Difference between revealing and teaching?

[BrianBrushwood]

Brian again the library analogy for Youtube is not a solid one. If you go to the library to do research on a local bakery, you do not have the librarian coming up with three different books on how to bake the cake that made the bakery famous.

On the contrary, that's exactly how you would define "an excellent librarian." One who listens to exactly what you're looking for, and uses their resources, contextual knowledge, and cross-referencing skills to find exactly what you want.

If YouTube can't be called a library, then that's only because it's something better... YouTube is whatever, superior thing a library has always been striving to become.

 

[Randy]

Youtube is also dealing with a ton of copy right issues, and other legal issues going on. It's find that you think they are great, the are after all paying you to post videos on there so you are obligated to kiss up to them.

 

[krab]

On the contrary, that's exactly how you would define "an excellent librarian." One who listens to exactly what you're looking for, and uses their resources, contextual knowledge, and cross-referencing skills to find exactly what you want.

If YouTube can't be called a library, then that's only because it's something better... YouTube is whatever, superior thing a library has always been striving to become.

But when I go to youtube I'm not looking how to do the effect, I just wanted to show someone in the office the cool thing I saw on TV. I just wanted to see it performed. In my example I didn't want to know who to bake the cake I just wanted the company history. Also in the example library the bakery was a one off project so they aren't going to keep trying to give me cook books.

As for why youtube isn't a library or what ever is better than a library is the fact i have never gone to a library only to find some books about the Cincinnati Reds blank because some arbitrary bot came in claiming copyright on everything with the words Reds and Cincinnati. even if the book had the rights to write about the team. The library does not have blank books on birds because a record company claimed that the bird singing in the background was copyrighted music. Also when you go to the library you do not have trolls grabbing a book yelling first or trying to tell me how fat my mother is or how I like to have relations with people of the same sex.

So no youtube is not a library or better than a library.

 

[Randy]

There was a point in time when youtube was actually a decent service, much Ebay. They both had their times when they were good and trusted. But over the years Youtube started going down hill fast and over the last year or so they've made it so that anybody can file a DMCA claim against you and it doesn't matter if it's a false claim or not.

Now, I don't know about you. But, if I go to the library and find a book blank because somebody decided to file a false DMCA claim on it because it had a word they tried to copyright. I'd say that is a pretty crappy library. Well that's what Youtube is right now.

 

[spoook]

I believe exposure is giving away a secret to a trick in a public venue, to someone who did not request the information or does not plan to preform the effect. If you are explaining a trick to someone other than a magician in private you are probably exposing.

Penn & Teller - EXPOSURE
While they have an entertaining show, they are still teaching secrets in public to mainly non-magicians, who have no intentions of preforming the trick.

Brad Christanson's Ninja Gambling Routine - EXPOSURE
A great performance piece, but you are still exposing the pass to people who never plan on doing it.

Open Travelers/ Invisible Palm - EXPOSURE
This was border line for me, but if you show palming then I would classify it as exposure.

VAL VALENTINO - BLATANT EXPOSURE
Just know if I was on the jury, you wouldn't be convicted .... all I am saying.

I think it's okay to teach other magicians for free in private, and not be classified as exposure. Most tricks are not new, and usually just a tweaked handling of an old effect. We all know magic has crediting issues, and most people are not doing anything new.

If you created an effect are you fear it being exposed, then don't market the effect. Plain and simple.


What do I do to combat exposure? Well I don't call effects by their real name. This prevents people from googling by tricks.
I like to look for effects in books, because well most people aren't exposing them on you tube.

 

[spoook]

Finally, It's not the "rules" of magic holding it back. It is the kids who run up to people on the street thinking they are street magicians. It is the flood of kids who only work in cards.

So exactly how many times did someone outside of a magic shop/convention run up to you with cards? I am guessing none.
If you do a reality check there are very few magician when compared to the population of the general public. Even fewer magicians preforming for people on the street. I have yet to see a pack of unruly teenage magicians assualting people with $12 playing cards.

Does it happen? Sure, but on a very small scale. People also ask me to take surveys, switch to T-mobile, ask me for spare change ...etc. I always have the option to say no.

If someone is willing to go out and preform for strangers, then obviously they are wanting to improve their material. It's not like you are going to practice for 10 years in your basement, then someone of the MGM Grands hears about a kids in his basement and comes knocking. Different stroke for different folks. If it's not for you, then don't do it, but lets not bash those who do.

My biggest gripe with the magic community is the number of pompous jackass magicians. Most will berate someone and call it constructive critisim. Well teaching is as much of an art as magic, and two of the biggest qualities in successful teachers are kindness and patience. People are really only going to be able to improve 1 or 2 items at a time. There is no need to laundry list 30 things a preformer did wrong. Lets also remember to tell that preformer what the did good specifically so they continue to repeat the good portions.

 

[strudles]

I believe exposure is giving away a secret to a trick in a public venue, to someone who did not request the information or does not plan to preform the effect. If you are explaining a trick to someone other than a magician in private you are probably exposing.

Penn & Teller - EXPOSURE
While they have an entertaining show, they are still teaching secrets in public to mainly non-magicians, who have no intentions of preforming the trick.

