Lots of legal points to deal with, such as who had access to what. (and where and when?)
But that part is best left to the lawyers.
Musically, the similarity is there. I think the biggest differences are stylistic rather than substance.
And a big part of that is due to rhythmic and rhythm section differences.
But that's to be understood. After all, how many different versions of You Ain't Nothin" But A Hound Dog have you heard and yet still accept it all as the same tune?
The biggest factor here, in my opinion, is the similarity in the single note melody line.
If Coldplay doesn't concede to Satriani being the originator, they, at the very least, should offer a "tip of the hat" for inspiration.
For what it's worth, I think Satriani's version has more teeth and delivers the emotional message more effectively.
Interesting, Socks. I'm no musician, but the melody sure sounds identical to me. The opening rhythm is different on the Coldplay song, but once that fades and the melody comes on, it sure seems like a carbon copy.
When it comes to plagiarism, I wonder how much of it is unintentional, especially as it pertains to musical compositions. I've often thought you could hear some music without giving it much thought and then later come up with a tune you think is your own, but it really arose from the subconscious memory somewhere.
Nevertheless, Judge Linda says, "Give the money to the guitarist. You Coldplay guys have plenty to spare, it would seem."
When it comes to plagiarism, I wonder how much of it is unintentional, especially as it pertains to musical compositions. I've often thought you could hear some music without giving it much thought and then later come up with a tune you think is your own, but it really arose from the subconscious memory somewhere.
Exactly, Linda!
Before the days of the internet, a big part of claiming originality involved showing that you never had access to the original. In other words, some cat in Tanzania could pen something very similar to something you penned in Iowa but without having an opportunity to hear each other, the likelihood of copying was slim. That's why George Harrison found himself in hot water with his recording of My Sweet Lord
. The tune had already been a big hit for The Chiffons as He's So Fine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nToEQ3HRM18. It had lots of airplay. Harrison admitted he had heard it. And, though his duplication was alleged to be unintentional, that, in itself, is not an acceptable defense. Blues guys do it a lot. But, they usually "tip the hat" and acknowledge that their version was inspired by (insert name.) Also, even though you can not copywrite a tune that is in Public Domain, you can, in fact, copywrite an "arrangement", such as Stevie Ray Vaughn's take on Mary Had A Little Lamb.
(rubbing eyes - I thoght I was putting this in the "guitar" thread - late night fingers I guess)
It is similar, LindaZ, agreed. I think the intent will come into play here. Coldplay will probably benefit from the "George Harrison" effect - although not everyone likes their music they're recognized as nice humans and decent enough for a rock band anyway. I doubt the verdict could be anything but hand the bags of money over. CP won't hurt for it, I think you're right. :)
"Hound Dog" is a great example, waysider. Chuck Berry's another. (name any Berry tune).
Joe's distinguished himself as a passionate player, more than a shredder, but a writer and performer. He uses his bank of effects creatively to serve his music. He's enough of a fan of guitar to enjoy ripping hot molten guitar riffs of his own writing, with glee. Seeing him live it's obvious he enjoys playing as much as he enjoys knowing his audience enjoys it. He's a nice combination of serious-business 800 lb playing and fun.
Coldplay's kind of a hoot. Chris Martin's charismatic, to say the least. The rest of the band is a punch out affair, but they seem to be a happy combination of music and song. They're not really my thing but I was surprised how much I enjoyed them live.
Again, Harrison's verdict sounds about right here, and I wonder how Coldplay will approach it?
Best of all worlds to me - Coldplay performs the song at the Grammy's and Joe joins them for a round of "Viva!" :) That would be cool.
Thanks Mr. P-Tucket. All things been e-quilled, I'd have to accept Joe's reporting on his trying to settle out of court and get some recognition from Coldplay for the song(s).
What's really captured my attention on it is - well, kind of ironic. Many years ago, when JN was working it's last year or so, I wrote a song that contained the opening chords and figure - it was a little slower, with a finger picking and rhythm part played against each other but the sound is very similar -
it hits a G (Gmaj7) then to an F#m7, and second time through resolves to a B. I used open strings, high E and B, droning agains't the chord triads, played on the lower strings. At the time that's all I could do with it and it sounded nice, I like the way it forms a kind of "round" and can be played over and over, and where the B takes it to a 5th of the key of E there's a lot of room for improvising over it (which Satch does the deal with on his song of course) - because you can improvise in several keys, E, A, F#min, B, Gmaj - there's a lot of nice possibilities.
I ended up writing just two lines for the theme, and that's sat there for what - almost 30 years.
"If this were the start, the beginning again,
I'd start it all over with you".
I wrote them for my wife.
I had no idea until reading that what his inspiration was for that song. I will say that combination of chords is difficult to know what to do with - I never really resolved it. It's really been in the back of mind as some sort of a counterpoint to a marriage, always a work in progress.
It was funny at the time because I couldn't get where to take it next, a G - A felt right, etc. etc. - Lisa L. was on the tour with us at that time, a "Take a Stand" caravan trip or two, and at one point after I'd strummed it another 100 times, she commented "yeah, that's the kind of thing you like to hear over and over ... and over again..." She was making the point - is that it? I still fiddle with it, and it's odd how much it has the "feel" of Satch's tune.
I've been pondering whether to post this, but figured now it was too close to comfort to not - because it does go to show that music may always be a combination of something that's come before, as I'm sure virtually every combination of every tone set has been done at one time or another. Cest la vie, 'ey?
Truth may be stranger than fiction. :) I think they both did a good job with it.
The melodies, as noted in the youtube.com sample, are identical. Differences in inflection are minor, so minor they could be considered performance nuances. Written out, the portions noted are the same, the intervals note to note identical. Likewise the chord accompaniement uses the same approach to produce the sound of each.
Pretty much everyone agrees to the similarity, although I've read on some blogs and boards comments by Coldplay fans (not that you are Notawayfer) that the songs aren't anything alike. That's legitimate from a certain viewpoint and gets into the definition of what a "song" actually is to the listener, but doesn't work from musical standards. But for copyright purposes a "song" is a melody with chordal accompaniement.
The chords have some relevance because it produces the harmonic context for the melody. In theory I guess (and all of this can be debated from many different perspectives) a melody could be placed against different chords and by achieving a different context or "sound" be "different" as a "song", even though the intervals are still the same. From a musical and pure listening standpoint, there could be some merit to differentiating a song for copyright purposes that way. Coldplay's chords are the same as Satch's which is one of the strongest definers for the overall "song" similarity.
But to have a "song" there has to be a melody - and again that's a loose term - some instrumental songs, particularly guitar or piano pieces, are more exercises in fingerpicking and fingering techniques, and the "song" is really the string of chords and changes with the melody very loosely contained in them.
Satriani's different from many instrumental guitarists in that he emphasises composition in his recordings - they aren't strings of chords where he just jams over them and displays a technique or effect - a lot of guitarists do that, as does he on some stuff. But he typically produces some songs with solid melodies and arrangements. An acid "user" test for a song is - can you hum the melody? Can it be remembered? In both CP"s and JS's pieces, the answer would be yes.
Anyhoo - Coldplay's response is a little tinny to my ears. They're hugely popular recording artists but I doubt anyone would put them in the same league as Satch, musically. Which doesn't have anything to do really with the music market. If people like a song, they like it regardless of how advanced the music is and that's as it should be.
Which is one of the reasons I do like Satriani - he writes things that are in his genre that don't have to scream "I'm the greatest guitarist in the WORLD". He does lots of different things, given his real interest is to explore and advance guitar.
Recommended Posts
waysider
Interesting stuff.
Lots of legal points to deal with, such as who had access to what. (and where and when?)
But that part is best left to the lawyers.
Musically, the similarity is there. I think the biggest differences are stylistic rather than substance.
And a big part of that is due to rhythmic and rhythm section differences.
But that's to be understood. After all, how many different versions of You Ain't Nothin" But A Hound Dog have you heard and yet still accept it all as the same tune?
The biggest factor here, in my opinion, is the similarity in the single note melody line.
If Coldplay doesn't concede to Satriani being the originator, they, at the very least, should offer a "tip of the hat" for inspiration.
For what it's worth, I think Satriani's version has more teeth and delivers the emotional message more effectively.
(And I'm not usually impressed by "shredders".)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hound Dog
The original (performed by the writer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcK6Ct22Y8A
Revamped for a "different" audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JALwwaASg
Johnny Burnette
Macy Gray (With a bit of Susie Q flavor in the rhythm section)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=456f0ZPWrx0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Interesting, Socks. I'm no musician, but the melody sure sounds identical to me. The opening rhythm is different on the Coldplay song, but once that fades and the melody comes on, it sure seems like a carbon copy.
When it comes to plagiarism, I wonder how much of it is unintentional, especially as it pertains to musical compositions. I've often thought you could hear some music without giving it much thought and then later come up with a tune you think is your own, but it really arose from the subconscious memory somewhere.
Nevertheless, Judge Linda says, "Give the money to the guitarist. You Coldplay guys have plenty to spare, it would seem."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Exactly, Linda!
Before the days of the internet, a big part of claiming originality involved showing that you never had access to the original. In other words, some cat in Tanzania could pen something very similar to something you penned in Iowa but without having an opportunity to hear each other, the likelihood of copying was slim. That's why George Harrison found himself in hot water with his recording of My Sweet Lord
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
MATILDA
D'oh! now you done it, waysider...can't get that tune outta my haid, now...
My sweet Lord (do-lang do-lang do-lang)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
(rubbing eyes - I thoght I was putting this in the "guitar" thread - late night fingers I guess)
It is similar, LindaZ, agreed. I think the intent will come into play here. Coldplay will probably benefit from the "George Harrison" effect - although not everyone likes their music they're recognized as nice humans and decent enough for a rock band anyway. I doubt the verdict could be anything but hand the bags of money over. CP won't hurt for it, I think you're right. :)
"Hound Dog" is a great example, waysider. Chuck Berry's another. (name any Berry tune).
Joe's distinguished himself as a passionate player, more than a shredder, but a writer and performer. He uses his bank of effects creatively to serve his music. He's enough of a fan of guitar to enjoy ripping hot molten guitar riffs of his own writing, with glee. Seeing him live it's obvious he enjoys playing as much as he enjoys knowing his audience enjoys it. He's a nice combination of serious-business 800 lb playing and fun.
Coldplay's kind of a hoot. Chris Martin's charismatic, to say the least. The rest of the band is a punch out affair, but they seem to be a happy combination of music and song. They're not really my thing but I was surprised how much I enjoyed them live.
Again, Harrison's verdict sounds about right here, and I wonder how Coldplay will approach it?
Best of all worlds to me - Coldplay performs the song at the Grammy's and Joe joins them for a round of "Viva!" :) That would be cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
M lady - those do-lang's have always caught my ear. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that session...
"oo-oo-oo-ooo ooo ooooh.....oo-oo-"
No, try doo doo...
"doo doo doo doooo do doooh...do do-"
No, try-
"Dang it! Make up your mind!"
Yeah, that's it....do dang do dang do dang...
"Do yang, do lang do dang....how's THAT!"
Perfect!!! Do lang! That's it!!!
And history was made...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Well Coldplay are dismissing the whole thing!! Kinda dumb for them to be saying anything, but they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Thanks Mr. P-Tucket. All things been e-quilled, I'd have to accept Joe's reporting on his trying to settle out of court and get some recognition from Coldplay for the song(s).
What's really captured my attention on it is - well, kind of ironic. Many years ago, when JN was working it's last year or so, I wrote a song that contained the opening chords and figure - it was a little slower, with a finger picking and rhythm part played against each other but the sound is very similar -
it hits a G (Gmaj7) then to an F#m7, and second time through resolves to a B. I used open strings, high E and B, droning agains't the chord triads, played on the lower strings. At the time that's all I could do with it and it sounded nice, I like the way it forms a kind of "round" and can be played over and over, and where the B takes it to a 5th of the key of E there's a lot of room for improvising over it (which Satch does the deal with on his song of course) - because you can improvise in several keys, E, A, F#min, B, Gmaj - there's a lot of nice possibilities.
I ended up writing just two lines for the theme, and that's sat there for what - almost 30 years.
"If this were the start, the beginning again,
I'd start it all over with you".
I wrote them for my wife.
I had no idea until reading that what his inspiration was for that song. I will say that combination of chords is difficult to know what to do with - I never really resolved it. It's really been in the back of mind as some sort of a counterpoint to a marriage, always a work in progress.
It was funny at the time because I couldn't get where to take it next, a G - A felt right, etc. etc. - Lisa L. was on the tour with us at that time, a "Take a Stand" caravan trip or two, and at one point after I'd strummed it another 100 times, she commented "yeah, that's the kind of thing you like to hear over and over ... and over again..." She was making the point - is that it? I still fiddle with it, and it's odd how much it has the "feel" of Satch's tune.
I've been pondering whether to post this, but figured now it was too close to comfort to not - because it does go to show that music may always be a combination of something that's come before, as I'm sure virtually every combination of every tone set has been done at one time or another. Cest la vie, 'ey?
Truth may be stranger than fiction. :) I think they both did a good job with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Call me stupid, but I don't hear the similarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That would be unkind.
The melodies, as noted in the youtube.com sample, are identical. Differences in inflection are minor, so minor they could be considered performance nuances. Written out, the portions noted are the same, the intervals note to note identical. Likewise the chord accompaniement uses the same approach to produce the sound of each.
Pretty much everyone agrees to the similarity, although I've read on some blogs and boards comments by Coldplay fans (not that you are Notawayfer) that the songs aren't anything alike. That's legitimate from a certain viewpoint and gets into the definition of what a "song" actually is to the listener, but doesn't work from musical standards. But for copyright purposes a "song" is a melody with chordal accompaniement.
The chords have some relevance because it produces the harmonic context for the melody. In theory I guess (and all of this can be debated from many different perspectives) a melody could be placed against different chords and by achieving a different context or "sound" be "different" as a "song", even though the intervals are still the same. From a musical and pure listening standpoint, there could be some merit to differentiating a song for copyright purposes that way. Coldplay's chords are the same as Satch's which is one of the strongest definers for the overall "song" similarity.
But to have a "song" there has to be a melody - and again that's a loose term - some instrumental songs, particularly guitar or piano pieces, are more exercises in fingerpicking and fingering techniques, and the "song" is really the string of chords and changes with the melody very loosely contained in them.
Satriani's different from many instrumental guitarists in that he emphasises composition in his recordings - they aren't strings of chords where he just jams over them and displays a technique or effect - a lot of guitarists do that, as does he on some stuff. But he typically produces some songs with solid melodies and arrangements. An acid "user" test for a song is - can you hum the melody? Can it be remembered? In both CP"s and JS's pieces, the answer would be yes.
Anyhoo - Coldplay's response is a little tinny to my ears. They're hugely popular recording artists but I doubt anyone would put them in the same league as Satch, musically. Which doesn't have anything to do really with the music market. If people like a song, they like it regardless of how advanced the music is and that's as it should be.
Which is one of the reasons I do like Satriani - he writes things that are in his genre that don't have to scream "I'm the greatest guitarist in the WORLD". He does lots of different things, given his real interest is to explore and advance guitar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Compare this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiLsDsVKlq8
With this:
OR
This:
With this:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.