The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » Criteria for the best coin magicians (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Chris "linkster" Watson
View Profile
Special user
England
564 Posts

Profile of Chris
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 Smile

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
View Profile
Inner circle
3131 Posts

Profile of Werner G. Seitz
Quote:
On 2005-02-25 04:42, Chris "linkster" Watson wrote:
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 Smile
Hmmm.. Smile Cold paper can not express the impact to se *him* do this stuff Smile

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 Smile .

BTW, note, the name is Kaps and not Caps Smile
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... Smile )
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
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
View Profile
Inner circle
3131 Posts

Profile of Werner G. Seitz
Quote:
On 2005-02-25 07:31, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
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.
NOT a bad choice!
I wish I was the one coming up with this Smile
Also, now it fits all my 'favourite' magicians, *THE BEST* ones.. Smile
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... Smile )
Chris "linkster" Watson
View Profile
Special user
England
564 Posts

Profile of Chris
Werner....spelling not my strong point....did know it was a K...just a bit lysdexic when it comes to typing Smile
Dougini
View Profile
Inner circle
The Beautiful State Of Maine
6754 Posts

Profile of Dougini
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! Smile

Doug
cloneman
View Profile
Elite user
475 Posts

Profile of cloneman
Quote:
On 2005-02-23 21:09, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Not so fast, you can't tell if a thing is an "X" unless you already have an "X" to compare it against. I too fell for the mutation thing and USED to believe in the egg/zygote till I met an engineer who reminded me of the fundamental fact stated above. Even taking the DNA approach, you still need "chicken" DNA to verify against.


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
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
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
View Profile
Inner circle
PA
3027 Posts

Profile of Dan Watkins
If you believe in creationism instead of evolution, the chicken was created first... Eggs came later.
Click to visit:
Image
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
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
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1947 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
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
View Profile
Inner circle
PA
3027 Posts

Profile of Dan Watkins
Quote:
On 2005-02-25 18:16, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
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... )


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...
Click to visit:
Image
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Yeah, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to find a few coins.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Craig Ousterling
View Profile
Special user
571 Posts

Profile of Craig Ousterling
Since I'm an arsonist.... I guess I'll have B.B.Q chicken and eggs tonight.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Okaaayyyy... which got cooked first? Smile
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Mike Wild
View Profile
Inner circle
NY, PA, TX, MA, FL, NC
1290 Posts

Profile of Mike Wild
Wow... Smile

This post has covered quite the gambit Smile

We all think far..... FAR too much. I love it.

Mike
<><>< SunDragon Magic ><><>

"Question Reality... Create Illusion"
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4930 Posts

Profile of landmark
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
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
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
View Profile
Regular user
179 Posts

Profile of Sirakor
Quote:
On 2005-02-25 20:53, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Are we having fun?


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
View Profile
Inner circle
3131 Posts

Profile of Werner G. Seitz
Come on you guys..
What do you know? Smile
Colour doesn't reasly exist, it's just your and everybodies imagination ! Smile
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... Smile )
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 © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.18 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL