I stated, that we receive at our agencies. But it also applies to how we present ourselves as well. Most mentalist's promo materials are based on exactly as the see, explain and position themselves, so yes, more times than not they are the same thing.

The point is the word “illusions” used in any type of our such performance context connotes “magic” to most laypeople (perhaps even deceit). I have sat in an audience where a well known mentalist asked me to come see his show where when he took the stage and said I use….and……and..…to create the illusion of mind reading…”. and literally heard the guy next to me lean over to his wife and say (loud enough for all of us around him to hear) “ah, see, this guy is not a mind reader he’s creating the illusion of mind reading. He’s just a magician”. He said this in a very disappointed, duped tone. To him, at that very moment he realized he paid to see a mind reader/mentalist (possibly even psychic) and was getting a fake, pretend mind reader/mentalist.

Also how a mentalist promotes themselves, DOES create positioning and expectation to both buyers and audiences. They are perceived as two different things. We (my agencies) are currently in the busy booking season for holiday events, mostly company parties. We regularly receive phone calls where they specifically state “we’ve had a DJ, a comedian and a magician in the past. This year we want something really different. We were thinking of a mind reader/mentalist/psychic entertainer.” They specifically distinguish a difference between mentalism and magic. Several have even told us, we tried to hire a mentalist/mind reader last year, but when he performed for us he was really just a magician doing mind reading tricks.” They see it as different, and also see a difference between a “real” mind reader/mentalist and a magician doing mental tricks/effects.

So yes, how we position, market and refer to ourselves makes a huge difference. We will not even consider working with anyone who blurs that line or does not understand this. We have far too much at risk with long term 6 and 7 figure clients to jeopardize that because a magician doesn’t understand the difference between how the two are perceived and received.

No offense, but this is why none of this historical reflection or views matters on such a level of commercial performance. I get theoretically to enthusiasts it may be interesting or even important to them, but I can honestly tell you in over 35 years of performing and operating my agencies full-time not once has any of this ever come into play or even a mention or discussion. Heck I’ve worked with probably close to 60 mentalists as performers and coaching clients over the years and the topic has never even come up with any of them either.

Again, like so much here, there is a difference from those that are just fans, hobbyists and enthusiasts, to those that perform for their living, livelihood and commercially.
Message: Posted by: Sealegs (Oct 28, 2017 03:24PM)
Mindpro, I get it now. Your reply, to the definition of mentalism that I offered, was made from your specific perspective of mentalism. So you've placed my definition within commercial environments and scenarios and applied it and utilised it in that context.

While I understood the points you were making I didn't understand how you got to those points because the definition I gave wasn't aimed to be applied or used from just that perspective and it those ways. (such as being mentioned in promo materials, or spoken of as any sort of description of ones performance, etc) And this brings into focus the very point that the original post was making and what I thought this thread was setting out to address..

[i]"What we think dosn't really matter although like in all professions, we may have our own vocabulary. It's why lawyers still use Latin, to keep us from knowing what they know. So maybe our definitions matters more? A consensus would be helpful."[/i]

I completely agree, that what mentalists think about mentalism is of no real consequence. But the OP also talks about mentalism/mentalists having their own vocabulary and that a consensus of a definition might be helpful. It seemed to me that the 1st couple or so pages of this thread were largely tackling this task at face value. Of course, it is largely just an intellectual exercise of no real consequence to anyone except maybe for those who frequent these forums. At least with a consensus among those who come here everyone might then know what is being talked about and not talked about when discussing.... mentalism.

Without such a consensus you have, Mindpro insisting that commercial mentalism is the only perspective that matters and whoever else saying that whatever their perspective might be is the only one that matters.

This way of thinking was brilliantly encapsulated on the previous page of this thread by RCP who said in their post; [i]"What someones point of view is doesn't matter."[/i] Brilliant.

Mindpro has at least given an account of the perspicacity and relevance of his perspective of mentalism but he fell short of giving us definition so we still have the same issue of what is and isn't being discussed when talking about mentalism

The definition I offered up was an attempt to try and find as broad and encompassing a definition as possible capable of accommodating a wide variety of perspectives. My aim was to make it specific enough to be useful, while causing the least amount of compromise to those who have their own perspective of what mentalism is and isn't.

