Stanley Jordan is a jazz guitarist known for his innovative technique called the "magic touch." This technique involves playing the guitar's fretboard with both hands simultaneously to create a unique and mesmerizing sound. Jordan developed the magic touch technique in the late 1970s, and it quickly gained attention for its virtuosic and expressive qualities. By tapping on the strings with his fingers, Jordan is able to produce chords, melodies, and harmonies all at once, creating a rich and layered sound that is reminiscent of multiple guitars playing together. The magic touch technique allows Jordan to explore the full range of the guitar's capabilities. He can effortlessly switch between playing basslines, chords, and solos without the need for a rhythm section or additional musicians.
Scripture clearly warns against this. I encourage you to read Deuteronomy 18:10-13; Galatians 5:19-21; and Revelation 21:8.
So with all that in mind, my prayer is that our hearts, as parents and most importantly, as believers, will be convicted by what the world sees as mere entertainment. The Sandersons are more determined than ever to succeed now that they ve been resurrected a second time, but they are even more perplexed by the world they ve entered.
He can effortlessly switch between playing basslines, chords, and solos without the need for a rhythm section or additional musicians. This makes his solo performances incredibly captivating and dynamic, as he can create complex arrangements on his own. Not only is the magic touch technique technically impressive, but it also gives Jordan the freedom to fully express his musical ideas.
Don’t Question the Magic of Hocus Pocus
Hocus Pocus, as a film, makes little sense. The plot, about a coven of witches who seek to eat children, involves a talking cat, a boy who despises trick-or-treating, and far too many mentions of virgins lighting candles. Released inexplicably in the middle of summer 1993, it was a box-office failure that put off critics.
But Hocus Pocus, as a cultural phenomenon, makes perfect sense. The costumes are easily replicable, the one-liners fantastically quotable. The movie is campy, with a catchy musical number and exaggerated performances. Given its Halloween setting, Hocus Pocus has become as ubiquitous come autumn as pumpkin-spice lattes. The biggest fans watch it every October, when it airs almost daily on TV.
So of course Disney made a sequel. Hocus Pocus 2, which started streaming on Disney+ yesterday, revives the reviled Sanderson sisters—Winifred, Mary, and Sarah (played respectively by Bette Midler, Kathy Najimy, and Sarah Jessica Parker)—nearly 30 years after the original. Like the trio of eccentric spell-casting divas at its center, this follow-up is bizarre, flashy, and chaotic. And yet, it’s also satisfying to take in.
I’m not a die-hard Hocus Pocus fan—it’s never been an annual viewing event for me, more of a catch-it-on-in-the-background kind of thing—but I nevertheless found myself charmed by the new entry. The film wears its ridiculousness so proudly, it’s impossible to disdain. It is both a diverting watch and a sly commentary on its predecessor’s strengths. Hocus Pocus 2 understands that Hocus Pocus has a lot that doesn’t work, including an overstuffed plot, hokey dialogue, and chintzy effects. But what the original did have was a uniquely cartoonish raucousness, the kind of unpretentious silliness that can turn a mediocre movie into a cult favorite.
Hocus Pocus 2 grasps, in other words, that the first film isn’t exactly sacred storytelling—and so, as a sequel, it has more than a little fun with the material. It strips the plot to its bare bones, largely ignoring the events that came before in favor of sequences that allow the actors to chew as much scenery as possible. A flashback to the Sandersons’ childhood years in the 1600s, for example, features Ted Lasso’s Hannah Waddingham as a fabulously hammy witch who grants them their sentient spell book, along with a wiggy Tony Hale as an arachnophobic reverend. The teenagers involved this time around play a part in the magic, instead of just gawking at the sisters. And the script pokes fun at its own ludicrousness. “Who are they performing for?” one character asks early on when Winifred, Mary, and Sarah arrive and immediately burst into song.
Speaking of the pesky threesome, none of this works without the witches themselves getting to run amok even more than they did in the original. Midler, Najimy, and Parker reprise their roles with an enthusiasm that radiates off the screen; all of them are absurdly overqualified for their parts but appear to be having the most fun they’ve ever had. Midler in particular seems to delight in every over-the-top antic, including one in which Winifred tries to navigate her way past a set of automatic doors. Instead of walking through them as they open, Midler twirls slowly, looking terrified with every degree spun. That character beat left me in stitches.
It also reminded me of what I enjoyed most about Hocus Pocus as a kid, even when I caught scenes in snippets: the leads’ commitment to making the Sanderson sisters not just odd, but naively so. Take one of my favorite moments from the 1993 film, for instance: After the witches have been tricked into thinking that the water coming from a sprinkler system is “the burning rain of death,” Winifred tests the liquid by holding out her palm and then licking it. Mary, seeing this, immediately licks her own palm too. These moves are objectively gross, yet sweetly endearing at the same time. The sisters are outcasts bewildered by everything going on around them, and that confusion makes them dependent on and devoted to one another. Not much about Hocus Pocus is realistic, except the trio’s anxiety about stepping into a world they don’t know how to navigate. Despite how much they want to eat children, they exude a defiance and obstinacy that can resonate with young audiences also caught in the turmoil of having to grow up.
Hocus Pocus 2 offers the same concoction of heartfelt weirdness. The Sandersons are more determined than ever to succeed now that they’ve been resurrected a second time, but they are even more perplexed by the world they’ve entered. The film follows their lead, playing up their closeness amid the corny jokes and kooky hijinks, rekindling the same spark that turned Hocus Pocus into a hit. So many of Disney’s recent remakes and reboots that mine the company’s back catalog have cared more about exploiting nostalgia through endless references than capturing the allure of the original work. But Hocus Pocus 2 is neither a soulless shot-for-shot re-creation nor an overwrought brand update. It highlights the chemistry that kept viewers spellbound enough to return to the first film time and time again, while dialing up the childlike fun. That’s a kind of magic not every sequel can conjure.
From left to right, Kathy Najimy, Bette Midler and Sarah Jessica Parker reprise their roles as the Sanderson sisters in "Hocus Pocus 2."
He can seamlessly blend different styles and genres, incorporating elements of jazz, rock, classical, and more into his playing. This versatility has made him a highly sought-after collaborator, working with artists such as Quincy Jones, Dizzy Gillespie, and Michal Urbaniak. Stanley Jordan's magic touch technique has had a significant impact on the world of guitar playing. Many musicians have been inspired by his innovative approach and have incorporated elements of his technique into their own playing. Jordan's ability to create a full and rich sound with just one instrument demonstrates the limitless possibilities of the guitar and redefines what is possible for solo performers. In conclusion, Stanley Jordan's magic touch technique is a groundbreaking approach to guitar playing that allows him to create a mesmerizing sound. By employing both hands on the fretboard, Jordan is able to produce complex arrangements that incorporate multiple guitar parts. This technique has influenced and inspired many musicians, showcasing the versatility and expressive potential of the guitar..
Reviews for "The art of improvisation: Stanley Jordan and his magic touch"
1. John Smith - 2/5
While I appreciate the unique approach Stanley Jordan takes with his "magic touch" technique, I found his album to be quite underwhelming. The novelty of his simultaneous tapping on the fretboard soon wore off and left me longing for more substance in the music. The tracks lacked depth and emotional connection, making it difficult for me to fully engage with the album. Overall, Stanley Jordan's magic touch may be impressive from a technical standpoint, but it fails to deliver a truly enjoyable listening experience.
2. Sarah Thompson - 3/5
I had high expectations for Stanley Jordan's "magic touch" album, considering his reputation as a talented guitarist. However, I was left feeling somewhat disappointed. While the technique he employs is certainly impressive, I felt that it overshadowed the actual musicality of the album. The melodies and compositions felt repetitive and lacked the necessary complexity to keep me fully engaged. Although there were moments of brilliance in some tracks, overall, I found myself longing for a deeper connection to the music.
3. Mark Davis - 2/5
As someone who appreciates jazz music, I was excited to give Stanley Jordan's "magic touch" a listen. Unfortunately, I found the album to be quite monotonous and lacking in innovation. While the tapping technique is undoubtedly impressive, the songs themselves failed to stand out or leave a lasting impression. The lack of variation in tempo and rhythm became tedious after a while, making it difficult to fully enjoy the music. I had hoped for a more dynamic and captivating jazz experience, but unfortunately, this album fell short of my expectations.
4. Emily Johnson - 2/5
I respect Stanley Jordan's skills and his pioneering approach to guitar playing, but I can't say I enjoyed "magic touch" as much as I anticipated. The album felt too repetitive, with many of the tracks blending into one another. While the technical proficiency is evident, the lack of diversity and exploration in the compositions left me wanting more. I appreciate the concept behind the album, but for me, it ultimately failed to deliver a truly engaging and memorable musical experience.