After reading through many manuscripts, I've eventually found some sort of mistake. While this seems to be more common in pamphlets and packet trick instructions, I've seen it in books as well. Commonly, the mistakes are in card routines, or some routine where there are many steps. It's never usually a huge issue, I just have to puzzle it out, and I make notes and corrections.

However, the last time I did this, it occurred to me that it's possible such mistakes are put there intentionally, as a way to reward only the more diligent readers. I've also played jazz music in the past (bass), and remembered that the Real Book (an illegal, but vital book of covers used by jazz musicians everywhere) did exactly this. Wrong chord changes and melody notes were thrown in throught the Real Book in an attempt to force new readers to either listen to the original recordings, or to get the advice of an old jazz cat to show them the correct notes.

Obviously, a much simpler explanation (especially for packet tricks and pamphlets) is that it was edited sloppily. But has anyone ever heard of intentionally putting in errors for this reason?

Andy

Never heard of it. I think it may be your imagination as I cannot see why that would benefit anyone.
Give an example of the packet effects you are talking about.
Rennie

The Real Book, as well as a number of other similar books, was put out by Hal Leonard Publications, who actually was a licensing agency for the material in the book. "Fake" books of this kind have been around since the early 1920's. They exist, not so much for jazz musicians, but for people who have various kinds of musical gigs, solo and/or ensemble work, so people who are familiar with the styles of the music concerned can play the numbers people request. The remuneration for the writers comes from performance royalties which are paid by the venues that these pieces are played in, such as night clubs, restaurants that have live music, etc.

Mistakes in these books often come from the sheet music, itself.

Mistakes in most magic manuscripts are exactly that...mistakes. They are not the result of some secret cabal that wants you to think for yourself.

I have read that there was a move mentioned in in "Expert at the Card Table" in which the description and the drawings did not match. The article I read speculated that this was done deliberately to make it more difficult or impossible to perform the sleight in question.

Even Da Vinci's armored tank, called the Turtle, if memory serves me right, had the image of the gears drawn in such a way that the wheels would not turn or the front & back wheels would go in opposite directions. One speculation for the bad drawing was that because it was a military device and the drawing would screw up anyone who might steal and then attempt to build a Turtle from the prints.

This thread just goes to show that there are conspiracy theorists everywhere and magic is no exception. The only surprising thing is that "Psychic Samurai" hasn't chimed in with one of his idiotic posts yet. Just give him time.

Dick, this is not a conspiracy theory. That would imply that a magical cabal had gotten together and decided to do this. Such a cabal is unnecessary. All it takes is one author to write a compendium with intentional mistakes. I would hardly consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but I just thought intentional mistakes could be a possibility, especially given my experience with the Real Book.

Bill, the "Real Book" was (and still is) an underground, illegal book. The New Real Book was published by Sher in 1988 (I own 2 volumes, both which have the word LEGAL placed on it), and Hal Leonard has only recently published its own "sixth edition" of the illegal Real Book (which looks almost identical), in an effort to stamp out the illegal copies (which I approve of). I own a 5th edition copy of the illegal Real Book, received in the 1990's from a music teacher who bought it from a shady guy in Boston, near the Berklee School of Music. This Real Book is specifically made for Jazz musicians.

Now perhaps my teacher was merely repeating an urban myth about the reason for the mistakes (he helped me correct some of the mistakes in the book). However, I do find it interesting that for a book which was created in the 1970's, and that was published in multiple editions since then, that NO effort has been made to correct errors. Different editions have some songs added, possibly some removed, but if any jazz musicians knew the actual author of the illegal version, I am sure they would hassle them about the mistakes. Jazz musicians are anal retentive that way, much like magicians . Given that my old music teacher teaches at Berklee (and has for years), and Berklee appears to be where the book originated, there's a better chance that his take on the reason for the mistakes is accurate (obviously not 100%).

I'm not suggesting that all mistakes in magic books and pamphlets are specifically designed to reward the diligent. On the contrary, I'm sure that a large majority of them are simply sloppy editing, as I stated earlier. But I was inquiring as to whether this may be the case in some limited instances, as suggested by my experience with the illegal Real Book.

My most recent experience with a mistake was with the Stand-Up Monte packet trick from Garrett Thomas/Danny Archer. This is a great routine, by the way, plays more like magic than a gambling ruse. Anyway, the trick requires an simple extra step for the instant reset when you're done.

Clynim, the Expert at the Card Table rumor sounds interesting. I wish there was a way to verifty it. Perhaps I'll hold a seance and quiz Erdnase person-to-spirit .

Andy

Acuster,

I thought it would be apparent, especially in light of my comment re: "Psychic Samurai, the my post was made with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Sorry, if I was too subtle. I tend to believe that, as Bill said, most mistakes are just that -- nothing more nor less.

Acuster:

I think you should know where I am coming from on this. I grew up in the music business. I played my first paying gig when I was six years old. I've been in the business, one way or another for about 60 years. Most of my income now, since I have retired from performing, is from music royalties.

The "Real" book was preceded a series of "fake" books. In fact, that's what everyone called them back then, because the musician used the changes and lead lines to fake his parts.

In 1981, Hal Leonard put out "The Ultimate Fake Book, Volume 1," which was followed in 1985 by "The Ultimate Fake Book, Volume 2." Warner Brothers followed in 1985 with their "Greatest Legal Fake Book of All Time." The advantage of these were that they were legal and the copies were made directly from the sheet music. However, that didn't mean that the notation or the changes were what was actually played on the original recordings. Just ask Billy Joel about the chord in Piano Man that nobody seems to have figured out from the record.

Also, there are not only the composer's original changes, but there are also "traditional" changes, as well as modified changes that vary from locale to locale.

There were other similar legal books published even earlier, of course, but most of them consisted of public domain material. Hal Leonard's books were a great idea for legal publication, because Leonard was the largest of the licensing agencies for sheet music at the time.

If you wanted to buy the old "Fake" books, the place to go was the places that sold pianos. The owners usually sold these at greatly inflated prices to the rich folks that bought the more expensive pianos and organs. Also, some of the union halls would have them for sale, if you knew which one of the people in the office to ask for them. Now, they are available on CD-ROM.

The "Real" book probably did originate around Berklee. The use of the name "Real" book, as opposed to "Fake" book is an indication of the disdain and condescension that jazz musicians hold for people whom they think are not aware.

I'm sure the content of the Real book is somewhat different from the content of the old Fake books that I used to have.

I might also add that the existence of the various Real and Fake books was never much of a secret among musicians or among the publishing houses. The publishing houses never pushed the issue with the piano/organ stores that sold these books to musicians, because these same stores also sold huge quantities of sheet music and method books to their customers. Even now, major publishing companies seldom file any copyright infringement suits themselves, because they don't want the public or the music stores to think that they are among those "evil" people who sue grannie ladies and little girls for downloading huge numbers of songs on their computers. Instead, they let the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the other groups who handle the various kinds of infringements, either by performance, publication or digital theft, do their dirty work for them.

They also don't jump on the unions, because of the performance royalties, which are still paid, whether the players are using Fake books, Real books or legal sheet music.

Alright, I'm coming off as a humorless know-it-all. This is not my intent.

The only point I was trying to make is that I had understood that mistakes were left in the Real Book on purpose. Many of the songs in the Real Book were transcribed from jazz recordings and NOT copied from sheet music. This means that mistakes from legal fake books were not propagated from direct copying, but originate from the original transcriber. No more editions of the Real Book were produced after the 5th edition, and many mistakes were left intact. Again, this makes the story more plausible. On the other hand, there are simpler explanations: the makers got sick of fixing mistakes, they got bored or tired, they were afraid of getting sued by publishers/labels/artists.

I just thought that intentional mistakes were plausible in magic. Magicians are also wedded to tradition and history, much like jazz musicians, regardless of whether it's a good idea. The half pass as a standard of learning and accomplishment is one example (no, I can't do one ). I can easily see a magician getting an odd idea like intentional mistakes into their head and acting on it.

I swear, in the future I'll ask more concrete, fact-based questions, like "where do I get book X?" .

Andy

Andy:

I apologize for taking this so far off-course. I started going through some of my MAGIC books, and realized that there have been some intentional mistakes of note in several of them, particularly when the writer had been asked to tip the goods on some of his key pieces.

For example, Al Koran's Professional Presentations had a completely inaccurate explanation for the Medallion. After he died, Al Koran's Legacy was published, with a more nearly correct explanation.

The Dai Vernon Book of Magic has a horrible description of the Ball, Cone and Handkerchief. Ganson did not think Vernon's explanation of how to grip the ball would have been understandable to the readers, so he used a long-winded, inaccurate description which was considerably more difficult to understand than "You t***b p**m the ball."

There are items in the big David Berglas book that I am reasonably certain are not explained entirely correctly.

And then there is the big Dunninger's Encyclopedia of Magic which contains the most outlandish explanations for various pieces, just to throw people off the scent.

But I don't know of anyone doing that with a packet trick.

Yeah, I figure packet tricks are probably just simple mistakes...I'm assuming they often go out the door with less oversight than a printed book. The books are interesting though.

I've heard that T. Nelson Downs has descriptions of coin feats (I can't recall which book specifically) that sound ridiculous and may have been added to increase his prestige. I'll have to re-research where I read that assertion. Although I have to say, I've seen videos of folks actually doing coin sleights/flourishes where I think "I cannot BELIEVE someone is able to do that!"

Thanks for the info!

Andy

This is true. In fact, there was a coin man somewhere in Ohio -- I'm sure someone will add the name here -- who learned how to palm 40 half dollars and do all of those really cool flourishes. He showed them to Downs (so the story goes) who was amazed, because he couldn't do them himself.

The one that nobody actually believes, though, is the Down's Coin Star. Bobby
Bernard can actually do this with no gimmicks. He has taught several other people how to do this. I'm one of them, but I haven't kept it up.

In actual practice, for security's sake, Downs used the gimmick described in Bobo. But he could do the star with no gimmicks. There is a second method that does not involve the coin adhering to the thumb, which is the one that Marianne Cellini, Dick Hatch and Johnny Fox do.

That is terrifying. I thought Goshman was incredible because he can vanish 10 quarters in a row. But it's exciting at the same time! . And reminds me again of another jazz story about the blind pianist Art Tatum. People used to poke extra holes in player piano rolls to create chords that would sound great (but suppposedly unplayable). Of course, Tatum went ahead and figured out how to play that stuff anyway, because he had no idea about this ruse.

Gotta love human ingenuity . I'll stick with working on a 4 coin rollout and THEN work on the coin star (for the next 20 years, I'm sure).

Andy

Goshman is another example of someone deliberately leaving out an important part of a routine.

He does not mention a particularly important part of the saltshaker routine.

Is that the "Life and Times of Albert Goshman" book? I should pick that up. I own the out-of-print videotape (The Life and Times). That will be an interesting comparison to see if he filled in the gaps with the video. That was the very first magic video I ever owned, and has been a heavy, heavy influence for me with the way he handled coins and misdirected. Great stuff.

Andy

Yes. On the spine, it says Magic by Gosh, but the subtitle is "The Life and Times of Albert Goshman."

I have sent you a PM about this.

Bill

Great, thanks. I definitely need to add that to my Goshman collection.

Andy

Years ago I received some instrcutions with effects that was so poorly translated or written that I could not perform the effect. So, I played with what the results were suposed to be and found a way to achieve it. Now I have several Sleights that seem completely original, but may in fact ne what the seller intended. How to know?

That might be an interesting club contest. Show a video of an effect being performed and let everyone figure out a method.

I've been told that some of the technical materials in the Anverdi book are intentionally incorrect to prevent people from actually creating some of the electronics and (through rumor) Anverdi actually painted over or miscoded some of the resistors and things inside some of the electronic items he made. Don't know for sure, but have been told.

Steve

I heard from a very reliable source that Anverdi used to pull electronics out of radio control toys to make some of his items.

Posted: Jun 5, 2009 10:56am
I just recalled where I saw some apparently intentional modifications of working drawings. If you have the two paperback books about Germain that were written by Stuart Cramer, and you compare the drawing of the Germain lock with that in the book by Todd Carr, you will see that some important parts were left out of the new version.