Requiem DWAS and Killah Credits Updated

[Mon trou en plume 44]

Just now, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Also: thoughts on classical music and the opera?

Any thoughts on capitalism ?

[Ladle Ghoulash 45,738]

5 minutes ago, Mon trou en plume said:

Any thoughts on capitalism ?

One of my thoughts is that overbearing copyright law is a surefire way to weaponize capitalism to destroy creative expression by claiming that the person with the most money who uses a particular music motif owns it because they’re the ones with the most cash to spend on both buying the rights to it and litigating their supposed ownership of it (see: Taylor Swift suing Olivia Rodrigo over shouting the bridge in one of her songs and somehow getting writing credits for it).

Edited 8 hours ago by Ladle Ghoulash

[Ziggy 13,594]

15 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Guy-Manuel Cristo from Daft Punk produced Nightcall with Kavinsky (a song I still believr is neither sampled nor interpolated in DWAS on REQUIEM, but that’s neither here nor there)

It’s more like they have a similar vibe but…that’s it imo lmao 

[Ladle Ghoulash 45,738]

Just now, Ziggy said:

It’s more like they have a similar vibe but…that’s it imo lmao 

The concept of copyrighting a vibe 

[Defmix100 6,922]

14 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I mean, the proof is in the word you used. I don’t see how it’s delulu to acknowledge that a “reference” isn’t a sample or an interpolation. Should Bowie and Prince be credited on Killah? Salt N Peppa on Money Honey? Muse on Garden of Eden? Ace of Base on Alejandro? Depeche Mode on Dance in the Dark? Whitney on Fashion of His Love? MJ on Bad Kids? Madonna on BTW? Taylor Swift and Yaz on HBDUWM?

I hadn't heard of Muse and Garden of Eden being compared before but I don't know many of their songs, is there a specific one with GOE style because I like that sound. I always thought of it in my head more like Timbaland meets Darkchild

[Mon trou en plume 44]

15 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

One of my thoughts is that overbearing copyright law is a surefire way to weaponize capitalism to destroy creative expression by claiming that the person with the most money who uses a particular music motif owns it because they’re the ones with the most cash to spend on both buying the rights to it and litigating their supposed ownership of it (see: Taylor Swift suing Olivia Rodrigo over shouting the bridge in one of her songs and somehow getting writing credits for it).

Your logic is: 'credit leads to capitalist lawsuits, so let's skip the credit.' not crediting isn't anti-capitalist it's just capitalism with extra steps removed. Gaga (massive) taking from Kavinsky (smaller) and saying nothing is literally the same power dynamic as Taylor crushing Olivia, just without the paperwork. You think you're defending artists from the system, but you're actually defending the right of big artists to quietly eat smaller ones with zero acknowledgment. That's not resisting capitalism : that's capitalism's dream scenario. Frictionless extraction, no receipts. 

[Ziggy 13,594]

14 hours ago, Mon trou en plume said:

The level of delulu in this thread I cant 

She did the right thing, the reference was obvious.

Now diva…if we are formally crediting references, the whole of art—music, film, literature, and all—is about to collapse. You credit samples for clear and obvious reasons but crediting for a reference is ridiculously punitive

[Ziggy 13,594]

1 minute ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

The concept of copyrighting a vibe 

Me, the capitalist ubermensch, out to destroy art

[Ladle Ghoulash 45,738]

9 minutes ago, Defmix100 said:

I hadn't heard of Muse and Garden of Eden being compared before but I don't know many of their songs, is there a specific one with GOE style because I like that sound. I always thought of it in my head more like Timbaland meets Darkchild

People have compared the lead bass riff (and guitar line when she plays it live) to Supermassive Blackhole by Muse. 
 

Here’s a video of someone playing the lead riff of SMBH under GOE:

GOE has always struck me as being a fusion of that Timbaland/Darkchild early aughts style pop with a bit of a sleaze/electroclash flare and splash of 80s synthpop

Edited 7 hours ago by Ladle Ghoulash

[Ziggy 13,594]

13 minutes ago, Mon trou en plume said:

Your logic is: 'credit leads to capitalist lawsuits, so let's skip the credit.' not crediting isn't anti-capitalist it's just capitalism with extra steps removed. Gaga (massive) taking from Kavinsky (smaller) and saying nothing is literally the same power dynamic as Taylor crushing Olivia, just without the paperwork. You think you're defending artists from the system, but you're actually defending the right of big artists to quietly eat smaller ones with zero acknowledgment. That's not resisting capitalism : that's capitalism's dream scenario. Frictionless extraction, no receipts. 

