# Led Zeppelin court case May 10th



## Baron Greuner (Apr 12, 2016)

This has rumbled on for quite some time.

The plaintiffs are the band Spirit and their song is called Taurus. The issue is the opening guitar motif with the arp and descending bass line in their song and defendants Led Zeppelins Stairway to Heaven.
It's going to a jury.

My own unbiased opinion is that Spirit will be lucky if they win this one. The motifs are different IMO.


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 12, 2016)

Why now? Almost 50 years later?

Spirit and Zeppelin were on stage together at some point before Nr. 4. Both songs do indeed sound similar, but my honest opinion is that, if Jimmy took it (maybe unconsciously, maybe not), he turned it into gold, wove it into a much better context. As a huge Zep fan I'm biased. Many bands/musicians in a particular timeline will sound similar and that makes the chance for such "coincidences" very big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 12, 2016)

This belongs in the OT section, IMO.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 12, 2016)

To me both sound like Hushabye Mountain, or even Beethoven 32 variations in C minor. Nothing particularly original about the chord sequence, so they're going to have a hard time proving that they actually created anything of substance.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 12, 2016)

Michael Chrostek said:


> if Jimmy took it (maybe unconsciously, maybe not), he turned it into gold, wove it into a much better context.



"He turned it into gold" certainly does not mean it's not plagiarism. If you stole something from someone else, it does not at all matter that you "wove it into a much better context". The question is whether or not you "wove it into a _different_ context".



Daryl said:


> To me both sound like Hushabye Mountain, or even Beethoven 32 variations in C minor. Nothing particularly original about the chord sequence, so they're going to have a hard time proving that they actually created anything of substance.



If it weren't for the Will Farrel case, I would completely agree with this.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

Also a big Zep fan, and although the uncredited lifting of others' material has been proven,
this one is a hard call- especially in the wider context of the actual songs.
(The only similarity is the Am w/ descending bass)

The question is- Is this guitar figure a melody?
That will be what the court case will stand on.

Imo- considering the preponderance of evidence from other tunes, Page lifted it-
He did that all the time, w/ both Blues riffs and his acoustic stuff as well.
Made a career of it.
But always putting the lifted material in a different and sometimes innovative context.
Just seems very unlikely that it was an accidental creation.

k


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 12, 2016)

RiffWraith said:


> "He turned it into gold" certainly does not mean it's not plagiarism. If you stole something from someone else, it does not at all matter that you "wove it into a much better context". The question is whether or not you "wove it into a _different_ context".


I agree, plagiarism is plagiarism, but this case is so much more tricky than this. Is it inspired by Taurus? Most probably yes. Is it plagiarised? That's the question the jury has to figure out. Is it shameless if he did this conciously? Yes. Is it plagriarism the way he did it? I think no, why? Well, he obviously didn't take the exact same part. He took the idea behind it and worked it out like he thought it should sound like. Spirit had the sketch, but Page did a masterpiece out of it.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 12, 2016)

Well, if the "constellation of similar elements" standard from the "Blurred Lines" case is applied, it looks kind of tough for the defendants. I disagree with that verdict because, while ethically it was a ripoff, from a copyright perspective I don't think it was (is). One writer put it well here:

"One can only sympathize with the jury's instinct to see Thicke as a thief of music, just as he's undoubtedly trying to steal Gaye's mantle in the video. Morally and artistically, it makes me wanna holler and throw up both my hands, as Gaye wrote in a very different context.

Yet the jury should've overcome its legitimate moral outrage and decided the case against Gaye's estate. Focusing on the author's moral rights is the wrong way to think about copyright — and it has perverse effects on artistic creation." -- Noah Feldman, Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...thicke-court-perspec-0317-20150316-story.html


----------



## Luke W (Apr 12, 2016)

For several years, I transcribed music for a top copyright infringement expert. I learned that many elements determined infringement. Chord progression is one component, but if you can give examples of other songs with the same progression, then the progression is deemed "generic" to the style and outside the bounds of copyright. (Think of all the doo-wop with I - vi - IV - V). I think you could probably find multiple examples of the Stairway to Heaven chord progression in other songs.

But often the line into infringement is crossed by an accumulation of factors. In this case, we might have a generic chord progression BUT it's played in the SAME key, at the SAME tempo, by the SAME instrument with the SAME picking style - well, that might add up to infringement. And if you can show it's probable that Page heard the Spirit track, that's another factor that will tip the scale.

The expert I worked for mainly evaluated music written for commercials by composers asked to sound like a popular song (because the client loved the temp track, but not enough to pay the artist to license it I transcribed both the sound-alike track and the original as part of the expert's report. If we'd been given Taurus and Stairway to compare, I'm pretty confident the expert would have told the music house "too close."


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 12, 2016)

I agree that the fact that it can be proven that Page heard this track several times may be a factor.
Hard to believe that the Spirit song didn't influence the writing of Stairway to heaven...
Can't blame Spirit for trying.
Page and Plant are very comfortable and these guys could use a bit of $ for their retirement.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

JohnG said:


> Well, if the "constellation of similar elements" standard from the "Blurred Lines" case is applied, it looks kind of tough for the defendants. I disagree with that verdict because, while ethically it was a ripoff, from a copyright perspective I don't think it was (is).


I'm on the other side of that one.
I've been a professional musician for 45 years 
and I am shocked by the amount of composers who think that decision was wrong.
There was a discussion here at the time, and it seemed the main "threat" was regarding "sound-a-likes". 
(F**K that)

The "Thicke version" (I won't call it the "Thicke song") was an unabashed, undisguised blatant copy!
There were people making charts of bass notes moved by an 8th, as if the "proves" anything-
Not wanting to see the forest for the trees.
It is clearly Gaye's tune, right down to the tones and mix.
Pharrel even admitted it!

Enough said about that- back to the Spirit/Led Zep "rift"-

So in the Spirit riff we hear a pad over the top-
In the LZ version that is replaced w/ a mellotron flute w/ less reverb.
Same thing.
Being a former LZ lunatic, I'm pretty sure that was the 1st time LZ used a "pad" like that.
To me, although a simple pad can't be "owned", it's further evidence of lifting.
Guilty,
Ethical violation. Theft.
Roll your own, or pay up.
Simple.

k


----------



## Luke W (Apr 12, 2016)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Can't blame Spirit for trying.
> Page and Plant are very comfortable and these guys could use a bit of $ for their retirement.



That fact could work against Spirit. If you can prove that other artists used the Taurus riff, but Spirit has only sued the one with deep pockets, that could show the Spirit guys as more interested in the $ than in defending the integrity of their song.

A poor plaintiff and a rich defendant may have emotional sway, but the case should be judged only whether infringement occurred. Once that is established, then you can consider the money LZ earned on the song and evaluate what would be fair financial compensation. Even then, the condition of Spirit's bank account should be irrelevant.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

Luke W said:


> If you can prove that other artists used the Taurus riff, but Spirit has only sued the one with deep pockets, that could show the Spirit guys as more interested in the $ than in defending the integrity of their song.


Except in this case, considering the amount of uncredited songwriting formerly in LZ's catalogue,
it's pretty obvious that Page got the idea from Spirit.
"Ethically" it's clear, "Legally" nothing is clear.
That's why Lawyers are so highly regarded. 

k


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 12, 2016)

I wouldn't want to be the judge in deciding this, because the first few bars don't just resemble each other but are extremely alike.


----------



## Luke W (Apr 12, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Except in this case, considering the amount of uncredited songwriting formerly in LZ's catalogue,
> it's pretty obvious that Page got the idea from Spirit.
> k



I'm not familiar with the history here. Has LZ been sued about other songs before?


----------



## Hans Adamson (Apr 12, 2016)

I believe a lot of young guitar players have come up with this guitar line when trying out their instrument attempting to write songs. I certainly did as a teenager, long before I ever heard Stairway to Heaven, and I have never heard Spirit. I wrote a song using that line and I may still use the song. It is not the guitar line itself that is the song it is how it is used. It is just a guitar line that naturally falls into your hand if you make a chromatically descending baseline.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 12, 2016)

I don't think they have been sued.

I remember the case in 2006 when the High Court ruled that (rightly imv) Matthew Fisher should get 40% of future royalties from the track Whiter Shade Of Pale because his organ part was an integral part of what makes the record. Gary Brooker, needless to say, disagreed. I think he was wrong.

You could also argue that the organ part is in fact Bach's Air in G and perhaps some of the royalties should go to the Lutheran church.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

Luke W said:


> I'm not familiar with the history here. Has LZ been sued about other songs before?


Big Time!
Check this link Michael posted above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others

Mostly it was lyrical theft (not influence) but there's also the gray area of the many Blues guitar riffs.
When you get into more unique acoustic guitar music, it's more clear.
Seems like they just thought they could put their name on anything they recorded as their idea.

In spite of that, I'm still a fan.
The lyric thing was just stupid, as was the acoustic thievery-
But what was happening w/ actual Rock innovation still stands in spite of that.
It's hard to hear it from the 21st century, but nobody sounded like that before the 1st album.
It was unique, even weird.

k


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

Hans Adamson said:


> I believe a lot of young guitar players have come up with this guitar line when trying out their instrument attempting to write songs. I certainly did as a teenager, long before I ever heard Stairway to Heaven, and I have never heard Spirit. I wrote a song using that line and I may still use the song. It is not the guitar line itself that is the song it is how it is used. It is just a guitar line that naturally falls into your hand if you make a chromatically descending baseline.


Sure- a minor chord w/ a descending chromatic base is a very generic thing-
It's being played right now by countless Salsa bands all over the world.
Stevie Wonder used the device in Golden Lady.
Ellington wrote In a Sentimental Mood based on that figure.
But none of that sounds like Stairway to Heaven.
The Spirit tune does, and they were on tour together.
Page heard it night after night and had a penchant for lifting.
It's kind of hard to deny, imo.

k


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> I don't think they have been sued.


I'm pretty sure Willie Dixon sued them.
He wrote most of Plant's lyrics.
Other Blues guys too.
It's true that the song credits have been changed to include the real authors.
Why would they do that w/o being sued?


----------



## Luke W (Apr 12, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Big Time!
> Check this link Michael posted above;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others
> 
> ...



If they've been successfully sued before, I imagine the lawyers could show a pattern of infringement that would add even more weight to the case.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 12, 2016)

I agree that it's not so much the chord pattern, as the exact feel, instruments and tempo, combined with the fact that it is proven that they were exposed to the original song many times. That's what makes it a bit suspicious.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 12, 2016)

Hans, they ought to appoint you judge in this case.

I fully agree, if you’ve ever played a guitar for two or three weeks, you’re bound to hit upon something *very close* to that Spirit-thing (I know I have, and I’m sure millions of others have): a very common bit of picking in the minor with a chromatic descending bassline. Typical, non-descript, anonymous guitar stuff that belongs to no one and everybody.

The guitar part of “Stairway To Heaven” on the other hand, even if it shares the same descending bassline, is something different entirely — and not the sort of thing that just ‘happens’ under your fingers after playing the instrument for a little while — in that it actually contains a distinctly, non-generic idea.

Based on this and on nothing else, I’d throw that Spirit-lot out of my courtroom, but not before having them pay a fine for wasting everybody’s time with their petty greed.
(And I’d have thrown the Gaye estate out of the building as well, by the way. Same nonsense.)

We already had a thread on the exact same subject two years ago. If we don't watch out, we can sue ourselves.

_


----------



## streetster (Apr 12, 2016)

Would this constitute plagiarism?


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

re-peat said:


> The guitar part of “Stairway To Heaven” on the other hand, even if it shares the same descending bassline, is something different entirely — and not the sort of thing that just ‘happens’ under your fingers after playing the instrument for a little while — in that it actually contains a distinctly, non-generic idea.
> 
> Based on this and on nothing else, I’d throw that Spirit-lot out of my courtroom, but not before having them pay a fine for wasting everybody’s time with their petty greed.


Piet- You seem to contradict yourself here.
The guitar part + the "pad" on top are to similar to be a generic found coincidence.
You say that but also that you'd toss the the original author's case?

But I'm sure greed is the main reason for the suit-
but why wait so many decades to do it?
That's the strange part


----------



## JohnG (Apr 12, 2016)

KEnK said:


> I've been a professional musician for 45 years
> and I am shocked by the amount of composers who think that decision was wrong.



I wonder why you are that shocked, really, for two reasons. First, in the perhaps five minutes I spent listening to the two songs, which I'd never remembered hearing before, I'd say they are not the same music from the point of view of copyright as the law is written. Second, some of the so-called "soundalikes" I've heard sail even closer to the originals -- a lot closer -- than that.

[a third reason would be the woeful absence of genuine creativity out there, but that's a third thing]

Is it _artistically_ a ripoff? A theft? Yes. Does it actually violate copyright law? I'm not expert but based on what I know of precedent cases, I'd say no.

I worry that the "Blurred Lines case is really a gift to the plaintiffs' bar. I believe it radically increased the likelihood of lawsuits brought against anyone who has a hit. I don't write hits but if I had I'd be looking over my shoulder for someone who put out a 45 single in 1972, with a bridge that has the "vibe" or "constellation of elements" similar my song, to come looking for a payday.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 12, 2016)

KEnK said:


> why wait so many decades to do it?



two words: Blurred Lines


----------



## re-peat (Apr 12, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Piet- You seem to contradict yourself here.



I don't think I do, K.

Here's the *Stairway-riff* on a Rhodes piano. What both the Spirit and the LedZep guitar parts share, is what's happening in the left hand (the chromatic descending figure), but that's all. _Nothing more._ What my right hand is playing, is unique to "Stairway" (and is also its defining ingredient) and is not to be spotted, not even by the most legally enthusiastic microscope, anywhere in the Spirit track.

_


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 12, 2016)

They're not the same. This is what I can't understand.

Descending bass lines. My God, listen to just about anyone from Bach to the Beatles to Cream.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

@ JohnG
"Is it _artistically_ a ripoff? A theft? Yes.
Does it actually violate copyright law? I'm not expert but based on what I know of precedent cases, I'd say no."

Then the laws need to be re-written.
Easier said then done, but personally, I think "creatives" would be better served by completely doing away
w/ redundancy, sound-a-likes, derivative directives and so on.
The whole Thicke/Gaye thing was discussed in great detail here when it happened.
I didn't win any converts then and I'm sure I won't now-
You say "Yes it's theft" but somehow it's ok. That's what I don't get.

and I think the Spirit/LZ thing has been simmering since before the Blurred Lines case,
but maybe that did encourage them. If so good.

@ Piet
We'll have to agree to disagree then, respectfully or no. 
Listening to the actual tracks, including the pads and instrumentation,
and being aware of Page's proclivity for lifting,
it's unlikely that it's an accident of simultaneous creation.

k


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 12, 2016)

It seems to me that this is not what copyright law was supposed to be about. Copyright law was intended to *encourage* creation, not scare people from it.

The infringement bar is being moved so low that honestly, a bit of me is glad I'm no longer actively songwriting. And another bit of me is fearful that some bozo is going to claim he owns the copyright to the blues progression, or the Hand Jive groove, or an eighth note guitar chug, and sue the hell out of me for songs in my catalog.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

Mike Greene said:


> Copyright law was intended to *encourage* creation, not scare people from it.


