I Don't think taylor specifically has anything to do with it. Even good 4 u had to credit Paramore.
This is more of a case of olivia really needs to stop saying too much (referencing other artists in interviews) cause that really causes other legal teams to go $$$ in their heads and go for instant cash grab.
Lawyers are greedy and want to get paid.
A lot of money goes to legal fees. Lawyers usually charge 30-40% of all winnings.
I can't imagine how we made it out of the 60s without the Beatles suing everybody in existence for sounding like them. And they sounded a whole lot more like the Beatles than good for you sounds like misery business.
Never mind 12 Bar Blues artists, and the dozens of hair bands that looked and sounded exactly alike in the '80s.
This one drives me crazy as someone who listenes to Paramore and tons of other pop punk. If those two songs sound enough alike to owe credits I think like every 2000s pop punk band owes Blink-182 and other 90s acts royalties on most of their catalog. They’re literally just two songs in the same genre.
I posted a link not long ago to a YouTube video by a guy named Adam Neely who did an analysis of the two songs. Yes there are a lot of similarities, but there were a bunch of other songs that were mentioned as being similar as well. And there was definitely a Taylor Swift song in there that sounds a lot like something famous maybe a Green Day song?
x-posting
>We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together is as close to Misery Business as Good 4 You is to Misery Business according to this analysis. Interestingly, Boulevard of Broken Dreams is also mentioned for being similar. I read somewhere that American Idiot is the first album that Rodrigo listened to.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SwiftlyNeutral/comments/1cbcein/comment/l8tnm31/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SwiftlyNeutral/comments/1cbcein/comment/l8tnm31/)
>If those two songs sound enough alike to owe credits I think like every 2000s pop punk band owes Blink-182 and other 90s acts royalties on most of their catalog. They’re literally just two songs in the same genre
I tried out a 90s-2000s pop punk playlist once and couldn't really tell the difference between any two songs, while olivia's music actually seems to have a new direction to it
That was it! Yes. That Adam Neely videos definitely worth a watch on youtube. That's the song he brings up, and I think it is because of its similarities to Boulevard of Broken Dreams I think
Honestly, the closest is one freaking part in their choreses, and it doesn't really follow the same line delivery. Like, Misery Business is like, "i never meant to brag, butIgothimwhereIwanthimnow." Good 4 U is like. "Well, good for you, you look happy and healthy. Not. Me. Ifyouevercaredtoask."
The only reason they sound even remotely similar is the drums, imo. And that's only because they pick up in the chorus. 🤦♀️ But that's not uncommon for drums to do in a song, and they don't sound the same. Maybe it's because I can't read sheet music, but the sheet music doesn't look similar either.
Yep agree....Paramore who I actually like should pay royalties To The Who and The Clash for using there chord sequences....cos that all that was similar a chord sequence....there only so many notes/chords in music
It doesn’t, but Olivia admitted that was inspired by it in an interview. And since the Robin Thicke lawsuit, record companies are really carful when it comes to that kind of thing. We don’t even know if Taylor Swift did anything. It could have been anther Paramore situation.
Thank you. We don’t know what went down. There’s a lot of pieces to this and the majority of it seems like a management decision with no input from Taylor or Olivia. I think it’s weird that people continue to bring it up every month on this subreddit just to what? Beat a dead horse about something we know very little about?
Not necessarily. How copyright infringement is handled by a record label isn't something that gets decided on a case-by-case basis by the artist. There will be contractual terms that dictate how these issues are handled, and can be very aggressive. Her hands may literally have been tied by a legal issue that her label held firm on. Possibly she could revise this for future albums, but not necessarily to stop what happened with Lover. And it also depends on how Olivia's team responded. I would guess they did not negotiate hard enough and folded too easily and that's very likely one reason why she changed her team.
I find it hard to believe that Taylor Swift, the most powerful woman in the music industry, wouldn’t hold enough to sway at her label to convince them not to go after an artist if she didn’t want them to.
Maybe she wasn’t some master manipulator who orchestrated the whole thing but to act like she had zero involvement is naive.
Because it's not just her.
Cruel Summer was written by 3 people. It is partially owned by three labels.
She has a lot less involvement than people want to think.
Especially since Taylor only owns the recording rights. What is being infringed upon is the publishing rights; which the labels own.
Actually, unfortunately under a lot of IP law you are required to take actions to defend your intellectual property or you can lose the rights to it, or lose the right to sue other people for it.
Unfortunately because Olivia said in such a public (and highly publicized) way that the song was inspired by cruel summer, if Taylor/Taylor's Record Label) didn't pursue any sort of IP infringement resolution (whether that was copyright or trademark or whatever else), it would open the door for a legal defence for other artists to rip off Cruel Summer in a far more blatant way, and then point to the fact that the IP wasnt being defended.
Is it silly that so much IP law works this way? Yes, it is. But unfortunately that is the case, and while the law is the way that it is, once Olivia said what she said in that interview, Taylor's team didn't really have a choice but to pursue it.
This is repeated a lot, but it’s incorrect. The idea that Taylor’s camp needed to go after credits otherwise it “opens the door” for more copying or lawsuits is NOT true for copyright law. It IS true for trademarking, which would not apply for songwriting credits in this case. Copyright and trademark are very different in the IP world. Taylor’s camp did not need to go after Olivia for mentioning she liked the shouty part of the Cruel Summer bridge.
Source on info: I took a course in college about IP law and theft. Trademarking and copyrighting are often lumped under the same IP bridge but they are handled very differently legally
But the amount of exact lines and melodies that Taylor has lifted from other artists is just just insane. It’s so unfair that this IP thing is only being applied in one direction.
So then every Hard Rock and metal band that said they grew up listening to Black Sabbath and are influenced by them should be sued then? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying it's a pretty slippery freaking slope
I think said something along the lines of ‘the screaming bridge in Cruel Summer inspired me to have a screaming bridge in deja vu’
Different than saying ‘Taylor is a big inspiration for me as an artist’
I'm not saying you're wrong at all. It just seems like a weird interpretation or execution of the law.
Think of the first song that had a guitar solo, does that mean you you go after the second song that had one if they even casually mentioned they heard it before and wanted to do the same thing?
Jack didn't even know about the lawsuit and it was Olivia herself who mentioned that she was inspired by it so why are we trying to bring up something that happened three years ago???
[This article explains the situation. Long story short is the band Paramore was given writers credit on “good 4 you” because people said it sounded like their song “Misery’s business”. This was done without the band’s knowledge.](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327849.amp)
I don't have any particular fondness for paramore, and I really don't care for that song, but I have to in their defense say that it wasn't them it was a guitar player who had a half songwriting credit for misery business who was no longer in the band. Josh somebody I think. Hayley Williams apparently had nothing to do with it.
Inspired doesn't imply she copied it. It's an extremely broad term and the "shouting" bridge has been done many many times before Cruel Summer. Taylor did not have to accept the credits. She could have easily declined it (she has that right and power) and shown some grace and maturity to a teenager. But it's obvious that's expecting way too much from her.
[I agree, she didn’t copy it. But thanks to the Blurred Lines ruling, someone can loose a law suit based on the “feel” of a song.](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright)
She learned. It just infuriates me because bands talk about their influences all the freaking time and nobody says a word but TS decides she's above everybody and makes it miserable for other artists. Absolutely nothing but contempt for her from this guy.
Has there been evidence Taylor’s team even did anything? From my understanding from what Jack has said was they didn’t even know the credit was changed until after the fact… [source here](https://www.nme.com/big-reads/bleachers-jack-antonoff-cover-interview-2021-take-the-sadness-out-of-saturday-night-3006942)
I don’t think there is. Besides like blind items, which aren’t known to be reliable. There is the way Olivia has been distancing herself from Taylor, but that could just be because she wants to establish her own brand.
If you meant to say that he didn't know anything was in the works until after it happened I could believe that but the way you phrase it it kind of seems weird.
“I had never met her, and I had never been in a room with her. So it’s interesting… because another song on that album, that was an interpolation of [the Antonoff co-written Swift song] ‘New Year’s Day’. But yeah, it came through the channels that the bit on ‘Deja Vu’ was inspired by that bridge and we were going to be credited, and I thought that was really cool.”
Take two minutes to read the article and your concern would be absolved.
[You should blame the Marvin Gaye estate, they made the president with their “Blurred Lines” lawsuit.](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright)
Multiple things can be true at one time.
1) Since the blurred lines suit, the record industry has become insanely litigious when it comes to crediting
2) Olivia was just being a young fan when she said Cruel Summer influenced her
3) Taylor swift is a billionaire who doesn’t need (or imho deserve) credit on Deja vu (I say this as someone who enjoys both of their music)
4) Copyright law REQUIRES vigilant defense, meaning that Taylor and her legal team did what made the most business sense
5) doing that fucking sucks
All in all, the whole situation sucks and I hate it, it’s pretty clear that Olivia was deeply hurt by it, and I don’t think there will ever be much closure.
Edit: someone brought up Taylor’s sway at the label- to be more clear:
It doesn’t matter if Taylor has sway or not- the way copyright laws work is you either “vigorously defend” them or you lose them. It’s a no win situation. When Olivia stated cruel summer influenced Deja Vu, Taylor was put into a position of demanding credit, or possibly losing control of cruel summer, because someone else could make a direct copy, and state Deja vu as lack of prior defense. It blows, and it could have been handled better, but considering how much Taylor’s rights mean to her, she would never risk them.
In short- Olivia messed up, and Taylor could have handled it more delicately, but there was no way Taylor wasn’t going to end up with credit, which again sucks. This is why if musicians are asked about another artist they tend to say “I’ve been so busy, I just haven’t had time to listen to their new album” or they say the person is great but seldom comment on specific songs.
And furthermore, if somebody like wet leg were to bring up the aesthetic similarities in bad idea right or whatever I could kind of see it because they're more likely to be financially unstable and Olivia's in the position of power.
But Olivia was just starting out and was most certainly not in any position of power. There's a difference between punching up and punching down in this situation. Throwing wet leg a few bucks via the songwriting credit wouldn't hit me the same way that it does when what's her name goes after somebody who's lower on the totem pole. especially given that OR was so effusive in her praise and admiration for TS, citing her as an influence, etc and ts completely took advantage of that. It's disgusting, imo. Regardless of any Blurred Lines that came before.
If Antonoff had gone to Olivia and said something like, "hey I don't feel great about the way this went down, and I already have more money than I know what to do with, so why don't you pick a charity that you feel strongly about and I'll donate my proceeds to that." That would make me feel a whole lot better than blatantly saying (in a link provided in a comment below), "cool, we threatened legal action against a teenager. and won".
I had this buried as a sub comment, so I'm moving it here where it fits just as well. Sorry if it's a faux pas to do so.
I am specially mad because taylor has “borrowed” from lana del rey multiple times and even used the same concepts as olivia in get him back and gracie’s down bad (that last one is more of a stretch) so is she the only one who can be inspired? As a fan it really disappointed me
That is so silly because artists always talk about their influences, it’s pretty normal. Also olivia had forever said she was inspired by taylor. What happened to her was very unfair.
> Jesus was also downvoted for speaking the truth
This made me burst into laughter. Gonna tell myself this every time a comment of mine receives negative karma :D
>Edit: Jesus was also downvoted for speaking the truth
This isn't a sociopolitical discussion. Everyone has different tastes in music, and I don't think taylor's song is that bad anyway
Same. I heard Taylor's "Cruel Summer" for the second time earlier this month, while I was getting a haircut - and I had no idea what I was listening to until the chorus. It had completely fallen out of my brain. Whereas I could recognise the Bananarama edition from the opening blast.
My two cents: all artists are inspired by other artists, and every "original" idea evolves from a previous "original" idea. I side-eye anyone who would automatically liken inspiration to plagiarism.
EDIT, since I got downvoted: I know there's a lot of overlap between the fanbases, but some of y'all Swifties need to get a grip. Not everyone is going to like your pet billionaire. It's not an act of treason or misogyny to say some of us simply don't care for her music or her public persona. Feel free to love her down to the last cell in your body if it truly makes you happy, but let others dislike her in peace.
They might sound similar to non-pop fans the way I think all country sounds similar as a non-fan; I was explaining the situation to my dad, played him each bridge and asked what he thought and he said he didn’t even realize I had changed songs LOL
you know what DOES sound like cruel summer? the end of super graphic ultra modern girl by chappell also produced by dan (which i love pls not hating, i think a mashup is in order)
edit: MY KINK IS KARMA*** not SGUMG my badsies
Unfortunately under a lot of IP law you are required to take actions to defend your intellectual property or you can lose the rights to it, or lose the right to sue other people for it.
Because Olivia said in such a public (and highly publicized) way that the song was inspired by cruel summer, if Taylor/Taylor's Record Label) didn't pursue any sort of IP infringement resolution (whether that was copyright or trademark or whatever else), it would open the door for a legal defence for other artists to rip off Cruel Summer in a far more blatant way, and then point to the fact that Taylor's IP rights weren't being properly maintained. They might not succeed, but they also might, IP law is complicated and not really designed well for music.
Is it silly that so much IP law works this way? Yes, it is. But unfortunately right now it does, and while the law is the way that it is, once Olivia said what she said in that interview, Taylor's team didn't really have a choice but to pursue it.
Taylor and her team could probably have given her a better deal than they did - but they did have to take some sort of legal action if they wanted to maintain the ability to protect their legal rights to her song in other instances.
As a fan of both of them the whole situation makes me sad.
Is it true that Taylor's camp receives 50% of the royalty? I wonder if there's a way to protect IP and yet not profiteer off. Sue for less, or donate the proceedings to a charity of Olivia's choice...
Didn’t Jack not really know much about it though? He said in an interview like “yeah it came through the channels that she was going to be crediting us so that’s pretty cool” so it sounded like Olivia’s team was just like we’re going to credit you guys and Jack and Taylor were like oh okay cool. Also I like how everyone is hating on Taylor but not paramore when Olivia also credited paramore? They all just assume Taylor bullied her into it, but don’t assume the same about paramore
Again, inspired is a broad term and since the two songs are not remotely similar, there was no reason to give her credit. Idk what your understanding of IP law is but it seems pretty confused.
I replied to your comment up above and I’m gonna copy and paste the same response here to clear up some misunderstanding of IP:
This is repeated a lot, but it's incorrect. The idea that Taylor's camp needed to go after credits otherwise it "opens the door" for more copying or lawsuits is NOT true for copyright law. It IS true for trademarking, which would not apply for songwriting credits in this case. Copyright and trademark are very different in the IP world.
Taylor's camp did not need to go after Olivia for mentioning she liked the shouty part of the Cruel Summer bridge in order to protect Taylor’s copyright to Cruel Summer. It’s not Disney trademarks. It works completely differently and copyright law is more forgiving than trademark in putting the onus on the IP holder.
Source on info: I took a course in college about
IP law and theft. Trademarking and copyrighting are often lumped under the same IP bridge but they are handled very differently legally
This explanation keeps going around but it’s literally false. That’s not how IP law works. You don’t have to defend it if you don’t believe it was violated, which Olivia saying she was inspired by Cruel Summer doesn’t necessarily do. To me the songs really don’t sound alike.
It was an overcompensation due to the Paramore lawsuit. Jack himself was surprised when they received writing credits.
Do I think she should’ve had to? No, not at all. I don’t think they sound alike. But your anger at Taylor is misplaced.
i doubt taylor would ask for songwriting credits if there weren't similarities between the two. i think olivia was just caught off guard by the business side of the music industry. iirc, she said something along those lines in an interview with the guardian
It happened with Elvis Costello as well but he defended Olivia Rodrigo and denied the credits. So we know artist can deny credits… just Taylor didn’t and neither did Paramore (mostly Josh Farro). It’s one of the reasons why ppl think “the grudge” is about Taylor. Also it’s sad to see that Olivia doesn’t talk about her inspirations anymore because of this whole thing.
It’s pretty ignorant to blame Taylor without the facts. We don’t know if Taylor demanded credit. It’s very possible it was her team and not her. It is equally as possible that no one demanded royalties and Olivia’s team gave royalties to avoid any potential legal issues in the future.
Saying you’re a fan and saying “this specific section of her song inspired this specific section of my song” are two different things. Olivia has openly admitted she was being naïve and shouldn’t have said that.
To me, I don’t really buy that as an excuse - her team works for her and she’s responsible for green lighting what they do. It’s also sad to say that an artist shouldn’t discuss who/what their inspirations were. The majority of music is influenced by previous music.
I hope we buried this conversation in 2021. It makes some people uncomfortable and this was discussed many times.
"cause you see Olivia went to ask permission before her album came out on May 21, 2021, this explained why her other song, 1SF2 SB was credited before the album was released.
Deja Vu was released on April 1, 2021. they could just told her before her album came out, not several months later.
I think what really sucks is that artists are going to stop talking about their craft, inspirations, song creation, etc. Interviews used to be so cool, and I felt like people would be more open about sharing how they work, technical aspects, and stuff, and now most interviews just focus on their personal lives because all the actual technique stuff is being gatekept by fear of litigation.
Might have nothing to do with Taylor. Also Cruel Summer was written by 3 people, so Taylor only takes 17.3% from DejaVu because it was a 50% writing credit to Taylor + team.
I fully agree but let’s also not act like we know what/if anything actually happened between Olivia and Taylor. Like there was never a public thing from either of them. I think it’s so stupid that the whole narrative of “Olivia copies songs” has gotten so popular. Like it makes absolutely no sense with the writing credits on paramore bc literally the only similar thing about those songs is the chords. All the instruments sound different and the melody and vocals are just like not similar at all and those chords are like the most basic ass chords that you cannot copywriter or claim you made 💀
I don't think it was Taylor who specifically wanted credit. They had been working together, and Olivia appeared in promotional videos for Fearless (Taylor's Version) at the time. It was most likely a decision made between their two management teams.
Taylor is in charge of her management. She doesn’t let her management do anything she doesn’t want to att this stage in her career. Idk why you always try to absolve Taylor. She’s not exactly someone who doesn’t do this. She did it. Face it
Allowing the song to not have her songwriting credits on it would set precedent which can open up the door for further legal issues when dealing with songwriting credits not being given to Taylor when her music is interpolated, used, or copied.
Flowers filled with vitriol. Her undying love she still holds it like a grudge. After all this you're still everything to me.
Yeah, it's definitely got to be about Zack or one of those clowns she used to date doesn't it
"*you built me up* to watch me fall" absolutely sounds like any of her creepy 25 year old boyfriends who dated her when she was only (barely) 18 and not like someone who hyped her up after drivers license and tore her down after deja vu
She still took the credit? It was well within her right to gracefully decline it and show some support to a teenager who looked up to her. Swift has enough power to do that but I guess when you are a rabid narcissist, it's hard to do the right thing.
Plus how many times has Taylor said ‘I wanted this song to be like __ artists song?’ Imagine if Taylor’s credits got taken omg we’d have about 10 documentaries now
what's fucking mind blowing to me is that taylor called olivia her "baby" and that she was "so proud of olivia" after drivers' license came out and blew up. (edit: and even more grossly, used her "support" of olivia to help promote fearless tv). but when liv made another hit (deja vu), taylor came after her because she realized that olivia's not a cute little disney one hit wonder, but instead a fucking powerhouse of an artist. imagine tearing down a 17/18 year old girl who's been a fan of you since she was a child and looked up to you as a hero. it's so disgusting
They don't sound very similar but the structure is the same, and Olivia herself said she was inspired by the song so it isn't a coincidence. I saw someone with more music theory knowledge explain the similarities in structure and that helped it make sense for me.
okay so i had heard of this debate, but i had not delved too deep into it. (i loathe slow songs so drivers license turned me off of olivia for a while loll). however, i saw a short yesterday played like a remix of i think deja vu and that part did sound like cruel summer. i'm not saying taylor should've sued or whatever she did, BUT i see where the comparison might have come from.
I do hear some similarities in the bridge, and Olivia admitted that she wanted it to sound like Cruel Summer. But in reality we have no idea what happened between them and probably never will, Taylor and Olivia are both very talented women and I'm sick of people trying to pit them against each other.
I didn’t think so either until I paid attention to the bridge. “Strawberry ice cream in Malibu” does sound a bit like “I’m drunk in the back of the car” and “yeah everything is all reused” and “I don’t wanna keep secrets just to keep you” sound sooo similar.
That’s because the melodies of “strawberry ice cream in Malibu” and “I’m drunk in the back of the car” both hover around the same notes of the scale (1, 6, and 5) and the screaming melodies “I know you get deja vu” and “I don’t wanna keep secrets just to keep you” both focus on hitting the 3rd note of the scale. The main differences between Deja Vu and Cruel Summer are the rhythm of the melody and chord progression and production
The way DL and Sour blew up, it was only a matter of time before people started coming for Olivia. She's an extremely talented singer songwriter and, along with Billie, poised to be the biggest Gen Z artist. People like Taylor Swift are clearly threatened by both of them. I can't really blame Olivia for being a naive 17 year old and excitedly talking about her inspirations, unlike other artists who blatantly rip off other songs (which they don't even write themselves lol) and pretend to be original and authentic. I am not even a huge Olivia fan though I like her music a lot and I really hope she can continue on her path to success (Guts is a legit great album).
The bridge isn't really that similar.
I agree that Olivia shouldn't have publicly said that the song is inspired by Cruel summer.
But I didn't like Taylor for this. When Liv was skyrocketing, she used her for fearless tv promotion but then she sued her. My main problem is with swifties. Just because of this (and a couple more) situation, everyone now says Olivia is a copycat. Like girl, Cruel summer and deja vu aren't similar 😭😭
Yep. And under the assumption they gave them credits for basically “vibes” TS would owe a lot of people money for music, songs, and lyrics she’s blatantly ripped off, including her own Cruel Summer.
Can’t say the same about Paramore, but I agree that nothing in good 4 U shouldn’t have gone to crediting them monetarily.
Denial much? There's no obvious connection between the songs yet that other person and her team got 50% songwriting credit. It's b******* you know it and I know it
I don’t think Taylor, jack antonoff and st vincent should have gotten credits for dejavu. But there is no evidence they demanded it or threatened to take legal actions. To me it’s more likely that Olivia’s team/the record label gave them credits in advance to avoid bad press or legal actions. Maybe a poor choice, but it is what it is. Bringing this topic up again and again is annoying and doesn’t help anyone, especially as it is often portrayed as Taylor vs. Olivia. Always putting successful, talented women against each other.
I didn’t say anything about Taylor’s legal team doing anything with or without her involvement.
But I think you are right, she would be in control. Maybe I did a bad job explaining myself. All I wanted to say:
1. no, Taylor, jack and st Vincent shouldn’t have gotten credits
2. I think the credits were given to them without them demanding it in any way
3. bringing this situation up every so often annoys me
Why can you, who's like a quarter of my age, see it plain as day, yet so many others are in complete denial and act like she's just a puppet dragged around by her handlers?
RIGHT!!! like if *some* swifties can understand, why can't some people here? even the people who don't think taylor is wrong for releasing multiple variants to stay at the top of the chart fully acknowledge that the deja vu debacle was disgusting (see: literally any r/SwiftlyNeutral thread about this)
I dont either. and the ones that do, are mega swifteys with no life. and for those saying "taylor didnt know" "I doubt taylor knew" judging about how shes putting out variants to block other artists from going #1...... she knew. and if she didnt like some claim, she couldve put out a short statement about it. but guess what? she didnt because she was behind it. lets not act like ts doesnt know wtf is going on because I guarantee you she makes ALL the decisions. she wants to be the biggest and baddest and olivia got big QUICK and this was her power move to try and knock her down. taylor swift is disgusting honestly. sadly im still going to the eras tour bc already got tix with my sisters, so its more of a memory thing for me now, but the whole variants and law suit turned me WAY off of her. and guts is so much better than ttpd even with only half the songs.
Regardless of how it happens, there are in fact *several* Melodie’s and rhythms that sound exactly like cruel summer and that’s just how IP and music law works. Both their teams settled this privately. Same with paramore.
I love interpolations and sampling in pop music but Olivia and her team actually let the side down with the decision to just mimic the biggest pop artist in the world. I don’t want to live in a world where people with money and resources can do whatever they want
Olivia Rodrigo is only 21 years old, and has already won 2 Grammies, and you have older women like Taylor Swift and Paramore circling her like vultures. Even if it wasn't *personal* that still doesn't make it any better for the hurt this caused Olivia personally, who was only 19 years old at the time!
I'll never forgive Swift or Paramore for this, personally. And to make an enemy (intentionally or not) out of Olivia, a very successful and talented young artist, is possibly the *dumbest* thing to do for *ageing* artists.
I literally can’t even begin to see how the two songs have any relation.
“Crueeeel” sounds like “Deja Vuuuuu” maybe? Olivia isn’t allowed to use the vowel “U” I guess is the precedent the court wanted to set?
I remember back in the days hearing cruel summer and singing deja vu at the same time on the bridge part, even before knowing there was a law suit. The melody is really similar.
That being said, after doing the investigation I understood that she stated that that specific part was inspired in that song.
Although it just feels that she was betrayed in some way. She was her idol and for many occasions Olivia was just backstabbed by Taylor (or her team).
I do understand that people tend to say that Taylor didn't have anything to do with these actions. Those people have a lot of power and say over her businesses and credits, however, you also underestimate the power and influence of Taylor. She could easily say that she wasn't slightly involved in it, but she didn't. She didn't say a word. Even in an indirect way, she's so good at it in her songs.
She enjoys being the big fish of the pond with her pockets full. That's the music industry, olivia was just naive but learned from it, I guess.
Well, I don’t think Taylor actually would care about it. But, there are legal requirements and it would be well within her rights to ask for credits.
Also, though, the people who say that Deja Vu and Cruel Summer sound similar were also saying Vampire and See You Again by Miley Cyrus sounded the same. So it’s not even like they’re trying very hard to find similarities
the overcrediting is due to the blurred lines suit I guess?
Or Taylor jealous someone young is writing like a young person.
I Don't think taylor specifically has anything to do with it. Even good 4 u had to credit Paramore. This is more of a case of olivia really needs to stop saying too much (referencing other artists in interviews) cause that really causes other legal teams to go $$$ in their heads and go for instant cash grab. Lawyers are greedy and want to get paid. A lot of money goes to legal fees. Lawyers usually charge 30-40% of all winnings.
You're right! But you're not allowed to talk bad on Taylor so be downvoted!
And another thing, "Good 4 U" doesn't sound like "Misery Business," and I mean it sincerely!
I can't imagine how we made it out of the 60s without the Beatles suing everybody in existence for sounding like them. And they sounded a whole lot more like the Beatles than good for you sounds like misery business. Never mind 12 Bar Blues artists, and the dozens of hair bands that looked and sounded exactly alike in the '80s.
This one drives me crazy as someone who listenes to Paramore and tons of other pop punk. If those two songs sound enough alike to owe credits I think like every 2000s pop punk band owes Blink-182 and other 90s acts royalties on most of their catalog. They’re literally just two songs in the same genre.
I posted a link not long ago to a YouTube video by a guy named Adam Neely who did an analysis of the two songs. Yes there are a lot of similarities, but there were a bunch of other songs that were mentioned as being similar as well. And there was definitely a Taylor Swift song in there that sounds a lot like something famous maybe a Green Day song?
x-posting >We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together is as close to Misery Business as Good 4 You is to Misery Business according to this analysis. Interestingly, Boulevard of Broken Dreams is also mentioned for being similar. I read somewhere that American Idiot is the first album that Rodrigo listened to. [https://www.reddit.com/r/SwiftlyNeutral/comments/1cbcein/comment/l8tnm31/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SwiftlyNeutral/comments/1cbcein/comment/l8tnm31/)
nice flair :)
>If those two songs sound enough alike to owe credits I think like every 2000s pop punk band owes Blink-182 and other 90s acts royalties on most of their catalog. They’re literally just two songs in the same genre I tried out a 90s-2000s pop punk playlist once and couldn't really tell the difference between any two songs, while olivia's music actually seems to have a new direction to it
That was it! Yes. That Adam Neely videos definitely worth a watch on youtube. That's the song he brings up, and I think it is because of its similarities to Boulevard of Broken Dreams I think
Honestly, the closest is one freaking part in their choreses, and it doesn't really follow the same line delivery. Like, Misery Business is like, "i never meant to brag, butIgothimwhereIwanthimnow." Good 4 U is like. "Well, good for you, you look happy and healthy. Not. Me. Ifyouevercaredtoask." The only reason they sound even remotely similar is the drums, imo. And that's only because they pick up in the chorus. 🤦♀️ But that's not uncommon for drums to do in a song, and they don't sound the same. Maybe it's because I can't read sheet music, but the sheet music doesn't look similar either.
Yep agree....Paramore who I actually like should pay royalties To The Who and The Clash for using there chord sequences....cos that all that was similar a chord sequence....there only so many notes/chords in music
It doesn’t, but Olivia admitted that was inspired by it in an interview. And since the Robin Thicke lawsuit, record companies are really carful when it comes to that kind of thing. We don’t even know if Taylor Swift did anything. It could have been anther Paramore situation.
Thank you. We don’t know what went down. There’s a lot of pieces to this and the majority of it seems like a management decision with no input from Taylor or Olivia. I think it’s weird that people continue to bring it up every month on this subreddit just to what? Beat a dead horse about something we know very little about?
I think Taylor is past the stage where she is below management decision.
Not necessarily. How copyright infringement is handled by a record label isn't something that gets decided on a case-by-case basis by the artist. There will be contractual terms that dictate how these issues are handled, and can be very aggressive. Her hands may literally have been tied by a legal issue that her label held firm on. Possibly she could revise this for future albums, but not necessarily to stop what happened with Lover. And it also depends on how Olivia's team responded. I would guess they did not negotiate hard enough and folded too easily and that's very likely one reason why she changed her team.
I find it hard to believe that Taylor Swift, the most powerful woman in the music industry, wouldn’t hold enough to sway at her label to convince them not to go after an artist if she didn’t want them to. Maybe she wasn’t some master manipulator who orchestrated the whole thing but to act like she had zero involvement is naive.
Because it's not just her. Cruel Summer was written by 3 people. It is partially owned by three labels. She has a lot less involvement than people want to think. Especially since Taylor only owns the recording rights. What is being infringed upon is the publishing rights; which the labels own.
taylor swift literally owns her own management company lmao
That was her mistake, but she was what 18 she didn't know better. And that doesn't mean that ts's team had to act upon it.
Actually, unfortunately under a lot of IP law you are required to take actions to defend your intellectual property or you can lose the rights to it, or lose the right to sue other people for it. Unfortunately because Olivia said in such a public (and highly publicized) way that the song was inspired by cruel summer, if Taylor/Taylor's Record Label) didn't pursue any sort of IP infringement resolution (whether that was copyright or trademark or whatever else), it would open the door for a legal defence for other artists to rip off Cruel Summer in a far more blatant way, and then point to the fact that the IP wasnt being defended. Is it silly that so much IP law works this way? Yes, it is. But unfortunately that is the case, and while the law is the way that it is, once Olivia said what she said in that interview, Taylor's team didn't really have a choice but to pursue it.
This is repeated a lot, but it’s incorrect. The idea that Taylor’s camp needed to go after credits otherwise it “opens the door” for more copying or lawsuits is NOT true for copyright law. It IS true for trademarking, which would not apply for songwriting credits in this case. Copyright and trademark are very different in the IP world. Taylor’s camp did not need to go after Olivia for mentioning she liked the shouty part of the Cruel Summer bridge. Source on info: I took a course in college about IP law and theft. Trademarking and copyrighting are often lumped under the same IP bridge but they are handled very differently legally
But the amount of exact lines and melodies that Taylor has lifted from other artists is just just insane. It’s so unfair that this IP thing is only being applied in one direction.
It's because Olivia admitted to it, while Taylor hasn't.
its double standard when it comes to Olivia.
So then every Hard Rock and metal band that said they grew up listening to Black Sabbath and are influenced by them should be sued then? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying it's a pretty slippery freaking slope
I think said something along the lines of ‘the screaming bridge in Cruel Summer inspired me to have a screaming bridge in deja vu’ Different than saying ‘Taylor is a big inspiration for me as an artist’
I'm not saying you're wrong at all. It just seems like a weird interpretation or execution of the law. Think of the first song that had a guitar solo, does that mean you you go after the second song that had one if they even casually mentioned they heard it before and wanted to do the same thing?
Jack didn't even know about the lawsuit and it was Olivia herself who mentioned that she was inspired by it so why are we trying to bring up something that happened three years ago???
what paramore thing? i’m out of loop :(
[This article explains the situation. Long story short is the band Paramore was given writers credit on “good 4 you” because people said it sounded like their song “Misery’s business”. This was done without the band’s knowledge.](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327849.amp)
Thank you for that link. I thought I had seen everything there was to see but no. There's also a great article linked Within yours.
I don't have any particular fondness for paramore, and I really don't care for that song, but I have to in their defense say that it wasn't them it was a guitar player who had a half songwriting credit for misery business who was no longer in the band. Josh somebody I think. Hayley Williams apparently had nothing to do with it.
Inspired doesn't imply she copied it. It's an extremely broad term and the "shouting" bridge has been done many many times before Cruel Summer. Taylor did not have to accept the credits. She could have easily declined it (she has that right and power) and shown some grace and maturity to a teenager. But it's obvious that's expecting way too much from her.
[I agree, she didn’t copy it. But thanks to the Blurred Lines ruling, someone can loose a law suit based on the “feel” of a song.](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright)
She learned. It just infuriates me because bands talk about their influences all the freaking time and nobody says a word but TS decides she's above everybody and makes it miserable for other artists. Absolutely nothing but contempt for her from this guy.
Has there been evidence Taylor’s team even did anything? From my understanding from what Jack has said was they didn’t even know the credit was changed until after the fact… [source here](https://www.nme.com/big-reads/bleachers-jack-antonoff-cover-interview-2021-take-the-sadness-out-of-saturday-night-3006942)
I don’t think there is. Besides like blind items, which aren’t known to be reliable. There is the way Olivia has been distancing herself from Taylor, but that could just be because she wants to establish her own brand.
If you meant to say that he didn't know anything was in the works until after it happened I could believe that but the way you phrase it it kind of seems weird.
“I had never met her, and I had never been in a room with her. So it’s interesting… because another song on that album, that was an interpolation of [the Antonoff co-written Swift song] ‘New Year’s Day’. But yeah, it came through the channels that the bit on ‘Deja Vu’ was inspired by that bridge and we were going to be credited, and I thought that was really cool.” Take two minutes to read the article and your concern would be absolved.
Saying that he thinks it's cool is all I need to read.
[You should blame the Marvin Gaye estate, they made the president with their “Blurred Lines” lawsuit.](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright)
Multiple things can be true at one time. 1) Since the blurred lines suit, the record industry has become insanely litigious when it comes to crediting 2) Olivia was just being a young fan when she said Cruel Summer influenced her 3) Taylor swift is a billionaire who doesn’t need (or imho deserve) credit on Deja vu (I say this as someone who enjoys both of their music) 4) Copyright law REQUIRES vigilant defense, meaning that Taylor and her legal team did what made the most business sense 5) doing that fucking sucks All in all, the whole situation sucks and I hate it, it’s pretty clear that Olivia was deeply hurt by it, and I don’t think there will ever be much closure. Edit: someone brought up Taylor’s sway at the label- to be more clear: It doesn’t matter if Taylor has sway or not- the way copyright laws work is you either “vigorously defend” them or you lose them. It’s a no win situation. When Olivia stated cruel summer influenced Deja Vu, Taylor was put into a position of demanding credit, or possibly losing control of cruel summer, because someone else could make a direct copy, and state Deja vu as lack of prior defense. It blows, and it could have been handled better, but considering how much Taylor’s rights mean to her, she would never risk them. In short- Olivia messed up, and Taylor could have handled it more delicately, but there was no way Taylor wasn’t going to end up with credit, which again sucks. This is why if musicians are asked about another artist they tend to say “I’ve been so busy, I just haven’t had time to listen to their new album” or they say the person is great but seldom comment on specific songs.
And furthermore, if somebody like wet leg were to bring up the aesthetic similarities in bad idea right or whatever I could kind of see it because they're more likely to be financially unstable and Olivia's in the position of power. But Olivia was just starting out and was most certainly not in any position of power. There's a difference between punching up and punching down in this situation. Throwing wet leg a few bucks via the songwriting credit wouldn't hit me the same way that it does when what's her name goes after somebody who's lower on the totem pole. especially given that OR was so effusive in her praise and admiration for TS, citing her as an influence, etc and ts completely took advantage of that. It's disgusting, imo. Regardless of any Blurred Lines that came before. If Antonoff had gone to Olivia and said something like, "hey I don't feel great about the way this went down, and I already have more money than I know what to do with, so why don't you pick a charity that you feel strongly about and I'll donate my proceeds to that." That would make me feel a whole lot better than blatantly saying (in a link provided in a comment below), "cool, we threatened legal action against a teenager. and won". I had this buried as a sub comment, so I'm moving it here where it fits just as well. Sorry if it's a faux pas to do so.
yeah i agree too she was done dirty by this lawsuit 😭
I am specially mad because taylor has “borrowed” from lana del rey multiple times and even used the same concepts as olivia in get him back and gracie’s down bad (that last one is more of a stretch) so is she the only one who can be inspired? As a fan it really disappointed me
Borrowing is allowed- STATING your were influenced/borrowed will ALWAYS lead to legal action
That is so silly because artists always talk about their influences, it’s pretty normal. Also olivia had forever said she was inspired by taylor. What happened to her was very unfair.
Taylor has ripped off melodies, beats, and lyrics from others.
But she never stated them as an influence- right or wrong, Olivia outright stated it, and that’s why she was forced to give up credit.
Because I'm completely ancient and practically made of dust and bones, the first song that comes into my head called Cruel Summer is by Bananarama.
Thank you! I've been saying that since day one and gotten into multiple arguments about it
It *is* the better song to be fair Edit: Jesus was also downvoted for speaking the truth
> Jesus was also downvoted for speaking the truth This made me burst into laughter. Gonna tell myself this every time a comment of mine receives negative karma :D
>Edit: Jesus was also downvoted for speaking the truth This isn't a sociopolitical discussion. Everyone has different tastes in music, and I don't think taylor's song is that bad anyway
I don't know. How does Cruel Summer by Taylor Swift go. All I know of it is the shouty bridge as apparently worth 50% of deja vu's songwriting credits
Same. I heard Taylor's "Cruel Summer" for the second time earlier this month, while I was getting a haircut - and I had no idea what I was listening to until the chorus. It had completely fallen out of my brain. Whereas I could recognise the Bananarama edition from the opening blast. My two cents: all artists are inspired by other artists, and every "original" idea evolves from a previous "original" idea. I side-eye anyone who would automatically liken inspiration to plagiarism. EDIT, since I got downvoted: I know there's a lot of overlap between the fanbases, but some of y'all Swifties need to get a grip. Not everyone is going to like your pet billionaire. It's not an act of treason or misogyny to say some of us simply don't care for her music or her public persona. Feel free to love her down to the last cell in your body if it truly makes you happy, but let others dislike her in peace.
They might sound similar to non-pop fans the way I think all country sounds similar as a non-fan; I was explaining the situation to my dad, played him each bridge and asked what he thought and he said he didn’t even realize I had changed songs LOL
you know what DOES sound like cruel summer? the end of super graphic ultra modern girl by chappell also produced by dan (which i love pls not hating, i think a mashup is in order) edit: MY KINK IS KARMA*** not SGUMG my badsies
Stylish by loona is eerily similar too.
That one sounds the most alike and it was around before cruel summer
Wait which part? They sound so different to me…
i have no idea what part of SGUMG sounds like cruel summer 😭 MAYBE my kink is karma… ?
NOOOO you’re right it is my kink is karma oh my god😭
Which part do you mean, I don’t hear it
Unfortunately under a lot of IP law you are required to take actions to defend your intellectual property or you can lose the rights to it, or lose the right to sue other people for it. Because Olivia said in such a public (and highly publicized) way that the song was inspired by cruel summer, if Taylor/Taylor's Record Label) didn't pursue any sort of IP infringement resolution (whether that was copyright or trademark or whatever else), it would open the door for a legal defence for other artists to rip off Cruel Summer in a far more blatant way, and then point to the fact that Taylor's IP rights weren't being properly maintained. They might not succeed, but they also might, IP law is complicated and not really designed well for music. Is it silly that so much IP law works this way? Yes, it is. But unfortunately right now it does, and while the law is the way that it is, once Olivia said what she said in that interview, Taylor's team didn't really have a choice but to pursue it. Taylor and her team could probably have given her a better deal than they did - but they did have to take some sort of legal action if they wanted to maintain the ability to protect their legal rights to her song in other instances. As a fan of both of them the whole situation makes me sad.
Thank you for saying this. It really, really sucks, but it had to happen as soon as Olivia said that she wanted it to sound like Cruel Summer.
Is it true that Taylor's camp receives 50% of the royalty? I wonder if there's a way to protect IP and yet not profiteer off. Sue for less, or donate the proceedings to a charity of Olivia's choice...
No. It's split between Taylor, Jack, and St. Vincent as they also wrote the song.
Didn’t Jack not really know much about it though? He said in an interview like “yeah it came through the channels that she was going to be crediting us so that’s pretty cool” so it sounded like Olivia’s team was just like we’re going to credit you guys and Jack and Taylor were like oh okay cool. Also I like how everyone is hating on Taylor but not paramore when Olivia also credited paramore? They all just assume Taylor bullied her into it, but don’t assume the same about paramore
Again, inspired is a broad term and since the two songs are not remotely similar, there was no reason to give her credit. Idk what your understanding of IP law is but it seems pretty confused.
I replied to your comment up above and I’m gonna copy and paste the same response here to clear up some misunderstanding of IP: This is repeated a lot, but it's incorrect. The idea that Taylor's camp needed to go after credits otherwise it "opens the door" for more copying or lawsuits is NOT true for copyright law. It IS true for trademarking, which would not apply for songwriting credits in this case. Copyright and trademark are very different in the IP world. Taylor's camp did not need to go after Olivia for mentioning she liked the shouty part of the Cruel Summer bridge in order to protect Taylor’s copyright to Cruel Summer. It’s not Disney trademarks. It works completely differently and copyright law is more forgiving than trademark in putting the onus on the IP holder. Source on info: I took a course in college about IP law and theft. Trademarking and copyrighting are often lumped under the same IP bridge but they are handled very differently legally
This explanation keeps going around but it’s literally false. That’s not how IP law works. You don’t have to defend it if you don’t believe it was violated, which Olivia saying she was inspired by Cruel Summer doesn’t necessarily do. To me the songs really don’t sound alike.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted when you’re correct. Not how IP law works
It was an overcompensation due to the Paramore lawsuit. Jack himself was surprised when they received writing credits. Do I think she should’ve had to? No, not at all. I don’t think they sound alike. But your anger at Taylor is misplaced.
It’s funny how everyone is mad at Taylor and don’t even mention Paramore
The only thing is the bridge with the shout vocals
That is correct six words. Apparently that equals a 50% songwriting credit now. Pisses me off just thinking about it
taylor should sue everyone who shouts in songs because she's obviously the first person who came up with that 🙄 (edit: /s)
Nah fr acting like a 18 year old girl screaming a lyric should have to give up rights to a song that sounds nothing alike
i doubt taylor would ask for songwriting credits if there weren't similarities between the two. i think olivia was just caught off guard by the business side of the music industry. iirc, she said something along those lines in an interview with the guardian
It happened with Elvis Costello as well but he defended Olivia Rodrigo and denied the credits. So we know artist can deny credits… just Taylor didn’t and neither did Paramore (mostly Josh Farro). It’s one of the reasons why ppl think “the grudge” is about Taylor. Also it’s sad to see that Olivia doesn’t talk about her inspirations anymore because of this whole thing.
I used to not hear it, but the bridge is kinda similar. It still has its unique sound though.
It’s pretty ignorant to blame Taylor without the facts. We don’t know if Taylor demanded credit. It’s very possible it was her team and not her. It is equally as possible that no one demanded royalties and Olivia’s team gave royalties to avoid any potential legal issues in the future. Saying you’re a fan and saying “this specific section of her song inspired this specific section of my song” are two different things. Olivia has openly admitted she was being naïve and shouldn’t have said that.
To me, I don’t really buy that as an excuse - her team works for her and she’s responsible for green lighting what they do. It’s also sad to say that an artist shouldn’t discuss who/what their inspirations were. The majority of music is influenced by previous music.
I hope we buried this conversation in 2021. It makes some people uncomfortable and this was discussed many times. "cause you see Olivia went to ask permission before her album came out on May 21, 2021, this explained why her other song, 1SF2 SB was credited before the album was released. Deja Vu was released on April 1, 2021. they could just told her before her album came out, not several months later.
Didn’t this person just write that they just found out about the cruel summer situation? No need for the sass
was i being rude? sorry. I understand that this topic makes her angry.
I think what really sucks is that artists are going to stop talking about their craft, inspirations, song creation, etc. Interviews used to be so cool, and I felt like people would be more open about sharing how they work, technical aspects, and stuff, and now most interviews just focus on their personal lives because all the actual technique stuff is being gatekept by fear of litigation.
Might have nothing to do with Taylor. Also Cruel Summer was written by 3 people, so Taylor only takes 17.3% from DejaVu because it was a 50% writing credit to Taylor + team.
I fully agree but let’s also not act like we know what/if anything actually happened between Olivia and Taylor. Like there was never a public thing from either of them. I think it’s so stupid that the whole narrative of “Olivia copies songs” has gotten so popular. Like it makes absolutely no sense with the writing credits on paramore bc literally the only similar thing about those songs is the chords. All the instruments sound different and the melody and vocals are just like not similar at all and those chords are like the most basic ass chords that you cannot copywriter or claim you made 💀
I don't think it was Taylor who specifically wanted credit. They had been working together, and Olivia appeared in promotional videos for Fearless (Taylor's Version) at the time. It was most likely a decision made between their two management teams.
…and they stopped working together as soon as it happened.
because olivia got bullied for talking about and interacting with taylor
Taylor is in charge of her management. She doesn’t let her management do anything she doesn’t want to att this stage in her career. Idk why you always try to absolve Taylor. She’s not exactly someone who doesn’t do this. She did it. Face it
I mean, contracts are still a thing and no one's really fully spoken about exactly what went down so we don't really know
Olivia’s reaction to Dan’s credit joke was all I needed to know. Plus Olivia’s interviews, it’s pretty clear what hapeoend
because paramore’s ex member also tried to sue her? use context pls
100,000% the correct answer. She's a freaking billionaire. She calls her shots. She ain't exactly just along for the ride
Right they act like she’s a baby. Taylor has power.
Allowing the song to not have her songwriting credits on it would set precedent which can open up the door for further legal issues when dealing with songwriting credits not being given to Taylor when her music is interpolated, used, or copied.
nope, it truly doesn’t! copyright doesn’t really work that way, such precedents that can arise from not suing are trademark-related..
This is so ridiculous when you realise how many of Taylor’s songs sound so similar to other artists.
dare i mention the grudge?
ITSNOTABOUTTAYLORSWIFT!!!! - every Swifty ever
right because "you have everything and you still want more" absolutely sounds like an ex lover and not a former idol/role model 🙄
Flowers filled with vitriol. Her undying love she still holds it like a grudge. After all this you're still everything to me. Yeah, it's definitely got to be about Zack or one of those clowns she used to date doesn't it
"*you built me up* to watch me fall" absolutely sounds like any of her creepy 25 year old boyfriends who dated her when she was only (barely) 18 and not like someone who hyped her up after drivers license and tore her down after deja vu
I'll tell you what man that second verse is a Crusher. that arguments in the mirror stuff God I've been doing that for 50 years.
Yeah, by the way stay away from 25-year-olds.
dont know why you got downvoted for that one 😭
Badge of honor, man. I got 17 on a football thread today.
To you but I've met people like that who were not my former role models. It just depends on your life and your experiences.
didn't olivia mention one of her songs are about multiple ppl 💀
they love putting names and getting people death threats (like they did to sabrina)
That's a theory, not confirmed.
She still took the credit? It was well within her right to gracefully decline it and show some support to a teenager who looked up to her. Swift has enough power to do that but I guess when you are a rabid narcissist, it's hard to do the right thing.
it's funny cause cruel summer sounds exactly like stylish by loona lol, where's loona's check from TS?
It doesn’t but Olivia does admit herself she wanted the bridge to sound like cruel summer
Imo that shouldn't matter when the end result does not resemble cruel summer at all really.
I agree, but unfortunately record companies that are sue happy don't. Remember, this wasn't too far after the whole blurred lines nonsense
Plus how many times has Taylor said ‘I wanted this song to be like __ artists song?’ Imagine if Taylor’s credits got taken omg we’d have about 10 documentaries now
imagine how much credit she owns to her friend lana del rey for starters
You will soon start to see down votes as a badge of honor if you don't already. Especially when you are committed and you know the truth
or hillary duff LMAO [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcaHmFufoYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcaHmFufoYs)
And every freaking '80s hair metal band wanted to sound like Van Halen.
what's fucking mind blowing to me is that taylor called olivia her "baby" and that she was "so proud of olivia" after drivers' license came out and blew up. (edit: and even more grossly, used her "support" of olivia to help promote fearless tv). but when liv made another hit (deja vu), taylor came after her because she realized that olivia's not a cute little disney one hit wonder, but instead a fucking powerhouse of an artist. imagine tearing down a 17/18 year old girl who's been a fan of you since she was a child and looked up to you as a hero. it's so disgusting
Exactly
If they won't freaking listen to me, maybe they'll listen to you. I'm just an old grumpy a******, but you're a peer, so I'm holding out hope
[удалено]
im on r/SwiftlyNeutral and their consensus pretty much matches mine, so i don't know what you're talking about
whew you’re in need of some grass touching 😮💨
They don't sound very similar but the structure is the same, and Olivia herself said she was inspired by the song so it isn't a coincidence. I saw someone with more music theory knowledge explain the similarities in structure and that helped it make sense for me.
100% agree on all points. The songs are not the same and they could have made way more money collaborating. Instead she robbed a teenager
okay so i had heard of this debate, but i had not delved too deep into it. (i loathe slow songs so drivers license turned me off of olivia for a while loll). however, i saw a short yesterday played like a remix of i think deja vu and that part did sound like cruel summer. i'm not saying taylor should've sued or whatever she did, BUT i see where the comparison might have come from.
The only part that remotely sounds like Cruel Summer is the bridge but otherwise there are no other similarities between the two.
I do hear some similarities in the bridge, and Olivia admitted that she wanted it to sound like Cruel Summer. But in reality we have no idea what happened between them and probably never will, Taylor and Olivia are both very talented women and I'm sick of people trying to pit them against each other.
I didn’t think so either until I paid attention to the bridge. “Strawberry ice cream in Malibu” does sound a bit like “I’m drunk in the back of the car” and “yeah everything is all reused” and “I don’t wanna keep secrets just to keep you” sound sooo similar.
That’s because the melodies of “strawberry ice cream in Malibu” and “I’m drunk in the back of the car” both hover around the same notes of the scale (1, 6, and 5) and the screaming melodies “I know you get deja vu” and “I don’t wanna keep secrets just to keep you” both focus on hitting the 3rd note of the scale. The main differences between Deja Vu and Cruel Summer are the rhythm of the melody and chord progression and production
Im glad im not the only one living under a rock apparently since I found out about this for the first time yesterday 😬
They don’t sound similar we all know this. And I’m pretty sure is wasn’t Taylor that sued her it was Taylor’s team
taylor never sued olivia
Lol is Taylor a child who has no agency on her team? She is a billionaire who heads her team. Stop infantilizing her.
The way DL and Sour blew up, it was only a matter of time before people started coming for Olivia. She's an extremely talented singer songwriter and, along with Billie, poised to be the biggest Gen Z artist. People like Taylor Swift are clearly threatened by both of them. I can't really blame Olivia for being a naive 17 year old and excitedly talking about her inspirations, unlike other artists who blatantly rip off other songs (which they don't even write themselves lol) and pretend to be original and authentic. I am not even a huge Olivia fan though I like her music a lot and I really hope she can continue on her path to success (Guts is a legit great album).
[удалено]
exactly taylor had and still does have enough power to control exactly what her legal team does and doesn't do. olivia didn't at the time
The bridge isn't really that similar. I agree that Olivia shouldn't have publicly said that the song is inspired by Cruel summer. But I didn't like Taylor for this. When Liv was skyrocketing, she used her for fearless tv promotion but then she sued her. My main problem is with swifties. Just because of this (and a couple more) situation, everyone now says Olivia is a copycat. Like girl, Cruel summer and deja vu aren't similar 😭😭
“It was Taylor’s team” lol sure, jan
You guys take this way to personal. We don't even know what happened and it's just music.
Yep. And under the assumption they gave them credits for basically “vibes” TS would owe a lot of people money for music, songs, and lyrics she’s blatantly ripped off, including her own Cruel Summer. Can’t say the same about Paramore, but I agree that nothing in good 4 U shouldn’t have gone to crediting them monetarily.
You have a lot of anger for a woman just based on your assumptions on a situation you know very little about
Denial much? There's no obvious connection between the songs yet that other person and her team got 50% songwriting credit. It's b******* you know it and I know it
I don’t think Taylor, jack antonoff and st vincent should have gotten credits for dejavu. But there is no evidence they demanded it or threatened to take legal actions. To me it’s more likely that Olivia’s team/the record label gave them credits in advance to avoid bad press or legal actions. Maybe a poor choice, but it is what it is. Bringing this topic up again and again is annoying and doesn’t help anyone, especially as it is often portrayed as Taylor vs. Olivia. Always putting successful, talented women against each other.
taylor has enough power to control what her legal team does. be so for real
I didn’t say anything about Taylor’s legal team doing anything with or without her involvement. But I think you are right, she would be in control. Maybe I did a bad job explaining myself. All I wanted to say: 1. no, Taylor, jack and st Vincent shouldn’t have gotten credits 2. I think the credits were given to them without them demanding it in any way 3. bringing this situation up every so often annoys me
Why can you, who's like a quarter of my age, see it plain as day, yet so many others are in complete denial and act like she's just a puppet dragged around by her handlers?
it genuinely shocks me that people's support for taylor runs so deep that they are downvoting me for supporting olivia on an OLIVIA sub like what 😭
And oddly enough, I've seen threads on TS boards where they all agree that she did Olivia wrong. It's really weird.
RIGHT!!! like if *some* swifties can understand, why can't some people here? even the people who don't think taylor is wrong for releasing multiple variants to stay at the top of the chart fully acknowledge that the deja vu debacle was disgusting (see: literally any r/SwiftlyNeutral thread about this)
Well there's a solution for that. Miss Swift seems to be the instigator more often than not
This is true, but I can sorta see the resemblance in the bridges.
I dont either. and the ones that do, are mega swifteys with no life. and for those saying "taylor didnt know" "I doubt taylor knew" judging about how shes putting out variants to block other artists from going #1...... she knew. and if she didnt like some claim, she couldve put out a short statement about it. but guess what? she didnt because she was behind it. lets not act like ts doesnt know wtf is going on because I guarantee you she makes ALL the decisions. she wants to be the biggest and baddest and olivia got big QUICK and this was her power move to try and knock her down. taylor swift is disgusting honestly. sadly im still going to the eras tour bc already got tix with my sisters, so its more of a memory thing for me now, but the whole variants and law suit turned me WAY off of her. and guts is so much better than ttpd even with only half the songs.
Finally someone said it
Regardless of how it happens, there are in fact *several* Melodie’s and rhythms that sound exactly like cruel summer and that’s just how IP and music law works. Both their teams settled this privately. Same with paramore. I love interpolations and sampling in pop music but Olivia and her team actually let the side down with the decision to just mimic the biggest pop artist in the world. I don’t want to live in a world where people with money and resources can do whatever they want
The worst part of it is that Taylor ends up stealing a whole concept from Olivia’s get him back! in imgonnagetyouback
Olivia Rodrigo is only 21 years old, and has already won 2 Grammies, and you have older women like Taylor Swift and Paramore circling her like vultures. Even if it wasn't *personal* that still doesn't make it any better for the hurt this caused Olivia personally, who was only 19 years old at the time! I'll never forgive Swift or Paramore for this, personally. And to make an enemy (intentionally or not) out of Olivia, a very successful and talented young artist, is possibly the *dumbest* thing to do for *ageing* artists.
I feel so bad for her because they really took millions in royalties for nothing 🥲
FOR REAL
God forbid we feel inspired by other songs and artists. Crikey.
I literally can’t even begin to see how the two songs have any relation. “Crueeeel” sounds like “Deja Vuuuuu” maybe? Olivia isn’t allowed to use the vowel “U” I guess is the precedent the court wanted to set?
Yeah I’m a swiftie and livie but I still think it sounds nothing like that and Taylor was overreacting a bit
I remember back in the days hearing cruel summer and singing deja vu at the same time on the bridge part, even before knowing there was a law suit. The melody is really similar. That being said, after doing the investigation I understood that she stated that that specific part was inspired in that song. Although it just feels that she was betrayed in some way. She was her idol and for many occasions Olivia was just backstabbed by Taylor (or her team). I do understand that people tend to say that Taylor didn't have anything to do with these actions. Those people have a lot of power and say over her businesses and credits, however, you also underestimate the power and influence of Taylor. She could easily say that she wasn't slightly involved in it, but she didn't. She didn't say a word. Even in an indirect way, she's so good at it in her songs. She enjoys being the big fish of the pond with her pockets full. That's the music industry, olivia was just naive but learned from it, I guess.
Well, I don’t think Taylor actually would care about it. But, there are legal requirements and it would be well within her rights to ask for credits. Also, though, the people who say that Deja Vu and Cruel Summer sound similar were also saying Vampire and See You Again by Miley Cyrus sounded the same. So it’s not even like they’re trying very hard to find similarities
this is why i hate taylor swift and don’t feel bad about it