The melodies and instrumentation are largely dissimilar. Maybe the "vibe" is the same, but big deal. That vibe is all over the fucking place the last few years.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 16:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, there's a closer resemblance between "Ghostbusters" and "I Want a New Drug" than this VW song and "Take Care".
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 16:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's only just close enough to avoid litigation (& i'm sure VW did some research into that) to say it's superior is just challops.
― jed_, Friday, 18 May 2012 16:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
to say it's superior is just challops
A challop? Maybe. But an op all the same. (Seriously, if Hamilton Leithauser was singing instead of a nameless vocalist, it would be a great Walkmen song.)
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 16:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
So I guess the ad agency DID make a play for the song, but were denied. Indie nerds are totally making a mountain out of a molehill, though.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
eh if they wanted the track and made a soundalike that was transparent enough for that many people to notice (i haven't compared) then it's fair game for people to cry foul
― some dude, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Basically, one person thought so and then Pitchfork carried the flag. I still say that if you put "Take Care" in a mix with a bunch of other songs that sound like it, you wouldn't be able to distinguish the VW ad's song from any of the others as "the replica".
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
the (male) vocalist is very closely copying Legrand's vocal style which is pretty unique sounding even amongst a slew of imitators. the song key lyrics is "i'll watch over you" in place of the almost exact point where Legrand sings "i'll take care of you." you may not like BH or care that they've been ripped off but you're being disingenuous here.
― jed_, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
No, I do like a fair amount of Beach House material, but I'm still not hearing enough similarity between these recordings for people's short to get all in a wad.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
every time i hear a BH song without actively knowing or thinking about who i'm listening to her voice scans as a male voice to me
― some dude, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
this kind of "ripping off" is totally fine, who cares. "that stoner rock band rips off black sabbath!"
― am0n, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
same here, i was kinda shocked when i first saw a video. i thought it was a female sounding dude rather than a woman who sounds like a dude who sounds like a woman.
― jed_, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
am0n, it's a whole different thing if an ad agency commission a soundalike track after a licensing refusal from a band.
Beach House's response is that they don't care about it too much either but i suspect that they're just being gracious.
― jed_, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
not illegal, totally fine. case closed
― am0n, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
its all on the up and up
― am0n, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
probably those kinds of deliberate soundalikes happen all the time but the case is usually more like this than something undeniably obviously like getting a guy to sing like Tom Waits
― some dude, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Its not illegal, but its a huge dick move.
"Can we use your song?"
"Fine, we'll just pay some schlubs to craft a subtlely different 'take' on it."
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 18 May 2012 17:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
The only reason this is a big deal is because it was used in a tv ad. The same people complaining about this are the people who download Girl Talk albums the first day they're available and champion his straight up unlicensed use of dozens of copyrighted recordings.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
dog i don't even care about this but you're bending over backwards with some apples and orange ish
― some dude, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Maybe. I just feel a bit righteous today is all. This is the fight I picked.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
ad execs are walking dick moves tho, what do you expect. in truth, i don't rly side one way or the other but i think its lolworthy that there's an indie wrecking crew band
― am0n, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is insane
― Mordy, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't understand why ppl who were okay with an artist using unlicensed samples to make his collage music are not okay with an advertising agency ripping off a band's song to help sell their merchandise. totally incomprehensible to me!
― Mordy, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
― am0n, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't find one of these to be any worse than the other, but for some reason when a sound(ish)alike song shows up in a commercial, people go apeshit. For that matter, when an original recording of a song shows up in a commercial, people go apeshit.
So, by this metric, it's okay for Greg Gillis to make his bones by ripping off actual recordings, but it's not okay at all for these probably reasonably okay people to use Beach House as a starting point while creating something altogether original. rmde at the whole internet.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 17:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
people definitely overreact about songs in commercials. bringing up Girl Talk is silly though.
― some dude, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nah, there's a pretty stark contradiction in attitudes about what kind of theft is kosher in blogger/indie stan circles.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Do you really not see any difference between the two? I think there are some self-evidently obvious reasons why one might be bothered by one of these things and not by another.
Let's say that the commercial actually ripped off the Beach House song explicitly and without any question. Total and complete copyright infringement. Would you claim that there would be no difference between that and Girl Talk? Or is it just that there's no difference between Girl Talk's use of copyrighted materials and this commercials non-infringment? (The former is obviously ridiculous, the second is incoherent.)
― Mordy, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
Let's say that the commercial actually ripped off the Beach House song explicitly and without any question.
This didn't happen. If it had, I might be more sympathetic to the whiner crowd.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not arguing about whether the complaints are legitimate or not. I just think you haven't clearly thought through your comparison to Girl Talk.
― Mordy, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also, if it was literally copyright infringement you "might" be more sympathetic? I guess you're an anti-copyright hardliner?
― Mordy, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey guys this has been happening since the dawn of time, wasn't there just a Mad Men about it?