No worries if it doesn't suit or accommodate. Like I said, I agree it's of no consequence either way. :)
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 28, 2017 03:53PM)
I am glad you now understand my perspective. Reviewing my posts it still seems clear to me, but of course the tone, position and acceptance is ultimately determined by the reader or recipient.

For those of us that have been here for years, it is easy to think everyone understands who we are and where we are coming from. My area of specialty and insight is the professional performance of mentalism as a marketable form of entertainment and profession. For years that's what many here operated from a similar perspective - as workers or being interested in being workers. Penny was helpful t many in this way pertaining to their performing careers.

With the "magician coming to mentalism" bandwagon, combined with the UK closeup, walkaround, street wave of mentalism, and of course the propless wave, came a shift to more effect and theory-based participation here. Then comes the endless debates, historical recounts, beliefs and interpretations, etc.

The part that is very disturbing is when the topic of how audiences (and buyers) think, perceive and understand mentalism, and what it is or isn't. They don't operate based on theory or historical knowledge, they base it solely on their common belief, which is often influenced by media, pop culture and peripheral awareness. This is where the conflict comes in here. I speak of what is being experienced on a daily basis in real-world situations and from an industry perspective, others here are from their only own personal beliefs and perceptions. As we can see, they are two different things. Of course since the tide had turned and there are less real working pros here, they (and their opinions) have become in the minority here.

Yes, everything I post is always from the perspective of a longtime working professional and as an agent, producer, promoter and entertainment business (sales and booking of entertainment). My coaching consulting and live training events for over 30 years have also been based on this.

Glad we have that clarified. You are correct. It seems less and less here are interested in this side of things.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Oct 28, 2017 04:04PM)
And is it ok for us to NOT be interested in that side of things? I mean, the creativity side of things is of at least some importance...not everyone wants to be a full-timer and are honest about that, (rather than pretending)...
.
and I hope that people accept those that are sincere about mentalism however they perform it too...

no open forum is full of people from one singular perspective...its a representation of the collective in most instances - and that has to be seen and accepted too...

for example, for once, I would love to see a thread from Mindpro about a singular presentation, or a persona (more importantly) and then everyone can argue about that for a change..it would at least, be informative as to the differences...
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 28, 2017 04:56PM)
Oh yeah, that would be fun.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Oct 28, 2017 05:21PM)
Why not though? you talk from your perspective, why not experience another? "The mindpro challenge"....

you sometimes come across as very frustrated and annoyed, because we don't approach mentalism from the same perspective - I've always thought that's because a) not many are full timers b) you run an agency (or maybe more, can't remember c) I seem to remember listening to a podcast that was put on youtube between you and some guy, where you talk about music, 90s soap stars and so on... not many others (if any) have the same experiences as you - so why not look at the common ground and have a little fun for a change? :dancing:
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 28, 2017 08:26PM)
There have never been many real working pros here Mindoro. Sure guys came through here and have become successful and disappeared. A handful of guys pop up time to time selling things especially as their performing life dies. Then there are the guys that make more selling products than performing. A few guys pop in here under assumed names. What real mentalist would want there name searchable on a magic board?

It’s a hard life being a performer. A few guys make it big. Most live hand to mouth and die broke.

By the time you get to booking agents you should already know what you are and what your selling.

If there is a deck of playing cards in your act.......your a magician......in spite of what you call yourself.

People will pay top dollar to believe they have a glimpse into the (their) future. Since the beginning of time that is what man has sought.

So you either deliver that (mentalist) or you are a trained seal act (mental magicians). Call yourself what you will.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Oct 29, 2017 03:42AM)
Interesting thoughts, RCP - but why would you limit Mentalism to demonstrations related to "have a glimpse of the future?"
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 29, 2017 08:17AM)
Perhaps a better choice of words would have been "to peak beyond the veil" into the unknown.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Oct 29, 2017 12:52PM)
I can dance with that ;)
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 29, 2017 01:17PM)
[quote]On Oct 28, 2017, RCP wrote:
There have never been many real working pros here Mindoro. Sure guys came through here and have become successful and disappeared. A handful of guys pop up time to time selling things especially as their performing life dies. Then there are the guys that make more selling products than performing. A few guys pop in here under assumed names. What real mentalist would want there name searchable on a magic board?

It’s a hard life being a performer. A few guys make it big. Most live hand to mouth and die broke.

By the time you get to booking agents you should already know what you are and what your selling.

