November 27th, 2013

Boys v. Girls

There’s been a lot of news in the past week about the legal kerfuffle between the Beastie Boys and a company called GoldieBlox, which markets science/engineering toys aimed at girls (and their parents) seeking something beyond the standard pink princess fare.

boys v. girls

Apparently, GoldieBlox has successfully leveraged the “viral” qualities of the net to project their “disruptive” brand, and the latest example does so spectacularly well, via a parody of the Beastie Boys’ well-worn, decades-old, silly misogynist ditty, “Girls.”

In fact, my first encounter with GoldieBlox’s version of “Girls” arrived via word of mouth (i.e., Gchat), just the way viral videos are supposed to. My wife shared the link with me, as we ourselves are constantly struggling with the balance between giving our daughters lots of options for growth and play, on the one hand, and indulging their seemingly irrepressible desire to parade around as princesses on the other. As that type of dad, I couldn’t help but myself be smitten by the ad —

So, I was as surprised as anyone to learn about the legal battle currently underway over this parody of a parody (if, in the initial instance, an ambiguous one). Obviously, GoldieBlox’s “Girls” is derived from the Beasties’ “Girls,” but it’s a complete re-recording, marshaling certain familiar elements — the riff, the refrain, and certain text/melodic lines — not all unlike the ways the Beasties themselves cribbed and borrowed and reassembled their own song out of prior performances.

Redolent of a schlocky musical and cultural past — and perhaps helping to give the song some of its parodic edge — the Beasties’ “Girls” makes audible nods to both the Isley Brothers and Bo Diddley. Beginning around 0:40 in the following video, you’ll hear Diddley play on guitar the very same riff the Boys coax out of their wonky synth:

And this mashup underscores pretty convincingly how much “Girls” is inspired by the Isley’s “Shout,” with parellels in terms of song syntax, repeated refrain, and even a few striking melodic parallels (e.g., “say that you love me…” == “to do the dishes…”):

What should we make of the Beastie Boys taking two songs deeply inspired by African-American religious ritual — the ring-shout in the case of the Isleys, and Diddley’s hand-clapping & foot-stomping “communion service” — in order to make a rearguard, if possibly parodic, song about women? On what grounds should the Beasties be allowed the privilege of doing something so derivative/transformative, while GoldieBlox should not?

For many, it would seem, the crucial point turns not on questions of musical borrowing and re-signification but rather, on the Beastie Boys’ stated wishes to keep their music out of advertisements, as articulated in their open letter

make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in product ads.

This is especially poignant given that Adam Yauch (aka MCA) made this same wish explicit in his will.

But then, GoldieBlox isn’t actually using the Beasties’ music. Or are they? It’s a question — and not an easy one to resolve. (For any of us, or for a judge or jury for that matter.) They’re certainly not using the Beasties’ recording, or even a sample from it. Why should we determine that the Beasties’ should be able to stop others from re-assembling the same pieces that they themselves assembled without licensing/permission in the first place? Should GoldieBlox respect the Beasties’ wishes?

What about, say, James Newton’s wishes? An avant-jazz flutist, Newton famously insisted that the Beasties’ use of a sample of his flute performance on “Choir” for the Beasties’ “Pass the Mic” constituted copyright infringement, but a court ruled that the snippet was too short to constitute a part of his composition, and since the Boys had licensed the recording from Newton’s record label (for a paltry $1000), they were allowed to go ahead and use it despite lacking Newton’s permission.

Generally speaking, as readers of W&W will know, I support that sort of relatively unbridled approach to transformative re-use. Songs are shared things, and if you don’t want someone to play or sing along, hold them close and sing them quietly in the corner. Once something is out in the open, in public, via commercial or even non-commercial circulation, it becomes available for sharing and reinterpretation. Courts and lawyers and some artists like to draw hard and fast lines between folk culture and commercial culture, but these are usually little more than language games having to do with claiming ownership, not stable definitions of cultural domains. (Sometimes, they’re struggles over power and money, which are not to be diminished, though they are hardly at play in this case between some rich musicians and a successful start-up.)

When did “Girls” escape the Beasties’ creative control? Perhaps as soon as it was commercially released and massively distributed. In its own way, the Beastie’s “Girls” was, in the first instance, itself an advertisement — an ad for an album, an ad for concerts, an ad for a sophomoric act that the Beastie Boys took to the world and to the bank.

All that said, it’s still a little odd for the likes of the EFF to step into the fray, and to argue for fair use simply because they agree with Glodieblox’s putative politics. Clearly, commercial instances of parodic fair use have been upheld before — s/o Luther Campbell & Henry Louis Gates — but it’s always a matter of convincing some judge/jury about the lines people want to draw around musical ownership. Toward that end, I think considering the big musical picture here helps.

I mean, just imagine the chilling effect on other renditions of “Girls”! In a world of personal branding, where do we draw the line between commercial and non? Between advertisement and not?

Tell this guy Bro Chuy he’d better not “go viral” –

Or this girl for that matter —

And someone should really warn these squirrels not to attempt to monetize their questionable “parody” –

For my part, as a dad, I’ll be sure to teach my daughters how to reverse engineer our favorite Beastie songs as soon as the girls are ready for some serious digital music trickery.

