|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Mark_Chandaue Inner circle Essex UK 4187 Posts |
I pretty much agree with your entire review Adam. Some good stuff here but I got far more from say Patrick Redfords and from all the recent UK mentalists lectures. This had more food for thought than anything I'd actually use directly. I'd say this is one of the lectures I expected most from but actually got least from. Still worth the money and I will apply some of the ideas from this lecture but overall probably my least favourite of the lectures I've watched.
Mark |
|||||||||
Mindpro Eternal Order 10586 Posts |
Was this mentalism or magic?
|
|||||||||
robwar0100 Inner circle Buy me some newspapers.Purchase for me 1 Gazette and 1747 Posts |
Joshua Quinn is a jazz pianist, and I think he is very interested in patterns and methods. He has some very unique ways to accomplish a piece that go above and beyond standard methods.
I likened it to Max Maven. I think Max thoroughly enjoys a challenge and will employ complex methods at times (this is probably to satisfy himself so he is not bored with a simple method). I thought the methods were probably more involved than they needed to be. I simplify everything. Dan Harlan, who I consider a genius, he as to be in MENSA, really loved Joshua's methods. I think they appeal to a certain mindset. Still, some good stuff in the lecture. Bobby p.s. Mindpro, it was mentalism.
"My definition of chance is my hands on the wheel," Greg Long.
|
|||||||||
dmoses Inner circle 2261 Posts |
I "heard Leah" all day yesterday.
It's one of those "price of the lecture" deals. One of the many things that I loved about what he shared was that the mitox was often built into the effect... like Leah and his OOTW. d
"You're a comedian. You wanna do mankind a service, tell funnier jokes."
TPR by Dave Moses and Iain Dunford T-shirts for Magicians and Mentalists |
|||||||||
Magicsquared Inner circle 1262 Posts |
I really enjoyed this lecture. (I've watched it all except for the interview so far). My preferred performing situation is in a casual environment for a few people at most. And I found a number of things from this lecture to add to my toolbox for those types of situations. If you're looking for routines to slide into a professional repertoire, I can understand how these might not have been as immediately useful to you as some other lectures, but it was just what I was hoping it would be. Off the top of my head my favorite things were his audio prediction, his touches on equivoque with two force objects, his envelope construction(and his suggested use with the Bannon routine).
His book-test didn't work in performance (due to a miscommunication between spectator/performer) and I wish it had because I feel the explanation got rushed through because the performance didn't work. But I will definitely use the fundamental elements of it next time I see a cute girl reading a book at a coffee shop or next to me on a plane or train. (Yeah, just cute girls. I'm a pig.) I don't know if I'll use the "mental text" routine or the one with the movie postcards but I still loved hearing about the methods. Actually I will use that mental text routine, it's too easy to not at least give it a shot (I wish he had talked a little more about how he presents it when there isn't a camera recording his spectator. I have a general idea but would have liked to hear his thoughts about what he finds works best for distance, staging, etc.) This lecture was right up my alley. |
|||||||||
dmoses Inner circle 2261 Posts |
Hey MS
Shhhhhhhhhhhh about the BT. That passing fail was the best thing that could have happened for folks who were paying attention. It was another hair-pullingly brilliant ideas. d
"You're a comedian. You wanna do mankind a service, tell funnier jokes."
TPR by Dave Moses and Iain Dunford T-shirts for Magicians and Mentalists |
|||||||||
Olympic Adam Inner circle 1259 Posts |
I think overall for me it was like a friend telling me how he had changed some routines of other people - great if we are sitting in a coffee shop but not what I wanted from a lecture
I agree mostly with magicsquared too, for a casual performance it's cool but even when I'm performing for a couple of people I want it to be the same quality as anything else - after watching it again, it felt like some mental tricks rather than mentalism (with the exception of Chunnelling, which was the best idea for me, even though I had experience of it before) it's the performer's fault when anything goes a bit wrong, I would have liked the book test to work, but the method is there and it's cool for the right time, this is an area too where it didn't feel quite ready to lecture magicsquared - don't you think that the steps forward in equivoque were marred a little by the less good bits, like sticking the hand out to receive one? yes you get a really free choice but the next isn't so free - just do something where they all seem free (just thinking with my keyboard here) like Docc's work on it, that would do instead, or Looch had some stuff with it, or Colin McLeod did too (on a DVD maybe) I was thinking the same with the 'mental text' thing, it strikes me that there wasn't another way planned and that it could have been thought out a bit more for the lecture, those little bits would make it hit more I think, especially given the usual performance situation of a routine like that it seemed like a lot was held back, talking about other releases and new things, maybe I'm still recovering from Devin last week but I did feel like I was being sold other items when I watched this one, I know you gotta use it as a pitch but it turned me off a bit I might be misremembering but it seemed like a lot of the routines where slight variations on other people's ideas rather than wholly original (like the rubber band thing etc) I know we build on others' work but I don't count what I do with other people's stuff as an original creation, maybe I should?! A good lecture if you want some cool ideas on how to use things and take some old ideas and progress them, in the grand scheme of things I think it's good that there is a change of pace with this mentalism lecture
Protection for mind readers and mentalists: http://tricksofthemind.com
|
|||||||||
Magicsquared Inner circle 1262 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 15:01, Olympic Adam wrote: I'm familiar with the other methods you mentioned. And I've genuinely spent years honing the script for my 5 and 7 item impromptu equivoque. It's probably my favorite technique in magic/mentalism and one of the few areas where I feel I've made significant advances in technique over what has been published. What I liked about Joshua's equivoque that I don't see with others: 20% of the time it's a direct hit on that first choice (you don't get this opportunity with most equivoque procedures because the first choice is usually between groups) 53% of the time there is a genuine free choice in the middle (another thing you don't get with most procedures. The ability to say "you've split this group of objects in half. I want you to eliminate either half, whichever you choose is out of play." etc. etc.) How you choose to handle the final two objects after that is up to you (use any of the established methods), but I think the free choice will throw people off. 27% of the time the last choice is a genuine free choice. You can build that up to be so strong. Equivoque, when done poorly is just nonsense to a spectator. And it's often done poorly because equivoque is a writing exercise, essentially, and most people aren't great communicators. Often that's why they got into magic in the first place. Equivoque, when done well, is very powerful, and spectators won't generally question the procedure (again, when done well) BUT I think on a subconscious level there isn't necessarily 100% conviction of their freedom of choice -- not that they feel forced or manipulated -- but on some level they may have felt guided through the process. And that's just the nature of the method. If you're making a choice that isn't 100% clear, even if it's well-justified AFTER the choice is made, there will be a slight gap between what they feel and complete conviction of freedom. Even if they can't articulate that feeling. If I say, "What's your favorite food?" And you say, "Lasagna." And I say, "Okay, let's have lasagna for dinner." I think there is a different feeling between that and me saying, "Tell me what food you want me to make us for dinner," and you saying lasagna. In the first instance we kind of floated to the answer, where in the second instance there is no doubt you're making a choice and what that choice means. What Joshua's version allows (and I don't know if this is unique to him or not, but I don't think I've seen it before) is one point where you can be very specific with your words and the spectator genuinely has complete freedom. And it will either be on the last or next to last step. Well done equivoque will close the door methodologically to a spectator, but having a free choice in there will nail the door shut. Sorry for rambling. |
|||||||||
Olympic Adam Inner circle 1259 Posts |
No, it's good rambling
