http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/S14883

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQjpSi2vMlY

I understand the idea of taking an idea, expanding on it, and it becomes something new, but Trace seems a little to much like Burn for my comfort. What do you guys think?

i suppose they are more marketing a actual gimmick that will allow for a easy way to create burn marks.

Even daniel madison was not the first to dable with this idea though,.

Well I realize there is some debate on both sides of this. But let me just say that I "improved Daniel Madison's "Slain" Gimmick by modifying a metal deck shell. Oddly enough, I never marketed it and when I perform it I consider it a Slain gimmick.To be blunt, if I marketed every improvement I have made to other peoples work I would have more effects on the market than Will Tsai. There was an old rule of thumb I heard some place that if you make three or more modifications or improvements to an effect than it is safe to call it something new. I rarely meet that criteria when I am creating so most of my creations stay to myself. I'm not sure (Though I could be wrong) that this one meets that test?

Hmmm.. Well i guess there is not enough new here to call it original.

However it is a VERY simple plot and idea and perhaps could be considered open source? I'm 100% that other people have played with burnt card silhouettes well before Daniel Madison. I know i have played with burnt celebrity and other silhouettes as a alternative to my stage handling of phantom artist which I've now been doing for years and of course dates back before anneman.

ie if i have a improvement on the DL, i could possibly market it even though it is still a DL. Or if i had a new creative use for a TT.

Could look at it like this. You cannot change 3 things about this kind of trick. ie its a force then revelation style trick. Therefore you can only either change the force or the revelation or both. Therefore you can only possibly change a maximum of 2 things about the trick.

So i dunno. Not really defending Will Tsai or anything, just my thoughts. Its certainly worth the debate.

Good points Derrek. And I shouldn't pass judgement too soon until someone buys the effect and can really compare it. That said...it really looks like the only improvement here is a more durable gimmick. The method appears the same and so does the presentation(Tsai has added a few new presentations such as the cup and can revelation but those who have burn have probably figured that out on their own in the last four years.)

Think about it in terms of Jeff Prace's Orbit. If someone were to come along and release an effect that had the same presentation, and even used the same method, and the only difference was this person figured out how to make a more durable gimmick for the effect I think the Penguin locals would be pretty defensive of Jeff's work. That makes sense because we all like Jeff. He is a nice creative guy and he is kind of a Penguin Town local done well. I just like to think we would extend the same courtesy to magicians outside our particular clique.

I could be wrong, looks could be deceiving in a promotional add, so I'll wait for those who buy this to pass judgement. It could be a completely new method for achieving a similar effect and if that is the case then mea culpa. But if it is essentially the same thing, only a more "durable" gimmick....well you know my opinion on that.

As far as I, and (I confidently expect) many others, are concerned, there's been nothing original in magic for decades. As of now, I would be more concerned with whether the production is "an advancement of the art". Since I know how both effects differ, I would have to say that it's not really an advancement because you could very easily make your own gimmick out of durable material. You might even be able to make a equally durable gimmick with what you have at your house.

I hate to bump this thread, but I just got around to being able to do some research on these two products.

I'm conflicted. I've done Daniel Madison's Burn for a few years now in my outdoor walkaround sets. When Daniel Madison released his effect, I never once heard anyone say "You know, this looks like that old thing everyone has played around with..." And while I'm quite sure other people have played with burn marks before, I'm not sure anyone has taken the time to make a solid, single product with over a dozen commercial routines about it. Daniel heavily improved upon the concept with original moves and routines.

Will Tsai has not done this. He created a very durable gimmick (which, as much as I perform Burn, I'd love to have) but he hasn't created anything new. If anything, I'd say the majority of the effects in Burn (particularly the one with the court cards face) are significantly more original in both method and more powerful in effect than those on this Trace DVD.

I think the real problem here is not openly crediting Daniel Madison in the production of this DVD. To use Erik's example, if I released a durable gimmick for Jeff Prace's Orbit, I'd not only get permission first but I'd also market it as an "add-on for Orbit"... Because making it more usable in the real world doesn't make it my effect.

If I were Will, I would have made it more clear that this was originally Daniel Madison's effect. The only reason that I feel Harlan came out with that statement is that they learned about Burn after the release and had to find a way to justify it (i.e. other people have done it before, so it's cool).

I still say the effect and plot are too simple to be claimed by Daniel Madison. He can and should be credited for the handling and ideas, but not for the revelation itself.

Like if i do a riffle force with card and then proceed to read someone's mind. I'm sure this has been done by just about every magician and i don't think its ever been published or credited anywhere.

Same if i just DL a wrong card, and place the "wrong" card on the spectator's hand doing a DL and the the card changes into the spectator's card in "their hands". This is a idea that I'm sure many many magicians have done and i do not know if this was ever published and credited to anyone because its such a simple idea.

Not to discredit anyone, i like Burn and Trace looks good. But Daniel only released his trick on PDF (to my knowledge), and hardly anyone had it. Though I'm sure it had some great ideas with it.

While crediting is importing. Its so hard to draw the line to where crediting stops. I could keep crediting until i credit the first magician to use playing cards in a magic trick, the credit the inventors of playing cards themselves.

We can also comment on Daniel Madison's newest effect the Avocate and whether or not that is really something original or not.


Damm.... i sound like i'm bashing Daniel Madison but i dont mean to. I just think the intellectual property argument needs to be explored more.

It is always a bit tricky with intellectual rights. Easier to protect an effect than a method. You should all read "Hiding The Elephant." We think things are cutthroat today? Nothing like in the golden age.

The Advocate is one of the most straightforward designs for a "you know what" ever devised. I have explored many designs for such a device dating back to Annemann. I have never seen anyone simplify, and thus make more practical, the design as much as Madison. When you see the design you will think someone MUST have thought of that before...and yet every design I have come across prior to that was much more complex and bulky than the Advocate. First off...the Advocate has been around for several years. The original book dates back five years at least.

My guess is it is original because people had just forgotten them and when they were in more common usage people performed in suite coats more often. Thus, the older, more complex, and bulkier designs were not as big an issue. As people started performing without coats pocket space became a bigger issue and I think people just forgot about them. So Daniel Madison's main contribution is streamlining the device and make it practical for people to use them with limited pocket space.

So true.

What would be good to see is people releasing their improvements (even it's just one method) with credits to the originator as per this example; FreaKey by Gregory Wilson with the EZrhythm subtlety.

...And no I haven't actually come up with anything. How do you improve on Greg's material?

Also if its just an improvement over something thats been done, they should either sale it for a really low price or put it up for free

lmao XD um... you could make Greg appear at the end and let him perform it XD