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ries  |  November 30th, 2013 at 9:53 pm

    The way I have read the news of this, GoldieBlox is actually the ones who filed a lawsuit, not the Beastie Boys.
    IF the Beasties had been contacted and asked for permission, they would have refused, as per their stated policy.
    But they did not initiate legal proceedings- GoldieBlox did so pre-emptively.
    I dont know if the Beasties would have had their lawyers contact GoldieBlox anyway, but it doesnt appear that they made their statement til after they were sued.

    Which makes the story even weirder.

  • 2. w&w  |  December 1st, 2013 at 10:55 am

    As I understand the chronology, GoldieBlox filed for declaratory judgment after receiving inquiries from the Beasties’ lawyers (not unlike Robin Thicke’s much publicized preemptive filing earlier this year). Nothing too weird about it. As with their use of, say, Queen’s music, GoldieBlox didn’t think they needed permission, and they were ready to have a court rule on the fair use question, lawsuit or no. But the personal objections of the Beasties (esp in Yauch’s will) made them reconsider and pull the ad. Of course, the whole thing could have just been a flagrant, savvy, successful publicity ploy. It certainly got the video and the brand projected in a sensational manner, and everyone comes out better/richer in the end.

  • 3. wayneandwax  |  December 5th, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    Just want to make a note here that — all this ad biz aside — the question remains as to whether Goldieblox, as a product, actually works beyond lip-service consumerist feminism. This piece, via the mighty @xuhulk, is pretty lucid and persuasive on the point, and I quote–

    I appreciate a good commercial. I do. As a former marketer I admire how GoldieBlox has so successfully tapped into the desire for parents of girls (and, I think for grown women) to see toy manufacturers create products other than dolls or princess crap.

    But before everyone runs away with efforts to get the Girls commercial aired during the Superbowl, I wonder how many people have actually tried the GoldieBlox products? Because it pains me to tell you that we have — and guys: neither my six-year-old nor I thought they were that great. It was cranks, spools, and some things that spin, all tied together with a somewhat confusing narrative that wasn’t terribly compelling. Nor was the building process that engaging. My daughter gave it a half hour a couple times, then she was done.

    We should be careful (or at least aware) of when our frustrations and aspirations are being co-opted for the aim of selling a product. Not that I’m saying GoldieBlox has some evil agenda. But they are not in the business of creating girl-power content. They are in the business of selling toys. Girl-power content is just a means to that end.

  • 4. REVECCA  |  December 18th, 2013 at 3:04 pm

    a fashionably late comment on the pink princess schlock thrown at girls. I am not sure the ages/reading levels of your daughters but here two series that were really important to me as a young woman. These books helped me figure out how to deal with the princess complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealing_with_Dragons and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_the_Lioness

    abrazos

  • 5. wayneandwax  |  December 18th, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    very much appreciated, rebecca! better late than not, especially if these will be resources a few years down the line.

    makes me wonder if i should totally solicit other ideas like these from more awesome friends with valuable and varied being-a-girl experience. please do share any others that come to you, or come up via #dadposts here ;)

    and that goes for anyone else reading this and remembering key texts &c.

  • 6. Natalia  |  December 18th, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    I have always thought that Gail Carson Levine’s attempts to reconceive princess culture via feminism were interesting and worth following up. Two Princesses of Bamarre in particular tries to imagine being a princess with agency outside the Alanna chicks-with-sticks model (she saves the day with badass sewing…). I don’t know that it’s wholly successful (always a wedding at the end, wtf), but I think Levine is smarter than average on these topics; she’s clearly taking feminism seriously. Ella Enchanted is also very interesting (can’t speak to the Disney film adaptation, which is probs terrible).

    As for Tamora Pierce, I have a soft spot for the goofy 80s Mists-of-Avalon goddess stuff (red hair, purple eyes, a mysterious divine protector, blah blah blah), but I was unable to get through The Song of the Lioness–it was too much; books were chucked against walls. Things later got clearer when I realized that she wrote those first Alanna books as an undergrad at Penn. Her thinking about feminism and princess culture has gotten more complicated, and I mostly endorse her more recent (early 2000s?) Protector of the Small quartet, which explicitly engages with a feminist ethics of care.

  • 7. wayneandwax  |  December 18th, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Thanks for the perspective, Natalia! It’s great to get a better sense of the feminist princess literature. Along those lines, we’ve long been prepping the girls by reading them The Paper Bag Princess (which, funny enough, was a gift from the same friend who recently recommended GoldieBlox). It’s more chicks-with-wits, though she does kick butt. And the kicker is really great — pretty much the opposite of a wedding.

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Wayne&Wax

I'm a techno-musicologist, internet annotator, imagined community organizer.

I left my <3 in the digital global, but I reside in Cambridge, MA, where I'm from.

I represent like that.

wayne at wayneandwax dot com

Tag Cloud

academic aesthetics af-am africa anthro arab art baby babylonia beatresearch blogging bookish boston brazil cambridge caribbean chicago commerce copywrong cumbia dance dubstep ethno ethno europe events funkcarioca gigs global globalghettotech hip-hop humor industry internet interview jamaica jazz juke kwaito latin lifey linkthink mashup media mexico middleeast mixx nation newyork panama politricks pop public puertorico r&b race radio reggae reggaeton remix riddimmeth0d rock sampling seasonal sexuality soundscape tech techno traxx tv UK video whirledmusic worldmusic youth

Month

 

Creative Commons License

chacarron chacarronchaca-riggity-ron