I reluctantly admit that I don't do Q&A - reluctantly, because I don't "feel" like a complete and accomplished mentalist without having Q&A in my repertoire. Truth be told, I don't see myself learning and performing it in the future, either. Perhaps it feels "too invasive" of the audience members' privacy to me.

I wonder how many of us feel the way I do about Q&A?

Arnon

he's an unsung hero I think...7nth heaven and his forces book leave with you enough thoughts and treasures for pretty much two lifetimes...and his phone stuff is supposed to be superb too - but he doesn't seem to sell it anymore...

the book he did with jack avis is pretty darn good too...

As someone who works professionally and writes scripts for both my own shows and renaissance faires, I could have a field day with some of the things said in this thread. But I think I should have to quote Michael Ammar who I believe quoted Dai Vernon in an interview with Jeff McBride on the Magic of Jeff McBride Series:

"It's a bad artist who blames the brushes."

When I hear so many people, and it is a common problem in the past fifteen years with the insurgence of video teaching, that they cant HELP but copy the people they see. Now some say that makes it alright because they put it out in the first place, some people, such as kris above, just outright discredits the teacher. But the truth of the matter is that the student is the one responsible for adapting the material, because the teacher doesn't know the student, except in those rare occasions when a student can find a focused mentor. Eugene Burger has taught myself and thousands of others over the years in master classes and through DVD, and the depth of his teaching of even the simplest effects can be seen as limiting to the lethargic mind, because the easiest thing to say is, "There's nothing more to be done."

Moreso, Kris is saying that because the scope is so small, you can't do anything with it than what has already been done. Again, many magicians do this and that seems more like blaming the size of the canvas for the inability to create a masterpiece. The truth is, the people that do blame it could be given the whole world to paint on and it would still look like garbage. And oh, how much garbage have we, as magicians, seen.

I personally do spoon bends from Osterlind's DVDs and several other effects and frankly, if someone compared me to Richard, I'd be honored, but I'd laugh at them. Not just because I'm a 330lb, 6ft tall man with long red hair in a renaissance style outfit with a green triangle painted on my face telling stories of ancient times and modern times while doing spoon bends... oh wait, that's exactly why I'd laugh.

When even one line of dialogue in a script can be said ten different ways to mean ten different things because of intention, framework, emphasis, and emotion, don't waste our time by considering our art form to be so limiting. Do magic a favor and get out of the game. The pros have to take the field.

Now that's what I call an original approach. I would love to see more performances in that vein.

Daniel, you've made a lot of assumptions about me. Did you read the threads a few weeks ago when I was talking at length of my desire to perform original effects, right down from presentation to methodology - as far as my ability allows. I believe I referred to those who don't aspire to this as performing karaoke mentalism. Do a search for it when the site is working again.

"There's nothing more to be done" couldn't be further from my thinking.

A new presentation on existing principles is not taxing for me. I'm not unable to create a 'masterpiece' as you imply.

I've never said that I can't make a decent effect out of popular publications.

I stated that in it's current, published form - the popularity of the publication means that the effect is over-exposed and has become generic.

Did you miss the bit where I stated that I consider these types of publications as educational tools? From the sounds of your statements regarding 'teaching' and 'adapting' material it looks like we agree.

You quoted my post, but you responded very negatively, yet barely addressed anything in said post. Why don't you try again, I'll break it down a bit for you.

1. Do you not agree that BCS is a broad concept?
2. Do you not agree that methodology restricts presentation.
3. Do you not agree that some of the material we're talking about falls into the 'proppy' and 'drawn out' area of the mentalism spectrum.

(Hint: add 2+3 together and draw a conclusion.

All of the above is nothing new. You'd have seen it if you'd read this thread.

For the record - dressing up like a medieval clown does not produce a "masterpeice" from an over exposed effect.

Why don't you hunt down the triple prediction I was refering too. I which DVD but its from one of those mentioned here. It involves screwed up balls of paper, one ahead, and a gimmick. Describe how you'd provide an uber-masterpiece presentation, pick the best of your 10 different ways of saying each line and let us know what you come up with. Feel free to use intention, framework, emphasis, and emotion - chuck in a bit of face paint and some bicep tensing as well if you think it will give you the edge.

Well, I was talking about people like those who wrote like you did in the post within this thread. And considering I obviously didn't read your past posts (and have no real desire to, no offense), I must be talking about someone other than you, they just sound like you in this particular thread.



