|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 | ||||||||||
Mb217 Inner circle 9520 Posts |
Oh, and Doc also said as to my Crimp Change, "I thought it was clever to do it so openly, and as I said, it does look very magical." I would say that in this context, "clever" speaks toward "innovation." And there most certainly was innovation in this offering. And the new view gave you and so many others something you didn't have before but will now have forever. I'm glad about that.
Now go get some sleep son, and stop confusing yourself. Again, good night.
*Check out my latest: Gifts From The Old Country: A Mini-Magic Book, MBs Mini-Lecture on Coin Magic, The MB Tanspo PLUS, MB's Morgan, Copper Silver INC, Double Trouble, FlySki, Crimp Change - REDUX!, and other fine magic at gumroad.com/mb217magic
"Believe in YOU, and you will see the greatest magic that ever was." -Mb |
|||||||||
rannie Inner circle 4375 Posts |
Pod,
Lets give it a rest man....lets let the rest decide. We can't give a pre schooled idea on people and plaster it on the Café' Let's not editorialize. Lets not be polices, lets not magnify and make things worse. You said your piece, Marion did.... now lets wait for the good doctor to come in again. I said my piece and whatever knowledge I have from the Famiglias history, as obscure as it is. Let the other people decide for themselves. Everything is already posted here. Everything is on record. If you go on...you are forcing people to side with you or to back you up. This is not how the Café work man. Please let Mike Rubinstein answer. Do not put words in other peoples mouths. This is the danger man. You may have good intentions.... and I'm sure you do! BUT the way you are conducting it is ....now I say with finality....OUT OF LINE and out of hand! You are looking for a bigger fight, or a lych mob of sorts. Will this give you peace? Whill this satisfy you? You have no issues with me Pod.... and I hope...but certainly don't care if you have a problem with me, but IMHO... you are complicating matters for everyone. Its plain and simple.... 1)There are books out there if you really want to research. Even if X magician claims a move a 1000 times a day in every possible thread... you just would not care if you know the real history. 2)If you don't believe in what X magician is saying.... then don't believe!!!and hopefully get on with life. 3)Let the major characters or people directly involve react and think for themselves and take whatever resolution they end up with. 4)perhaps know when it is time to stop! It is time to stop for me now. Be it the Demanche change, The Crimp Change, and the whatchamacalit change.... it is a wonderful move that I could have easily overlooked even if I HAD ALL THE BOOKS IN THE WORLD.I was fortunate to know the Godfather...and I am fortunate to know all his moves. Because of this I developed and learned this fantastic move. Thanks to MB... My change never looked better. We now know all the facts there is about the move....from resources and from the new movers. I see no reason why there is a need to make this bigger. It only insults our intelligence Pod. Peace to you Pod and to all! I'm outta here! Hey now.... this thread at least. See you fellas in the other more uplifting threads. I want to talk about magic for a change.... MAGIC ANYONE???? Rannie
"If you can't teach an old dog new tricks, trick the old dog to learn."
-Rannie Raymundo- aka The Boss aka The Manila Enforcer www.rannieraymundo.com www.tapm.proboards80.net |
|||||||||
Chad Barnard Special user Mt. Airy, NC 763 Posts |
Again he doesn't address that fact that he misread a post, AGAIN. He didn't address Joshua's question.
