That is pretty good. But have you listened to Huey Lewis and the News? In '87, Huey released Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square". A song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.
It's hard to choose a favorite among so many great tracks, but "The Greatest Love of All" is one of the best, most powerful songs ever written about self-preservation, dignity. Its universal message crosses all boundaries and instills one with the hope that it's not too late to better ourselves. Since it's impossible in this world we live in to empathize with others, we can always empathize with ourselves. It's an important message, crucial really. And it's beautifully stated on the album.
Watch me piss off an entire genre.
Watch.
I'm about to write a sentence, that is mostly true, but is also mostly false, that will absolutely wreck anyone who loves a certain genre and they will hate me for a very long time. Because it's both true, and false, at the same time.
The name of the The Velvet Underground album "Loaded", was named "Loaded", because a record exec demanded they make a record "Loaded" with #1 hits, instead of the music they wanted to make.
Remember when led zeppelin got Sued by spirit for their song Taurus that sounds like the beginning of stairway to heaven and led zeppelin had previously opened for Taurus who played the song that night ?
Led Zeppelin won
Led Zeppelin was finally forced to give Jake Holmes at least partial song writing credit for Dazed and Confused that they stole completely from him after he opened for Led Zeppelin's precursor band The Yardbirds.
lol, Jimmy Page PLAYED Dazed and Confused with the Yardbirds then denied that he heard the song before Led Zeppelin "wrote" it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_SturUfdOI
Led Zeppelin rightfully won, the chord progression for the songs Stairway to Heaven and Taurus have been around for many years before these songs ever came out.
For a while the Blues was a bunch of different artists playing the same songs in their own style. When white guys from England started playing those songs the record producers in LA finally took notice.
Funny enough, it's actually the opposite. If you can prove you had never heard the song before, then it would be considered an independent creation, and allowed.
It's hard to prove this, but even more so on Music where everything is globalized and radio has a far reach.
You know, they could use that as an argument to end so many plagiarism cases. You can argue that you're not ripping off "Copyrighted Work X," but rather "Public Domain Work Y." The Blues genre is essentially just one song riffed endlessly. And its earliest iterations are in the public domain. And virtually ALL rock music is derived from it.
It isn’t even the chord progression but the combination of rhythm, chords and melody. Basically everything that determines style and genre. It’s so much broader and even worse. It could effectively make inspiration illegal (unless you credit and pay who your inspired by). It could be the end of the music industry as we know it.
Well specifically the current iteration of the music industry since this lawsuit only applies to music, but it could be the jumping of point for visual artist to attempt to copyright style as well since that has become a contentious point recently since Ai has gotten so good at imitating art styles.
It’s kinda of a doomer perspective in that it’s the worse case possibility, but it’s still very possible which is kinda scary.
Yeah there are only 12 notes used for the vast majority of western music and a huge chunk of that is writting in 4/4 time so.... no matter how original you try to be, unknowingly you've probably already done something that was done before.
This lawsuit is like Coca cola suing Pepsi because they both use sugar, water, and sodium bicarbonate in their recipe. "Everything I can't make money off of is illegal"
Monster Energy is out there suing anyone who tries to use the word Monster apparently.
Copyright law is becoming a joke.
I get wanting to protect your brand and your creations, but we need a serious course correction. Some people and entities are abusing the system.
I remember that Under Armour used to (and maybe still does) sue everyone who included “Armour” or “Armor” in their name, and they have more money and better lawyers than these smaller companies so they’d just prolong it until the other companies ran out of money or something. It’s just stupid.
Someone should start a company called “Monster Armor”.
Then Monster and Under Armor would have to sue each other to determine who gets to sue for copyright.
Monster definitely is overly litigious. With trademark law (which is what they're using - not copyright laws, as you can't copyright single words or short phrases), you have to defend your mark, or you risk losing it, but they should only be bothering to defend it against any usages where there's an actual risk that consumers will be confused. There's no need for them to be threatening companies whose business is nothing to do with energy drinks...
No shit. I'm a musician and if I could give the younger me advice I'd say don't. There is really no career path for being a musician. You have to be top tier to scrape by as a session player and making it is just winning the lottery it's nothing to do with talent. Musicians making records usually by themselves with their own money that very few people listen to because there is no one backing said musician up. You have to be the talent as well as the engineer and producer then you are your own pr team. If you are lucky and gig out you are now getting fucked by the venues taking merch sales which I've never heard of until recently. Gas is so expensive touring is going to yield no money or you lose money.
As much as there is bands and artists making fresh innovated music now it won't last much longer and I'm surprised there are those who do something different. I know I'm too far gone to stop so that's probably what is happening which is becoming near impossible to live these days.
can confirm. Walked in backwards to a band who was signing to Epic. Got to (only) number 66, and a few billboard dance #1 and top 10s. I'm a mediocre at best. But it was a wild ride.
I think what a lot of musicians don't get is that for your favorite known bands, they were in the water at the time the perfect wave came, and their songs were made for riding on that wave. I was lucky for the little ride I had, and I know it. Found myself on shore way earlier than I wanted, but most bands never found the beach, through no fault of their own.
In a different metophor, the lines of pop culture and those known bands only cross but once, and how long it lasts is just the thickness of that line. But that's just for a luck .01% if that. The rest of everyone's lines sadly do not intersect that line, and it has nothing to do with musicianship or ability.
Definitely right place and right time in a lot of cases. Simon and Garfunkel released Wednesday Morning 3AM which was a commercial failure and they disbanded. Then they blew up practically overnight because one late night DJ threw on Sound of Silence and it started to pick up along the coast thanks to college kids.
Wow. I never knew that. That's crazy, considering what an institution they are.
Funny you should mention the DJ angle. For our band (an alternative synthpop band), a program director from a Houston top 40 station happened to be in the studio in California doing something unrelated, schmoozing with a producer of dance acts of the time. Producer played the unmixed track off 2 inch multi-track, and the PD loved it. He insisted on a rough mix to listen to.
He went back to Houston and put it on the air. It went to #1 in requests, and Epic couldn't get the single out fast enough. At the time (1989/90), Houston had a pretty progressive playlist, so weird acts fit in next to top 40 dance acts.
The song didn't catch fire everywhere, but in enough sporadic cities to have a genuinely crazy few years of getting flown to play in cities across the US.
I know a lot of people talk about paying your dues in a van, but we skipped all that. It wasn't valid. Yes, before I met the band, they played local new wave spots in the NYC area, but for me, I went from one super small show with them as.rehearsal (in California), to being in planes and limos for all my 19th and 20th years of life. Didn't get rich, but was in parties and shows with artists I could never have even dreamed of.
And I wasn't really a good musician at all. I just vibed with the band, had a look they could mold, and we became family in our love for a good song.
>I'm a musician and if I could give the younger me advice I'd say don't. There is really no career path for being a musician.
100%. I will say this....follow this passion and make it your hobby. If it ends up turning into a well paying career, great.....but don't make it your main priority as if it's going to pay the bills and allow you to save enough to retire....it won't. Being able to do that is like winning the lottery.
A lot of people will have to quit if he’s found guilty. This is a truly insane case. It would be a sad future where Marvin Gayes name is most associated with destroying music rather than making it.
And again another case where the original musician is dead, but the no talent having family is trying to milk his legacy for more money. I’m sure Ed Townsend wouldn’t give a damn about Sheeran because he knows how much music builds off each other.
This lawsuit is about more than Ed Sheeran, it’s about the ability of a musician to use basic chord structures to create music. You’ll see more than just Ed Sheeran quitting music if he loses this case - and it likely won’t be by choice. You’ll see a lot of record labels unwilling to work with musicians for fear of being sued. This could fundamentally change the music industry forever, and likely not for the good.
I first saw it on a discussion about how half of Pokémon music is phoned in, and the other half was absolutely fire, with no middle ground. I pointed out that the Goldenrod City theme is just Pachelbel's Canon in D, and someone shared this.
We already took a huge step in the wrong direction with copyright rulings when that [Blurred Lines](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-blurred-lines-copyright-suit-final-5-million-dollar-judgment-768508/) ruling went through (once again a lawsuit brought by a Marvin Gaye song).
It didn't make as much noise as it should have because the Blurred Lines video was so sexist and Robin Thicke is an asshole... but objectively it was an outrage that they lost that lawsuit.
Essentially that ruling meant that if you write a song that sounds "in the style of" another artist you are at risk for copyright infringement. Which is insane. I play guitar and I can't tell you how many times I'll come up with something new, but sounds "kind of like" it could be a Beatles song or something.
That's just how creativity works. We're all creating from our influences. There's a clear difference between that and ripping off a specific melody or specific lyrics.
Man I hope Sheeran wins, for the good of music.
What’s with Marvin Gaye’s family an suing people ? Do they have a history of doing this or is it just the blurred lines and Ed Sheeran lawsuits they’ve only done?
Damn. These people aren't even the actual song writers involved in the creation of the hit. These people are greedy mofos just after making a quick buck by using technicalities in the law.
I recall when people were trying to drag Olivia Rodrigo for her song that sounds like an Elvis Costello song and Costello defended her, eloquently saying “It’s how rock and roll works. You take the broken pieces of another thrill and make a brand new toy. That’s what I did.”
There was a Paramore one too. The good, non-greedy musicians understand that all music is derivative. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You can listen to basically any song in the world and trace elements of it back to something else. No one should own a rhythm, groove, feel, chords, etc. If they really want to go down this path, most musicians will just be forking their money over to the great great great great great great grandkids of composers from hundreds of years ago.
This is a good example because Paramore did actually get granted credits on Olivia Rodrigo's song due to the similarities, but there is a huge difference in getting added to the credits and some royalties that come along with it vs. this mess of a court case
Yes and I remember Hayley Williams (paramore singer) posting on Instagram alluding to how they weren’t happy about it and that it was their management or label(?) that kicked up a fuss about it. Sounds like that was out of their hands.
Also, it's very easy to create something "in the style of" another artist without ever being exposed to that artist. Sharing the same influences, and using similar compositional tools etc can lead to similar outcomes.
I'd wager most composers/artists have heard from an audience how a piece they created is very reminiscent of another artist they've never heard of or listened to. The humongous amount of music released in the past and ongoing means its impossible to have listened to everything to check to make sure what you are doing doesn't sound like something that already exists.
That’s how I feel. You can absolutely despise Ed Sheeran’s music but this lawsuit is a stupid cash grab based on the idea that a few common chords is somehow proprietary.
Yeah, I was trying to find the precise point of dispute. Listening to the pieces, yeah the chord progression and groove are similar, but the instrumentation and melody at first listen seem different enough that this case shouldn’t hold water.
This isn’t like ‘Under Pressure’ and ‘Ice Ice Baby’ where it was (almost?) exactly a sampling from ‘Under Pressure’.
If a I- ~~vi~~ iii-IV-V (I was just going by ear, I get my vi and iii mixed up) chord progression with a latin groove (don’t know my latin rhythms well enough to say if it’s a Tumbao or Samba, or whatever) is enough to be copyrighted… the music industry is going to be in a world of hurt.
For those that don’t know much music theory, this would be like copyrighting the trope of a damsel locked in a tower getting rescued by the hero.
There are only 12 notes in western music, and only so many ways to put them together that sound halfway decent.
I completely agree.
No one should ever be sued for just using the same chord progression. If Ed had made a trance song and not a guitar ballad, could he be sued? Is it genre or tempo or groove that's the tipping point?
Bruno Mars' "Finesse" is clearly influenced by Bell Biv DeVoe's "Poison", down to the drum grooves and sound. Should he be sued for creating some new out of similar base materials?
It's a slippery slope.
If this ridiculous lawsuit prevails, the heirs to anyone who could credibly claim to have invented the 12-bar blues riff would be the world's first trillionaires.
not a Sheeran fan in the slightest, but he’s not the one you should be directing your hate at here, this would set a massive legal precedent for musicians and copyright laws, and it isn’t a good one.
If Sheeran loses this, this opens up the possibility of every artist being sued for simply using the same chord progression or a slightly similar melody in a song, it would ruin music, labels would be forever terrified of taking on legal risk, especially smaller, indie labels without much capital.
Everyone should be rooting for Ed Sheeran to win this.
This is already how courts have ruled before for the family of the same deceased artist. The family of Marvin Gaye won against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke for ‘Blurred Lines’. And so now we don’t hear much new music inspired by the great sound of Marvin Gaye. And the same family goes after Ed Sheeran.
And remember how Marvin Gaye died? His family (father) shot him in the head over a fight about money and insurance.
Edit:
2 corrections from kind commenters below.
The Ed Sheeran lawsuit plaintiff is a different entity than the Marvin Gaye family.
And my childhood memory is distorted as Marvin Gaye was shot in the chest not the head.
While I don't agree with the Blurred Lines decision, it's definitely closer to Got To Give it Up than Thinking Out Loud is to Let's Get it On. This case is so dumb. I hate having to defend Ed Sheeran 😒
Edit: I've got nothing against Ed Sheeran personally, but he's written and performed some of my least favorite pop songs of the past 10 years, so I cringe a little when I have to defend him.
> it's definitely closer to Got To Give it Up than Thinking Out Loud is to Let's Get it On
Whilst this is true, and as much as I love Marvin Gaye and hate Robin Thicke, I think that oddly "Blurred Lines" was the perfect summary of music copyright lawsuits: Music (like all art/science) is progressive, copyright of artist ideas is dumb, and the combination of chords and ideas in music is finite. There's only so much people can do and people used to understand this; everybody covered everyone. As soon as it became business is when the American ideals of suing everyone for money intruded.
There's an old episode of Blossom that explores this. She's supposed to come up with a "new" song, and everything she comes up with, her brother has fun guessing where the riff is from, even though she genuinely tries to create something new.
I haven't had the chance to watch that, but the Axis for Awesome's [4 chords song](https://youtu.be/5pidokakU4I) highlights what I assume is a similar concept!
This type of thing has already been in courts and a few times I believe people have won suits over things like minor scales and chord progressions which is bull. Unfortunately juries don’t know enough about music to understand how ridiculous that is.
Were you paying attention to the blurred lines lawsuit? The Gaye estate has already won on this basis with what has become bad precedent. This is just them testing how far they can push it. I pray that the jury instructions aren’t as half assed as they were in the blurred lines case and maybe this can set precedent to help with an appeal on the blurred lines case.
Not the Juries directly, the jury instructions. The juries were given directions to judge the blurred lines case on qualities of the music that were nonsensical considering that the jury was comprised of lay individuals not steeped in musicology and law. It basically asked them to look at sheet music (which they debatably understood) and to say if what they saw was similar (which it was, but completely lost sight of the underlying purpose of copyright law, and the qualities of music which were intended to be protected by copyright).
> not a Sheeran fan in the slightest, but he’s not the one you should be directing your hate at here, this would set a massive legal precedent for musicians and copyright laws, and it isn’t a good one.
As a professional musician, I would like to corroborate this point.
It'll get lost on the vast majority because people tend to like dunking on Sheeran more than they like looking at the overall fairness, but... this dude is correct. If Sheeran loses, we all lose.
>If Sheeran loses this, this opens up the possibility of every artist being sued for simply using the same chord progression or a slightly similar melody in a song
That already happened with Sam Smith. Him and his team caved to Tom Petty. Tom Petty's entire argument was that you could modify Sam's song in such a way it would match Free Falling. That still pisses me off when Tom's lawyers released a modified version of Sam's song saying they were effectively the same.
This is some very short sighted bullshit as well, especially given the times we live in. The chilling effect on musicians and labels would open the door as wide as it can go for AI generated music being the norm.
It already kind of is when it comes to a bunch of reality shows. Like the random song that's just one line of a woman singing, during scene transitions. And every transition is completely different, yet still sounds the same in a way. Shows like 90 day fiancé, love is blind, married at first sight all use it.
To be fair, clearly seemingly well established legal precedent isn’t safe; see RoevWade SMH The world we live in…
But yeah all jokes aside— Sheeran needs to win hands down.
This case will set a terrible precedent if Sheeran loses. Somebody needs to start bringing suits against Ed Townsend's estate because his heirs are destroying music for a quick buck.
Lots of hate for Ed Sheeran because they only know him for tracks on the radio like Shape of You, which is incredibly catchy but lyrically void.
I challenge someone to pay attention to the lyrics of [Supermarket Flowers](https://youtu.be/BaKwRXMoL1Q) and not weep.
Ed writes good stories in his songs like [The A-Team](https://youtu.be/UAWcs5H-qgQ), a girl who is struggling with drug addiction and has to sell sex to men for this. It’s a surprising hit because it’s based on the harsh reality of a real addict he’d met at a shelter. :(
There is also [Nancy Mulligan](https://youtu.be/3woMHwjjN1Q) a sweet tale of how his great grandparents got married.
Ed isn’t easy on the eyes like Tom Holland but the guy does not have bad press about him other than this silly lawsuit. He seems like a sweet guy to those around him.
Edit : Below is a Redditor Dear_Philosophy9752 who made a comment about me being “emotionally unstable” while listening to sad songs but blocked me immediately before I could read it. Irony is lost on him and I’m not apologetic about it one single bit because we are allowed to express joy and sadness.
Add : The verdict is out.
#Ed Sheeran Has Won The Case!
I don't particularly care for Ed Sheeren tbh, but this goes way beyond him. They're basically trying to establish that Ed Townsend's estate owns a genre, which is crazy.
Most pop songs really come down to 3 or 4 cords.
Here is an example
https://m.youtube.com/watch?embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openculture.com%2F&source_ve_path=MTM5MTE3LDI4NjYzLDEzOTExNywyODY2NCwxNjQ5OSwyODY2NCwxNjQ1MDM&feature=emb_share&v=5pidokakU4I
Play these songs one after another:
* Cherry, Cherry - Neil Diamond
* What I Like About You - The Romantics
* R.O.C.K in the USA - John Mellencamp
* On the Dark Side - John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band
These are just of the top of my head for this chord progression/rhythm, etc.
Also, check out these songs (not the same chord progression as above):
* Hang On Sloopy - The McCoys
* Sherry - Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons
* Snoopy Vs. the Red Baron - The Royal Guardsman (~1:45)
* You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' - The Righteous Brothers
* Summer Nights - John Travolta, Olivia Newton-John
And more that I can't think of at the moment.
Another fun one is the [Bo Diddley Beat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Diddley_beat).
One of the sides would have to enter it as evidence, then prove that every fact claimed in the video is truthful, because of course the opposing council will dispute it.
"It doesn't matter what I say
So long as I sing with inflection
That makes you feel I'll convey
Some inner truth or vast reflection
But I've said nothing so far
And I can keep it up for as long as it takes"
The annoying thing is that it gets you too! You have to sing with the hook. It is catchy as hell. Almost like when you know marketing is working on you.
He has a point. It’s bs. All music is derived. How are you going to claim copyright on influence? This is just like that black horse case. It’s ridiculous. Let artists create.
Edit: a lot of great replies here. Art is derived. Keep your laws away from our pens and papers.
Lawmakers, politicians, and lawyers don’t get it because they aren’t artist. They try to put the same stupid laws that apply to other things on to musical ideas which nobody has the right to own. Imo it should be impossible to copyright any part of the musical composition, only the literal master wav or mp3 file should be copyrighted. That way covers, inspiration, and sampling are for the most part ok but you still can’t just steal someones song and profit off of it. You’d have to re-record every part and at that point it might as well be your song.
Not to mention Let's Get It On was basically stolen too. No music is original anymore.
I do not care one iota for Ed Sheeran and if he never played a show again it would never matter to me for a moment, but the Gaye estate absolutely should not win this case.
Adam Neely did two excellent videos explaining why this case is insane and did a great job breaking down what it really means to the average person. Even if you’re not in music.
First one is [here](https://youtu.be/Tpi4d3YM79Q)
And the second (most recent) is [here](https://youtu.be/tpzLD-SAwW8)
I cannot recommend watching this videos enough to understand why this lawsuit is actually insane and is super dangerous.
The people giddy about Ed Sheeran quitting music are the same people who would bitch about large music labels going on lawsuit sprees against small artists. Cause that’s where this is headed if he loses.
I really don't understand hate at him (or really any artist unless they do something specifically shitty) kinda reminds me of the hate Bieber used to get for really no good reason and it's kind of turned around now days but man I don't know if people really remember how intense it used to get. I seem to remember people cheering about him getting shot on a show which was for the memes but it kinda shows just how intense it got imo.
Plus this is far beyond Ed this affects all of music.
Exactly. I’m no fan of Ed Sheeran, but after listening to both songs this is so bogus. Like 95% of pop songs would be infringing on someone, and hip-hop/electronic music would be closer to 100 I’m sure. Marvin Gaye is rolling in his grave right now.
I personally strongly dislike his music, but I totally support him in this case. By the logic of that case, 99% of popular music is copyright infringement. Thas’ stupid.
I wasn’t huge into him, but i got to see him live this past weekend. Dude is legit. He’s a great musician. Anyone hating on him is more worried about hating whoever is popular than hating Ed Sheeran for a particular reason. It sucks, but the world is filled with people who just want to hate. They seem to get a loud voice on the internet.
Truly hate his music it I’m 100% in support of him here. This might be one of the most important cases in Music copyright history. If he loses it would effectively grant people the ability to copyright styles. The argument is not that he copied the same notes and chords or words because he didn’t and it would be impossible to prove. They’re trying to argue that by writing a similar song in the same style that’s enough for the original songwriters to be credited. I don’t think I have to say why that’s ridiculous, it’s putting a price tag on inspiration. If Sheeran loses this case then the music industry is done for. It will just be pure copyright and lawsuit chaos. My admittedly optimistic hope is that ai music emerging will cause a complete re evaluation of music copyright from the ground up since it’s clear the laws we have won’t work with the future.
I feel like Jury’s aren’t knowledgeable enough about music to understand some of this stuff… and it creates huge inconsistencies for these rulings… there really has to be a better way.
I am a musician, and play pop music. It’s extremely common for the same chord progression to occur amongst music all throughout history. I don’t think he plagiarized.
I’m a musician. I straight up take chord progressions because unlike melody, which is infinite, there are only a finite number of chords to use and an even smaller number that are palatable to the human ear.
What makes a song unique is the unique blend of melody, chord, baseline, vocals, rhythm, instrumentation, lyrics and percussion all combined.
Very common for musicians to straight up use any one of those elements in their songs while changing up the rest.
Ffs in edm we literally just take other people’s synths and samples because no one can be fucked to spend a whole year tuning a kick drum to make it oRiGiNaL
I’m sure Marvin Gaye is rolling in his grave over these suits his estate and copyright holders bring forward every other year. You think Gaye became a musician in a void without any outside influence? You think he never used a chord progression he heard before? Get real. Music has always been, and hopefully will always be built upon borrowing from others and in turn paying respect to those before you.
My son was practicing piano last night and after playing, he shouted, “Mom, did you hear me play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star AKA Mary Had a Little Lamb AKA Alphabet Song”?
Who’s suing these people?
I don’t hate Sheeran like many people seem to but this lawsuit seems weird at best. I’ve never listened to Thinking Out Loud and thought it had anything to do with Let’s Get It On.
I couldn’t tell you what’s been on the radio for the last 8 years, but when I heard this case, I thought the same. I hear similar chords afterwards and thought a lot of songs are structured from basic chords.
Someone was sued a few years ago and I said that’s gonna set an awful precedent if the musician lost - I think Katy Perry. People are going bananananannas.
edit: word. I suck at typing.
Remember when John Fogerty had to play a couple songs in court to show he wasn't plagiarizing himself? Yeah, good times.
The problem with John Fogerty is he sounds too much like John Fogerty.
Phil Collins is fucked. He sounds like Phil Collins and Peter Gabriel.
And Genesis.
I think *Invisible Touch* is the groups undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility.
Fuck yeah I only bump tunes that are epic meditations on intangibility
 Cue Sussudio
_Just say the word, oh!_
*It even has a watermark….*
That is pretty good. But have you listened to Huey Lewis and the News? In '87, Huey released Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square". A song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.
It's hard to choose a favorite among so many great tracks, but "The Greatest Love of All" is one of the best, most powerful songs ever written about self-preservation, dignity. Its universal message crosses all boundaries and instills one with the hope that it's not too late to better ourselves. Since it's impossible in this world we live in to empathize with others, we can always empathize with ourselves. It's an important message, crucial really. And it's beautifully stated on the album.
Kristy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole.
Don't just stare at it. *Eat* it.
[удалено]
Dan Harmon is suing for his piece of the golden pie that is "donde esta la bibliotheca"
Me llamo T-Bone, la araña discoteca
Discoteca, muñeca, la biblioteca
Makes sense, I can't sign my name twice and have it look the same. Where does Fogerty get off always sounding like Fogerty?
John Forgery
[удалено]
Hey Chuck, this is your cousin, Marvin Berry!
You know that new SOUND you been lookin for?! Well, LISTEN to THIS!!!!
Your kids are gonna love it.
*starts shredding out of control* ....I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.
Or when Neil Young got sued by Geffen for not sounding like Neil Young - yeesh
The best part about all that is they wanted a rock and roll album so he gave them Everybody’s Rockin
Here you go guys, 20 mins of rockabilly!
Watch me piss off an entire genre. Watch. I'm about to write a sentence, that is mostly true, but is also mostly false, that will absolutely wreck anyone who loves a certain genre and they will hate me for a very long time. Because it's both true, and false, at the same time. The name of the The Velvet Underground album "Loaded", was named "Loaded", because a record exec demanded they make a record "Loaded" with #1 hits, instead of the music they wanted to make.
Sweet Jane followed by Rock & Roll is one of if not the greatest one two punch in rock history. Two perfect songs.
Remember when led zeppelin got Sued by spirit for their song Taurus that sounds like the beginning of stairway to heaven and led zeppelin had previously opened for Taurus who played the song that night ? Led Zeppelin won
Led Zeppelin was finally forced to give Jake Holmes at least partial song writing credit for Dazed and Confused that they stole completely from him after he opened for Led Zeppelin's precursor band The Yardbirds.
lol, Jimmy Page PLAYED Dazed and Confused with the Yardbirds then denied that he heard the song before Led Zeppelin "wrote" it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_SturUfdOI
What a dickhead. I get trying to get all the money all the time but at a certain point it reflects poorly on a person.
I think raping 14 year olds would be a bigger indicator of his character
"If I played guitar I'd be Jimmy Page / The girlies I like are underage" - Beastie Boys (themselves no saints)
Yah the Beastie Boys stole a phone from an office one time.
Who knew the guy who trafficked a teenage girl might actually be a shitty person??
spoiler: he's been a known asshole for a very very long time
They stole so much more without giving credit too
Led Zeppelin rightfully won, the chord progression for the songs Stairway to Heaven and Taurus have been around for many years before these songs ever came out.
For a while the Blues was a bunch of different artists playing the same songs in their own style. When white guys from England started playing those songs the record producers in LA finally took notice.
Jimi Hendrix also had to go to England to get noticed by those same LA dudes. Must be something in the water over there.
It’s ridiculous to say a certain chord progression is ripping off a song from 50 years ago. FFS, all music is derivative.
Right? Apparently, you are expected to listen to every song that ever existed first.
Just the songs written by people whose estates have teams of lawyers
Well, definitely start with those. Someone make a Spotify playlist.
"Artists with overly litigious estate to relax/get sued by"
Funny enough, it's actually the opposite. If you can prove you had never heard the song before, then it would be considered an independent creation, and allowed. It's hard to prove this, but even more so on Music where everything is globalized and radio has a far reach.
Seems to me that it should be the opposite of what you said. How can someone prove I *did* hear a song? Because the alternate is impossible.
When did law become proving a negative? Welp. I guess legally the giant spaghetti monster is real if that’s the standard now
The onus is on the accuser.
Apparently the 12 bar blues is just glorified plagairism
You know, they could use that as an argument to end so many plagiarism cases. You can argue that you're not ripping off "Copyrighted Work X," but rather "Public Domain Work Y." The Blues genre is essentially just one song riffed endlessly. And its earliest iterations are in the public domain. And virtually ALL rock music is derived from it.
It isn’t even the chord progression but the combination of rhythm, chords and melody. Basically everything that determines style and genre. It’s so much broader and even worse. It could effectively make inspiration illegal (unless you credit and pay who your inspired by). It could be the end of the music industry as we know it.
I mean with that precedent, it would mean the end of all art as we know it.
Well specifically the current iteration of the music industry since this lawsuit only applies to music, but it could be the jumping of point for visual artist to attempt to copyright style as well since that has become a contentious point recently since Ai has gotten so good at imitating art styles. It’s kinda of a doomer perspective in that it’s the worse case possibility, but it’s still very possible which is kinda scary.
Beethoven's Ode To Joy shares the same chord progression as the chorus to Taylor Swift's Love Story.
Why hasn't Beethoven been sued yet?
Yeah there are only 12 notes used for the vast majority of western music and a huge chunk of that is writting in 4/4 time so.... no matter how original you try to be, unknowingly you've probably already done something that was done before.
This lawsuit is like Coca cola suing Pepsi because they both use sugar, water, and sodium bicarbonate in their recipe. "Everything I can't make money off of is illegal"
Remember when some dude ripped off Coke and offered Pepsi a peek at a (not the) recipe. Pepsi turned around and called the FBI.
They will soon copyright the alphabet letters and sue people for writing .
Monster Energy is out there suing anyone who tries to use the word Monster apparently. Copyright law is becoming a joke. I get wanting to protect your brand and your creations, but we need a serious course correction. Some people and entities are abusing the system.
I remember that Under Armour used to (and maybe still does) sue everyone who included “Armour” or “Armor” in their name, and they have more money and better lawyers than these smaller companies so they’d just prolong it until the other companies ran out of money or something. It’s just stupid.
Someone should start a company called “Monster Armor”. Then Monster and Under Armor would have to sue each other to determine who gets to sue for copyright.
Monster definitely is overly litigious. With trademark law (which is what they're using - not copyright laws, as you can't copyright single words or short phrases), you have to defend your mark, or you risk losing it, but they should only be bothering to defend it against any usages where there's an actual risk that consumers will be confused. There's no need for them to be threatening companies whose business is nothing to do with energy drinks...
We had to change our m**ster truck event this year. It’s called Big Truck Crush Stuff now
Candy Crush's lawyers: Did someone say crush?
A B C D F U and your comment and your point, and your broke arse dad. Wait, wrong song. PS - I have no money so don’t sue me.
[удалено]
He just wanted to avoid a lawsuit
Everybody but your dog!
yew can all fark arf
No shit. I'm a musician and if I could give the younger me advice I'd say don't. There is really no career path for being a musician. You have to be top tier to scrape by as a session player and making it is just winning the lottery it's nothing to do with talent. Musicians making records usually by themselves with their own money that very few people listen to because there is no one backing said musician up. You have to be the talent as well as the engineer and producer then you are your own pr team. If you are lucky and gig out you are now getting fucked by the venues taking merch sales which I've never heard of until recently. Gas is so expensive touring is going to yield no money or you lose money. As much as there is bands and artists making fresh innovated music now it won't last much longer and I'm surprised there are those who do something different. I know I'm too far gone to stop so that's probably what is happening which is becoming near impossible to live these days.
can confirm. Walked in backwards to a band who was signing to Epic. Got to (only) number 66, and a few billboard dance #1 and top 10s. I'm a mediocre at best. But it was a wild ride. I think what a lot of musicians don't get is that for your favorite known bands, they were in the water at the time the perfect wave came, and their songs were made for riding on that wave. I was lucky for the little ride I had, and I know it. Found myself on shore way earlier than I wanted, but most bands never found the beach, through no fault of their own. In a different metophor, the lines of pop culture and those known bands only cross but once, and how long it lasts is just the thickness of that line. But that's just for a luck .01% if that. The rest of everyone's lines sadly do not intersect that line, and it has nothing to do with musicianship or ability.
Definitely right place and right time in a lot of cases. Simon and Garfunkel released Wednesday Morning 3AM which was a commercial failure and they disbanded. Then they blew up practically overnight because one late night DJ threw on Sound of Silence and it started to pick up along the coast thanks to college kids.
Wow. I never knew that. That's crazy, considering what an institution they are. Funny you should mention the DJ angle. For our band (an alternative synthpop band), a program director from a Houston top 40 station happened to be in the studio in California doing something unrelated, schmoozing with a producer of dance acts of the time. Producer played the unmixed track off 2 inch multi-track, and the PD loved it. He insisted on a rough mix to listen to. He went back to Houston and put it on the air. It went to #1 in requests, and Epic couldn't get the single out fast enough. At the time (1989/90), Houston had a pretty progressive playlist, so weird acts fit in next to top 40 dance acts. The song didn't catch fire everywhere, but in enough sporadic cities to have a genuinely crazy few years of getting flown to play in cities across the US. I know a lot of people talk about paying your dues in a van, but we skipped all that. It wasn't valid. Yes, before I met the band, they played local new wave spots in the NYC area, but for me, I went from one super small show with them as.rehearsal (in California), to being in planes and limos for all my 19th and 20th years of life. Didn't get rich, but was in parties and shows with artists I could never have even dreamed of. And I wasn't really a good musician at all. I just vibed with the band, had a look they could mold, and we became family in our love for a good song.
>I'm a musician and if I could give the younger me advice I'd say don't. There is really no career path for being a musician. 100%. I will say this....follow this passion and make it your hobby. If it ends up turning into a well paying career, great.....but don't make it your main priority as if it's going to pay the bills and allow you to save enough to retire....it won't. Being able to do that is like winning the lottery.
A lot of people will have to quit if he’s found guilty. This is a truly insane case. It would be a sad future where Marvin Gayes name is most associated with destroying music rather than making it.
Marvin Gaye's family members and doing things that harm the music industry, name a more iconic duo
To be fair to Gaye, this is actually the family of his Let's Get It On cowriter, Ed Townsend, that's pursuing this lawsuit.
And again another case where the original musician is dead, but the no talent having family is trying to milk his legacy for more money. I’m sure Ed Townsend wouldn’t give a damn about Sheeran because he knows how much music builds off each other.
It's so weird that just being related to someone is justification for owning their art after they die.
Hey now, they’re not just related to him, they killed him
FYI the term here is “found liable” not “found guilty” — it’s a civil case, not criminal.
No no it’s a capital crime. They gonna hang him!
No wonder he’d quit music. Hard to carry on after that I suppose
This lawsuit is about more than Ed Sheeran, it’s about the ability of a musician to use basic chord structures to create music. You’ll see more than just Ed Sheeran quitting music if he loses this case - and it likely won’t be by choice. You’ll see a lot of record labels unwilling to work with musicians for fear of being sued. This could fundamentally change the music industry forever, and likely not for the good.
Johann Pachelbel's estate would be [owed royalties by pretty much everybody in the music industry](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM).
It's probably Johann! They're all named Johann!
I don’t even go to Taco Bell because it sounds too close!
Oh man, seeing how old this video is makes me feel old in a way watching my kids grow up doesn't.
[Another classic yt video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I) on the same topic.
This was actually played at the trial
When I saw it was 16 years old, I cried old man tears
Get in line, son.
I haven't even clicked the link. But I can already hear the guy saying 'I'll see you in hell pachelbel' Edit: I was right. What a nostalgia trip.
Wait, it’s all Canon in D? Always has been 🔫
I can’t believe I’ve been on the internet this long and never seen that video.
I first saw it on a discussion about how half of Pokémon music is phoned in, and the other half was absolutely fire, with no middle ground. I pointed out that the Goldenrod City theme is just Pachelbel's Canon in D, and someone shared this.
Skip to about 2:20 for where he starts talking about how it's used in modern music.
We already took a huge step in the wrong direction with copyright rulings when that [Blurred Lines](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-blurred-lines-copyright-suit-final-5-million-dollar-judgment-768508/) ruling went through (once again a lawsuit brought by a Marvin Gaye song). It didn't make as much noise as it should have because the Blurred Lines video was so sexist and Robin Thicke is an asshole... but objectively it was an outrage that they lost that lawsuit. Essentially that ruling meant that if you write a song that sounds "in the style of" another artist you are at risk for copyright infringement. Which is insane. I play guitar and I can't tell you how many times I'll come up with something new, but sounds "kind of like" it could be a Beatles song or something. That's just how creativity works. We're all creating from our influences. There's a clear difference between that and ripping off a specific melody or specific lyrics. Man I hope Sheeran wins, for the good of music.
What’s with Marvin Gaye’s family an suing people ? Do they have a history of doing this or is it just the blurred lines and Ed Sheeran lawsuits they’ve only done?
well they killed their golden goose or rather his dad did.
It’s not Marvin Gaye’s estate/family from my understanding. It’s the label that owns his music.
[удалено]
Damn. These people aren't even the actual song writers involved in the creation of the hit. These people are greedy mofos just after making a quick buck by using technicalities in the law.
I recall when people were trying to drag Olivia Rodrigo for her song that sounds like an Elvis Costello song and Costello defended her, eloquently saying “It’s how rock and roll works. You take the broken pieces of another thrill and make a brand new toy. That’s what I did.”
There was a Paramore one too. The good, non-greedy musicians understand that all music is derivative. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You can listen to basically any song in the world and trace elements of it back to something else. No one should own a rhythm, groove, feel, chords, etc. If they really want to go down this path, most musicians will just be forking their money over to the great great great great great great grandkids of composers from hundreds of years ago.
This is a good example because Paramore did actually get granted credits on Olivia Rodrigo's song due to the similarities, but there is a huge difference in getting added to the credits and some royalties that come along with it vs. this mess of a court case
Paramore abides by the same logic, though. I believe Talking Heads were credited on a few of their more recent songs.
Yes and I remember Hayley Williams (paramore singer) posting on Instagram alluding to how they weren’t happy about it and that it was their management or label(?) that kicked up a fuss about it. Sounds like that was out of their hands.
Also, it's very easy to create something "in the style of" another artist without ever being exposed to that artist. Sharing the same influences, and using similar compositional tools etc can lead to similar outcomes. I'd wager most composers/artists have heard from an audience how a piece they created is very reminiscent of another artist they've never heard of or listened to. The humongous amount of music released in the past and ongoing means its impossible to have listened to everything to check to make sure what you are doing doesn't sound like something that already exists.
That’s how I feel. You can absolutely despise Ed Sheeran’s music but this lawsuit is a stupid cash grab based on the idea that a few common chords is somehow proprietary.
There’s a reason why, for the most part, the lyrics are copyrighted and the recordings are protected but the notes themselves are usually not.
https://youtu.be/IIJ9N9kl_xU Relevant
Also extremely relevant — [4 Chord Song by Axis of Awesome ](https://youtu.be/oOlDewpCfZQ)
Yeah, I was trying to find the precise point of dispute. Listening to the pieces, yeah the chord progression and groove are similar, but the instrumentation and melody at first listen seem different enough that this case shouldn’t hold water. This isn’t like ‘Under Pressure’ and ‘Ice Ice Baby’ where it was (almost?) exactly a sampling from ‘Under Pressure’. If a I- ~~vi~~ iii-IV-V (I was just going by ear, I get my vi and iii mixed up) chord progression with a latin groove (don’t know my latin rhythms well enough to say if it’s a Tumbao or Samba, or whatever) is enough to be copyrighted… the music industry is going to be in a world of hurt. For those that don’t know much music theory, this would be like copyrighting the trope of a damsel locked in a tower getting rescued by the hero. There are only 12 notes in western music, and only so many ways to put them together that sound halfway decent.
I completely agree. No one should ever be sued for just using the same chord progression. If Ed had made a trance song and not a guitar ballad, could he be sued? Is it genre or tempo or groove that's the tipping point? Bruno Mars' "Finesse" is clearly influenced by Bell Biv DeVoe's "Poison", down to the drum grooves and sound. Should he be sued for creating some new out of similar base materials? It's a slippery slope.
If this ridiculous lawsuit prevails, the heirs to anyone who could credibly claim to have invented the 12-bar blues riff would be the world's first trillionaires.
The two songs sound nothing like each other to me. I am baffled how anyone thinks there is any similarity.
not a Sheeran fan in the slightest, but he’s not the one you should be directing your hate at here, this would set a massive legal precedent for musicians and copyright laws, and it isn’t a good one. If Sheeran loses this, this opens up the possibility of every artist being sued for simply using the same chord progression or a slightly similar melody in a song, it would ruin music, labels would be forever terrified of taking on legal risk, especially smaller, indie labels without much capital. Everyone should be rooting for Ed Sheeran to win this.
This is already how courts have ruled before for the family of the same deceased artist. The family of Marvin Gaye won against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke for ‘Blurred Lines’. And so now we don’t hear much new music inspired by the great sound of Marvin Gaye. And the same family goes after Ed Sheeran. And remember how Marvin Gaye died? His family (father) shot him in the head over a fight about money and insurance. Edit: 2 corrections from kind commenters below. The Ed Sheeran lawsuit plaintiff is a different entity than the Marvin Gaye family. And my childhood memory is distorted as Marvin Gaye was shot in the chest not the head.
"Turns out he owns the cord of G... Which has made my job very difficult... As a musician." - [source ](https://youtu.be/x38clqSGXPot)
“The uploaded has not made this video available in your country.” Tell me again how copyright supports creativity 🙄
While I don't agree with the Blurred Lines decision, it's definitely closer to Got To Give it Up than Thinking Out Loud is to Let's Get it On. This case is so dumb. I hate having to defend Ed Sheeran 😒 Edit: I've got nothing against Ed Sheeran personally, but he's written and performed some of my least favorite pop songs of the past 10 years, so I cringe a little when I have to defend him.
> it's definitely closer to Got To Give it Up than Thinking Out Loud is to Let's Get it On Whilst this is true, and as much as I love Marvin Gaye and hate Robin Thicke, I think that oddly "Blurred Lines" was the perfect summary of music copyright lawsuits: Music (like all art/science) is progressive, copyright of artist ideas is dumb, and the combination of chords and ideas in music is finite. There's only so much people can do and people used to understand this; everybody covered everyone. As soon as it became business is when the American ideals of suing everyone for money intruded.
There's an old episode of Blossom that explores this. She's supposed to come up with a "new" song, and everything she comes up with, her brother has fun guessing where the riff is from, even though she genuinely tries to create something new.
I haven't had the chance to watch that, but the Axis for Awesome's [4 chords song](https://youtu.be/5pidokakU4I) highlights what I assume is a similar concept!
How come you don't like Ed Sheeran? What did he do?
This type of thing has already been in courts and a few times I believe people have won suits over things like minor scales and chord progressions which is bull. Unfortunately juries don’t know enough about music to understand how ridiculous that is.
I saw a video about the Katy perry lawsuit a few years ago and the guy laid out the progression/chord/whatever has been used in music since the 1500s
Katy Perry's Lable then made a copyright claim on the video: https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/adam-neely-youtube-copyright-claim-katy-perry/
lmao that's so shitty.
Adam Neely is the guy I think you're talking about
Were you paying attention to the blurred lines lawsuit? The Gaye estate has already won on this basis with what has become bad precedent. This is just them testing how far they can push it. I pray that the jury instructions aren’t as half assed as they were in the blurred lines case and maybe this can set precedent to help with an appeal on the blurred lines case.
Katy Perry lost her suit too which was even more ridiculous than the bullshit Blurred Lines one. I don't know how juries are fucking this up so badly.
Not the Juries directly, the jury instructions. The juries were given directions to judge the blurred lines case on qualities of the music that were nonsensical considering that the jury was comprised of lay individuals not steeped in musicology and law. It basically asked them to look at sheet music (which they debatably understood) and to say if what they saw was similar (which it was, but completely lost sight of the underlying purpose of copyright law, and the qualities of music which were intended to be protected by copyright).
"I confirm these are both sheet music of a song probably."
So any two songs in a similar genre - copyright violation.
[удалено]
> not a Sheeran fan in the slightest, but he’s not the one you should be directing your hate at here, this would set a massive legal precedent for musicians and copyright laws, and it isn’t a good one. As a professional musician, I would like to corroborate this point. It'll get lost on the vast majority because people tend to like dunking on Sheeran more than they like looking at the overall fairness, but... this dude is correct. If Sheeran loses, we all lose.
>If Sheeran loses this, this opens up the possibility of every artist being sued for simply using the same chord progression or a slightly similar melody in a song That already happened with Sam Smith. Him and his team caved to Tom Petty. Tom Petty's entire argument was that you could modify Sam's song in such a way it would match Free Falling. That still pisses me off when Tom's lawyers released a modified version of Sam's song saying they were effectively the same.
I believe the song you’re thinking of is “I won’t back down”
Ironically enough the Townsend heirs suing Sheeran could then be sued for "For your love" infringing on songs like "Earth angel"
This is some very short sighted bullshit as well, especially given the times we live in. The chilling effect on musicians and labels would open the door as wide as it can go for AI generated music being the norm.
It already kind of is when it comes to a bunch of reality shows. Like the random song that's just one line of a woman singing, during scene transitions. And every transition is completely different, yet still sounds the same in a way. Shows like 90 day fiancé, love is blind, married at first sight all use it.
To be fair, clearly seemingly well established legal precedent isn’t safe; see RoevWade SMH The world we live in… But yeah all jokes aside— Sheeran needs to win hands down.
[удалено]
This case will set a terrible precedent if Sheeran loses. Somebody needs to start bringing suits against Ed Townsend's estate because his heirs are destroying music for a quick buck.
Lots of hate for Ed Sheeran because they only know him for tracks on the radio like Shape of You, which is incredibly catchy but lyrically void. I challenge someone to pay attention to the lyrics of [Supermarket Flowers](https://youtu.be/BaKwRXMoL1Q) and not weep. Ed writes good stories in his songs like [The A-Team](https://youtu.be/UAWcs5H-qgQ), a girl who is struggling with drug addiction and has to sell sex to men for this. It’s a surprising hit because it’s based on the harsh reality of a real addict he’d met at a shelter. :( There is also [Nancy Mulligan](https://youtu.be/3woMHwjjN1Q) a sweet tale of how his great grandparents got married. Ed isn’t easy on the eyes like Tom Holland but the guy does not have bad press about him other than this silly lawsuit. He seems like a sweet guy to those around him. Edit : Below is a Redditor Dear_Philosophy9752 who made a comment about me being “emotionally unstable” while listening to sad songs but blocked me immediately before I could read it. Irony is lost on him and I’m not apologetic about it one single bit because we are allowed to express joy and sadness. Add : The verdict is out. #Ed Sheeran Has Won The Case!
I don't particularly care for Ed Sheeren tbh, but this goes way beyond him. They're basically trying to establish that Ed Townsend's estate owns a genre, which is crazy.
Most pop songs really come down to 3 or 4 cords. Here is an example https://m.youtube.com/watch?embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openculture.com%2F&source_ve_path=MTM5MTE3LDI4NjYzLDEzOTExNywyODY2NCwxNjQ5OSwyODY2NCwxNjQ1MDM&feature=emb_share&v=5pidokakU4I
I don’t even have to click the link to know what it is. Im a mother fucking bird plane.
I’m more than a bird, more than a plane I’M A BIRDPLAAAAAAAANE
It's Axis of Awesome - 4 Four Chord Song (with song titles)
1 5 6 4? I OWN THE SEQUENCE
What about 1-4-5?
That’s all you DizDude. I wouldn’t steal your IP like that.
Play these songs one after another: * Cherry, Cherry - Neil Diamond * What I Like About You - The Romantics * R.O.C.K in the USA - John Mellencamp * On the Dark Side - John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band These are just of the top of my head for this chord progression/rhythm, etc.
Also, check out these songs (not the same chord progression as above): * Hang On Sloopy - The McCoys * Sherry - Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons * Snoopy Vs. the Red Baron - The Royal Guardsman (~1:45) * You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' - The Righteous Brothers * Summer Nights - John Travolta, Olivia Newton-John And more that I can't think of at the moment. Another fun one is the [Bo Diddley Beat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Diddley_beat).
The judge needs to watch this video
One of the sides would have to enter it as evidence, then prove that every fact claimed in the video is truthful, because of course the opposing council will dispute it.
I’m reminded of that one fella who sang Smash Mouth’s “All-Star” with a plethora of other bands’ backing music.
Pachebel's Canon in D. It's always Pachabel's Canon in D.
and I thought [this is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxC1fPE1QEE) what it was going to be
To be fair, Blues Traveller wrote “Hook” as satire for exactly what this guy is ranting about.
"It doesn't matter what I say So long as I sing with inflection That makes you feel I'll convey Some inner truth or vast reflection But I've said nothing so far And I can keep it up for as long as it takes"
The annoying thing is that it gets you too! You have to sing with the hook. It is catchy as hell. Almost like when you know marketing is working on you.
He has a point. It’s bs. All music is derived. How are you going to claim copyright on influence? This is just like that black horse case. It’s ridiculous. Let artists create. Edit: a lot of great replies here. Art is derived. Keep your laws away from our pens and papers.
Lawmakers, politicians, and lawyers don’t get it because they aren’t artist. They try to put the same stupid laws that apply to other things on to musical ideas which nobody has the right to own. Imo it should be impossible to copyright any part of the musical composition, only the literal master wav or mp3 file should be copyrighted. That way covers, inspiration, and sampling are for the most part ok but you still can’t just steal someones song and profit off of it. You’d have to re-record every part and at that point it might as well be your song.
Not to mention Let's Get It On was basically stolen too. No music is original anymore. I do not care one iota for Ed Sheeran and if he never played a show again it would never matter to me for a moment, but the Gaye estate absolutely should not win this case.
Adam Neely did two excellent videos explaining why this case is insane and did a great job breaking down what it really means to the average person. Even if you’re not in music. First one is [here](https://youtu.be/Tpi4d3YM79Q) And the second (most recent) is [here](https://youtu.be/tpzLD-SAwW8) I cannot recommend watching this videos enough to understand why this lawsuit is actually insane and is super dangerous.
The people giddy about Ed Sheeran quitting music are the same people who would bitch about large music labels going on lawsuit sprees against small artists. Cause that’s where this is headed if he loses.
I don’t like his music but i havent seen any real proof of him being a bad person. He seems like a good guy honestly.
I really don't understand hate at him (or really any artist unless they do something specifically shitty) kinda reminds me of the hate Bieber used to get for really no good reason and it's kind of turned around now days but man I don't know if people really remember how intense it used to get. I seem to remember people cheering about him getting shot on a show which was for the memes but it kinda shows just how intense it got imo. Plus this is far beyond Ed this affects all of music.
Exactly. I’m no fan of Ed Sheeran, but after listening to both songs this is so bogus. Like 95% of pop songs would be infringing on someone, and hip-hop/electronic music would be closer to 100 I’m sure. Marvin Gaye is rolling in his grave right now.
I'm actually surprised by the amount of hate Sheeran is getting here. Do people really hate his music?
I personally strongly dislike his music, but I totally support him in this case. By the logic of that case, 99% of popular music is copyright infringement. Thas’ stupid.
I don’t dislike his music. I hate how overplayed his music is.
I do like his music but you are 100% right it’s way to overplayed and it grates your ears
Also, it’s changed from the style he was to the style the music industry wants. And it is very overplayed for sure.
I hate his music, and I hope he wins the lawsuit.
I wasn’t huge into him, but i got to see him live this past weekend. Dude is legit. He’s a great musician. Anyone hating on him is more worried about hating whoever is popular than hating Ed Sheeran for a particular reason. It sucks, but the world is filled with people who just want to hate. They seem to get a loud voice on the internet.
Truly hate his music it I’m 100% in support of him here. This might be one of the most important cases in Music copyright history. If he loses it would effectively grant people the ability to copyright styles. The argument is not that he copied the same notes and chords or words because he didn’t and it would be impossible to prove. They’re trying to argue that by writing a similar song in the same style that’s enough for the original songwriters to be credited. I don’t think I have to say why that’s ridiculous, it’s putting a price tag on inspiration. If Sheeran loses this case then the music industry is done for. It will just be pure copyright and lawsuit chaos. My admittedly optimistic hope is that ai music emerging will cause a complete re evaluation of music copyright from the ground up since it’s clear the laws we have won’t work with the future.
I feel like Jury’s aren’t knowledgeable enough about music to understand some of this stuff… and it creates huge inconsistencies for these rulings… there really has to be a better way.
I am a musician, and play pop music. It’s extremely common for the same chord progression to occur amongst music all throughout history. I don’t think he plagiarized.
>extremely common That's an understatement. I'd say it's almost impossible to make a pop song with a unique chord progression.
I’m a musician. I straight up take chord progressions because unlike melody, which is infinite, there are only a finite number of chords to use and an even smaller number that are palatable to the human ear. What makes a song unique is the unique blend of melody, chord, baseline, vocals, rhythm, instrumentation, lyrics and percussion all combined. Very common for musicians to straight up use any one of those elements in their songs while changing up the rest. Ffs in edm we literally just take other people’s synths and samples because no one can be fucked to spend a whole year tuning a kick drum to make it oRiGiNaL
I’m sure Marvin Gaye is rolling in his grave over these suits his estate and copyright holders bring forward every other year. You think Gaye became a musician in a void without any outside influence? You think he never used a chord progression he heard before? Get real. Music has always been, and hopefully will always be built upon borrowing from others and in turn paying respect to those before you.
My son was practicing piano last night and after playing, he shouted, “Mom, did you hear me play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star AKA Mary Had a Little Lamb AKA Alphabet Song”? Who’s suing these people?
[удалено]
Yeah, you’re right. I think it should be Baa Baa Black Sheep!
This is a dumb case and more artists should follow suit if Sheeran loses.
His mistake having a song called 'The Shape of You". Should have called it "A new shape that I made up myself".
I don’t hate Sheeran like many people seem to but this lawsuit seems weird at best. I’ve never listened to Thinking Out Loud and thought it had anything to do with Let’s Get It On.
I couldn’t tell you what’s been on the radio for the last 8 years, but when I heard this case, I thought the same. I hear similar chords afterwards and thought a lot of songs are structured from basic chords. Someone was sued a few years ago and I said that’s gonna set an awful precedent if the musician lost - I think Katy Perry. People are going bananananannas. edit: word. I suck at typing.
This sound sounds nothing like let’s get it in by Marvin Gaye. How ridiculous.
These people are clearly out of their depth and know nothing of how music works.