Rick your love of music and your ability to break down a song always impresses me. You make it so most of us nonmusicians can’t understand a bit more. Thank you!
My friends and I sometimes play this game at parties we call "four chord song" where somebody gets a guitar and plays a four chord progression and we sing all of the songs we can think of that fit. This is exactly what that's like
If you don't already know about the Axis of Awesome then you need to look them up. They do the 4 chord thing as part of their act. They have been doing it for many many years.
MarlonOwnsYourCake how many times can you play that game before you run out of chord progressions? Sounds fun though. I wish i had musical friends. Or just any friends at all.
The reality is musicians, producers and engineers are lazy now for some reason. I'm sure someone must of mentioned to Ed the similarities of the song, of course they did it's the MUSIC INDUSTRY. But it's still down to Ed or the producer who should have transformed the song and worked on making it sound less like Let's get it on.
this video is by far the best in explaining the similarities and differences between the two songs! keep up the good work. U've gained a new subscriber
True- this is often how songwriters write! Its a common process and practice. They call it their “influences”. They take a song they love, and write lyrics over it, or take the beat, or change the key, there’s really very little truly original music anymore unfortunately. It took me a long time to learn it actually was OK to do this- bc i was taught differently in my fine art studies, and in writing, its a bigger No-No to just copy/plagiarize. But there’s many different ways to write a song. Im not great at it, I more so just do covers myself when I sing, but I have been trying, and have written just a few songs in my lifetime and have many pieces of songs I’ve never finished floating around. Most of the time Ive tried to create something original, usually just starting with improv singing freestyle a melody/lyrics (when Im alone, I cant freestyle publicly Im in awe of those who can), then I try to find chords that will work for the melody. But Ive never been professionally trained in songwriting so that’s just been my personal natural process or inclination. Its only been recently that I tried the method a lot of people use, singing or writing on TOP of another piece that’s used as inspiration. I like both ways!
Marvin's " family" have made more money on lawsuits than Marvin made in his career.. They must have a group of 500 people scanning radio stations around the world 24/7 looking for the odd note Marvin might have used in his songs .. They're relentless. RIP Marvin!!
S4 Dreamland yeah it feels really dirty doesn’t it. Like people who didn’t make the music are now taking the money from artists who are making fantastic new music. To the degree that we can picture it, I find it very hard to believe Marvin would care about it, in fact I think it would be the opposite of that. He would be happy small notes and elements of his music had found there way into others artistry
@S4 Dreamland and Ben: IKR! it seems like music is more about copyrights and ownership rather the actual music and notes. If we keep going this day we'll be living without noises or sounds because someone will "own" that, too. It's ridiculous. Someone owns everything and Ed Sheeran was trying to make music not to copy, and if he was, listen to like the Chainsmokers all of their songs are the same chord progression and beats, like all of the other pop songs now.
In the court case Ed played over 100 songs with the same chord progression with a guitar. There are many previous artists before Marvin Gaye who could sue Marvin for the same song. I think that it's disgusting that this was actually a legal company that purchased the rights and then go out and use it to sue everyone.
I think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion🤔😉 Actually I did it on my channel, would be cool if some others did it as well... cause the lawsuit could be pretty dangerous especially for smaller artists...
TeZOcatlipoca Well you certainly could research on the artist you may find how much they are worth online because chances are if they are millionaires information is out there. However it just isn't worth the time and effort to file a lawsuit against a bunch of small indie artists that are most likely never going to get a huge pay out on like you would with someone like Ed Sheeran always remember money talks.
@@mak_9000 dumb comment. Copyright infringement doesn't only count if it makes loads of money. When your a musical expert, feel free to come back and comment with the EXACT reason this lawsuit isn't frivolous... I'll wait.
When it's just feel or just chord sequence that sounds similar you have to allow it. That would come under the concept of different songs in the same style. But when all the parts apart from the vocal part are so similar that you can alternate bars from one song and the other and barely notice the difference then you are doing something very wrong. For me the fundamental issue is that the vocal part is just one part. The other instrumental parts matter just as much. Imagine if someone claimed to have written a new violin concerto when in fact they'd just transposed the orchestral parts of a Shostakovich one up a semitone and written a brand new soloist part and substituted in the moments where the orchestra plays the soloist's melody with the new melody instead of Shostakovich's, and then altered the bass note in a few places for a slightly different chord every so often. Just try arguing that that isn't stealing from Shostakovich and his publisher shouldn't try to sue. Only if you can successfully argue that, can you also argue that Sheeran shouldn't be sued.