Once again, he totally avoided the questions that are very interesting. He said that he was doing the demanche, but that it didn't feel right until he did the crimp. As we've stated above folks, the crimp is used in the demanche change. And I'm the one confused. Rannie, Read the posts above. Marion, not me, was putting words in Michael's mouth. Michael has already came on here and said his piece. I quoted what Michael said. Read above. He said that he never said it was an original move and that it looked like the demanche change to him. what else is there for Mike to say? Haven't you seen my posts above. I'm begging people, other than the family, to come to Mario's defense and give a differing opinion. People please take it all in and come to your conclusions. Don't take my comments as the gospel truth. Decide for yourself. |
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
OK, Gentleman,
First, I believe that history is very important, as is innovation. My name and a quote by me from another thread has been posted here, and people have asked me, both in this thread and via PM, to weigh in. I want to make it clear that the quote Marion gave above is, in fact, a true and complete quote. I did say that. A little later in that same topic, I apologized for using the term “those in the know,” as some construed it as meaning that if you disagreed with me, you didn’t know what you were talking about. That was not and is not my intent. So, for the record, here is my opinion… • Is the Crimp Change similar to the DeManche Change? Yes. • Is it exactly the same? No. • Do the finesses and applications warrant its release? IMO, absolutely. • If I were in Marion's shoes, would I have released it? Yes. • Would I have renamed it? Well, if I had, I probably would have tried to come up with something clever that included DeManche -- something like "The GuinnManche Change." But just because that’s what I would have done, doesn't mean MB has to do it. If I came up with a routine that used this move, in the explanation I would probably write: "You will now execute the Crimp Change, Marion Boykins' wonderful variation of the DeManche Change." So, to sum up my opinion: The CC is a variation of the DC, but the finesses and applications warrant publication, although I personally might not have changed the name--but I do not condemn MB for having done so. I stand by the quote of me he is using. Let me just add one more thing. If you learned the DeManche Change from the currently available sources, I do NOT think that you would come up with something that would use it in the way or for the different applications Marion does. If nothing else, he most certainly deserves to be commended for that. Now I’ve weighed in. I hope it helped. Scott
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
Chad Barnard Special user Mt. Airy, NC 763 Posts |
That makes sense to me. I understand your position and it helps me look at the situation a little bit differently. A little bit that is.
Thanks for weighing in Scott. |
|||||||||
Mano Inner circle 1028 Posts |
Well said Scott.
I totally agree with you. peace for every one in this planet. Mano. |
|||||||||
Kyf Loyal user UK, England (but Scottish by birth) 265 Posts |
Hi,
Wow - what a complex set of side disucssions - and a great lesson on the history of the various elements of this effect. Also a fascinating insight to the human behaviour. I think it was Newton (Sir Isaac) that said: "We see further BECAUSE we stand on the shoulders of giants". But there is a serious side issue here. I paid $10 for a VIDEO clip, to be taught an effect - and that was 100% credit to MB (et. al.) for producing it. Far from feeling ripped off because the move bears some similarity to other things - I feel that $10 was the BEST $10 I ever spent (and my wife tells me I spend TOO much money and time on magic). The first version wasn't 100% clear and they (la famiglia) quickly replaced that with a clearer video clip - all sent out free of charge. So the service behind the purchase was also excellent. Vinny has also sent me a couple of clips of his moves - all free of charge - which included appropriate mention to the various sources and highlighted the differencs. The DVD "La Famiglia" showed some new and exciting materials - all taught with excellent clarity and careful attention to detail. That what I pay for when I spend my money - to learn something. Whether it is new or old or something that I'd seen in a Roth DVD but it just didn't come across as an effective technique (and yes it was called the Demanche change). What MB did was bring it to LIFE...... He spent time/effort to produce a video that made it simple for me to apply and develop some ideas of my own. For $10.... As a published scientist I take great pains to research my sources and often come up with elements in my work that bear similarity to others (independantly). Giving credit where the published elements exist and taking credit where they do not. That's development - standing on the shoulders of giants and seeing a just that little bit further... I've also had a number of so-called "experts" re-discover some of my work - and claiming international credit without citing me as originator. A few days ago I read in the papers that someone has "discovered" something I published 17 years ago.... Does it annoy me - YES!!! But only for a minute as the records exist - you cannot take away ANY credit for previous work by re-discovery. The fact that certain elements of the move exist in previously published materials is GREAT to know. The records exits for variations on the various moves - that is clear. But it is only clear through this forum - by discussion, by listening to experts who have read more and have access to the information. This whole debate simply reads "Hey MB - did you know that elements of this move are called ....." To which the reply would have been "Wow - thanks dude - I should put that in the credits" There is no need for mud-slinging. However, the "Crimp Change" wasn't named "the MB ...." so no ego was involved. MB named it as he saw the function - a change that involved a crimp move. Simple, direct and (when you watch some of Vinny's video clips) named correctly. You gotta respect the LACK of ego in naming the effect after the function. You gotta respect the EFFORT involvde in bringing it to life, producing a teaching video and getting it out to people who can build on that further. And that's $10 well spent. The ONLY reason this move now has a history is BECAUSE of the media (internet, video) - no-one is giving any credit to Baird or Bell (Scots inventors of the TV and the Telephone - ok so Marconi is in there too...) for the medium of TV and the internet. Why not? Because everything we do is a process of development - the evolution of ideas and concepts - and is built on the shoulders of giants....only possible because of work of others that came before. So it seems to me that the "Crimp Change" has every right to claim it's place in history and it's only right to make mention of similar elements in its mechanism and execution. MB refers to the work of the Godfather, who refers to the named Demanche Change. He gave appropriate citation of HIS sources who cite other sources etc. etc. That is how it works in peer review for scientific publication. You don't mention everything since the invention of fire to the development of telecommunications - you cite the references that influence your development who cite references to their references..... The originiality here is putting a routine together that creates something new and different. Teaching the effect also creates something new and different. The effect is more than just the sum of the parts. Regards, Keith
"I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally walk through into another dimension." Steve Wright
|
|||||||||
Kyf Loyal user UK, England (but Scottish by birth) 265 Posts |
PS: Thanks to "UGG" Jn. who gave us fire - without his tireless effort none of this would be possible.