Brad Christanson's Ninja Gambling Routine - EXPOSURE
A great performance piece, but you are still exposing the pass to people who never plan on doing it.

Open Travelers/ Invisible Palm - EXPOSURE
This was border line for me, but if you show palming then I would classify it as exposure.

VAL VALENTINO - BLATANT EXPOSURE
Just know if I was on the jury, you wouldn't be convicted .... all I am saying.

I think it's okay to teach other magicians for free in private, and not be classified as exposure. Most tricks are not new, and usually just a tweaked handling of an old effect. We all know magic has crediting issues, and most people are not doing anything new.

If you created an effect are you fear it being exposed, then don't market the effect. Plain and simple.


What do I do to combat exposure? Well I don't call effects by their real name. This prevents people from googling by tricks.
I like to look for effects in books, because well most people aren't exposing them on you tube.

The thing is about the list effects/magicians that "expose" magic that you have given is that they only teach techniques that laymen wouldn't able to see even if they looked for it. For example, in a sandwich routine, nobody's going to look for a pass because, in their brains, it's not necessary to accomplish the effect. Also, keep in mind that there is a rub-a-dub vanish where you actually palm off a card as an excuse to "hold" the card before you vanish it. You could tell everybody in the world about palming, but they shouldn't find out that you do it because you ought to use proper misdirection and be very natural with it anyway. The only one I agree with is Penn and Teller. Although I love Penn and Teller, it is true that they tell you how an actual TRICK is done (which sort of facilitates exposure) such as cups and balls. I don't know if they expose it in their show, but I've seen them on TV (or at least TV that was then put on the internet) explaining cups and balls.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I believe exposure is giving away a secret to a trick in a public venue, to someone who did not request the information or does not plan to preform the effect. If you are explaining a trick to someone other than a magician in private you are probably exposing.

Penn & Teller - EXPOSURE
While they have an entertaining show, they are still teaching secrets in public to mainly non-magicians, who have no intentions of preforming the trick.

Brad Christanson's Ninja Gambling Routine - EXPOSURE
A great performance piece, but you are still exposing the pass to people who never plan on doing it.

Open Travelers/ Invisible Palm - EXPOSURE
This was border line for me, but if you show palming then I would classify it as exposure.

VAL VALENTINO - BLATANT EXPOSURE
Just know if I was on the jury, you wouldn't be convicted .... all I am saying.

I think it's okay to teach other magicians for free in private, and not be classified as exposure. Most tricks are not new, and usually just a tweaked handling of an old effect. We all know magic has crediting issues, and most people are not doing anything new.

If you created an effect are you fear it being exposed, then don't market the effect. Plain and simple.


What do I do to combat exposure? Well I don't call effects by their real name. This prevents people from googling by tricks.
I like to look for effects in books, because well most people aren't exposing them on you tube.

Penn & Teller are often 'exposing' things which they made up in the first place. And they're far more entertaining than the vast majority of performers out there. Yes, they blatantly expose the cups and balls - but I bet most people still can't follow it. They're too good, their material is too well rehearsed and quick paced. It's still amazing and half the time it still seems like stuff is just appearing.

Teaching someone a trick that is not yours is exposure. You can justify it all you want by saying "It's not new" "It's just a tweaked handling of an old effect" whatever. It's exposure. If you really believe that currently published tricks are just rehashes of old tricks, then send someone to the old resources. If they want to learn a specific handling which is currently on the market - pay the person who put it on the market. Teaching another person's material is exposure and trying to claim that all those performers who are 'exposing' are bad, then turning around and teaching someone else's material is Grade A Hypocrisy.

 

[krab]

So exactly how many times did someone outside of a magic shop/convention run up to you with cards? I am guessing none.

It happens about two or three times a months on average. More in the spring and summer here. There is also an uptick after a new magic special is on TV. Then again I live in the fourth largest city in the US.

My biggest gripe with the magic community is the number of pompous jackass magicians. Most will berate someone and call it constructive critisim. Well teaching is as much of an art as magic, and two of the biggest qualities in successful teachers are kindness and patience. People are really only going to be able to improve 1 or 2 items at a time. There is no need to laundry list 30 things a preformer did wrong. Lets also remember to tell that preformer what the did good specifically so they continue to repeat the good portions.

So lets say someone post a video with one thing done right and twenty thing done wrong. So we should only highlight one or two bad things and the one good thing they did. Then we get to their tenth video they post with the same twenty things wrong, how did we help them? We haven't helped at all. Lets look at other things. In sports we get told everything we do wrong. In theater groups and drama clubs the director will tell you everything you are doing wrong. In music you will be told everything you are doing wrong. Why? Because if you only tell them one or two things that they are doing wrong then they will think everything else they are doing is right. You give them the list. They start working on a few things at a time. They then can post a video or go back to their mentor or teacher and say this is what I have been working on. It lets them know that they have tons of work to do to get to there they need to be.

I know and knew many great magicians and magic teachers who will tear down someone's performance if it is true bad. If there is more than one or two things wrong. So it's just not us pompous "jackasses" here on T11. It is all over in all aspects of life.

 

[spoook]

My profession is a corporate trainer. Laundry listing what someone did wrong is frowned upon as a training technique. I am positive many famous magicans have done it, but that doesn't make it an effective training technique.

 

[krab]

My profession is a corporate trainer. Laundry listing what someone did wrong is frowned upon as a training technique. I am positive many famous magicans have done it, but that doesn't make it an effective training technique.

So it's not something you do? Because I have seen you do a laundry list before on this very forum to a kid.

Just because it is frowned upon in the corporate world doesn't mean it isn't effective. It has worked for many years. I know now younger people are brought up with the everyone is a winner and as long as you are trying it is okay attitude but that is wrong. Not everyone is a winner. Not everyone is doing a good job and people do not need to be babied. Many times people need to be the cold hard truth and that truth is nothing about your performance was good. You need to step back look at what we are telling you and fix it before you show a non-magician. It takes time to learn to do an effect and by time we mean more than the 30 minutes it took to watch that download. If you do not tell them everything that is wrong but only a couple then they will keep on doing the longer list of bad habits. Then by the time we get thought the list of fifteen or twenty things wrong, it is now six month later and they have learned all of these bad habits. No it is better to break it down up front.

 

[spoook]

Teaching someone a trick that is not yours is exposure. You can justify it all you want by saying "It's not new" "It's just a tweaked handling of an old effect" whatever. It's exposure. If you really believe that currently published tricks are just rehashes of old tricks, then send someone to the old resources. If they want to learn a specific handling which is currently on the market - pay the person who put it on the market. Teaching another person's material is exposure and trying to claim that all those performers who are 'exposing' are bad, then turning around and teaching someone else's material is Grade A Hypocrisy.

Let me be clear. I am not personally teaching anyone magic. This thread was our opinions about teaching vs exposure.

My point about most effects not being original is that fact that many of the original creators are deceased. How do I pay the creator of 3 card Monte Or ACR? I understand there are specific routines but most of those routines use the same basic moves. If someone is teaching a specific routine then they simply aren't teaching the student to be creative, and thus MAY or MAY NOT be a bad teacher. I would think a good teacher would ask the student what trick the student wants to learn. Maybe that teacher suggests the student find a new trick if its not a fit.

Which brings me to my next quandry. Why would it be okay to teach someone else's trick in your book or DVD for profit, but you can't teach for free? How does receiving money keep it from being exposure?

 

[spoook]

This all brings me back to my opinion that teaching to someone who is not in the circle/brotherhood/society is what I consider exposure. And teaching should not take place in public as secracy is a priority.

 

[strudles]

Which brings me to my next quandry. Why would it be okay to teach someone else's trick in your book or DVD for profit, but you can't teach for free? How does receiving money keep it from being exposure?

It's not the profit that keeps it being exposure, it's the fact that it is not FREE for the general public to watch. Have you ever been called out on an invisible deck before because some jerk exposed it onto the internet, revealing the secret to laymen who want to learn how to do the trick not to perform it, but to simply know how it's done? If you have, then you would know why this is such a big deal. It only takes one person to explain how a trick works to completely ruin the magic for everyone else, as well as damage your reputation.

 

[spoook]

Krab you must have me confused with someone else in 3yrs I have 49 posts. I am not critiquing anyone's performances.

 

[spoook]

In reply to your invisible deck concern. I specifically stated that I feel teaching anything to the public is exposure.

P.s. I don't preform the invisible deck.

 

[spoook]

This all brings me back to my opinion that teaching to someone who is not in the circle/brotherhood/society is what I consider exposure. And teaching should not take place in public as secracy is a priority.

..... I will quote myself in case anyone missed it.

......

 

[strudles]

In reply to your invisible deck concern. I specifically stated that I feel teaching anything to the public is exposure.

Did you want your questioned answered or not? You asked why it's considered exposure once it's free and easily accessible and I answered. It seems odd to contradict yourself.

 

[krab]

Krab you must have me confused with someone else in 3yrs I have 49 posts. I am not critiquing anyone's performances.

Lets look at the video tape...

Awful performance. You took a good trick and ruined it. Confusion and speed are generally two things you want to remove from a trick.


FYI .... David Blaine didn't invent "Two Card Monte".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnVfAai-MbM


Finally since nobody has mentioned it .... stop revealing.

Glass houses and all. We agree exposure is bad though.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Which brings me to my next quandry. Why would it be okay to teach someone else's trick in your book or DVD for profit, but you can't teach for free? How does receiving money keep it from being exposure?

I don't think it's ok to teach someone else's trick.

The difference between giving something away for free, and having someone pay though is one of dedication. There's little that people won't take for free but as soon as you put a price tag on it, it becomes something they have to think about. Because in our society money is directly related to time. For every thing we purchase, we have to decide if it's worth the amount of time it would take to acquire that much money. "Do I want to give up an hour and a half of my life so I can have this trick?" Or, "Do I want to give up 33 hours of my life to buy this book?" Etc

Being willing to pay money means you're dedicated enough to give up your time to be able to have it. Since we don't really have the guys behind the counters determining who's got the dedication and who doesn't .. this is the next best thing.