Could it be because Al’s version is about 50 billion times better than Coolio’s tired derivation of Stevie Wonder’s song?
I’ve been reading some Weird Al threads, and it’s really reminded me again how brilliant Weird[del]dave[/del] Al is. Something reminded me of the flap surrounding Amish Paradise, and it got me to thinking. Coolio didn’t like Al parodying his work. Why? Could it be because 100 years from now people will still appreciate Weird Al and Coolio will be no more than another wanna be gangsta rapper in the trash heap of artistic history? I think it might. Do you think that Coolio actually believed he was writing something meaningful? As if! Personally, if I had the ability to write music, I’d consider it an honor to be parodied by Al.
That’s the thing: a lot of artists DO feel that way. I remember from his Behind the Music episode that one of the members of Nirvana said that they knew they’d made it when Weird Al parodied them.
As for the Coolio issue, Wikipedia doesn’t offer anything more than what I remember him saying during an awards ceremony when asked about the parody. I suppose it just boils down to Coolio feeling that the song had too important a message to be parodied.
Personally I don’t think the song was all that sacred.
I’d heard that Al always tries to get permission from the artists whose songs he parodies. Was I misinformed, or did Coolio just reneg once he heard how great Al’s song turned out.
Weird Al got the ok a rep from Coolio’s record company and assumed that meant Coolio approved too, but that apparently was not the case. According to Wikipedia, because of this he only went ahead if he got permission from the artist personally.
I remember Weird Al describing his conversation with Kurt Cobain as:
Cobain: “Um, its not gonna be about food, is it?”
Al: “Ah, no. Actually its about how no one can understand what you’re saying when you sing”
Cobain: “Oh. Ok…”
Supposedly Coolio thought the song was too “serious” :rolleyes: to be parodied. He probably thought it would be cool to act offended at the parody, when obviously he gave permission, or else why wouldn’t he have sued?
To be fair, there are all sorts of reasons why one might not sue, despite not having granted permission. Legal hassles and expenses, for example.
As I understand it, no permission is necessary to do a parody song as long as appropriate royalties are paid.
Not to mention that parody is covered under the Fair Use Act. (You know, I’ve never actually read the act, but it’s been cited so many times regarding parodies, I figure what the hell.) Al asks permission and respects artists’ wishes because it’s the nice thing to do, but if he knowingly ignored someone’s request, AFAICT they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Not that Al can’t get upset, of course. There’s a video floating around on YouTube from the last edition of AlTV where Al stages a mock interview with video recordings of Eminem from another unrelated interview and tears him apart for not letting Al film a video of Couch Potato. Hilarious.
I remember watching one interview, and Al mentioned that Coolio wasn’t so offended that he returned the royalty checks.
If Al gets permission, he can list himself as a writer of new lyrics and get a bit more money.
The way I heard it (which means it’s probably not true) is that Al asked Coolio’s permission, and it was granted. Coolio was under the impression that the parody would be much like Al’s other work. What upset him was the actual rendition that was done.
I’ll ask a psychic, 'cuz I’m not sure about this one.
I don’t understand what that means. Was it really such a departure from his other work? (It didn’t seem to me to be, I just thought it was great.) Was Coolio expecting a polka version? Was it the Amish theme?
But as you said, it’s probably not true anyway–I just don’t understand what it’s supposed to mean.
Wonder if Coolio got personal permission from Stevie Wonder to remake “Pastime Paradise”? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Maybe Coolio’s problem is that he was, up until “Gangster’s Paradise,” a clown. He was a novelty act (Exhibit A: his hair) who hung on the fringes of the gangster rap subculture, making good-time, humorous songs that consisted of him rapping (poorly) about beaches and barbecues over NOT EVEN CHOPPED UP samples of 70s funk. I mean, he was to the 90s what Tone-Loc was to the 80s.
Then came GP, his too-earnest, overproduced attempt at a serious message, and what happens? Weird Al comes along and totally takes the piss out of it. No wonder he was upset.
I remember an interview where Al discussed how he met Paul McCartney, who immediately asked him why Al hadn’t parodied one of his songs. Al mentioned that he wanted to do a parody of Live and Let Die called “Chicken Pot Pie” and Paul said he’d prefer Al didn’t because he (Paul) is a vegetarian. Al closed the story by saying that he (only does? prefers? can’t remember) parodies where he has the artist’s blessing so he didn’t do the Wings song…
Woulda been funny!
He actually did do that song, but it never was released on an album. I think he actually perfomed it live a few times though.
Lyrics can be found HERE
What would be his cause of action? Under Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (Campbell is Luther Campbell a/k/a Luke Skyywalker of 2 Live Crew), parody is fair use. Coolio would have no claim of copyright infringement.
There is no Fair Use Act. The Copyright Act of 1976 does have a provision, Section 107, regarding fair use.
Well, if you want to read 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107, it’s not long. In fact, here it is in toto:
He doesn’t need permission. If he wrote new lyrics, he wrote new lyrics and they belong to him.
Good times. Thanks for indulging my laziness. 