PPS: ...and thanks to "UgG" who gave us the BBQ sauce to eat with fire....
"I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally walk through into another dimension." Steve Wright
|
|||||||||
Rik Chew Special user 538 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-08-10 03:47, Kyf wrote: I think part of the problem may be that in the credits for the move there is no mention of the DeManche change. I think that if the move was a development on the DeManche change, or independendantly discovered, there is still a duty to credit this move. For me whether or not the modifications/improvements/whatever are enough to warrant separate publication is a seperate point to the lack of crediting. |
|||||||||
Kyf Loyal user UK, England (but Scottish by birth) 265 Posts |
Hi Rik,
So if MB were to say something like "Subsequent to the development AND publication of this effect it has been pointed out that this move has some similarity to a DeManche Change - thanks to all for the discussion on the history of the elements of this effect." That takes nothing away from MB's effort and work and gives appropriate credit, retains the "Crimp Change" name and then and everyone can get back to discussing the applications. Regards, Kyf
"I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally walk through into another dimension." Steve Wright
|
|||||||||
Chad Barnard Special user Mt. Airy, NC 763 Posts |
Quote:
This whole debate simply reads I think a better clarification would be "To which the reply SHOULD have been" This has been discussed for awhile on the boards and in pms with MB and every answer would be that there were some slight similarities but the moves were completely different. Read above the moves are the same. Like Scott said above a big part of the "innovation" seems to be the presentation of it, it's bold in your face nature. Even Scott says it's a variation of the Demanche Change. That to me doesn't warrant a claim of ownership and a name that doesn't reference the original technique. I think there is huge ego involved by claiming an completely new technique that's going to become commonplace in the world of magic, when it's been proven that there are far more similarities than differences. |
|||||||||
Joshua Barrett Inner circle Cincinnati, Ohio 3631 Posts |
I agree mention the roots of demanche change would make/made a difference. the fact that its only been brought up now is what got me. scott I agree with the things you said makes sense to me
rannie can you tehc me your whatchamacalit change ? =D |
|||||||||
Mb217 Inner circle 9520 Posts |
Well, I see this is still going on somewhat. I have to thank great minds for weighing in on this and there have been many, but especially guys like Scott Guinn and Kyf. I appreciate your most fair and expert comments on this as I'm sure the forum does too. There's a lot of woulda-coulda-shoulda's in all this, but I honestly put forth a real effort in bringing out the Crimp Change and meant no disrespect to anyone. I still believe that what I did was similar but different, but I think I will borrow a word from the wise here and finally say this on the matter before moving on:
"Subsequent to the development AND publication of this effect it has been pointed out that this move has some similarity to a DeManche Change - thanks to all for the discussion on the history of the elements of this effect." And thanks to all for a wonderful/lively discussion, debate, etc. here on the Crimp Change. In one way or another with this we are all a part of its collective history now, pro and con, and that's what development/progress is all about. Like I said, "What a move!" And that's all I have to say about that... -Best, MB
*Check out my latest: Gifts From The Old Country: A Mini-Magic Book, MBs Mini-Lecture on Coin Magic, The MB Tanspo PLUS, MB's Morgan, Copper Silver INC, Double Trouble, FlySki, Crimp Change - REDUX!, and other fine magic at gumroad.com/mb217magic
"Believe in YOU, and you will see the greatest magic that ever was." -Mb |
|||||||||
Kyf Loyal user UK, England (but Scottish by birth) 265 Posts |
MB - well said my friend.
