VT’s Music Chat

[GarethRDR]

On 23/04/2023 at 10:41, villa4europe said:

I'm a huge foals fan

Can I recommend giving God Alone. a listen?  The most accurate description I could give would be Antidotes-era Foals inexplicably meets Napalm Death.  Mad fun.

[maqroll]

7 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Also interesting how Marvin gayes estate go after everyone and don't let anyone touch his music... But let kendrick lamar sample him

Not sure, but is it possible Lamar got permission, or offered royalty money?

[bickster]

7 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Also interesting how Marvin gayes estate go after everyone and don't let anyone touch his music... But let kendrick lamar sample him

Different things completely. Both the Thicke/Pharrell & Ed Sheeran lawsuits are about plagiarism not sampling. The claim is that they stole parts of the tune / words (didn't look up which - tune most likely). A sample is entirely different and the sample will have been cleared by the estate in advance by cleared I mean either fee paid or a percentage of the royalties agreed in advance. (I suspect in the Kendrick case - a percentage of the royalties as its a guaranteed long term income generator)

[villa4europe]

10 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Not sure, but is it possible Lamar got permission, or offered royalty money?

I read he got permission but no one knew how because they were notorious for suing anyone who went near his music

Pretty sure the article mentioned that despite blurred lines being massive it made three fifths of **** all for whoever released it because his estate took the lions share

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Different things completely. Both the Thicke/Pharrell & Ed Sheeran lawsuits are about plagiarism not sampling. The claim is that they stole parts of the tune / words (didn't look up which - tune most likely). A sample is entirely different and the sample will have been cleared by the estate in advance by cleared I mean either fee paid or a percentage of the royalties agreed in advance. (I suspect in the Kendrick case - a percentage of the royalties as its a guaranteed long term income generator)

Maybe interesting with regards to the last point - the KL track was a stand alone song rather than on his album so they wouldn't get royalties from the album only from the streams of the song 

Edit - and I'm sure the article I read said the estate spoke to him and let him do it, it was like a why him and no one else type article

Edited April 27, 2023 by villa4europe

[bickster]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

Maybe interesting with regards to the last point - the KL track was a stand alone song rather than on his album so they wouldn't get royalties from the album only from the streams of the song 

Edit - and I'm sure the article I read said the estate spoke to him and let him do it, it was like a why him and no one else type article

Royalties are paid on a song by song basis not a whole album

The article may well say that Kendrick and the estate spoke and they allowed it but absolutely nailed on that the conversation involved lawyers and fees

[blandy]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

Pretty sure the article mentioned that despite blurred lines being massive it made three fifths of **** all for whoever released it because his estate took the lions share

Probably the best (worst) example of that is the Verve and Bittersweet symphony. Used a Rolling Stones sample without permission. Early on the stones, or their lawyers got in touch and said “you need to pay us x amount for using our IP”. The verve said “do one”, so the stones waited and waited and when the album went massive they then sued and absolutely cleaned up and got the entire proceeds from it for Jagger and Richards. I think they later, charitably, kind of gave the rights back to Ashcroft.

Edit. More than £5 million quid in royalties!  And apparently the actual Rolling Stones weren’t bothered, it was the lawyers just doing their job and that’s why Jagger/Richards gave all the money back.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

Pretty sure the article mentioned that despite blurred lines being massive it made three fifths of **** all for whoever released it because his estate took the lions share

That's what happens when you lose in court. It's much better to do what Kendrick has obviously done.  I'm not even sure three fifths of **** all covers it, it probably cost them money 

Quote

[...]In 2016, Williams and Thicke appealed a verdict that awarded $5.3 million in damages (the initial March 2015 jury verdict resulted in a $7.3 million award, but the judge agreed to cut that to $5.3 million), seeking to overturn the ruling, but a federal appeals court upheld the verdict in March 2018.

According to California federal judge John A. Kronstadt’s new amended judgment, Thicke, Williams and Williams’ More Water From Nazareth Publishing Inc. are jointly required to pay Gaye’s family. They jointly owe damages of $2,848,846.50. Meanwhile, Thicke has been ordered to pay an additional $1,768,191.88 and Williams and his publishing company will pay another $357,630.97 to the Gaye family.

Additionally, The Gaye family is entitled to receive prejudgment interest on the damages award and respective profits against each of them, which totals to $9097.51. The Gaye family is also entitled to royalties going forward for 50 percent of the songwriter and publishing revenue coming from “Blurred Lines.”

Rolling Stone

Essentially the judge is saying Gaye was 50% responsible for the tune but when you go to court there's damages for the loss and punitive damages too

[veloman]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

Probably the best (worst) example of that is the Verve and Bittersweet symphony. Used a Rolling Stones sample without permission. Early on the stones, or their lawyers got in touch and said “you need to pay us x amount for using our IP”. The verve said “do one”, 

 

Another classic but probably less known was Uptown or summat by two individuals called Lord Tariq and Peter Gunz. They sampled "Black Cow" by Steely Dan and refused to pay - until Court case ! Bearing in mind the subtley of Steely Dan's music, I should think Becker and Fagen were horrified by this.

 

[Xann]

Thought Thicke was hard done by and as for the Stones vs Ashcroft, none of them wrote the music in question.

This one, I might have looked at?

 

[chrisp65]

Show Biz Kids by Steely Dan includes the line ‘you know they don’t give a **** about anybody else’.

Super Furry Animals asked for permission to lift that line and for a long time it was denied, as apparently the band were shocked by the number of times the band wanted to repeat that lyric.

The previous record for use of the word **** in a song was Insane Clown Posse, who managed 93.

When the Furries eventually got permission (too late for it to be an album track), they beat that record.  

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Show Biz Kids by Steely Dan includes the line ‘you know they don’t give a **** about anybody else’.

Super Furry Animals asked for permission to lift that line and for a long time it was denied, as apparently the band were shocked by the number of times the band wanted to repeat that lyric.

The previous record for use of the word **** in a song was Insane Clown Posse, who managed 93.

When the Furries eventually got permission (too late for it to be an album track), they beat that record.  

If one was to google the lyrics to NSFW by comedy metal band Physcostick you'd see that's now been beaten  (probably)

[maqroll]

3 hours ago, villa4europe said:

I read he got permission but no one knew how because they were notorious for suing anyone who went near his music

Pretty sure the article mentioned that despite blurred lines being massive it made three fifths of **** all for whoever released it because his estate took the lions share

Not sure it matters how he got permission as long as he got it. 

FWIW, I think the estate had valid claims against Thicke and Sheeran. 

It's tricky though because music is derivative and oftentimes in disputes the artist is unaware, like George Harrison was. 

[Seat68]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Probably the best (worst) example of that is the Verve and Bittersweet symphony. Used a Rolling Stones sample without permission. Early on the stones, or their lawyers got in touch and said “you need to pay us x amount for using our IP”. The verve said “do one”, so the stones waited and waited and when the album went massive they then sued and absolutely cleaned up and got the entire proceeds from it for Jagger and Richards. I think they later, charitably, kind of gave the rights back to Ashcroft.

Edit. More than £5 million quid in royalties!  And apparently the actual Rolling Stones weren’t bothered, it was the lawyers just doing their job and that’s why Jagger/Richards gave all the money back.

I feel uncomfortable correcting you as you are normally spot on. They sampled the Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestras version of a Stones song. Weirdly the Stones former manager Klein refused permission and Keith and Mick were added as writers. Recently Klein died and The Stones gave The Verve the song back. 

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I feel uncomfortable correcting you as you are normally spot on. They sampled the Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestras version of a Stones song. Weirdly the Stones former manager Klein refused permission and Keith and Mick were added as writers. Recently Klein died and The Stones gave The Verve the song back. 

Don’t be, Pete. My recollection is from a podcast about 10 years ago and unsurprisingly therefore somewhat hazy.

[villa4europe]

Nme review for the national flashed up on my social media

"their finest album for a decade"

Roll on tomorrow... And another vinyl record to have to have explain

[bickster]

10 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Nme review for the national flashed up on my social media

"their finest album for a decade"

Roll on tomorrow... And another vinyl record to have to have explain

Same here, having spent a bit last week and had three records turn up in the post this week (subscription ones) I might find it hard to justify more vinyl especially as someone wants to go to to Swedish Hell on Saturday  

[Mark Albrighton]

11 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Nme review for the national flashed up on my social media

"their finest album for a decade"

Roll on tomorrow... And another vinyl record to have to have explain

Yeah I’ve been having a look around at reviews, that was a more favourable one. The thing is “…for a decade” quote - so to put it another way, better than the last two then. Doesn’t sound quite as impressive phrased like that.

General consensus seems to be fine, nothing strikingly different to previous albums. I suspect like nearly everything they’ve ever done it’s going to take me a little while for it to click.

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

better than the last two then

Its actually three (just by 2 and a bit weeks!)

Another way of saying it is that it is their best album since High Violet

From the tracks I've heard I'm likely to agree with that line. The trhee tracks I've heard are definitely on a par with HV

[tonyh29]

 

 

19 hours ago, bickster said:

That's what happens when you lose in court. It's much better to do what Kendrick has obviously done.  I'm not even sure three fifths of **** all covers it, it probably cost them money 

Rolling Stone

Essentially the judge is saying Gaye was 50% responsible for the tune but when you go to court there's damages for the loss and punitive damages too

Few years later the Gaye family also went after Williams for Perjury in the original case  ( they lost)  ... think it was because although the judge awarded them a shit tonne of money , he didn't award them costs from the original case ( around £3m) , so they were trying to claim that money