|
|
Post by mossy on Oct 9, 2018 16:44:56 GMT -5
Now, regarding the thing with The Real People… I struggle, maybe also because I find their music really bland and uninstersting. Then, plagiarism? Yeah, to my ears- one chorus and maybe the global "feel" of some songs, but, can you copyright how a song "feels"? Good job you’re not a music lawyer babe. X |
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 9, 2018 16:52:16 GMT -5
Now, regarding the thing with The Real People… I struggle, maybe also because I find their music really bland and uninstersting. Then, plagiarism? Yeah, to my ears- one chorus and maybe the global "feel" of some songs, but, can you copyright how a song "feels"? Good job you’re not a music lawyer babe. X I am not, nor wish to be ;-) I'd pity my clients… And hate my life! |
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Oct 9, 2018 17:02:28 GMT -5
Good job you’re not a music lawyer babe. X I am not, nor wish to be ;-) I'd pity my clients! Me too. The Realies successfully sued Noel despite being “bland and uninstersting.” Pretty sure the AA have as good a case. X |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Oct 9, 2018 17:09:22 GMT -5
Noel might need to check himself the next time he has a pop at Liam for putting out someone elses work. And here is where I don't completely agree. Not so much on the fact of putting out someone else's work or not, but because those two things don't quite equate. This is a personal opinion, for me working with songwriters that are working for a record company to create a record (and probably, going by how labels usually operate, probably a record made for a specific target audience, with a specific sound) is very different to actually having the guts to take it in your hands and write it and/or looking for someone to work with you. One is attempting to generate a product and eventually creates a byproduct that can be considered art, the other is attemping to generate art and eventually generating something that can be used as a product. In my opinion those two things are very different at its core. So, yes I recognise some validity in Noel's criticisms, not only of Liam's latest album, but of the industry as a whole, and we cannot say that his position is exclusively aimed at Liam. He was actually defending the same thing in early 2016, as you can see here (min 4:21) Other than that reagarding this AA collab, I think Noel is wrong to be fiddiling with this album, particularly due the fact that this situation with them is already a huge mess and it would be better left alone, even if it meant putting out a worse album. That said, the AA should be credited fairly. If anything comes out that might have had their input should be clearly stated. But it's not as drastic as them not being acknowledged in the right stuff or the mexican. They were credited as producers. They don't think this is enough, as they believe they did enough to be granted a co-write, Noel thinks otherwise. We may tend to believe one side or the other, we can even base our opinion in previous episodes, but we don't have enough information enough to throw insults around (sarcastic and funny as they may be), particularly when boundaries between producing and co-witing are to my best knowledge, difficult to define. For me it's probably more a question of scale and it entering the spectrum of cowrite (something that NG won't easily give in to, maybe for no other reason than sheer stubbornness) Now, regarding the thing with The Real People… I struggle, maybe also because I find their music really bland and uninstersting. Then, plagiarism? Yeah, to my ears- one chorus and maybe the global "feel" of some songs, but, can you copyright how a song "feels"? It probably isn't exactly the same but to throw a couple of lads under the bus and slag off there work when they put hundreds of hours into a project you were creating together and then slowly use and release elements of that project without proper credit or respect is just plain wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 9, 2018 17:17:49 GMT -5
I am not, nor wish to be ;-) I'd pity my clients! Me too. The Realies succcesfuly sued Noel despite being “bland and uninstersting.” Pretty sure the AA have as good a case. X I know that. And my comment about what I think of their music is of no matter to that case. I just find it funny that I don't think much of their songs and apparently out of that came something I like more. Surely the AA may have a case, and in a way, I kind of wish they'd sue and get over it, than to read Gaz's endless rumminations about it (Gaz can make a mess of grammar and semantics is his posts). And this is where I think Noel is deeply wrong to be using any of this material, not only it can be "ethically" wrong, it keeps open a can of worms (He pobably doesn't give a f***k about any of this though) |
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 9, 2018 17:39:11 GMT -5
And here is where I don't completely agree. Not so much on the fact of putting out someone else's work or not, but because those two things don't quite equate. This is a personal opinion, for me working with songwriters that are working for a record company to create a record (and probably, going by how labels usually operate, probably a record made for a specific target audience, with a specific sound) is very different to actually having the guts to take it in your hands and write it and/or looking for someone to work with you. One is attempting to generate a product and eventually creates a byproduct that can be considered art, the other is attemping to generate art and eventually generating something that can be used as a product. In my opinion those two things are very different at its core. So, yes I recognise some validity in Noel's criticisms, not only of Liam's latest album, but of the industry as a whole, and we cannot say that his position is exclusively aimed at Liam. He was actually defending the same thing in early 2016, as you can see here (min 4:21) Other than that reagarding this AA collab, I think Noel is wrong to be fiddiling with this album, particularly due the fact that this situation with them is already a huge mess and it would be better left alone, even if it meant putting out a worse album. That said, the AA should be credited fairly. If anything comes out that might have had their input should be clearly stated. But it's not as drastic as them not being acknowledged in the right stuff or the mexican. They were credited as producers. They don't think this is enough, as they believe they did enough to be granted a co-write, Noel thinks otherwise. We may tend to believe one side or the other, we can even base our opinion in previous episodes, but we don't have enough information enough to throw insults around (sarcastic and funny as they may be), particularly when boundaries between producing and co-witing are to my best knowledge, difficult to define. For me it's probably more a question of scale and it entering the spectrum of cowrite (something that NG won't easily give in to, maybe for no other reason than sheer stubbornness) Now, regarding the thing with The Real People… I struggle, maybe also because I find their music really bland and uninstersting. Then, plagiarism? Yeah, to my ears- one chorus and maybe the global "feel" of some songs, but, can you copyright how a song "feels"? It probably isn't exactly the same but to throw a couple of lads under the bus and slag off there work when they put hundreds of hours into a project you were creating together and then slowly use and release elements of that project without proper credit or respect is just plain wrong. Regarding respect and not slagging them off I agree. There may be more to it than we know about (as we only have Gaz's side on the story), but I agree. I also agree he shouldn't be using elements of this project. Regarding crediting I don't know- Gaz wants credit as a cowriter, not only as a producer. I cannot judge to what extent he's right or not. It may even be the case that their input was similar to that of David Holmes, who accepted to be credited as a producer. I'd even speculate that the fact that they want a co-writing credit is one of the reasons this album won't see the light of day in its original form anytime soon (rightly or wrongly). I don't see where you can draw the bridge to what Liam is doing with his songwiters form this though. He could never afford not to give them a cowrite, his album exists in its form because, in a way, Warner and its songwriters also wanted it to exist in this way. When you are making decisions on your own, or discussing it with a small management team it's easier to make mistakes, in my opinion. Sometimes big mistakes, sometimes plain stupid decisions and sometimes find yourself in situations where you act incorrectly towards others. This last thing is exacltly what i think could be avoided doing any futher. |
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Oct 9, 2018 17:42:07 GMT -5
Me too. The Realies succcesfuly sued Noel despite being “bland and uninstersting.” Pretty sure the AA have as good a case. X I know that. And my comment about what I think of their music is of no matter to that case. I just find it funny that I don't think much of their songs and apparently out of that came something I like more. Shocking thought I know but you might like the AA album more than HFB. Imagine that! X |
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 9, 2018 17:55:58 GMT -5
I know that. And my comment about what I think of their music is of no matter to that case. I just find it funny that I don't think much of their songs and apparently out of that came something I like more. Shocking thought I know but you might like the AA album more than HFB. Imagine that! X I wouldn't be shocked if I did! Saying that, my fear regarding the AA project is that I always feel they're prone to musical exaggeration. It starts off with good ideas, there are nice elements to the songs throughout, but overall it's very distracting and not concise enough for my taste. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Oct 9, 2018 17:57:37 GMT -5
It probably isn't exactly the same but to throw a couple of lads under the bus and slag off there work when they put hundreds of hours into a project you were creating together and then slowly use and release elements of that project without proper credit or respect is just plain wrong. Regarding respect and not slagging them off I agree. There may be more to it than we know about (as we only have Gaz's side on the story), but I agree. I also agree he shouldn't be using elements of this project. Regarding crediting I don't know- Gaz wants credit as a cowriter, not only as a producer. I cannot judge to what extent he's right or not. It may even be the case that their input was similar to that of David Holmes, who accepted to be credited as a producer. I'd even speculate that the fact that they want a co-writing credit is one of the reasons this album won't see the light of day in its original form anytime soon (rightly or wrongly). I don't see where you can draw the bridge to what Liam is doing with his songwiters form this though. He could never afford not to give them a cowrite, his album exists in its form because, in a way, Warner and its songwriters also wanted it to exist in this way. When you are making decisions on your own, or discussing it with a small management team it's easier to make mistakes, in my opinion. Sometimes big mistakes, sometimes plain stupid decisions and sometimes find yourself in situations where you act incorrectly towards others. This last thing is exacltly what i think could be avoided doing any futher. Noel has spoken about it too, Gaz has just given us far more detail and I suspect that's because for Noel to give more detail and be honest about it would probably confirm Gaz's account. And in regard to Liam, as I said it isn't an exact comparison but Noel has a pop a Liam for for using songwriters, Noel uses people to contribute to his writing but doesnt credit them. I think there is a element of hypocrisy there. Even his mate Weller gave Simon Dine writing credits for doing what to me seems like a similar job, until they fell out about it, maybe Weller took advice from Noel. |
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 9, 2018 18:29:58 GMT -5
Noel has spoken about it too, Gaz has just given us far more detail and I suspect that's because for Noel to give more detail and be honest about it would probably confirm Gaz's account. And in regard to Liam, as I said it isn't an exact comparison but Noel has a pop a Liam for for using songwriters, Noel uses people to contribute to his writing but doesnt credit them. I think there is a element of hypocrisy there. Even his mate Weller gave Simon Dine writing credits for doing what to me seems like a similar job, until they fell out about it, maybe Weller took advice from Noel. -- Maybe, but I still would like to hear his side of the story, to the same extent we heard Gaz's.
Noel uses people to contribute to his writing but doesnt credit them.-- I think you are assuming that. I think It's not that clear, otherwise, maybe Holmes would (possibly) also have wanted a co-write. For me, it may also be the case that they have different views on what co-writing and producing is. I've been reading further into the subject and the whole crediting thing seems very variable, and sometimes subjective. I may be wrong but I feel that if this was that clear-cut, he wouldn't be taking so may risks using this material any further. I think there is a element of hypocrisy there. -- If, indeed their input was absolutely and undeniably that of co-writers, then you are right. Like I said I have doubts regarding the crediting rules, as they seem very unclear. It reminds me of rules for publishing papers- every publisher has their rules. Higher impact factor usually means stricter rules. For instance, in case reports, some people like to include doctors that assisted the patient being reported as co-authors, even if they had no direct input in writing the paper (it is sometimes seen as some form of offense if they don't), but the fact is, higher impact publishers clearly state that only people writing or scientifically revising or designing the paper should be credited as authors, even if the other doctors did save the guy's life! |
|
|
|
Post by headshrinker84 on Oct 9, 2018 19:15:12 GMT -5
Gaz is a moaning vagina.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ebby Calvin 'Nuke' LaLoosh on Oct 9, 2018 19:42:19 GMT -5
eva currently working on ACP session tapes.... Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Oct 10, 2018 1:21:56 GMT -5
Noel has spoken about it too, Gaz has just given us far more detail and I suspect that's because for Noel to give more detail and be honest about it would probably confirm Gaz's account. And in regard to Liam, as I said it isn't an exact comparison but Noel has a pop a Liam for for using songwriters, Noel uses people to contribute to his writing but doesnt credit them. I think there is a element of hypocrisy there. Even his mate Weller gave Simon Dine writing credits for doing what to me seems like a similar job, until they fell out about it, maybe Weller took advice from Noel.
Noel uses people to contribute to his writing but doesnt credit them.-- I think you are assuming that. There’s no assumption. Noel ripped off The Realies and they had to sue him to get their fair credit. It’s public knowledge. X |
|
|
|
Post by MONO on Oct 10, 2018 2:05:00 GMT -5
The question whether someone gets a credit or not is mainly a decision of finance and power. Therefore the credits do not necessarily reflect who actually wrote a song. That's common knowledge in the business.
There are cases like "change a word, take a third" where big stars demand being credited as songwriters (most famous example: Elvis' manager Colonel Parker forced songwriters to share credits with Elvis though he didn't even bother to change a word). In other cases, songwriters support artists and "help them writing songs" but don't receive a credit because their contract states that they are only producers whether that's correct or not.
P.S.: I think it's highly unlikely that Greg Kurstin who produced most songs of Paul McCartney's latest album didn't contribute enough to them to be regarded as a co-writer. Again this is a question of finance and power.
EDIT: P.P.S.: I'd be even more surprised if McCartney actually co-wrote "Fuh You" and "Nothing for Free", the only two songs where he shared the credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 10, 2018 2:58:04 GMT -5
Noel uses people to contribute to his writing but doesnt credit them.-- I think you are assuming that. There’s no assumption. Noel ripped off The Realies and they had to sue him to get their fair credit. It’s public knowledge. X I was referring to the AA question in particular. They were hired as producers, and to cut a long story short, believe they did more than just production and, hence want a songwiting credit. To my best knowledge that was not the case with the RP. My point is, we don't really know how much of a generalized practice this is to make a general assumption (yeah, I know, there's the beatles "rip offs", but mant others could be accused of the same thing). By the way, I'm really not sure how may songs were the RP credited in as cowriters after sueing? Does anyone know?
Also, there is also the question raised by MONO regarding finance and power. That is true, and people know this is the case, I'd say it also enforces my point that rules are not clear (and maybe they were meant not to be clear, precisely beacuse of power questions), the thing is I think those questions shuld be clear from the start and should be specified in contracts regarding crediting before any work being done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 4:25:55 GMT -5
There’s no assumption. Noel ripped off The Realies and they had to sue him to get their fair credit. It’s public knowledge. X I was referring to the AA question in particular. They were hired as producers, and to cut a long story short, believe they did more than just production and, hence want a songwiting credit. To my best knowledge that was not the case with the RP. My point is, we don't really know how much of a generalized practice this is to make a general assumption (yeah, I know, there's the beatles "rip offs", but mant others could be accused of the same thing). By the way, I'm really not sure how may songs were the RP credited in as cowriters after sueing? Does anyone know?
Also, there is also the question raised by MONO regarding finance and power. That is true, and people know this is the case, I'd say it also enforces my point that rules are not clear (and maybe they were meant not to be clear, precisely beacuse of power questions), the thing is I think those questions shuld be clear from the start and should be specified in contracts regarding crediting before any work being done.
Go listen to Gil Scottt-Heron's "Home Is Where The Hatred Is" and then listen to Keep on Reaching. Do you hear any similarities? |
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Oct 10, 2018 5:55:04 GMT -5
There’s no assumption. Noel ripped off The Realies and they had to sue him to get their fair credit. It’s public knowledge. X I was referring to the AA question in particular. Sure, but Tom and I were making a wider point. The reason we raise The Real People is because it is concrete proof Noel has a history of ripping off collaborators and friends. Which increases the probability he did it to the AA. They got a co-writing credit on Rocking Chair (after taking Noel to court). I believe there was an out of court settlement for the other songs (that is, they took a big payment instead of seeking more writing credits). So it’s not public knowledge what other songs they contributed to and they don’t speak about it due to the settlement. But we know Don’t Go Away was clearly ripped off from one of their songs, so there may be others. I agree 100%. The AA were probably very naive and Noel has more money and better lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Oct 10, 2018 6:03:57 GMT -5
I was referring to the AA question in particular. Sure, but Tom and I were making a wider point. The reason we raise The Real People is because it is concrete proof Noel has a history of ripping off collaborators and friends. Which increases the probability he did it to the AA. They got a co-writing credit on Rocking Chair (after taking Noel to court). I believe there was an out of court settlement for the other songs (that is, they took a big payment instead of seeking more writing credits). So it’s not public knowledge what other songs they contributed to and they don’t speak about it due to the settlement. But we know Don’t Go Away was clearly ripped off from one of their songs, so there may be others. I agree 100%. The AA were probably very naive and Noel has more money and better lawyers. Which "others" besides Rockin' Chair and Don't Go Away? |
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Oct 10, 2018 6:23:56 GMT -5
Sure, but Tom and I were making a wider point. The reason we raise The Real People is because it is concrete proof Noel has a history of ripping off collaborators and friends. Which increases the probability he did it to the AA. They got a co-writing credit on Rocking Chair (after taking Noel to court). I believe there was an out of court settlement for the other songs (that is, they took a big payment instead of seeking more writing credits). So it’s not public knowledge what other songs they contributed to and they don’t speak about it due to the settlement. But we know Don’t Go Away was clearly ripped off from one of their songs, so there may be others. I agree 100%. The AA were probably very naive and Noel has more money and better lawyers. Which "others" besides Rockin' Chair and Don't Go Away? Columbia, supposedly, was done with them. |
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 10, 2018 6:47:43 GMT -5
I was referring to the AA question in particular. Sure, but Tom and I were making a wider point. The reason we raise The Real People is because it is concrete proof Noel has a history of ripping off collaborators and friends. Which increases the probability he did it to the AA. I'm not questioning that. What I mean is that there is no concrete proof that it happened with the AA, and hence the assumption shouldn't (im my opinion) be widened. The AA were producing an album, there is an overlap between producing and writing that allows different interpretation to credits. In my opinion, the situation was clearer with the Real People. The thing with plagiarism is that there are tons of possible rip offs in the music industry, some sue and win, others sue and don't win and others don't sue (but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have won if they did). Take for instance Feist's How come you never go there and Hozier's take me to church, Come together and that chuck berry song, Radieohead's creep and that hollies song or even Feist's Let it die and Françoise Hardy's L'amour ne dure pas toujours. It all seems very random to me. I can tell when songs are blatant copies, other than that, it's subject to interpretation and I don't even think it is always a conscious thing. You may argue that in Noel's case there may be a preponderance of rip offs from collaborators and friends (but, is there?) Out of interest, did Noel ever sue anyone due to plagiarism? I vagely remember him moaning about the Green day song, but is tehre anything other than that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 6:54:22 GMT -5
