One of the songs - in fact, the first - leaked to Perez Hilton from Britney Spears' new album is causing a little bit of controversy.
And the discussion isn't centered around how bad Spears' singing is on "Baby Boy," the ridiculous, nasally slow jam making the online rounds.
It's whether Britney Spears or someone in the struggling singer's camp / management team ripped the song off somebody else.
Kim Ross, a pop/soul singer from New York City has a song called "Beautiful Lies" - which she claims was written almost two years ago. She published it on her MySpace page (click to listen) in April.
You'll notice it sounds strikingly like Britney's "Baby Boy" if not nearly identical. Below is an unofficial, fan-made video featuring Britney's version of the song (meshed with some unrelated, hot pics of Spears from the olden days).
What do you think? Did Britney Spears gank the track?
Share
6 Comments
September 7th, 2007 11:17 AM
Normally I like Britney...but I have to say she did no justice to Kim Ross' song.
September 13th, 2007 2:18 AM
Just a minute. I listened to both tracks. Usually when I hear a rip off, I hear something very similar. BUT in this case, the two songs have THE SAME EXACT, IDENTICAL instruments and sound effects! Normally when someone rips off a track, the musicians disguise the rip off by changing the instruments etc.
For some reason I can't under stand one person had to have access to the others source recordings! No one would rip that blatantly. For that, I'm suspecting that this is some kind of publicity stunt to get Kim Ross noticed. I mean,
HOW could Brit producers get a hold of the EXACT sounds from Kim's recordings unless he shared them? Is there a karaoke version with no words to one of the songs? What going on here? I realize that with EXTREME effort a songs instruments could be made to sound that close, but WHY? Copying instruments isn't needed to rip a song.. Plus it gets the person doing it caught. Again, something is fishy about this claim. I wish I understood it better.
September 13th, 2007 2:19 AM
Just a minute. I listened to both tracks. Usually when I hear a rip off, I hear something very similar. BUT in this case, the two songs have THE SAME EXACT, IDENTICAL instruments and sound effects! Normally when someone rips off a track, the musicians disguise the rip off by changing the instruments etc.
For some reason I can't under stand one person had to have access to the others source recordings! No one would rip that blatantly. For that, I'm suspecting that this is some kind of publicity stunt to get Kim Ross noticed. I mean,
HOW could Brit producers get a hold of the EXACT sounds from Kim's recordings unless he shared them? Is there a karaoke version with no words to one of the songs? What going on here? I realize that with EXTREME effort a songs instruments could be made to sound that close, but WHY? Copying instruments isn't needed to rip a song.. Plus it gets the person doing it caught. Again, something is fishy about this claim. I wish I understood it better. (I hope my comment will be shown)
September 13th, 2007 2:20 AM
I also realize it's a semi-tone off, but it's the same instruments! Why doesn't my larger comment show?
September 13th, 2007 2:22 AM
Just a minute. I listened to both tracks. Usually when I hear a rip off, I hear something very similar. BUT in this case, the two songs have THE SAME EXACT, IDENTICAL instruments and sound effects! Normally when someone rips off a track, the musicians disguise the rip off by changing the instruments etc.
For some reason I can't under stand one person had to have access to the others source recordings! No one would rip that blatantly. For that, I'm suspecting that this is some kind of publicity stunt to get Kim Ross noticed. I mean,
HOW could Brit producers get a hold of the EXACT sounds from Kim's recordings unless he shared them? Is there a karaoke version with no words to one of the songs? What going on here? I realize that with EXTREME effort a songs instruments could be made to sound that close, but WHY? Copying instruments isn't needed to rip a song.. Plus it gets the person doing it caught. Again, something is fishy about this claim. I wish I understood it better. (I hope my comment will be shown)
September 13th, 2007 2:26 AM
Maybe this is moderated to cover something up????? LOL