I think it's even 40% on the first selection for a hit, up from your stats I agree with what you said but I was cringing when he put his hand out to take one of the cards which was then put on the discard pile, it gets rid of the freedom in my view, I know others may think that it adds to the whole thing but it highlights how 'un-free' it is. One of the plus points for me is though that, I can take the good bit from the equivoque and use it with some other techniques I like that I think work better for me (which is all that really matters), so that's good. I think from a method point of view though, it's one step forward, one step back when I could be taking maybe more steps forward in another method - yes the free bit will nail it shut but the contrived bit for me tears the door down again in some of the outcomes it strikes me as the equivalent of 'mentalism for mentalists' maybe you should stick your equivoque out there? I'm sure there would be an interest for it - is there a piece in your version where you revert to 'the good old' method? (i was forgetting we are upstairs in this post) the fact that it's SO free, then so ambiguous doesn't fly with me, there are consistent ways to achieve it IMO In redonkulous newspaper gets torn up, 'which hand do you want?', 'and what do you want me to do with it?', meaning keep or destroy - this happens consistently, I know it's a different effect but that's great to have that freedom and something I really like about other pieces. I'm going to try a couple of the smaller pieces from this out later this week, I'm hoping I change my views on some of the stuff
Protection for mind readers and mentalists: http://tricksofthemind.com
|
|||||||||
Magicsquared Inner circle 1262 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 18:43, Olympic Adam wrote: I have a feeling he would have probably handled those last two cards differently if he wasn't in a magic lecture setting. By that I mean I think in a real performance situation he would have given that last choice the proper gravitas required for it to resonate the way you would expect it to. I say this because, while I agree he didn't really sell that last "choice," he has a great section on equivoque in his book Paralies, so I know he knows how to make that last choice stronger if that was the focus of what he was teaching. Do you have Paralies? I think his material is probably better conveyed via the written word. I |
|||||||||
Mark_Chandaue Inner circle Essex UK 4187 Posts |
My biggest disappointment is there was very little that wasn't covered in Paralies, it was incremental changes rather than great leaps and there wasn't really much I'd consider new or ground breaking. The equivoque with 2 outs was fairly nice but then if equivoque is done well it's invisible to the spectator. Dan Harlans post on these very boards has 365 choices and one result but it was far superior to the routine in the the lecture. Scott Creasey, Mark Elsdon and Max Maven already have great material with equivoque as does Doc Hilford. I didn't feel that the extra out added a vast amount for the extra prep work required or the limited nature of the type of outs used.
Likewise the book test that didn't work, a great idea but nothing new, in fact I have a feeling the idea has already been posted here on the Café some time ago. I've definitely read the idea some time ago from another source and have been playing around with combining this idea with the naked book test to give a very free choice of word to have a very strong ungimmicked book test. The group chunneling was a nice idea of a way to make chunneling more free and involve more of the audience but some of the stuff in this part mirrors some unpublished ideas based on chunnelling that Atlas Brooking shared with me some time ago so again little new here. Of course credit has to go to Joshua for the original chunnelling concept that others have built on. The in/out colour out of this world/reading system was a nice idea but to be quite honest there are far far stronger effects out there of a similar nature, this seemed more of a vehicle for the method than a fully fledged routine that has been worked. I guess that sums up the lecture for me, as Adam says it was really a sharing of ideas, some more complete than others but nothing truly groundbreaking and nothing that you could say had been really worked and honed other than the chunnelling and very little beyond the ideas compared to other lectures. Look at Richard Osterlinds lecture, great effects that have been worked and worked and honed to perfection, but beyond that advice on stagecraft and other topics worth many many times the price of the lecture. Same with Marc Spellmans, excellent workable, complete and polished routines and great advice on presentation and p** s*** and the use of DR etc. Devin Knights, a ton of workable commercial routines and many times the price of the lectures worth of free PDF of marketed effects. The lecture was worth the money but on the whole I could have put the money to better use elsewhere. Mark |
|||||||||
dmoses Inner circle 2261 Posts |
For those who want to try it out...
I used Retrophasia with The Grail last night. A psychological, motivated CAAN with a great reveal!
"You're a comedian. You wanna do mankind a service, tell funnier jokes."
TPR by Dave Moses and Iain Dunford T-shirts for Magicians and Mentalists |
|||||||||
Olympic Adam Inner circle 1259 Posts |
Hit the nail on the head there Mark!
Magicsquared, you say you think he would do it differently not in a magic performance? that's what I mean about holding back, show us the actual way Also, I don't own Paralies, and I'm not in any rush to to be honest, I had hoped it would be the opposite and was checking it out as I began the lecture, ah well, maybe some day If you take the Osterlind lecture, lots of it was the same as the stuff he covered on his Mind Mysteries set but it was still packed full of little bits and pieces, a couple of the card things were just so impressive, even though I had seen Richard explain the very same routines on DVDs I don't think I have anything to add above what Mark said, spot on
Protection for mind readers and mentalists: http://tricksofthemind.com
|
|||||||||
DynaMix Inner circle 1148 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 12:18, dmoses wrote: Where is retrophasia available? |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Joshua Quinn LIVE: Sunday August 11th, @7:00pm Eastern (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |