Tfw you rip off so much music your delusional fans have accepted it as a normal part of your music

>tfw you rip off so much music your delusional fans have accepted it as a normal part of your music

but seriously why hasn't anyone called him out yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-zF2xHZ8FDo
youtube.com/watch?v=ecSg9WpLgl0
youtube.com/watch?v=zPlFdX08UJg
youtube.com/watch?v=SdQ41k9Aeio
youtube.com/watch?v=xVOJla2vYx8
youtube.com/watch?v=8NChvenJcwk
youtube.com/watch?v=fa76c04G744
youtube.com/watch?v=e4x_mXNJ-3w
youtube.com/watch?v=fYUvI-Bgpuw
youtube.com/watch?v=VW4Fe2LYJfw
youtube.com/watch?v=YjFe0tq5Yc4
youtube.com/watch?v=NS8qXe8bXbs
youtube.com/watch?v=LY1l8T2Lcl0
youtube.com/watch?v=TP2d8yZzhdM
youtube.com/watch?v=AYtsUdD921E
youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ
youtube.com/watch?v=_nhaReaiqCo
youtube.com/watch?v=MiY2JsGXrtM
youtube.com/watch?v=eSpyCL8pZ3Y
lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse
radio.foxnews.com/2017/07/12/ariel-pink-on-the-science-of-music/
youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA
youtube.com/watch?v=bLpfDI7nabM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What's up with all the anti Ariel threads? Is Grimes pissed he made another masterpiece this year?

>tfw you rip off so much music your delusional fans have accepted it as a normal part of your music

but seriously why hasn't anyone called him out yet?

Nobody really cares unless an artist is popular enough that going through legal proceedings can net the party being ripped off significant revenue.
Case in point. Prior to the release of Art Angels, Grimes' song Nightmusic started and ended with identifiable snippets of a classic recording of the penultimate movement from Pergolisi's Stabat Mater. Since Art Angels (her first bonafide top-40 release) not only has the official video for the song Nightmusic been taken down from Youtube on copyright grounds, the track itself (found on the album Visions) is now only available in shortened form (with the beginning/ending bits cut off) on all official digital/streaming release platforms.
Like it or not, AP gets away with it because he hasn't actually "made it" as a musician yet.

>tfw you rip off so much music your delusional fans have accepted it as a normal part of your music

but seriously why hasn't anyone called him out yet?

name some examples i'm curious

buckle up!

youtube.com/watch?v=-zF2xHZ8FDo
youtube.com/watch?v=ecSg9WpLgl0

youtube.com/watch?v=zPlFdX08UJg
youtube.com/watch?v=SdQ41k9Aeio

youtube.com/watch?v=xVOJla2vYx8
youtube.com/watch?v=8NChvenJcwk

youtube.com/watch?v=fa76c04G744
listen at 2:15

he stole the piano part from youtube.com/watch?v=e4x_mXNJ-3w

youtube.com/watch?v=fYUvI-Bgpuw
listen to 0:25

youtube.com/watch?v=VW4Fe2LYJfw
stole it from 0:38

youtube.com/watch?v=YjFe0tq5Yc4 (never credited this song)
youtube.com/watch?v=NS8qXe8bXbs

youtube.com/watch?v=LY1l8T2Lcl0
youtube.com/watch?v=TP2d8yZzhdM

>inb4 "b-but he's inspired by other musicians! that makes it okay when he makes a song that sounds exactly similar to another and makes it lo-fi!"

How can you do mashup and not rip anyone off? And why hasn't he released anything good since Night Ripper?

you're not going to make this a meme because even if he did borrow melodies so has almost every great musician and he put an original spin and arrangement on it. there's only so many finite chord progressions.

I just don’t give a flying fuck OP

good artists borrow, great artists steal.

>“I really wanted to make the worst thing, the thing that even people who liked bad, terrible music wouldn’t like, the stuff that people would ignore, always. Something really, really stupid. Something that is destined for failure.” So Ariel Pink states his lifelong ambition, one couched in childhood spite.
OH, IT SHOWS ARIEL, IT SHOWS.

the Reminisces and Round and Round ones are definitely valid. surprised you didn't bring up the similarities of Time to Live and video killed the radio star

see
>even if he did borrow melodies
He takes extended portions of other people's RECORDINGS of songs, pitch-shifts them slightly, and then riffs over them to make it more difficult for automated algorithms to detect copyrighted material.
Which isn't itself a problem (assuming you don't mind the bulk of what people actually find catchy about your music not having been created by you, and finding a formula that works for you is key to making regular music) as long as you secure the rights in advance and give proper attribution - both things I'm assuming hasn't done in the past.
All of which is to say that - as alluded to here - if Ariel Pink truly does ever make it big, expect his early records to be VERY hard to find in their original form after the fact.

he makes it better anyway. who cares?

Good artists borrow, great artists steal, bad artists steal and get caught.

this

fuck off OP

this is worse than I thought

Are they any blogs or sites I could send these to so they can write an op-ed on this

Rolling Stones stole from niggers so shut the fuck up

youtube.com/watch?v=AYtsUdD921E
youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ

see

In 50 years nobody's going to care or remember who he ripped off and there's going to be some new Ariel Pink ripping the original off. Chest le vie. At least the music he makes is good if dishonest

Can someone contact him to write something on this

He might be the right guy for the job

Foxygen are the rip-off masters

But both Foxygen and Ariel Pink are good...

did he credit every other song?

>In 50 years nobody's going to care or remember who he ripped off
Unless he actually becomes famous...

this

"No!"

but it's hip-hop so it's fine

Then why specifically label only one song as uncredited?

All of them

The people whose music he's using without paying them royalties. Assuming someone tells them about it...

you didn't answer my question

either way they sound good and he adds to them, doesn't matter to me

>doesn't matter to me
It doesn't matter whether it matters to YOU or me. It's all about

Don't froget
youtube.com/watch?v=_nhaReaiqCo
youtube.com/watch?v=MiY2JsGXrtM
Though I dont mind the similarities. It's difrent enough for them to do their own things sepratly without stepping own their own toes.

At soon as someone contact a journalists like pic related who is willing to write a nice long piece on this matter then justice will be served

Is he not adding music on top of those songs? I don't understand copyright law but I'm pretty sure that's fair use.

Just let the courts decide that in the future law suits

Fuck justice it's good music

It's used for transformative purposes, it's not an infringement.

If I see a pitchfork article condemning Ariel Pink next week I'm going to be sad. Why you do this

>tfw youve rip off so much music and its 10 times better than the music you originally ripped off

that would be so fucking funny

imagine being a known sexist creep AND song thief

>sexist
fuck off Grimes

Yeah that would show him. Fuck independent artists and fuck anybody who's pretending to be half as talented as we are right guys

youtube.com/watch?v=eSpyCL8pZ3Y
Imagine being a known shemale AND song thief

thats pretty bad, at least the marianne faithful one is

everyone fucking sucks

fuck mac demarco too

fucking thieves

get em

contact your local blogger and tell em to write these boys up

>Is he not adding music on top of those songs? I don't understand copyright law but I'm pretty sure that's fair use.
Iirc when it comes to copyright law and fair use in terms of audio sampling, the two major test factors are the length of the samples used (also iirc anything over 0.5 seconds in length is questionable) and how much of a transformative process they were put through in their use (ie. how easily recognizable they are as samples of the original source.) As evidenced by not only is AP using outrageously long sample lengths, he also isn't doing much in the way of actually transforming them apart from some simple pitch-shifting.

>It's used for transformative purposes,
Stuff's gotta be transformed significantly somehow for that to be valid use. The original sources of these songs are instantly recognizable because nothing much has really been changed with them internally. Layering extra stuff on top in such a way that the original source ISN'T obscured isn't transformative. Imo if he ever becomes big enough to be worth it, he MOST DEFINITELY has legal troubles in his professional future.

ANYONE WHO WRITES FOR A BIG MUSIC SITE PLEASE KILL HIS CAREER PLEASE

>stuffs gotta be transformed significantly
source please

#ArielPinkIsOverParty

it's no different than vaporwave
he puts his own spin on the work

light my fire is a real fucking stretch dude

Doggone, He gone

It had the same beginning so I thought it was worth a mention

Eh he's a jew though I'm sure he'll get out of this

DUDE WALL OF SOUND LMAO

Pinkheads head out to Maus Space

Sup Forums is officially hostile territory

>source please
Dictionary definition of the word "transform". Also see lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse fwiw.
This stuff is all very much an actively developing area of law, but a general rule of thumb to go by is whether something (in this case, portions of the recordings of the original songs) are recognizable to the naked ear. If they ARE, then the thing HASN'T been significantly transformed.
Which isn't itself necessarily a problem. You can use non-transformed samples and such AS LONG AS you get permission from the source's owner and provide proper attribution. However, since he doesn't seem to be doing it that way (afaik all the song examples so far mentioned ITT are presented by AP as original compositions - which they clearly aren't) therein lie problems - legally speaking.

>he doesn't understand ariel pink

reddit brainlet leave

>this one autismo is out here with his copypasta trying to «kill» APs carrer yet again

>trying to «kill» APs carrer
What career? The only reason why AP's chickens haven't come home to roost yet over this is because he isn't important/successful enough for anyone to care.

Ok WTF is he doing going on Fox News shows? Is he honestly alt right? He's said sexist shit in the past and hangs out with Fox News and Trump supporters. He's on this "Greg Gutfield Show".

radio.foxnews.com/2017/07/12/ariel-pink-on-the-science-of-music/

nice trips and post

Ariel Pink is the Milo of music and I am not complaining.

That's honestly too far. I'm deleting his shit. Having a conversation about "free speech" on Fox News.

free speech = apologist for hate speech

Yeah fuck he's on fox. We must censor that shit to protect free speech.

You're fucking retarded.

>pitch-shifts them slightly, and then riffs over them to make it more difficult for automated algorithms to detect copyrighted material.
source? i listened to some ariel pink but i never got this feeling

He's defending racism and sexism on a racist and sexist network

At least you didn't through the facist buzz word, congrats. Let him speak his mind. Hate him for it or don't, it doesn't matter. He's an eccentric artist on another end of the spectrum who still sings about trannys and extremism.

youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA
youtube.com/watch?v=SdQ41k9Aeio

HOLY FUCKING SHIT
he needs to be stopped

leave grimes alone, dip

retarded post. classical music is in public domain and she's a female. fuck off.

examples?

I liked 'Another Weekend'. Anything else worth checkin', despite being plagiarism ??

>dictionary definition of the word "transform"
and where does it say that something has to be significantly transformed to be transformed?
>lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse fwiw
dead link

>are recognizable to the naked ear
I mean, if it's fair use for someone to use a video to comment on, with portions of the actual video, then him using parts of songs and adding "commentary" (playing over them, playing them differently, etc.) is similar.

>sexist shit
like what
>Greg Gutfeld
he's a comedian as well, he's not a pundit or anything. From what I've seen from him, he's not as conservative as most other people.

show me where he defended racism and sexism in that network

most other people on Fox, that is

getting mad abt "stealing music" in every context and not just based on what they do with it is an embarrassingly middle-brow opinion. AP's whole schtick is the h-pop thing - very intentional pastiche of earlier genres run thru more timely lens of DIY outsider character, decay, remix, etc. What you guys are accusing him of doing is literally what he tries to do and what he has said he does. That's one of the things that makes him cool - he found a way to bring 70s and 80s schlock into modern context without it being some sort of cash grab neo-disco indie outfit that just wants to get their shit in an episode of broad city. everyone making indie pop / indie rock steals nowadays - whether that be stealing big chunks of a song like a melody or arrangement and not changing it much or just stealing song-writing concepts directly. its pretty difficult not to do it at this point. At least AP made something that has a clearly different aesthetic project. I much prefer him to some indie-shoegaze band that is literally just making an inferior copy of older artists. at least when AP copied earlier artists he did it differently and it produced a completely different effect. thats how you should judge it. if the experience of listening to AP is different from the ppl he rips off then the ripping off is fine in my book. If the experience is identical - like you feel totally the same way after listening to both then its a bad ripoff. its your call, obviously, but i always classed AP as someone who did good pastiche. You guys are under thinking this and being closed-minded, making idiotic totalizing value judgments if you think all ripping off, repurposing, pastiche, etc. is the same and always bad. think about where indie rock is for 5 minutes in 2017 and you'll see what i mean... every parquet courts song is the fall song "paintwork" ,every neo-twee indie pop musician is 90s indie rock worship, etc. its all pastiche.

also why is anyone putting stock into copywright law? like thats your smoking gun re: whether or not his using prev. artists' music is good or bad. you're a fucking idiot if you think that sort of appeal to authority is meaningful (where the person who wrote that law is an elderly public policy nerd and not a music lover or an artist). decide for yourself whether its good or bad. dont use a law that you probably have super mixed feelings on (re: stuff like sampling in hip hop, maybe) to prove your point

you are my favorite poster

continuing this:

say what you will abt pastiche but I don't think there's anyway out of it for indie rock / pop in the near future.

there's obviously a lot of criticism thats been made since the 80s about pastiche in any form. that the simple borrowing of styles without innovating or making totally new styles out of them is a way that we as a culture have destroyed our sense of history: we cannibalize the past without reverence or respect, churn out monstrous amalgams of disparate styles carelessly thrown together without really saying anything, create artistic products that can't be placed on any sort of historic trajectory because they've lost all sense of their place in our cultural history etc. Thats all fine and valid to say but indie-rock is pretty much stuck with this existence for now and its probably just going to get worse with how available earlier genres are to new musicians online. Something we have to get used to. no more progression or real innovation in indie is coming and when it does come it'll probably be short flash in the pan episodes. probably better to exploit pastiche and find a way to make it fun for the time being than bemoan the loss of historic trajectory and innovation, etc. we can't just go back to 1993 or something. This kind of thing happens to all cultural mediums at various points and you sort of just have to wait until something big happens so that it isn't the primary condition any longer. getting mad at AP for doing pastiche or getting mad at some indie rock band for ripping off slowdive or pavement, etc. is mistaking an all-encompassing cultural condition for the laziness of individual artists and then lashing out at the artists b/c you don't really understand whats going on.

ooo this one is a believable one.

>source
Eg.
youtube.com/watch?v=-zF2xHZ8FDo
youtube.com/watch?v=ecSg9WpLgl0
If you start the 1st video at the same time as the 2nd video (his song) starting at around the :24 point, it's the same song.

ITT: user just discovers the concept of sampling

as a diehard fan of ariel, i don't go to him for totally original ideas
i go to him for the way expands upon and twists genres of music into these weirdly personal yet very artificial pieces of music
also his first few albums being lo-fi as shit but having the most complex compositions he's ever done is a perfect example of the idiot-savant in modern music, and that's a big part of his allure too, as an autistic warrior

>where does it say that something has to be significantly transformed to be transformed?
>dead link
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA nice.

>I mean, if it's fair use for someone to use a video to comment on, with portions of the actual video, then him using parts of songs and adding "commentary" (playing over them, playing them differently, etc.) is similar.
ONLY if it is presented as NOT being an original work. Which afaik is NOT what he's been doing all these years.

As a diehard fan of Ariel Pink, I can confidently say that Ariel spawned all these musicus from his mind. It's simply an unfortunate coincedence that he's got some tracks that sound similar to other artist's',.

Not gonna lie, former diehard fan of Ariel Pink here.This is fucking hilarious watching Ariel Pink crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let this guy get the BNMs.

Good post but Broad City is good

>You guys are under thinking this and being closed-minded, making idiotic totalizing value judgments if you think all ripping off, repurposing, pastiche, etc. is the same and always bad.
No one with a brain is saying that. Remixing other people's works is a time-honored pursuit. However remixing other people's music and then passing those remixes as your own original work (as AP seems to make a habit of doing) is prime bait for a lawsuit.

>whether or not his using prev. artists' music is good or bad.
The "smoking gun" here is proper attribution, NOT whether all of his material is original. There is nothing wrong with basing your sounds on other people's sounds who came before you (that's what all great artists do.) Not officially acknowledging/getting official permission from those artists to use their works as fundamental parts of yours is a MAJOR problem, however - both artistically and financially. If you want his records to survive as is, you better home that he doesn't get too much more famous, because I can guarantee you that people WILL start going after him if that happens.

>the concept of sampling
The concept of sampling WITHOUT attribution. Which is the sort of thing that gets you sued.

>>inb4 "b-but he's inspired by other musicians! that makes it okay when he makes a song that sounds exactly similar to another and makes it lo-fi!"

God, shut up you insufferable fucking faggot. Consider suicide.

itt: op decides plagiarism and direct inspiration are the same thing

I don't give a fuck!
Four Shadows and Picture Me Gone are some of the best songs ever made.

considering his roots are in self produced bedroom sample based pop I dont know why youre suprised he "stole" sounds

youtube.com/watch?v=bLpfDI7nabM
beck rekt