Great video Rick! I love hearing how song writers are inspired by others. There are often are songs that are "derivatives" from other songs and many great artists do not "copy" but are influenced by other artists. You can certainly hear the Beatles vibe in other artists' songs. This is what I think is so cool about the artistry of music. Painters were influenced by other painters, writers by other writers and so on. Even John Mayer, who is a great musical artist, is quoted in his Continuum Album: “Eric Clapton knows I steal from him and is still cool with it” (from the credits on Continuum). I would not say John steals from Eric and I do not think Eric Clapton would sue him. But, it is very cool to hear a bit of Clapton run within a Mayer song (and you may pick out other influences in his music). And, many artists do this subconsciously but this demonstrates how the music world is connected and how it grows. It is one thing to "copy" but that is not the case here. So, I feel this should not have been a legal issue.
It seems like a conscious rip-off when the sections of two songs are played side by side - they are practically the same song. I feel that Gaye should at least share in the songwriting credits.
By the way, I own the strumming patterns DDDD, UUUU, UDUD. DUDU, and DDU UD. I also own Am G C progression. I will see all of the beginner ukulele players in court, thank you very much. Edit: A certain person doesn’t understand that I own music in general. Whoever wrote twinkle twinkle little star is gonna’ get sued in the afterlife.
You can't sue me for UUD UUD DDU DDU because I got that from the quark configuration of Helium-4 as protons have two up quarks and one down, and neutrons are the opposite. :)
Truthfully if the lawsuit had gone in a different direction the courts would be flooded with thousands of similar cases 🎶🔥 let’s not kill the creative process
Ian Anderson, Jethro Tull was asked why he didn't sue some bands who obviously ripped of some of his music. He basically said that every musician, including himself takes from other musicians and he'd be a hypocrite and spiting his own face if he went and sued. He was right.
yeah music is essentially taking other peoples ideas and turning into something you created, like with every Beatles song they just have repetition isn't that what music really is repeating itself over and over again through the ages.
Different key, different lyrics, different melody, different vibe. It’s a simple chord progression that has probably been used millions of times. Damn lawyers.
If they were signed to the same record label this would not be an issue. Listen to just about any modern music and it all sounds the same. Same loops over and over. Same song writers. This is not even argued about. The record labels know their doing it.
You think different key, lyrics and "vibe" matter? So if I put a capo on a Beatles song, add some effect to alter the "vibe" and change some lyrics, it's now a new song, my own composition? Smh
Leo B There are obviously many facets to a song, I just stated a few. If I wrote a song using a I-IV-V chord progression, just strumming each chord once, do I now own this progression? If anyone else uses it, can I sue them?
I believe the law should be change too many law suit over almost the same beat so what I am pretty sure some of Marvin songs and beat and Rhythm has songs from the 1950s and 1960s they should look into that as well and then have those people sue Marvin Gaye’s family
@@rosehampton2511 The argument you are stating is just silly and not why Ed should lose this case . It is simple...Yes, many beats could be said to be derivative and artists do their own versions of those beats. The problem here, is that Ed did not base his song on his version of the beat, he based his song on more or less COPYING Marvin's version of the beat...hence why we all hear the similarities and point to it and not to other songs which could be said to be derivative of that type of beat/musical structure. Even Ed acknowledged the similarities in concert when he linked both songs together.
I don't think anyone should have a patent on a groove and 4 chords. I wonder what would happen if this was the attitude in the 50s. All 50s rocknroll is basically the same groove and harmony.
Jon, for me to consider a song a rip off, it would have to use some unique idea of the original, which is essential to and uniquely characteristic of the song. I don't consider a groove to be that, groove is just a groove and it is more of an element of musical style rather than a particular song. And as to the chord progression, it is way too generic.
As a musician myself, i don't think this is a ripoff. Artists can be creative and sometimes we create different melodies or rhythms that still sound the same because so many things in music already have been done. That's why we try new sound effects, new synthesizers, new drum (loop) effects, etc etc... Sometimes a song will have lots of similarities, that's just how it is.