Ahhh, but we truly do not agree. For I feel no effect is generic or over exposed. But silly me, I perform the linking rings so what do I know?



1. The BCS is indeed a versatile system. But, that's the point of a card SYSTEM. Otherwise, it'd be a singular EFFECT.

2. I do not believe methodology restricts presentation. Maybe perhaps for the lethargic minds who don't brainstorm, practice, rehearse, script, and rescript.

3. I don't agree. I've seen fantastic versions of mental epic and I've seen painfully long and disatrous versions of mental epic. It's the performer, not the effect.

And trust me, I've read this thread, added 2 and 3 together and made my conclusion.



Now you've just plain hurt my feelings. But, since we're talking for the record, I never said I create masterpieces. I do what I can and it works for me quite well by not using face paint or costumes, but staging, scripting, theatrical training and interaction, and most importantly, a strong premise. And really? A medieval clown? I'm a medieval Bard... clowns juggle far better than I usually.



Well, now, you've gotten downright intriguing. I love a challenge, even if it does come from someone like yourself. My problem is that I don't want to waste my breath on someone like yourself but, considering there are other folks here. I'll throw out a premise and see if people have the urge to work with this... proppy effect.

----------------------

---Desires - A effect concept using Richard Osterlind's Mental Epic routine with Change of Mind apparatus.

Desire. We all have desires, whether it's right out in the open or hidden deep within us. But what I'd like to know most is if someone can tell what our desires are in an instant. Tales like the monkey's paw play on the thought of desires turning against you, but other tales focus on us living happily ever after, the ultimate want.

So, can someone tell other's desires just by looking at them? I'd certainly like to try.

You bring up three people from the audience, usually two men and a woman. You any of them if they're a fan of cars. You ask one of them to think of their dream car, being as specific as they want. You look them over, write something down, fold it up neatly, and place it on a table.

You ask the woman (usually this would conenct strongest with a woman) if she's ever imagined a dream place to live. Maybe a state or a country. You look them over, write something down, fold it neatly, and place it on the table.

You then say for the final desire, it is the greatest desire, money. But, if you asked the third person for an amount, they'd say something obvious like a million dollars so, as opposed to going big, you suggest to go very specific. You pull out a handful of change, they see its all different, you place it in a bag or your coat pocket, and they select one coin. They privately look at it, you look at them, write something down, and fold it neatly, picking up the other two papers.

You asked if it was possible to see desires by looking at someone. You reveal all three papers to match what was said, saving the coin for the very end, giving you a final reveal with the type of coin and its year.

You can then allow the people to keep their papers and the thirs person to keep their coin as a symbol of what they truly desire.

------------------

Now, it obviously isn't fully scripted as this is off the top of my head but it has a strong premise, involvement, purpose, the "props" have a reason, a strong ending, and it gives the audience several concepts they can think about if they want, or they don't have to. Best of all, the actually script can be quite brief.

You may not like it, but I'll bet you someone here can take this concept and do something really cool with it. And it is my gift to those who wish to do so.

And Kris... for the record, I don't have biceps. I'm just fat.

You were at least vaguely witty in your response.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the props:presentation restriction.

I like your premise for the effect, but it remains generic because it's still a triple prediction using a bag.

One last time... it's not a the effect or the presentation that is the problem - I've just seen it done more than a few times and would rather present something more original.

It's folks like you (or at least SOUND like you) in this thread who put people who make funny looking playing cards in business for so long.

Because hey, if they're regular looking Bicycle playing cards, they must be too generic. Everyone else uses them.

So now you literally are blaming the brushes. Vaguely witty? Thanks for your approval, but the last thing I'd ever want is approval from someone such as yourself. That's when I'd know I'm doing something wrong.

Group hug anyone?

Hugs! I'm always up for hugs.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Does anyone else here understand what I am saying?

Do you really think that all effects are equal? You don't see any incentive to use original effects and methodologies?

What cards have to do with a GENERIC EFFECT I don't know. Are you against my generic hair as well?

Daniel, I'm not going to repeat my points a 3rd time. You've proven that you can't keep on-topic.

Enjoy your karaoke mentalism, but do yourself a favor and re-read this thread every few weeks... it might just get it through that skull of yours. I hope you do well with your super original 'mentalist fooler' presentations you come up with.