|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
EllisBoydRedding New user 10 Posts |
||||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
Is this the same class? If so, I will purchase.
David. |
|||||||||
EllisBoydRedding New user 10 Posts |
Yes that’s the one
Red |
|||||||||
Amirá Inner circle MentalismCenter.com 5131 Posts |
It is the same
It was a truly fantastic conversation, full of ideas for Equivoque and other parallel techniques. You can get it at Kenton´s site or at Mentalism Center.
Pablo
Performer and Author Mentalism Center: The best online space to get quality Mentalism www.mentalismcenter.com Arkanosophy: The Boutique for Mystery Performers www.arkanosophy.com |
|||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
I went ahead and purchased this, here are my findings.
Price - $39.97 ($40) The first moment of realisation that I had made a poor choice purchasing this (mind the pun), was when Kenton brought up the joke about equivoque that is doing the rounds on social media. Just so everyone is on the same page, the joke is a picture of a waitress asking a passenger on a train if they would like a coffee or a tea. The passenger responds “coffee” and the waitress replies “So that leaves tea”. Kenton then laughs and proclaims that you cannot perform equivoque like that and the goes on to demonstrate the correct way to deal with the situation. You might be asking, what’s wrong with that? Let me tell you - I couldn’t grasp what he was trying to demonstrate, it made no sense whatsoever, in-fact here is a play-by-play. (The script is not copied verbatim but close to). “Ermmm. Pablo, errr, ummm there is coffee or erm, tea. In-fact do you want tea or urmmm, (little hand signal) umm do you want coffee?” Pablo says “coffee” and Kenton proceeds to says “yeah because erm, coffee is tainted and that’s why you went for it!” Coffee is tainted!?!? What? Am I missing something? What’s the effect? There was no prediction, no claim of some sort of influence, no direct or indirect philosophy shared about why that’s the solution and absolutely no logic presented whatsoever. He never he even attempted to elaborate. I thought I was losing my s*it and that maybe I had missed something - I thought this until I showed my friend (another David) the video (incase I had overlooked something) and he burst out laughing and his genuine response was “do you think he’s lost his marbles?” Here are my thoughts on the subject (the joke not Kenton losing his marbles) - Kenton/ Pablo. The correct philosophy to express/ share here is simple. With this particular choice (tea or coffee) the decision is one that the spectator has made long before the waitress ever asks the question. It’s a bias based selection because the spectator has a preference of drink (in the majority of circumstances) - Its not random or a blind choice. What does this mean? Whilst a great joke (that aptly sums up bad equivoque), that particular circumstance (or any bias based circumstance) shouldn’t be used as the starting point in equivoque at all. In-fact, I believe that the joke outlines (perfectly) what to avoid in equivoque. I wish that Kenton had spent time focusing on this instead of rambling and bumbling about bits of fluff that led nowhere. It would have shown intellectual prominence and displayed an understanding of the subject whilst setting the tone for the rest of the download. It did the exact opposite, it left a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that what was shared was a sign of things to come. I understand Kenton isn’t here to defend himself, so I’m sure it will be Pablo who comes back with something. Pablo, before you come here saying that there is a deeper level of understanding that I have missed, or that it’s symbology, or that I’ve overlooked things and I have to be a student of the school to understand or some other ambiguous statement (similar to the type you post on Facebook) - that really means nothing, don’t waste our time. If however, you want to expand upon the point that Kenton was trying to express, being specific and in full detail (in a way that’s non-ambiguous) I welcome the explanation with open arms. Anyway, I’m digressing. Moving on. The download then moves on (after light conversation) into a performance where 5 lighters are on the table and Kenton attempts to perform equivoque (on Pablo) to arrive at a “random lighter”. Using equivoque to reduce five lighters down to one is a simple feat and doesn’t really require over thinking. But, I don’t know who Kenton is trying to deceive by trying to make the viewer believe he’s ever done this before. The weirdest, weirdest part of this routine was when Kenton waits until after Pablo has chosen the “Red” lighter and then moves his hand off of the screen (not even casually), picks up a piece of card that says “Red” on it and clumsily brings it into play saying “Ummm... Yeah... I had this in my hand before I asked you to make a conscious choice”. No Kenton, you didn’t - It was offensive to watch. We are not blind, your hand is not invisible and your actions are not forgettable - especially when you do such a bad job of covering them. It wouldn’t even have been as bad if Kenton had said (in the explanation) “I use a multiple out, I usually have a pocket in*ex and I hold my hand like I’ve got a card hidden inside of it from the beginning and then I retrieve the required piece of card from the in*ex after the colour is called out”. Which might have been viable method in a pinch. Yes, I know it’s a multiple out (not equivoque) but still, the technique would make more sense than trying to pull the wool over the viewers eyes in such an obvious way - especially when it’s captured and displayed on a rewindable medium. But no, not even a mention of it, instead he gives some long winded explanation about using conscious and unconscious choices. The conscious/ unconscious idea to frame up the choices I actually thought was quite charming. However, Kenton and Pablo speak about depth and exploring deeper levels of learning and this concept is fairly surface and when you pick at the concept with any level of depth (outside of surface level) it falls to pieces. Here is why - If the spectator was actually making unconscious choices (for real) they wouldn’t even know they were making those choices and certainly wouldn’t be acting them out physically. The moment they know they’re making a choice the choice ceases to be unconscious it’s conscious. It lacks logic - Definition dictates that not me. The discussion moves onto psychologically appealing choices. The idea of placing objects into psychologically appealing positions has strong merit (it’s not a new concept) and I personally believe is the easiest way to apply equivoque to such a small group of items. Here is a quick example (that’s not discussed on the download) just a quick freebie for the readers of this review. You can instantly reduce the items (the lighters in this case) from the start by simply having the prediction say the most appealing colour upon it (without the spectator knowing) and then saying “We need this to be entirely random, out of these which is your favourite of them colour-wise? If they say the colour you have wrote say “I couldn’t have known that you would have said that, this is I feel fair and random right?” If they say a different colour like black for example, say “If we did go with your favourite it wouldn’t be random, it would be predetermined and something you were always inclined to say. So that gets rid of that, let’s get rid of some more until we arrive at one”. Or you can say, “each round let’s change how we make decisions, that keeps this fresh, interesting but more importantly random”. You’ve reduced down the group by one in this scenario and then there’s only 4 left. You are free to act how you see fit and it’s logical. If I’m really honest, up until this point on the download I was ok with the content. My criticisms wouldn’t have been as harsh hadn’t it have been for the shoddy version of equivoque performed using envelopes that followed. It was a horror show. Kenton starts by saying “Uhoh, I’m not going to do playing card moves” and then immediately moves into shuffling the envelopes like a packet of cards whilst giggling like a child on helium. If your actions can’t stay true to your words in the same sentence, what hope is there for the spectator trusting anything else you have to say during your overall performance? The reduction process happens when Kenton applies Eddie Fechter’s “drop force” which is a practical and seemingly fair way to reduce anything that resembles a packet. Which was executed shoddily. (This is where I speak in code for anyone that knows said force) the packet in this scenario ends up on the table, not in the hand. Instead of pointing out that they stopped on the stack on the table, Kenton never says anything - which leaves the spectator never knowing whether they stopped on the cards in his hand or the table. Kenton then reaches down out of frame and fumbles around swapping the packets without no motivation for doing so - which would make no sense to a spectator whatsoever and then continues with the process. Forgiving this as an amateur mistake to make, that isn’t particularly where my biggest criticisms are aimed in this performance. After fumbling around, dropping envelopes and bluffing his way through the equivoque Kenton and Pablo get down to 4 envelopes. This is where things took a nose dive. He asks Pablo to say stop as he waves his finger backwards and forward across the top of each envelope. Pablo says stop after Kenton has over shot the force envelope - Which shouldn’t be a problem to anyone who’s researched and studied equivoque before. Instead of panicking grab the envelope that is stopped at and throw it with the discarded lot. Does Kenton stick to the “elimination” type process that is the line of logic he’s had the spectator follow since the beginning? Nope. Kenton re-adjusts his finger... Not only does he re-adjust it, he does it so openly and obviously it was insulting. To give you a visual representation of how bad it looks here is the best visual representation I can offer - Imagine a line of 10 people and you wanted to force the third person, you get to the fifth person (already over shooting the force) and then saying to the spectator “say stop” and the spectator stops you on the eighth person in the line and you then swing your entire body backwards and point to the third person and then say “So you stopped here”. That’s how obvious it was. I thought maybe I was being harsh, maybe it was because I was a mentalist and maybe a regular spectator wouldn’t catch it. I showed a non-mentalist the performance and she said “He’s very funny, he reminds me of Tommy Cooper”. If you don’t know who Tommy Cooper is, he was a comedian that did magic tricks as part of his act. My friend assumed Kenton was a comic replicating Tommy. To elaborate on sticking to one process, if the first selection made is a keeper then each selection from that point needs to adhere to that line of thinking. If the first selection is to discard the spectators choice then each selection needs to stay true to that. This should have been taught (it didn’t even seem to be a consideration to Kenton) as I mentioned a moment ago, if you overshoot don’t say anything. Simply pull that envelope out and throw it onto the discarded pile. This is consistent with the pre-existing process. After this move the remaining envelopes around and then wave your finger over each envelope and as you are getting towards your force envelope look at the spec “Say stop” so you know if you move slowly you are going to over shoot it again (this time purposefully) and you can eliminate another envelope. Leaving you with two. This is where you can change the reduction process and it wouldn’t seem strange. Then Kenton claims that the Fechter force is not a timing force. It is. If Kenton had of thought of it as a timing force then he might have been more accurate when applying it. Understanding the mechanics of what you do is the key to being able to aptly teach it. Kenton then applies the same principle to forcing a book and the re-adjustment is as bad as in the envelope force. But let me be clear, the philosophies expressed in-between are workable but the presentations don’t do the philosophies any justice. I can tell a well rehearsed timing force when I see one. Signs to look for (and what you can apply to your own timing forces) are - the performer should be relaxed and casual, almost nonchalant like the spectators choices don’t matter. But don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying don’t care about the spectator or their choices, I’m saying be casual and make it seem like their choices are really that “a choice”. The timing of the force should be casual, natural and when you are applying the necessary language to make the force work you need to apply “economy of words”. You’ll notice that Kenton always ends up in the later of the two piles and has to rush/ slow down when he’s cutting/ dealing just to ensure he gets close to hit - it’s not a consistent speed he’s applying and it looks messy in performance and I can pinpoint the exact reason why this is the case. Its because he doesn’t know what he’s saying (it’s not rehearsed) when he is cutting/ dealing - he bumbles and fluffs lines meaning that the spectator won’t say stop until a lot later as Kenton doesn’t finish speaking until later in the process. He says “Erm... you don’t... umm know what I’m doing Pablo... so ermmm (starts dealing) I ermmm, want you to say ummm stop whenever errm you want”. Speaking like this makes it incredibly hard to pace consistently. Instead, casually saying “Just say stop” will make the process work perfectly and you can’t fluff these three little words, giving you time to focus on pacing. A small amount of silence during these selection phases is essential, the power of silence shouldn’t be overlooked and when remembering back the spectator will always feel they made a totally fair selection because you weren’t muddying the process. It would have been more interesting to the viewer to discuss actual methods of choreography, pacing, economy of words and why the forces work. Not woo woo that has no actual bearing in performance and then saying things like “if a light is shining on a particular object on a table it makes it shiny, and shiny is more appealing” puts the cherry on the cake in me being able to take this totally seriously. I can tell you from a couple of decades of reading this type of material and performing it that it will have the exact opposite effect in the real world - people avoid the obvious and avoid the one that stands out as being different. I do however (in Kenton’s defence) have to be slightly fair in stating this is meant to be a casual discussion and it is a live recording of what looks to be a Skype discussion. Certain things can’t be hidden and it’s expected to have some blemishes that a polished project/ download wouldn’t have as they could be deleted. One other gripe/ concern that I have is that Kenton used little “whiteboard cards” to reveal the information on. Any mentalist worth their salt knows the problem with using a whiteboard to reveal any piece of information... “the glare”. The glare stops half of the audience from seeing the information written on the whiteboard meaning the revelation in part is weakened drastically. This happens a few times on this call and it makes it a struggle to see what’s written. One other presentation shared is the weird “hellstromism” piece Kenton calls “The 5 bill miracle”. It makes no sense the way it is presented. In short, Kenton has the spectator mix the bills up (so they don’t know where their initialled bill is) then he picks up a coin or keys and has the spectator take hold of his wrist as they move his hand over all of the bills (one by one) and Kenton drops the keys and says “oops, that was quick” almost like he didn’t expect the keys to drop (even though he was the one holding them and the one that dropped them!) Kenton tries to in a weird twist of logic give credit to the spectator for him locating the bill. This could (possibly) have made more sense if the spectator knew where they had placed the bill (instead of losing track themselves) and Kenton aims to find it - making the whole muscle reading approach logical yet if I’m honest is still a forced routine. In short, It seems ill thought out. Another thing I couldn’t quite get my head around, as Kenton is the one who drops the object, acting shocked also makes no sense logically. It feels (from the perspective of narrative) messy. Whilst bold. If you wanted to fix the narrative issues, you (the performer) could mix the bills, give the spectator the coin/ keys and then apply a “timing force” asking the spec to drop the object when they feel like dropping it, they would likely drop it on the force object (if you’re controlled in your timing) and now you’re set to go. If not then use equivoque as your out. At least this is staying true to logic and logic leads to believability. The idea for knowing the bill (the secret Mark) is interesting - but when Kenton boldly claimed that the people who print the bills don’t even know that the mark exists it was a bit hard for me to swallow. In-fact it was so hard for me to swallow I did some research and found this site. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dolla......eans/amp This site tells you each number/ mark on a bill and those marks are called “Plate series numbers”. How can the people who print the bills not know about the numbers when before printing each set of bills the people that print the bills add those numbers themselves (personally) depending on the plates that they are using to print that particular run? The koncept to me is as konfusing as Kenton’s “tainted koffee koncept” mentioned earlier. There are other applications shared on this download and for someone new to equivoque this download is a good resource to pick and choose things from. There is however a lot of chaff to get through before being able to harvest the wheat. I fear that the novice mentalist will struggle knowing the difference and be trapped into a bad lineage of thinking. Pablo sat through most of the download looking sheepish, except for when he was laughing and reacting on cue and adding one sentence here and there. He didn’t add really anything of real value to the download. In hindsight of reading my review it might sound like I’m being negative for the sake of being negative. That’s not the case, sometimes it’s difficult to say positive things when the negatives far outweigh the positive. It’s disappointing as it seems to be the case more and more these days. Kenton’s biggest mistake was ever appearing live on tape. I’ve been a fan of his writing for years, once you can get past the woo woo and wade through the over hyped, ambiguous and spiritual stuff there’s actually some really great thinking in his written material - you just have to go on an “Easter egg hunt” to find it. Will you learn something from this? Yes Is it a masterclass? No But it does do what it says - it’s a resource to learn the basics of equivoque from in light conversation. Is it worth the price of entry? Not for me personally, there are far better resources ranging from Mark Elsdon to Docc Hilford’s work on the subject. David. |
|||||||||
magicmind Inner circle My fence has 20, 3218 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 10, 2019, Consultthemind1 wrote: I have a few things from kenton. I saw this and wondered if it was just wonder words with some other things thrown in. Your honest review was one of the best I have read on the Café in a long time. Thank you for taking time and money to review. Based on that, it is as I thought.....I'll pass. |
|||||||||
Amirá Inner circle MentalismCenter.com 5131 Posts |
Consultthemind1, thanks for the feedback!
I disagree in a lot of points that you made, but that is part of the fun and the compromises in offering different approaches and ideas. Trying to get Kenton with a normal lens is missing the point. He is not better or worse than others, but different, and I highly appreciate that in mainstream that forces you to one linear, boring and lazy way of thinking. If you don't want to see the value in this Masterclass, I completely understand. BTW, thanks for that "sheeping" ! I never received that, so is the first time
Pablo
Performer and Author Mentalism Center: The best online space to get quality Mentalism www.mentalismcenter.com Arkanosophy: The Boutique for Mystery Performers www.arkanosophy.com |
|||||||||
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 10, 2019, Amirá wrote: I’m lost... I don’t quite get what you mean by this - If I don’t want to see the value shared in the masterclass you understand? Pablo, did you miss the part in my review where I claimed this is the sort of answer you would come back with? It’s ambiguous and doesn’t elaborate on anything constructively, in-fact your response does nothing but prove that your way of thinking is flawed. I offered constructive criticisms and what I believe to be advancements on the things that you had shared in the masterclass. I welcomed you to elaborate on one area of the download I didn’t understand and I’m sure many others will not understand either and it is the perfect opportunity to share with us your knowledge on the subject. All I’m asking is for you in a none evasive, none ambiguous fashion to answer the question as a representative of Kenton and his thinking/ teachings that we might have missed. In regards to me seeing Kenton as a bad performer, I’ve never seen him live and never met him in person - so I can’t make that call. I critiqued the performances that I saw via the format I saw them on and gave constructive advice on how others can avoid falling into similar pitfalls that he made in those videos. I agree with you that we all look at “this” in a unique fashion and that is the true beauty of Mentalism. However, when YOU and KENTON are selling your viewpoint and purchasers ask questions I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that no one who asks ever gets a straight answer. The most common response that I see from you, Kenton and students of Kenton is “You’ve bought it, but if you critique it, it’s because you don’t get it”. It’s like you can’t ever admit that the machine (the system) is the fault or accept that sometimes your thinking and Kenton’s is flawed. Instead you say it must be that everyone else is flawed. That doesn’t work as an ideology. From time to time you have to reflect, learn and grow and to do that you also have to pick apart and re-discover your own findings and philosophies and realise that you may be the ones that are wrong and learn and grow from that realisation. I learn everyday, I’m wrong everyday and I refine myself daily. When are you going to grow? I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason you never answer is that under scrutiny the philosophies you share don’t actually hold water. Shed some light on this. David. |
|||||||||
David Numen Inner circle 2072 Posts |
Just gonna chip in. I haven't seen this product, nor do I want to. Back in the day I was a massive fan of Kenton - his Wonder Words is required study for mentalists. I carried on buying his releases but there was a turning point where once too often we were being promised the "real work" and I'd seen too many threads where this attitude of critics being met with "you just don't get it" as we are seeing here. I've also seen woeful performance after woeful performance by Kenton on video which I'd forgive if he wasn't so dashed preachy.
|
|||||||||
dyoung Special user 898 Posts |
I have to agree with the Davids here... I have not yet seen this product. But Im curious what "tainted coffee" is... sounds like some new hipster trend.
And then Pablo comes on with his wishy washy deflective nonsense that doesn't clarify a thing, but further obfuscates the matter. And as a true Kenton student basically calling the person critiquing it, just short of, stupid Classic Kentonism All the best, Dan |
|||||||||
The Unmasked Magician Inner circle If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than 2644 Posts |
All I can say is: another great review. And the answer by Pablo ...
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
|
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
"If you don't want to see the value in this Masterclass, I completely understand"
Is an amazing BS response. It's still a masterclass apparently, but he's refusing to 'see it'... I'm not sure if this release is just deeply flawed or just churned out to swipe some cash because there's a name attached...
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
The Unmasked Magician Inner circle If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than 2644 Posts |
Or both... (unless you were offering me two choices for some sort of masterclass on equivoque, in which case I apologize for not playing along.)
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
|
|||||||||
The Unmasked Magician Inner circle If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than 2644 Posts |
“Imagine a line of 10 people and you wanted to force the third person, you get to the fifth person (already over shooting the force) and then saying to the spectator “say stop” and the spectator stops you on the eighth person in the line and you then swing your entire body backwards and point to the third person and then say “So you stopped here”. “
Perfectly clear and very funny.
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
|
|||||||||
Stunninger Inner circle 2819 Posts |
Consultthemind1, you write amazingly good reviews. I thank you for that.
Will definitely be passing on this item. |
|||||||||
Calvin826 Special user 536 Posts |
Bought a few of Kenton's pamphlets back in the day based on the remarkable claims in the ads and it was pretty much all half-baked junk (as I recall one 'effect' suggested wiggling a 'pen thru anything' clipped onto a post-it to simulate spirit writing).
Mark Elsdon's Penguin lecture has great material on the subject, and of course there's Max Maven's dvds. Did very much enjoy the review, though! |
|||||||||
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 12945 Posts |
And doccs as well is the one I use most.
|
|||||||||
Fenomeno New user 47 Posts |
Here's an excerpt from the "Quote of the Week" section at Mentalismcenter.com:
"People deserves from you mystery, don't conform with less" Besides being grammatically incorrect (no surprise there), I think it's a partial explanation as to why his responses are usually vague & incoherent. Where then would the mystery be? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like for Pablo to elaborate just a bit more on why he feels "you don't WANT(!?) to see the value in the Masterclass". It's pretty clear- the value is $39.97. Pablo, is this the "value" you're alluding to? Consultthemind1, thank you for such an honest and coherent review! By far the best I've read in while! |
|||||||||
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts |
Great review, David. Keep up the good work.
But I feel a little sorry for Pablo. He's far from alone in churning out useless garbage to keep his business going, but he always seems to get it more directly in the neck. "Creators" (I use the term loosely) really need to stop spewing out ebook after ebook and video after video of half-baked, unrehearsed, untested brainfarts. It's an insult to the art of mentalism. And $40 for some rambling webchat? 'Theatre of the Mind' cost me about $40. A beautifully bound and designed hardback book containing decades of road-tested material cost the same as this nonsense. Who's fooling who? |
|||||||||
The Unmasked Magician Inner circle If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than 2644 Posts |
He probably hacked Jimmy's list of verified envelope-lickers.
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Equivoque masterclass - Kenton/ Pablo (58 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 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 < |