No lmao they’re not at all the same bc the Taylor and Olivia case was also meant to humiliate said smaller artist and damage their reputation (which it did, mind you). What Gaga did is basically what anyone in any creative field does which is listen and take inspiration. *Ethically* sure she should shout out her inspirations and she basically always does, by the way! But if you open the can of worms of needing to legally credit a reference, you basically are asking for abuse of that by more litigious companies (like Disney suing preschools lol) and artists to make any sort of claim possible to something. And even if it’s not a reference (which btw there is no means of proving as reference and influence are abstract), the threat of a lawsuit basically just squeezes out artistry for anyone but the most wealthy and backed. We can’t confuse legality and ethics here bc this is a great example of how they are not the same thing and the consequences of treating them the same can be huge

Edited 7 hours ago by Ziggy

[Ladle Ghoulash 45,738]

17 minutes ago, Mon trou en plume said:

Your logic is: 'credit leads to capitalist lawsuits, so let's skip the credit.' not crediting isn't anti-capitalist it's just capitalism with extra steps removed. Gaga (massive) taking from Kavinsky (smaller) and saying nothing is literally the same power dynamic as Taylor crushing Olivia, just without the paperwork. You think you're defending artists from the system, but you're actually defending the right of big artists to quietly eat smaller ones with zero acknowledgment. That's not resisting capitalism : that's capitalism's dream scenario. Frictionless extraction, no receipts. 

That is not even remotely what I said lmao. You asked me my thoughts on capitalism, I reframed your initial point about the need to endlessly litigate who owns what in music as a creative nightmare and a genuine class issue as a means of demonstrating *part* of the absurdity of argument. But back to the original point (a point which I’ve already made, but one you’re keen to sidestep for obvious reasons): there are clear and reasonable legal standards for what is considered legitimate copyright infringement in music, which surround lifting material from a recording owned by someone else (a sample) or meaningfully lifting or recreating a melodic composition from another musician’s work (interpolation). Gaga’s synthwave reimagining of DWAS bares stylistic similarity to Nightcall (and much of the genre of synthwave more broadly), but neither lifts from the original recording nor recreates any of its melodic components, therefore I do not believe a credit is legitimately warranted from both the standpoint of what I think is legally reasonable and what I think is creatively workable for artists more broadly. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Ladle Ghoulash

[Ladle Ghoulash 45,738]

I’m sensing a spirit in this thread

[Mon trou en plume 44]

16 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

That is not even remotely what I said lmao. You asked me my thoughts on capitalism, I reframed your initial point about the need to endlessly litigate who owns what in music as a creative nightmare and a genuine class issue as a means of demonstrating *part* of the absurdity of argument. But back to the original point (a point which I’ve already made, but one you’re keen to sidestep for obvious reasons): there are clear and reasonable legal standards for what is considered legitimate copyright infringement in music, which surround lifting material from a recording owned by someone else (a sample) or meaningfully lifting or recreating a melodic composition from another musician’s work (interpolation). Gaga’s synthwave reimagining of DWAS bares stylistic similarity to Nightcall (and much of the genre of synthwave more broadly), but neither lifts from the original recording nor recreates any of its melodic components, therefore I do not believe a credit is legitimately warranted from both the standpoint of what I think is legally reasonable and what I think is creatively workable for artists more broadly. 

Sorryim french, i used IA to translate... Maybe im missing what you said 😵‍💫

[Mr Oak 7,744]

Killer's songwriter credits are due to the lyrics "I wanna fu*k you like an animal", not the drums.

[Ladle Ghoulash 45,738]

22 minutes ago, Mr Oak said:

Killer's songwriter credits are due to the lyrics "I wanna fu*k you like an animal", not the drums.

Yeah, but even at that: that’s a lyrical reference, not a sample or an interpolation.