Lady Gaga blocks Weird Al parody...after considerable expense is spent recording it. (UPDATE)

[PureIrony]

Most people are honored to be parodied by Weird Al. And doesn't he have the right to parody anyway?

 

[jpoon]

I'm glad he released it on the internets, who honestly gives two shits about what this woman thinks...about anything?

 

[Lilani]

Seems like a dick move on his behalf. Why does this musical moral code of his not apply to Youtube and MP3s?

I think it still applies, it's just easier to say "Whoops! It leaked, sorry" when it shows up on YouTube. Plus, it might make the artist feel a little better knowing he's not making any profit on it, whatever grievances they might have about the song.

 

[mr_rubino]

Funny how Madonna never blocked Gaga from releasing the same song...

OT:

She has every right to block it. She wrote the melodies and they belong to her, if she doesn't want people making a buck off her stuff that's her right.

[small]and Madonna's[/small]

Hell, supposedly Madonna came up with the title.
Also: Born This Way is a terrible song. You can't do a good parody of something so sledgehammer-obvious in its lyrics.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[sarcasm]You can read tone? I didn't even tag it or anything.[/sarcasm].

[matter-of-fact]What I found disappointing was what seemed to be an ignorance on fair use by a "professional" music video creator.[/matter-of-fact]

[factually]I am not an artist or musician, this is true.[/factually]

[personal conjecture]I can, however, presuppose that, should Al's side of the story be believed (and it looks like more is unfolding as I type); he went through the cost and effort to produce a song on good faith that she would approve it (having already read the lyrics and hopefully having familiarity with her own [used loosely here] tune). She then denied it. So he respected that and did not publish it commercially. However, he had already gone through the effort of making it, so he published it for free. As any artist who had put effort into creating something would want to share it.[/personal conjecture]

All fair points. I'll try and respond as best I can.

I do understand the terms of fair use. In fact my own work comes under that category, as I make songs about videogames. So far I've been fine as all the developers have loved the songs, even going so far as to promote them on their social pages - but I would like to think that the moment the creator of one of the games expressed a problem with their creations being used in such a way, that I would have the decency and integrity to remove the song from public view. It just wouldn't sit right with me. I wouldn't have to... but I would want to.

Let me give you an example. There is a very popular drum break by a band the Skull Snaps, it is used by the Prodigy in 'Poison' and Rob Dougan in that 'Clubbed To Death' song from the Matrix. I recently read an interview with the original creator where he lamented everyone using his drumbeat and him not getting a penny from it. You know what I did? Removed it from the song I used it in and vowed to myself never to use it again.

Same goes the other way... today I got messages from some fans about no less than 6 different Youtube users who had used my songs in thier own videos without asking permission... that kind of thing can be very frustrating to deal with. Most of the time people are nice about it and will take it down if you ask them nicely, but there are always those who feel it is their god given right to do what they wish with your creations. I've even had people post them on websites claiming they made them! Now yes, the law may say they can... but my personal moral code does not. We may disagree on that, and hey. that's ok. As long as we respect eachother's views.

Also, I can understand why she wanted to 'hear' the song first. The tone of a song and how it is performed can greatly change how the lyrics are interpreted.

Basically... I think they're both being hypocrites. Him for releasing it, and her for denying him the use of it when she ripped the song off wholesale from Madonna in the first place.

See where I'm coming from?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

She doesn't exactly have any respect to lose from my part...

Seems like a dick move on his behalf. Why does this musical moral code of his not apply to Youtube and MP3s?

Miracle.

Contact Al.

You must find that song...

I've heard it.

I don't like it.

I prefer musicians who write their own melodies.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Huh. What a ***** move. Who would have thought?

 

[gigastrike]

Isn't the source music kinda about not letting people get to you? You'd think that Lady Gaga would actually take her lyrics to heart, especially since she supposidly lives that way.

 

[Carlston]

Honestly from the early days Al would ask permission, then make the song. If he had a contract and she blocked it after, she has to pay to break it, and he wouldn't make the song.


Stupid move since Al's parodies always increase sales of the original (well least with modern songs)

 

[gigastrike]

Someone might want to warn Little Kuriboh...

His account gets banned on a weekly basis by the Youtube system anyway. I don't think he'd care that much.

 

[Carlston]

Don't forget Brooklyn rage.

Nayh Nayh nayh NAHY!

 

[manythings]

So, gaga's a *****. Tell me something I didn't already know.

Well now we know she is a ***** without a sense of humour... though really if you read any interview with her that is blatantly clear as well.

Someone might want to warn Little Kuriboh...

Weird Al's policy is to only release it officially if they give the thumbs up. If not he cans it and does something else.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

How does it make him seem like and ass? He has every legal right not to ask for anyone's permission and the few people who have said no have been dealt with respect. The only person who's being a dick here is lady gaga. If she didn't want the song she could have said No earlier.

He had every right to release the song without Gaga's consent. Instead he decided that he wouldn't and respect her opinion, but he already went through all the trouble to make the song (despite the fact Gaga had plenty of opportunity to say "No" somewhere earlier down the line) so he figures he might as well share it with his fans. I don't see how that makes him a dick.

The reason I say it makes him seem like a dick is that he's breaking his moral code for a bit of petty middle-fingering. If it were any other reason I'd be on his side but I can't respect a stance of 'I don't like to release parodies without the artist's consent, this is what I believe right up until I feel pissed off.' Being magnanimous in victory is the easy part.

Well, I can see where you're coming from. He does say that he likes to respect the opinion of the artist that he plans on parodying but then releases the song anyway despite the fact that Gaga didn't want him too. That does seem a bit hypocritcal. The only reason why I support him is because I don't think that he's doing it to spite Gaga, he'd rather just share his hard work with his fans. Obviously neither of us know for sure why he did it, so we're both just guessing.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Perhaps she is merely jealous that he possesses something she woefully lacks: talent.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Hmm, after reading the second link, it sounds like there might have been a bit of executive meddling in the works here. Might have been a bit of a mistake like the whole thing with Amish Paradise.

...Or it could just be an attempt to save face and act like the whole thing was a bit misunderstanding.

Can't really tell either way right now.

 

[Warforger]

Oh wow. What the fuck? So the biggest mainstream female singer that tries to not make people who don't look like say any other female mainstream singer bad by dressing in a way that says "I'm being myself" ends up just being a ***** to anyone who wants to take photo's of her or record parody songs?

Anyway, what an unintentional strange way to announce a new album.

Same thing happened with Coolio and Amish Paradise (or whatever Weird Al called it). I think he went on to release it anyway, thus ending the lamest feud in rap history.

Er no, he thought he had permission as Coolio's label told him that it was ok, but it turned out Coolio himself was not, now he worked it out and they're fine. To this day he has no idea what happened.

 

[Plurralbles]

i thought she had no right to do anything about it...

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: Click for post.

[sarcasm]You can read tone? I didn't even tag it or anything.[/sarcasm].

[matter-of-fact]What I found disappointing was what seemed to be an ignorance on fair use by a "professional" music video creator.[/matter-of-fact]

[factually]I am not an artist or musician, this is true.[/factually]

[personal conjecture]I can, however, presuppose that, should Al's side of the story be believed (and it looks like more is unfolding as I type); he went through the cost and effort to produce a song on good faith that she would approve it (having already read the lyrics and hopefully having familiarity with her own [used loosely here] tune). She then denied it. So he respected that and did not publish it commercially. However, he had already gone through the effort of making it, so he published it for free. As any artist who had put effort into creating something would want to share it.[/personal conjecture]

Spoiler: Click for post.

All fair points. I'll try and respond as best I can.

I do understand the terms of fair use. In fact my own work comes under that category, as I make songs about videogames. So far I've been fine as all the developers have loved the songs, even going so far as to promote them on their social pages - but I would like to think that the moment the creator of one of the games expressed a problem with their creations being used in such a way, that I would have the decency and integrity to remove the song from public view. It just wouldn't sit right with me. I wouldn't have to... but I would want to.

