Glee Rips Off Jonathan Coulton’s “Baby Got Back” Cover, Proves They’re a Pop Culture Menace

[Arc Nova]

[quote]We think it’s safe to say that Glee’s propensity for taking classic songs and mutating them into teenybopper renditions that stab away at both our ear drums and patience knows absolutely no bounds, but it’s still — as much as we hate to say this — 100% legit given that the original artists willingly sign away their souls to the show’s executives for their thirty pieces of silver. Today, however, it was discovered by geek culture’s favorite singer/songwriter, Jonathan Coulton, that what Glee wants, Glee will most certainly take without so much as permission and proper licensing. The show has apparently given a take on Coulton’s cover version of Sir Mix-a-Lot’s “Baby Got Back” practically verbatim, and the singer and his army of fans are up in arms over the show’s apparent audacious and ill-conceived move.

The controversy began this morning when Coulton was notified of Glee’s use of his “Baby Got Back” cover for one of their upcoming episodes. Coulton couldn’t vouch for the accuracy of this since the source of the information came from the Glee Wiki — an unofficial wiki site unaffiliated with the show proper and the FOX television network as a whole. Upon listening to a recently uploaded video on YouTube of Glee’s “Baby Got Back” rendition, Coulton noticed that the melody and instruments used were infuriatingly familiar to his own

Incriminating Glee even further is the fact that they apparently — whether by oversight or sheer hubris — left in the lyric “Jonny C.’s in trouble,” which Coulton had written in to his cover of the song. Coulton’s music is known to be under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial agreement, stipulating that his songs not be used for commercial purposes, though this does not apply to any covers or remixes. At most, he would be fighting for attribution credits to the “Baby Got Back” cover rather than monetary compensation. Whatever the outcome, everyone who despises Glee comes out a winner since we now have even more valid justification for our extreme vitriol.[/quote]

JoCo's Version;
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo[/media]

Glee's Version;
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNJAGlfRdOs[/media]

If you're going to steal something from someone at least do it right.

Source: [url]http://www.geekosystem.com/glee-rips-off-jonathan-coulton/[/url]

[Chaotic Lord]

Oh, you son of a bitch. :v:

I was just about to post this, although from a [URL="http://kotaku.com/5977149/glee-egregiously-rips-off-jonathan-coulton"]different source[/URL].

Also:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/2r9hg.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/54E07.png[/IMG]

[Arc Nova]

[QUOTE=Chaotic Lord;39269550]Oh, you son of a bitch. I was just about to post this, although from a different source. (Which your OP is lacking, BTW)[/QUOTE]

Fixed mi son

[Paul McCartney]

Oh that's not even trying. They don't even adjust the pitch of their voice to make it seem any different.

[Zeos]

Oh my god, you totally can, barely, hear the duck quack from his version.

[Trogdon]

When you think glee can't get worse it does

[axelord157]

I forgot Glee was still on air. I'm serious, by the way.

[Zambies!]

ugh poor Johnathan.

[Rocâ„¢]

Sue them.
Godawful show

[MacD11]

Isnt FOX one of those companies that complained about piracy being a bad thing and pushing for bills like SOPA and PIPA to pass?

If so, then this is pretty much some grade A bullshit on their part since they are sort of doing exactly what they were against last year, wow.

Poor Johnathan, too.

[dai]

anyone care to layer the two tracks together for a comparison?

also I think they MIGHT have thought they could just do this because it's considered a parody, but there's factors that are still very fragile in the parody act. Pretty sure this still counts as plagiarism

[Miya]

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39270030]anyone care to layer the two tracks together for a comparison?

also I think they MIGHT have thought they could just do this because it's considered a parody, but there's factors that are still very fragile in the parody act. Pretty sure this still counts as plagiarism[/QUOTE]

lazy comparison:
[URL]http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DMCWaN_Tc5wo&start1=&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DvNJAGlfRdOs&start2=&authorName=FAV[/URL]

i dont have a proper video editor right now.

[dai]

[QUOTE=Wii60;39270094]lazy comparison:
[URL]http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DMCWaN_Tc5wo&start1=&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DvNJAGlfRdOs&start2=&authorName=FAV[/URL]

i dont have a proper video editor right now.[/QUOTE]

add one second to the glee video and it's like one song with a bad surround sound effect

[url]http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMCWaN_Tc5wo&start1=0&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvNJAGlfRdOs&start2=1&authorName=FAV[/url]

beh this site is wonky at times, timing is off one time and it's on the next.

for a site dedicated to syncing this stuff that's an annoying timing error, when things don't load for a second or two til after the other starts

[Holt]

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39270030]anyone care to layer the two tracks together for a comparison?

also I think they MIGHT have thought they could just do this because it's considered a parody, but there's factors that are still very fragile in the parody act. Pretty sure this still counts as plagiarism[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=MCWaN_Tc5wo&start1=0&video2=vNJAGlfRdOs&start2=0&authorName=FAV"]http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=MCWaN_Tc5wo&start1=0&video2=vNJAGlfRdOs&start2=0&authorName=FAV[/URL]

Fuckin' ninjas

[josco]

They already did this with Greg Laswell's cover of Girls Just Want to Have Fun.

I already didn't like the show but at that point I just lost all respect for the production team.

[Erector Beast]

I seriously can't believe they even left in the "Johnny C.'s in trouble" lyric. How stupid do you have to be as a show based entirely around music?

[Aide]

Sue Fox. To me it sounds like even the male singer is trying to sound like John.

[Weirdness]

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39270125]add one second to the glee video and it's like one song with a bad surround sound effect

[url]http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMCWaN_Tc5wo&start1=0&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvNJAGlfRdOs&start2=1&authorName=FAV[/url][/QUOTE]

Sync's up way too well.

10/10 glee.

[legolover122]

I just put both tracks in audacity. They are sound fucking identical. The glee version is shorter though. Want me to drop a link? They sync up perfectly.

[Weirdness]

[QUOTE=legolover122;39270263]I just put both tracks in audacity. They are sound fucking identical. The glee version is shorter though. Want me to drop a link? They sync up perfectly.[/QUOTE]

The youtube doubler synced them up perfectly for me. There was literally no difference between the two.

What the fuck.

[Aide]

[QUOTE=legolover122;39270263]I just put both tracks in audacity. They are sound fucking identical. The glee version is shorter though. Want me to drop a link? They sync up perfectly.[/QUOTE]
Link please.

[Dori]

everything about glee is offensive. people like to think it's progressive but all it does is homogenize GSMs and other minorities and makes a circus out of them

[Crest]

"Oh let me now listen to the Glee version."

"I already was?"

[legolover122]

[QUOTE=Weirdness;39270283]The youtube doubler synced them up perfectly for me. There was literally no difference between the two.

What the fuck.[/QUOTE]

Upon listening again, I think there are incredibly small differences in some bits, but I can't specifically point out what exactly has changed.

Heres the download link if anyone wants to fuck with it.
[url]http://www.mediafire.com/?fbwghxy9ngguzze[/url]

Like I said, the glee version ends around the 3:45 mark, the real version keeps going.

[Ryll]

I bet John Now Only Wants Them Gone

Fuck, it was a bad pun, but it was worth it

[RainbowStalin]

I love jonathan coulton so this majorly rustled my jimmies

[Paul McCartney]

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39270030]anyone care to layer the two tracks together for a comparison?

also I think they MIGHT have thought they could just do this because it's considered a parody, but there's factors that are still very fragile in the parody act. Pretty sure this still counts as plagiarism[/QUOTE]

It's not qualified as a parody because it's a 1:1 replica of the song with autotune and different singers, and they also sell the songs as singles on itunes.

[InsanePyro]

But then again...when you cover a song don't you usually try to get as close to it as you can?

[Ryll]

Ooooh, turns out John changed "mix a lot" to "Johnny C", and the dumb fucks left it in. Just in case you missed it in the article :p

[Paul McCartney]

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39270414]But then again...when you cover a song don't you usually try to get as close to it as you can?[/QUOTE]

Not really. A cover should have a different bands flavor and some noticeable differences. And they're also profiting off of his work without even getting his permission or informing him and giving him credits.

[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39270427]Ooooh, turns out John changed "mix a lot" to "Johnny C", and the dumb fucks left it in[/QUOTE]

Lawsuitttttttttt