I agree.. Also as a musician.. for my Sins.. A similar chord progression for sure, and feel perhaps.. Although I wouldn't compare 'feel' when it comes to Sheeran and Gaye..Marvin makes Sheeran sound like a singing cat Imo.. 🐱 I'm pretty sure Sheerans audience have no idea who Marvin Gaye is.. So you could argue that someone like Sheeran would 'borrow' from him... But I think if anything it's a fluke/coincedence in this case.. No... One's a pretty forgettable albeit successful pop singer and the other is a musical legend who's contribution to music is timeless... I know who people will be still listening to in 50 yrs time.. 😉
@@JerryTremaine Very true. I mean, Ed Sheeran has made some good music. I will never argue that. But i also think it goes from generation to generation. Though in some cases, i feel like, the older i become the more i think that the 70's/80's & 90's were really great times. I'm from 85. So i do feel like i missed a whole lot and when i was younger i wasn't really interested in "older" music. Now i've learned to have much more respect (and be more open minded) for other genres/different artists. I'm more in to "dance" music anyway. But like i said, i learned to appreciate different genres and artists in general.
@@DBLCreations snap! I grew up with it luckily.. The old man was a music promoter.. He Worked with Don Arden.. So my 'education' is all over the shop! Yea.. Even knocking out the odd dance tune.. Lol.. Its all good.. Well mostly... 😉
I do not think of let's get it on with Eds song Let's get it on is a Classic I like them both but no it doesn't take me to Let's Get it on No one can Match Marvin
Literally Jimi's Voodoo Child is like every great blues lick it's the stuff around it that makes it unique and jimi. Shits wild simple same chord progressions can be sue worthy 😂😂😂
@@praywithoutceasing4939 can Zeppelin claim an entire band's sound as copywrite infringement? If so, they should have their lawyers look into Greta Van Fleet!! I mean Holy Van Zeppelin they could be the same band!! lol
If you are going to try to “copyright” that chord progression you will have to go back a lot further than “Get It On” and sue about 15 to 20 percent of music. Also, if you are able to copyright a groove, we are really in trouble!
Writing songs is like building a house with the chords acting as the interior frame and all housing frames are similar if not standard. The creativity and uniqueness comes from the design of the exterior facade…and in the case of music the melody is what’s unique. There are tons of examples on UA-cam of many hit songs using the same four chords. No different here.
2-5-1 chord progression in jazz is almost universal. The licks may vary but basic structure is the same. So in this song, if the chords are identical but the melodies are not, it’s just 2 different songs with similar style.
I'm neither a musician nor an artist, but I am a music and art lover. After finding out about this lawsuit, and watching this video, it occurred to me that another way of looking at the differences and similarities between these two songs is by using paintings as an analogy. Two pieces of art may use exactly the same color palette, and even the same brush strokes, but use entirely different subject matters and compositions, making them totally different works of art. If we recognize that the chords and chord progressions are analogous to the color palette and brush stroke style, and that the lyrics and melodies are the subjects and compositions, I think it seems patently obvious (pun intended) that we are looking at, or listening to, different works of art.
Perfectly said and I agree. However, they might use the same analogy and argue that it is more like a paint-by-numbers piece of art, where the foundation of the work was the same and they merely used different colors overtop to change it slightly.
Love this perspective. Van Gogh and Monet both did paintings of Sunflowers in a vase. Both were impressionists. Monet inspired Van Gogh, there is no way anyone would mistake Van Gogh's sunflowers for Monet's.
Both songs are in my collection. I love them both. It never occurred to me that they were similar. Can you dig up every song that ever used this progression or this "feel".
Yeah, I mean, how could he miss that. His real name is likely Edward, so here you have a case where someone is not only suspected ot ripping off music, but he also is named Edward and then, as another musician, applied the same kind of abbreviation technique to that name to use as his music brand name.
If Ed Sheeran was an unknown Indie artist and attempted to distribute "Thinking Out Loud" through a DSP there's a good chance it would've been blocked because of its likeness to "Let's Get It On". I appreciate the breakdown of the comparison in this video and understand why and how he found favor in the courts. However, I certainly have to point out the double standard between mainstream artists versus the hurdles that indie artist face when trying to get their music out.
How are you so sure? Do you know similar examples or work in the industry? If the similarity between songs is limited to just the supporting chords, would a song really be blocked? That's where most of the songs are alike, so to me it seems weird. But I am not in the industry, I just speak from my common sense.
@@squidink3470 In my opinion this is an isolated case and will not have any impact. It depends on the judge and Jury and whether or not the music and lyrics are similar for each song presented...so outcomes will still vary. Chord progressions are universal however the musician should be mindful to surround those chords with instruments sounds so that it is unique their style. Ed had nearly identical compositions during the verses if he had done what I've mentioned, there would've been no case to begin with. I do believe that overall there are double standards on the distribution side for indie vs mainstream. Definitely when it comes to royalty payments through DSP publishers and streaming service viewership. Many indie artists have been complaining about DSPs blockages when it comes to likeness even when there are no similarities.
what is so dangerous is that the decision nearly always made by someone with no musical training or understanding - rather the most convincing lawyer is likely to prevail. This lawsuit is ridiculous.