Spoken like a true gentleman. It's fascinating to see how this debate has progress and degenerated into mud slinging. I could use is as an example in my lectures on how riots start! It is clear that this (the crimp change) is a case of an independent development and series of innovations that make it different, fresh and new. Regardless of how things developed in this discussion (and that is a study in it's own right) MB has made it clear that, thanks to the debate on this forum, the origin of this type of move is ALSO seen elsewhere. I think his comments show a maturity and healthy respect for the history and should conclude this discussion. But you cannot take away the fact that he independently innovated from sources, known to him at the time, something different, new and vibrant. That ALSO deserves appropriate credit as Scott Guinn rightly stated. I suppose, technically speaking, we should we go back and erase all references to the Kaps Subtlety or the Goshman Pinch in Bobo? However, errors and omissions of information change the FUTURE not the past - the DeManche Change is documented and remains clear. It's only by publishing an effect that similarities to other published effects/styles come to light and can later be corrected. Which is exactly what MB has just done..... ”Hey - thanks guys - I didn't know that and can make a more constructive statement in the future....” Very noble of you my friend. I’d state that anyone performing an effect can brings something new to the effect, making it their own. That's how progress is made and I thank him for sharing something that is a fabulous move. It’s not just a sequence of moves – it’s more than that as the STYLE and presentation manner – the “in your face” boldness that makes it new and magical. Regards, Kyf
"I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally walk through into another dimension." Steve Wright
|
|||||||||
Dan Watkins Inner circle PA 3028 Posts |
Holy Schmoley, I just tuned in again since I posted yesterday, this thread has gone crazy.
I think I can say one thing that everyone could agree on... When you publish something you open yourself up to public scrutiny (good or bad). Before anyone publishes things (especially if you going to charge money for it), you owe it to yourself and your potential buyers to find out if it has been published before; you avoid a whole lot of unneeded BS from buyers and your own personal reputation if you just take this one relatively simple step. Remember, nobody knows all history when it comes to coins (even David Roth doesn’t know everything), but with guys like Rubinstein (who has access to Roth as well), Curtis Kam, Wesley James, etc. here on this board, you really have a wealth of knowledge. If they don’t know the source right away, they can usually point you in the right direction to continue looking. I have usually found people to be very eager to help when asked. In the case of MB’s offering, I don’t think MB was ever intentionally trying to be misleading, I think he only knew Vinny’s Crimp Change, and did not know about the DeManche Change. I think he just missed the first step in publishing – finding out its history. It would not have been terribly difficult to find this out if it was asked for. The DeManche change is relatively well known. It’s even published in a David Blaine magic book – you don’t get more public than that! In MB’s defense, he isn’t the only one to have published something and found out after the fact that it is just a variation on (or is exactly the same thing as) something out there already. To use Mike’s references above, Apollo Palm, Fitch Palm, etc. But now we know the proper names, and we use them. Even Vinny used to call the Frikell palm the Crimp Palm before he was informed of the publication (I always called it generically Thumb Crotch Palm before I heard of Frikell). As to publishing variations, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, just look at Mike Rubinstein's Encyclopedia of Coin Sleights. On the retention pass alone you have: "The Variation Retention Pass; Retention Pass Variation #1; Retention Pass Variation #2; Ken Krenzel Retention Pass; Herb Zarrow Retention Pass; Tips on the Retention Pass." But in all instances you know what you are learning – it’s still a retention pass. If Mike was going to sell one of these retention passes as a stand alone item, you would still know what you were getting… a retention pass variation. One of the key items Mike would provide however is what the standard retention pass is, and what makes the variation. Now with all that said and done, if I was in MB’s position, this is what I think I would do (MB, you can do it or not, its up to you, this is just how I would handle it)… Since you wrote in your last post that you are indeed doing a variation of the DeManche change, I would change the marketing of the effect to let people know this, such as: “The Crimp Change is Marion Boykin’s wonderful variation of the DeManche change. Learn the changes and subtleties that Marion uses to bring this classic to new levels., etc. etc.” Now that your buyer’s are aware of what they are buying, in the actual video, you need to demonstrate what makes it a variation. If your buyer cannot ascertain what makes your offering different than the DeManche change; then you wind up getting questions from buyers, “How does your Crimp Change differ from the DeManche Change?” If you offer a variation of an existing item, it is incumbent upon you to make it very clear what the variation is; if you don’t everything just gets diluted people won’t be able to give you credit where credit is due. So in any event, that’s how I would handle it if I was in your same position. I hope it all works out good for you. Dan |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » The Crimp? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |