|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Hare Veteran user 323 Posts |
I think we are now in complete agreement. Yes, most likely Hugard's left hand ending-position has the coin on the fingers of the left hand in the region of "fingepalm" with the tips of two fingers of the right displaying the coin to the audience, palm up, and you are right, this is different than Mr. Roth's elegant final display.
My initial entry into this thread was inspired by Mr. Rubinstein's bold statements that before Mr. Roth came along, coin magicians were not doing this with two coins, that it was done with balls, and not coins and so on- My intent was never to claim that the precise method via palms and passes was the same, and I think it was me who originally pointed out that Hugard worked initially out of CP with the pass from the right, where Mr. Roth used the less movement intensive FP in a passive way. I merely wished to see acknowledged that a viable straightforward two coin, two handed substitution/shuttle in front of the audience, one with the same basic purpose and same principles was in common use back in the day. I tracked it back from Henry Hay's excellent book, and rediscovered it in my battered, already ancient copy of Hugard from whence I read it when I was 12 or so. It's fascinating the way Mr. Roth turned it on it's end. Hugard STARTS at the fingertips, where Mr. Roth begins in fingerpalm, but ENDS at the fingertips. I hope that my stirring things up results in some young coin folks here who assume that "new is always best" take the time to track down the earlier books that are valuable. They offer insights as to where we have come from, which in turn can point the direction to the future. You mentioned worrying about magic dying in your earlier post. Perhaps modern magician's just need to realize that magic can be about more than an old fashioned evening show or a short table presentation on television. We get trapped into pre-existing ideas of what a magician has to be. Magic is alive and well, it's just different and ever changing from the perspective of what the audience wants and our means of delivering. I see a lot of opportunities today. Just look at how wildly popular fantasy and magic currently are. The Rings movies started a snowball of fantasy, with witches, vampires, wizards, and all sorts of mythological and fantastic creatures and effects. It's hugely popular. Some of the most popular television shows are magic oriented. An enterprising young magician could make a million bucks in a hurry returning to a big presentation with a fantasy theme. A sexy woman vampire act could kill 'em dead. Seriously. It's time to drag those theatrical wizard-outfits out of the woodwork. Magician's should polymorph into what is popular, with dragons and ghosts, effects and big atmospheric presentations on the net. Magic is alive and well, and it's up to us to turn our percieved notions of the perimeters of the art towards what the public would like to see. It's us that keeps the tricks fresh. The concepts are all ancient. Look to the past, understand what came before, and bring it alive anew like some Phoenix of Phantasy.
"Better described in The Amateur Magician's Handbook"
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-01 19:19, Hare wrote: I'm not worrying about magic dying, but I've seen threads from others who are, is what I meant, in hopes of indicating that the up and coming aren't necessarily assuming "new is always best". I'm older than I look, maybe, but I respect those who've gone before and think we all can take a lesson from them in many things, indeed. Take a lesson from Nature, while we're at it, in remembering where we came from. I've never forgotten that, but some certainly seem far away from it, in their minds and attitudes, at least. Thanks for your quick responses. Appreciated. |
|||||||||
Dick Oslund Inner circle 8357 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-02-28 22:19, tomsk192 wrote: Egad! DEPONENT VERBS YET! I had to think for a minute! It has been 50 years! (The profs. lectured in Latin when I studied philosophy!!! Honestly! It's a delight to hear someone else who can use a phrase or two! Ave atque vale!
SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED, DEVIOUS,& SURREPTITIOUS ITINERANT MOUNTEBANK
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-01 19:19, Hare wrote: Many thanks for picking up the torch and supplying the documentation while I am digging through packed boxes of magic effluvia. I would add the thought that the value of any of the visual, apparent transfer of a coin from one hand to the other is that it is "visible" -- and thereby does not create any expectation on the part of the audience compared with an hidden transfer such as a POV Move. In either case there should be some justification for the transfer with any "elegance" secondary to the flow of the Effect. Any transfer can mask some "dirty work" and, as noted in my first post here, the hand positions and movements should be the same in any false transfer as in an actual one. Perhaps this view made me less sensitive to the special difference in the Roth Method and other "Shuttle Type" sleights of my acquaintance. In reflection, I probably have never performed a Roth Shuttle Pass with the specific finger positions herein described -- and probably never will since those positions are not "natural" to my handling of coins and other small objects. Yet, a "Shuttle Pass" is part of most coin effects I perform, have created and published. I did not learn those Moves and Sleights from Roth -- never having seen his DVD until three years ago. I use the name because that is what people have said I am doing when they see it. Yes, we should acknowledge and build on what has come before -- if your goal is derivative creativity -- but I there is also non-derivative creativity with its own rewards. Watching Roth perform has inspired many new effects in my fevered mind -- and those published have noted this -- but the greatest value has been his inspiration to "do new things" not based on any specific effect or sleight. It will always be a problem of "giving credit" and "honoring what has come before." If I created a Sleight or Move "out of whole cloth" 30 years ago and then discover that some notable published a similar effect 10 years ago, to what extent do I need to acknowledge their work? Certainly to avoid confusion and clarify any variation, but what else? What greater honor can I give than to say, "Mr. Roth -- seeing how the audience and magicians react to your magic effects has inspired me to create new effects with small objects and a return to coin magic despite crippled hands. Thanks for keeping the dream alive." ah yes, rebirth and revitalization. This too is a "shuttle" ............................. Magic is about not being alone, of sharing a sense of purpose beyond reason, of saying in a quite simple way, “I am not afraid to be me.” We are drawn to those who understand, yet must struggle against the shackles of sameness, normal and complacent that reduce life to average. Our minds can imagine “other than” and our hearts see beyond the veil. A rare few pretend this all is true that other folks can feel it too and know of awe and wonder. We are the shapers of hope’s illusion in contrast to what society pretends is fact and secure and certain – slaves to an illusion of knowledge. This should make of us a family – a place that misses us when we leave and welcomes us when we return, and asks us what we learned and felt. We have a choice, you should understand; of standing on another’s shoulders, or allowing one to stand on ours and tell us what they see from there. Do not make of magic an illusion too, but claim the reality of who you are. Dare to be what no other has been, and do what no one else has tried. Dare to be a magician.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
cperkins Special user 700 Posts |
An amazing thread!
To see a difficult thing lightly handled gives the impression of the impossible.
(Goethe) |
|||||||||
Mb217 Inner circle 9520 Posts |
Yes cp, best one in a long time here, where the supposedly thought to be simple became quite complex, and maybe back again but with greater understanding rigorously rendered.
It's a good reason to question things because usually there are more dots to connect, new minds and thoughts to be mixed in, and further answers to be uncovered. Perhaps it may not change a thing but the thing itself has definitely been changed in some way. Reminds me of the great Frederick Douglass when he said, "Agitate, agitate, agitate."
*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 |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Let's take this discussion form another angle: a name is what people commonly use to designate a person or a concept. So basically it's a sort of social understanding or practical short cut, irrespective of lost origins in whatever language or countries it was.
So why not democratically vote to see who accepts to refer to the "Shuttle Pass" as David Roth's move, and later variants like the fingertips Shuttle Pass or the flying shuttle pass, or ..., as variants from David Roth's Shuttle Pass I cast my vote in favor of refusing to detach, from now on, David Roth's name from what we already refer to as Shuttle Pass... thanks to him Who votes in favor of linking David Roth's name to what we refer to the Shuttle Pass? Who votes against (for whatever reason)?
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
E•, I use the term utility switch to refer to that strategy when using more than one item on display where at least one of the visible items actually moves from hand to hand. That puts the Roth shuttle pass into a special case (and very effective) of the general class of switches. How's that for you? j
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
I vote for that as well since it doesn't cancel my previous vote
So Utility Switch when more than one coin is visible and David Roth's Shuttle Pass when only one coin appears to be in play. Who's joining his vote to ours ?
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
feher Inner circle Michigan 1421 Posts |
Sometimes its not about who invented it. But who showed us how to use it. In this case its Roth that showed the magic community the full potential of this move.
For that I'm going with David Roth. Tim
Mean people SUCK!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Above all clarity of instructions and simplicity in effect descriptions is the guide -- and as most folks apparently seem to equate the "Single Coin" display with Roth I will go along.
I can live with that for all future references and publications, but am not going to rewrite previous documents referring to Shuttle Moves that did not derive from Roth's work. "Utility Switch" for all of the other variations does not work for me quite as well -- clarity again. After all, if Roth did not see a need to provide a unique name to his modification of the Utility Switch he would not have done so. His actions support that a "catch all" label will not work well. For example -- In the Effect "Hot Potato" a single coin is tossed from hand to hand and back many times (true shuttle) -- when it lands in the left hand it is SIlver. When it lands in the right it is Copper. Thus, the "Switch" is visible and apparently occurs in transit -- and only one coin apparently exists as the hands are continuously shown empty between flips. One coin -- but Roth Shuttle Pass isn't right -- nor is Utility Switch as defined above. Perhaps no "name" is required, just a description of the many Sleights employed.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
From audience perspective - magical effects are usually distinct from mundane actions. A coin changing somewhere in transit between a magician's hands is a magical effect.
IMHO a coin getting innocently transferred or even tossed from hand to hand (for what reason???) is a moment of blocking/stage direction/scripting for a character though in-and-of-itself is not what we call a magical effect.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Agreed Jonathan -- what appears to the audience as a normal transfer of a coin from one hand to the other is not a magic effect and creates no expectation in the spectator's mind -- such as many variations of the Utility Switch. That and all similar transfers are but preparatory for a magic effect, and the more natural/mundane the better.
Therefore, why the excitement over the "elegance" and "at the finger tips" of the Roth variation? Since that is not the way a lay person would transfer a coin it would not seem mundane or natural and thereby create suspicion? Give a lay person a coin to hold in one hand and toss into the other hand. They might hold the coin at the fingertips in the passing hand but would catch the coin on the palm or lower fingers as in the "old version." The only justification I can see for the Roth finger positions is if you plan to do some flourishes as a skill demonstration. Yet, everyone seems to be in love with the Roth variation. I'll join the applause for a beautiful looking move but never use it since it is not natural looking to me (out of character) What am I missing? Is the objective to make two coins appear as one as naturally as possible or to impress magicians? I'll dig out Roth's DVD again an attempt to observe what is so special. I notice that the posted article about Roth does not mention this monumental advance in magic. As you have now shared, Roth's presentation is part of his "Character"
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Mb217 Inner circle 9520 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-02 12:18, feher wrote: Hopefully, more often now than not, the big, small & all of us will remember this important point as to people and things, Roth or otherwise. I'm just sayin'.
*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 |
|||||||||
mystre71 Inner circle martinsburg west virginia 1693 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-03 07:47, Mb217 wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. IF someone had/has originally invented what we currently know as Roth's The Shuttle Pass. Then the originator should get credit for it. I'm also willing to bet Mr. Roth would agree. Mr. Roth is very respectful of our craft, at least that is the impression I get from his book, his many DVDs, and the few times I have met him. There is a HUGE difference between missing an obscure reference/credit, and someone knowingly claiming a routine or sleight that came before them. IMO once that original credit has been established, then THAT person should receive the credit. Otherwise we all should just start publishing with no names or reference points what so ever.
Walk around coin box work check it out here https://www.magicalmystries.com/products
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-03 06:54, funsway wrote: That's right. Roth is naturally magical, hello. Quote:
On 2013-03-03 08:59, mystre71 wrote: :applause: |
|||||||||
Atom3339 Inner circle Spokane, WA 3242 Posts |
I agree with 71.
TH
Occupy Your Dream |
|||||||||
Hare Veteran user 323 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-03 08:59, mystre71 wrote: This is an excellent and telling point from mystre71. I for one suspect that this discussion of the Shuttle Pass only exists because it is Mr. Roth is the person who printed his own, slightly modified version of any already existing, quite ancient magician's tool. If say magicalaurie, MB217, Hare or funsway published a version of the long ago established coin substitution, using two coins at the fingertips right in front for the audience; using a different hold and pass than we commonly see, would we merit the tool being named after us? Of course not. In my opinion, there are two different standards here, and a general lack of even basic logic when discussing the shuttle pass. Just because Mr. Roth renamed an old magician's tool does not make it new. It's regained popularity pimarily for one reason. How many large, hardcover, well distributed magician's books strictly limited to coin hand work, featuring one artist, have been published in the last 25 years? In the last 50? Go back a century. How many in English? The simple fact of the matter is, coin magician's have a empty gaping lack of high quality, dedicated books available to them. Mr. Roth's shuttle pass isn't new, and Mr. Roth and Mr. Kaufman point out very clearly in the book itself that the "move", as they refer to it...is old. It isn't enough to rename a move because a magican repopulized it, in my opinion. Mr. Rubinstein went to great lengths early in the thread to claim that nothing like it was in use before Mr. Roth revealed it...a claim we have shown is mistaken, as it was published widely in various forms, (though perhaps masked by not having a fitting name in common use for what it actually was, and the fact that it was often hidden as a stand alone tool by often, (but not always), being used in a marked coin sort of effect.) Is giving something a name that already was in common use make it yours? Again, I don't think so. I could be wrong, of course. Coming from outside the established professional field...from the other arts, I can recognize a tendency to concentrate rewards upon those who are wildly successful in their field. You see it all the time with actors, with artists, with musicians. A performer or artist has several hits or pieces that make a lot of money, get great reviews, and suddenly, everyone jumps aboard the bandwagon. Everything they have ever done becomes a classic. They invented everything they ever did, and their roots....the people that actually did the inventing but perhaps never became as famous, or whose time has passed, are forgotten. and....shuttle away...to obsurity they don't deserve. Aren't we losing sight of logic and fairness here when we consider the nature of the shuttle pass in days gone by? What is the real difference in the shuttle pass described in Hugard and the one presented by Mr. Roth? Consider: 1. Both happen at the fingertips before the eyes of the audience to an absolutely equal degree. Hugard's coin is held at the extreme fingertips of the right, and appears to remain there throughout the entire performance until the left hand takes possession of it. At the end of Mr. Roth's version, you need a table, which is really the main difference between the two presentations. The unspoken, logical next step of Hugard's shuttle pass would obviously be to remove the right two digits touching the coin sitting on the left's open fingers, and show or present the coin there using the fingers of the left- correct? 2. Both present one coin, passed from right hand to the left in a straightforward manner, masking the presence of a second coin to be used nefariously, later. The end placement of the two coins is exactly the same for further work after the use of the shuttle tool. Note that earlier in this thread, when discussing the move that funsway describes, Mr. Rubinstein describes the specific requirements that would need to exist for a move to indeed be a "shuttle pass"- Please give this description a careful read. Is this not the Hugard version, sans table? Mr. Rubinstein to funsway- "...So this is not a shuttle pass. In order for it to be a shuttle pass, the left hand would have to be secretly concealing a coin, and ONE coin displayed in the right hand. The right hand then approaches the left, and pretends to dump its coin into the left hand. The LH now pretends to take that coin but actually reveals its own coin and places it on the table. The RH now conceals the coin that was previously in view. In this case the motivation for the move would be to apparently move the coin from right to left. Roth also uses it as a way to get one ahead - "It started here (pretending to place the coin into the left hand), and jumped over to here (actually putting the left hand's coin back into the right hand, which gets him one ahead. He has motivation for "moving" the coin from one hand to the other." Mr. Rubinstein in the above statement lays down the gauntlet of what the "Shuttle Pass" is. It is a good description of all that is IMPORTANT about it. We ought to take this description into consideration when looking at Hugard's coin substitution, and see if it fits the bill, yes? If it is the SAME, it is a shuttle pass, correct? Before you start rewarding the shuttle pass to Mr. Roth...ought we not consider the fact that Mr. Rubsenstein has exactly described Hugard's "move"? Clearly we are talking about the same move or tool, that is just slightly altered to suit Mr. Roth's table oriented techniques. This is not a "new" move, it is an old move that has been slightly altered. The point is, it hasn't been altered in any way that matters enough to change anything, any more than if I presented my shuttle pass that used a different starting hold than Mr. Roth does. It doesn't become "The Patrick Block Flutter Pass" because I did that. It ought not become that if I publish it in a hardback book and print a million copies, either. You see what I am getting at? Ought we not use the same rules with everyone? Doesn't magic already have a crazy sense of non-logical terminology and rather irregular naming procedures without tagging already long existing tools with popular living peoples names? The place where Mr. Roth deserves kudos is in giving the magic world a much needed book, which included many effects that are his alone. He repopulized several elder gimmicks and moves, of which the coin rattle and shuttle pass were two. Neither of those two items merit renaming by giving Mr. Roth credit by name on them, outside of his "shuttle pass" moniker. Certainly he helped up remember at old move. Absolutely, it's a great basic principle of which his version is streamlined and very graceful, if not perfectly natural feeling. Yes, David Roth actually wrote a hardback on coin magic which has reached a larger audience than the majority of slim pamphlets published before, and this gave his shuttle pass a wide audience. But that is hardly a reason to forget those who came before and used the very same tool. The name of the person who created the shuttle pass is forgotten. At least, that is how one amateur magican sees it.
"Better described in The Amateur Magician's Handbook"
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Are you saying they should send the marching band away? I've been sitting by the window, here, waiting for the parade to go by.
|
|||||||||
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-01 21:57, Dick Oslund wrote: Ave Dick, ipsa scientia potestas est! Tom |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Nothing up my sleeve... » » Shuttle Pass (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 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 < |