Sure, but that's jury trials in the first place. We're tried by peers not necesarrily experts in criminal law, forensics, or any matter of psychology. It's always been about the pageantry.
@@potbellyjoe Exactly; it only becomes more obvious with these suits because we can have experts objectively compare the components. The whole idea of trial by jury is essentially trial by idiots convinced by the most charismatic side. They'll get things right, but they'll also get things wrong, and the odds are not too dissimilar. It would honestly just be cheaper to flip a coin - the same 50/50 result is achieved. We really need to move to trial by expert panels, made up of independent large bodies of experts that are drawn from randomly and the experts are subject to peer review. This is basically how science is done and I don't see a problem with it here and much to gain. Trials will also likely be cheaper because they can proceed quicker.
Just wait for that hedgefund/dodgy lawyer to buy up the rights to the first recording of a 12 bar blues track - that will be the end of popular music, ^oo^
The most amazing case I heard was very similar to that. A dodgy lawyer bought the rights to the Australian folk song "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" after the composer died, and then sued Men at Work for basing the1 bar flute riff for Down Under on it. Ridiculous
That would be Normal Lurie, managing Director of music sales at the Warner Music group, parent to the rights holding Larrakin Music. Warner music, hero of the modern music industry.
I think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion🤔😉 Actually I did it on my channel, would be cool if some others did it as well... cause the lawsuit could be pretty dangerous especially for smaller artists...
Your video is expertly presented. Thank you for coming forward. I was worried this lawsuit could go the other way. Even though I hear 2 completely different songs. Congratulations to Ed Sheeran.
@@02WIFE WOW, I don't hear it. I must really be tone death. Another video mentioned the hardest song to play. (forgot title). That one sounded like...Lost Between Moon and New York City.
Hey Rick, Your channel just got a plug on Fox news where they were discussing the Ed Sheeran verdict. Said you had the best comparison out there to listen to! Congrats!!!
I, for one, welcome the Fox News viewers to this channel. You should spend more time watching Rick! Anything over 30 minutes a day of news and opinion on current events is bad for your mental health.
I am no fan of theft, but these lawsuits (and their clear ignorance of how music is written) are setting a dangerous precedent. There are only 12 notes and so many popularly acceptable rhythmic ways to arrange them. I think it should mostly be up to the free market to vote with their money for/against creative works.
Michael Noneofyabusiness oh there are thieves, he's just saying that he's not a fan of stealing, he didn't say that ed sheeran stole something, it's general message, "I'm not a fan of stealing too" are you?
That is such a basic sound anyone could stumble on their own.. even if it was something complex copied you can’t claim time signatures and chords. That’s like claiming a combination of blue red and yellow in a painting can’t be used by other painters. This kind of thing is bad for the music community/industry imo
No way. Ed Sheeran's producers and label knew exactly what they were doing. They were recycling a proven winner. He's big enough they could have licensed the use but they cheaped out
Awesome analysis. I think it's similar but certainly not a ripoff. Ed Sheeran may have been inspired by the Marvin Gaye song but after you broke it down, its completely different with some similarities. Good job.
Bill Todd exactly right, that was going to be my comment. If you went back to old blues songs then everyone would be getting sued right now even instrumentalist playing a 12 bar blues. I think you should come down to melody and lyrics otherwise you’ll be getting sued over every single standard cord progression, 1-6-4-5, 3-6-2-5-1 etc.
As a musician who has written a few things, one of the things I noticed right away in attempting to write something and not sound like someone else is that, due to the number of simple chord progressions that sound pleasing to the ear, it is rather difficult to not be reminded of someone else. I call it cross melody syndrome when I can't seem to play something that doesn't sound like something else, I have heard some other time. As someone who sings and plays rhythm, it is really easy to do this with G,D,C songs, whether you throw in the E min or not. There are only so many patterns to pick the notes in that have a simple enough and yet rhythmic enough pattern to call it music or a melody. The same works with strumming patterns. One of my favorite things to hear is when one musician says when they hear another musician do a cover version of a song is, "you made it your own". In other words, they had the ability to make you forget enough about the original artist to the point that they could appreciate them instead. I think it is the same way when some talented guy has some studio musicians fill in around his material, to try to make a recording. The studio musician will improvise it on the spot, based on their idea of what should fit there, based on what they have heard and played. The idea is in the way something is "fit" that really matters. If musicians will be required to play what doesn't fit a completely stripped drum beat when they start adding a simple base line or simple rhythm guitar track, to allow a vocalist or lead guitarist to embellish, then music is dead as an art form. I see chords, notes, patterns, etc. as simply building blocks, like bricks or cement blocks. There are only so many worthwhile structures you can make with them. Imagine the conundrum of copyright infringement if buildings were considered works of art, all the way down to what the building blocks are made of and how they are made? Technically I believe they are a work of art, yet a necessary part of life we would struggle to live without. Could you imagine life without any music, since all of the great artists of the past owned it all and we could only listen to how they arranged the pieces? I think the hardest thing to prove is intent or the intentional use of the original material. If there was some way to go back in time, through eyewitness accounts, computer records, text messages, email, etc., and find something where it shows Sheeran was like look at what I did with Marvin Gaye's song by tuning a half step different and adding this new part. It is possible and it is doable, especially given the computer technology that is often used to create or mix new material, by rehashing and mixing up old ones. Let's take Kid Rock's song "All Summer Long" for example. It may only seem like a really clever way to rehash and pay tribute to Lynyrd Skynyrd and Sweet Home Alabama, and arguably it is, but where is the kudos to Warren Zevon for his use of Werewolves of London during the verse? Frankly, I don't care that is how it worked out, nor do I think Kid Rock owes those guys anything and like patents, I was under the impression you could straight up use someone's material, at least in pieces and parts, after so much time elapsed and that is why so much of top 40 radio sounded so much like years past if you pay attention. Eminem used the drum beat and bassline from Aerosmith's dream on for a song not too long ago. If anything, artists of today could help generate royalties for artists, by generating interest in older, forgotten songs. If you are a musician, I challenge to play Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star and the ABC song that kids use to learn their ABC's and then tell me if one is ripping off someone and someone owes someone some money. In other words, the lawsuit is asinine in my opinion. PS....I wanted to include these, since the musicians themselves talk about the problem in their songs: Gavin Rossdale - "We live in a wheel and everyone steals and when we rise it's like the Strawberry Fields" James Hetfield - " "I've already Heard this song before" Aerosmith - "It's the same old song and dance my friends"
These cases should be decided by a judge and jury of professional-level musicians who are independent thinkers. Your typical judge, with joe sixpack jury, can be easily swayed by any silver tongued lawyer. The songs really arent the same, nevertheless, the Blurred Lines outcome will likely be repeated until this legal serfdom is fixed.
So judges, in your opinion, can be easily swayed by the silver tongue of a good lawyer, but you think a bunch of musicians are gonna be smarter and more able than a judge. LMAO!!! You clearly don’t know any musicians, lawyers or judges.
False, who needs professional level musicians? Is not the debate between...professional level musicians? Any one with not....a deaf ear, can make this call.... if you don't get this... sadly you never will
@@andrewkennedy-reagan3289 And you don't think Ed Sheeran can afford a silver-tongued lawyer? Regardless of the veracity or merit of the case, the comments her are mostly idiotic. Intellectual properties are difficult, and a slippery slope. My real question is how the hell did Ed Sheeran not realize how completely similar his verse was? Musicians my age have that and a 1000 other songs as ear-worms, and would at LEAST have the drums with a slightly different groove. Be real, it's not JUST the chord progression. This isn't Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" vs "He's So Fine." Like movies, books and all genres of music, the diversity is getting squashed and laymen notice it all sound the same. Quite a task to come up with new hooks to rock songs - but I do believe we SHOULD have new hooks, regardless of the inspiration. Maybe if Marvin was still alive we wouldn't feel Ed was being put-upon, instead of indignant that a no-name shill that seems to be getting a pay-off. By the way, the most vulnerable and easily swayed group on the planet in legal issues and conflicts seem to have been musicians of all periods.
I got sued for copying someone who came out of the woodwork, an artist I never heard about and who's song I had never heard in my life, because of 3 piano notes somewhere in the riff... AND LOST!There are so many musicians nowadays writing and producing music.. everyone is making pop music with pretty much the same chords and instruments, everyone having pretty much the same influences.. we've reached a point of saturation where anything you write is in danger of being sued. I also got sued by a lawyer representing a well known software company that starts with "M" because some lawyer in his car heard what reminded him of the software's mnemonic.. The guy obviously had no musical ear because he was way off.. I won, but still had to defend and prepare a case.. Lawyers... He thought he could make a quick buck I guess.. I am certain that if you were to compile in a computer all the music ever written since 300 years ago, you could probably find that any musical sequence has already been done a couple of times, eather by Bach or who ever, and in the advent of a pursuit, one could say: "well, sorry buddy, as a matter of fact you yourself copied Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Willy Nelson and ABBA..."
