|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
david_a_whitehead Inner circle USA 2122 Posts |
Awhile ago I bought Red Hot mamcita and triumph from penguin magic, their instatn downloads section. Ive been reading some posts here and red hot mama, seems to be an ungimmicked trick. In the penguin version it uses one little gimmicky thing to have the transformation work. can you do this effect impromptu without any gimmicks, or must you have this gimmick. if you can do it impromptu, how is it done (PM me if you are willing to share this since I already know the secret of the trick). Also on penguin's version of triumph, they use troy hooser's variation and the Tenkai optical reverse. My next question, is there an easier more convincing handling of this trick. I don't know the original dai vernon version but I do know the effect and secret from penguin magic. PMs are welcome on this as well. I want to more convincingly shuffle the cards together. --David
|
|||||||||
Doug Conn Loyal user 212 Posts |
My advice is to purchase Volume #1 of Mike Ammar's "Easy to Master Card Miracles." You'll learn a non-gaff version of Red Hot Mama and a convincing version of 'Triumph' (Ammar teaches Vernon's original.)
You can't go wrong with Ammar ... his magic vids are among the best out in the biz. There's 6 volumes in the "Easy to Master Card Miracles" series, all worth owning IMO. Good luck on your quest, Doug Conn PS: There's no substitute for good books. |
|||||||||
prawn_head New user 45 Posts |
David,
I couldn't agree more with Doug here. Ammar is a fantastic teacher of magic. My first magic video was Easy to Master Card Miracles Volume 1 and it is probably still my favourite video! In this video Ammar teaches Vernon's original version of Triumph. However, I did not like the handling (I thought the shuffle didn't look as natural as I would like) so I use a Zarrow Shuffle instead, but I keep the rest of the handling the same. (I learnt the Zarrow Shuffle off Bill Malone's On The Loose Volume 1) I also understand that there is a video / dvd by Herb Zarrow (the inventor of this shuffle) but I haven't seen this yet. I too have bought the downloads for Red Hot Mammacita and Triumph off Penguin Magic, and I am very happy with them. The original version of both these effects are probably easier to perform, but I LOVE the fact that you can freely show the Red card so freely in Oz Pearlman's version of RHM and the way you can show how the cards are "face up into face down" is a thing of beauty. That being said though, I'd probably perform the original version of RHM more often (because it is ungimmicked - but I have a method of dumping the gaff, feel free to PM me if you are interested). The Troy Hoosier Triumph is great but I am still performing the original version (with the Zarrow) because I am more comfortable with it, but once I get the Hoosier version down I will definately use it more! |
|||||||||
MariusHaugan New user Norway 91 Posts |
I agree with Doug aswell. Michael Ammar teaches an excellent version of "Red Hot Mama" on the "Easy to Master Card Miracles vol. 1" which requires nothing but an easy setup.
As for the trick "Triumph", I also agree with Doug and Mr. Prawn-head and strongly reccomend Dai Vernon's handling to the effect. So again, Michael Ammar's Easy to Master Card Miracles Volumes. Get them all, they are worth every penny! Best regards, Marius Haugan.
"There is no branch of conjuring that so fully repays the amateur for his labor and study as sleight-of-hand with cards."
S.W Erdnase |
|||||||||
MacGyver Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1419 Posts |
Quote:
easier more convincing handling I am not saying that this can't be true, but I think you are going down the wrong path if you are looking for better, easier, more convincing things. If you are intrested in these two effects, do yourself a favor and get dai vernon's handling, then go out and buy guy hollingworth's drawing room deceptions, which has my favorite version of triumph. Also if you like red hot momma, but whit hayden's chicago suprise, you will LOVE IT! |
|||||||||
Krumb Loyal user Vancouver, WA 300 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-09-22 14:22, MacGyver wrote: Why do you that many different versions of the same effect? It makes a lot more sense to master one than to spend your time on 5 or 6 different ways to acheive a similar effect. |
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts |
I second this. Great videos.
Quote: On 2003-09-22 13:46, Doug Conn wrote:
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
|||||||||
MacGyver Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1419 Posts |
Quote:
Why do you that many different versions of the same effect? It makes a lot more sense to master one than to spend your time on 5 or 6 different ways to acheive a similar effect Because how are you suppose to find the one for you if you don't at least play around with the other ones? that's like looking at a car to buy and just buying it without looking if there are any other cars out there that might be better! As far as why I think you should read Vernon's AND hollingworth's, it is because you shouldn't just jump into a modification of an effect until you have read the original and appriciated it. Then you can move to more advanced handlings... I haven't mastered any of the effect actually, but I do 1 version very well, but perhaps I am using different cards that aren't mine, or perhaps the spectator is onto a false shuffle and wants something else, it can't hurt you to KNOW MORE! I don't see how learning more about magic and more about an effect can hurt you... if you simply learn 1 version and close your eyes to all other it will hurt your magic in the end. |
|||||||||
Krumb Loyal user Vancouver, WA 300 Posts |
It is pointless to sit down and learn 6 different ways to get to the same conclusion. If you do that on every effect you are going to end up wasting time that could have been spent working on getting better at the 1 or 2 methods that started with.
|
|||||||||
MacGyver Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1419 Posts |
Pointless... so your are saying all the NUMOUROUS TEXT over the last hundred years that involves refining an old trick or coming up with new methods to get the same effect are wastes of time?
So your saying anything other than the ORIGINAL handling of triumph is a waste of time? Chicago suprise and other versions of the Chicago opener are waste of time? Working on ANY new handlings or refinments is a waste of time because you should just take the original no matter how flawed and work on it tirelessly without thinking about improvments???? Well.... I don't agree with you, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree |
|||||||||
Krumb Loyal user Vancouver, WA 300 Posts |
No, I mean choose a method and stick with it. There is no reason to hop from method to method.
You take two spectators off the street and see if it makes difference between Vernon's original handeling and Hollingworth's. Either way they are going to think you made a mess by mixing the cards face up and face down. If one method works and works well than why try to replace it? |
|||||||||
MacGyver Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1419 Posts |
I am not performing or "hopping" from method to method.
Are you saying that a slop shuffle triumph with no cut display is going to look as good as vernon's with a strip out shuffle and a 6 packet display? Or that an ambitiouis card that is tilt, double lift, tilt, double lift over and over again is going to be just as good as a AC that has been thought with different moves and convinvers because the spectators still think it is coming to the top??? I have "chosen" my method of triumph, but if another version comes along that I think improves on it, and is more entertaining and magical FOR THE SPECTATORS, then I am going to switch my method right then and there. If you keep your eye's closed to the rest of magic and never think about any variations you might as well be living in a hole. And yes, if I did vernon's and hollingworth's triumph I can tell you I WOULD get a different reaction because vernon's is tabled and on the street the difference between tabled and in the hands is BIG... But if I was doing a close up show with a table and a mat I would probably pick a tabled version. Some versions of triumph don't have a very convincing mixing of the cards and other do... you are telling me that it doesn't matter whether you are doing a good version or a bad version, that you should just pick one and not care if better ones come along? That you shouldn't try to improve the handling on an effect with something that is cleaner??? |
|||||||||
Eric Grossman Elite user St. Louis, MO 429 Posts |
Krumb,
Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I can only conclude that you have stuck with the first handlings of these effects that you learned. If these are the best, great, but I certainly agree with MacGyver. The more different handlings you look at and study, the more expansive your knowledge of an effect will be. It goes beyond having a handling that you like. It is a way to look into the minds of all the performers who have been creative before you. Who knows? You may be able to develop your own original handling, after you truly understand the potential of a routine. I think the only way to reach that point is to open up and expand your vision of the effect. I do versions of both of the effects you've asked about. Both of the routines I currently perform are built off of bits and pieces of other performers I have seen and studied. While they are not cutting edge, original handlings,they are excellent routines. This is only because of those many great magicians who have inspired me. Also, you can learn about situations and solutions to other things that aren't necessarilly related to these particular effects. For example, I learned the Elmsley Count, while learning Twisting the Aces. I use it in many other routines, however. Do you get my point? Learning can NEVER be a waste of time, EVER. Eric Grossman
family/magic/music/life
|
|||||||||
Krumb Loyal user Vancouver, WA 300 Posts |
I'm not saying don't try to improve on your current method. Maybe I was looking at it the wrong way. Maybe learning multiple routines helps you develop your own handeling of an effect.
I just don't think for example, that learning 6 different double lifts is beneficial when 1 or 2 will do. At a certain point you are only going to be doing it to fool other magicians or ppl in the know. The average spectator won't know the difference....they will still have arrived at the same effect in the end. |
|||||||||
Cameron Roat Special user Michigan 728 Posts |
Krumb, I thought the same exact thing at first. I talked to my local shop owner, and he has since convinced me that it is a horrible idea NOT to know more than one version. He does restaurant gigs and such all the time, and sometimes, if he works the same restaurant night after night, he will see the same people. Perhaps he showed them a Torn & Restored Card effect last time he was there. He probably won't remeber the people, but if he knows another method for accomplishing the same effect, he doesn't have to worry about it at all.
Also, think about the "never repeat a trick" advice. What if you can repeat the effect, only, using a completely different method. Put some thought into it. I did, and I am convinced that learning multiple methods and variations of a trick is a very, very good idea. |
|||||||||
Joshua Lozoff Inner circle Chapel Hill, NC 1332 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-09-22 20:17, Eric Grossman wrote: Ever?! That's a silly thing to say. Popular in our contemporary busy distracted culture, sure, but silly nonetheless. Quite often, learning is something we do to distract ourselves from going deeper into something. Aren't we all very glad that the great masters of the arts didn't believe that "learning," just for its own sake, was always useful and productive? At some point, they decided to stick with and focus on something specific. To become masters, rather than perpetual learners. I think the comments here questioning the usefulness of learning multiple handlings of one effect are simply pointing out that we all have to make choices with our time, energy and passion. In the same amount of time, one magician may learn 6 different handlings of Triumph, while a more seasoned practicioner might quickly scan the landscape, decide on a version to master, then master it. Both approaches are valid, but as an audience, I know which performer I'd rather see. |
|||||||||
Krumb Loyal user Vancouver, WA 300 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-09-22 21:40, RoatC wrote: Sup RoatC, haven't seen you around over at PM for a while. I would think that a performer who had spent the time mastering the effect and was quick on their feet could present a nearly identical handeling and make it look like something brand new. |
|||||||||
Eric Grossman Elite user St. Louis, MO 429 Posts |
[/quote]
Ever?! That's a silly thing to say. Popular in our contemporary busy distracted culture, sure, but silly nonetheless. Quite often, learning is something we do to distract ourselves from going deeper into something. Aren't we all very glad that the great masters of the arts didn't believe that "learning," just for its own sake, was always useful and productive? At some point, they decided to stick with and focus on something specific. To become masters, rather than perpetual learners. Joshua, I think the great masters never stopped learning; although with a narrower focus, I imagine. Isn't that what we're talking about here? We're discussing our narrow focus of magic, and I highly doubt that any of the masters would ever rest on their own laurels and stop learning. We have some of those people here. Maybe they'll chime in. I know that as a musician, magician, father, husband, etc... I pray that I never stop learning. Silly? I think not. Eric Grossman
family/magic/music/life
|
|||||||||
Joshua Lozoff Inner circle Chapel Hill, NC 1332 Posts |
Eric,
That's a good point. I'm sure I'll always be learning, too. What I thought you wer referring to, was the active pursuit of learning, which is a little different. Learning will happen naturally to someone who moves through life openly and mindfully. But if learning new things is a main priority, I believe it can be at the expense of mastery. George Leonard calls these folks dabblers. And to Crumb and RoatC, from a spectator's perspective, doing a DIFFERENT version of a torn and restored card trick IS the same trick. It's just a repetative as doing the exact same trick. I hope your shop owner friend has better effects to show his restaurant audience than having to repeat the same effect each night just using different handling. You know what a spectator says about that? "He tears and restores a card every night." |
|||||||||
Eric Grossman Elite user St. Louis, MO 429 Posts |
Joshua,
I understand what you are saying, as well. Thanks for the clarification. Eric Grossman
family/magic/music/life
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Red Hot Mama and Triumph Help (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |