Today’s discussion in class regarding the debate of author and connector reminded me a lot of a podcast I had listened to a couple months back on Switched on Pop called “Déjà vu: Why Olivia Rodrigo keeps giving up song writing credits”. In this episode, hosts Charlie Harding and Nate Sloan discuss Olivia Rodrigo’s album Sour and the controversy that ensued online regarding the similarities between some of her hit singles and that of other artists. Particularly, they discuss her song Good 4 U, in which Rodrigo handed over writing credits to Paramore’s Hayley Williams and Josh Farro for the interpolation of Misery Business, and also Rodrigo’s hit Déjà vu, where she gave writing credits to Taylor Swift and Jack Antonoff for the interpolation of Swift’s Cruel Summer. Despite both Harding and Sloan agreeing that both of Rodrigo’s songs were no more than merely referential to that of Paramore and Swift’s, they note that it was probably wise of Rodrigo to hand over song writing credits to avoid litigation that could have a consequential impact for both Rodrigo’s public perception and the greater impact on musical creativity.
This podcast dove into numerous examples of music litigation in the United States, all of which had a considerable impact on musical creativity. Notably, they discuss the case brought by Marvin Gaye’s estate against Robin Thicke and Pharrell for their song Blurred Lines for the similarities to Gaye’s song Got to Give it Up. They note the profound impact that this song had on musical creativity, as the court ruled in favour of Gaye’s estate. In this case, the court essentially ruled that the two songs were sufficiently similar despite them having a different melody. The vibe and style of the song, something which has typically been viewed as incapable of attracting copyright, was found to have been infringed. This led to a series of other litigation, including Led Zeppelin and Spirit (songs: Stairway to Heaven and Taurus) and Katy Perry and Flame (songs: Dark Horse and Joyful Noise). Both Harding and Sloan note that decisions such as that in the case of Gaye and Thicke could have considerable consequences for musical creativity, as it essentially narrows the definition of what you can own by making the fundamental building blocks of music subject to copyright, thus allowing a ‘vibe’ to be copyrightable. This undoubtedly leads to questions of how new music can continue to be created if it can all be subject to copyright infringement, thereby causing uncertainties for all artists.
This reminded me a lot of the discussion in today’s class about the author and the connector and how important this concept is for musical creativity. As Professor Festinger quoted in his slides from Nina Paley, all creative work is derivative of another, and this is particularly true in music, where similar melodies and chord progressions are commonly found in popular music. Despite music being uniquely personal to both artists and listeners, songs often share similarities that are referential to each other. Although authorship is undoubtedly valuable in music, it is also important that the law gives artists the creative freedom to utilize the fundamental building blocks. Rodrigo was also subject to criticism online, where fans accused Rodrigo of lifting a guitar riff in her song Brutal from Elvis Costello’s song Pump it Up. Costello came to the defence of Rodrigo in a tweet, saying “It’s how rock & roll works, you take the broken pieces of another thrill and make a brand-new toy. That’s what I did”. This quote goes to the heart of the author vs. connector debate in music, as music is made by continuing to extend and push the limits of the foundational building blocks of song.
For anyone who is interested in listening to this podcast, here’s the link!
https://switchedonpop.com/episodes/deja-vu-olivia-rodrigo-copyright-decoder-good-4-u-paramore
Communications Law