Jump to content
Fast Tracker

Radiohead sue Lana del Rey for plagiarising Creep

Recommended Posts

If anyone questions that Thom has strong feelings about these things and is personally behind the copyright lawsuit, remember this performance, a very rare cover from AFP, which just so happened to occur when Blurred Lines was going on:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telerama.fr/musique/plagiat-radioheadlana-del-rey-on-a-parle-au-coauteur-de-la-chanson-originelle,-albert-hammond,n5437364.php

 

En 1993, étiez-vous à l’origine de la procédure juridique contre Radiohead ?

 

Non, pas du tout, il s’agit, comme dans cette affaire avec Lana Del Rey, d’un règlement de comptes entre éditeurs interposés. Ce qui est d’ailleurs amusant à noter, c’est que la maison d’édition musicale Rondor Music, à l’origine des poursuites contre Radiohead à l’époque, était alliée de la même entité (Warner/Chappell) qui cherche aujourd’hui des poux à Lana Del Rey. Si je puis me permettre, il y a dans tout ça l’expression d’un certain... karma !

 

Selon vous, faut-il lutter contre de tels emprunts ou considérer qu’il s’agit d’une pratique consubstantielle à toute forme d’art ?

 

Dans ce genre d’affaire, tout dépend de ce que l’on entend par emprunt. S’il s’agit de l’utilisation pure et simple d’un morceau, il est normal que ce ne soit pas gratuit. Mais si vous êtes inspiré par une œuvre qui vous nourrit émotionnellement, que vous vous l’appropriez et qui, in fine, aboutit à quelque chose d’unique, alors c’est légitime. Il est évident que les grands peintres et compositeurs classiques s’inspiraient les uns des autres, sans pour autant se copier.

 

 

In that video, you see her process of drawing influence from many sources (when she puts things into the witches' cauldron).

 

Washington Post review of Lust for Life is a good explanation of how her music (like Radiohead) makes quotations and references in order to express something distinct and new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get Free was about recovering from addiction and depression and it was dedicated to specific people who died of overdose. Their names were originally part of the lyrics (like Names by Cat Power, one of her favorite artists and inspirations) but removed from the final song because she didn't want to put the focus on those people specifically, since they were famous people (as that is Lana's world) but she wanted everyone to see the message and not only focus on the names.

 

An artist who once struggled with depression himself has no right to censor that expression, in the name of "protecting" a stupid pop song he wrote at age 18 about how sad he was that his unrequited crush wouldn't fuck him the way he felt entitled to. Lana has even stopped playing her deeply personal song live because of threats by Radiohead's lawyers that she might no longer be able to.

 

Whatever legal justification can be invented for Radiohead's bullshit there is no moral justification. It's evil. I'm not trolling at all.

 

 

(She talks about the song's meaning in that video.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah and  almost everyone here agrees that it is out of line so youre just preaching to the choir. it's not evil though dont be ridiculous. arguably more people have seen this song because of the lawsuit. you should be thanking thom yorke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah and  almost everyone here agrees that it is out of line so youre just preaching to the choir. it's not evil though dont be ridiculous. arguably more people have seen this song because of the lawsuit. you should be thanking thom yorke. 

 

 

out of line?

and who are you or anyone else here to make that call?

it's not your fucking art so mind your own fucking business.

no one here is in any position to say whether or not the lawsuit is just.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get Free was about recovering from addiction and depression and it was dedicated to specific people who died of overdose. Their names were originally part of the lyrics (like Names by Cat Power, one of her favorite artists and inspirations) but removed from the final song because she didn't want to put the focus on those people specifically, since they were famous people (as that is Lana's world) but she wanted everyone to see the message and not only focus on the names.

 

An artist who once struggled with depression himself has no right to censor that expression, in the name of "protecting" a stupid pop song he wrote at age 18 about how sad he was that his unrequited crush wouldn't fuck him the way he felt entitled to. Lana has even stopped playing her deeply personal song live because of threats by Radiohead's lawyers that she might no longer be able to.

 

Whatever legal justification can be invented for Radiohead's bullshit there is no moral justification. It's evil. I'm not trolling at all.

 

 

(She talks about the song's meaning in that video.)

 

so because of the themes that are within her album, that alone makes it exempt from a lawsuit?

because it's about addiction and depression?

do you realize how fucking stupid and childish you sound?

 

also- this isn't about censorship you fucking mindless twat.

you clearly don't even understand what censorship is.

lol dude your ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills are astounding.

 

you don't get to decide when an artist is allowed to sue another artist.

it's not your call.

you're just a judgmental, ignorant, whiny little shit who's making absurd, baseless, hysterical and hyperbolic remarks.

you're obviously a troll, your account is brand new and you appeared as this news was breaking on this forum.

 

stupid fucking alias.

this is why the  radiohead subreddit is so much better than MT.

it's not nearly as trollish, cliquish and juvenile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mind your own fucking business.

 

do you realize how fucking stupid and childish you sound?

 

this isn't about censorship you fucking mindless twat.

 

you're just a judgmental, ignorant, whiny little shit

 

stupid fucking alias.

*sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out of line?

and who are you or anyone else here to make that call?

it's not your fucking art so mind your own fucking business.

no one here is in any position to say whether or not the lawsuit is just.

XD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah and almost everyone here agrees that it is out of line so youre just preaching to the choir. it's not evil though dont be ridiculous. arguably more people have seen this song because of the lawsuit. you should be thanking thom yorke.

yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out of line?

and who are you or anyone else here to make that call?

it's not your fucking art so mind your own fucking business.

no one here is in any position to say whether or not the lawsuit is just.

eat shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be fine with being part of a double ban too if that makes it easier to get rid of that user. I never insulted people here to anywhere near that degree but I did say some unproven things about Thom's personal life which I'm now questioning the truth of, and which aren't really all that relevant to the thread even if they were somehow true, so I could see that being ban-worthy on a Radiohead board. Even if I truly did believe these things at the time I wrote them, I admit to being a bit paranoid because I felt so blindsided and confused by this lawsuit coming from the band.

 

I've also been banned from MT in the past for other reasons so I'm not really supposed to be here, nor would I regret not being allowed to return.

 

I also think some of y'all should chill about this being "the end" of Radiohead, which isn't something that I even said. If anything, this thread has had a more active discussion than most others on MT lately, and (although my own account- and posting- actually precedes this thread and the lawsuit news) seems to be bringing a few old posters back out of the woodwork.

 

I think it's not going to be the end of Radiohead's interest from the wider public just because they did a trashy thing, just like Trump being trash all the time isn't the end of Trump. It may be the end of any pretense of anticorporate ideology from Radiohead and the end of a few fans' ability to keep calling ourselves fans, but Radiohead still have support (or are even gaining support over this) from all the people who don't expect Radiohead to symbolize anything other than rapacious self interest in the first place, people drawn to the band because they are (in the words of some old poetically challenged fan) "towering above the rest" according to so many measures (higher sales, higher review scores, greater fame, more headlining shows at big festivals) rather than because they are more selfless or introspective or humble or self critical.

 

Like Trump, they know how to win. They are loved for being "alphas", even if they pose as "betas". When Trump is more racist than usual, everyone sees by now that it doesn't hurt and may help his brand, whose main appeal to his supporters is based on appealing to and encouraging their own racism, which other politicians and the media make them feel guilty for. When Radiohead act more greedy and privileged than usual, and especially when they do that while targeting a younger, recently-woke, female "pop" artist, that may seem repellent to many people on social media but at the end of the day, maybe they too, are just giving their largely privileged, rockist, apathetic/right leaning and sexist core fans the show they want, and increasing rather than decreasing their support.

 

In recent days Radiohead have also received new support from unlikely quarters, with Travis Scott (who Thom lowkey dissed last year by complaining about his autotune at Coachella) and Grimes (a fan and past opener for Lana Del Rey) both following Thom on social media. So I would say they are far from "over," it's just they are over as a symbol of the things many of us once believed they represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...