If there is a deck of playing cards in your act.......your a magician......in spite of what you call yourself.

People will pay top dollar to believe they have a glimpse into the (their) future. Since the beginning of time that is what man has sought.

So you either deliver that (mentalist) or you are a trained seal act (mental magicians). Call yourself what you will. [/quote]


While I agree with most of what you said in your above post I will disagree with you that there were many very good participating pro mentalists and mental-magic workers here including Cassidy, Osterlind, Hilford, Stetson, Banachek, Max, Tony Razzano, Lee Earle, Larry Becker, Christopher Carter, Gerry McCambridge, Chuck Hickok, Alberstat , Cross, Riggs, Alain Nu, Greg Arce, Richard Busch, Brad Henderson, Jermay, Maue, Paolo Cavalli, Knepper, Ted Leslie, Sikes, Todd Robbins, Lior Manor and even some decent mental magic guys like John Archer, Spellman, Quenton Reynolds, Joel Bauer, Harry Lorrayne, Drew McAdam, Mel Mellers,etc. I can’t remember of Ted K, Bruce Bernstein or Marc Salem were here or not.

And then most of the activity was about understanding and performing mentalism. I always thought there should be a separate forum for readers and historical aspects.
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 29, 2017 05:37PM)
[quote]On Oct 28, 2017, RCP wrote:

If there is a deck of playing cards in your act.......your a magician......in spite of what you call yourself. [/quote]

If you're so afraid of being perceived as a magician for using cards, just don't use it. Personally, using cards and being introduced as a magician to later be perceived as "something else" is a challenge I'll take any day, any time. If I can convince in those conditions, I can convince in any condition imo, and in those conditions I was immediately called to do a lecture about psychology. But if you can't convince in those conditions you certainly have a reason to not use it if you care about perspective (I care).

My point here is that we all have different audiences, skills, background, knowledge, cultures, etc... so stating your opinion as fact is a terrible mistake. To do so, you would have to try it all and in all conditions possible, which you haven't, because it's impossible. Even a little change in culture can alter everything. Hell, even the words "magician" and "illusionist" have a completely different perspective here where I live compared to North America, and the word "mentalist"... pff, people have trouble to even remember that word.

About cards in particular: if you open a fan and say "pick a card", you will obviously be perceived as a magician. If you act like a magician you'll be perceived as a magician. But I have seem magicians convincing people they're the real deal and "mentalists" being perceived as tricksters. Tools don't convince... performers do.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 29, 2017 05:47PM)
Kreskin used cards all the time and is probably one of the most successful mentalists of all time. I think playing cards are much more credible than zenner cards or any of those fake esp test books on the market. They are everyday items that people understand and not confined to magicians. Its always about presentation and the nature of the effect.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 29, 2017 05:53PM)
[quote]On Oct 29, 2017, Mindpro wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 2017, RCP wrote:
There have never been many real working pros here Mindoro. Sure guys came through here and have become successful and disappeared. A handful of guys pop up time to time selling things especially as their performing life dies. Then there are the guys that make more selling products than performing. A few guys pop in here under assumed names. What real mentalist would want there name searchable on a magic board?

It’s a hard life being a performer. A few guys make it big. Most live hand to mouth and die broke.

By the time you get to booking agents you should already know what you are and what your selling.

If there is a deck of playing cards in your act.......your a magician......in spite of what you call yourself.

People will pay top dollar to believe they have a glimpse into the (their) future. Since the beginning of time that is what man has sought.

So you either deliver that (mentalist) or you are a trained seal act (mental magicians). Call yourself what you will. [/quote]


While I agree with most of what you said in your above post I will disagree with you that there were many very good participating pro mentalists and mental-magic workers here including Cassidy, Osterlind, Hilford, Stetson, Banachek, Max, Tony Razzano, Lee Earle, Larry Becker, Christopher Carter, Gerry McCambridge, Chuck Hickok, Alberstat , Cross, Riggs, Alain Nu, Greg Arce, Richard Busch, Brad Henderson, Jermay, Maue, Paolo Cavalli, Knepper, Ted Leslie, Sikes, Todd Robbins, Lior Manor and even some decent mental magic guys like John Archer, Spellman, Quenton Reynolds, Joel Bauer, Harry Lorrayne, Drew McAdam, Mel Mellers,etc. I can’t remember of Ted K, Bruce Bernstein or Marc Salem were here or not.

