SoulAlive said:

Alot of people don't realize it,but Pharrell is actually a real musician.He plays keyboards and drums.I think that,because he's associated with the hip-hop wolrd,people often assume that he's just sampling all the time.

I have followed his work closely. I attended a conference he gave last month. He is very articulate! He likes to think outside the box. I was very impressed with him! Especially with his work he did on the soundtrack to Despicable Me 2(I almost bought it ) I also attended a special screening of that movie that he was at. He spoke briefly there. He is no dummy!

Graycap23 said:

CynicKill said:

A big criticism is that Sade releases the same album over and over.

But what an album that is!

It's true.

Graycap23 said:

I'm a fan but her catalogue is limited at best. I'd go as far as 2 cal her a one trick pony. All of her material sounds basically the same.

Yeah...sounds just like Sweetest Taboo, right? Maureen? NOT!

She works within the context of the sound she and the band developed. Her subject matter is still diverse.

We getting a bit off topic here. Sade is Sade; Robin Thicke is no Sade.

[Edited 8/18/13 9:02am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

SoulAlive said:

Alot of people don't realize it,but Pharrell is actually a real musician.He plays keyboards and drums.I think that,because he's associated with the hip-hop wolrd,people often assume that he's just sampling all the time.

I have followed his work closely. I attended a conference he gave last month. He is very articulate! He likes to think outside the box. I was very impressed with him! Especially with his work he did on the soundtrack to Despicable Me 2(I almost bought it ) I also attended a special screening of that movie that he was at. He spoke briefly there. He is no dummy!

[img:$uid]http://s24.postimg.org/mnj2lwv4l/o7u8v.jpg[/img:$uid][/url]

BlaqueKnight said:

BlaqueKnight said:

BlaqueKnight said:

I don't see how anyone with ears could deny that Blurred Lines is an interpolation of a piece of Got To Give It Up.

If this were a Prince song, the org would be full of hate for Robin. The org has gone nuts over less. Because it is a dead black R&B singer that some people on here are unfamiliar with, there is a lot of indifference about it because there is less attachment to the original artist and the source material.
The fact is, they tried to cleverly copy GTGIU, and everybody was cool with it until Marvin's family decided to say something. Now its denial, denial, denial.

Suing the original artist over something you KNOW you stole? That's just downright disgusting. No R&B head in their right mind should support these fools ever again. Robin and Pharrell should have their careers severed at the head and T.I.'s ass should be put on notice just for good measure .

T.I. 'll be like "What did I do? and folks 'll say "You was with 'em!"

Its up to people that support a genre of music to preserve its integrity.

Maybe a few years down the line, someone will do the same thing to "Lost Without You" like Kevin Hart did jokingly and Robin will feel the same sting.

[Edited 8/18/13 7:51am]

The music notation would throw the case out of court. The chords and voicings are different. Maybe the song should be called "Blurred Give it Up"

if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck

there's a duck floatin around in the room quacking

Scorp said:

if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck

there's a duck floatin around in the room quacking

Hold UP!

Is this duck walking or floating?

CocoRock said:

Scorp said:

if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck

there's a duck floatin around in the room quacking

Hold UP!

Is this duck walking or floating?

I would say floating, because when you're hijacking, it's too easy to be caught walking

SoulAlive said:

If the industry had outlawed sampling in 1980 (around the time of "Rapper's Delight"),non-musicians like Puff Daddy would have never had a music career.

Rapper's Delight wasn't sampled though. It was replayed by the Sugarhill Records house band. Good Times is not the only song on it. The little part at the beggining comes from a disco song called Here Comes That Sound Again by Love De-luxe. So it's no different than remaking a song or doing what Weird Al does. The thing was that Rapper's Delight was originally credited to the Sugarhill Gang members and Sylvia Robinson and not Chic. But Chic are not credited on other soundalike songs like Another One Bites The Dust and Bounce, Rock, Skate, Roll.

.

Also some acts approve sampling. Danny Seraphine from Chicago co-wrote Street Player and the group released it as a single. Unfortunately, it came out during the "Disco Sucks" phase and so flopped. Decades later, the Masters At Work (aka The Bucketheads) sampled it on The Bomb, and then Pitbull sampled the sample. Both songs became big hits and Danny said he made a lot of money from them. Acts that sampled old obscure songs from obscure acts that are out of print made money(if the song becomes popular) for the songwriter or whoever owns the songs. This would have never happened without sampling. Songs are only worth something if they get covered a lot or used in movies or commercials. Just owning songs that are not used just drains money as they are taxed. That's why some just wind up selling them off.

My two cents:

If this song is nominated for a Grammy and wins, all hell is gonna break loose. The Gaye family might bust up on that stage like ODB did that one year to Shaun Colvin.

Two, I second what someond said re how "Slave 4 U" sounded damn near exactly like "Nasty Girl". Damn skippy Pharrell better be glad Prince didn't sue his ass off.

Thirdly, how did Men at Work get in trouble for "Land Down Under" ?

And one more thing-Robin better thank his lucky stars he isn't accused of jacking an MJ song. The black community would never forgive him.

For a white boy that does black music, this whole thing has set him back made him lose cred.

[Edited 8/18/13 10:52am]

[Edited 8/18/13 10:54am]

I guess this should come as no suprise, since he came in the biz riding the coat tails of an already legendary song:

Old habits die hard, I guess.

Trickology said:

The music notation would throw the case out of court. The chords and voicings are different. Maybe the song should be called "Blurred Give it Up"

Back in the day, Mad TV would be dropping a parody of it by now called "Crossed Lines" with Ike Barinholtz or Michael McDonald in a Robin hair wig and Phil Lamar as Pharrell and Aries Spears as T.I.. Nicole Sullivan, Mo Collins and Debra Wilson would be the video girls.

BlaqueKnight said:

I guess this should come as no suprise, since he came in the biz riding the coat tails of an already legendary song:

Old habits die hard, I guess.

I am a diehard Robin Thicke fan and it makes me very sad he's doing this. The first time I heard the song, I immiediately said it was a rip of Got To Give It Up and was sad he did not credit Marvin on the track.

Riding the coattails of the song you mention is NOTHING. Robin has been "channeling" Marvin on that same album. Listen to the last minute or so of Cherry Blue Skies.

I can call bullshit on the artist, whether it's someone I like or not.

Scorp said:

the industry never stopped sampling, but actually created the environment that encouraged it. They did it because this was the means to tap into culture definitely in order to exploit it to the tilt for commercial exploitation and untold financial gain.....

It's always been about money. It's the "record business", not the "record charity". From the beginning the labels gave acts rip off contracts that made the labels rich and the performers broke. That's how capitalism works, the people at the bottom do the most work for little money (or for free with sweatshops and slavery) and the people at the top who are doing the least get the rewards. Why do you think the mafia was involved in entertainment, Hollywood, Las Vegas, nightclubs, etc.? The mob wanted to make money and have fronts for their other illegal activities. Decades ago, label heads (especially with small independent labels like Specialty and Modern) added their names as the songwriter, and sometimes left the real songwriters off. Songwriters for hire worked for labels and got paid a fee for songs, but the label owned the songs and wthe writers didn't get paid royalties.

.

When a particular type of music became popular (ie. big band, rock & roll, doo wop, dance craze songs, heavy metal, James Taylor/Paul Simon style singer-songwriters, disco, new wave, hair metal, etc.), the labels sign a bunch of similar acts until it loses popularity from overkill. When Elvis Presley became popular, there were a bunch of Elvis soundalikes and there were a bunch of Beatle soundalike bands and British Invasion groups. Thinking that music is different than any other business makes no sense, the main reason people start a business is to make money. To make money is to give people what they want. Coca Cola, fast food, and cigarettes are not good for your health, yet people continue to buy it.

BlaqueKnight said:

I guess this should come as no suprise, since he came in the biz riding the coat tails of an already legendary song:

Old habits die hard, I guess.

what's crazy about it......

critics will say the actual original version that becomes part of lexicon is outdated

but when a guy hijacks it,, the hijacker is praised for bringing the song "up to date".......

but taking it back to 1990

when Milli Vanilli won those two Grammy Awards, in particular for best new artists

it totally discredited the Grammy Award Academy for good and there were signs flying all around that the recording industry would soon tank....

they sold over 10 million copies of "Girl You Know It's True"......

which not only featured tons of samples, but they weren't even singing the songs.....

Jazz musician Nicholas Peyton lays it out...

Thicke and Co., Got To Give It Up To Marvin
Posted on August 16, 2013

Wow, another case of a White dude stealing Black music. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. This is where sample culture goes wrong and morphs into entitlement culture. I don’t know how the “composers” of Blurred Lines are even suing Gaye’s estate and insisting they didn’t do an exact rip of Marvin’s tune. I’m down with writing a piece that is influenced by another cat’s style, changing certain key elements and ultimately making it your own, but this is just wrong.

And their whole defense that the song is in tribute to an era or genre, not a specific song, is wack. First off, Gaye’s Got To Give It Up doesn’t really sound like anything else from that era. It contains a certain musical artifact that is uniquely its own—which is why it’s such an iconic sound. The song is an era within itself. Not even Marvin created anything exactly like it again. It’s elements are a cultural interpolation of blues, funk, good disco, cha-cha-cha and other Caribbean elements.

Let’s break it down in specific musical terms:

1.) The sparse square wave sounding bass line is almost identical in its function to both songs. The motif is that the bass line drops beat 1 of each bar or every other bar, leaves some space, then ad libs a little bit. This is a recurring theme throughout. Blurred Lines does exactly that, except they change a couple of the chords. Maybe that’s what they mean by “Blurred Lines.”

2.) The use of the cowbell is also a central part of both songs. The only difference in the songs—and in general—is whereas Gaye’s piece is more fluid and less pattern-based, Thicke’s interpretation is rhythmically static and doesn’t really go anywhere.

3.) They didn’t even try to change the keyboard. The upbeat chord stabs that give the song a slight Reggae feel (or should I say, ReGaye) is central to the character of the tune.

4.) They even codified that background chatter atmosphere Gaye frequently employed in his songs during this period of his work. How you gon’ turn organic party sounds into a cliché?

5.) The drums are the same: 4-on-the-floor with a snare backbeat on 2 and 4 with the occasional accent on a half-closed sock cymbal.

In short, they dumbed down the hipness of the original and turned Gaye’s classic opus into a fake, Macarena-esque, line dance, limbo party type club anthem.

How low can you go?

This is symptomatic of the lack of respect younger cats have for The Masters. The nerve of this even having to be an argument is ridiculous.

The funny part to me is that Gaye had to foresight to call it Got To Give It Up, almost like he knew 35-some-odd-years ago that some young punks would try to steal his shit.

Dudes: Give it up to the master—and most importantly—give up them royalties to Gaye’s estate.

ARTISTS: (if I can even call you that) Please write some original material. I’m tired of turning on the radio and thinking I’m about to hear Marvin Gaye’s Got To Give It Up, The Commodores’ Night Shift, or Mtume’s Juicy Fruit, and hearing your thievin’ behinds.

It’s tantamount to getting your tastebuds ready for some Kool-Aid and opening the fridge to find out somebody’s selfish ass done almost drank it all and ain’t left but a swallow!

http://nicholaspayton.wor...to-marvin/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

He's not done yet.
"It ain't over!"

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Thicke’s Got To Give It Up (Pt. 2)
Posted on August 17, 2013

Since Gaye’s Got To Give It Up is in two parts, I thought it would be fitting to make my post in two parts.

I knew that a lot of folks would be pissed off at the first line of my previous piece being, “Wow, another case of a White dude stealing Black music.” And that would color the way some folks would read and interpret the rest of the piece, but, when I think about what’s so fucked up about it, the White part is it.

Let me explain why . . .

To this point, Robin Thicke has built his celebrity around Black music, and the core of his fan base is Black people—Black women in particular. I recall seeing an interview of Thicke on TV One years ago where he said explicitly that Marvin Gaye was his favorite vocalist. That really resonated with me, as anyone who knows me, knows that Marvin is my fave, as well. And after Miles Davis, he is my favorite musician, period.

It is incredulous to me that someone who owes a tremendous debt of gratitude for his success to the Black community, and who has a Black wife, and biracial kids, could be as callous to sue Marvin Gaye’s estate as a preemptive strike against his blatant theft of Gaye’s material. All respect due to Funkadelic, but I hear no resemblance to their song Sexy Mama, as some suggest.

The “White Man stealing Black music” is cliché, really, but we never should become so desensitized to wrongdoings that we simply let it pass by unacknowledged. To those who say Pharrell was complicit in the plagiarist act, I say, yes, but it’s ultimately Thicke’s record and the onus is on him to do what is right. Besides, Black men have typically sold out their brothers and ancestors for a piece of silver. Just this year alone, Russell Simmons publicly disrespected Harriet Tubman, and Lil’ Wayne, Emmett Till. Two iconic, Black ancestors exploited and used for laughs and shock value. But that’s where we are with it today; everything’s a meme, and no one is above being a target.

And the whole argument that Pharrell’s participation makes it less racially offensive, is very similar to when Whites pull out the “Well, Zimmerman’s not White,” card or the “Well, the Black community doesn’t get as upset about Black-on-Black crime as they have the Trayvon Martin case?”

Racism is not about an individual act; it’s a collective system that hands out rewards and privileges to Robin Thicke that Marvin Gaye never got to enjoy.

“Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give It Up.’ I was like, ‘Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.’ Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it.”

— Robin Thicke

So, Mr. Thicke, how do you go from knowing you “composed” a song something like Marvin’s, to suing his estate to protect your ass? See the problem is that he knows—legally—he didn’t steal any copyrightable elements. Since groove, chord progressions, rhythms, blues and vibe are not legally copyrightable, he technically didn’t steal the song. In other words, of all the things that are indicative of Black music, the most important elements are not able to be copyrighted. Another example of African ideals being seen as invalid through the Western/European lens.

Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder, but that doesn’t mean his act wasn’t morally wrong. The problem with the American justice system is that any act is both legal and illegal. What side of the law you might find yourself all depends on who you are, who you know, and how much money you have.

Robin Thicke is the George Zimmerman of copyright infringement. By suing the Gaye estate, he evoked the musical equivalent of Stand Your Ground.

I think what needs to happen here is a rewriting of copyright law. But then again, even when someone directly samples your recorded work—as in the case of flautist James Newton vs. the Beastie Boys—you still might come up short. Because Newton is a Black man who played music imbued with the Black aesthetic, the judge ruled that the 3 notes, albeit important in Mr. Newton’s composition, were not enough to constitute a song. Not only did James Newton lose his case, but I think the Beastie Boys wound up suing him. Sound familiar?

This all plays into the narrative that when you’re Black in America, there is not value to your life or your creations. Not only do your possessions not belong to you, but you don’t belong to you. You don’t own anything. You are a slave.

“We tried to do everything that was taboo. Bestiality, drug injections, and everything that is completely derogatory towards women. Because all three of us are happily married with children, we were like, ‘We’re the perfect guys to make fun of this.’ People say, ‘Hey, do you think this is degrading to women?’ I’m like, ‘Of course it is. What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I’ve never gotten to do that before. I’ve always respected women.’ ”

— Robin Thicke

I also think it’s interesting that he openly admitted to degrading women in the video and had this summer’s biggest hit, whereas Rick Ross lost endorsements and became the whipping boy of feminists for glorifying rape culture by talking about putting a molly in a girl’s drink unbeknownst to her and having his way, as a result. It’s cute when a White matinee idol does it, but let a big Black guy do it, and everybody’s in a tizzy.

What’s also quite revealing here is that the song, in which Mr. Thicke committed a cultural crime against Marvin Gaye, has been his entrée and acceptance into the Pop world. He went from being a fairly popular Urban artist to a mainstream sensation, overnight. He may take this as encouragement to continue in this fashion. Why not? His shenanigans have done nothing but made him an even bigger star.

As a White man, I know Thicke is not personally responsible for what his ancestors did, nor should he necessarily feel guilty by virtue of being labeled “White,” but when he turns around and steals from a Black artist whom he purports to admire, he’s no better than his White predecessors. He’s following in the footsteps of all the other White cats who stole Black music and their money.

Don’t just pay tribute; pay royalties.

— Nicholas Payton

In business, the way you show respect is through financial support.

So, I know many of you are tired of hearing it, but many of us are tired of it happening. So, to you White folks, who get upset every time a Black person calls out racism—just pause—and imagine how we must feel.

On the heels of Marvin’s song, Thicke has broken the record for the highest radio listeners ever recorded—ever—and reached No. 1 in 102 countries. He’s got the greatest radio ratings-ever, and not only does he refuse to give a portion to the Gaye estate, but he sues. Wow.

He’s missing a golden opportunity to pay back an artist he’s indebted to. Instead, he’s decided to just rip him off.

I ain’t mad, nor am I surprised, but I am disappointed. Thicke should know better. And unless he apologizes, and pays a percentage to the family, Blacks should stop financing his career.

#BAM

— Nicholas Payton aka The Savior of Archaic Pop

http://nicholaspayton.wordpress.com/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

here's a song that's been sampled to oblivion

BlaqueKnight said:

I guess this should come as no suprise, since he came in the biz riding the coat tails of an already legendary song:

Old habits die hard, I guess.

You mean two legendary songs, right? "When I Get You Alone" contains a credited sample of Walter Murphy's #1 hit "A Fifth of Beethoven," which of course is heavily based on Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

"Written by the singer and produced by Art Stewart" - so why is the Gaye family going after them. He didn't write it or produce it. Shouldn't the Stewart family be pursuing a lawsuit?

Zannaloaf said:

"Written by the singer and produced by Art Stewart" - so why is the Gaye family going after them. He didn't write it or produce it. Shouldn't the Stewart family be pursuing a lawsuit?

Marvin wrote it, I have the record. The producer is not really relevant.

.

Did Marvin even own his songs? Motown often owned the songs/publishing of their writers. Then Marvin had things taken by the IRS. If Motown owns them, Marvin's family has nothing to do with it. It was Motown that turned down filmakers from using his songs, not the family or estate like in Jimi Hendrix's case. That's why the proposed Marvin movie was going to focus on the CBS years.

scriptgirl said:

how did Men at Work get in trouble for "Land Down Under" ?

"Down Under" quite clearly contains a bit of "Kookaburra," but a lawsuit wasn't filed until almost 30 years after Men at Work released the song. However, the suit was successful because, well, it's obvious.

For my money, Marvin Gaye is second only to Stevie Wonder. One of the amusing moments on wax is when Marvin steals a riff from Stevie in "Praise" and then immediately apologizes for it in the lyrics.

Zannaloaf said:

"Written by the singer and produced by Art Stewart" - so why is the Gaye family going after them. He didn't write it or produce it. Shouldn't the Stewart family be pursuing a lawsuit?

Reread the bold part. Marvin is the singer and the writer of "Got to Give It Up."

Zannaloaf said:

"Written by the singer and produced by Art Stewart" - so why is the Gaye family going after them. He didn't write it or produce it. Shouldn't the Stewart family be pursuing a lawsuit?

Pages ago, I said this is the part of the actual lawsuit that stands out to me:

(b) the Gayes do not have an interest in the copyright to the composition "Got To Give It Up" sufficient to confer standing on them to pursue claims of infringement of that composition;

I don't yet know exactly what the hell that's supposed to mean but I'm pretty sure it means something quite specific, considering the Robin and crew are in fact suing - not counter-suing...flat out suing - the Gaye family.

BlaqueKnight said:

I guess this should come as no suprise, since he came in the biz riding the coat tails of an already legendary song:

Old habits die hard, I guess.

Still my favorite Thicke song, but you're right all the same.

Robin Thicke seems to have handled all of the attention and success of Blured Lines pretty poorly. From his response to the feminist critiques of the video, to his offhanded comments about 'now white people want to claim me', to this lawsuit. He seems to have gotten so wrapped up in having "arrived" now to a mainstream audience. If he isnt careful, I really think he is going to lose goodwill with a lot of audiences quickly. Perhaps, even his original fan base.

Oh, and regarding the Got to Give it Up comparison. Of course Blurred Lines sounds identical. That's why it's a hit. Perhaps Robin and Pharell are talented, I don't know. I'd be more impressed if they could create a number one hit that didn't sound eerily similar to one of the most popular party jams of all time.

[Edited 8/18/13 13:19pm]

119 said:

Robin Thicke seems to have handled all of the attention and success of Blured Lines pretty poorly. From his response to the feminist critiques of the video, to his offhanded comments about 'now white people want to claim me', to this lawsuit. He seems to have gotten so wrapped up in having "arrived" now to a mainstream audience. If he isnt careful, I really think he is going to lose goodwill with a lot of audiences quickly. Perhaps, even his original fan base.

I'm a fan, but Thicke has always struck me as more than a little smarmy. I always chalked it up to being Alan's son. I wonder if his brother's as bad.

Scorp said:

what's crazy about it......

critics will say the actual original version that becomes part of lexicon is outdated

but when a guy hijacks it,, the hijacker is praised for bringing the song "up to date".......

but taking it back to 1990

when Milli Vanilli won those two Grammy Awards, in particular for best new artists

it totally discredited the Grammy Award Academy for good and there were signs flying all around that the recording industry would soon tank....

they sold over 10 million copies of "Girl You Know It's True"......

which not only featured tons of samples, but they weren't even singing the songs.....

I was done with the Grammys after the Janet Jackson fiasco. When they gave Paul Simon the award for Graceland over her and nobody even knew that album, I looked into how the Grammys work and it was then that I understood that Grammys are bullshit.

By the time the Milli Vanilli scandal hit, I was already done. I just watch for the performances.

Robin is about to dig himself in a hole he can't get out of. 119 made a good point about how poorly he's handling the press around his success.

SoulAlive said:

deebee said:

I would guess that, in principle, it ultimately comes down to what a jury in a trial - guided, I suppose, by 'expert witnesses' from each side - would agree did or didn't constitute theft of intellectual property. And, in practice (here's the rub!), it would come down to who's got the legal clout, and who can successfully play the system to protect their interests. I mean, Robin and his 'people' are one up by doing the latter, but that must be because they realise there's at least a chance that the former would go against them.

I think Robin,Pharrell and T.I are smart for filing this pre-emptive lawsuit.The Gaye family has spent all of this time "threatening" a lawsuit,and presumably,making these claims unofficially.In essence,they've been "bullying" Robin,behind the scenes.I never like that kind of behavior.If they think that "Blurred Lines" is an example of copyright infringement,they should step forward and file a lawsuit.None of this behind the scenes crap.Let's get it all out in the open and take the battle to court.The fact that they didn't file a lawsuit first,or even responded to Robin's lawsuit,shows that they're probably not very confident in their case.

I have heard about copyright infringement cases in the past where the composer(s) of the track actually comes to court,sets up his equipment,and plays the music for the court....bascially demonstrating how they came up with the groove I wonder if this case would go that far?

I think the way these things work is that no party really wants to get all the way to a courtroom, since it's so prohibitively expensive and risky to go that route; so everyone would always prefer to settle out of court - and consequently there's this game-playing as each side tries to get the upper hand. In this case, I wonder if the potential for damage to Robin's 'brand' as the row rolls on - particularly at the moment he's breaking into the mainstream - will mean that his side ultimately caves in and settles. You don't want to be known as 'the (white) guy who ripped off Marvin Gaye', do you?

I agree a trial would be great viewing, though! Interesting to see how they'd actually break it down for a jury, and what else would be played to try and demonstrate it's just a 'generic' influence, etc.

BlaqueKnight said:

Scorp said:

what's crazy about it......

critics will say the actual original version that becomes part of lexicon is outdated

but when a guy hijacks it,, the hijacker is praised for bringing the song "up to date".......

but taking it back to 1990

when Milli Vanilli won those two Grammy Awards, in particular for best new artists

it totally discredited the Grammy Award Academy for good and there were signs flying all around that the recording industry would soon tank....

they sold over 10 million copies of "Girl You Know It's True"......

which not only featured tons of samples, but they weren't even singing the songs.....

I was done with the Grammys after the Janet Jackson fiasco. When they gave Paul Simon the award for Graceland over her and nobody even knew that album, I looked into how the Grammys work and it was then that I understood that Grammys are bullshit.

By the time the Milli Vanilli scandal hit, I was already done. I just watch for the performances.

Robin is about to dig himself in a hole he can't get out of. 119 made a good point about how poorly he's handling the press around his success.

very, very true