This post has been edited due to the amazing responses and assistance I have received here... you guys are awesome! Cheers...
Last edited by a moderator:
Template errors
- Template public:font_awesome_setup: [E_USER_WARNING] Template public:font_awesome_setup is unknown (src/XF/Template/Templater.php:781)
- Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:101)
- Template public:page_style: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/page_style.php:155)
- Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:31)
- Template public:uix_config: [E_WARNING] A non-numeric value encountered (/srv/private/xenforo/internal_data/code_cache/templates/l1/s8/public/uix_config.php:32)
What Is Considered Copying...
- Thread starter AshleyHall
- Start date
Is Copperfield copying Kevin James could be a question I guess then?
Since the floating rose is a published effect, and at lectures Kevin specifically talks about the style of music used to present the effect best - I see it as 'Copying' but I dont see that word used in a negative sense.
Can you really imagine the Floating Rose being used by most performers to heavier or rock style? (Though, it could actually work for some.)
If its the exact same music, and styled the exact same way then yes it is 'copying' but that is why we have a difference in unique, and generic performers. It is up for you to become unique and new
.
Since the floating rose is a published effect, and at lectures Kevin specifically talks about the style of music used to present the effect best - I see it as 'Copying' but I dont see that word used in a negative sense.
Can you really imagine the Floating Rose being used by most performers to heavier or rock style? (Though, it could actually work for some.)
If its the exact same music, and styled the exact same way then yes it is 'copying' but that is why we have a difference in unique, and generic performers. It is up for you to become unique and new
.
Technically it can't really be stated as copying. If the effect is out there in the world and has been published, for all we know the other people performing to the same music might have never seen the Copperfield video and just put the two together themselves.
If the effect published and readily available then I think it's fair game.
However, if they try to be David Copperfield in their presentation of the effect, then I would class that as copying as that is not them being their character, its them attempting to be Copperfield.
Simon_Magic
If the effect published and readily available then I think it's fair game.
However, if they try to be David Copperfield in their presentation of the effect, then I would class that as copying as that is not them being their character, its them attempting to be Copperfield.
Simon_Magic
Copperfield bought the trick from its creator Kevin James. It is unethical to perform any magic from someone else without purchasing their effect or receiving their permission to perform it. If you were to perform a play without paying royalties to the company who produced it you can get into trouble. Just like downloading music illegally it doesn't give you the right to have it because you can get it. I would argue that even if you know how a trick works it does not give you the right to perform it.
As far as the shadow box goes, chances are you wont get anywhere copying someone else. You must be an individual, a couple weeks ago on Theory11's "Expose" they interviewed Chris Kenner. He said that if he was to go back in time and start all over that he would stick to doing his own stuff.
You cannot be an artist if all you are going to do is plagiarize, copy, impersonate or regurgitate others work.
As far as the shadow box goes, chances are you wont get anywhere copying someone else. You must be an individual, a couple weeks ago on Theory11's "Expose" they interviewed Chris Kenner. He said that if he was to go back in time and start all over that he would stick to doing his own stuff.
You cannot be an artist if all you are going to do is plagiarize, copy, impersonate or regurgitate others work.
Well, to paraphrase some of the great teaching of Shaoling kung-fu: one must learn from a master, copy it and when the master feel you are worthy, should forget what you have learned and search a way for yourself. What I interpret is you need to copy something to learn it. But, when you have the fondation, you should find a way to make it personnal. At least, that's what I think work the best: learn the foundation from someone who is good at what you want to do and when you have it, make it your own!
Mimicking another performer is the result of personal laziness and lack of creativity. That said, I know that many of us get stuck in a chameleon mode when we see someone execute a certain effect in a certain way that we deem to be "perfect".
If you see an effect that you like then it's fine to study a few dozen different people presenting it whilst taking notes and weighing the good points and bad points in each scenario. This allows you to see what you don't want to do with the effect as well as what you want to avoid so as to stand out as someone that's creative and "different". Too, you will see where the strengths & weaknesses are in that effect and how best to work with them in order to optimize the routine. When it comes to grand illusions the performer is faced with one huge problem; just the sight of certain effects telegraph what's about to happen so it is how you choreograph and present the effect that's most important. If you come off as a Copperfield or Sigfried & Roy clone you will never see the big money or high billing; you're a filler act for clients that want Copperfield but can't afford him.
The "Master" as Goldmos infers above, is within you but it's your choice whether to do the work that is required for creating your own handling & presentation of an effect or simply mirror another. Sadly, many in this trade suffer from denial, not realizing how much they copy the style and even the patter, of this and that favored performer. I've even caught myself doing Bob Cassidy material exactly as Bob performs it. . . word for word. It goes back to our mirroring what we believe to be "perfect" and not accepting the fact that we're not as "original" as we insist we are.
Ashley mentions the Shadow Box in his post. . . are you aware that NO ONE presents it or even employs the same method that Bamberg used?
I got to play with the original cabinet on a couple of occasions and find it a fascinating thing because it is so clean . . . it started off fully open; front, sides & back with the top flipped up and back. It could be turned a full 360 and shown to be completely empty, then quite methodically closed; every step deliberate.
No, there was no base load or other "common" method involved but it was truly a gem; I'm rather surprised on one has attempted to revive it simply because of the novelty of the method and how much more impossible it is compared to those we see used in today's market.
If you see an effect that you like then it's fine to study a few dozen different people presenting it whilst taking notes and weighing the good points and bad points in each scenario. This allows you to see what you don't want to do with the effect as well as what you want to avoid so as to stand out as someone that's creative and "different". Too, you will see where the strengths & weaknesses are in that effect and how best to work with them in order to optimize the routine. When it comes to grand illusions the performer is faced with one huge problem; just the sight of certain effects telegraph what's about to happen so it is how you choreograph and present the effect that's most important. If you come off as a Copperfield or Sigfried & Roy clone you will never see the big money or high billing; you're a filler act for clients that want Copperfield but can't afford him.
The "Master" as Goldmos infers above, is within you but it's your choice whether to do the work that is required for creating your own handling & presentation of an effect or simply mirror another. Sadly, many in this trade suffer from denial, not realizing how much they copy the style and even the patter, of this and that favored performer. I've even caught myself doing Bob Cassidy material exactly as Bob performs it. . . word for word. It goes back to our mirroring what we believe to be "perfect" and not accepting the fact that we're not as "original" as we insist we are.
Ashley mentions the Shadow Box in his post. . . are you aware that NO ONE presents it or even employs the same method that Bamberg used?
I got to play with the original cabinet on a couple of occasions and find it a fascinating thing because it is so clean . . . it started off fully open; front, sides & back with the top flipped up and back. It could be turned a full 360 and shown to be completely empty, then quite methodically closed; every step deliberate.
No, there was no base load or other "common" method involved but it was truly a gem; I'm rather surprised on one has attempted to revive it simply because of the novelty of the method and how much more impossible it is compared to those we see used in today's market.