Criticism of "Magician" Pop

For me, the problems with Mago Pop are exactly what you've mentioned: his use of stooges and plagiarism. Let me explain what I mean.

Regarding the plagiarism, Genii magazine itself spoke out about it – and that's saying something. Here's a post from Pasto Magic on the topic:

https://pastomagic.com/2018/02/el-mago-pop-basa-su-carrera-en-el-plagio-de-ideas/

Plagiarism isn't performing Vernon's Triumph, or Wonder's Wallet, Ring, and Money effect that Jorge used to do. It's flat-out copying other magicians' acts who are performing them right now, ripping off everything. Unfortunately, magic effects don't have copyrights. And it's one thing when you're starting out, and another when you're supposedly at the top. I don't think he'd have such a big audience if people knew what he does is stolen from others.

Here's a recent example of plagiarism: the winner of Got Talent Italia who basically plagiarized Shin Lim's effect:

I don't know if you like Shin Lim – I'm not particularly a fan – but I was furious when I saw this. Would he have won if the judges knew it wasn't original?

And as for stooges, Mago Pop uses them in the most blatant way possible. I've never seen him live, but one day at the park with other parents, one told us he was invited to see Mago Pop on the condition that at a certain point, he'd be asked a specific question and had to say something particular. You should have heard the reaction of the other parents: "Anyone could do that!" "That's not magic!" "Who can you trust now?" "I thought they couldn't do that!" I had to explain that this guy is widely criticized for that, and that most magicians don't do it. It's not about knowing the assistant is in on the secret – we all know Yunke's assistants are aware of what's going on and that they're the ones making the vanish, or that the spectator who appears offstage knows the drill. But this is about having random people who are supposed to do specific things, making the audience believe they're just like them. And yes, I've seen some magicians who claim not to use stooges hand a card to a spectator on stage, telling them what to say, and it wasn't just me who noticed; more than one layperson picked up on it, and it was a massive letdown. It's just not worth it. I'm sure more than one person who saw him won't look at that magician the same way again.

For me, the problem is that magic goes to hell with these kinds of things, just like with video editing, on-camera effects, or extras pretending to be random people and being surprised by an effect when they're standing at a bad angle (e.g., Criss Angel). Reality just doesn't support that kind of magic. It's not realistic; when they ask you to do what they saw, it's literally impossible. Everything can be explained with camera trickery, actors, etc. At that point, we're more in the realm of special effects than magic. I believe there's more than enough real magic out there without having to resort to this.

And as Ricardo said in a video a while back, spectators expect you to do things; they might catch you, they know there's a trick, but if there's a stooge involved, the disappointment is unparalleled.

For me, it's the difference between counting cards in blackjack or estimating probabilities in poker, versus having aces up your sleeve or marking the cards.

To me, Mago Pop isn't a magician; he's a showman (I agree with what Huguiito said). He's exactly like musicians who rehash old songs with autotune, just chasing the money. Nothing like someone who strives to create something unique, even if only three people hear it. Or the best-selling author who clones their own books, versus Kafka who wrote for himself. (At least in that case, they pay royalties to the original composers, and the writer is only copying themselves).

Time will pass, and there will be many Mago Pop-style performers. They'll get rich and live like the Shah of Persia, but they won't contribute anything to magic. They'll come and go, leaving nothing behind (nor do they intend to), because they don't care about magic, magicians, or spectators beyond them paying for a ticket. They don't care that people are out on the streets talking about how they were a stooge in a show in exchange for free admission, and they couldn't care less about how that affects our art. It's precisely that lack of respect that makes me dislike these kinds of people one bit. Going back to Ricardo's video, at the very least, a stooge should be someone on the team pretending to be a spectator, who then keeps the secret.

And generally, when people ask me, I make sure they know he steals effects and uses dishonest tactics that most magicians don't endorse. I'd rather people watch Gea, Hugo, Joaquin Matas, Yunke, etc., a thousand times over than someone like Mago Pop.

But since this is an art, there are no hard rules here; everyone has their own opinion.

Hey everyone!

Honestly, I was expecting this debate to be a lot less split, so I'm gonna jump in with my two cents on the subject.

El Mago Pop is probably the most recognizable Spanish magician in the world today. He's even stated on a few podcasts that his show is the highest-selling on Broadway, so he's definitely doing something right, isn't he? I personally think so, but not in a "magical" sense.

To me, El Mago Pop isn't really a magician; he's more of a Broadway actor/performer. Let me explain. Right now, I'm reading Darwin Ortiz's "Designing Miracles." The book goes deep into the idea that the second a spectator gets a hint of how an effect might be accomplished, you've already failed.

Everyone, even a lot of "Muggles," already knows he often uses confederates. This makes spectators wonder if he's using them for this particular effect or not, and based on the logic of the book (which I fully endorse), the effect has already failed.