And then most of the activity was about understanding and performing mentalism. I always thought there should be a separate forum for readers and historical aspects. [/quote]

A by gone era they were good times. This forum used to be great in every sense.
Message: Posted by: Mindpro (Oct 29, 2017 08:00PM)
I agree. Hence the frustration that so many here today can't understand.
Message: Posted by: Last Laugh (Oct 29, 2017 11:35PM)
[quote]On Oct 29, 2017, Mindpro wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 2017, RCP wrote:
There have never been many real working pros here Mindoro. Sure guys came through here and have become successful and disappeared. A handful of guys pop up time to time selling things especially as their performing life dies. Then there are the guys that make more selling products than performing. A few guys pop in here under assumed names. What real mentalist would want there name searchable on a magic board?

It’s a hard life being a performer. A few guys make it big. Most live hand to mouth and die broke.

By the time you get to booking agents you should already know what you are and what your selling.

If there is a deck of playing cards in your act.......your a magician......in spite of what you call yourself.

People will pay top dollar to believe they have a glimpse into the (their) future. Since the beginning of time that is what man has sought.

So you either deliver that (mentalist) or you are a trained seal act (mental magicians). Call yourself what you will. [/quote]


While I agree with most of what you said in your above post I will disagree with you that there were many very good participating pro mentalists and mental-magic workers here including Cassidy, Osterlind, Hilford, Stetson, Banachek, Max, Tony Razzano, Lee Earle, Larry Becker, Christopher Carter, Gerry McCambridge, Chuck Hickok, Alberstat , Cross, Riggs, Alain Nu, Greg Arce, Richard Busch, Brad Henderson, Jermay, Maue, Paolo Cavalli, Knepper, Ted Leslie, Sikes, Todd Robbins, Lior Manor and even some decent mental magic guys like John Archer, Spellman, Quenton Reynolds, Joel Bauer, Harry Lorrayne, Drew McAdam, Mel Mellers,etc. I can’t remember of Ted K, Bruce Bernstein or Marc Salem were here or not.

And then most of the activity was about understanding and performing mentalism. I always thought there should be a separate forum for readers and historical aspects. [/quote]

Didn't you read where he said that Bob Cassidy and Richard Osterlind were magicians and not mentalists? In fact, I bet a number of others on that list would be considered magicians by RCP's standards. Larry Becker, Ted Leslie and Docc Hilford wouldn't make the mentalist cut by his definition. Probably many more since lots of those guys use playing cards.

I think it goes without saying, but I'll add that I don't agree with RCP's criteria.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Oct 30, 2017 12:09AM)
Around and around and around we go...
Message: Posted by: RCP (Oct 30, 2017 07:24AM)
You got to love a bunch of magicians, on a magicians board, arguing about a term created by magicians to separate one group of magicians from the rest of the magicians as they ply their tricks. Sorta like a bunch of prostitutes discussing which are most chaste.
Message: Posted by: Last Laugh (Oct 30, 2017 10:31PM)
[quote]On Oct 30, 2017, RCP wrote:
You got to love a bunch of magicians, on a magicians board, arguing about a term created by magicians to separate one group of magicians from the rest of the magicians as they ply their tricks. Sorta like a bunch of prostitutes discussing which are most chaste. [/quote]

You seem to spend a good amount of time here.... ;)
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 30, 2017 11:40PM)
Any thread started by a troll who got banned is bound to be cursed. Beyond that, it's hard to find people who you can actually exchange ideas in a healthy way nowadays. I'm glad I've found knowledgeable performers and good friends here... it's pretty much the only two reasons to stay on Café.

While some people get carried away by definitions... I believe being defined as an artist/performer/creator is far more important than being defined as a mentalist/magician/whatever. If you call yourself a mentalist and another one in the business call you a magician... and your audience call you a devil worshiper... which definition will be heavier in the end for you? And I'm not talking about the weight of what is said, but the weight of WHO said it. I thought the answer should be obvious but apparently it isn't. Maybe because there are different kinds of commitments. Maybe because ego gets in the way. Either way, pointless conversations like this one are tiring, yet they manage to be so frequent here.
Message: Posted by: Banachek (Nov 19, 2017 05:49PM)
Have not read any of this except the first post but this might add a little knowledge
http://banacheksblog.blogspot.mx/2015/08/what-does-word-mentalist-mean.html