Uncle Joe Posted May 6, 2010 Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 It's above lower to a Cockney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyteen Posted May 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 It's above lower to a Cockney. I meant, like when you said, "Toy with Babyteen's ire." Is that like messing with someone's reputation? I can tell you this right now, no one messes with my reputation, unless they want a mouthful of fist. I kid you not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted May 6, 2010 Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 Main Entry: ire Pronunciation: \ˈī(-ə)r\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin ira; perhaps akin to Greek oistros gadfly, frenzy Date: 14th century : intense and usually openly displayed anger synonyms see anger — ire transitive verb — ire·ful \-fəl\ adjective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted May 6, 2010 Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 As in "a mouthful of fist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindCrime Posted May 6, 2010 Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 ...their dreadful one-hit wonder... They had other hits, like "Who Can It Be Now?" and Overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted May 6, 2010 Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 I like their song "Overkill." Lyrically, it is at least a big improvement and Colin Hay's conflicted voice matches them perfectly. By way of agreeing with B-F, after the second time hearing "Down Under" on the radio, I had heard enough of that. As for the plagarism suit. There are so many other songs that borrow as heavily or moreso that I cannot see the riff similarity here as something unique and punishable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyteen Posted May 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 I like their song "Overkill." Lyrically, it is at least a big improvement and Colin Hay's conflicted voice matches them perfectly. By way of agreeing with B-F, after the second time hearing "Down Under" on the radio, I had heard enough of that. As for the plagarism suit. There are so many other songs that borrow as heavily or moreso that I cannot see the riff similarity here as something unique and punishable. First of all, you've been misspelling plagiarism. It isn't "Plagarism", it's "plagiarism", there's an I between the g and the a. Secondly, "Down Under" is amazing! I strongly believe that it showed the world that the members of Men At Work are proud to be Australians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel2Velvet Posted May 6, 2010 Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 Thanks for the correction, Babyteen. Not the first time I have misspelled that word. Perhaps subconsciously I don't want to spell it like everyone else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindCrime Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 Perhaps subconsciously I don't want to spell it like everyone else does. Perhaps spelling it right would be plagiarism of somebody else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesboy Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 Oh, babyteen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 I strongly believe that it showed the world that the members of Men At Work are proud to be Australians! Or that they're willing to play into the general stereotype of Australians in order to cash in on a hit single. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRaccoon Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 They had other hits, like...Overkill. I think if I had to describe Men At Work in one word it would be exactly that, overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyteen Posted May 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 I think if I had to describe Men At Work in one word it would be exactly that, overkill. Here's where you are wrong. If I could describe them in one word it would be, "Brilliant!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted May 8, 2010 Report Share Posted May 8, 2010 Thanks for the correction, Babyteen. Not the first time I have misspelled that word. Perhaps subconsciously I don't want to spell it like everyone else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 8, 2010 Report Share Posted May 8, 2010 They had other hits, like "Who Can It Be Now?" and Overkill. "Down Under" was their only Top 20 hit here in the UK, where we tend to have better taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyteen Posted May 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2010 Perhaps spelling it right would be plagiarism of somebody else MC Kenne, here's where you're wrong. Spelling it right would not rip off anybody. It would give you an A on your spelling test in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindCrime Posted May 9, 2010 Report Share Posted May 9, 2010 I realize that Annabelle, I was just making a bad joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyteen Posted July 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 So now I'm confused. Someone says they've totally lost the whole lawsuit, and another source tells me they're going to appeal. Which one is right as of now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberjudge Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 You're not confused. They lost the lawsuit, and now they are going to appeal that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyteen Posted July 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 You're not confused. They lost the lawsuit, and now they are going to appeal that decision. So in other words, they lost in Justice Peter Jacobson's court, but now they're going to take it to a higher court? If that's the case, I say, "Way to go mates! I'm with you all the way. I love you, you Sweet Australians! You're brilliant!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chutzpah Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 I think Men At Work actually only have to pay 5%...They appealed and instead of 50% it's down to 5% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeBB Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 As a proud Aussie, I can say that I don't much like Down Under, and I'm not a huge Met At Work fan anyway. The song is fine, not their best song... but perfectly catchy. Now, I will say the big hook of the song is centred around that flute riff, and that flute riff is undoubtedly quoting Kookaburra. Of course, it's quoted out of context, shifted into a different chord progression, and is really unrecognisable unless you know what you're looking for. Like the guitar solo in Oasis' Supersonic is a perfect lift from My Sweet Lord, but rendered unrecognisable by its context, and Noel had to explain to everyone what it was and how clever it was. As for finding against the songwriters, that's just weird, as the flute riff is not a part of the published song... it's part of the arrangement, added by a flute player who does not have a writing credit. Tricky! Quoting... it's an interesting subject. Oasis quoted My Sweet Lord, which was itself found to be a rip-off. But Oasis quoted the guitar solo, which isn't part of the published song either. Yay. Puccini swiped the US National Anthem. Eric Carmen lifted Rachmaninov *twice*. Happy Mondays nicked Hendrix; Little Steve Wonder took Mary Had A Little Lamb; the Beatles borrowed another anthem, plus JS Bach and Glenn Miller all in the one track. The Supremes had multiple hits with a single rhythm track. Huey Lewis, M, and Ray Parker all released the same song with different vocals on top, and I'm sure that Pink, Kelly Clarkson and the Veronicas have all just released the exact same track under different names. La plus ca change... Anyway, my understanding is that the ruling is for 5% of royalties from the time that Larrikin Records acquired the rights to Kookaburra (about 1999/2000?), including all future royalties as well. So this does not affect all the money made at the height of the song's success, and I don;t imagine that the songwriters will suffer too much. A strange case. LBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now