Of course, not everyone knows the secret behind all of it, or it wouldn't be the top-selling show. But for me? No, that's not magic.

The limited literature on plagiarism in magic always states the same thing: magic cannot be patented, but there's a gentlemen's agreement among magicians where attribution is applied.

We've all seen countless tutorials where the magician says they can't remember where they saw something and appreciates being told so they can include it in the credits. Maybe it's just me, but I'm obsessive about this and spend hours scouring the Conjuring Archive and other sources for the origin of a specific trick or move. I've stumbled upon many surprises, I assure you.

I believe we should be ethically rigorous about this and attribute the sources of the effects or techniques we perform, whether before, during, or after the trick. Another debate is whether it's legitimate to change the back design of cards in a commercial effect and then claim it's 'our' version. Or, if you don't like the resolution of an effect, changing it and claiming it's yours. If there isn't a substantial difference, I don't think that should be done. For example, with the Charming Chinese Challenge: Troy Hooser's (the creator's) third move just doesn't sit right with me, and I prefer Pipo Villanueva's. So I've combined them, and it works out pretty well, but I'll never claim that version is mine. I didn't create it, I didn't conceive it, I didn't rack my brain adjusting it, and I didn't test it with audiences until I got it right – nothing.

As for Mago Pop, I think he's technically very good and has found the formula for success by combining two methods.

• The first is adding loads of cheap tears to his acts – don't confuse that with genuine emotion for magic. That doesn't make him a better magician, just more successful, according to a plan perfectly laid out over 10 years ago, which proposed that magic should leave the bars and return to the stage. The problem is that a wave of current magicians are using the same method, and honestly, I'm sick of them trying to impress me by making me cry.

• The second, and I refer to shows like Factor X, Tú sí que vales, Got Talent, etc. (where there's also no magician who doesn't tug at the judges' heartstrings looking for those cheap tears), is this: [spoiler]Spend 2000-3000 euros on 5 or 6 impressive tricks with lots of electronics and elaborate props, and you'll reach the finale.[/spoiler]

Of course, Pop uses stooges and pays off audience volunteers; I know this for a fact from many internal and external sources. The thing is, not everything goes. Blatantly plagiarizing commercial tricks without attribution seems incredibly brazen to me; check out his shows on Discovery and tell me most of them aren't available for purchase. Searching for twins or look-alikes in the audience to give them "something" isn't acceptable either (something I've personally seen another "creative" magician do, but not quite so blatantly).

But in our individualistic culture, all of this is excused with the idea that no one gets ahead without stepping on some heads. Well, I don't know, I think there are many ways to perform magic, to sell magic, and to enjoy magic without having to alienate an entire community (albeit a loosely cohesive one, true).

@Zeta Regarding Mesika, obviously he doesn't patent the loops themselves, but rather the name, the storage system, the wallet, the manufacturing process, etc. The Spider Pen has the design, manufacturing, reel, etc., patented, but he can't patent a generic pen or a basic reel. He's simply covering his bases when competing with other companies that also manufacture magic items. It's like 'Donuts' or 'Doughnuts' – same thing, different name. For example, Penguin sells some loops called Ties that do basically the same thing.

I agree. You can definitely achieve a lot without any gimmicks, but if you're aiming for those truly striking and visual illusions, then you're absolutely right.

@davidoliver.ramos:

I recently read that magicians don't have a good opinion of "the magician" Antonio Díaz

Envy is a nasty thing 😂 😂 😂

And for the record, I don't personally care for how Mago Pop performs magic, but he still does good magic (and he's certainly built a fantastic career VERY WELL).

@davidoliver.ramos:

Does he really use stooges and claim credit for other magicians' effects?

As a true Galician (and playing right into the stereotype), I'll answer you with a question.

What's the difference between an assistant and a stooge? 🤔

@davidoliver.ramos:

If he uses stooges, he's only fooling himself and devaluing the art of magic

Completely disagree.

Every TV magician performing grand illusions uses stooges; there would be NO GRAND ILLUSIONS WITHOUT STOOGES.

@davidoliver.ramos:

If he claims credit for other magicians' effects, he can fool the lay audience.

I don't know how far you can "claim" to have created a trick, because frankly, you have NO IDEA if someone did it before you or not.

Think of magic and its techniques like LEGO bricks: each technique is a uniquely shaped brick, and depending on how you combine them, you create new things.

Therefore, many effects were created years ago, often forgotten, and later revived by up-and-coming magicians.

Not even professional magicians know everything that exists.

Telling your (lay) audience that you invented a trick (that isn't actually yours) makes no sense, unless you genuinely didn't know it already existed and you managed to create it solely with your own knowledge (which happens more often than you might imagine).

@davidoliver.ramos:

Can you perform tricks you learn from courses, books, etc.? What's the limit? Only what's published? Should you say, "This trick is by magician X..."?

Personally, I think that as long as you're not completely butchering a trick,

DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. A limit?.. Absolutely none.

And definitely, if you have references for who created it, it's always good form to acknowledge the creator in your patter.

Cheers!!!

Hey everyone,

It's common knowledge that Mago Pop uses confederates. In fact, some – though certainly not all – of his effects would be impossible without them.

If you've seen his show, you'll know what I'm talking about.

But isn't using a confederate just as deceptive as a Force, a Break, etc.?

To me, the difference lies in the difficulty and skill required. Having a confederate involves no real difficulty; in this specific case, it just means having them on the payroll 😉

That's why most professional and amateur magicians don't really condone using confederates the way Mago Pop does.

Creating a magical atmosphere is another story, and that's something he does achieve. Along with making the impossible possible, that's what makes it magic for the lay audience – which is everyone else, apart from the confederates and amateur magicians like us who've gone to see him.

Looking at his ticket prices and trying to justify them, we see there are some great professionals working with him, like Mag Lari, and from what I gather, a few more confederates... probably over 9.

Regards,

Hello.

Well, I don't really know Mago Pop. I might have seen a video or something, I'm not sure... But the discussion he's sparked here is pretty interesting.

On the ethical question of using confederates:

What's the ethical difference between using a confederate (for whatever purpose) and using a gimmick, or a gaffed deck, or doing a Palm, etc.? I think, ethically speaking, there's no problem at all. The use of gimmicks and props has other drawbacks that aren't relevant right now because they fall outside this topic (it would be interesting to start another thread about that).

Regarding the idea that using confederates doesn't involve any difficulty:

Mmmm, I wouldn't be so sure. Anytime there's a human element involved, there's a possibility of error. Imagine that during a show, one of the "helpers" got distracted and didn't do what they were supposed to at the exact moment (whatever it might be: pulling a thread, moving a mirror, etc., etc.). Right then and there, everything would go south, and the trick wouldn't work. These things usually don't happen because there are countless hours of rehearsal behind them. But why rehearse so much if using confederates entails no difficulty?

And finally, on the topic of taking credit for others' tricks:

Well, here there's obviously an ethical problem, because if a trick is published by a specific author, then logically no one else can claim it as their own (unless they also invented it independently, without prior knowledge of the first. But in that scenario, the published work typically gets the credit). I also don't think you need to give credit to the creator of every trick in every single presentation, especially if you're not just copying it exactly as written.

At its heart, this touches on the issue of originality. Jandro, in the Got Talent finale (where he was invited as a jury advisor), talked about originality. He said that true originality lies in the packaging, the way you present the tricks (or routines), but truly, truly original, there's practically nothing original ("Is Avatar original? Well, no, it's The Smurfs and Pocahontas. Combine them, and you get Avatar.")

I'll wrap it up here, as I've written quite a bit already. Cheers,

Hey everyone, in my opinion, we can perform effects we've learned elsewhere, as long as we change them up and make them our own.

For example, in Borja Montón's 'Ilusionate' show, he did that trick with the queens that were on one side and suddenly appeared with their matching suits (I can't explain it well; maybe someone recognizes it and knows the name). The thing is, he took that effect and told a story about when he was a kid and performed it with Pokemon cards—that's a way to modernize and make the routine your own, in my opinion.

As for Mago Pop, I don't really know what to say because I haven't seen it, but I don't support using accomplices. There's a video by Pablo Costas talking about Mago Pop's 'Magic For Humans' show, and it's pretty interesting. So I recommend checking it out (the video, not the show).

Alright, I've read the article/interview.

I get why you'd think he's implying that Mago Pop does exactly what he claims he doesn't do.

Mainly due to the question and answer sequence.

He doesn't explicitly state that Mago Pop does the very things he claims not to.

Jorge Blass says:

He has never copied a trick, doesn't use stooges, and his audience is real.

And now for my personal take:

• First things first, his claim of "never copying a trick" is his first lie.

Because it's obvious he copied, copied, and copied—just like every magician does when they're starting out.

It's a completely different story to say that today (after all his years as a pro magician), everything in his shows is genuinely original to him.

• And "doesn't use stooges"????, really???, Yeah, right—and I'm Son Goku :slight_smile:

LET ME REPEAT: What's the difference between an assistant and a stooge???

To me, NONE.

If someone wants to argue there is, go right ahead; to each their own.

(That's why I prefer close-up magic over grand stage illusions—with close-up, you don't need ANY help; it's all you.)

• The whole "audience is real" thing is totally unnecessary. Seriously, don't you charge admission to make a living when you put on a show? OBVIOUSLY the audience is real.

Or at least most of it is (at most, you'll have 3 to 9 assistants/stooges).

This is just my personal opinion, a simple and insignificant one at that.

I hope nobody takes it the wrong way 😅.

Cheers!!!!

More Info:

https://blogip.garrigues.com/propiedad-intelectual/proteccion-trucos-magia-regulacion-propiedad-intelectual