Let me give you an example. There is a very popular drum break by a band the Skull Snaps, it is used by the Prodigy in 'Poison' and Rob Dougan in that 'Clubbed To Death' song from the Matrix. I recently read an interview with the original creator where he lamented everyone using his drumbeat and him not getting a penny from it. You know what I did? Removed it from the song I used it in and vowed to myself never to use it again.

Same goes the other way... today I got messages from some fans about no less than 6 different Youtube users who had used my songs in thier own videos without asking permission... that kind of thing can be very frustrating to deal with. Most of the time people are nice about it and will take it down if you ask them nicely, but there are always those who feel it is their god given right to do what they wish with your creations. I've even had people post them on websites claiming they made them! Now yes, the law may say they can... but my personal moral code does not. We may disagree on that, and hey. that's ok. As long as we respect eachother's views.

Also, I can understand why she wanted to 'hear' the song first. The tone of a song and how it is performed can greatly change how the lyrics are interpreted.

Basically... I think they're both being hypocrites. Him for releasing it, and her for denying him the use of it when she ripped the song off wholesale from Madonna in the first place.

See where I'm coming from?

I see where you are coming from and I do respect that.

For me, I suppose the key things in Fair Use are Compensation and Citation.

If you are going to use someone else's material and makes money off of it; I think you, me, and even Mr. Yankovic would agree, you should ask permission.

My ethic on it is that if you aren't going to make money off of it, at least give credit where credit is due. I believe Weird Al has met those requirements. He isn't selling it, and he always cites the source material (even in his blog back to the original source).

I think we are on the same page on that, except that you would extend the permission requirement across the board. I can see that concern, but I don't agree so long as the due diligence of at least citing the original author is made. At least in the parody arena.

We would all be agreed, however, that taking someone else's work and claiming it as completely your own original work would cross the line with or without profit. Fair Use policy would especially agree if it was for profit.

 

[drisky]

Because recording and producing a song, even a song-parody that uses already set music, takes very long to do, and costs quite a bit of money. He receives no money from the song being on Youtube or for a free mp3. Not only that, but if you read the blog post, you'd see that he delayed release of his album so he could do the Lady Gaga song.

Recording and producing a parody does not take a lot of time and money. No more love and time and effort than the original writer spent creating it.

If someone doesn't want their art that they created being used in a way they don't like, he should respect that.

And that mix he put on Youtube is NOT a high standard, expensive mix. I've heard better bedroom recordings.

Gaga claims to have written it in 5 minutes. She may be lying or trying to prove a point that people will buy her stuff without effort on her part. Ether way I think there is seems little love in "Born this Way" and more just cash in and and bragging rights. It just surprises me that Gaga would treat the song with such little respect herself, then deny a parody.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

She doesn't exactly have any respect to lose from my part...

Seems like a dick move on his behalf. Why does this musical moral code of his not apply to Youtube and MP3s?

Miracle.

Contact Al.

You must find that song...

I've heard it.

I don't like it.

I prefer musicians who write their own melodies.

When I first found Weird Al, I listened to his parody of Nirvana. At the time, I didn't know it was a parody nor did I know about Nirvana. When I did find that out and investigated further, I found that his version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was on par with Nirvana's original and I became a huge Nirvana fan afterwords. Ever since, I have done my best to listen to the original songs that Al has parodied over the years and it does get a little cumbersome when he does POLKA PARODIES of MULTIPLE SONGS in a row.

I can say, without hesitation, that I enjoyed Weird Al's version over Lady Gaga's mainly because I can detect the talent and soul with Al's version, along with his usual brand of humor. To me, it doesn't matter if you write the melodies or not - if you can prove to me that you have musical talent, then you're gold in my book. Al has proven that time and time again over the years, Stefani has not. When Al does use an artist's song as parody (like others have said before me) it usually means that he's recognizes the artist's capability as a performer and should be celebrated. Not to be whined over like the asshats Coolio and Gaga are.