This is the problem with magic today. No one wants to put in the work it make it their own.
But if they don't want to, that's their problem, not yours. So why complain? Less proffessional competetion for us who actually work to make our acts unique.
TheatreHead - you seem to be under the impression that you are disagreeing with me, but this is not true. I completely agree that people not wanting come up with their own presentation is a major problem in magic, but if you just step back and look at the bigger picture then you'll see that it IS our problem. All of us. Anyone who is a magician stands to be affected by other practising magicians, because when you are in a restaurant and you introduce yourself as a magician, there will be those who become immediately disinterested because of the impact others of our trade have made on them.
No, he damn well shouldn't. Why would any artist show how the present their material? Do you think they want to spawn clones of their own presentation style? That's not advancing the art. That's reducing the art to copycatting.
Why should the artist show how they present their material? Because presumably the way that they perform it is, to their mind, the best way of presenting it to make it the most entertaining; and the more entertaining a trick can be made to seem, the more sales they are likely to make. Also it would seem to make a sort of intuitive sense that if one knows a trick and is planning on teaching it, then you would show it in the way that you use it rather than making something up that is less good than the real thing to advertise. That, my friends, would be counter-productive!
Isn't the skeleton of an effect enough? Why do we need presentation? Are we really that incapable?
This is how magic has been, up until ~10 years ago. Read some damn books. They have the skeleton of the effect, and maybe some suggested patter. That's it. Nothing on presentation, because that's the performer's duty.
Sorry to hijack this thread, but people who take patter and presentation word for word, and don't change it, shape it, rethink it, and rework it to fit them, don't deserve to be performing. They're just a sham. An impressionist. Not an artist, and not a magician.
OK I'm almost done. When you read a book, they typically describe the effect and then go on to explain the method. In a book, would you expect to find a description that played the effect right down to a sh!tty trick, or would you expect to see it being explained as something more? Obviously the description is there to make it seem really awesome and if spello-change in the video is as awesome as Feinberg can make it then he is doing neither himself, the art, or yourself any favours. As you said - it is the performer's duty. Something you all seem to overlook is that allowing the bad magicians to remain bad does not reduce competition and make us seem better by comparison - it simply means that we will have diabolical magicians, calling themselves magicians and trying to get gigs making us ALL look bad.
I'll say it again - I am not saying these things in order to stir up anger, but instead to try to make just a few of you realise what an effect you are having on others and what an effect they are having on you.
There IS no performance in the Spello instructional video. There is a demonstration. In fact, Jesse presents multiple ways of presenting this in the video - not just one. The possibilities are endless. In it's simplest form, Spello is just a revelation. A damn good revelation, but just a revelation. Be creative - think outside the box.
...I love the trick and see it as a great tool to allow you to find your own presentation for it.
Best
dw
Spello-change has the potential to be a "damn good revelation" but, as stated before, if you simply use it in a trick like the one that Feinberg uses it is still rubbish. I like what you said, Dan, about it being a tool to allow people to find their own presentation for it, but what I am saying is that there will be a catastrophic proportion who don't come up with their own presentation, use the one in the video and thereby reflect badly on us all.
Well then, will you agree that the 1-on-1 was an acceptable instructional video, despite the fact it doesn't teach presentation?
I think we are all agreeing with one another in many ways, but I still don't think I would agree with this. Or at least, not if you mean what I think you mean. I would not say that the 1-on-1 was an acceptable
demonstration
video, but as for the instructional video - I am not planning on buying it. If, in the instructional video, it is emphasized that magicians should come up with their own presentation and not use the one in the video then perhaps I can see it as acceptable, but I don't honestly think that is very likely.
Naturally I only speak for myself and Randomwrath may disagree. I say this only because it seemed like the question was directed in his general direction...