Jump to content

Lana Del Reydiohead ?


danswift

Recommended Posts

I love a good copyright infringement scrap as everyone probably knows,so I was particularly delighted to hear that an enormous hoo-ha in the glorious world of Pop music has erupted yesterday where I read that alternative rockers Radiohead are suing the ethereal popstrell songstress Lana Del Ray over the similarities between her track 'Get Free' and their song 'Creep'.

 

What I find interesting here is the fact that Radiohead were sued by The Hollies who claimed that parts of 'Creep' are based on the melodies from 'The Air That I Breathe'.

 

Radiohead apparently want the full 100% of the publishing rights while LDR is offering 40% to settle the dispute before it goes to court while claiming that the song is an original composition and not influenced by the Radiohead tune at all.

 

What do you think ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that nobody at her record label called that out before the album came out. Well, they probably did, but assumed they'd get away with it. It's more blatant than the original rip-off of the song by The Hollies IMO.

 

40% of the publishing should be enough though. They're being greedy bastards by asking for 100.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that nobody at her record label called that out before the album came out.

Yeah, those were my exact same thoughts upon the first listen last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I find it hard to believe that nobody at her record label called that out before the album came out.

Yeah, those were my exact same thoughts upon the first listen last night.

 

She must of been like "who are these guys anyways...I'm Lana del Rey so I don't have to worry about it"
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that's pretty blatant. Radiohead should be breaking out the champagne - 40% of the pub for doing nothing and over a song they ripped off in the first place?

I think in the case of The Hollies versus Radiohead it wasn't the whole track they claimed RH infringed as such but more the vocal refrain and musical melody where the song shifts and Thom Yorke sings the 'She's running out again' lyric in Creep which The Hollies claimed was based on The Air That I Breathe.

 

Totally agree with the 40 % of the publishing for doing nothing comment though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck The Hollies. Middle of the road piss.

Yes,yes I totally agree but that's not the point..

 

This thread is a serious discussion about copyright infringement ,theres no need for any pointless name calling here, especially against a group like The Hollies who are a bunch of talentless, useless MOR tossers who's music stinks like 3 week old dinosaur urine... :d

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't get me wrong Dan, I lose many a night's sleep hoping the rich pop stars will all be able to come to an agreement one day that makes them all equally rich and special. Who doesn't?!

But...

I am on a one man crusade against the tide of an alarming trend I've been monitoring for some time time now - the fucked up notion that all bands and music is of value once they've been around in the world for long enough. Fuck. No. Not on my watch sonny!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Symatic

someone should copyright 12 bar blues chord sequences.... or the pachobels canon chords..... you;d be raking it in, like every day someone would write a song and have to give you 100%? why arent i a lawyer???!?!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Symatic

haha that would be even better :) "hey! they stole that song off someone else! i should get paid!"

 

it clearly is a copy.... but does it really matter? are people buying the new one INSTEAD of the radiohead one? or the hollies? thats whats so fucked about copyright laws to me - who buys biz markie records AND gilbert o'sullivan records? not many people, im guessing. so who cares that biz sings some of gilberts lines out of tune for part of his song? its not like gilbert o'sullivan was on the cusp of selling loads of records to 80's hip hop fans.... and i can't imagine that many people buying lana del ray records are now shunning radiohead's 90's back catalogue as a result.

 

my opinion is probably biased though :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like when B dropped Crazy In Love, I went straight to my 45s, pulled out that Chi-Lites single and snapped it in half there and then. Sometimes an event so monumental occurs in music, that you just instinctively know there's no going back.

I admire and approve of your stance on this matter !..

 

 

That Chi-lites number is still a dope tune tho.. :|

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stand Radiohead but it's very very similar and I don't see how she doesn't lose in court. It a shame IMO--it's a good song. It takes a different direction, totally different target audience, and the releases are 20+ years apart. Copyright law gets rediculous at some point. I don't know how every song can possibly be 100% unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's Caveman Lawyer during these dire straits?

 

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world of copyright infringement and gleaming discs of sound frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the flashing lights of your text devices make me want to get out of my M5.. and run off into the hills, or wherever... Sometimes when I get a message on my text device, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" Did someone steal the text letters from the ancient Greeks? I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a group of music conjurers like my clients have their god souls stolen by a de-tuned succubus banshee, then they are entitled to no less than two billion in compensatory damages, and two billion in punitive damages. Thank you.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it clearly is a copy.... but does it really matter? are people buying the new one INSTEAD of the radiohead one? or the hollies? thats whats so fucked about copyright laws to me - who buys biz markie records AND gilbert o'sullivan records? not many people, im guessing. so who cares that biz sings some of gilberts lines out of tune for part of his song? its not like gilbert o'sullivan was on the cusp of selling loads of records to 80's hip hop fans.... and i can't imagine that many people buying lana del ray records are now shunning radiohead's 90's back catalogue as a result.

 

That's whats so disgusting about this to me. It's hindering creativity. She'd have been better off if she'd done a cover of Creep. So lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Symatic

 

it clearly is a copy.... but does it really matter? are people buying the new one INSTEAD of the radiohead one? or the hollies? thats whats so fucked about copyright laws to me - who buys biz markie records AND gilbert o'sullivan records? not many people, im guessing. so who cares that biz sings some of gilberts lines out of tune for part of his song? its not like gilbert o'sullivan was on the cusp of selling loads of records to 80's hip hop fans.... and i can't imagine that many people buying lana del ray records are now shunning radiohead's 90's back catalogue as a result.

 

That's whats so disgusting about this to me. It's hindering creativity. She'd have been better off if she'd done a cover of Creep. So lame.

 

 

 

yeah thats a good point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people should be credited and compensated, but the amount of money involved is just nuts sometimes, as is the complexity of clearing samples.

 

If you wrote a song and made a measly £500 from it, but 20 years later some hip-hop producer used part of it and the song made millions, you could use the "sales of X didn't affect sales of Y" argument there, but why shouldn't you be entitled to a slice of the bigger pie? Y wouldn't exist without X, yet you, as the creator of X, aren't entitled to anything? Even if you're fine with that, I don't think you can make that decision on all other artists' behalf, but it has to be a fair slice of the pie that's being dished out and it often isn't - that's the biggest issue IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...