|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Chris "linkster" Watson Special user England 564 Posts |
Getting back to the mention of Fred Caps earlier in the posts. I have some magic lecture notes entitled Kaps on Coins - Does that class as teaching
So lets say we put Slydini, Kaps, Goshman, Williamson etc all in one room...with the variation on styles and performances would you really want to try and seperate who's best? I for one would just want to sit back and enjoy each and every performance. I think to get into the afore mentioned list one of the top critera has to be performance and I believe that the performance can only come through a mastery of the effects giving the performer the ability to realx and entertain without having to worry about the technical aspects. |
|||||||||
Werner G. Seitz Inner circle 3131 Posts |
Quote: Hmmm.. Cold paper can not express the impact to se *him* do this stuff
On 2005-02-25 04:42, Chris "linkster" Watson wrote: You should have *Kaps on Koins* either on video or on 8mm /16mm movie and you'd get a ball out of watching him doing what's described in these notes.. This stuff is hard to get at, captured in Holland around the midt 1960s, by CineMagic, a guy with the name of Max Mindlin on 16 mm movie, unfortunately he died a couple of years back and probably the original movies where destroyed in the fire he died . BTW, note, the name is Kaps and not Caps
Learn a few things well.....this life is not long enough to do everything.....
( Words of wisdom from Albert Goshman ...it paid off for him - it might as well for YOU!!!- My own magic is styled after that motto... ) |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I'm gonna stick with the two criteria posted earlier
1) Fun for laymen to watch 2) Intriguing for magicians to watch From the first we can learn how to better entertain. From the second, we can learn by example how to construct our own personal magic.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Werner G. Seitz Inner circle 3131 Posts |
Quote: NOT a bad choice!
On 2005-02-25 07:31, Jonathan Townsend wrote: I wish I was the one coming up with this Also, now it fits all my 'favourite' magicians, *THE BEST* ones..
Learn a few things well.....this life is not long enough to do everything.....
( Words of wisdom from Albert Goshman ...it paid off for him - it might as well for YOU!!!- My own magic is styled after that motto... ) |
|||||||||
Chris "linkster" Watson Special user England 564 Posts |
Werner....spelling not my strong point....did know it was a K...just a bit lysdexic when it comes to typing
|
|||||||||
Dougini Inner circle The Beautiful State Of Maine 7130 Posts |
Hi all! You've given my little pea-brain quite a workout ,here! Whew!
My thoughts expand on Jon's above...as coin magic has been distinguished (aside from persona and performing style) by your coins and hands. Not much else. Very few props or distractions. The audience (lay people) are really only supposed to focus on your hands and coins. It's how you make them FEEL about it! Refer to Mickey Silver's demo for an example of how you "feel" when that coin does what he makes it appear to do. I'm tickled pink! It's his PERFORMANCE and personality that is infectious. Magicians, on the other hand, find fascination in the TOOLS or methods used. That's why we own those tri-fold mirrors, and buy coins we can't spend, and pratice that R.O.P.S. move over and over. That is the gain we get, not so much entertainment, but something NEW to learn! Now, adding to Dr. Mike above, we also have to recognize those who TEACH well. There are some that teach the TOOLS, some that teach the SHOWMANSHIP, and some that just perform for the camera and explain the tricks at the end, each being a necessary part of the experience. That's why we must have the Ammar, Roth AND Rubinstein instructional videos, because all of those elements are there. IMO the "best" coin magicians are also our TEACHERS, because without teachers and students, our art dies. Great to see you guys! Doug |
|||||||||
cloneman Elite user 474 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-02-23 21:09, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Perhaps, but that’s a bit beside the point. We had to wait until we had evolved as a species to the point of language and comparative thinking before we could start contemplating the chicken and the egg questions, however, that doesn't mean that there weren't chickens and eggs prior to our ability to label them. Labels for things and the things themselves are different (hence the major facially underlying the ontological proof for the existence of God, but I digress). Thus, it is possible to develop a criteria for judging “chickenness” after: 1) the chicken had evolved, and 2) we had evolved to judge a chicken. As to the egg, well that concept is not as mutable. For purposes of all multicelled animals, an egg is a necessary precursor to life. Therefore, the egg came first.
"Anything is possible... if you don't know what you are talking about."
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Unfortunately Thomas, till you have a chicken, that's the only point. No chicken, nothing to make a claim about.
