No I’m not quoting you “just to fuck around” with you. Got to make some phone calls. I shall return.
New Music: Lizzo - Tempo feat. Missy Elliott
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
No I’m not quoting you “just to fuck around” with you. Got to make some phone calls. I shall return.
So it comes down to the opinion that Lizzo used Cece's lyrics. End of the day that is what it ends up being.
That sound that is made belongs to Cece. Lizzo said it the same way Cece does in her song.
She did not give credit, therefore Cece wants credit.
It isn't a reach.
If you are a musician and someone steals you sound without permission and giving you credit, you would do the same thing.
If not, you are weird. Lots of weirdos out here. Which is all good brother.
That is my opinion on the matter and I know I am right.
Lizzo is a fucking thief and she knows it.
I contacted CeCe and told her about and she she agreed.
That sound that is made belongs to Cece. Lizzo said it the same way Cece does in her song.
She did not give credit, therefore Cece wants credit.
It isn't a reach.
If you are a musician and someone steals you sound without permission and giving you credit, you would do the same thing.
If not, you are weird. Lots of weirdos out here. Which is all good brother.
That is my opinion on the matter and I know I am right.
Lizzo is a fucking thief and she knows it.
I contacted CeCe and told her about and she she agreed.
Trinidad James got a nice check from Bruno Mars over the phrase "Don't believe me, just watch." In the song 24K Magic.....
That was also "Uptown Funk".
It's also a very different from this situation here.
In both songs the phrase "don't believe me just watch" is the most quoted and quotable lyric of the entire song. I believe he offered Trinidad James a writing credit before the song even came out and rightfully so!
In contrast, The Cece peniston/Lizzo dispute is over some throw away nonsense syllables shoehorned in the middle of the song.
Context matters. For example, if Burger King were to lift five notes from the McDonald's jingle and make a commercial with it they'd be sued out of existence.
However if a country western singer lifted five notes from an obscure Frank Zappa record it's unlikely anybody would care.
Welp.
CeCe said she got broke off, so its done.
They made Lizzo pay like she weigh.
CeCe said she got broke off, so its done.
They made Lizzo pay like she weigh.
What is the Legal Test for Music Plagiarism?
The law states that anything that reflects a “minimal spark” of creativity and originality can be copyrightable, including melody, chord progression, rhythm and lyrics. In the event of a trial, the person claiming infringement must prove two things:
1) Access – that the infringer had heard, or could reasonably be presumed to have heard, the original song prior to writing their song; and
2) Substantial Similarity – that the average listener can tell that one song has been copied from the other. The more elements that the two works have in common, the more likely they are substantially similar.
what constitutes music plagiarism?
What constitutes music plagiarism in 2017? We examine what Sam Smith got right and Robin Thicke got wrong, and outline the legal test for plagiarism.
lawyerdrummer.com
When I responded to you, "Blurred Lines" wasn't the song I had in mind.
Are you interested in learning?
At times in this dialogue, you are using two terms incorrectly. "Melody" is a musical term. It refers to a grouping of consecutive pitched notes that constitute a sequence. "Sound" is just that. Something your ears hear. More specifically, for what we are talking about though, "sound" could either refer to specific sonic elements such as the individual instruments used in a recording or it could refer to the way those groups of instruments are arranged and how they work together to create a groove resulting in a signature "sound".
The first song that came to mind for me was Britney Spears', "I'm A Slave 4 U" whose composition is credited to Pharrell. Its instrumentation and groove sound very similar to Prince's composition, "Nasty Girl" by Vanity 6. "Blurred Lines" was only my secondary thought. But why not... let's discuss it.
The "paying homage to" line you said, that was what I was specifically responding about, not arguing whether Pharrell songs like "Blurred Lines" fit the legal definition of copyright infringement. The main melodies of the two songs were not anything near identical. You're correct about that. Yet Pharrell and Robin Thicke lost in court.
Where you are incorrect in the first line of your post that I'm quoting, is when you said Blurred Lines doesn't use any "sound" used in the Marvin Gaye song. It used the exact instrumentation of "Got to Give it Up"...a rather unique combination of cowbell, electric piano used as bass, drums and the lack of a guitar. The cowbell is the prominent instrument in both songs used in similar combo with an open hi-hat. The background harmony vocals are used very similarly, the tempo is nearly identical, the drum backbeat is very close. The basslines of both songs constitute the song key's root note played on the one followed by mostly silence then the same note repeated in two 32nd notes on the "and" of four. Melodically, not identical, because Marvin's bassline has additional grace notes inserted here and there is and is being improvised, whereas Pharrell's bassline is a four bar loop. But stylistically? No question they're the same style. The instrumentation combined with the groove of "Got to Give It Up" constitutes a unique sound. Pharrell uses that signature sound of Marvin's song.
