Yeezy Taught Me: Four Lessons from Kanye’s Copyright Case

I’ve talked about this case before. However, that decision was appealed, and has subsequently been affirmed on appeal. The facts briefly are these; Vince P an upcoming rapper had meetings with Kanye’s manager, the oddly named Mr John Monopoly (seriously?). Mr Monopoly listened to Vince P songs, including one called “Stronger” and agreed that if Vince P could find record label backing he may be interested in managing him. Vince P didn’t find this, and nothing happened... Until Kanye released this song . READ THE CASE HERE


It was sort of a big deal. As Judge Kendall illustrates


“The song earned the #1 spot in several Billboard charts, the single sold over three million copies, and it eventually earned West a Grammy.”

Unfortunately Vince P “was not among its fans.” He alleged the Kanye copied with song, and commenced legal actions for copyright infringement. The basis of this claims was:

1. Kanye’s connection and opportunity to copy through his relationship with Mr Monopoly; and

2. The similarities in the hooks (shown below) and lyrical reference to Kate Moss of his songs, to Kanye’s.

Stronger (VP) [Hook]

What don’t kill me make me stronger,The more I blow up the more you wronger, You copied my CD you can feel my hunger, The wait is over couldn’t wait no longer

Stronger (KW) [Hook]

N-N-N-now th-th-that don’t kill me,Can only make me stronger,I need you to hurry up n Cause I can’t wait much longer,I know I got to be right now,Cause I can’t get much wronger,Man I’ve been waitin’ all night now,That’s how long I’ve been on ya.


Kate Moss lyrics

VP “Trying to get a model chick like Kate Moss”;

KW “You could be my black Kate Moss tonight.”

The court rejected the claim. Here’s what Yeezy (via the Courts) taught us:

1. An opportunity to copy does not imply copying. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant had an opportunity to copy (e.g. through Kanye’s relationship with Mr Monopoly) as independent creation (e.g. creating an identical work without knowledge of a prior work) is a defence to CR infringement;



2. The “ubiquity” of common sayings, lessens the strength of a claim of copying. The court actually cite “Stronger (What Doesn’t Kill You)” a billboard hit by Kelly Clarkson to reinforce their reasoning;



3. Copyright protects expression, not methods of expression. The Court make an analogy between a photographer who is not able to protect the use of “a particular aperture and explore setting on a given lens” , Vince P who can’t “claim copyright over a tercet” and a poet who can’t claim “copyright protection in a form of a sonnet or a limerick.” The best quote from the Court is the brilliant zinger:

“Nor are we persuaded that the particular rhymes of stronger, longer, and wronger qualify for copyright protection.” ; and

4. Referring to a celebrity, in this case Kate Moss as a “paragon of female beauty”, similar to a common saying is similarly an extremely weak allegation of copying. In this case the lyrics were distinctly different and additionally “analogizing to models as shorthand for beauty is, for better or for worse commonplace in our society. The particular selection of Kate Moss, who is very famous in her own right, adds little to the creative choice.”


Thanks Yeezy!

I Think My Copyright Argument Is So Powerful That It's Not Necessary To Talk About It

“You say Copyright is Theft, They Say You Get What You Deserve”



Both these statements are wrong. These two common ‘copyright’ arguments are as unhelpful as Rick Giles’ infamous line shown in the video above. Here’s why:

1. Copyright as Theft

Let’s start with the corporate fat cats’ stance, courtesy of Fortune writer Roger Parloff and his disclaimer (Fortune's publisher, Time Inc., is owned by Time Warner, a corporation whose main business units are copyright-based.) commenting on the United States Department of Justice’s actions against Megaupload and its founder, Kim Dotcom:

In the real world, suppose Macy's opens up a department in its store, which it calls eStolen Goods," he said.  "For them to say, 'Well, that's only 50% of our business.  Fifty percent is completely legal' -- well, that's laughable.  You're not allowed to commit crimes."  Yet under the Betamax ruling and the DMCA, Cotton's hypothetical actually understates the outlandishness of the situation online today.  Even assuming that 90% of the activity on Megaupload was illegal, many top-flight lawyers and probably most law professors would insist that there's nothing anybody could or should have done beyond filing another pointless DMCA notice.

This whole analogy illustrates an inherent lack of understanding of copyright infringement.  Copyright infringement is unauthorised copying, not unauthorised taking or “stealing.”  In fairness this analogy does not explicitly compare theft and infringement, but the writer’s emphasis of the analogy and general tone implies this.  It is also prevalent in the corporate entertainment industry, stated no more obviously than in its mantra:

you wouldn't steal a car,
you wouldn't steal a handbag,
you wouldn't steal a television,
you wouldn't steal a movie.

But let’s look further.  Copyright is an intangible form of property, untouchable so to speak.  This means you can’t technically steal it, as you can't physically take it and deny the owner from using it.  This denial of use is the moral concern which underpins the crime of theft.  Therefore the solution is not just about securing access to copyright material.

Rather, the moral concern of unauthorised copying lies in diminishing the intellectual property owner’s ability to economically exploit their property, a right they are granted by virtue of the labour they exerted in its creation.  The difference is quite pertinent.

Using this ‘infringement as theft’ metaphor simplifies illegal (not necessarily criminal) conduct whose illegality and underlying laws are incredibly complex.  It’s as simple as claiming that all record companies are evil and that as such downloading copyright-infringing material is justified.

2. You Get What You Deserve 

Now let’s take your annoying 16 year old cousin’s argument:

Piracy is not wrong because record companies are evil.  They killed Kurt Cobain, and left him with nothing but a cleaned and polished version of In Utereo.

In other words, piracy cannot and will not be controlled.  People will forever demand free music.  Get over it.  You deserve it.  Corporations are the worst.  Regardless of a more nuanced argument that artists could distribute works for free and live solely off other sources of musical revenue (e.g. touring/merchandise) without a viable distribution model, simply doing nothing and accepting the death of the recording industry is not the answer.  I think we can do better.

3.  You Are Both Wrong - But Concerned About the Same Thing 

Both arguments are premised on the ideal of the artist being rewarded.  How we get provide artist's with economic reward is a difficult question, the answer is simply more complex than these arguments suggest.  It is very easy to focus on different views on copyright ideals.  It’s also quite easy to write eloquently on the matter thanks to the clever political labels of the copyright and copyleft.[1]

Rather, these complex issues of ideology should be ignored and the underlying concern of artists’ economic exploitation focused on.  Crucially, Parloff in his Fortune article dismisses debate about the length of copyright[2] and the lack of legitimate distribution alternatives,[3] as though they are unwarranted counter arguments.  In fact both have an important role to play in rewarding artists.

This issue is twofold, namely concerning access to copyrighted works and the rights of copyright owners.

(a)  Access to CR Material (Business Models)

The inextricable link between these two arguments is the absence of any viable business model to access digital copyright material of all kinds.  The issue is how to address both the fairness and efficiency of rewarding artists for their endeavours and providing consumers with reasonable access to copyrighted works.

This is why the argument that corporate distributors should have to look harder at legitimate distribution models is so strong, because consumers aren't "breaking and entering", but rather seem to be going to the easiest place of access.

Currently, the easiest point of access for copyrighted work often does not economically reward the IP owners or artists (i.e. illegal downloading platforms).  If there were legitimate, engaging and comprehensive services, the issue of illegitimate sources would be mitigated.

Many people would use them as alternatives even if they had to pay, if they were convenient and could meet consumer demand.  Alongside providing these legitimate access points, efforts are still needed to stop the illegitimate access points.  Indeed the latter is made much easier by doing the former.

The lack of suitable alternatives makes consumers disrespect copyright even more.  For example if I attempt to view a copyrighted tv show through legitimate online streaming services, but am told “We’re sorry but you cannot access this content in your region”, my reply is likely – yes, I can!  The advances in technology mean I can access this work, likely for free, with fewer restrictions than via existing legal sources.  Music and movie suppliers are no longer selling CDs or DVDS, and consumers expect more from digital media.  Previous practices such as geographically limited releases/whole album sales/RRPs are no longer acceptable given the illegal access alternatives.  This means that innovation on the part of copyright owners is necessary.

Obviously providing legitimate and innovative supply sources for copyright works alone is not the answer.  The obvious counter is that people will always choose free.  However, regardless of your faith in people to “do the right thing” – shouldn’t we at least give them a choice?

(b)  Rights of CR Owners and the Public

Typically copyright laws generally favour corporate interests, and are constantly being reinforced with strict limits and outrageous(often implemented without considering whether these laws are actually enforceable) (example Lessig – Simpson’s clearance).  Such changes are controversial and many people are now, and justifiably should be cynical about copyright.

The dramatic arrest of Kim Dotcom in a carefully choreographed police raid wasn't  the smartest thing to do either.  People sympathise with him, not only because of this and that they get "free music", but also because of the issue of the ease and fairness of access.  Regardless of it’s illegality as a service Megaupload does not discriminate access to suers based on location (e.g. as per physical releases)

The shift into the digital media environment is a change of such significance that the “public bargain” behind these rights needs to be rethought.  Lawrence Lessig uses the example of land property ownership, in respect of which it was once thought that “common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe.” [Lessig Free Culture at 18]

However, the advent of air transport meant that reasonable limits on land ownership were required (i.e. you do not own airspace).  For physical property such as land, nothing has changed much since then.  The law is settled in the protections it provides (e.g. trespass), the methods of enforcing these (e.g. injunctions) and the limits it provides on the enjoyment and use of this type of property (e.g. nuisance.).

However, the protections, enforcement methods and limits of intellectual property need to be rethought for the digital area.  The relevant issues for discussion are remarkably complex and far reaching.  The worst thing we could do is to let outdated and illogical metaphors prevent the adoption of a reasonable framework for cultural and economic use of copyright works.

4    4. Let’s Talk

There are many difficulties in copyright law; determining what infringes copyright law, evidencing infringement in an efficient manner, and finding the fundamental balance between the rights of copyright owners to benefit economically, and the rights of the public to use, create and consume these works, which form part of a society’s cultural fabric.

Approaching this task from the CD driven status quo is pointless.  The entertainment corporations need to provide geographically neutral, instant, user friendly and high quality access to media, which capitalises on the most up to date technological capabilities.  The consumer’s ability to use illegal access points means that for them to be convinced to stop, we require a new, fairer bargain.  Points of negotiation include:

• ·       How Long Should the Right to Exclusive Copyright Last? 

–   How long does an artist require a monolpy? What length provide an reasonable economic reward?  These considerations need to be balanced against the right of the public to use works freely in the public domain.  To access, engage and recreate with cultural works.  

•  Remix Creativity 

 – What rights should amateur pardoy makers remixers or mash-up enthusiasts have in their creations? Is it Is it legitimate that these are presumed illegal.   Should parody works such as these be prima facie illegal?

• ·       Why Is This Content Not Available in Your Region” 

-Is it legitimate to allow fictional legal contractual boundaries which have no technological barrier stop me from legally viewing my favourite show.  Why does the consumer have a moral duty to wait, and not watch pirated versions, but the producer has no duty to provide reasonable access?

• ·      Enforcement

– Should there be a presumption of guilt for copyright infringement, effectively a civil rather than criminal offence.  What due process, rights of appeal and other aspects are required to create  a system of enforcement which efficiently and fairly deals with copyright infringement, a civil cause of action which is inherently complex and traditionally requires a substantial amounts of effort to prove.

• ·       The Merits of Parallel importing

-For example see this 

The solution is not only about finding an efficient and fair way to enforce existing copyright laws, but to update these laws to reflect a modern and equitable balance between the rights of artists to be rewarded for their work, and the right of the public to access, use and re-create.  To strike this balance we need constructive agreement.  We need to stop pretending that our arguments are so powerful that they negate discussion, comprise and innovation.  Copyright law not only needs to be effective, but it needs to be respected.

For the copyright cynics to move forward it is important that they have their say on the areas of copyright law which concerns them, and the points of negotiation they think is important.  A piecemeal approach will only result in a piecemeal solution.  For real progress to be made the entire Copyright Act 1994 and it's practical affects needs to be considered.

I'm not the only one who thinks so recently in the NZ Herald leading IT legal thinker and Judge David Harvey:

" said copyright concerned everybody and urged people to become interested.

We have to be interested in this, because if we aren't then we'll be told what will happen by the big, vested interests. I would urge you to put your views forward in the 2013 review of the Copyright Act, because if you don't then you will have to suffer what the conglomerates and corporates give you,"NZ Herald - Judge tells Kiwis to speak up on copyright

The digital piracy debate is a complicated mix of public law, commercial law, economics, culture and morality.  For any modern consumer who watches, listens or creates online, the legal framework of copyright effects them everyday, and every click.   Some of the most important arguments, opinions and thoughts should come from the everyday consumer, NOT the flat cats and NOT the anti-record label kids.  The digital consumer's voice, expectations and essentially rights to watch and create need to be heard, because   until we ask the right questions, we won’t find the right answer, in terms of an appropriate legal frameworks.  That, I think is a powerful argument, and here is a good starting point:

Fair Deal

Alaister Moughan,August 2012

---

[1] I was almost seduced into using the witty title of “copywrongs” for my dissertation on this topic, before it struck me that this title had been used before.

[2] "Yet for copyrighted works posted online -- increasingly the only medium that matters -- the theoretical term of copyright is a cruel joke.  Due to rampant piracy, there is no term of copyright online."

[3] "Odder still, the proponents of "balanced" copyright seem to oppose any form of copyright enforcement to protect online works."



The Wicked Games You Play: Afghan Whigs, The Weeknd and Drake

 

          xxxo              "your love is a drug to me baby"         xxxo

Everett True is always eloquent, but occasionally wrong:

“The Afghan Whigs write ‘songs for ladies. Cruel, fierce, enflamed swaggering, licentious songs that managed the neet trick of being explicit while still hinting at so much.” In the traditional sense, the hidden heartbreakers of Grunge do not make songs for ladies.

A scentific breakdown of the crowd at this reunion gig would suggest that their audience is made of predominately middle aged men.

 

Rather the Whigs write songs to women. Love songs. Spiteful, nasty and earnest love songs. When I started writing this it was 3am and I was reading True's outstanding grunge memoir "Live Through This." The following extract on the Whigs lead singer Greg Dulli clarified everything.

True discusses Dulli's “paradoxical belief in, and loathing for his own masculinity. He’d frequently flagellate himself inside his songs, and then go out and make the same mistakes all over again. Greg levelled in his sex, even while he tortured himself as to how he could be such a bastard”.

Watching the above clip, where the Whigs incorporate Drake into their live set (an also a brillant cover of Frank Ocean's Love Crimes), my recent obsession with the Whigs are other seemingly unrelated artists, became obvious. 

The Weeknd and Drake, can be lazily grouped as part of the post Kanye 808 ‘anti swag’ collection of singer/rappers. Rather than boasting about ‘moneys’ ‘bitches’ and ‘bling,’ these guys often choose to deal in debauchery, lust and heartbreak.   Just like the Whigs their songs are often gut-wrenchingly honest.

But honesty alone is not enough; how are we meant to relate - or to put up - with an artist such as Drake who simultaneously boasts and cries about having sex four times in a given week? True's analysis of the Whigs provides a solution saying that he (speaking about Whigs lead singer Greg Dulli): “has [the] male strut that sets him apart from his more self-conscious peers”

All of these artists respective songs are not the traditionally teenage love songs, or the indie winning boy wants girls gets rejected/does nothing (a nation whose anthem is the abominable and depressing “Creep"). Rather it's about the wicked games both parties play.

Crucially the characters in these songs usually get the girl. However, getting the girl is not the end of it . In fact, these songs explore romance and relationships as a drug, exploring emotions beyond mere self- loathing. 

Synonyms like addiction, numbness, guilt, power trips, helplessness, victimisation, are among many and are all part of the mix.

The point of this blog is not to make a cliched discussion concerning influences and the musical continum. It's likely that both Drake and the Weekend might have never heard of the Whigs.  Rather, what is important is the paradoxical thematic similarities of masculinity, swagger, helplessness and addiction, that make these artists’ often earnest and heartbreaking tunes so listenable.
 
It makes these songs toxically uplifting.  I will examine why this is so by surveying selected songs of the Whigs, The Weeknd and Drake, and looking at key lyrical components, themes and similarities, leading to an extrapolation of the idea of the "love as a drug." nbsp;

Afghan Whigs

"Ladies, let me tell you about myself I got a dick for a brain And my brain is gonna sell my ass to you now I'm OK, but in time I'll find I'm stuck 'Cause she wants love, and I still want to fuck"

Everett True “Know what was great about Afghan Whigs? The way you wouldn’t have trusted them even if they’d been your closest friends. The suits. The way Greg sounded like he’d kill for whomever he was singing about. The womanising. The compassion. The bellies. The soul. Those goddam bastards….”

I'm Her Slave

What is 'I'm her slave' about? drugs, womanizing or kinky sex? It doesn't really matter, they are one and the same.
 

Dulli's vocals begin strong and sinister; "call and ask your wife" delivered with utter contempt and  dominance.  This song chances.  The brilliance of ‘I'm her slave’ is revealed in its paradoxical chorus.  The power shifts with each repeat of the chorus: "I'm her slave,  But, I don't need no chains,  I'll behave." 

Love is the drug.  Whether or not his addiction to the characters sexual endeavours is satisfying, the narrator realises that the consenting female companion is not the only one being used. By the end, Dulli's vocals almost whimper in his indulgence and he again admits "I'm her slave."

The song explores the idea that whatever the topic, literal drugs or seeking a similar high through romance, the using of something as an object of lust is initially a powerful feeling.  He knows this addiction has a hurtful comedown.  It's the quintessential early 20’s male issue – love not as a teenage fantasy/dream but as an often drunken and regretful outlet: the 4am hookup.

When We Parted

When we parted is beautifully bitter:

 "Baby, I see you've made yourself all sick again, Didn't I do a good job of pretending. You're saying that the victim doesn't want it to end, Good, I get to dress up and play the assassin again."

The song (above live version, fluxed with Drake's ‘Over My Dead Body’) describes a torturous relationship, where both parties are unfaithful and volatile. In this emotionally sadistic relationship, truth of infidelities is used violently as a weapon: "If I inflict the pain, then baby only I can comfort you."  These sadistic elements are very common in the work of  Drake. (cf I Hate Sleeping Alone)

Tonight

(Mark Lanegan's excellent cover)

"Hey baby, there's a vampire moon Scaling the sky. Shine in your room... Your eyes are open. You got nothing to do. Come outside and play with me. Tonight... Follow me down to the bushes dear. No one will know. We'll disappear. I'll hold your hand. We'll never tell - Our private little trip to hell. Tonight... Can I walk you home tonight?"

Tonight” is the Whigs ‘I’m on Fire’. A classic tale of lust. Springsteen’s ‘I'm on Fire’ has often been considered implicitly dangerous and predatory as David Burke explores below:

“You can substitute “dangerous” for “disconsolate” in “I’m on Fire” … Russell Simmons of the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion has lauded it as “one of the best courtship songs ever… just a really sexy song about pursuing a girl and showing her you want to take care of her.” It makes me uneasy. Just as “Working on the Highway” hints at sexual violation of a minor, “I’m On Fire,” brief as it is, breathes heavily and threateningly with a kind of forbidden longing. There’s a sense that this guy could do anything to the “little girl” here."pg115 Hearts of Darkness: Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska (2012)

If the predatory nature of ‘I'm on Fire’ is implicit, then Dullis's questionable intentions slap you right in the face - especially with the repetition of the line "can I walk you home tonight".  Rather than romance, lust drives this courtship, and its outcomes left unresolved appear much more sinister.

The Weeknd

Wicked Games

"Listen ma I'll give you all of me, Give me all of it, I need all of it to myself "

This clip is a must watch. A sinister r'n'b update of Chris Isaak's clip of the same name. Abel Tesfaye (alias for the Weeknd) opens up with the spiteful line "I left my girl back home, I don't Love her no more", predicating that this is no simple love song. Again the narrator's lust for pleasure is insatiable: "Bring your love baby I could bring my shame Bring the drugs baby I could bring my pain."

The demented beat, incredible R-Kellish vocals, and earnest delivery make this song not only sinister but sexy. Again love or lust is equated to a drug, a release an escape and an addiction.  

Althought sad and empty and the core , the narrator's swagger creates an uneasy pertinent danger which making intoxicating and oddly sensual.  

Party and After Party

"I got a brand new girl call it Rudolph She'll probably OD before I show her to mama All these girls tryna tell me she got no love And all these girls never got a blow job Ringtone on silent And if you stop then I might get violent No calls worth stopping So mama please stop calling We could play all night It just takes one night To let me fucking prove this feeling I'ma give to you"

The Party and the After Party is a almost eight minute epic tale of drugs, girls an escape. Tesfaye sounds alluring, over a Beach-House sample, intertwined with breakdowns of truth. No sooner is Tesfaye seducing you with his swagger and sexiness by seducing a "brand new girl called Rudolph" (e.g. red-nosed with consumption), than guilt mixes with "she'll probably OD before I show her to mama."

This cocktail of drugs, guilt and girls bubbles with tension: "All these girls tryna tell me she got no love And all these girls never got a blow job Ringtone on silent And if you stop then I might get violent No calls worth stopping."

Party and the After party is cryptically volatile and seductive at the same time. The ideal of being used, (while doing the same) is apparent. In Tesfaye's words "They don't want my love, they just want my potential" 

Outside

"Oh I'm tellin' you this ain't the same, And I know he's still in your brain, I'm bout to burn that shit into flames, Once I'm in you baby"

The musical beat to Outside is reminiscent to the soundtrack of the 1989 movie adaption of Bret Easton Ellis' ‘Less Than Zero’. Like the movie, the template is blank, predatory and characters just as consumptive.

Against this backdrop the narrator boasts of his prowess, telling his partner to forget about her past lovers because he will "work her like a pro"..." and that "when I finished with you, you won't go outside."

The final stanza suggests that like alcohol or cocaine binge, the sexual encounter it a mere an outlet, an attempt to forgo the flames of past love: "All the pain that you feel you can tell that we ain't making Explain no love, But I'll pretend, Oh girl, I'll pretend, If you pretend then girl I'll pretend, Let's make it seem like we're all we need in the end"

Drake 

Marvins Room

"I've had sex four times this week, I'll explain"

“F-ck that nigga that you love so bad I know you still think about the times we had” I say “f-ck that nigga that you think you found And since you picked up I know he’s not around"

” I don’t think I’m concious of making monsters Outta the women I sponsor til it all goes bad But shit it’s all good We threw a party, yeh we threw a party Bitches came over, yeh, we threw a party

Marvin's room takes an drunken phone to an ex, as the starting point for a frank admission, of the emptiness of Drake's rap star life. The crux of the song is Drake trying to drunken convince an ex, who he is clearly not over to come be with him. His advances come across as desperate, and are ultimately unsuccessful.

Still Drake can't help himself but boast about his exploits ("I've had sex four time this week, I''v explain"/shit we ..."), injecting moments of male ego and pride in amongst an unsuccessful booty call.

Hate Sleeping Alone

"I was in love two years ago and gave the baggage to my ex It’s all for her to carry, bags she deserve to carry I hate that ho,"

"I say I'd rather be with you but you are not around So I'mma call somebody up and see if they be down Cause I hate sleeping alone,"

"If she can't work with all of me then she say she done with me You say that you over me you always end up under me"

"how dare you tell me it's tougher for you Like I don't hear about the niggas you fucking with, too"

Similar to the Whig's "When we parted" the past or "baggage" is seen as weapon here. Also too is the ability to 'cheat on' or sleep with another, his ability to do so, also given him this power to hurt. Drake also taunts his partner, whose apparently insisting of more of his attention"you say you over me but you always end up under me. "

But again, the victim changes, when Drake dwells on her indiscretions "how dare you tell me it's tougher for you, Like i don't hear about the niggas you fucking with too."

The initial confidence of the narrators sexual prowess, and the high it gives him provides him with power, but soon the paradoxical shame imposed leads to double standard accusations, and a wicked come down, just like any drug. 

Love as a drug

"You came to me this morning and you handled me like meat. You’d have to be a man to know how good that feels, how sweet" Leonard Cohen

The songs discussed all examine love as a drug, the consumption of which brings pleasure, pride and pain. These songs characteristically also deal with love as a physical urge or outlet. The masculine swagger of sexual conquest tinges with an alluring toxic confidence.

Once entangled further the lyrics often reveal an underlying catharsis from the male narrators; primarily concerns of guilt, loneliness and addiction.  Maybe only love can break your heart, but sleeping around, and messing with emotions can certainly fuck you up. It's the of paradox of masculine conquest and emotional numbness with make these songs work. This misogynistic paradox creates intresting contrasts of emotion;attraction and repulsion, coldness and sensitivity. Rather than a traditionally boy meets girl/boy wants girls these songs embrace the emotional complexity of tragic relationships, and the different phases and behaviours exhibited. The rawness of such conflict is unsettling, and demands your attention; a romantic high speed train wreck.

Interestingly enough some any popular artists are taking notice of the work of Drake and The Weeknd. Usher, better known these days as Justin Bieber’s daddy, is reportedly following a similar direction on his new album, but I am skeptical whether he can pull it off. Such deeply cathartic, toxic and honest songs can be hard to listen to. Personally I need convincing before I can legitimately enjoy listening to r'n'b stars whining about their sexual conquests. Those that succeed seduce. As The Weekend says: "He's what you want, I'm what you need".