5 ms·

My least favourite was Quentin Tarantino demanding a songwriting credit for Fun Lovin' Criminals' Scooby Snacks, just because it sampled a few seconds of dialog

My least favourite was Quentin Tarantino demanding a songwriting credit for Fun Lovin' Criminals' Scooby Snacks, just because it sampled a few seconds of dialogue from Pulp Fiction.

dspillett 7y ago
Would you prefer he demanded royalties instead, as their label would if he used a few seconds of their output in one of his films? Or that they just be able to use the sample without credit or royalty?
- midgetjones 7y ago
  He did demand royalties, he gets a 40% cut as well.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Roughly 40% of the lyrics are dialogue from two of his movies or describing scenes from those movies (Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs), so a 40% cut of the songwriters' share of royalties is appropriate.
    - onion2k 7y ago
      He didn't write any of the song. He just made something that contributed to it. Saying he wrote part of it is like the person who mixed Davinci's paint claiming to have painted part of the Mona Lisa.
      - nailer 7y ago
        It's more like if Mona Lisa incorporated a background from another artist.
    - mhh__ 7y ago
      Sets a pretty stupid precedent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM This song's lyrics solely samples audio from Indiana Jones - 100% of the royalties go to Disney? Morally, I don't think Disney have any right to it, but I could maybe tolerate some payment - however, proportionality?
- soylentcola 7y ago
  In a (more) perfect world, they would've paid a reasonable license fee to use the sample and been done with it.
- sonicthehedgfnd 7y ago
  Maybe a quick Google before going on the attack next time: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of-cheese-1250018.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dspillett 7y ago
    It was a genuine question, not an attack, though I can see how my wording didn't make that obvious. Maybe a quick providing-useful-context-in-your-original-post before attacking responses next time? :-) Edit: Sorry, I've checked and the original post replied to wasn't from you. The point of this response still stands though, but directed elsewhere.
moomin 7y ago
At least in that case and the Blurred Lines case there was some component that was verifiably the same. (But yeah, QT was and is a jerk. Especially when you consider how he ripped off City on Fire.)
- djmips 7y ago
  What component was veritably the same in the Blurred Lines case? I've listened to both songs and the 'sameness' to my ears is akin to two rock tunes using similar power chords and drum beat.
  - moomin 7y ago
    Okay, so this is annoying but I could swear there was a component (backing vocals?) that was the exact riff that “I know you want it” was, but now I can’t find it. Whether or not it exists, the Blurred Lines decision was dumb and dangerous, even if Marvin Gaye >>>> Robin Thicke.

My least favourite was Quentin Tarantino demanding a songwriting credit for Fun Lovin' Criminals' Scooby Snacks, just because it sampled a few seconds of dialogue from Pulp Fiction.

dspillett 7y ago

Would you prefer he demanded royalties instead, as their label would if he used a few seconds of their output in one of his films? Or that they just be able to use the sample without credit or royalty?

midgetjones 7y ago
He did demand royalties, he gets a 40% cut as well.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Roughly 40% of the lyrics are dialogue from two of his movies or describing scenes from those movies (Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs), so a 40% cut of the songwriters' share of royalties is appropriate.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    He didn't write any of the song. He just made something that contributed to it. Saying he wrote part of it is like the person who mixed Davinci's paint claiming to have painted part of the Mona Lisa.
    - nailer 7y ago
      It's more like if Mona Lisa incorporated a background from another artist.
  - mhh__ 7y ago
    Sets a pretty stupid precedent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM This song's lyrics solely samples audio from Indiana Jones - 100% of the royalties go to Disney? Morally, I don't think Disney have any right to it, but I could maybe tolerate some payment - however, proportionality?
soylentcola 7y ago
In a (more) perfect world, they would've paid a reasonable license fee to use the sample and been done with it.
sonicthehedgfnd 7y ago
Maybe a quick Google before going on the attack next time: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of-cheese-1250018.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dspillett 7y ago
  It was a genuine question, not an attack, though I can see how my wording didn't make that obvious. Maybe a quick providing-useful-context-in-your-original-post before attacking responses next time? :-) Edit: Sorry, I've checked and the original post replied to wasn't from you. The point of this response still stands though, but directed elsewhere.

moomin 7y ago

At least in that case and the Blurred Lines case there was some component that was verifiably the same. (But yeah, QT was and is a jerk. Especially when you consider how he ripped off City on Fire.)

djmips 7y ago
What component was veritably the same in the Blurred Lines case? I've listened to both songs and the 'sameness' to my ears is akin to two rock tunes using similar power chords and drum beat.
- moomin 7y ago
  Okay, so this is annoying but I could swear there was a component (backing vocals?) that was the exact riff that “I know you want it” was, but now I can’t find it. Whether or not it exists, the Blurred Lines decision was dumb and dangerous, even if Marvin Gaye >>>> Robin Thicke.