The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ever so sleightly » » Al Schneider's cups and balls (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10~11 [Next]
Al Schneider
View Profile
V.I.P.
A corn field in WI surrounded by
1080 Posts

Profile of Al Schneider
Tomsk192
I have watched several other videos of Gazzo and I have even attended a lecture by him. His hand motions are the same whether he is talking or not. Interestngly, he does not seem to talk when he does the magic. I need to watch more of his videos to veryify this. Yes, you cannot see my eyes in the video. Howver, I use a slight body motion to suggest what my eyes are doing. In essence I am getting ripped here becasue the questions asked requrie sophisticated answers. We are talking about the eyes here. That is only one aspect of what is being done. What I find fascinating is that everyone seems to worship Tony Slydini (as I do) but noone seems to notice that his principles are being violated. He suggests leaning back when a move is executed. Both Gazzo and Pete lean forward when they execute the move. Not saying this is bad, just noticing. Another point is that when a hand transfers a ball there should be motivation for it. Pete tips the ball into one hand, then throws it into the other hand (without motivation) then passes it to the other hand using the wand as motivation. What gives? I am just observing here. To me, he supports what I believe. The details for the transfer vanish are complicated. Essentially, I am being asked to write a book to answer these questions. I did, but you guys are not buying it. You want it for free here. Yes Ramsy said the audience looks where you look. But when he read a descripton of what he did he said to the author, "Hey, you did't tell the reader when to look at the audience." Apparently he thought that critical. About Pete's vanish. I think the move you use is as good as it can be. It is simmple and not a lot of attention is drawn to it. In general, it seems few people understand the concepts I am aware of. They are not detrimental to the performanc of magic. The goal is to apply them to immporve on the magic effect. OK, so you don't look at the audience.It doesn't kill the move. But if you do, it gets a lot better. Anyway, I am trying to compose something about all of this. Kind of hard to earn a living and do this as well. What do you really want?

I agree with Pete when he says, "With Gazzo, it is 99% bits, lines, talk... I think he would kill with any handling of the cups. He can break all the rules." I got a youtube video to watch his moves, In the 20 min video, he didn't do any magic. But it was fun.

I really don't want to write 5 pages of babble to defend a point of view. That is just another Wizard of Smart.

Al Schneider
Magic Al. Say it fast and it is magical.
Pete Biro
View Profile
1933 - 2018
18559 Posts

Profile of Pete Biro
After reading and posting this morning, I went to Dean Dills and talked with him about this kind of information. I did some experimenting with the Vernon move where you have a ball resting on the bottom of a mouth down cop and he tips it over into his hand he then takes the ball with the other hand then places it back in the original hand picks up the wand taps the hand and the ball is gone.

What I suddenly thought, why do we go through all at work when what we should do is just kept the ball off the cup into the hand leave it there pick up the wand The hand open hand on the ball is gone?

This is actually real easy to do. You tip the ball into the hand lean back resting that hand, containing the ball, on the rear edge of the table, and as you reach forward to pick up the wand the ball is dropped in your lap ala Slydini.

I am not sure how this would fit into the routine that it is a way to do a vanish by eliminating a move.

Any thoughts on this?
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Hi Mr. Schneider,

Just ordered your book. (Already have the L&L compendium.)
pabloinus
View Profile
Inner circle
1557 Posts

Profile of pabloinus
I have John Mendoza's C&B routine (vernon's) and he said that he does not like the back and forth of the ball from hand to hand therefore he uses a different methodology to vanish the ball without that move. I like it better. I also noticed that John looks into the hand where the ball is supposed to be. Personally I like the way he performs C&B with regular and combo cups so I could be bias in my appreciation.
cirrus
View Profile
Inner circle
his minions made
1752 Posts

Profile of cirrus
Quote:
On 2012-12-19 22:17, Pete Biro wrote:
After reading and posting this morning, I went to Dean Dills and talked with him about this kind of information. I did some experimenting with the Vernon move where you have a ball resting on the bottom of a mouth down cop and he tips it over into his hand he then takes the ball with the other hand then places it back in the original hand picks up the wand taps the hand and the ball is gone.

What I suddenly thought, why do we go through all at work when what we should do is just kept the ball off the cup into the hand leave it there pick up the wand The hand open hand on the ball is gone?

This is actually real easy to do. You tip the ball into the hand lean back resting that hand, containing the ball, on the rear edge of the table, and as you reach forward to pick up the wand the ball is dropped in your lap ala Slydini.

I am not sure how this would fit into the routine that it is a way to do a vanish by eliminating a move.

Any thoughts on this?


In Rafael Benetar's routine and Master Payne's routine, they both use the same loading technique. It eliminates the back and forth movement. You tip over the cup and drop the ball in your wand hand, transfer it to the other hand, pick up the wand, tap the hand and it is gone. I'm not going to tip the technique, but this is what the audience sees.
gadfly3d
View Profile
Special user
963 Posts

Profile of gadfly3d
I have been favorably influenced by Al's books and the few times I have met him and admire his work. I don't even pretend to understand quantum physics, but I do have an advanced degree in political philosophy. I also have been a professional magician for many years.

F.A. Hayek in his work suggests that most knowledge in any field in not theoretical knowledge but what he calls tacit knowledge, the character of which is that it can only be known by the doer. This fact makes socialism unworkable and is the classic flaw of scientific management (e.g Frederick Taylor).

The connection of this to magic should be obvious but I will give one example. A climax may add to an effect of detract from an effect. There is no abstract way of knowing when it does or does not; the answer is in the doing,

Gil Scott
FatHatter
View Profile
Regular user
I'm here you're there and that's that.
137 Posts

Profile of FatHatter
Yes yes the doing. That's the step most often skipped. Too much hemming and hawing about what might be instead of finding out for yourself. I think the reason why is because the only thing at risk is the magician's feelings. How many times have we seen, "Will this work? "Is this appropriate?" "How long should _______ be?" "Climax or no?" etc.?

Of the theory I have taken in Al's has had the best application for me. Not sure if it has simply met my circumstances or if he is on to something for everyone.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
One of my teachers used to say, "you don't have to assume anything you can prove."
Al Schneider
View Profile
V.I.P.
A corn field in WI surrounded by
1080 Posts

Profile of Al Schneider
Here is a shot at what I am saying. The human gaze does not stay at one point. It moves from point to point. To get someone to look at a specific point, get them to look at one point and then get them to look at what you want them to see. To apply this to the transfer move, look at them and then look at the hands that are going to do the move. I think there is an error there to be looking at your hands and then look at the hand. Not strong enough.

To repeat, just before you do the move look at them. This is done with enough time to get their awareness there. THen look at the hands that are going to do the move. They will look there and for that moment they are totally there. Just looking at your hands is not as strong as getting them to look elsewhere and then at your hands. Just my opinion.

The next step is to use a glance. When they are totally focused on your hands and the move, glance at them. This is fairly short. You do not want them to move their eyes up to your eyes. You glance at them and glance back to your hands the moment the move is complete. Here is the logic of doing this. They are recording all that is happening. They are not cogniting on it. They will when they rewind to review it. Normal people do not look at their hands when transfering something from hand to hand. At least during simple transfers. If you look at your hands constantly, it looks odd and forces the observer to do so cognitivly. That is, they think about it. When you glance up, it looks normal and puts kind of a stamp on the action that says, "This is normal." The hope here is that the glance causes the transfer to be labeled as not important so when the observer rewinds, they will not consider the transfer move worth thinking about. Hence, the transfer is not part of what they rewind to see. Hence, the transfer motion is not considered part of the vanish sequence.

A point here is that when you glance, they are aware of that with their peripheral vision which as most know is sensitive to motion not detail.

Then you supply something for them to cognite on. Some motion done after the transfer move they can focus on when they rewind. As that point is after the transfer move, they start their thought process when they belive the object is in the hand and is not.

Again, there are many parts to all this. This is just the beginning.

Thanks to some of the nice things people are saying.

If I get time I will discuss some other things I think are important.

And please, we need more from others here.

Al Schneider
Magic Al. Say it fast and it is magical.
kentfgunn
View Profile
Inner circle
Merritt Island FL
1617 Posts

Profile of kentfgunn
Al,

I bought Al Schneider on Coins about thirty or forty years ago. Between that and the little white book you put out, I managed to start doing some passable hand-to-hand transfers. I purposefully look at my hands as the transfer occurs. I don't really know why or think it's all that important.

Thanks.

There's one hand-to-hand in this cups routine. It's all Al Schneider. I won't tell you when it occurs, it may not be necessary in the routine at all. I do it because I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEYmGnK4K9g

Following your own muse, creating your own magic is just one path. I'm sure glad Al created his stuff. I do NOT like to analyze the magic routines of others. From Desiderata:

Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

I watch Al's stuff on youtube. It often fools and entertains me. That's good enough for me. How I choose to do magic is an amalgam of stuff I've read. I'm still plowing through the big purple book. I still work on my own stuff.

Thanks again Al,

Kent
cirrus
View Profile
Inner circle
his minions made
1752 Posts

Profile of cirrus
I stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before me. I may not know all of their names, but their influence is visible in my own work. I learned from Tommy Wonder, Dai Vernon, Al Schneider,... everybody from whom I bought a dvd or two (and books, I read books too).
Al Schneider
View Profile
V.I.P.
A corn field in WI surrounded by
1080 Posts

Profile of Al Schneider
I think the statement, "We stand on the shoulders that came before..." wss popularized by Issaic Newton. He was addressing a contemporary named Hook. However, Newton's implicaiton was that he, Newton, was a giant and Hook was a little man standing on Newton's (a giant) shoulders. It has been recorded that Hook stole much of Newton's stuff or was reputed for saying Newton stole if from Hook. This was popularized when Newton was the head of a high mucky mucky science organization in England. He used his power to ridicule Hook. Sometime after Newton's death a number of papers were found that suggested Hook was the man behind some math in Newton's three laws of motion. Specifically the force between masses. Newton was astute enough to realize the force worked far out in space and applied the math to the moon and celistial bodies. Hook is the guy that came up with Hook's Law, tht appears in almost all basic physics books in the world. Really a famous guy.

Ho Hum.

I am planning to do a video to demonstrate some of the things I talk about. Taking some time.

All the best.

Al Schneider
Magic Al. Say it fast and it is magical.
Zombie Magic
View Profile
Inner circle
I went out for a beer and now have
8737 Posts

Profile of Zombie Magic
Quote:
On 2012-12-20 19:55, Al Schneider wrote:
I am planning to do a video to demonstrate some of the things I talk about.

That would be a BIG treat for us that are fans of your work.
Lawrence O
View Profile
Inner circle
Greenwich (CT)
6799 Posts

Profile of Lawrence O
Yes, it will be very interesting
Magic is the art of proving impossible things in parallel dimensions that can't be reached
mtgoldstein
View Profile
Veteran user
Houston, TX
318 Posts

Profile of mtgoldstein
Is the "LA Street C&B" routine covered in either Al Schneider's recent book " Al Schneider Magic" or the L&L DVD "Al Schneider Cups and Balls"? Thanks
Octopus Sun
View Profile
Special user
Wiggle Wiggle
586 Posts

Profile of Octopus Sun
@ mtgoldstein - LA Street Cups Balls is in Al's book "Magic" ch.38 pg.688
Keith Mitchell
View Profile
Special user
796 Posts

Profile of Keith Mitchell
All this Yakking where did the Magic go?

Al, love the awesome magic you do! I hope one day I get the opportunity to meet you and see you perform incredible Magic.

Merry Christmas to Al and everyone else.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Quote:
Essentially, I am being asked to write a book to answer these questions. I did, but you guys are not buying it. You want it for free here.


I bought the book, it arrived last week. Studying it. Just finished Chapter 5. Virtual magic is definitely what interests me, so I think this book is just the thing.
Al Schneider
View Profile
V.I.P.
A corn field in WI surrounded by
1080 Posts

Profile of Al Schneider
Well, I finally got the books I was working on done and on amazon dot com. One is a book on card forces, Magic Forces and the other is a book titled, Classic Card Magic. So I sat down and made the following clip. It is not quite what I wanted. I had loaded it with all kinds of fancy stuff but it all got to complex and I just used vanishes. Didn't even use an extra ball. Only lapped once and that was with Dr. Rubensteins twist move. I rehersed it about 100 times on and off over since I talked about it. Just can't get all the timing down right. Shot about 15 clips of it. This seems to be the best. Hope you like it. It has no air time on it so I don't know how it will fly.

http://youtu.be/xvE0gTouogg

All the best.

Al Schneider
Magic Al. Say it fast and it is magical.
Zombie Magic
View Profile
Inner circle
I went out for a beer and now have
8737 Posts

Profile of Zombie Magic
I'm at a loss. I have no idea what Al did.

It feels good to an absolute laymen.

BRAVO!
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Ever so sleightly » » Al Schneider's cups and balls (1 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10~11 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.17 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