Gaga posts about Requiem

[Hadrian 2,139]

The melodies aren't really that similar, the songs just have the same BPM and when you change the key of at least one of the songs, they just have the same chord progression.

What I did: I booted up FL Studio and opened my spectrogram tool (this tool shows audio frequencies in a user-friendly visual display) and I broke both tracks down. It's a bit hard to make out the raw output so I copied what I could into the piano roll to show you guys the actual notes being played in DWAS:R and NC.

Green is Nightcall, pink is Die with a Smile (Requiem). They're even less similar than I originally thought.

[Ladle Ghoulash 47,503]

14 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

If Blurred lines can be harshly condemned for plagiarism like it was..

I mean, tbf, the Blurred Lines case was also ridiculous lol

15 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

They knew it was too close to take a risk

More likely they just didn’t want the optics of potentially being taken to court and the PR controversy regardless of the outcome

15 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

why didn't the comments just mention it as Gaga doing synthwave

Nightcall is a tentpole of the genre, there are about a million songs that sound like it lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if people said Nightcall because it was the only synthwave track they were familiar with and because of stylistic/vibe similarities (ie not actual lifted material)

Also @Hadrianposted a nice graphic showing that they’re not meaningfully melodically similar. 

[Defmix100 6,972]

47 minutes ago, River said:

but then in the leaked documents it was proved that Gaga indeed got the blessing, madonna was credited behind the scenes and knew about everything before BTW was released, it was all PR.

oh cool I hadn't heard that before, is there anything I can search specifically as I can't find anything on it?

[Guillaume Hamon 6,903]

39 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I mean, tbf, the Blurred Lines case was also ridiculous lol

Well it's your opinion and it's ok but it's not what the law says. At the end of the day that's what decides what's too close or not and all artists know they have to follow it.

39 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

More likely they just didn’t want the optics of potentially being taken to court and the PR controversy regardless of the outcome

How is it more likely since they're usually not shy about going to court? They never added someone in Gaga's credits in her 18 years of fame, no matter the threats or actual lawsuits but did it for him only and quickly so.

39 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Nightcall is a tentpole of the genre, there are about a million songs that sound like it lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if people said Nightcall because it was the only synthwave track they were familiar with and because of stylistic/vibe similarities (ie not actual lifted material)

Then why can't we find a million songs sounding like DWAS REQUIEM as closely as Nightcall does? Not even one so far but I'll wait to be shown this one song if it exists. 

And if you're right then countless creators could come with a claim she took from them like Kavinsky did but it was only him who did.

They could all suddenly get hope of getting royalties now he just did so it should flood from now on then. We'll see.

39 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

a nice graphic showing that they’re not meaningfully melodically similar. 

Interesting graphic indeed but you don't get credits for no reasons. Gaga's rolling with the biggest label so they're not sharing their money for the sake of being nice lol. 

Counting differences doesn't cancel the obvious similarity that Gaga herself seems to own 100% and that led to him getting royalties.

Edited Thursday at 11:54 PM by Guillaume Hamon

[Juanjo 2,279]

She’s the bigger person for mentioning him, even though I wish she hadn’t. I’m sure she got some sort of legal request to do so. Also, I don’t get why some of ya’ll are defending him? 

[Hadrian 2,139]

1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Interesting graphic indeed but you don't get credits for no reasons. Gaga's rolling with the biggest label so they're not sharing their money for the sake of being nice lol. 

Counting differences doesn't cancel the obvious similarity that Gaga herself seems to own 100% and that led to him getting royalties.

 

I hope this helps, queen:

1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Well it's your opinion and it's ok but 

[Guillaume Hamon 6,903]

32 minutes ago, Hadrian said:

 

I hope this helps, queen:

Opinions can be based in logic or not. What you quoted was so you didn't debate it lol.

Anyway, folks can diminish what Gaga herself admitted with her "harnessing" comment + the credit. I won't entertain their bad faith in an already closed debate.

Peace out, "queens"! 

Edited Friday at 01:30 AM by Guillaume Hamon

[Takox 633]

It feels like she was forced to mention him due to an agreement 

[chathonnete 978]

12 hours ago, hamartia said:

Ladies let’s not turn into Swifties pls lol it’s not that serious 

YES

He was just mad because Gaga sampled his song without informing him directly, which is pretty fair. He doesn't want his art to be used in a manufactured and quick way, which is cool in my opinion. People can sometimes be critical against Gaga, he wasn't disrespectful 

[anton 75]

i guess no sis is gunna be afraid to not reference. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 47,503]

11 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

it's not what the law says

In this case, I happen to think the application of copyright law is too broad because without a distinct melodic similarity or lifted portion of the actual copyright, what are we trademarking? A style? A vibe? If we took that to its logical conclusion, any person who had pioneered any genre or subgenre could litigate the genre into oblivion by being the first person to have done it by claiming they own it. IMO, completely flies in the face of the musical tradition (which has always been incredibly collaborative) and kinda shocks me that people would simp so hard for overly broad claims to ownership over non-distinctive stylistic elements, but I guess to each their own.
 

11 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

you don't get credits for no reasons

Eh, she’s often overly charitable with credits (see: Siouxsie and the Banshees being credit in Abra) and you absolutely *would* credit if you want to avoid the PR shitstorm of going to court (because, regardless of whether you win after months of litigation, the headline remains “Lady Gaga allegedly rips off Kavinsky”). You’re being a little naive about the motivations behind it, but that’s your prerogative. 

I do also think it’s funny that you act like the similarities between Nightcall and DWAS: REQUIEM are so uncannily similar as to require credits, yet you made the bogus claim that the lead guitar lick in Killah bore no meaningful similarity to Fame and wasn’t integral enough to the song to require a credit. A deeply unserious and wildly inconsistent argument, imo.

Edited Friday at 11:15 AM by Ladle Ghoulash

[Ladle Ghoulash 47,503]

9 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

I won't entertain their bad faith in an already closed debate

Idk I personally think it’s worse faith to claim that Gaga’s *personal discretion* surrounding credits somehow overrides broader discourse surrounding the ethics and practical effects of overly broad copyright claims, but 🤷

[Defmix100 6,972]

Does anyone have any info on the Gaga Madonna thing in leaked documents? I can't find it anywhere

[nATAH 55,443]

3 hours ago, chathonnete said:

YES

He was just mad because Gaga sampled his song without informing him directly, which is pretty fair. He doesn't want his art to be used in a manufactured and quick way, which is cool in my opinion. People can sometimes be critical against Gaga, he wasn't disrespectful 

tbf he was quite disrespectful and rude about it

[Ladle Ghoulash 47,503]

13 hours ago, Hadrian said:

 

I hope this helps, queen:

Kinda cracks me up that you provided demonstrable evidence that there’s no meaningful melodic similarity, yet them deferring to Gaga’s PR team and engaging largely uncritically with the discourse surrounding copyright law is “logical” and you’re acting in “bad faith.” I truly have to laugh.

Edited Friday at 02:37 PM by Ladle Ghoulash