Out of interest, did Noel ever sue anyone due to plagiarism? I vagely remember him moaning about the Green day song, but is tehre anything other than that? The interesting thing is that particular Green Day song (Boulevard of Broken Dreams) is not the only Oasis reference on that album. That said, Noel has never begrudged anyone cobbling together bits of his tunes to make other ones. If anything, his label might have taken legal issue with people in the past, but not him. |
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Oct 10, 2018 6:58:52 GMT -5
Sure, but Tom and I were making a wider point. The reason we raise The Real People is because it is concrete proof Noel has a history of ripping off collaborators and friends. Which increases the probability he did it to the AA. I'm not questioning that. What I mean is that there is no concrete proof that it happened with the AA, and hence the assumption shouldn't (im my opinion) be widened. It’s not an assumption. It’s a direct allegation from Gaz Cobain. It comes down to whether you believe him or not. Given Noel’s history and that The Right Stuff sounds nothing like anything else Noel has written but could easily fit on any Amorphous Androgynous album, on balance of probabilities and until further concrete evidence comes out, I’m willing to believe him. X |
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Oct 10, 2018 7:15:33 GMT -5
Out of interest, did Noel ever sue anyone due to plagiarism? I vagely remember him moaning about the Green day song, but is tehre anything other than that? The interesting thing is that particular Green Day song (Boulevard of Broken Dreams) is not the only Oasis reference on that album. That said, Noel has never begrudged anyone cobbling together bits of his tunes to make other ones. If anything, his label might have taken legal issue with people in the past, but not him. What other Oasis references is there? Just out of interest. Amercian Idiot was the first album I bought, loved that album. |
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Oct 10, 2018 8:10:24 GMT -5
I'm not questioning that. What I mean is that there is no concrete proof that it happened with the AA, and hence the assumption shouldn't (im my opinion) be widened. It’s not an assumption. It’s a direct allegation from Gaz Cobain. It comes down to whether you believe him or not. Given Noel’s history and that The Right Stuff sounds nothing like anything else Noel has written but could easily fit on any Amorphous Androgynous album, on balance of probabilities and until further concrete evidence comes out, I’m willing to believe him. X I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate here, if you wish. I did not say I'm not willing to believe him, as I said for me it's more a matter of scale than substance and I tend to believe that the truth will fall somewhere between both sides. When I said assumption, I meant Tom's, not Gaz's. I know he made a direct allegation. But then again, he's going though so much effort and (I believe) pain regarding this matter, that I suppose it would be better to sue and end it altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Oct 10, 2018 8:29:11 GMT -5
This "debate" so far, really is a dance around.
Plain fact of the matter, is that Gaz should have had a contract with Noel before he laid down a single note. And I think in 20/20 hindsight, Gaz probably wishes he had done a music business 101 thing that every producer with half a brain asks for.
The Gaz/Noel thing has always been a case of miscommunication more than anything else. Noel has probably gone through much of his musical career, like many of his generation, with the thought that the man who brings in the guitar is pretty much the songwriter. That's not really an out-there concept, and even Gaz cops to this in one of his long ago posts, though he does it snidely.
Gaz is certainly not from that school of thought. Gaz assumes, in a much more new wave form of thinking, that the producer isn't just a pusher of ideas, but sometimes and often the inhabitor and creator of those ideas and should be either compensated or credited as such.
Those two opposing philosophies ran against each other because the two never bothered to hash out the business side of it before they began working. Much of that was probably because the AA had been working on remixes for Oasis for a bit and so they nor Noel probably didn't think to go further discussing business. The AA worked with Noel enough to trust him and Noel worked with the AA enough to believe that the same cut they got before was sufficient. That caused both to work out of assumptions, which is a terrible working environment, which in the end is on both of them.
Sorry, but the fact that both parties have tried to skate any type of responsibility in the matter makes each one of them as bad as the other. If Noel can't see what he's done wrong, well, that means he's obviously a heartless business man (then again, what major artist isn't). And if Gaz can't see what he did wrong, then that just makes him a self-martyred idiot.
I'd suggest that Noel grows a heart and Gaz grows a pair.
|
|
