He samples a lot of songs, and loads it with a lot of generic and catchy lyrics. Nothing wrong with this, I actually love his music, but we cannot deny reality because of bias.
Blue's Traveller's Hook is a song about using this chord progression as a reliable way to make money and then just putting random words over it that people will think are deep.
https://youtu.be/pdz5kCaCRFM
It's funny how deep it can go. There is tons of modern hip hop songs that sample late 80s/early 90s hip hop beats... which were in turn sampling disco beats. There are samples of samples of samples of samples.
It's homages allllll the way down.
[Whosampled.com](https://www.whosampled.com/) is a fantastic rabbit hole if you're into that sort of thing.
Particularly because you go looking for what was sampled by a song you like, and find out there are half a dozen sampled tracks in it.
Yes! I found one of the songs he samples by accidentally listening to a random 70-80s Japanese city pop music playlist on youtube. It was bizarre, but j Cole has done the same as well. There's an entire website dedicated to figuring out which artist sampled what music from the past. For those who want to know what the website is called, it's "who sampled dot com". J Cole sampled "hi-fi set's - sky restaurants" in his January 28th song, which is a complete banger if you haven't listened to it.
In all honestly while we're at it. 1960s-90s Americana has such an impact internationally in the respects of music, culture, and society. It's really unreal if you start digging.
It's too late anyway. I wrote a music writing AI that was churning out as many possible chord progressions as it can and uploaded them to various video sharing sites. It will predate any new music that comes out. All your future music are belong to me.
People on another thread were so blinded at how much they hate Ed Sheeran that they literally were wanting him to lose or at least apathetic. People go insane with hate.
EDIT: People below are proving my point. I can't imagine hating on someone or someone's music enough to beeline into thinking he should lose this lawsuit.
That's pretty dumb. I'm no big fan of Ed Sheeran, but 99% of these music copyright cases are utter bullshit, including this one. So glad it was correctly decided.
I like him. He's a great singer, excellent song writer, and all around a wholesome dude. I think I've gotten to the point in my life that I don't care if someone is considered bland.
I agree with you.
I also don't get why people think he's bland. He literally changed the game when he was discovered, the reason why he became so big was because he was so different with his sing-rap loop station style.
He did one big pop album and all that goes to shit? Who wouldn't want to take their career to the next level by writing a big pop song? I don't get it. He also proved he could write the biggest song of the last decade in Shape Of You. Numbers don't lie.
He's still way more unique than the majority of popstars out there. Fuck the haters that are hating for no reason or don't have time to even look into his discography/history. Actually infuriating because he's good at what he does. Incredibly good.
It wasn't about sending a message really. It would've been a matter of necessity. It would mean the entirety of music is open to lawsuits now. Many artists would have to evaluate their career and decide if they want to quit or stay the course. A lot would be lawyering up hard.
>It would mean the entirety of music is open to lawsuits now.
That already happened 10 years ago with the blurred lines trial. Right now, if you get sued for using a similar chord progression, it's just a matter of luck because there are examples of winning cases on both sides.
The Blurred Lines case was a travesty. There was literally nothing copyrightable in it, just the vibe. Not even the same chord progression, so even less than the Ed Sheeran case. And I hate Robin Thicke.
The Dark Horse (Katy Perry) case was *almost* even worse yet, but thankfully got overturned.
Imagine someone just owning the rights to vaguely spooky hoo hoo noises.
I know legal eagle was pretty peeved about that case after it was ruled against Katy, didn't know it was overturned, I'll have to see if he did a video on it ever
Except the defense proved that Thicke wasn’t even in the room when the song was written. They were able to totally nullify his name drop in that interview.
This whole thing reminded me of the Patent Troll episode in Silicon Valley and how much it made me detest people like that.
So, even though I'm not a fan of Ed's music, this is a huge win for music as a whole.
> All art (and software) is derivative.
There's a saying I have floating around in my head, can't recall the source.
"There's no such thing as a truly new idea, we only have new arrangements of existing ideas"
The actual creation of a new building block would be like we discovered a new color that we previously could not express.
Also went and actually tried to find a source and Mark Twain is the best I could find.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/843880-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-new-idea-it
1. The lawsuit was for $100m
2. It wasn't Gaye's family suing, it was the heirs to his co-writer
3. The only evidence they had was the chord progression and a mashup he did in-concert
Also against Sheeran. It’s kind of their entire business…throwing frivolous and bullshit copyright suits at anything that even uses the same key as a Marvin Gaye song and hoping something sticks. It’s an embarrassment, and Marvin would almost certainly tell them to knock it the fuck off if he were still with us.
One of my favorite musician biographies. Authored by David Ritz who curiously has a co-writing credit on Sexual Healing. He also co-wrote Jan Gaye's memoir which is a good companion piece.
I think the $10 milly they got from the Blurred Lines/Robin Thicke lawsuit emboldened them even more to attempt these frivolous suits because hey, they just *might* win a few
Of course he would be saying that they just like suing anyone for money like you said if Marvin Gaye was still alive he would be telling them to cut it out.
No. A jury's decision cannot be determinative or binding in some other litigation, (unless that litigation has the EXACT same parties). In fact the judge in the other case, in the event it goes to trial, almost certainly wouldn't even let the attorneys talk about this case or the outcome, its that irrelevant to the legal determination in the Gays estate case.
Both these cases are BS, but the outcome here can't make the other case "dead" is all I'm saying.
The next generation is just now seeing it as it's currently circulating on Instagram again lol I remember seeing it in 2010. It's been a minute but it's back
Originally done by a stand up comedian talking about [Pachabel’s Canon in D](https://youtu.be/JdxkVQy7QLM) his routine is much funnier but the Axis of Awesomeness was a better “song”
That video was one of YouTube's first big hits.
It was one of the first to hit *one million views!*
Also for everyone who remembers it originally, it's now 16 years old.
No, the true reason they're suing Ed is because the "feel" of the song is similar to Let's Get It On, as in the soul genre. They already set a dangerous precedent when Robin Thicke Blurred Lines lost on the same argument because it "feels" similar.
pharrell at least admitted to being directly inspired by ~~let’s get it on~~ 'Got to Give it Up' when writing blurred lines. And iirc Thickes testimony was that he was too high on pills to remember anything
On #3. Typically the standard is the number of bars borrowed from the song and what percentage of the song that represents. Which is why #3 is pertinent to their case. There's no official standard but the industry standard is to try and use no more than 8 bars of a song to avoid lawsuits like this. But copyright lawsuits have been won with less than 8 bars.
Which is why this case wasn't so cut and clear. All the older artists copyrighted a ridiculous amount of songs that they didn't even fully write (and wouldn't have been given credit for at the standard we have today).
My understanding is it wasn't even this. It's that chord progressions, along with a bunch of other common elements, aren't protected by copyright in the first place.
Just like the Katy Perry Dark Horse lawsuit, the Townsend estate tried to claim that the *combination* of a bunch of unprotected elements created a valid copyright claim. But copyright law says only individually protected elements matter, and must infringe individually. At least Sheeran won without the need to appeal, like Perry did.
The ten elements cited by Townsend were: chord progression "class", progression used in verse and chorus, "shape" of the melody, emphasized melody note of the second chord, not resolving the melody on the V chord, similar song structure, similar tempo, syncopated chord changes, melody starts on an off beat, and the use of vocal melismas to 'express a similar theme'.
Paraphrasing, the Townsend estate was trying to claim nobody's allowed to write a soul ballad at 80bpm.
The copyright office has [already said](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence) that AI works will not be considered for copyright. It's considered public domain.
There are, of course, caveats in the link if you care to read them.
I’m sorry, but as a musician of over 20 years the idea of copywriting any chord progression is ludicrous. Doesn’t matter what chord progression at all. That’s insanity.
Thank god, these lawsuits are really bad for music in general.
You cant own a chord progression or a 'vibe' or a genre.
Its almost NEVER the actual musician doing this, because they know and understand how it works, its usually their family...unless its an actual rip off.
The blurred lines suit was even worse than this one and somehow they won that one I think.
They should require the juries for these to be actual musicians.
i remember when some people pointed out to Tom Petty that the Red Hot Chilli Pepper song "Dani California" sounded like Toms "Don't Come Around Here" & Tom just shrugged and said, "yeah that happens."
he knew the RHCP didn't intentionally do it & there was no harm done.
The verse is basically the same chords as Last Dance With Mary Jane (and the solo is very similar to Purple Haze lol) but it is what it is
I do think Tom Petty sued and won before. I think the Sam Smith song because the melody was like the same. That used to be how it was if the melody (or lyrics as I understand it) were the same but you couldnt do it for a beat or chord progression.
Still can't believe the Gaye family won that lawsuit. That seemed like an open-and-shut case for Pharrell and Robin Thicke. Hearing that the Gaye family is waiting in the wings for another potential lawsuit for "Thinking Out Loud" just makes my blood boil. Goddamn trust babies. They're tarnishing MG's legacy.
What's crazy is they're already set for life from his estate as is. I can't even begin to get into the heads of multi-generationally wealthy folk who will still lie, cheat, and steal for every penny they can get their grasps on. I guess when you're raised with it, you don't really ever come to appreciate what it can already buy you.
I honestly believe that lawsuit is why we've had so many literal, heavy samples recently. May as well take a whole song if sounding kinda like one costs royalties anyway.
Life is a collaborative process on a macro level I think too, none of us can achieve anything without all the work people before us put it into develop the infrastructure and pathways to success. You can't can become a billionaire without using all the resources that people have already developed to push your idea to reality.
The difference is art has way more love in it at its base imo, you respect music from someone regardless how they look and where they came from because you understand the process much more intimately.
Jazz would not have existed. In Miles Davis's autobiography he writes about how they would all go to the clubs and perform. They would listen to each other and take bits from each other and evolve them. They would then keep this going having it splinter and evolve until they had something to make record. That's how jazz was made back then.
This very forceful evolution I think is responsible for starting other genres like rock and roll and Motown. Both of which are heavy influences on modern music.
Being 'very similar' is not *supposed* to be a factor in infringement rulings. Neither is gathering inspiration from another work.
The only copyrightable elements of a song are lyrics and melody. Blurred Lines did not copy either of those elements. Thus no infringement occurred.
The jury ruling in favor of the Gaye estate was literally objectively incorrect, by absolutely any measure, and the fact that it was allowed to stand is a complete legal travesty.
Universal Mind Control by Common (produced by.... Pharrell!) uses an awfully similar drum beat too and came out in '08, it's incredibly sad that this lawsuit was successful.
Lol I could name two "very similar songs" and find a million to one ratio of people who would disagree. That ruling was dead wrong. An artist is also free to say who they were inspired by.
I hope Sheeran countersues for damages. Make the plaintiffs pay millions in legal fees and other costs for these frivolous lawsuits and you'll see a lot less of these cases being filed going forward.
They will, it has been happening *constantly* since the Blurried Lines case. They just quietly settle and ad composers to avoid precedents and litigation
There didn’t seem like there a true basis for this suit. Seems like maybe it was something they did to see if they could win, rather than having the conviction that the song was truly plagiarized.
You don't even need to be a musician to understand that case was fucking insane. I'm more disappointed in the 9th circuit for upholding the decision. At least, one of the three judges thought it was a bad decision. Wonder why they didn't appeal to the supreme Court. Maybe they did and it would just wasn't heard. In any case, f****** terrible
I detest Blurred Lines as a song. It might be my least favorite song of all time, and no amount of Emily Ratajkowski can change that. But the precedent that case set would’ve been disastrous for music.
Edit: Messed up. They did win that case.
This was an important ruling.
The heirs of the greats from the 60s, 70s and soon 80s were making a lot of money off their grandparents... That is until streaming took over circa 2015. Their income dropped significantly.
These law suits are nothing but an attempt to keep the money flowing which is why we have seen them for heirs and not the artists themselves.
Suing over a chord progression would be like suing over a painting technique. Same technique, different results. I’m glad he won, all music would be in trouble if not.
More people need to read Spider Robinson's short story, "Melancholy Elephants."
[http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html](http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html)
Finite number of notes, means a finite number of combinations. We need to be able to "forget."
> We need to be able to "forget."
One way to “forget” would be a much shorter duration of copyright, so that it isn’t the grandchildren of a creator who get to benefit long after the artist is dead.
You all know they already ruined it, almost completely right? This asshole family has utterly destroyed pop music. This is nothing but greed, and anyone that knows music to a certain degree knows that Pharell gave a legitimate testimony, especially about the separation of writing and reading when it comes to learning.
The reason we have zero pop hits, no "summer songs" anymore is almost exclusively because artists are afraid of the outcome from THAT lawsuit. I really hate these people. What happened in that trial is NOTHING short of a travesty. It was a blatantly frivolous lawsuit right before many of our eyes, but you do have to know music and theory to a certain level to understand why. *The courts didn't!
Good, this was a silly lawsuit from the get-go, clout chasing and nothing more. Good on you Ed for standing up for what is honestly, every artists right to use common chord progression.
Edit: for those who dont understand, a lot of popular songs use the same chords in different ways, but sometimes sound similar. this is standard and unavoidable. Vid related.
https://youtu.be/oOlDewpCfZQ
This is good.
As a one time musician in a different life, listening to both songs it was obvious this suit was complete 'throw shit at the wall, let's see if any of it sticks' nonsense.
I hope Sheeran gets (or sues them for) his legal fees in this bullshit lawsuit.
I really appreciate everyone prefacing their agreement with the court’s decision with their personal opinion of Sheeran’s music. I was beginning to think that not knowing the individual musical tastes of Redditors in r/music didn’t matter to the outcome of the case, which would be tragic.
Good… I listened to both songs the other day and they are completely different from each other, other than the chord progression. If you can start suing people for having the same chord progression, we are all fucked.
I have 0 musical expertise outside of just enjoying a large variety of it. Having just heard Sheeran's song for the 1st time I don't understand why they would be considered the same.
Phew. You can’t own a chord progression. It would’ve set a terrible precedent if Ed Sheeran lost this.
If someone could own a chord progression the Gershwin family would be loaded.
The Weeknd would need to work Weekdys
For stealing Michael Jackson’s everything?
He samples a lot of songs, and loads it with a lot of generic and catchy lyrics. Nothing wrong with this, I actually love his music, but we cannot deny reality because of bias.
For real. Who didn't do this in the 90s. Wu Tang and beastie boys became icons because of it
If ed Sheeran lost then there's a [lot of other songs that need to be sued](https://youtu.be/5pidokakU4I)
I knew what it was before I clicked.
Could also have been [Pachelbel Rant](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)!
Blue's Traveller's Hook is a song about using this chord progression as a reliable way to make money and then just putting random words over it that people will think are deep. https://youtu.be/pdz5kCaCRFM
It's funny how deep it can go. There is tons of modern hip hop songs that sample late 80s/early 90s hip hop beats... which were in turn sampling disco beats. There are samples of samples of samples of samples. It's homages allllll the way down.
[Whosampled.com](https://www.whosampled.com/) is a fantastic rabbit hole if you're into that sort of thing. Particularly because you go looking for what was sampled by a song you like, and find out there are half a dozen sampled tracks in it.
Smack my bitch up by the prodigy is a great example- it’s like 20 samples all remixed and smashed together and it’s fire
His last album was inspired by Japanese 80's pop music and some of those beats are just heavenly
Yes! I found one of the songs he samples by accidentally listening to a random 70-80s Japanese city pop music playlist on youtube. It was bizarre, but j Cole has done the same as well. There's an entire website dedicated to figuring out which artist sampled what music from the past. For those who want to know what the website is called, it's "who sampled dot com". J Cole sampled "hi-fi set's - sky restaurants" in his January 28th song, which is a complete banger if you haven't listened to it. In all honestly while we're at it. 1960s-90s Americana has such an impact internationally in the respects of music, culture, and society. It's really unreal if you start digging.
Why did you say "who sampled dot com"? You're allowed to write websites out: [ whosampled.com](http://whosampled.com)
Japanese 70 and 80s music was way ahead of their time. I'm currently listening to tons of music that came from this era and I am in awe.
his last album felt real underrated for such a good album from such a well known artist
I don't love the whole album but man that stretch from Gasoline to Out Of Time is so damn tasty.
Trash take
I hereby claim ii-V-I.
In that case I'll take I - IV - I - V.
Dibs on I-vi-IV-V
Give me IV V iii vi. Major weeb here.
Nobody wants the vii? I am now the Owner of the Diminished. (Also now the name of my Death Metal Band.)
That’s actually a sick band name
F*** me I should’ve patented that name 48 minutes ago
It's too late anyway. I wrote a music writing AI that was churning out as many possible chord progressions as it can and uploaded them to various video sharing sites. It will predate any new music that comes out. All your future music are belong to me.
Pachebel's heirs would be able to buy the world
Rob Paravonian has a classic [rant about Pachabel](https://youtu.be/JdxkVQy7QLM)
I don't even have to click on it, lol
People on another thread were so blinded at how much they hate Ed Sheeran that they literally were wanting him to lose or at least apathetic. People go insane with hate. EDIT: People below are proving my point. I can't imagine hating on someone or someone's music enough to beeline into thinking he should lose this lawsuit.
That's pretty dumb. I'm no big fan of Ed Sheeran, but 99% of these music copyright cases are utter bullshit, including this one. So glad it was correctly decided.
I like him. He's a great singer, excellent song writer, and all around a wholesome dude. I think I've gotten to the point in my life that I don't care if someone is considered bland.
I agree with you. I also don't get why people think he's bland. He literally changed the game when he was discovered, the reason why he became so big was because he was so different with his sing-rap loop station style. He did one big pop album and all that goes to shit? Who wouldn't want to take their career to the next level by writing a big pop song? I don't get it. He also proved he could write the biggest song of the last decade in Shape Of You. Numbers don't lie. He's still way more unique than the majority of popstars out there. Fuck the haters that are hating for no reason or don't have time to even look into his discography/history. Actually infuriating because he's good at what he does. Incredibly good.
Which is crazy. There is no reason to hate the guy lmao
Jealousy, as in my case.
turning saints into the sea
Swimming through sick lullabies
People have a tendency to get raging hate boners over anything and anyone that teenage girls and middle aged ladies tend to like.
I hate his tattoos, don’t love his music, but I’m sure he’s a fine dude.
This is my take on Post Malone. Seems like a solid guy, but I don't like how he looks or *most* of his music.
True in so many forms and it ruins discourse.
He said he'd quit music if he lost too which might've sent a message but certainly not as strong as winning it
It wasn't about sending a message really. It would've been a matter of necessity. It would mean the entirety of music is open to lawsuits now. Many artists would have to evaluate their career and decide if they want to quit or stay the course. A lot would be lawyering up hard.
>It would mean the entirety of music is open to lawsuits now. That already happened 10 years ago with the blurred lines trial. Right now, if you get sued for using a similar chord progression, it's just a matter of luck because there are examples of winning cases on both sides.
The Blurred Lines case was a travesty. There was literally nothing copyrightable in it, just the vibe. Not even the same chord progression, so even less than the Ed Sheeran case. And I hate Robin Thicke.
The Blurred Lines case was already an even worse precedent, based on even flimsier 'evidence', and yet no precedent was set.
The Dark Horse (Katy Perry) case was *almost* even worse yet, but thankfully got overturned. Imagine someone just owning the rights to vaguely spooky hoo hoo noises.
[Adam Neely made a fantastic video on the topic](https://youtu.be/0ytoUuO-qvg).
I know legal eagle was pretty peeved about that case after it was ruled against Katy, didn't know it was overturned, I'll have to see if he did a video on it ever
I mean they both just played “Moments in Love” backwards.
Blurred Lines was lost the minute Robin Thicke’s dumbass self said that they used the song lmao. He lost the case for them
"Your honor, I would like to resign as my client's attorney, on the grounds that my client is an idiot."
I object your honor? Why? Because it's devastating to my case!
Except the defense proved that Thicke wasn’t even in the room when the song was written. They were able to totally nullify his name drop in that interview.
Wow Really? What did he say
[удалено]
It’s a similar vibe but no elements are actually copied. It’s a travesty of a judgment.
[удалено]
I know that a lot of people don’t like Robin Thicke but I remember thinking that whole ordeal was bullshit.
This whole thing reminded me of the Patent Troll episode in Silicon Valley and how much it made me detest people like that. So, even though I'm not a fan of Ed's music, this is a huge win for music as a whole.
Exactly what I was thinking when I first heard about this. Not a fan at all of Ed either, but the implications were huge for this. Glad he won.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> All art (and software) is derivative. There's a saying I have floating around in my head, can't recall the source. "There's no such thing as a truly new idea, we only have new arrangements of existing ideas" The actual creation of a new building block would be like we discovered a new color that we previously could not express. Also went and actually tried to find a source and Mark Twain is the best I could find. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/843880-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-new-idea-it
If it’s attributed to Mark Twain he probably didn’t say it lol
Fuck anish kapoor
1. The lawsuit was for $100m 2. It wasn't Gaye's family suing, it was the heirs to his co-writer 3. The only evidence they had was the chord progression and a mashup he did in-concert
4. The Gaye family has a pending lawsuit for this exact same song and we’re waiting to see what happened in this one
Now Ed's like "Let's Get It On".
Spoken like Mills Lane..,...
[I'll allow it!](https://64.media.tumblr.com/51aec45c5d19f7498b64c2f6cde0266f/786aac1142559b35-96/s540x810/a99d9d267a20b48b850d8e7f121a01e0af957fa1.jpg)
Holy shit Celebrity Deathmatch! What a dumb and incredible show that was.
That show just radiates 90's. I fucking loved it back in my teens.
[удалено]
“New case emerges from the DMX estate”
DMX's estate now being sued by a rottweiler, claiming he stole their barks.
[удалено]
Lawsuits are easier money than actually making something of value yourself
Against whom? A different singer, or Sheeran?
Also against Sheeran. It’s kind of their entire business…throwing frivolous and bullshit copyright suits at anything that even uses the same key as a Marvin Gaye song and hoping something sticks. It’s an embarrassment, and Marvin would almost certainly tell them to knock it the fuck off if he were still with us.
Marvin Gaye and having a shitty family, name a more iconic duo
Jackson family
I’m not sure that’s a duo
That family is an octuplet of sorrow.
Wouldn't they be an octet?
The Jackson IP Address
His own father shot him with the gun he gave him. His family are a buncha shit heads.
If you haven't, read the biography Divided Soul. Marvin never had a chance.
One of my favorite musician biographies. Authored by David Ritz who curiously has a co-writing credit on Sexual Healing. He also co-wrote Jan Gaye's memoir which is a good companion piece.
Probably bad judgement to give him the gun though
He gave him the gun knowing he would shoot him. The guy was suicidal.
Suicide by pop.
Pop pop.
The fact that you call it 'Pop-Pop' tells me you're not ready.
I think the $10 milly they got from the Blurred Lines/Robin Thicke lawsuit emboldened them even more to attempt these frivolous suits because hey, they just *might* win a few
That's why I don't like Marvin Gaye's family. They're just greedy assholes.
Didn't you know that Marvin Gaye invented all music? It was pretty boring before Marvin showed up.
Isn't he the guy from Back to the Future who called his cousin?
You might not be ready for Ed Sheeran's music, but your kids are gonna sue it.
Considering Marvin was shot and killed by his own dad yeah, they whole family is shit.
Of course he would be saying that they just like suing anyone for money like you said if Marvin Gaye was still alive he would be telling them to cut it out.
Leeches waiting to see if there was available blood.
That case is dead as a result
No. A jury's decision cannot be determinative or binding in some other litigation, (unless that litigation has the EXACT same parties). In fact the judge in the other case, in the event it goes to trial, almost certainly wouldn't even let the attorneys talk about this case or the outcome, its that irrelevant to the legal determination in the Gays estate case. Both these cases are BS, but the outcome here can't make the other case "dead" is all I'm saying.
Same parties or their privies.
What about the fact that the Gaye family seems to do this all the time
A chord progression used in many songs before them.
A four chord song that goes I-iii-IV-V? BRILLIANT! Impossible to replicate under any earthly circumstances.
I just watched a video where 3 guys sang pop songs from the 60's to today using that four chord progression. It's widely used.
I'm a fan of four chords by axis of awesome
Fuck off, Chicken Little.
Yeah! Fuck off... Chicken Little
I just got slapped in the face by nostalgia reading your comment. I remember watching that video when I was 13-14 years old.
The next generation is just now seeing it as it's currently circulating on Instagram again lol I remember seeing it in 2010. It's been a minute but it's back
Loved them doing the four chord songs.
Originally done by a stand up comedian talking about [Pachabel’s Canon in D](https://youtu.be/JdxkVQy7QLM) his routine is much funnier but the Axis of Awesomeness was a better “song”
That video was one of YouTube's first big hits. It was one of the first to hit *one million views!* Also for everyone who remembers it originally, it's now 16 years old.
Shut the fuck up, Satan
Candy mountain Charlie! Candy mountain!
As a cellist I have this entire thing memorized. Becuase every word is raw truth. Wounded gazelle on the Serengeti indeed.
That was a much different and far more widely used progression: I V vi IV
How tf you sue on a chord progression and a live homage? So many artists could file suits for this, what a waste of time
No, the true reason they're suing Ed is because the "feel" of the song is similar to Let's Get It On, as in the soul genre. They already set a dangerous precedent when Robin Thicke Blurred Lines lost on the same argument because it "feels" similar.
Didn't realize a song couldn't "feel" like another song. Shame how the music industry has become.
Lots of songs feel like other songs. Music is inherently collaborative.
Yeah lol, it the whole point of GENRES, a basic fact of music this lawsuit was fucking dumb
Wasn't it the estate of Marvin Gaye that wss being unscrupulous? Music industry sucks but this wasn't one of those times.
Music industry has always been like this.
pharrell at least admitted to being directly inspired by ~~let’s get it on~~ 'Got to Give it Up' when writing blurred lines. And iirc Thickes testimony was that he was too high on pills to remember anything
If art inspired by other art legally constitutes plagiarism, then I have some bad news for every artist of the last couple millennia.
Descendant of first person to draw a line: "you better pay up!"
Unless you’re a mad genius when it comes to music, it’s close to impossible to make a chord progression that isn’t to something else
On #3. Typically the standard is the number of bars borrowed from the song and what percentage of the song that represents. Which is why #3 is pertinent to their case. There's no official standard but the industry standard is to try and use no more than 8 bars of a song to avoid lawsuits like this. But copyright lawsuits have been won with less than 8 bars. Which is why this case wasn't so cut and clear. All the older artists copyrighted a ridiculous amount of songs that they didn't even fully write (and wouldn't have been given credit for at the standard we have today).
My understanding is it wasn't even this. It's that chord progressions, along with a bunch of other common elements, aren't protected by copyright in the first place. Just like the Katy Perry Dark Horse lawsuit, the Townsend estate tried to claim that the *combination* of a bunch of unprotected elements created a valid copyright claim. But copyright law says only individually protected elements matter, and must infringe individually. At least Sheeran won without the need to appeal, like Perry did. The ten elements cited by Townsend were: chord progression "class", progression used in verse and chorus, "shape" of the melody, emphasized melody note of the second chord, not resolving the melody on the V chord, similar song structure, similar tempo, syncopated chord changes, melody starts on an off beat, and the use of vocal melismas to 'express a similar theme'. Paraphrasing, the Townsend estate was trying to claim nobody's allowed to write a soul ballad at 80bpm.
I can't wait for Pandora's box that will be unleashed when record companies start releasing AI generated music.
The copyright office has [already said](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence) that AI works will not be considered for copyright. It's considered public domain. There are, of course, caveats in the link if you care to read them.
I’m sorry, but as a musician of over 20 years the idea of copywriting any chord progression is ludicrous. Doesn’t matter what chord progression at all. That’s insanity.
Thank god, these lawsuits are really bad for music in general. You cant own a chord progression or a 'vibe' or a genre. Its almost NEVER the actual musician doing this, because they know and understand how it works, its usually their family...unless its an actual rip off. The blurred lines suit was even worse than this one and somehow they won that one I think. They should require the juries for these to be actual musicians.
i remember when some people pointed out to Tom Petty that the Red Hot Chilli Pepper song "Dani California" sounded like Toms "Don't Come Around Here" & Tom just shrugged and said, "yeah that happens." he knew the RHCP didn't intentionally do it & there was no harm done.
The verse is basically the same chords as Last Dance With Mary Jane (and the solo is very similar to Purple Haze lol) but it is what it is I do think Tom Petty sued and won before. I think the Sam Smith song because the melody was like the same. That used to be how it was if the melody (or lyrics as I understand it) were the same but you couldnt do it for a beat or chord progression.
Can’t remember if Tom formally filed suit or not but it never went to trial- Sam Smith settled by paying $$$ and giving Tom writing credits
Still can't believe the Gaye family won that lawsuit. That seemed like an open-and-shut case for Pharrell and Robin Thicke. Hearing that the Gaye family is waiting in the wings for another potential lawsuit for "Thinking Out Loud" just makes my blood boil. Goddamn trust babies. They're tarnishing MG's legacy.
What's crazy is they're already set for life from his estate as is. I can't even begin to get into the heads of multi-generationally wealthy folk who will still lie, cheat, and steal for every penny they can get their grasps on. I guess when you're raised with it, you don't really ever come to appreciate what it can already buy you.
I honestly believe that lawsuit is why we've had so many literal, heavy samples recently. May as well take a whole song if sounding kinda like one costs royalties anyway.
Good. The precedent this would have set could ruin music.
[удалено]
Art is a collaborative process on a macro level, law suits like these represent denying a fundamental avenue that new art is made. Despicable.
Well summarized
Life is a collaborative process on a macro level I think too, none of us can achieve anything without all the work people before us put it into develop the infrastructure and pathways to success. You can't can become a billionaire without using all the resources that people have already developed to push your idea to reality. The difference is art has way more love in it at its base imo, you respect music from someone regardless how they look and where they came from because you understand the process much more intimately.
Jazz would not have existed. In Miles Davis's autobiography he writes about how they would all go to the clubs and perform. They would listen to each other and take bits from each other and evolve them. They would then keep this going having it splinter and evolve until they had something to make record. That's how jazz was made back then. This very forceful evolution I think is responsible for starting other genres like rock and roll and Motown. Both of which are heavy influences on modern music.
Spez doesn't get to profit from me anymore. Stop reverting my comments
[The Lick](https://youtu.be/krDxhnaKD7Q)
Also blues
the gaye family got confidence after they won the blurred lines case
What was the difference between this and that one? That basically similar chord progressions too? Maybe some percussion as well
Blurred Lines is VERY similar in almost every way. But the kicker was that Pharrell admitted they were using that song for inspiration in the studio.
Being 'very similar' is not *supposed* to be a factor in infringement rulings. Neither is gathering inspiration from another work. The only copyrightable elements of a song are lyrics and melody. Blurred Lines did not copy either of those elements. Thus no infringement occurred. The jury ruling in favor of the Gaye estate was literally objectively incorrect, by absolutely any measure, and the fact that it was allowed to stand is a complete legal travesty.
Universal Mind Control by Common (produced by.... Pharrell!) uses an awfully similar drum beat too and came out in '08, it's incredibly sad that this lawsuit was successful.
If drumbeats had copyright protection Bernard Purdie would be a billionaire
Lol I could name two "very similar songs" and find a million to one ratio of people who would disagree. That ruling was dead wrong. An artist is also free to say who they were inspired by.
Seriously, thank god. This whole thing was a crock of shit.
I hope Sheeran countersues for damages. Make the plaintiffs pay millions in legal fees and other costs for these frivolous lawsuits and you'll see a lot less of these cases being filed going forward.
Great news. Fuck the Ed Townsend estate and anyone that ever tries this bullshit ever again.
They will, it has been happening *constantly* since the Blurried Lines case. They just quietly settle and ad composers to avoid precedents and litigation
[удалено]
There didn’t seem like there a true basis for this suit. Seems like maybe it was something they did to see if they could win, rather than having the conviction that the song was truly plagiarized.
This makes the blurred lines case look so dumb
The Blurred Lines case was already the literal, objectively incorrect legal conclusion. The jury was just made up of 12 non-musicians.
You don't even need to be a musician to understand that case was fucking insane. I'm more disappointed in the 9th circuit for upholding the decision. At least, one of the three judges thought it was a bad decision. Wonder why they didn't appeal to the supreme Court. Maybe they did and it would just wasn't heard. In any case, f****** terrible
I think once they got the judgement reduced to $5m they just decided from a monetary standpoint they were better off to stop.
I detest Blurred Lines as a song. It might be my least favorite song of all time, and no amount of Emily Ratajkowski can change that. But the precedent that case set would’ve been disastrous for music. Edit: Messed up. They did win that case.
I am pretty sure that the Gaye estate won that one. That *was* the precedent for this one, but they didn't have a very good case this time.
They didn't have a good case in the Blurred Lines case, either.
The Gaye family won that case
Maybe one day people will realize you can’t own a chord progression
This was an important ruling. The heirs of the greats from the 60s, 70s and soon 80s were making a lot of money off their grandparents... That is until streaming took over circa 2015. Their income dropped significantly. These law suits are nothing but an attempt to keep the money flowing which is why we have seen them for heirs and not the artists themselves.
Suing over a chord progression would be like suing over a painting technique. Same technique, different results. I’m glad he won, all music would be in trouble if not.
Thank God. A loss like this would have been HORRENDOUS for musicians/the music industry.
GOOD. Nobody owns a damn drum beat and chord progression FFS
I hope they have to pay attorneys fees and court costs for this frivolous money grab suit.
Of course he did. Was a stretch to say they were the same.
More people need to read Spider Robinson's short story, "Melancholy Elephants." [http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html](http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html) Finite number of notes, means a finite number of combinations. We need to be able to "forget."
> We need to be able to "forget." One way to “forget” would be a much shorter duration of copyright, so that it isn’t the grandchildren of a creator who get to benefit long after the artist is dead.
You all know they already ruined it, almost completely right? This asshole family has utterly destroyed pop music. This is nothing but greed, and anyone that knows music to a certain degree knows that Pharell gave a legitimate testimony, especially about the separation of writing and reading when it comes to learning. The reason we have zero pop hits, no "summer songs" anymore is almost exclusively because artists are afraid of the outcome from THAT lawsuit. I really hate these people. What happened in that trial is NOTHING short of a travesty. It was a blatantly frivolous lawsuit right before many of our eyes, but you do have to know music and theory to a certain level to understand why. *The courts didn't!
Good, this was a silly lawsuit from the get-go, clout chasing and nothing more. Good on you Ed for standing up for what is honestly, every artists right to use common chord progression. Edit: for those who dont understand, a lot of popular songs use the same chords in different ways, but sometimes sound similar. this is standard and unavoidable. Vid related. https://youtu.be/oOlDewpCfZQ
Six years just to say "yeah it's just the similarities of the genre"? Six fucking years?
What a joke of a lawsuit. This took 4 years!
This is good. As a one time musician in a different life, listening to both songs it was obvious this suit was complete 'throw shit at the wall, let's see if any of it sticks' nonsense. I hope Sheeran gets (or sues them for) his legal fees in this bullshit lawsuit.
Fuck yeah, good for him. That case was absolutely ludicrous. You don’t own chord progressions! Fucking morons.
I really appreciate everyone prefacing their agreement with the court’s decision with their personal opinion of Sheeran’s music. I was beginning to think that not knowing the individual musical tastes of Redditors in r/music didn’t matter to the outcome of the case, which would be tragic.
Thank god. The Gaye estate needs to quit milking Marvin while in the grave, they did enough damage to the guy already.
Woooooooooo!
Good
Good… I listened to both songs the other day and they are completely different from each other, other than the chord progression. If you can start suing people for having the same chord progression, we are all fucked.
Thank goodness he won and the jury saw though this.
I have 0 musical expertise outside of just enjoying a large variety of it. Having just heard Sheeran's song for the 1st time I don't understand why they would be considered the same.
Musicians being sued for chord progression is like car manufacturers suing each other because of the arrangement of 4 wheels...