― Mr. Que, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yet the band's members aren't blowhards rigidly standing on principle. Although they're wary of major-label offers (they're happy where they are), that didn't stop them from doing the music for a British Knights commercial. If they didn't do it, the ad agency would've gone and hired studio musicians to ape their sound; Superchunk decided it had nothing to lose. "It helped pay for our new van so I don't feel like we whored ourselves too badly," says the sensible Mac; they got free sneakers, too.
― Mr. Que, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's 2012 y'all, i thought we had all accepted that doing music for ads/tv/movies is the only way to make money these days (whether by licensing or recording).
― 40oz of tears (Jordan), Friday, 18 May 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's not at all the convo taking place here though
― some dude, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
thread of people gettin all foamy just because pitchfork posts about it
― Mr. Que, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sniffy Dog compose and produce music and sound design for TV, Film and Advertising. We have an intuitive and flexible approach to sound for picture. We understand that music is a language in itself. Our strength lies in our ability to listen to ideas and translate them into a number of fully-produced sonic options. Whether it's composition, research, re-recording or licensing. We can do all of these; and anything in between.
Whatever your project, we will always deliver a creative and original soundtrack.
― am0n, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
― am0n, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sniffy Dog=Toto for the 2000s?
― Leslie Mann: Boner Machine (C. Grisso/McCain), Friday, 18 May 2012 18:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I just think you haven't clearly thought through your comparison to Girl Talk.
My comparison actually isn't between what's happened here and what Girl Talk does. It's the the people who love one are moaning about the other, and it seems completely disingenuous to me for that to be happening. (I just pulled Girl Talk out of my hat, fwiw. It could have been any sample-heavy performer.)
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 18 May 2012 19:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Album debuted in the top ten
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 20:50 (11 months ago) Permalink
the lower dens album and this one are easy to confuse when i put the two together on shuffle
― ban halen (electricsound), Wednesday, 23 May 2012 00:23 (11 months ago) Permalink
xp Really late response to Johnny Fever. The difference is simple and it's not about copyright. Firstly it's assumed consent. If you hear a Girl Talk collage you don't assume the artists he samples had any say in what he did with their work so whether you love it or hate it has no bearing on the reputation of those artists. If you hear an ad song which sounds uncannily like Beach House you may well assume that Beach House endorse this product and this ad. Secondly it's a question of honesty. Girl Talk's use of those samples highlights, and even depends upon, the listener's familiarity with the sources. This ad agency is putting out an obvious imitation and then pretending there's no connection. Plus there's way more cash involved in a big car campaign than Greg Gillis is ever going to get from DJing so that makes it smell even worse.
But anyway, I'm glad this album's doing well.
― Get wolves (DL), Wednesday, 23 May 2012 09:14 (11 months ago) Permalink
Thanks DL, I tried posting a response to same effect five days ago, but couldn't get past "I can't believe I have to explain this..."
― poxen, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 13:47 (11 months ago) Permalink
beach house just posted this on their facebook. i guess they're back to caring about this again
― shit_ebooks (am0n), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 19:55 (11 months ago) Permalink
the grizzly bear one is pretty funny, it's like they changed as few elements as was legally required with no consideration for it remaining vaguely musical.
― Merdeyeux, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:24 (11 months ago) Permalink
I wanna give my testimony here. if somebody wanted to move this thread to '77 after I do, I wouldn't complain, but no big. In I think 2008, during a really pretty horrible period for me personally, some people got in touch with me asking me to sing & play a tune they had already written for a tv ad. The campaign was greenlit, somebody was going to sing this tune anyway and there was about two payments on the car in it for me, small money but still money. They sent me their demo of the song, and then we had a phone conversation about what they wanted.
They never explicitly said it, but it was very, very clear, both from the song itself & from the way they described what they wanted, was a song that sounded exactly like an indie artist who was & is a friend of mine & who'd recently come into considerable success. The song in question was a clear & obvious bite on this songwriter's style. I was to basically imitate my friend for money. I didn't do this; I found out they'd asked, like, half my friends for similar takes. I don't know who the person was that they ended up hiring, but when the ad aired half a year later, the singer they'd gotten was straight-up imitating my bud. Their whole approach was v. scummy & gross, from the "we've been fans forever" with lots of old-days reminiscences to their "you know what we mean" pitch. IOW what cantankerous indie ppl suspect & get aggro about in this shit is true. You can take their money or they'll pay somebody to bite your style. It's bullshit, imo.
― decrepit but free (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:25 (11 months ago) Permalink
Did you call them out on it? Or politely decline?
― poxen, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:46 (11 months ago) Permalink
being in commercials and video games and football stadiums is the currency of a music nowadays. With the glut of music and media available to us at any given moment, you're only as culturally relevant as you are ubiquitous. I don't think "selling out" means anything anymore.
― Poliopolice, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 22:28 (11 months ago) Permalink