I think that these kinds of things should be considered in terms of expanding the language of what constitutes musical theft in the legal sense.
My issue with Pharrell is not a legal one so much as an irritation with him calling himself a songwriter. To take someone else's arrangement of their original song, remove or add a note here and there so as to avoid an infringement lawsuit, and then throw your own melody on top of it is to me not truly writing a song. He claimed that he wrote "Blurred Lines" in like a half hour? Duh. Copying a song's arrangement and slightly altering its elements doesn't take long to do. He's put songs together that way many times. I don't see that as legit being an homage to the original artist, I see it as lazy "songwriting".
Last edited:
Well done on that title. 
Gotta agree here man they are not remotely similar...
I don’t know I am on the fence about this right now
there you go...
thanks
I HATE that he got to be the one to break this but we got our answer.
but the PAID her so she must have been right.
Possibly... but people pay for stuff to go away all the time. Unless there is documentation where Lizzo/production admitted to infringement, then there is no admission of guilt.
true of course
but realize ALL these settlements are not helpful in the long run
cause all that is gonna do is make more and more people try to get paid with just accusations.
But I aint no lawyer
but they gonna be setting SOME KIND OF precedence, right?
Even if they never go to trial cause EVENTUALLY it will
and SOMEONE gonna go to a HIGHER court and COMPLETELY change the WHOLE game up.
the CORPORATIONS behind this really gonna keep giving out thousands potentially millions and POINTS over stuff like this?
risking a Blurred Lines level event?
that may be even MORE serious and punitive?
I concur with everything you said. Neither of us know why she/her team settled, or if they admitted to guilt.
It's a horrible precedent, but unless confirmed, I definitely wouldn't assume that CeCe getting a check or a piece of the pie validated anything.
Didn't watch the video yet, but I referenced Lizzo and her team admitting guilt. Cece was the plaintiff trying to take advantage of the opportunity. Why would she not get on a video and say they plagiarized so they cut her a check. How is that confirmation if anything other than her side?
well watch the vid and then get back.
Fair enough.
Heard her take on the Lizzo piece and my opinion still stands. Cece said she didn't accuse Lizzo of plagiarism but stated it sounds familiar. She also said she never spoke to Lizzo about it.
In my OPINION, the record company/publisher/whomever capitulating is not an admission of guilt. Cece stated she was taken care of..
Netflix capitulated to Dave Chappelle recently when they didn't have to. The interview also referenced Ed Sheeran and TLC and how once people starting talking about about the similarities they cut a check because they didn't want it to go to court.
Like I said initially, it sounded like a reach to me. They could have fought it in court or cut her a check to make her go away. Cece is no longer a mainstream superstar. There is logic in giving her a small piece instead of fighting it out in court.
If I'm wrong.. I'm wrong.
Last edited:
I HEAR you
but if we take all that what you said...
WHY pay here?
Is it REALLY easier just to pay her?
and have her BROADCAST TO THE WORLD SHE WAS PAID?
Is that is going to stem the tide of future accusations?
No matter how much settlements allegedly make the "headache" go away...
Lawyers STILL getting paid
ACCUSERS STILL getting paid
the ACCUSED still LOOKS GUILT in the PUBLIC eye and settlements CAN be use against you
ESPECIALLY by the media.
So if its NOT TRUE?
Especially in this case cause as you said ... who the f*ck is Cece right?
But obviously it either was TRUE Lizzo stole it (and not the FIRST such accusation on Lizzo by the way)
or what?
they aint SCARED of CECE...and this gives FUEL to the OTHER accusers.
All that to ME?
means Lizzo stole it
she knew it
the label knew it a
nd they weren't trying to give Cece no publishing.
First, let me say I genuinely appreciate the respectful dialogue which can be hard to come by around here...
I was writing a long response but ultimately settled on we'll agree to disagree. When I see signed official documentation of an admission of guilt, I'll happily concede to your opinion which will then be fact..
Last edited:
Man that is your opinion and you wrong. You don’t value CeCe for some reason. That sound is a signature of her song and Lizzo stole it.
My opinion since I'm a world class musician,
The first similarity between Hippo and CeCe is the the rhythm of the "ya ya" phrase, which is a repetition of two 8th notes falling on beats 2 and 4. Cece sang "yeah yeah" vs Lizzo singing "ya ya".
Secondly, the note Hippo sings is the "tonic" of the tonal center which is the same as CeCe.
Thirdly, the tempo was roughly the same, though the rhythm of the kick was different than CeCe's song.
With all that said, I would rule in Lizzo's favor. Yes, Hippo's hook is similar but not the same. Plagiarism is the "direct word-for-word transcription of a section of someone else's work".
"Ya" or "Yeah Yeah" is too common of a phrase to be arguing over copyright. It's like arguing the phrase "with that said" is plagiarism if used in somebody's book. I also disagree with the Robin Thicke case as well and question if these judges have any musical backgrounds.
There are far too many songs that have common phrases, rhythms, harmonies and melodies to where anyone can be accused of plagiarism.
Two videos on the subject:
The first similarity between Hippo and CeCe is the the rhythm of the "ya ya" phrase, which is a repetition of two 8th notes falling on beats 2 and 4. Cece sang "yeah yeah" vs Lizzo singing "ya ya".
Secondly, the note Hippo sings is the "tonic" of the tonal center which is the same as CeCe.
Thirdly, the tempo was roughly the same, though the rhythm of the kick was different than CeCe's song.
With all that said, I would rule in Lizzo's favor. Yes, Hippo's hook is similar but not the same. Plagiarism is the "direct word-for-word transcription of a section of someone else's work".
"Ya" or "Yeah Yeah" is too common of a phrase to be arguing over copyright. It's like arguing the phrase "with that said" is plagiarism if used in somebody's book. I also disagree with the Robin Thicke case as well and question if these judges have any musical backgrounds.
There are far too many songs that have common phrases, rhythms, harmonies and melodies to where anyone can be accused of plagiarism.
Two videos on the subject:
Bottom line Lizard should have just paid homage to where she got the yaya from and then have CeCe
on the remix.... Nobody sang that yaya before Cece and no one did it after....except Lizard.
I've seen the countless videos of lizard in concert where she's doing the call and response with the crowd telling them to shout yaya... Just acknowledge where you got it from and then move on....
on the remix.... Nobody sang that yaya before Cece and no one did it after....except Lizard.
I've seen the countless videos of lizard in concert where she's doing the call and response with the crowd telling them to shout yaya... Just acknowledge where you got it from and then move on....
Not based on what I've seen thus far. I'm happy to admit I'm wrong when the facts proves otherwise though.respect
so basically you aint ever gonna believe it?
its cool fam
me and SS and the bgol mind squad be having debates about stuff like this all the time
what it takes in 2021 to PROVE something
not directed at YOU at all
just everyone including ourselves
I have shown people video, articles from major outlets, interviews, pdf court documents and even the PERSON ADMITTING IT THEMSELVES
and I STILL get
well he aint mean REALLY it
he was coerced..
so that's why I VERY RARELY give any proof on bgol anymore
either you believe me or not.
On this one?
I believe Cece - she has no reason to lie and also risk a slander case.
Here's what I really have a problem with.
Cee Cee had her shot. She recorded an iconic single, a few less memorable works, and faded away. Just like a lot of singers do.
she could have bowed out gracefully and been happy with the fact that her work and influence would pave the way for future generations.
Instead she launches a frivolous lawsuit. As a result, any artist who came up regarding CeCe peniston as an icon or inspiration now has to distance themselves from her otherwise they risk getting sued as well.
Ultimately, this leads to musical and cultural stagnation.
For instance, imagine if Bob Marley's estate had sued everybody who lifted minor lyrics, melodies, or nonsense call and response phrases from his music. A lot of your favorite punk rock, hip hop, and dancehall artist wouldn't exist. Reggae music itself never would have developed the influence or growth that has today.
Every artist has a responsibility to pave the way for the future. Instead CeCe peniston is setting up roadblocks.
I feel you. I think we are being programmed as a society to believe what we hear and not critically think for ourselves. Often, the line between opinion and fact is extremely blurry.its cool fam
me and SS and the bgol mind squad be having debates about stuff like this all the time
what it takes in 2021 to PROVE something
not directed at YOU at all just everyone including ourselves
I have shown people video, interviews, pdf court documents and even the PERSON ADMITTING SOMETHING
and I STILL get
well he aint mean it he was coerced..
so that's why I VERY RARELY give any proof on bgol
either you believe me or not.
When it comes to others making definitive statements on a topic or subject, I simply need to see the receipts so I can save my breath and possibly embarrassment. Three sides to every story... I'll debate what I think all day but I'll shut the fuck up when it comes to cold hard facts.
I do love a good debate though...
Last edited:
Similar threads
