"Oh Yeah!" Single

[Hey Oh]

Who prefers Joan Jett's do you wanna touch me oh yeah, to this? 

Also it feels like green are making a fan fic album of other bands, like panicland was making a fan fic of green day. Or maybe this is just me? 

[HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN]

13 minutes ago, Hey Oh said:

Who prefers Joan Jett's do you wanna touch me oh yeah, to this? 

Also it feels like green are making a fan fic album of other bands, like panicland was making a fan fic of green day. Or maybe this is just me? 

They are very different songs. Personally, I think they did a really good use of the sampled part.
Not sure what you mean with making a fan fic record, I don’t really see that. I see them merging and using different sounds, which of course have been used in the past by other bands. This is what they have always been doing IMHO, and the only difference to me is that they are using sounds we are not used to hear from them, so this can create a shock reaction/it can be disliked. 

[Beerjeezus]

1 hour ago, HAPPY ROOTING UNICORN said:

@Beerjeezus  

I physically stopped myself from saying anything

[Thatsername]

3 hours ago, Hey Oh said:

Who prefers Joan Jett's do you wanna touch me oh yeah, to this? 

Also it feels like green are making a fan fic album of other bands, like panicland was making a fan fic of green day. Or maybe this is just me? 

I really like the heavier guitars in the Joan Jett version, that's still the only thing that bugs me a little about OY, I would love to hear it with a stronger guitar sound, that's why I'm so eager to hear it live (I hope we will). But like @Sheenius pointed out somewhere else, I think it was a conscious decision to lower the instruments, so the voice is clearly in the focus. And Billie's voice is stunningly beautiful in this song. Many people seem to have a problem with the "Oh Yeah" part, but I love it, and especially the dreamy "Aaaaaah"-part that follows, it adds a sexy vibe to it the original JJ-version doesn't have. To sum it up: I like both songs

[disappearing_boy_39]

While I love all of their albums, I cannot really get into Father of All... yet. The three songs released so far have felt generic & lazy. This latest song is the biggest example: The verse melody is taken from "Too Young to Die" and the main hook is taken from Joan Jett's "Do You Wanna Touch Me." The lyrics and chorus are pretty good (especially the latter which is unique & catchy) but overall, the song feels hollow. Their previous albums, even the Trilogy—which I loved—showed effort and creativity.

[21st_century_gloria]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:31 PM, TimmyChunks said:

Just to clarify, legally obligated royalties have to be paid. The party that owes a royalty can’t opt to donate the amount due as an alternative.

I believe the release read that Green Day is donating “proceeds” (whatever “proceeds means- it could be gross receipts all the way to net income after subtracting overhead and various costs, I know that’s a wide definitional realm but they didn’t define it for us, and nor are they the first or last entity to be somewhat vague about the definition for these purposes).

Royalties that are subject to payment are still legally obliged to be paid to the owner of the sampled music. I have no idea if Glitter still owns it or has sold the rights (I would suspect the latter as many legacy artists and/or their labels have long since sold their intellectual property or securitized it in some way). And also, it’s interesting how they sampled the Joan Jett cover, and she would have likely been providing a royalty stream as well, so the layering of obligations and flow of money becomes complicated. 

Sorry to get a little technical on this, but it’s not as simple as Glitter’s royalties were diverted into charitable donations. Unfortunately it’s a bit more complicated than that. 

nah you don't have to be sorry bc that's a really good point that I hadn't thought of beforehand 👍

Its a tricky thing to get around especially in this day and age... the fact that GD is not as on top of the world as they used to be might be a good thing here bc I'm guessing that if they were, they would have to potential to be in very hot water over this, yikes (hope they dont!) but imo they're doing their best to do the "right" thing by making sure Glitter gets as little positive attention as possible

6 hours ago, Hey Oh said:

Also it feels like green are making a fan fic album of other bands, like panicland was making a fan fic of green day. Or maybe this is just me? 

Plot twist: they collaborated  

[Billie Joes Eyelids]

15 hours ago, Rumpelstiltskin2000 said:

OY is No. 2 on Kerrang's Rock Chart on Spotify:

How's it doing on Spotify and Apple Music?

[FeylGD]

On 1/17/2020 at 8:40 AM, walking_c0ntradicti0n said:

They've been doing this for 30 years I'm sure by now they've grown thick skin and decided not to care wtf we say

Yeah, that's why he said "one time I wrote 37 songs for 3 albums that nobody really listens to".

[21st_century_gloria]

8 hours ago, FeylGD said:

Yeah, that's why he said "one time I wrote 37 songs for 3 albums that nobody really listens to".

I mean, the dude's allowed to care about his own music  he does put a lot of effort into it anyway

[Squashie]

17 minutes ago, 21st_century_gloria said:

I mean, the dude's allowed to care about his own music  he does put a lot of effort into it anyway

Based on some comments here, he doesn’t... 

[Beyza]

1 hour ago, DadBod said:

Based on some comments here, he doesn’t... 

Yeah, it’s sad people think he doesn’t put any efforts anymore or being lazy. There were a lot comments like this after FOA released, hope it will change a little after the release

[That Dude]

Yesterday I realized I've never listened to the song without playing the video, except maybe once.   

When I think of the song, I think of the video.   Weird.  

I wonder how the song will sound within Foam.  

 

[DookieLukie]

Any charting news for this song?

[HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN]

31 minutes ago, DookieLukie said:

Any charting news for this song?

If I remember correctly, we'll have the Billboard charts next week's Tuesday.

[Rumpelstiltskin2000]

Review here from The Guardian and it isn't good:

Green Day
Oh Yeah!

Right: because they know it’s iffy, they are donating all royalties to charity. So I suppose this is fine, in the same way that lobbing chip fat down the khazi is fine because it keeps the people who carve up fatbergs in a job. But you still have to ask: in a tune railing against the “alt-right”, why would you use a sample of a Joan Jett cover of a Gary Glitter song? What are you doing, Green Day? Don’t you think it will be weird if that “Oh yeah!” chanty bit takes off and a stadium full of kids – all born after you stopped being good – are raising their fists to Glitter? It will, won’t it? Would it be less icky if the song were good, though? Oh no!

______

There's one here in Spanish from El Pais for any Spanish speakers:

https://elpais.com/elpais/2020/01/23/icon/1579772889_844118.html

[Beerjeezus]

It's true though...

[Beyza]

8 minutes ago, Rumpelstiltskin2000 said:

Review here from The Guardian and it isn't good:

Green Day
Oh Yeah!

Right: because they know it’s iffy, they are donating all royalties to charity. So I suppose this is fine, in the same way that lobbing chip fat down the khazi is fine because it keeps the people who carve up fatbergs in a job. But you still have to ask: in a tune railing against the “alt-right”, why would you use a sample of a Joan Jett cover of a Gary Glitter song? What are you doing, Green Day? Don’t you think it will be weird if that “Oh yeah!” chanty bit takes off and a stadium full of kids – all born after you stopped being good – are raising their fists to Glitter? It will, won’t it? Would it be less icky if the song were good, though? Oh no!

______

There's one here in Spanish from El Pais for any Spanish speakers:

https://elpais.com/elpais/2020/01/23/icon/1579772889_844118.html

That looks kinda harsh but I don’t quite get their point with donating stuff tbh 

[Rumpelstiltskin2000]

 

[Beerjeezus]

1 minute ago, Beyza said:

That looks kinda harsh but I don’t quite get their point with donating stuff tbh 

They're donating because they know damn well it's sketchy to sample a Glitter song, so they're like "look at least we're not making money from this"

[Beyza]

19 minutes ago, Beerjeezus said:

They're donating because they know damn well it's sketchy to sample a Glitter song, so they're like "look at least we're not making money from this"

Thanks, so I got they’re saying sampling his song was a bad idea in the first place 

[HAPPY ZOMBIE UNICORN]

45 minutes ago, Beerjeezus said:

They're donating because they know damn well it's sketchy to sample a Glitter song, so they're like "look at least we're not making money from this"

They are sampling Joan Jett tho. Yes, the song is a cover of a Gary Glitter track, so he owns part of the credits. But they are using the interpretation of another artist, as a form of tribute towards her judging from Billie’s words, not Glitter. I knew only the JJ version before someone brought up here the fact that Glitter was credited as a writer, it’s a great interpretation of the song, which exists regardless of the GD sampling. I am not sure the song from JJ should disappear and be forgotten because Glitter is a monster, it’s still a different song, from a different (and great) record. 

[jengd]

1 hour ago, Rumpelstiltskin2000 said:

Review here from The Guardian and it isn't good:

Green Day
Oh Yeah!

Right: because they know it’s iffy, they are donating all royalties to charity. So I suppose this is fine, in the same way that lobbing chip fat down the khazi is fine because it keeps the people who carve up fatbergs in a job. But you still have to ask: in a tune railing against the “alt-right”, why would you use a sample of a Joan Jett cover of a Gary Glitter song? What are you doing, Green Day? Don’t you think it will be weird if that “Oh yeah!” chanty bit takes off and a stadium full of kids – all born after you stopped being good – are raising their fists to Glitter? It will, won’t it? Would it be less icky if the song were good, though? Oh no!

______

There's one here in Spanish from El Pais for any Spanish speakers:

https://elpais.com/elpais/2020/01/23/icon/1579772889_844118.html

The Guardian being sanctimonious, not a first!

[Beerjeezus]

44 minutes ago, HAPPY ROOTING UNICORN said:

They are sampling Joan Jett tho. Yes, the song is a cover of a Gary Glitter track, so he owns part of the credits. But they are using the interpretation of another artist, as a form of tribute towards her judging from Billie’s words, not Glitter. I knew only the JJ version before someone brought up here the fact that Glitter was credited as a writer, it’s a great interpretation of the song, which exists regardless of the GD sampling. I am not sure the song from JJ should disappear and be forgotten because Glitter is a monster, it’s still a different song, from a different (and great) record. 

Yes I agree the song doesn't deserve to be forgotten and Green Day didn't mean to promote Glitter in the first place, so I don't really have a problem with it, but it's also true that it kind of sucks to have to think of a way to bypass the original writer or risk public condemnation.

[Rumpelstiltskin2000]

NME have added OY to their playlist:

 

[Red]

Sorry if anyone is offended by this and please dont take it the wrong way. I am truly sorry if you have suffered from similar things that this person did to people, absolutely no one deserves to be treated like that, but I hate that people immediately associate appreciating a song as supporting a piece of shit human being.

Yes I am not a fan of the song, but I am even more so not a fan of taking something beautiful which is an escape for many people, something that people can keep coming back to no matter how shitty life gets, something that keeps people going in life and instead of just letting it be what it is, dismissing it and making it about the shit that a lot of people are trying to escape from.

Yes, there's a shitty person behind the song and yes people have suffered because of it, but supporting people who do that is clearly not what Green Day had in mind when sampling. They are simply taking a peice of art that they like and using it in their art. Nothing more nothing less. 

And yet people like the ones in that "the guardian" thing want to make a huge deal out of it and act like the boys are assholes dispite them even trying to help suffering people by donating proceeds.