gnarles barkley

[mms]

well, what he says is true but saying that the Grey Album release is evidence for it may be missing the point perhaps.

What happens is that the artist signs a guarantee to the label, independent or otherwise, that all samples etc on the master are authorised and legit and if they're not the artist will take the blame/costs. The label then signs a similar guarantee to the distributor and so if there's any legal problems they get shuffled back to the artist.

it doesn't happen quite so harshly, labels usually have dedicated sample clearers who clear samples on behalf of the artists, it's just up to the artists to pass on the details of all samples used. There are levels of contestation built in too when owners can't be found etc...

alot of sample heavy artists nowdays often cut a deal with music libraries, who often welcome big people using their libraries as it's part of their livelyhood, and it looks good, dangermouse did this with the uk bmg library for crazy for instance.

 

[blunt]

As for this topic, I haven't heard the track in particular but it sounds like a dodgy project. That XXL article linked earlier is pretty convincing!

This comment pretty much sums up the general negativity towards this project on this thread: the primacy of ideas and opinion and the (perceived) politics of the situation over the song itself. You haven't even heard the tune, and yet already you're taking a position over it. Frankly, I just find that a bit weird.

So what if the whole Gnarls Barkley project was a cynical attempt to make money? It seems to me that this would only be significant if the tune itself was total shite, and only the most curmudgeonly hair-shirted Dissensian could claim that. I mean, surely this kind of bile should be saved for the likes of Westlife or James Blunt? (delete or expand as applicable)

Hype might persuade people to seek it out and have a listen, but it's rarely, if ever, enough to persuade them to then part with their hard-earned cash. Especially in this day and age of effectively free and ubiquitous music (and especially where 'hipsters' are concerned).

The truth is, I haven't heard the album as a whole yet. But Crazy kicks 99% of chart music into the middle of last week, and that's all that matters to me.

(Sorry, D84, I don't mean to single you out here; yours was a pretty neat summation, is all)

 

[blunt]

So I was dicking around in the iTunes Music Store yesterday, and thought I'd have a listen to the rest of the album. Nothing immediately grabbed me, but I did notice that: "Listeners who liked this also bought: The Arctic Monkeys."

LOL. So, yeah, maybe I'll give up some ground where the LP is concerned... But I still reckon Crazy is a superlative slice of pop.

 

[blunt]

So, apologies for dragging this topic back upthread. But I just saw this, and felt an urgent need to share. I honestly can't remember when I last saw a performance on mainstream telly with such chutzpah. Fucking great.