Mike- There is no "creation" involved in Pharrel/Thicke blatantly copying Gaye's track and calling it their own.
For me, having unique rhythm tracks and mixes fall under legal protection is long overdue.
If anything it should scare people away from blatant "copying"- forcing them to be creative

k


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

@Piet

Just glanced at the old Stairway thread you linked to.
I seem to have changed my tune since then.
My post #13 May 28, 2014:

_"The Stairway to Heaven thing, sure Page probably heard the Spirit tune-
But it is a very basic harmonic device.
Plus the 2 songs are not at all alike except for this intro bit.

I thought it was common and accepted practice that
"Chord Progressions" are not subject to copyright.
Melody and Lyrics are what you can own- Not chord progressions."_

To quote Obama-
"My position has evolved." 

k


----------



## SergeD (Apr 12, 2016)

This chord progression may have been played by thousands of composers and no one extracted that unique jewel out of his soul. The theft has not occurred here. But M. Page should thank Spirit for providing inspiration on that one.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 12, 2016)

KEnK said:


> You say "Yes it's theft" but somehow it's ok. That's what I don't get.



I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it doesn't violate what I understand of copyright law. And my understanding of copyright law would fill a good-sized thimble.

And I'm saying something else -- I don't want to see everyone who has a success being hounded by plaintiff's lawyers. That's my main objection to the "Blurred Lines" "constellation of similarities" idea.


----------



## madbulk (Apr 12, 2016)

The peculiarities of guitar really matter here. Why the same key for example? Because it's Am and it's right there. If they'd both played it in C# minor, we'd maybe have something to chew on. 
It's just like Hans says, it falls into your hand, in fact the Spirit thing falls into your hand WAY more easily than Stairway does and more generically too. I don't know the rest of Taurus, but that part isn't composition. It's guitar-specific fiddling around -- getting down the neck toward your ii chord.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 12, 2016)

SergeD said:


> But M. Page should thank Spirit for providing inspiration on that one.



NEVER site a source for inspiration for a specific work. That opens the door to a lawsuit. Just ask Pharrel and Thicke.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 12, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it doesn't violate what I understand of copyright law. And my understanding of copyright law would fill a good-sized thimble.


Well John, You did say exactly that in post #26


JohnG said:


> Is it _artistically_ a ripoff? A theft? Yes. Does it actually violate copyright law? I'm not expert but based on what I know of precedent cases, I'd say no.





JohnG said:


> And I'm saying something else -- I don't want to see everyone who has a success being hounded by plaintiff's lawyers. That's my main objection to the "Blurred Lines" "constellation of similarities" idea.


Thicke's/Pharrel's "success" in this case is based on the blatant theft of Gaye's work.
So in this case, as much as it bums people out for reason's that continue to evade me,
copryright law did what it is supposed to do.

We're starting to go in circles here.
I've said what I think and I'm fine if it's a minority viewpoint.
So I think I'll just leave it there (or try)

Nice discussion everyone.

k


----------



## JohnG (Apr 12, 2016)

K == for the third time, my view is that Thicke et al. didn't violate copyright law but that what they did was the act of a scoundrel. 

Separately, but more ominously and much more significantly for all of us, I also believe the "Blurred Lines" case exposes just about anyone with a hit record to attack from anyone who's got a song or piece out there that resembles it in some way and is stylistically similar. Of which there are many examples. When you think of all the music written every day for television and film and games, much of which is written in a similar style, this strikes me as bad for people working in music and good for attorneys.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 13, 2016)

scoun·drel
ˈskoundrəl/
_noun_
noun: *scoundrel*; plural noun: *scoundrels*
a dishonest or unscrupulous person; a rogue.

synonyms: rogue, rascal, miscreant, good-for-nothing, reprobate;
cheat, swindler, scam artist, fraudster, trickster, charlatan;
_informal_ villain, bastard, beast, son of a bitch, SOB, rat, louse, swine, dog, skunk, heel, snake (in the grass), wretch, scumbag, scumbucket, scuzzball, sleazeball, sleazebag, ratfink;

on that we agree 

k


----------



## Lode_Runner (Apr 15, 2016)

This video provides a good demonstration of what's the same and what's different.


What's the same: It's acoustic guitar, finger picked arpeggios, similar tempo and meter, starting on an A Minor Chord, with the same chromatic descending bass line. Yes Page could have heard it on tour and could have been influenced by it. 

But as Piet and Hans have said, the Spirit part is very generic. It's not that it's bad, but it is very basic and unmemorable by itself. I don't hear anything that should be able to be copyrighted as an original composition. I mean you shouldn't be able to copyright a chromatic scale, or an A minor chord, or finger picking an acoustic guitar or even the combination of all three. 

Perhaps there might be a claim if Page had played the whole thing note for note all the way to the repeat, but instead he changed it considerably adding the melody and transitioning into other chords. The part from Stairway to Heaven is consequently more complex, unique, and memorable, a composition. Even still, if Zeppelin had released that part standalone as an instrumental, it would have gone nowhere. It's the way that part interacted with the many many other parts of the composition that made Stairway a hit.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 15, 2016)

Thanks for posting the vid.

After watching that, I don't see plagiarism. I think the guy in the vid puts it best, _similar but different_. There are a number of similarities, and you can see how Page was probably influenced by Taurus, but IMO, that's not enough. At least not as far as what the law says.

However, after the Pharrel case, all bets are off, and who knows WTF is going to happen here.

Cheers.


----------



## Lode_Runner (Apr 15, 2016)

RiffWraith said:


> Thanks for posting the vid.
> 
> After watching that, I don't see plagiarism. I think the guy in the vid puts it best, _similar but different_. There are a number of similarities, and you can see how Page was probably influenced by Taurus, but IMO, that's not enough. At least not as far as what the law says.
> 
> ...



Interestingly, despite TJR convincing you and I that they're similar but different, he posted a follow up vid where he gave his opinion that Stairway was ripped off from Taurus.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 15, 2016)

Lode_Runner said:


> Interestingly, despite TJR convincing you and I that they're similar but different, he posted a follow up vid where he gave his opinion that Stairway was ripped off from Taurus.



Really? Then he's contradicting himself. In one vid he says they are different, and in another vid, one was ripped from the other? Way to go, dude!


----------



## guydoingmusic (Apr 15, 2016)

Really what it all boils down to....

GREED!!!

This is another case of the family of Spirit members filing the suit. As was the same with the "Blurred Lines" lawsuit. Family members. THE FAMILY!! Not even the actual writers. THAT alone should raise enough red flags. To me, it's all getting ridiculous. I'm waiting for someone to sue U2 because Edge used dotted 8th delay on his guitars. What about all those John Williams ripoffs?? To me that's waaaay more in the way of plagiarism than the aforementioned songs.

I have personally had music stolen. Someone took a song they were a 5% cowriter on - and copyrighted it 100% in their name, published it through another publishing company claiming 50/50 publishing with that company. All the while, my publisher that I was signed to found this and had it all resolved without going to court.. thankfully. 

Cases like mine are an example of what copyright law is there for. Not this.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 15, 2016)

guydoingmusic said:


> This is another case of the family of Spirit members filing the suit. As was the same with the "Blurred Lines" lawsuit. Family members. THE FAMILY!! Not even the actual writers.


I didn't realize that. I hated the case before, but now I hate it even more. Apparently Spirit was cool with what Jimi Page did, since in all those years, they never sued. (We can assume they were aware of Stairway to Heaven, right?) IMO children or family members should have no right to then take an opposite position from dad, and then sue.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 15, 2016)

Although I'm 99% sure there was an influence from Taurus, what's unique to me in Stairway to Heaven is the ascending top line, especially the "b" on the 2nd chord, which gives it that special sound.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 15, 2016)

John Lennon was sued for Come Together, which was quite ridiculous to me, however, Chuck Berry publisher won, or made a settlement, but the only reason he won was because Lennon was always open when asked about his songs and din't hesitate to say which songs influenced him on a particular song. If song writers starts to admit what songs, chord pattern, riff etc. inspired them, who knows how many more law suite there would be. Better keep your mouth shut...


----------



## KEnK (Apr 15, 2016)

guydoingmusic said:


> the same with the "Blurred Lines" lawsuit. Family members. THE FAMILY!! Not even the actual writers. THAT alone should raise enough red flags.


Marvin Gaye died in '84.
A copyright lasts for, what is it? 75 years?
Gaye's family was completely within their "right" to bring that suit.

Blatant theft needs to be discouraged.
Even people bemoaning the "Blurred Lines" verdict concede that it was theft.

k


----------



## guydoingmusic (Apr 16, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Marvin Gaye died in '84.
> A copyright lasts for, what is it? 75 years?
> Gaye's family was completely within their "right" to bring that suit.
> 
> ...


First of all (in all due respect)... I disagree wholeheartedly with that verdict and completely refuse to agree that it was theft. There is a major difference between inspiration and theft. This is scary territory as others have pointed out earlier. I could list my inspirations and influences over the years and you can see the imprint in my writing style and preference.

Secondly... The chord changes are not even the same.... the lyrics are no where near close to the original... the ONLY similarities in these two tracks are 

cowbell 
drum pattern/groove 
bass rhythm
feel

NOTHING is exact... at all.

So apparently... it is illegal to use cowbell in a song. It is illegal to use a similar drum pattern/groove. And it is also illegal to use a similar bass groove.

I mean really??

Robin Thicke interview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-lawsuit_n_7713820.html

Pharrell interview: http://www.etonline.com/music/16144...d_lines_verdict_gaye_family_pens_open_letter/

I think Pharrell said it best in his interview. "There was no infringement," Williams protested. "You can’t own feelings and you can’t own emotions...[in music] there are only the notations and the progression. Those were different."

So again... this case is only about pure 100% american GREED!


----------



## JohnG (Apr 16, 2016)

guydoingmusic said:


> american GREED!



ahem

I have lived in a number of places and worked with people from many countries. Fear and greed -- two of our least attractive attributes -- appear to be as ubiquitous across national boundaries as they are powerful and depressingly accurate predictors of human behaviour.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Apr 16, 2016)

JohnG said:


> ahem
> 
> I have lived in a number of places and worked with people from many countries. Fear and greed -- two of our least attractive attributes -- appear to be as ubiquitous across national boundaries as they are powerful and depressingly accurate predictors of human behaviour.


Yes agreed. I only said that because of the location that the lawsuit took place. And... the fact that I am in the US.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 16, 2016)

Fair enough.

It is sad, though, as a general topic, to reflect that, the world over, no matter how deprived and miserable people are, whether it's refugees or defenseless children or simply poor people, someone figures out a way to make money out of them.

Sorry for the digression.


----------



## novaburst (Apr 16, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Marvin Gaye died in '84.
> A copyright lasts for, what is it? 75 years?
> Gaye's family was completely within their "right" to bring that suit.
> 
> ...



+1 and again and again its very clear that the piece was herd and copied and its not a coincident, it happens time and time again when artist are to lazy to come up with there own ideas, they here a piece and want to create that same atmosphere and want to be known for creating it when the piece was not even there own, they try so much to make it different but end up a complete lie and fail, i here it time and time again even when there is no law suit against it, it is plainly theft, steeling, fake,

If you are so in love with a piece that you heard and feel it would help develop your music then contact the owner and get permission, be open and give them the credit, and any payment due if they ask, dont just listen to it and say oh I think ill do that in my next album and get all the credit for your self

Tell artist why you would like to use there piece, share with them why you think its so nice above all let them know that you got some of there ideas, send them samples, wait for them to get back to you, they may just say yes go ahead and use it all you want, they may wish you well, they may even be grateful that some one very famous wants to use there piece.

But dont just take all in your own hands and feel you have the right to do any thing you want with other peoples music and ideas and hope they have not got the cash to battle against in a court case 

To often the little guys ideas get stolen buy the big guys, its fact and always happens, we all get surprised when our favorite artist is blamed for doing it and start trying to back them up and making all kinds of excuses for them like they have the right to do it, its one word theft, steeling, there is no pretty word for it.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 16, 2016)

novaburst said:


> its very clear that the piece was herd and copied and its not a coincident, it happens time and time again when artist are to lazy to come up with there own ideas, they here a piece and want to create that same atmosphere and want to be known for creating it when the piece was not even there own, they try so much to make it different but end up a complete lie and fail, i here it time and time again even when there is no law suit against it, it is plainly theft, steeling, fake,


Agreed-
Thanks for adding your perspective. 

k


----------



## KEnK (Apr 16, 2016)

guydoingmusic said:


> the ONLY similarities in these two tracks are
> 
> cowbell
> drum pattern/groove
> ...


Fact is those elements represent the entirety of the musical elements of the pieces.
So- thanks for making my point that much clearer.
But, you forgot about the "party crowd" element too.

And yes- It is about "100% american GREED!"-
The greed of people who will steal something clearly not theirs-
That groove is Gaye's groove.
It is unique in the annals of R&B because of it's stark simplicity.
It always has been, until it was lifted by a couple of unscrupulous charlatans.
I hear it, Gaye's family heard it, the jury heard it.

The only people who seem to have a hard time hearing it 
are people who work in a crap industry where "sound-a-likes" are the status quo.

I view it positively.

k


----------



## guydoingmusic (Apr 16, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Fact is those elements represent the entirety of the musical elements of the pieces.
> So- thanks for making my point that much clearer.
> But, you forgot about the "party crowd" element too.
> 
> ...


You realize that a jury said OJ Simpson was "not guilty" too... Doesn't mean they were right! 

And while you are entitled to your opinion on this... None of your points are protected under copyright law. I didn't further prove your original point anymore by what I said. Because you cannot copyright those elements. At all.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 16, 2016)

?!
Sorry- bringing the Simpson trial into it shows this is not going to be a sensible discussion.
Pretty distasteful imo.
I'll close by saying both sides agreed to the members of the jury.
That's how the system works.
The jury found the elements lifted from Gaye's tune to be unique and identifiable.
If this causes copyright law to be updated I think it's overdue-
and a good thing.

I'm done here

k


----------



## re-peat (Apr 17, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Fact is those elements represent the entirety of the musical elements of the pieces. (...)


That’s not fact, K. It’s actually untrue. (As any serious and unbiased musician ought to be able to recognize.) The compositional and production elements which define “Blurred Lines” — while several of these elements clearly inspired by the Marvin Gaye track — are different enough to make any accusation of ‘blatant theft’ really quite silly (from a musical perspective).

And surely, you must realize yourself how ridiculous it is to make accusations of plagiarism based on things like the presence of a cowbell or the noises of a party crowd.

If you hold the view which you hold in these two cases (Zeppelin and Thicke/Williams), 95% of all music — classical, jazz, ethnical, light or serious, … — would be _legally impossible_. Vivaldi and Buxtehude could have sued Bach (and he himself could have sued almost everyone who came after him), the Haydn estate could have sued Mozart and Beethoven who, in turn, could have sued Schubert and Brahms and hundreds of others, and so on and so forth. Bob Dylan would be impossible, most of post-Armstrong jazz too, as would The Beatles (at least their first few albums) and just about anything else that happened in pop/rock since. (Spirit and Marvin Gaye would be impossible too, by the way.) And a bunch of baroque composers, plus Morricone and Nino Rota, could make life extremely awkward for Hans Zimmer. Not to mention the dozens of composers who might recognize something of themselves — in some cases, quite a bit — in the work of John Williams.

And all for sheer lack of genuine 100% newness of either ideas, style, orchestration techniques, arrangements, production choices or general musical approach.

I am, by the way, also not a little puzzled by your enthusiasm for Christof’s “Viennese Waltz’ (in some other thread), a piece of music that plunders J. Strauss Jr.'s idiom in just about every way thinkable. It’s quite well done, I agree, but it is rooted in Strauss’ soil in exactly the same way as ‘Blurred Lines’ was grown in the flowerpot of Gaye’s “Got To Give Up”. If you have problems with “Blurred Lines” and “Stairway To Heaven”, applauding that waltz is either dishonest, hypocritical or just plain stupid. At the very least, it is completely inconsistent with the narrow views you have expressed here.

_


----------



## Saxer (Apr 17, 2016)

Taurus is


----------



## KEnK (Apr 17, 2016)

re-peat said:


> If you have problems with “Blurred Lines” and “Stairway To Heaven”, applauding that waltz is either dishonest, hypocritical or just plain stupid. At the very least, it is completely inconsistent with the narrow views you have expressed here.


Well of course I don't agree w/ that statement.
Using an idiom such as Blues or a waltz is not the same as using a specific identifiable song,
though many "composers" have done exactly that and make a living off of "plagiarism lite".
Acknowledging that I clearly hear Gaye's work or Spirit's music in the contested pieces is
in fact more honest than the kind of legalese type of thinking people are resorting to in defense of thievery.
Changing the words "of" or "the" in a sentence are not enough to claim ownership of
what is quite obviously someone else/s work.

The words of Bill Clinton come to mind-
"Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

As an example of "honesty" in composition, I may be "legally" in my right
to use the chord progression of Stella by Starlight and tack on some other melody,
and claim it as my own composition, but it would still be quite obviously Stella.
And perhaps more a case in point-
I can "legally" pick up my guitar and play exactly 17 16th notes on a Dominant 9th chord-
but that is still going to be Jimmy Nolan's signature riff in "Pappa's Got a Brand New Bag".

Gaye's Groove in "Got it Give it Up" is that identifiable-
Piet- are you going to pretend you don't hear it?
Dishonest? Narrow view? Quite to the contrary my brother

k


----------



## re-peat (Apr 17, 2016)

No one disputes that Gaye's work can be clearly heard in "Blurred Lines", K., but no more so than I can clearly hear Carl Perkins, Little Richard and Buddy Holly in early Beatles, or Stevie Wonder in Jamiroquai, or "Taxman" (The Beatles) in The Jam's "What You Give Is What You Get", or Haydn in Beethoven, or It's A Beautiful Day's "Bombay Calling" in Deep Purple's "Child In Time", or Bach in Stravinsky, or Dexter Gordon in John Coltrane, or Prokofiev in John Williams, or Wagner in Elgar, or Oscar Peterson in Monty Alexander, ... or .. or ... The list is endless.

"Blurred Lines", to me, is the result of someone _really _liking Gaye's "Got To Give Up" and wanting to capture the feel of that song in a 2013 update, making sure that the naked composition of the new song — tune, chords & lyrics — is different enough from the original, and even adding a few infectious earcatchers (the "Hey, hey, hey", "I know you want it" and "Good girl" bits) which have nothing whatsoever in common with the Gaye track. (I'm even of the opinion that it's in fact these new earcatchers, more so than any other element of the track, which made all the difference between "Blurred Lines" becoming a hit or not. The Gaye-groove just by itself certainly wouldn't have accomplished that.)

To my ears, "Blurred Lines" is a well-crafted contemporary pop production that looks lovingly at the past and manages to translate its inspiration into a perhaps not wholly original, but certainly fresh and enjoyable record the creative merit for which is, in my view, no less questionable than that of just about everything else that has been happening in pop music in the last 70 years.

And again: if, from now on, 'grooves' come with some ownership or other, and their mere use is to be decreed "blatant theft", we all might just as well stop making music completely — whether its pop, waltzes, jazz, orchestral, electro, dance, ostinato-driven scores, blues, ... you name it ... — because you can be sure that whatever rhythm you have in mind for your next piece, has already been layed down by someone else some time ago. As is the use of the cowbell.

_


----------



## KEnK (Apr 17, 2016)

re-peat said:


> No one disputes that Gaye's work can be clearly heard in "Blurred Lines", K., but no more so than I can clearly hear Carl Perkins, Little Richard and Buddy Holly in early Beatles, or Stevie Wonder in Jamiroquai, or "Taxman" (The Beatles) in The Jam's "What You Give Is What You Get", or Haydn in Beethoven,


Imo- Harrison would've been in his right to sue The Jam,
but this would've been the proverbial squeezing blood from a stone-
Taxman is another work so distinctive that The Jam's appropriation of it crosses over the line
of influence into plagiarism. Working in an idiom is different from copying specific pieces.
And the Beatles have been rightly sued.
As to people like Bruno Marz copying MJ or Jamiroquai copying SW, things are a little more gray there,
(and not by much) but clearly they are basing their careers on someone else's creativity.

MJ, Stevie Wonder, James Brown etc. had a unique approach to the Pop R&B lexicon-
but "influence" should remain separate from outright theft.
Those individuals and people like them were creative enough to do something new-
Not so Bruno Marz, Robin Thicke, or Pop stars of that ilk.
Their "success" is entirely based on the creativity, stylings and even songs of people who came before them.
Death to them all I say, and the industry that supports them. 

If I choose to write a 70's style funk tune, that's one thing,
but if deliberately copy the uniqueness of Cold Sweat or Sex Machine, changing only a couple of notes here and there for "legalities" sake, then I deserve to hear from James Brown's estate.
(And I'm speaking specifically of the backing track)

And yes- very disappointed in John Williams lifting of classics.
Again that is crossing from influence into plagiarism.

I've not heard Beethoven directly steal from Haydn, but you may educate me as to the specific offenses.

I am certain I'll change no one's opinion here-
and no one will change mine

As absurd as it may seem in this day and age, Music remains a Sacred thing to me.
And even though we may be on opposing sides of this particular argument,
I know you feel the same Piet.

So I will continue to be outraged by undeserving, usurping Iconoclasts like Thicke et al.
In this instance, Justice was served.
That's all I have to say about it, really

k


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Using an idiom such as Blues or a waltz is not the same as using a specific identifiable song,
> k


I think *Piet*'s point is extremely valid and merit deep reflexion! How does an "idiom" becomes idiomatic in the first place? It always started with that second piece ripping off the first one...

If we're going to judge things by "feel, instruments & tempo", then yes absolutely *Piet*'s argument is relevant, because whole genres are founded on this premise...
"Identifiable", in your own words, is precisely what makes a genre so...

An Idiom, from a cynical perspective, is authorized plagiarism...
I shall be sued for speaking English in fact, by not having created my own language! But of course put "money" in the equation and the whole thing becomes "blurred" on who intended what! And how do we know who intended what, can we know? What sincerity is involved in both parts? Is one judge enough? If so, what profile and qualities should he/she have? What standards should we collectively expect and agree upon from a judge? Is all this even worth talking, just assuming as opposed to knowing, even if we, especially us from the outside, don't really know?

What we consider "plagiarism", aside from usually, all too easily treating it as an objective thing, can also be that subjective thing where what we subconsciously choose to call a "theft" is simply those patterns or aesthetic we don't want be repeated, out of distaste or sense of sacredness of the original thing, because in most cases, when we truly like the copied thing itself, which potentially means the genre or genre-to-come itself, then we won't mind one bit, isn't it so?! You have to like *Christof*'s piece in order not to mind and even quite conveniently disregard the *Strauss *argument from *Piet*, see how subjectivity applies, and how our beliefs can be subconscious: That Genre is nobler and different than plagiarism, when in fact, Genre IS plagiarism on a fundamental level!!

Let's take this further... How much of what we do is really original, and downright subconscious imitation, not even talking about the composition here, but in life as a whole!
How much of what we judge original is not the result of perspective on what is new vs. ordinary, but ignorance as well, thinking we know when we just don't know the history. Knowledge & ignorance are always related simultaneously to form taste & distaste, which is why I'll always think of humility & self-awareness, as a starter, as one the highest values in the quest for knowledge and intuitive truth!

Quite frankly, I think it would a fun philosophical chaos in this world if we were to witness *Mr. Big Daddy Caveman's descendants* to sue us all: Same Rhythm, same instruments, sticks or skin drums or whatever, more or less! What's wrong with us? What were we thinking? The same pattern is there! Who said we were allowed to make music as the first caveman did? Because it's just in us? Wouldn't matter to someone who has the power and copyright justice in his hands to decide "what shouldn't be repeated?"

We have a moral obligation to question what is originality vs. imitation, not take them for granted, and how those things fundamentally relate not just to the two pieces opposed but more subtly how this clash should make us question what our music history is and even what music is! Realizing that this clash was probably always meant to happen throughout history! Why aren't we either way talking about the fundamental nature of music which is completely based on physical laws of nature as Pythagoras showed us and which is subconsciously forcing us to repeat and like patterns universally played everywhere... Those things are important to consider to realize that there are also things in music, like melodic shapes, intervals, modes, that we fundamentally & universally respond to in specific ways that were always meant to be repeated throughout history, especially in Tonal Music!


The problem is caring more about revolution than evolution...
The war against patterns, if that even has to be one, should be a careful one...
Genre vs. Plagiarism is an undiscussed topic, but again... those things we simply accepted as genres, how different is this phenomenon from what we call plagiarism?

Opinion aside, my ultimate wish is for people to want to ask the wiser question: Would "the artist himself" have wished for that same kind of "justice" applied, as perceived in the eyes of his family/estate or would he/she have let go?

I do despise the lyrics of the song though, always have, but it's part of the Zeitgeist, which as Piet said, is not entirely *Marvin Gaye*'s merit here so. Catchy usually takes hard work, let's believe it or not, not saying that earns the nature of the work itself respect, but the process should be...

By applying an innate self-righteous sense of justice (not saying you *KenK*!), surely we might lead people to work harder exploring wider horizons, but we might as well unleash a future where artists have an even more intense & irrational fear of imitation as part of creation, and again completely disregarding the simple fact that Nature meant for us musicians to repeat, in such fundamental ways, but those things are too scary to admit, and that itself will usually be left off and called as "generic"...

Rewriting the regulations earlier in the past, would have almost certainly meant that some of the things in Art we already love and cherish today, might just not have existed...

In a time of deep surveillance, is it really what we need, "more justice", if we can even define that ideal in the first place?

One last thing, which I feel can be controversial to say: If we truly feel free as a person and happy as an artist, and especially not living in fear, as fear I believe can lead to all sorts of seemingly unrelated things (that whole Yoda: fear leads to anger leads to hate leads to suffering is so true!), then we just don't give a flying dinosaur about it and create forward, as opposed to de-create backward! *Sr. Marvin Gaye*, RIP, probably wouldn't have, just a humble feeling!

This whole thing is inspiring me to write a new piece with a blow-dryer and two Guinea Pigs, "I know you want it!" Originality here I come, hope Lady Gaga or those poor animals won't sue me!

Remember, it's about reminding ourselves how whole genres of music are embraced, so we can sort of decide how extreme, or supposedly unforgivable, a situation really is or not! It's not about finding the ultimate answer as much as it is about realizing that the ultimate answer is that it's not that black & white simple! 

Only one war in life: Philosophy, not really Justice!

A.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 17, 2016)

re-peat said:


> That’s not fact, K. It’s actually untrue. (As any serious and unbiased musician ought to be able to recognize.) The compositional and production elements which define “Blurred Lines” — while several of these elements clearly inspired by the Marvin Gaye track — are different enough to make any accusation of ‘blatant theft’ really quite silly (from a musical perspective).
> 
> And surely, you must realize yourself how ridiculous it is to make accusations of plagiarism based on things like the presence of a cowbell or the noises of a party crowd.
> 
> ...


Piet nails it here. Composers and songwriters have been borrowing from each other since the first caveman pounded on a hollow log. How many times have we heard a jazz soloist incorporate the "Salt Peanuts" riff into a solo? Intentionally, I might add, and I doubt a phone call to Dizzy Gillespie was made to ask for permission. Should he be sued for that? Should soloists never inject melodies or riffs from other songs??? Ughhh!

How many times have we read guitar players say they took a riff from this or that other song? They're great stories, and news flash: that's how rock and roll is made. Heck, I just heard on the radio yesterday that Jeff Porcaro said he "stole" his drum beat for Rosanna for Bonham's "Fool in the Rain" beat. And he meant it with respect, not "Oooo, I hope I don't get caught." How messed up is it that today, Jeff would have been advised to keep his mouth shut.

On a more personal level, I've always been candid that the "Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill" chant in the Nye theme was influenced by the "Jump, Jump, Jump, Jump" chants in House of Pain's Jump Around. Should I have left that part out, since it's not 100% original? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Anybody who says they've never lifted a riff or idea hasn't written very many songs. Or more pointedly, that person has not written very many *good* songs. In my early songwriting days, there would be "pitch parties" and we'd listen to hundreds of songs from other newbie songwriters, and many had ultra-convoluted melodies. Invariably, that was because they feared copying someone else's melodies. In other words, fear drove them to write songs that suck.

For the sake of good music, we don't want to become so litigious that people are afraid to write a song that might have influences. I'll bet Jimi page heard the Spirit song and thought, "Cool song, but I could write a better guitar progression that that." So he did, and Stairway was born. What a musical loss it would it be if he instead thought, "Damn, now I can't do anything arpeggiated in A minor."


----------



## novaburst (Apr 17, 2016)

@AlexandreSafi There are some interesting points in your post but again its just making an excuse for artist who copy other peoples idea and creation, the very fact that people do get sued for copying other music is proof of that

It means they are breaking the law, how do you know M Gay would not mind if he were alive to see his music being ripped off you just dont know, but for the very fact his own flesh and blood took them to court tells you that perhaps M Gay would have done the same.

Addidas, Nike, Puma, make and produce all sports products, to use the same material or color as they do is not breaking the law, but as soon as you put the 3 addidas stripes on or the Nike sign, or the puma cat on your product you break the law, its called copy right infringement.

Judges have the knowledge and insight to recognize that this infringement is also practiced in the music world, it is black and white, and it is easy to know when a song or piece has been ripped off or people would not get sued.

We can not agree that almost every thing in the world can be ripped off accept for music, it is no different than some one going into your rubbish bin taking out your details and trying to steal money from your bank account by using your details that they stolen.

We are living in a world where every one wants to rip you off, they steel music from the internet with out paying, software gets stolen with payment, windows O S gets ripped off many people have it on there system and have never at one time paid for it, torrents and more torrents for you to get it for pissing nothing yes dont pay get it all for pissing free

Plugins, VSTs, DAWs all get ripped off becuase people want things for nothing or its to hard to just put a little effort and get your own product, or create your own product or save your money and buy your own product, or if you cant get or buy your own people just cant do with out and must have it one way or the other, its greed.

Dont make excuses just because its music and we that do music are suppose to act different than any other person that gets ripped off, you spend hours, weeks, or even months trying to create a piece you finally get to put it together you up load it then some one comes along and rips it off and on top of that gets all the credit for doing it, ah yer man its all about love and Harmony let him have it, I only spent half my life on it peace man.

Are you going to do that, that is why there is a courts to give some sort of protection against this type of theft
If you dont feel its theft then never put any copy right on your music or creation.just put it out there and say every one can copy if you want to!!!! there is no copy right so have a great time in using my creation and music will you do that, dont you want the credit for your own music or do you want some other artist to take, or steal it all from you and you never ever at one time get the credit

The very fact we copyright our music is because of this very thing we dont want our ideas stolen.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 17, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Music remains a Sacred thing to me.


Forgive me for saying so, K., but everything you’ve said so far completely refutes that noble sentiment. You look at music — and the creativity that goes into it — with the narrow-minded view which, sadly, reduces music to its _least sacred_, least interesting and certainly _most stagnating state_: that of being someone's individual property that needs to be protected at all cost. Not a sacred thing, but a mere commodity.

Absolutely nothing wrong, as far as I’m concerned, with Paul Weller using ‘Taxman’ as a jumping board, to come up with another terrific Jam-song. I don’t hear plagiarism, I hear — above all — a genuine love for music. Weller wrote many great songs before “What You Give” and he wrote many great ones since, his abilities as a bona fide songwriter indisputable from early on. That “Taxman” happened to kick-start one of his songs is com-ple-te-ly irrelevant in my view and appreciation of the songwriter Paul Weller. (In fact, I find it adds to, rather than takes away from his musicianship in that it weaves an additional thread of historical continuity and perspective through his output.)

Brian Wilson *had* to go through a phase of copying Chuck Berry _in order to become Brian Wilson_. If it were up people like you, you’d have silenced his voice with a serious lawsuit, and accusations of charlatanism and blatant thievery, after “Surfing U.S.A.”, and the world would have been one Brian Wilson short. Tell me, a loss for music or a gain?

John Williams would never have become John Williams if he hadn’t been allowed to soak up everything he felt needed soaking up to distill his own musical language out of. And all you can say, instead of being grateful for the 20-year unique musical miracle that John Williams was, is that you’re disappointed in him for learning and studying to become John Williams.

Sacred, my foot. If music were really sacred to you, K., you’d allow people — all of them infinitely more creative, curious and passionate about, and dedicated to, their art than any lawyer, jury or deeply offended, ‘plagiarism’-shouting mediocrity could ever fathom — the freedom to unleash the greatness they have in them by fuelling their engines in the gas stations built by the great musicians who preceded them.

And that is how I see it: tapping into the riches left by one’s predecessors, peers and colleagues so as to be able, when the time comes and you finally are who you were meant to be, to add to those riches yourself. The glorious and wondrous circle of music. Which you can't see as anything but vulgar thievery. Rather sad, I find.

And another thing: if music were truly sacred to you, you’d know that you can’t plagiarize greatness. You can recognize it, you can honour it, you can learn from it, you may even borrow from it and occasionaly profit from it, but ultimately, you can’t copy it. If greatness isn’t yours to begin with, parading around with someone else’s is going to be a very short and increasingly embarrassing walk.
Should Thicke/Williams (Pharrell) be without any greatness of their own, then they’re doomed — and pretty soon too — to be nothing more than an amusing but insignificant footnote in the annals of both music and copyright law.
If however, they have true greatness of their own, “Blurred Lines” will prove to be one of the bricks, even if not a wholly original one, with which they’re in the process of building their own gas station, one for later generations of musicians to fill their tanks at.

Circle of music. Be deeply, deeply, deeply thankful for it, is what I wanna say, instead of wanting to unbreak it with sue-eager, petty, small-minded and sanctimonious ungenerousness.

_


----------



## SergeD (Apr 17, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Imo- Harrison would've been in his right to sue The Jam



not really, since Taxman is heavily inspired from the theme Batman in a sixties serie.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 17, 2016)

Sorry- but to me you guys are all grasping at straws-
Refusing to see the forest for the trees-
This verdict doesn't put me in a state of fear, because I don't need to copy Cold Sweat, Mustang Sally,
or any number of obviously unique identifiable rhythmic structures.
And I won't even if asked to by some bozo to cheap to pay a license fee.

@ Mike, quoting a piece in an improvised jazz solo is not at all the same as Blurred Lines-
and you know that.
How many notes of Superstition do I not have to change before I can legally claim it's my pattern?
All of them? 80%?
wtf...

@ Piet- nonsense, you don't know me or my philosophy well enough to make such absurd generalities.
again- there is a huge difference between plagiarism, influence and homage.


k


----------



## novaburst (Apr 17, 2016)

I might just add Copy right infringement should keep us all on our toes and keep us creative instead of stealing or borrowing from other artist, i have often herd orchestral pieces are sounding the same, or it all sounds the same 

Are we to lazy to be creative, or is it to create some thing new takes to long new creation is very healthy for music and them that produce it, 

just be creative let other artist pieces inspire you to do better or at least to be creative not copy or steal your fellow artist ideas, do some thing better


----------



## Smikes77 (Apr 17, 2016)

Mike Greene said:


> Piet nails it here. Composers and songwriters have been borrowing from each other since the first caveman pounded on a hollow log. How many times have we heard a jazz soloist incorporate the "Salt Peanuts" riff into a solo? Intentionally, I might add, and I doubt a phone call to Dizzy Gillespie was made to ask for permission. Should he be sued for that? Should soloists never inject melodies or riffs from other songs??? Ughhh!
> 
> How many times have we read guitar players say they took a riff from this or that other song? They're great stories, and news flash: that's how rock and roll is made. Heck, I just heard on the radio yesterday that Jeff Porcaro said he "stole" his drum beat for Rosanna for Bonham's "Fool in the Rain" beat. And he meant it with respect, not "Oooo, I hope I don't get caught." How messed up is it that today, Jeff would have been advised to keep his mouth shut.
> 
> ...



This is absolute rubbish. I have written literally hundreds of songs and I guarantee every single one of them has been original. Chord progressions, lyrics, melody and arrangement...100% original. In fact, I have a really hard time understanding why people are copying other people in the first place. My 'sound' wouldn't even be understood by most of you, let alone copied.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 17, 2016)

novaburst said:


> Are we to lazy to be creative, or is it to create some thing new takes to long


Neither. It's "you've got to get closer to that temp score, or you lose the gig" that affects many media composers. In commercial music, just as in the studio film industry, there is a great temptation to copy what was previously successful. After all, it's about making money, as far as the financial backers are concerned..


----------



## novaburst (Apr 17, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Neither. It's "you've got to get closer to that temp score, or you lose the gig" that affects many media composers. In commercial music, just as in the studio film industry, there is a great temptation to copy what was previously successful. After all, it's about making money, as far as the financial backers are concerned..



I guess this is easy for me to say because im not famous, then to be original is going to cost you even work if you want it done your way but being a poppet for the industry or for them that pay your fees is it worth doing music in that type of state, I would choose never to play a single note if it meant bowing under the pressure of fat cats, or them that pay my fees, its just not worth it music is much more that money. 

So is the industry perverted and corrupt I would of thought at least classical, orchestral, had some code of honor to it


----------



## clisma (Apr 17, 2016)

This really seems to hit a nerve. In my brief opinion: in music arrangement, that descending bass line that is allegedly copied, is called a "line cliché." It's a well-known device present in other songs. What is over it, the melodic line if you will, is the identifiable part, and as such, wasn't ripped from the original. For me it's as simple as that.

If it weren't, then Bach really would have to sue most everyone out there for ripping off his Air on G progression.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 17, 2016)

novaburst said:


> I would choose never to play a single note if it meant bowing under the pressure of fat cats, or them that pay my fees, its just not worth it music is much more that money.


Well that's your prerogative. However, for centuries composers have been writing to order and it hasn't done them any harm. Obviously the temp score thing is a strait jacket, but there are strait jackets and strait jackets. There is still room for maneuver lots of the time, and when there isn't I, for one, walk away.

Besides, why should any one pay you anything if they don't have any say in what you write for them? Isn't the customer always right?


----------



## Pasticcio (Apr 17, 2016)

novaburst said:


> Are we to lazy to be creative, or is it to create some thing new takes to long new creation is very healthy for music and them that produce it,



Stairway to heaven is a 8min developing rock epic, what's not creative about it?

Seriously, what I walk away with as a listener after listening to Sprit contra Stairway to Heaven is million worlds apart. One with a stronger sense of connection, but that's personal I guess. Isolating something as simple as a progression and calling it theft should not be enough imo. Had Zeppelin copy-pasted Taurus idea only to milk it for money, not create something new compelling with it I would have thought differently. Why should we want to call dibs on such basic things that should never be allowed to be explored again? If Taurus inspired Page to write one of the most successful songs ever made that's just great, embrace it.

Btw, I love Start! with The Jam & I'm grateful that it was recorded. I'm sure neither Paul Weller nor Bruce Foxton would claim the bassline to be original, even if they might have thought so when first writing it.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2016)

novaburst said:


> @AlexandreSafi There are some interesting points in your post but again its just making an excuse for artist who copy other peoples idea and creation, the very fact that people do get sued for copying other music is proof of that
> 
> It means they are breaking the law, how do you know M Gay would not mind if he were alive to see his music being ripped off you just dont know, but for the very fact his own flesh and blood took them to court tells you that perhaps M Gay would have done the same.
> 
> ...


I totally understand *novabust*, I truly do, all I'm saying is just balance and insight into what we're accusing or defending! I want to encourage a world where people are skeptical of things to be black or white, it is because if we more often than make it so, we want a certain kind of outcome made up in our minds... Compositionally, I agree this is where surely it gets more tangible & tempting to go black or white, but because as to this case, there other factors as the 3 mentioned earlier (tempo, instruments, feel) are more at stake here... I'd rather suggest treating each case with as much fairness as possible! Sometimes innovation vs. copying isn't a dichotomy, and sometimes, if not actually always, they go hand in hand! What do you make of Jaws and Stravinsky or Bach in Chopin? Sometimes you have to copy in order to innovate, doesn't mean it can't be great!
But you seem to have decided that this case belongs in the "obvious theft, fault him!" category, and I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but as I'm trying to find the middle ground, I hope you perceive it the same way, maybe that's exactly where I'm wrong who knows!

Again, not subtly implying that I'm taking a side here (I thought I was clear on that) , I firmly agree that one should know better and protect own's own music so forgive if that's what I let on! It's just that usually it is easier to consider a piece unforgivable if it's not part of a (sub-)genre (yet?). Today, the most popular side of Hans Zimmer's music has been ripped off countless of times, yet now that ripping off isn't called plagiarism, it's called Epic Music! I think, he, rightfully, wasn't too happy about how people treated some of his legacy! Do it enough times, and it suddenly doesn't become so serious anymore! But for all genres you love, some abstract time ago, the second piece always ripped off the first one, and then it went on and on, should the second one always pay retribution?... Again in other cases, compositionally, I totally grant you the fact that there are some very tangible things we can accuse people of and seek to regain the respect deserved: how substantive was the influence, etc? I think what was the intent of the 2nd artist also matters sometimes, but even then, the composition itself needs debating, someone's "obvious ripoff" is someone else's "subtle genius" that's why these things usually much more imply Debate than pointing obvious black or white truth, he did this or how can you not see, etc!"

We all can see and understand each other's point of view quite easily, no one lacks fundamental rationality, I believe... It's just a matter of being smart of judging when certain things truly matter from when they don't as much as we think! I guess when you add money into it, as of course in all cases, you can be sure it matters though! 

However to reprise an idea which has been stated earlier: since when was anything 100% original, or since when was originality the true opposite of copying, that's a lie people are participating in to pick an extreme existential & self-flattering side just for this kind of debate that's all, when in fact, tomorrow they'll listen to something they love and will be happy exists, not caring it was also the copy of a copy of a copy, that doesn't mean it can't be great, as *Piet *said..

Copyright, I'll re-emphasize, is truly important, especially as long as we depend on money to survive for sure, but in the end I think those who care are those who didn't like the song and those who don't care are the ones who can find the potential in it, even acknowledging a ripoff was involved...

Not to go all relativist, but I guess that one of the greatest replies to someone's angry Art criticism is: "So you didn't like it?..."


----------



## novaburst (Apr 18, 2016)

I have been on some music sites, I remember one particular artist, producer who was very good what ever piece or mix he would upload he would get a crazy amount of comments on his bar it would always be full of comments even when I wanted to give a comment to him it would be very difficult to find a space to write, this was consistent with most of his music uploads,

Any way one day he ripped off or copied a piece of music from a an under ground artist who does a lot of indi music, and mixed with his own music then he uploaded it, then the comments came with slamming kicking disrespecting him cussing him and tearing him apart for what he had copied

His reply was I'm just being innovative, but the slamming kept piling on and the disrespect kept coming on his comment bar.

Perhaps if he said in the first place I copied this piece from another artist tell me how did I do, maybe he would have been respected as apposed to making people believe it was his own creation.

Neve the less each time after that issue when he would upload any music he got very few comment from the members of that music site no matter how creative his music was he seemed to loose the respect of every member apart from a few.

May be some may think that's silly, but I feel and watched this guy go from very respected to very disrespected, 

If you or any one are copying other people's ideas weather it be there cord progression or melody, may be just to own up and say I have been influenced by this song and I got the idea from this piece, maybe there would not be court cases if artist confessed where they got there idea from and gave credit where credit is due

Yes you can call its only a chord progression but you know as well as I and many more who sit in silence but know deep down its a ripp off or a copy, 

I have here many a same chord progressions but when the rest off the music or harmony, melody is applied they sound worlds apart so how is that then, that is because they have never herd each other's music and so the chord progressions were the same but the feel , mood signature, were world apart.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 18, 2016)

Daryl said:


> It's "you've got to get closer to that temp score, or you lose the gig" that affects many media composers. In commercial music, just as in the studio film industry, there is a great temptation to copy what was previously successful. After all, it's about making money, as far as the financial backers are concerned..


And there it is.
Well said, the staus quo, the industry standard of "plagiarism lite" is threatened.
Bravo.

k


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 18, 2016)

For years everyone thought I was Bruce Foxton. He plagiarised my look. I may sue.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Apr 18, 2016)

When I was 12, I had a friend in the school choir who told me all Beatles songs had already been written by J.S. Bach. He had read this in a Reader's Digest article, where someone had analyzed the Beatles chord progressions. I told him it was ludicrous. Still think so.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 18, 2016)

Not as ludicrous as saying it was the other way round, which I had the dubious pleasure of being told in a very serious manner on one occasion.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 18, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Not as ludicrous as saying it was the other way round, which I had the dubious pleasure of being told in a very serious manner on one occasion.


What, haven't you ever heard of time travel?


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 19, 2016)

I had one guy tell me he couldn't understand why Mozart didn't make his own CDs. 

Seriously I hear you say?

Oh yes. You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Apr 19, 2016)

I honestly didn´t want to chime into this discussion because it ends up with grief between members here (unfortunately) just because having different point of views or philosophies where plagiarism probably starts and end. Finally in my lunch break I had the chance to take a listen to that Taurus Song and surely I can understand to a certain degree that people are saying that this is very similiar because the way how the chord progression goes there and _still_ those kind of guitar progressions (I am a guitarist for over 20 years) are all over the place because it is a very common way for a guitarist to make those movements with his hands on the guitar. Ecspecially in that times back then this was and still is a very common standard progression. I have very mixed feelings here as I don´t think that neither the vibe of the 2 songs nor the structure are going similiar paths.


----------

