MUSIC! A Delving Into Katy Perry (and why that song sounds awfully familiar...)

This post kind of breaks format of many of our Replays, but I was recently going through a YouTube playlist of Katy Perry videos. I know, I know. "You like Katy Perry?" First of all, yeah, so what? Second of all, no one should ever have to explain what they like. (I mean, do you know why you like the things you do?) I'm not saying she's the greatest or anything, but she makes catchy tunes and puts on entertaining videos.

But as I was going through and listening to some of those songs again, I got a little caught up on something. Most of her songs that I know sound awfully familiar. It took a little digging to figure out why that was the case, but here are five Katy Perry songs that I probably like because I liked the song it is essentially ripping off:

KATY PERRY - "Last Friday Night (TGIF)"




Pretty catchy guitar riff there. Pretty dancy and poppy. Kind of a funny video. But ya know, I think I liked the song better when it was:

DAFT PUNK - "Digital Love"






Ok, so maybe that one just has a kind of similar sound to it. They're not identical, after all. So what about this:

KATY PERRY - "Wide Awake"



One of those drama-pop songs where an artist is trying to show s/he's not just all about sexual innuendo built off of your favorite childhood board game. But wasn't this song better when it was:

LENNY KRAVITZ - "Fly Away"





Again, they aren't by any means identical, but it sounds as if whoever wrote "Wide Awake" was literally just writing over Lenny Kravitz's (pre-Hunger Games) hit. I mean, "Wide Awake" even sounds like "Fly Away" as a title! But it's not the only time Katy Perry (or whoever writes her songs) basically just wrote new words over an old song.


KATY PERRY - "Firework"




The build up to the title is pretty much just copied and pasted from:

ERASURE - "Always"




Now, of course, these two songs don't ultimately have that much in common. And as big a fan of Erasure as I am, Katy Perry's anthem is - in my opinion - far superior. There's enough of a difference between the two overall that it's not as obvious, but it's hard not to hear "Always" in the "Firework" build up.


Again, none of these songs are identical, and I'm not (at this point) arguing plagiarism. "Firework" borrows only a little from Erasure. "Last Friday Night (TGIF)" borrows the guitar from Daft Punk. And "Wide Awake" borrows the lyrical meter and scheme from Lenny Kravitz. Where it gets even worse though is with one of her initial breakthrough songs (and one of the most obviously stolen songs in the bunch.)


KATY PERRY - "California Gurls"




Thing is, I actually really like "California Gurls" (pronoun misspelling not withstanding). It's fun, it's light, it's got Snoop Dogg, and it's catchy as hell. And to be fair to Katy Perry (who's song debuted in 2010), it's far superior to its immediate predecessor of a song:

KE$HA - "Tik Tok"




I've got nothing against Ke$ha (apart from that she kind of is a talentless hack - but she does make weirdly catchy and raucous pop music), but Katy Perry had proven her abilities are greater. Of course, "Tik Tok" released in 2009 and essentially rocketed Ke$ha from obscurity to greater pop fame. In this way, even though "California Gurls" is far superior (even using a better rapper in Snoop Dogg where Ke$ha used P. Diddy), it still feels a bit like a cheap ploy to gain further fame. She essentially ripped off Ke$ha.

Now, I don't want to just dump on Katy Perry here as if she were the only one who rips off bits and pieces. Certainly, if she ripped off Ke$ha (which she did), you have to argue that Ke$ha also ripped off Kylie Minogue (which she did):

KYLIE MINOGUE - "Love At First Sight"




Minogue's song (which, frankly, is better than both Ke$ha's and Katy Perry's takes) preceded those later songs by nearly a decade - dropping in 2001. So clearly, if Katy Perry is just ripping off other already-successful pop tunes to build her own successful pop career, she isn't the only one. It's hard to bash Katy Perry for doing it when one of the people she ripped off had also ripped off another pop star.

Even Kylie Minogue can be accused of stealing from another, even earlier pop star, as her song does sound quite a bit like:

the artist formerly known as PRINCE - "I Wanna Be Your Lover"



Prince - I Wanna Be Your Lover (Official Video) by Prince-Official



However, for all of these surprisingly forgivable forays into borderline plagiarism, the one that stands out as the most egregious is a song she put out in 2013 months and months after another song debuted earlier in that same year. Yes, I'm talking about "Roar."

KATY PERRY - "Roar"




A good song, to be sure: catchy and with a memorable and fun video to match it. And it's at least a modest effort to say something substantial. It's always refreshing to hear female pop stars singing about feeling empowered. It's encouraging to have something out there that will communicate with young girls that they should feel strong and empowered themselves, rather than simply trying to get the attention of the cute boy (even if her video kinda goes against that message  with the "sexy female Tarzan" thing going on).

But, wasn't this song kind of better when Sara Bareilles did it earlier?

SARA BAREILLES - "Brave"




And listen, I understand that Sara Bareilles and Katy Perry are friends, so they don't appreciate the controversy that arose when Perry's "Roar" debuted. And of course the dude who wrote "Roar" is going to say his song was written and thrown into production first. The problem here is that given the overall body of work produced for Katy Perry, it's kind of hard to believe. I mean, I've pointed out four songs that are either blatantly taking something from another song or subtly taking from another song.  I just find it a little too convenient that "Roar" would not only sound sooooo similar musically to "Brave;" it also preaches a very similar message of empowerment. It'd be one thing if they both had either similar lyrics or similar melodies, but it's both.

Again, this isn't so much an argument against Katy Perry. As far as I can tell, she doesn't do much of her own writing. She's more of the "sing well and look smokin' hot in your overly sexualized music videos" type of pop star.  In that way, this seems to be more of a problem with mainstream pop music. Is it so painfully and outwardly out of new ideas that they just keep rehashing the same dozen songs and figuring we won't know the difference? (Even worse, why do we never seem to act like we know the difference?)  For example:

TAYLOR SWIFT - "Haunted"





COLDPLAY - "The Scientist"




Pretty much the exact same melody. Only one is a bit more mellow and the other more poppy. Oh, but where have I heard that song before? Oh yeah, in the much superior:


THE CRANBERRIES - "Zombie"




Coldplay also provides us with another classic "barely even trying to come up with something new" example:


COLDPLAY - "Talk"




Pretty good tune, but I liked it better when it was the nerdier:

KRAFTWERK - "Computer Love"

So. What are we to make of all this? We tend to joke a lot about how Hollywood seems out of ideas because it's simply remaking older movies, building sequels and franchises, or adapting every book, comic, show, and even toys into films. But perhaps it's more accurate to say that modern pop music has run dry with new ideas.

Katy Perry is a great pop star, for sure. Her music is catchy and fun and usually very easy to dance to. Still, it's hard to get super stoked about her next single. Odds are, you've already heard it.

MOVIES! Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010)

It's hard to talk about Scott Pilgrim vs. the World since it was immediately one of my favorite comics and when I saw Edgar Wright's film adaptation of the books, it became an instant favorite by the opening titles. The point basically being: I'm probably not capable of being objective toward it. There are certainly things that I can criticize or critique, but overall, it was a comic and movie that frankly, clicked the moment I started them.

Of course, it is a film that's very particular and will mostly appeal to a very specific group of people. Stylistically, it's a lot like a Zack Snyder film in that it does a lot to make the movie look like the comic. In this case, it sometimes includes text boxes, lines that shoot out from people's heads and mouths, and written sound effects. In this way, it's practically the closest thing to "watching a comic book" in cinema. Wright shows why he's one of the most artistically gifted directors, with a keen visual mind with an interesting visual style. (Granted, much of the style comes straight from Bryan Lee O'Malley's comic.)

It's the story of Canadian hipster Scott Pilgrim as he finds the literal girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers. In his pursuit of her, he must get his life together, fight off her seven evil exes, and break up with her fake high school girlfriend. The story is basically one giant ode to classic arcade games, with each Evil Ex built up as essentially a boss fight. Thus, if you're not particularly into early video games (or video games in general), the odds are more likely you won't enjoy it so much. 

At its basic description, it sounds like a surface-level film - something you watch for the visual spectacle and video game action - but it is a little bit more than that. It is a look at relationships and the way that most people tend to cope in the aftermath of break-ups and how they pursue them going forward. On one level, it's easy to see Scott Pilgrim as another film that treats women as prizes to be won. After all, Scott is the protagonist who is quite literally fighting enemies for the right to date Ramona.  Even more, Scott's ex, Knives, decides to seek revenge against Ramona for stealing Scott, instead of vowing to get revenge on Scott for hurting her. Certainly, it's not unreasonable to come away from the film with this in mind.

Gotta admit, I had strange feelings about Ramona Flowers. In the comic and in the movie! What can I say? I'm a creep...

However, neither Ramona nor Knives are pushovers themselves. Both have their moments that show they're no mere objects and can indeed hold their own. At one point, Ramona even fights on behalf of Scott. In essence, she fights for the relationship while he won't. Knives, on the other hand, depicts something of an "innocence of youth," in which the way that Scott ultimately uses her kind of messes her up. Scott is her first boyfriend, but she's essentially (and unknowingly) a rebound. He is just attracted to the simplicity of a relationship with a younger girl. There's less "real" drama; fewer things that actually challenge him to change and "grow up." As a result, he winds up using Knives. 

In that aspect, it's actually a fairly realistic view of a variety of outlooks towards relationships and getting hurt. Knives might seem unreasonable going after Ramona for "stealing" Scott, but who doesn't know someone - especially a young person - who has blamed the wrong person? Knives even used the L-word (lesbian?) toward Scott. It's not hard to imagine that she would view Ramona in a competitive perspective - that she couldn't compete with her which is why Scott dumped Knives for her. Meanwhile, Ramona has had terrible luck with her exes (in addition to being young and confused and inflicting damage herself). But at this point, she's the most grown up of anyone, finally attempting to put her past aside and move forward.

I mean, c'mon! Is there anything more attractive than a woman with a giant digital hammer who can kick your ass?

Scott, meanwhile, is oddly unlikable, which is actually one of the big differences in the film from the comics. He's always a tad too self-involved and self-absorbed (perhaps a reflection of modern young adults who, let's face it, are kind of self-involved and self-absorbed). In the film though, he's presented as a likably quasi-douche bag. Upon the replay of the film, I was a bit struck with how actually unlikable Michael Cera's Scott Pilgrim actually is. To an extent, he is in the comics as well, but he usually has enough redeeming qualities that he comes off more as an oblivious, but realistically decent dude. However, even with the idea that the film-Scott isn't as likable as in the comics, everything does feel fairly realistic. Everyone has a relatively reasonable reaction to their situations. Knives is more jealous of Ramona than she is pissed at Scott. Scott doesn't really understand why his behavior is bad for everyone. Ramona hasn't had a decent boyfriend and is also an adult and is willing to work through problems. 

Centered around Scott, we get a somewhat insightful view of the modern young person. When he sees Ramona in his dream (unexplained, really, in the film and weirdly explained, really, in the comics), Scott realizes that is his future. As he fights ex after ex, he begins to grow understandably frustrated with the situation. He didn't realize dating Ramona would be so much work, but then, isn't that what dating kind of is? 

Each fight is in a different style. We go all over the spectrum of arcade and original Nintendo style of fighting. The fights are all unique and keep things fresh, which is good because once Matthew Pattel shows up to start the system of fights for Scott, the film really moves forward with great pace. It is one action sequence after another with an occasional scene to humanize the characters who are otherwise not particularly human.

It's such a stylized scene - it pretty much is Sin City for nerdier hipsters more into fun than violence against women.

Of all the characters, only Ramona and Scott are the most complete characters. Everyone else serves as one dimensional, quasi-caricatures. Aubrey Plaza is just there to yell at Scott. Anna Kendrick is just there to judge Scott. Kieran Culkin is pretty much summed up in his introduction as Scott's awesome gay room mate Wallace, who's actually one of the funnier characters in the film. All of the exes are also pretty shallow. Chris Evans excels at the overly douchy hot shot skater-turned-hot shot actor. Brandon Routh is arguably the best in his rule as pretentious and judgmental super powered vegan. Satya Bhabha is excellent as the mystical Bollywood-esque pirate fighter to kick things off. Jason Schwartzman is an excellent, sleazy music producer in one of the few films in which he's actually unlikable!

The lack of multi-dimensional characters is intentional though. It's meant to feel like a retro video game or comic book. And if Scott and Ramona are the only two slightly fleshed out characters, Scott is easy to dislike. Conversely, Ramona is easy to love. It's all ultimately about the baggage you carry and how you go about carrying it, and arguably, how love can make us crazy. One of the most interesting elements is how Ramona's involvement with Scott mirrors his involvement with Knives earlier. When his sister asks why he's dating a high schooler (he's 22), he says that it's nice and simple. Later, Ramona says something similar of her relationship with Scott, that it was nice and simple and (seemingly) without much complication.

The film often riffs on nerdy video game tropes.

It's filled with nerdy humor - the best joke being when Scott is complaining about what sucks and he says that everything sucks, then takes an eight magnet and turns it over so it resembles the infinity symbol. It's also filled with references to classic Nintendo and arcade games. The opposing bands often sport names directly lifted from Nintendo's repertoire like Crash and the Boys and The Clash at Demonhead. The battles include references to Street Fighter, Dance Dance Revolution, and Guitar Hero. There's a fair bit of anime reference as well.

And, of course, it's also got an amazing soundtrack with an original score from Radiohead's Nigel Godrich and Beck. The extended soundtrack includes T. Rex, Metric, The Rolling Stones, and Broken Social Scene. The opening title sequence perfectly encompasses the style of the film and its music. (Total credit goes to Wright and Beck for capturing the sound I always assumed fictional band Sex Bob-Omb had in the comics - as seen below.)




It's such a peculiar and specific film though that as much as I love it, I can't necessarily recommend it to everyone. The hyper-stylistic approach Edgar Wright takes is impressive and interesting. Wright said that he was attempting to create a film adaptation that most closely felt the way reading a comic did. In many ways, it's the best and most accurate adaptation of a comic in a long time. It's got an awesome cast with an awesome soundtrack. And it's got an awesome, nerdy sense of humor.

Sometimes the acting from minor cast members seems stale. The dialogue can be clunky at times as well. But otherwise, the cast does an excellent job at selling the "overacting" required. The ending is a bit strange and feels a bit off as well. The final battle basically builds up the idea of Scott getting back together with Knives. I can't remember if it were in one of the several commentaries, but Edgar Wright talked about how that was the original plan, but it didn't play well with test audiences so they changed it. What's funny is that at the time the film was being made, writer/artist Bryan Lee O'Malley was still working on the final book. They talked a bit about how the book was going to end, but more or less, Wright had to make up his own ending (there are some similarities, which shows how well Wright learned the material, but they're not totally the same, of course). Re-watching the film, it seems like maybe Scott should have ended up with Knives - that that would have been the more meaningful scenario. He realizes how he damaged her and that they were indeed good together while Ramona - finally free from her past - is free to move forward as well. She's alone, but she finally has a chance. Instead, Knives tells Scott that Ramona is who he was fighting for the entire time and he should go after her. Scott awkwardly says, "What about you?" (because he's still flawed and doesn't quite realize that he shouldn't really be with her out of a sense of obligation). Knives responds, "Besides, I'm too cool for you." She may not be "too cool" for Scott Pilgrim, but she's clearly too good for him at that point.

It's a great, fun film, but it is one of those things that either clicks with you or it doesn't. It seems like there isn't a lot of room for middle ground. Many people will probably feel like Anna Kendrick's character after Matthew Pattel breaks out into song - looking confused and wondering, "What??" Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a ride though, and you have to let it just take you along for it. Many people will have a hard time with it, and there's a crowing anti-Michael Cera crowd too. Cera as the titular character is still a bit of a miscast, but he isn't that bad in it.

Besides, it's just another film that will make you fall in love with Mary Elizabeth Winstead (admittedly, my celebrity crush).