Of course if someone has a better argument, I'm open. I'm far from inflexible in this thinking, and did change my mind once on this matter when offered a more compelling argument. Any offers?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Dan Watkins Inner circle PA 3028 Posts |
If you believe in creationism instead of evolution, the chicken was created first... Eggs came later.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I owe thomas a counter for the "criteria" argument, so let's skip that issue ladden post above and get on with the reasoning... ( remember, the creator may have chosen to put the eggs down first... )
There is phenotype and genotype. Just becuase a thing kind of looks like what you want, does not mean it is what you want. Just ask one of a pair of identical twins (personality) or have a look at some non-identical twins. Neither comprise a set of "two of the same" by all criteria. Let us imagine some finite ( think Cantor counting argument here ) set of critera the one hypothesizes as making a "chicken" and then imagine the fun when you try to realize them. Till you demonstrate you have a viable creature (we are talking about a real example here ) you have... a problem. As to this particular problem... there was a trick in using a KNOWN subject that pretty much clinched it from the start if you think about it as a riddle. In this case the deck was stacked in favor of the "chicken" from the start. You see, you already know what a chicken is. The rest follows from that knowlege, which is experiential... and therefore a comparison. QED
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
All explanations of lifes start are ridiculous, so therefore not true. I believe we are nothing more than a dream like thingy. as you all know dreams do not really have to follow reason, so the unreal is realized. And so the obvious answer to any question of chickens or the precursor thereof is that there is in fact: no chicken. But as in dreams there is only one mind creating the dream, so one could conclude that everything is part of the dream aside from the dreamer. As I am self aware and nothing in my life could not be explained by my theory of dreaming. I can only assume I am just having a very bad dream, nothing else is real.
To prove my point: Only in my twisted mind could a question of measuring a coin mechanic be turned to the creation of poultry. I have nothing of value to offer, do I? I need to practice my magic more.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
Dan Watkins Inner circle PA 3028 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-02-25 18:16, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Well... if you happen to be a creationist that believes in a specific account of creation, it says the creator made birds, not eggs, on the fifth day. But I agree... best to leave this type of debate elsewhere and continue on with the reasoning of man... It seems though that the original topic has gone down a very large tangent here... |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Yeah, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to find a few coins.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Craig Ousterling Special user 585 Posts |
Since I'm an arsonist.... I guess I'll have B.B.Q chicken and eggs tonight.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Okaaayyyy... which got cooked first?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Mike Wild Inner circle NY, PA, TX, MA, FL, NC 1290 Posts |
Wow...
This post has covered quite the gambit We all think far..... FAR too much. I love it. Mike |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Quote:
Red is the color the retina perceives when a specific wavelength of electromagnetic radiation hits the cone cells. Whose retina? Whose cone cells? There is the story of the scientist who wanted to know exactly what cats see when they look at the color red. So he spliced some wires into the cat's optical brain circuitry, put a red ball in front of the cat, and had the results routed to a computer monitor. And there it was on the computer screen . . . a red ball. So cats see red . . . or do they? The other cat in the room, who was looking at the computer screen, wasn't saying. As my mother used to scream when I played my Bob Dylan records, "That ain't music!" Not to her. Jack Shalom
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Last time I read up on this, there are two or perhaps three kinds of cone cells, each with a different receptor/pigment which responds to a different spread of wavelentghs of light.
Speaking only of local phenomena, I find things like quite different in the light of daybreak, the mid day sun, overcast and the light of sunset. The objects viewed are constant, only the specifics of the illumination changes. Are we having fun?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Sirakor Regular user 179 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-02-25 20:53, Jonathan Townsend wrote: seems so. I'd say defining colour in terms of wavelength of electromagnetic waves in the visible part of the spectrum is a step in the right direction for a definition of colour, but bear in mind that such a definition is ambiguous (= useless) if you state it without the frame of reference it applies to. Think about the stars, objects, retinas, etc mentioned above and you'll know what I mean. *shamelessly elongating the tangent by another meter* |
|||||||||
Werner G. Seitz Inner circle 3131 Posts |
Come on you guys..
What do you know? Colour doesn't reasly exist, it's just your and everybodies imagination !
Learn a few things well.....this life is not long enough to do everything.....
( Words of wisdom from Albert Goshman ...it paid off for him - it might as well for YOU!!!- My own magic is styled after that motto... ) |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » Criteria for the best coin magicians (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |