I dont understand entirely what the obsession is with originality and artistic propriety in our world. Physical objects, things you can hold and touch, like land or food or water or bodies, originate from and exist in only ONE physical place. They are, in essence, the only truly ORIGINAL things. Ideas, however, are not so. There ARE no original ideas. As depressing as the fact is, all human thoughts are only built on preceding ideas. Your personality, no matter how unique you may view yourself, is only a result of the personalities of people around you and of the effect of your experiences and environment on you. Your dreams are only your mind simulating reality. All art is based on art from before. And just the same way as there are only so many colors in the world and an artist can only mix and reorganize pre-existing colors rather than create new ones, there are only so many notes and so many words in the world and a musician's job is not to create new notes and words but simply to reorganize them to create a work of art meant to express THAT ARTIST'S particular emotions. A singer can cover the song of another singer word-for-word, note-for-note but say something completely different by changing the tempo or tone or by simply having a different voice. Frank Ocean is SAYING something completely different than the Eagles were, simply using the same melody (which, of course didnt spring from nowhere but was definitely inspired by the general sound of other songs from that genre and era as well as by other songs the writer(s) heard before). So then what's the real reason that anyone should be so angry about this? Money, right? Well, 1) this was released on a mixtape. There WAS no money gained. 2) Why does it matter to you? You didnt write the song. 2) So, if we have to pay money anytime we so much as HUM the notes of someone else's songs, then why dont we pay money everytime we quote a famous person's speech (Martin Luther King jr.'s descendants would be billionaires)? Why don't we copyright thoughts while we're at it? If you have to pay a hollywood artist for even sampling their music, then what happens if someone samples the sound of a nameless, homeless stranger singing on the street? Would anyone speak up then? What if someone samples the sound of birds chirping or wind blowing? Do you just throw money out your window and then rub wild berries on the signature line of a copyright agreement? We're basically at the point that even COMPUTERS can compose music simply by putting together random notes, alternating the tempoes and rhythms, and mimicing the patterns of music visible in music from different genres. But what no computer can do and what no other person besides the songwriter her/himself can do is KNOW exactly what that particular song means to them and express it as an individual.
A very underrated song, which is probably the case of most of Frank's song. The only song(s) that have gotten recognition is like real love songs, and not songs with a deeper meaning as deep as this.
Okay. I have seen so many misconceptions about Frank using The Eagle's "Hotel California" instrumental. Let me just create my own thread instead of continuing to repeat myself in multiple comments.
Don Henley nor the Eagles wanted to sue. The label Warner did. And he did not delete it either. It's on Nostalgia, ULTRA. Track 12/14.
Frank is very meticulous when it comes to his instrumentals. So for all of those who think he did this to shit on the Eagles, you're all messed up. Obviously if he used it, he liked it.
Rappers and singers have used instrumentals since who knows when. And as far as i'm concerned if using that instrumental to produce a beautiful rendition, then 808's should be deemed illegal, so should every freestyle performed, and every song sang by an artist it didn't belong to. Hmm. Let's see. Led Zeppelin, Beyonce, Jay Z, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Jodeci, Michael Jackson, etc. etc. So then would you say that they were 'stealing?' They just appreciated the music, and they wanted their fans to feel how they felt about the songs they sang. Would you say to every kid at a talent show that they were stealing? Would you tell all the people on Vine, Youtube and other platforms that do covers that they were 'stealing'? No. So I don't know why this applies to Frank Ocean.
When a new artist comes out, the first thing people do is find something they can associate with. Sometimes it's a remix on a song, sometimes it's a feature, sometimes it's a rendition. Why do you suppose the word rendition exists if no one can do it?
Finally, many of you guys are saying the song is garbage because you seem to have some sort of allegiance towards the Eagles. You need to stop that shit now. You need to appreciate the music, the meaning. If you cannot listen to something unbiased and decided whether or not you like it without your decision being based on who is singing it, you really need to take a look at how you view things. It's a damn song, no need to get so judgmental.
I love "American Wedding" and "Hotel California" Something different is introduced in each, and they are both beautiful. The lack of an open mind is a terrible thing.
I prefer Frank's vocals and lyrics, but I can't blame the Eagles for being offended and upset. He should have asked permission, or at least shouldn't have been so rude when they took exception to his use of their song. Disappointing tbh.
Different era.. different society. Different lyrics.. still heartfelt. Yeah lack respect to the original, but yall need to enjoy both and quit arguing.. I was mad at first too but i got over it cause frank ocean is amazing and shame on us for bashing him cause of what he decides to do with his genitals.
Please like and subscribe
THIS IS THE FIRST DECENT COPY IVE FOUND OF THE FULL VERSION YOU ARE AN ANGEL
I dont understand entirely what the obsession is with originality and artistic propriety in our world.
Physical objects, things you can hold and touch, like land or food or water or bodies, originate from and exist in only ONE physical place. They are, in essence, the only truly ORIGINAL things.
Ideas, however, are not so. There ARE no original ideas. As depressing as the fact is, all human thoughts are only built on preceding ideas. Your personality, no matter how unique you may view yourself, is only a result of the personalities of people around you and of the effect of your experiences and environment on you. Your dreams are only your mind simulating reality. All art is based on art from before. And just the same way as there are only so many colors in the world and an artist can only mix and reorganize pre-existing colors rather than create new ones, there are only so many notes and so many words in the world and a musician's job is not to create new notes and words but simply to reorganize them to create a work of art meant to express THAT ARTIST'S particular emotions.
A singer can cover the song of another singer word-for-word, note-for-note but say something completely different by changing the tempo or tone or by simply having a different voice.
Frank Ocean is SAYING something completely different than the Eagles were, simply using the same melody (which, of course didnt spring from nowhere but was definitely inspired by the general sound of other songs from that genre and era as well as by other songs the writer(s) heard before).
So then what's the real reason that anyone should be so angry about this?
Money, right?
Well,
1) this was released on a mixtape. There WAS no money gained.
2) Why does it matter to you? You didnt write the song.
2) So, if we have to pay money anytime we so much as HUM the notes of someone else's songs, then why dont we pay money everytime we quote a famous person's speech (Martin Luther King jr.'s descendants would be billionaires)?
Why don't we copyright thoughts while we're at it?
If you have to pay a hollywood artist for even sampling their music, then what happens if someone samples the sound of a nameless, homeless stranger singing on the street? Would anyone speak up then?
What if someone samples the sound of birds chirping or wind blowing? Do you just throw money out your window and then rub wild berries on the signature line of a copyright agreement?
We're basically at the point that even COMPUTERS can compose music simply by putting together random notes, alternating the tempoes and rhythms, and mimicing the patterns of music visible in music from different genres.
But what no computer can do and what no other person besides the songwriter her/himself can do is KNOW exactly what that particular song means to them and express it as an individual.
"You was inspired by the world; allow the world to be inspired by your shit and to use your shit." Truest shit said by J.Cole.
A video is needed idc how old this album is !!
Just discovered Frank Ocean. I love this. (old Eagles fan, here)
People need to calm down, it's an image to the music of Hotel California with Frank's spin on new lyrics
Hotel California in the background?
"We had an American wedding, now what's mine is yours: American divorce"
Wow. A transition that is true to life.
A very underrated song, which is probably the case of most of Frank's song.
The only song(s) that have gotten recognition is like real love songs, and not songs with a deeper meaning as deep as this.
Okay. I have seen so many misconceptions about Frank using The Eagle's "Hotel California" instrumental. Let me just create my own thread instead of continuing to repeat myself in multiple comments.
Don Henley nor the Eagles wanted to sue. The label Warner did. And he did not delete it either. It's on Nostalgia, ULTRA. Track 12/14.
Frank is very meticulous when it comes to his instrumentals. So for all of those who think he did this to shit on the Eagles, you're all messed up. Obviously if he used it, he liked it.
Rappers and singers have used instrumentals since who knows when. And as far as i'm concerned if using that instrumental to produce a beautiful rendition, then 808's should be deemed illegal, so should every freestyle performed, and every song sang by an artist it didn't belong to. Hmm. Let's see. Led Zeppelin, Beyonce, Jay Z, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Jodeci, Michael Jackson, etc. etc. So then would you say that they were 'stealing?' They just appreciated the music, and they wanted their fans to feel how they felt about the songs they sang. Would you say to every kid at a talent show that they were stealing? Would you tell all the people on Vine, Youtube and other platforms that do covers that they were 'stealing'? No. So I don't know why this applies to Frank Ocean.
When a new artist comes out, the first thing people do is find something they can associate with. Sometimes it's a remix on a song, sometimes it's a feature, sometimes it's a rendition. Why do you suppose the word rendition exists if no one can do it?
Finally, many of you guys are saying the song is garbage because you seem to have some sort of allegiance towards the Eagles. You need to stop that shit now. You need to appreciate the music, the meaning. If you cannot listen to something unbiased and decided whether or not you like it without your decision being based on who is singing it, you really need to take a look at how you view things. It's a damn song, no need to get so judgmental.
I love "American Wedding" and "Hotel California" Something different is introduced in each, and they are both beautiful. The lack of an open mind is a terrible thing.
eagles fans who don't understand what mixtapes are: GGGRRRRRRRR
6:12-7:01 should be its own song
Last song?
FUCK DON HENLEY AND HIS GREED. BOTH EAGLES AND FRANK RULE
love both versions, really like the editing on the outro in this one
I prefer Frank's vocals and lyrics, but I can't blame the Eagles for being offended and upset. He should have asked permission, or at least shouldn't have been so rude when they took exception to his use of their song. Disappointing tbh.
baby
Fucking. Classic.
Different era.. different society. Different lyrics.. still heartfelt. Yeah lack respect to the original, but yall need to enjoy both and quit arguing..
I was mad at first too but i got over it cause frank ocean is amazing and shame on us for bashing him cause of what he decides to do with his genitals.