Mnemonica Any Card Called For Juan Tamariz' Mnemonica is the first stack to which I adapted the principle used in my own stack Juan tamariz mnemonica download pdf. As in my stack's version, you have 4 key cards. 5♠ and 9♣ have a « mini wave » at the centre of their inner edge. 8♦ has a corner crimp (downward) on its inner left corner (when the card is face down) Juan tamariz. Mnemonica: On The Memorized Deck Juan Tamariz on Amazon Mnemonica tamariz pdf.FREE. shipping on qualifying offers. A celebrity of television and stage in Spain and South America, JUAN TAMARIZ is known internationally among magicians as a true master of his art.
[ Register ] [ F.A.Q. ] [ Magic Café Donations ] |
|
Mnemonica by Juan Tamariz (PDF) $ 3.00. Mnemonica by Juan Tamariz (PDF) quantity. Category: Uncategorized. Description Description EBOOK 'Mnemonica is much more than an excellent, must-read magic book. It is the lifetime's work of one of the greatest masters of card magic and the memorized deck, with an inexhaustible amount. Learn Mnemonica stack and practise for mnemonica effects easily and free with this fancy trainer. There are lots of different learning modes for example quizzes and free training modes. Juan Tamariz - Sinfonia en Mnemonica Mayor - Vol. I y II September 7, 2017 Pengarang: Juan Pablo P Kategori: Playing Cards, Contract Bridge, Poker, Memory, Gaming Devices MUAT TURUN PDF.
Tamariz Mnemonica Stack
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 Hi, I've recently started giving thought to obtaining the book 'Mnemonica' by Juan Tamariz. It's not a cheap book, so I want to make sure it's really what I want before I purchase it. I basically have two questions about it: I know that it contains tricks based on Tamariz's own Mnemonica stack, as well as some that can be done with any arbitrary memorized stacks (which some would call stack-independent tricks). Since the stack I use is not Mnemonica (and for the moment I have no plans to switch stacks, although conceivably that could change), I'm more interested in the non-Mnemonica-dependent stack tricks. So my first question is: About what percentage of the tricks in the book are useful to me if I use my own (non-Mnemonica) stack? And I know that many of the tricks in the book employ sleight-of-hand (such as getting a new deck from New Deck Order to Tamariz's stack), using moves like Faro Shuffles and the like. I'm not good with Faro shuffles and some other types of sleight-of-hand (such as second-dealing and bottom-dealing). Which leads me to my second question: About what percentage of the tricks in the book are free of sleight-of-hand, or traditionally difficult moves? Ideally, I'm looking for the type of tricks outlined in Simon Aronson's excellent Introduction to Memorized Deck Magic, 'Memories Are Made of This' ( http://www.simonaronson.com/Memories%20A......This.pdf ), in that they're both stack-independent and relatively free of sleight-of-hand. Because I've read several times that Tamariz's 'Mnemonica' is like an encyclopedia of memdeck magic, the book holds a certain appeal to me. However, for its price I'm hoping there's a large selection of tricks that don't require me to learn the Mnemonica stack (that is, I can use my own stack instead) or master the Faro shuffle. Any insights would be welcome. Thanks! |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 I did some searching and I happened to find a good answer to my first question on the following thread: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......orum=205 In the thread's fifth post, Caliban states that Mnemonica consists of about 75% routines that can be performed with any memorized deck, while 25% of the material is specific to the Tamariz stack. Good to know. That still leaves my second question, which is: About what percentage of the tricks in the book are free of sleight-of-hand, or traditionally difficult moves? |
| landmark Inner circle within a triangle 4924 Posts | 0 Well I might get mobbed here, but I'm going to make an off-beat suggestion. And that is, don't get Mnemonica yet. Go for one of the Aronson books, especially Simply Simon or Bound to Please. Here's why: Tamariz's book is great but his trick description tends to be sketchy. They are more outlines than full presentations. Even though he takes you through how to memorize a deck, he assumes you can fill out his descriptions. Aronson on the other hand goes into amazing detail about every aspect of every trick he writes about. If you've read his Memories are Made of This you've got a good idea of how he can take an idea and expand on its possibilities. So I would go through the Aronson material first. Then when you get to Tamariz, you'll be able to pick up all the little hints he throws in very quickly in passing, each which could be turned into a full blown routine. I'm sure there will be people who disagree with me, but I thought you should hear this perspective as well. Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
| Shikanominarazu Loyal user 239 Posts | 0 Can't give you percentages, but I would say that most of the tricks require some sleight of hand, and some require very difficult sleight of hand. Few of the effects I can think of are totally self working or sleight free, though some of them are. I don't know what counts as difficult for you, but for me only a few of the tricks are outside my sleight of hand reach. But it is very good about either teaching the sleights or telling you where to get them. The Tamariz Perpendicular Control is an amazing workhorse in Tamariz's hands (not yet in mine, but I'm working on it). And Landmark: I can see why you say that, the presentations are not as detailed as in some other books. Not having read any of Aronson's books (I've read the same free PDF the OP linked and plan to purchase Bound to Please in the near future), I can only say that Mnemonica is definitely worth having. But if Mnemonica is not your stack of choice, Aronson may well be the better 1st purchase. Like the man says, YMMV. J-L, could I ask what stack you do use? |
| Jay Elf Elite user 463 Posts | 1 Both Aronson and Tamariz are different in their approaches to mem deck magic. The best way is to judge them by your own eyes. Watch their own mem deck performance first. Then, that will naturally lead you which books you really need. ●Sessions With Simon DVD Vol.3 - All mem deck magic ●A-1 Magical Media All Stars DVD Vol.3 - Routine in Major D (20 minute non-stop Mnemonica stack routine) ●Mnemonica Miracles DVD Set - As the title reads Believe in yourself! @Jay@ |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 Quote: On Apr 8, 2014, Shikanominarazu wrote: Sure! I made up my own. Before making my own I used the Joyal stack, which was the first stack I was able to memorize with some degree of success. (Before that was the Nikola stack, but I had lots of trouble with it.) After I learned and used the Joyal stack for about a year, I eventually started tinkering with it, which led me to wonder: Why don't I experiment and try to build my own stack from scratch? So I tried it, and I liked the results -- partly because it follows my own thinking patterns, and partly because it's my own invention (making me very partial to it). Now you should understand why I appreciate memdeck tricks that are not tied to any specific stack. Anyway, thanks for your responses! They're much appreciated. -- J-L |
| Steven Keyl Inner circle Washington, D.C. 2544 Posts | 0 Another thing that's used a lot in Mnemonica is the faro shuffle. If you can't faro then there's a non-trivial percentage of the material that will be of no use to you. That may be another reason to start with the Aronson stuff first. Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer! Come visit Magic Book Report.com! 'If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect.' --Mark Twain |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 Quote: On Apr 8, 2014, Shikanominarazu wrote: Okay, so am I correct in saying that most of the tricks in the book that use sleight-of-hand employ fairly basic moves that most card magicians are expected to know? I've never successfully executed a Faro shuffle, and I feel that my palming skills are not presentable. However, I don't mind the occasional DL, glide, or Ascanio spread. And to be honest, I wouldn't mind learning a few more specialized moves, provided that I don't have to spend years perfecting them in order to acquire some nice tricks from at least 30% of the book. Thanks for responding! |
| Shikanominarazu Loyal user 239 Posts | 0 I'd say a little more difficult than basic, but yeah, not a lot of moves that most people can't do. And in some cases, you need to choose your own method (a lot of 'move this card to another position' which can be achieved by any of a number of methods), and that can vary in difficulty according to your preference. Interesting that you built your own stack. Does it have much in the way of 'Built in' effects? |
| lcwright1964 Special user Toronto 569 Posts | 0 Quote: On Apr 8, 2014, landmark wrote: Definitely an Aronson man here. I flipped through Mnemonica and got a little too boggled too soon. Though I am know it isn't mandatory to use the Mnemonica stack, the emphasis on faro shuffling, a skill I don't have, was really off-putting at this stage. Aronson's approach is highly detailed and engagingly colloquial and there is more than enough material in all of his effects, whether or not they use his stack, to keep a hobbyist like me busy for a long time. Moreover in the more recent Try the Impossible there is a bunch of Aronson stack effects that DON'T need memorizing, so you can dive in right away. The padawans of memorized deck work turn first to Tamariz, I know, but for this beginner Aronson is proving much more accessible and gratifying. I wanted to throw in a good word for the Osterlind BCS. Before I started getting serious about memorizing I have pulled off a few bafflers with what I think to be the most deceptive mathematical stack around. Osterlind himself considers his discovery his biggest contribution to magic and mentalism, and I sure agree--it has the limitations of a mathematical stack, but for what it is it is a joy to use. I don't bother with Si Stebbins or Eight Kings at all. Les |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 Wow, thanks for the great responses, guys! Quote: On Apr 9, 2014, Shikanominarazu wrote: If it does, it's not intentional. I got the idea of making my own stack after I decided to tweak the Joyal stack. Basically, I started wondering if switching the 5s and the 10s in the Joyal stack would make it a little easier for me to recall them, so I tried it out. Afraid that it might mess up my memorization I was reluctant to try it at first, but I ended up liking that tweak. Then I thought: What if I place as many cards as I can into easy-to-remember locations? (Easy to remember for ME, that is... ) Then I might as well be creating my own stack. So I started from a list of 52 empty entries, and filled in what made sense to me, rearranging cards while trying to have them retain some sort of positional sense. Some cards fit in great; others kind of got short shrift, where they get the unpopular leftover positions. But I suspect Martin Joyal went through something similar when creating his own stack. So there are definite patterns in my stack, as there are in the Joyal stack. The patterns I put in were meant to aid in memorization, but as a side-effect I could supposedly create some tricks that take advantage of those patterns. I haven't created any yet, but in time, I might. |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 Quote: On Apr 9, 2014, lcwright1964 wrote: I love Richard Osterlind's BCS! I enjoy performing the 'Test Condition Card Trick' from the book 'The Osterlind Breakthrough Card System.' That gets some of the most intense spectator reactions. I never regretted spending the money to learn the BCS. In fact, if I were to decide to commit to memory a mathematical stack, I would probably choose the BCS, as it looks quite random, and the math isn't so automatic that I would constantly use it as a crutch (which would ultimately impede my memorization, I would think). Incidentally, you might have heard some people say that any memorized stack can do anything a mathematical stack (such as BCS, Si Stebbins, or Eight Kings) can do. Actually, that's not exactly true. While a memdeck can certainly accomplish many tricks a mathematical stack can accomplish (such as the 'Test Condition Card Trick' I mentioned above), there are a few built-in effects inherent to many mathematical stacks that aren't present in arbitrary stacks. I'll give one example: You have spectator #1 give the deck a complete cut, then pick the top card, and then hand the deck to spectator #2 who takes the top card, then hands the deck to spectator #3 who then takes a card, then tables the remainder of the deck. You ask spectator #3 to reveal just the VALUE of his card and you have spectator #2 reveal just the SUIT of his card. With just that information alone you can figure out the three cards the spectators are holding. But you can't necessarily do that with any stack. For example, if spectator #3 has a 4 and Spectator #2 has a Club, you can figure out what the cards are if the deck were in BCS, Si Stebbins, or Eight Kings order, but with the Nikola stack, the cards could either be (AD, JC, 4H) or (7H, 7C, 4S). In both cases, the last two cards are a Club and a 4. So despite popular belief, there are some tricks that are unique to mathematical stacks, even in non-repetitive random-looking stacks like BCS. So if built-in tricks are a consideration when deciding which stack to memorize, remember that memorizing BCS will get you some nice effects not available in most non-mathematical stacks. |
| Waterloophai Inner circle Belgium 1231 Posts | 0 As a reaction to the post above I want to say that this is a (although maybe right) pure theoretical reasoning and not one from a working magician. If you have to ask the suit from one card and the value of another card to reveal the cards, in my opinion that cries out to the spectators that you are working with some 'order'. A working magician will ask nothing and will simply reveal all three cards without asking anything. There are several (simple) methods to achieve that (you can do that with BCS AND a lot faster with a memdeck). To conclude: this 'advantage' is for a magician in the real world a 'step backwards' |
| Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts | 0 Quote: On Apr 9, 2014, lcwright1964 wrote: It's not exactly true because that's not exactly what some people say. I've never heard anyone say that 'ANY memorized stack can do anything a mathematical stack can do'. I have heard many people say (and have said myself) that anything that can be done with a mathematical stack can be done with a memorized stack. Talking about built-in effects doesn't really mean anything. You can not build any effect into a mathematical stack that you couldn't build in to a memorized stack. Using the 'Test Condition Card Trick' to make a comparison is also meaningless- you can't do the 'Test Condition Card Trick' with any mathematical stack either- only a mathematical stack that has that effect built-in. And it could easily be built into a memorized stack. I have tricks built into my memorized stack that you couldn't do with a mathematical stack. If you want to make a general comparison between mathematical stacks and memorized stacks you really can't consider built-in effects. But if you really do want to consider built-in effects then I'd say memorized deck still comes out ahead because I can create a memorized stack with anything I want built in. If you use a mathematical stack then you're limited in what effects can be built in. Quote: there are a few built-in effects inherent to many mathematical stacks that aren't present in arbitrary stacks. There's not very many people using memorized stacks that are 'arbitrary'. |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 Let me explain where I'm coming from, Xpilot: I sometimes see the BCS stack being unfairly maligned because it's not generally used as a memorized stack. Its big selling point is that it makes the next card in the sequence easy to figure out, while appearing to be completely random. But since the average user of the BCS stack does not associate each card with its stack number, then the BCS stack is (generally) limited to memdeck effects where only the next card in the stack needs to be known. In that way some people regard the BCS stack as inferior to stacks which are meant to have every card position memorized. Of course, you can turn the BCS stack into a memorized stack -- there's nothing stopping you. But even then, some people still put down the BCS stack, simply because there are no tricks 'built into' the stack. I've heard it said that, because of the BCS's lack of built-in tricks, any trick you can do with the BCS stack you can also do with any memorized stack. (That's a claim not made with the Aronson and Mnemonica stacks, because many of the built-in tricks that can be performed with those stacks can't be done with BCS, Si Stebbins, Eight Kings, or even a purely-random stack that someone memorized.) But putting down the BCS stack because of the claim 'any trick you can do with the BCS stack you can also do with any memorized stack,' is invalid because that claim is simply untrue. In fact, there are a few tricks (admittedly, I only know of one at the moment) that you can do with BCS, Si Stebbins, and Eight Kings that can't be done with the Aronson nor the Nikola stacks. I don't say this to put down the Aronson or Nikola stacks; I only say it to elevate the status the BCS stack. That is, if the Aronson and Mnemonica stacks receive credit for being able to do tricks that can't be done with just any memorized stack, then the BCS stack should also receive similar credit. Quote: On Apr 10, 2014, Xpilot wrote: Whoops... We must be talking about different card tricks that go by the name 'Test Condition Card Trick,' because the one I'm referring to can be done with any stack, provided that the magician knows the next card in the sequence (and that the stacks look random enough in the spectator's hands). So it can definitely be done with the Aronson and Nikola stacks (and I'm guessing the Mnemonica stack as well). Quote: There's not very many people using memorized stacks that are 'arbitrary'. I agree with you there, but I have heard the suggestion (not very often, though) to memorize a randomly shuffled stack because 'you can't get more random-looking than random.' Admittedly, that's not a very popular suggestion. |
| Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts | 0 I think you're just tilting at windmills then. I've never heard anyone 'put down' BCS because it's not a memorized deck although I have heard (and said myself) that I prefer a memdeck because I can do anything BCS does plus many more options. I have heard (and I believe it was Osterlind speaking) that BCS is 'better' than a memdeck- despite my high opinion of Mr. Osterlind I think that's a ridicilous statement. But really neither is 'better'- either may be better for a particular person or particular circumstances. Most people that I know would agree that a memdeck is more useful in the sense that you know where any card is without having to see the top (or any other) card. But they both have their uses. I misread and though the example you gave was the Test Condition trick. Regardless- the ability to do one built-in trick does not make a stack 'better' than other stacks- especially if you aren't going to do that trick. Quote: On Apr 11, 2014, J-L Sparrow wrote: The only people that would say that are the ones that already say 'if you're going to take the time and effort to memorized a stack why not have some bonus features built in to it?' And that's probably a reasonable question- why wouldn't you? |
| ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2195 Posts | 0 I pretty much agree with Xpilot, with one caveat (perhaps I should say 'clarification'). When people speak of tricks 'built in' to full-deck stacks, they most often refer to setups for particular tricks. I have always felt that it's more important for a stack to be arranged in such a fashion as to make broad classes of effects easier, rather than specific items. It's more difficult to distinguish oneself as an entertainer, if (by using, say, the Aronson stack) one is doing the same effects as other entertainers. Additionally, both fashion and personal preferences change over time. This is why, for example, folks like Allan Ackerman have memorized a tetradistic stack, less for specific effects than for an enhanced ability to manage the cards for many effects. It's also why I designed my own QuickerStack in such a fashion. Doug Dyment's Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More |
| J-L Sparrow Regular user 163 Posts | 0 Quote: On Apr 12, 2014, Xpilot wrote: That's a common misconception, but it's not true. So I have to disagree here. I know of at least one trick (actually, I saw variations in two different books, so one could argue it's two different tricks) that can be done with BCS, Si Stebbins (and its variants), Eight Kings (and its variants), Quickerstack, and DAO but not with other memdecks like Aronson, Nikola, or Joyal. (I'm not sure about Mnemonica, because I've haven't seen that stack yet.) Quote: The only people that would say that are the ones that already say 'if you're going to take the time and effort to memorized a stack why not have some bonus features built in to it?' And that's probably a reasonable question- why wouldn't you? Yes, that is fairly reasonable, but like I said, there are tricks that can be done with BCS that can't be done with, say, the Aronson stack. And these tricks aren't coincidental tricks like the BCS having two tens in a row so a trick is crafted from that; it's more of a principle inherent in the stack (that few people are aware of) that it shares with other stacks (like tetradistic stacks such as Si Stebbins, Eight Kings, and Doug Dyment's QuickerStack). So I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that a memdeck can do everything the BCS stack can and more. Just as tetradistic stacks can accomplish certain tricks that the Aronson stack cannot, so can the principle behind the BCS stack enable it to accomplish certain tricks that the Aronson stack cannot. (And again, I'm not saying this to put down the Aronson stack; I'm saying this to elevate the BCS stack, which I feel like has been unfairly put down too many times.) Most magicians do not even realize that this principle exists. In fact, I've never seen it in print or even talked about; I discovered it myself, so I don't know what name to give it. (Maybe, like the 'Gilbreath Principle', I should name it the 'J-L Principle.' ) But nevertheless, this principle does exist, and it exists in the BCS, QuickerStack, and DAO stacks, but not in the Aronson, Nikola, and Joyal stacks. (I'll let you know if it's in the Mnemonica stack once I learn it.) I know I'm being kind of vague as to what this principle is; I intend to make it clearer soon. -- Jean-Luc |
| lcwright1964 Special user Toronto 569 Posts | 0 I have been following this discussion with fascination, as I love the BCS but am contemplating taking the plunge and memorizing Aronson (right now just find his books, most of which I have, much more user-friendly than Tamariz's less specific directions). I should point out if someone hasn't already that Osterlind himself argued in favour of memorizing the BCS. He has his reasons, I am sure. Right now, from my position as a complete hobbyist, the question I ask before learning anything in card magic--a new sleight, a new principle, new memory work, a different mathematical system--is whether it will lead me to an effect that can be just as deceptive and mystifying using simpler means or something I already know. In my first tour through card magic, as a preteen, I tried to learn sleights and techniques for their own sake, never wondering why. Now, as a grown-up, I am amazed to discover advances in magic that bypass a lot of the stuff I struggled with. As for the memory vs. mathematical or self-working vs. finger flinging or gimmicked vs. impromptu debates, I am thrilled to sit on the fence. I love them all! |
| Xpilot Elite user Florida 464 Posts | 1 Quote: On Apr 14, 2014, J-L Sparrow wrote: Your entire argument is becoming ridiculous. Any stack can be memorized, therefore any trick that can be done by a non-memorized stack can be done with a memorized stack that has that trick built in. Your argument that certain tricks can be done with BCS that can't be done with Aronson or Nikola makes the BCS better (or equal) is just wrong because it assumes that memorized stacks can not deviate from the published Aronson, Joyal, Tamariz or Mnemonica. I can stack a deck to do any trick I want to do and then memorize that stack. There are hundreds (or more) tricks published with memorized stacks that can't be done with BCS or any other stack that's not memorized, so trying to elevate BCS by finding one trick that can't be done with *other* memorized stacks does not make BCS equal- it merely points out that some tricks can't be done with *any* memorized stack. But there is no trick that can't be done with a deck that's memorized- you just have to memorize a stack that incorporates that trick. Quote: So I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that a memdeck can do everything the BCS stack can and more. I'll try to make it clear why your disagreement is wrong- If I memorize BCS then I can do anything the BCS stack can and more. Therefore a memorized deck can do everything in the BCS stack and more if the deck I memorize is the BCS stack. The same can be said about any non-memorized stack- if I memorize that stack I can do anything that stack can do and more. To repeat- I don't think anyone every said that ANY memorized deck can do everything ANY stack can do. But that straw men is the basis for all your disagreements. Quote: Just as tetradistic stacks can accomplish certain tricks that the Aronson stack cannot, so can the principle behind the BCS stack enable it to accomplish certain tricks that the Aronson stack cannot. So you memorize a tetradistic stack if you want to do those tricks. Quote: (And again, I'm not saying this to put down the Aronson stack; I'm saying this to elevate the BCS stack, which I feel like has been unfairly put down too many times.) I've been doing magic over 50 years and have used memorized deck for 25 years- I've never seen the BCS stack 'put down', and I'm really not sure what you feel is accomplished by elevating it. It has it's uses just as every other stack. |
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Juan Tamariz's 'Mnemonica' book: How stack-independent is it? (7 Likes) | |
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
| [ Top of Page ] |
Mnemonica Tamariz Pdf Creator
| All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.32 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
Mnemonica Stack Pdf
| The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |
