Ms Lauryn Hill Responds To Haters Saying She Didn't Write Miseducation in Write-Up to Medium.com

[ig88]

The only part to me that reeks of bs is her saying she late cuz she constantly changing up songs to the last minute. You cant call yaself a professional if ya constantly late toying with ideas. Obviously you dont have good ideas if you gotta play with them every night

Then again. Its HER name Shes gonna get the blame if its wack. She gonna get the accolades if it isnt. If these guys dont wanna work with her and feel they being cheated, then do something else. Lauryn hill isnt that different than the numerous high profile musicians before her.

Look at it from her POV. Every after a piece of her money. Everyone wanna be her friend. She has to be that way with the revolving characters she hangs around. Is that why they revolve? Maybe... but thats her business.

I have lil synpathy for grown men who play instruments for a living crying about their circumstances of being bullied by a WOMAN when 99% of the world does it for free.

 

[JustCKing]

bum ass lie.. all credibility went out the window

For the record Glasper said they came to her with music as well... as in concepts. so this isn't what you are making it out to be. Lauryn straight up lied about a bunch of stuff in that response. The eye contact thing for instance, can't trust her word on anything.

That isn't a lie:

Q-Tip was a part of that record. J Dilla had done a remix of a Brand New Heavy song that had a feel to it I just loved. I thought if I could come up with something with that feel with Janet, and then put a Joni Mitchell sample over it, that would be a magic combination, taking things from different eras and weaving it together.

^^^their own words

Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis: Our Life in 15 Songs – Rolling Stone

In regard to Lauryn, I have posted several times where the group who sued her still credit Lauryn with being the guide and architecht of the album. They worked on the album, Glasper did not.

 

[ig88]

That's still theft breh.

Is it theft when you send beats to a rapper and he puts ya shyt on his album and you get nothing? Happens literally EVERYDAY. Its nothing new in the industry. Youhave to force ya way in to get ya bread. Its business. Thats why companys will wait to be sued before paying their bills.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

That isn't a lie:

Q-Tip was a part of that record. J Dilla had done a remix of a Brand New Heavy song that had a feel to it I just loved. I thought if I could come up with something with that feel with Janet, and then put a Joni Mitchell sample over it, that would be a magic combination, taking things from different eras and weaving it together.

^^^their own words

he did that record. they never did anything that sounded like that ever again. he even did a revenge mix.

you shouldn't have brought that up in here to back Lauryn. Shyt was foul... all you did was expose the type of shyt the industry is known to be shady for. Lauryn being a part of that.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/did-j-dilla-produce-got-till-its-gone.60664/

 

[R=G]

i was actually with her until "Harriet Tubman."

Why are people using her name as a comparison now? Lauren knows better than that.

 

[JustCKing]

he did that record. they never did anything that sounded like that ever again. he even did a revenge mix.

you shouldn't have brought that up in here to back Lauryn. Shyt was foul... all you did was expose the type of shyt the industry is known to be shady for. Lauryn being a part of that.

Did J Dilla produce got till it's gone?

Breh, Janet had Jimmy Jam & Terry redo Dilla's record. The Jimmy Jam &Terry version is the one that became the single. Dilla's version, the original version is the remix because it got released after. You don't know what you're talking about. People who said Jimmy J & Terry stole were proven wrong in that thread. This is exactly what I'm getting at: ignorant posters who claim people as theieves and don't know what they are talking about.

What I did was expose how credits get screwed up for musicians because the work of musicians beyond the instrument they played on the songs isn't always acknowledged even with the best intentions.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

Breh, Janet had Jimmy Jam & Terry redo Dilla's record. The Jimmy Jam &Terry version is the one that became the single. Dilla's version, the original version is the remix because it got released after. You don't know what you're talking about. People who said Jimmy J & Terry stole were proven wrong in that thread. This is exactly what I'm getting at: ignorant posters who claim people as theieves and don't know what they are talking about.

What I did was expose how credits get screwed up for musicians because the work of musicians beyond the instrument they played on the songs isn't always acknowledged even with the best intentions.

that's stealing

redo her song in HIS STYLE using his sound and vision. what did they bring to the table?

no wonder you in here defending Lauryn if this is acceptable to you then the problem lies on your perception of what is ok and what isn't. Taking concepts and ideas, arrangements from people is intellectual property theft. Ask Robin Thick About blurr lines

 

[karim]

Breh, none of what you said proves anything. You feel Lauryn is a thief with no actual backing other than you thinking she took advantage of the New Ark group even when they are saying that isn't what happened.

you want it to be one way, but it's the other way breh. they are saying that this is exactly what happened. they had a verbal contract and towards the end of the recording process, she went back on her word. if you are a session musician that only gets paid for playing an instrument, than what you do is show up for the recording, and play a song that is fully finished and flashed out. if you are going into a session, where there is only a vague idea of what the song should sound like, somebody hums something and asks you to turn it into a riff or where the others are waiting for you to come up with a melody that they can take and build a song around, than what you are doing is writing a song. and that is what happened with miseducation. you have several people all saying the same thing. even lauryn doesn't dispute it. her only defense is that she doesn't think that what they did deserves writing credits, because they were all just there to channel her ideas. there being no paperwork doesn't mean that they don't deserve writing credits, or that they were only supposed to be payed upfront as session musicians. it just means that the paperwork wasn't taken care off. they didn't take care of paperwork, because they had an agreement already, thought they could trust her and propably because they were scared to fukk up their big break by making too many demands. ripping people off this way is common practice in the music industry. so stop the juelzing already. if you know how the music industry works, you know these guys got screwed. add lauryns fragile ego into the mix, and the fact that at the time she wanted to prove to the world that she was a better musician that wyclef and it is clear as day that these guys aren't trying to get paid for something they didn't do.

 

[Lord Beasley]

i got time to read all that, but i dont have time to read all that

 

[Atsym Sknyfs]

to put what she's trying to say in another perspective ..

the architect gets credit for the work and the design .. not the drafters..

the Russo's get credit for IW not the other million names during the credits (actually they did get paid a credited)

also to her.. writing clearly means lyrics and nothing else..

 

[JustCKing]

you want it to be one way, but it's the other way breh. they are saying that this is exactly what happened. they had a verbal contract and towards the end of the recording process, she went back on her word. if you are a session musician that only gets paid for playing an instrument, than what you do is show up for the recording, and play a song that is fully finished and flashed out. if you are going into a session, where there is only a vague idea of what the song should sound like, somebody hums something and asks you to turn it into a riff or where the others are waiting for you to come up with a melody that they can take and build a song around, than what you are doing is writing a song. and that is what happened with miseducation. you have several people all saying the same thing. even lauryn doesn't dispute it. her only defense is that she doesn't think that what they did deserves writing credits, because they were all just there to channel her ideas. there being no paperwork doesn't mean that they don't deserve writing credits, or that they were only supposed to be payed upfront as session musicians. it just means that the paperwork wasn't taken care off. they didn't take care of paperwork, because they had an agreement already, thought they could trust her and propably because they were scared to fukk up their big break by making too many demands. ripping people off this way is common practice in the music industry. so stop the juelzing already. if you know how the music industry works, you know these guys got screwed. add lauryns fragile ego into the mix, and the fact that at the time she wanted to prove to the world that she was a better musician that wyclef and it is clear as day that these guys aren't trying to get paid for something they didn't do.

You again do not know what you are talking about.

1) You do not verbally agree with someone over writing and production credits. Why? It has to be registered with companies like BMI and ASCAP. That is how artists are paid publishing and royalties even the artists who are sampled because they are credited as writers.

2) The XXL article on the New Ark Group clearly points out:

Because none of this working process was defined on paper—hence the lawsuit—it’s not always clear whose memory of the sessions is more correct;

Read More: Lauryn Hill’s ‘Miseducation’ Collaborators Remember The Album 15 Years Later - XXL | http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2014/02/...r-the-album-15-years-later/?trackback=tsmclip

^^^which is why you need paperwork

3) It doesn't mean that they were ripped off. What it means is that there was a discrepancy in what Lauryn thought qualified as production and what production actually is. Its pretty much the same thing we see on here all the time where people see "co produced by" and assume the co producer did all the work and the producer slapped on it. Without the proper documentation, the roles are not clearly defined and you end up in court. Of course no one wants to have paper work potentially ruin a creative relationship and no one wants to get sued because the business wasn't taken care of, but it is still necessary if you want proper credit and compensation for work.

 

[JustCKing]

that's stealing

redo her song in HIS STYLE using his sound and vision. what did they bring to the table?

no wonder you in here defending Lauryn if this is acceptable to you then the problem lies on your perception of what is ok and what isn't. Taking concepts and ideas, arrangements from people is intellectual property theft. Ask Robin Thick About blurr lines

That isn't stealing. If someone replays a sample that they were inspired by, it isn't stealing. They replayed it and they don't have to credit the original.

What Pharrell and Robin did with "Blurred Lines" is entirely different. They had a record that was nearly identical (down to the crowd noise in the background) to the original. This isn't even a real comparison because they didn't work with anyone that worked on "Got To Give It Up" nor credited them. Janet Jackson was the common denominator in "Got Til Its Gone". She had Jam & Lewis redo the record and their version became the version that the world knows.

Again, Lauryn worked with the New Ark Group to create her album and credited them as musicians. They even concede to her being the guide. Pharrell nor Thicke had anything to do with "Got To Give It Up", but made a beat that sounded nearly identical.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

That isn't stealing. If someone replays a sample that they were inspired by, it isn't stealing. They replayed it and they don't have to credit the original.

What Pharrell and Robin did with "Blurred Lines" is entirely different. They had a record that was nearly identical (down to the crowd noise in the background) to the original. This isn't even a real comparison because they didn't work with anyone that worked on "Got To Give It Up" nor credited them. Janet Jackson was the common denominator in "Got Til Its Gone". She had Jam & Lewis redo the record and their version became the version that the world knows.

Again, Lauryn worked with the New Ark Group to create her album and credited them as musicians. They even concede to her being the guide. Pharrell nor Thicke had anything to do with "Got To Give It Up", but made a beat that sounded nearly identical.

It's the exact same thing and stealing, a song was reworked and remade.

Lauryn went to court and LOST.

Robyn went to court and LOST.

If Dilla had composed instead of sampled the original music he would have been able to do the same. Instead his work was STOLEN, his ideas and arrangements down to original concept. That song doesn't exist without his so it was STOLEN.

 

[JustCKing]

And I'll give you another example, Kanye is on record saying he "hand produced" every album he tweeted about. The credits to those albums reveal two or more producers on nearly every song. Is he a thief for putting that out there.

On the flipside, Nasir has an album cover taken from a blend tape made by a fan. Same cover is also an image that was a photo that can be Googled. Nasir also has two beats that have identical samples and even nearly identical beats as the ones on the same blend tape. The producer nor the creator of the tape were credit for anything AT ALL. They didn't work in conjunction with anyone invilved with Nasir aside from Nas's vocals blended to their beats. Now I see that as theft.

 

[JustCKing]

It's the exact same thing and stealing, a song was reworked and remade.

Lauryn went to court and LOST.

Robyn went to court and LOST.

If Dilla had composed instead of sampled the original music he would have been able to do the same. Instead his work was STOLEN, his ideas and arrangements down to original concept. That song doesn't exist without his so it was STOLEN.

Wrong on multie levels.

A song that is reworked and remade is not theft. If that's the case, there would be lawsuits left and right when artists have different producers create different versions of the same song i.e. using the same sample and having another producer flip it.

Lauryn went to court and settled out of court. That's not the same as being handed down a ruling from the judged in favor of the people who sued you. Robin and Pharrell lost because the judge ruled in favor of the Gaye family.

Even if Dilla sampled, had he been stolen from, he would have been able to sue regardless. And its pretty dumb to say the song wouldn't exist without him given:

1) he sampled

2) it is still Janet Jackson's song