Yes, but George Harrison was sued for copying both the melody and chord progressions from He's So Fine. That's different from coming up with a new song with a similar feel to another song.
I couldn't agree more. The "Blurred Lines" ruling set a bad precedent. Despite that, I still believe you can copyright a song, but you cannot copyright how it's played. Melodies and lyrics can be copyrighted, but, while I'm not in the habit of quoting Flavor Flav, he had a point when he said, "Y'all can't copyright beats!" The same goes for grooves as far as I'm concerned.
When I first heard Blurred Lines I immediately heard Marvin Gaye....as for the Ed Sheehan song, I didn't hear Marvin this time and Let's Get it on is one of my all time favorites.
Same here. To me, the backing track is a common sound, and it primarily for background noise. The melody is what makes the songs, which Marvin and Ed did completely different. I never once thought of Marvin when I heard Ed’s song. With Blurred Lines I immediately thought of Marvin. The song itself is just similar structure and would have been fine. But the icing on the cake is the addition of the random background party type vocal noises like Marvin’s song.
I always found it amusing when I found two songs that were practically the same in certain aspects but I never thought one musician was "stealing" from the other. Not only is it highly likely to come up with something that already exists by accident, I also think it is perfectly acceptable to use aspects of existing songs on purpose (especially rhythm-wise).
Yes true however insert a corporate greedy cares not for music record label and it's influence on a young artist, then this is what happens. Also are we assuming Ed and his record label reps have never heard "Lets get it on"? I agree its acceptable to use "aspects" of an existing song but as artist we should strive to be original and improve on that which we borrow. Paul Giamatti is an original actor/artist one of my favorites.
@@underhander4753 Exactly, I had never heard "Lets get it on", but my mom had. She immediately thought she recognized it and I said it was a newish song and she basically looked at me like I was stupid lmao.
Totally disagree with that logic. A derivative is a derivative. It is not an original. One has elements of the other. (Say it was a painting instead. And the painting looked exactly like a photograph, when both were superimposed on each other. And the photo came first. But the painting was with different colors and texture. It would be clear to most that the painter got the idea from that exact photograph.) If I were judge and jury, I would compensate Marvin Gaye estate some money. Maybe 33%. After all, it is a derivative.
If we let copyright cover the beat, underlying chords, etc., then you will effectively kill songwriting. ALL forms of music and songs are built on the foundation of what came before them. This suit is ridiculous. I can't find anything about resolution to this case...it was supposed to go to trial in September, but it doesn't seem that happened. Townsend's estate is trying to pull some sneaky tricks to allow "Let's Get It On" to be played in court in opposition to recent court rulings involving Led Zeppelin. Again...ridiculous.
I dunno, check out Queen/David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice - Bowie/Queen sued Vanilla Ice for using the iconic chord progression in the beginning of their song "Under Pressure" in Vanilla Ice's "Ice ice Baby"! So I don't think it is ridiculous - just something in caselaw that is evolving!
If an artist could automatically get a writing credit and thus royalties for another artist using their chord progression, the estate of Johann Pachelbel would be the richest family in music ever to have lived
@@benjamindavis6091 It would be Aphrodite's Child that made that would get royalties from every song then. Rain and Tears was heavily based on Pachelbel's Canon in D. Ed Sheeran won anyway, so It's all moot now. Chord Progressions can't be copyrighted
Wyatt Brownell not really the same thing and I think you know it. There’s a difference between a disenfranchised community expressing themselves as a whole through a shared musical lexicon (what all socially-conscious musical movements do) and an established mainstream artist pilfering a beat, chord progression, and tempo from a famous artist’s hit song from generations past.
@@STRANGEANATOMYBAND There is exactly no difference from a copyright standpoint. You can talk about social consciousness all you want but the topic here is copyright law.
@@STRANGEANATOMYBAND RJ wasn't taking part in a socially conscious musical movement. He was playing guitar, drinking whiskey and banging other dudes' wives.
@@STRANGEANATOMYBAND speaking as an unaffiliated lawyer, you are absolutely correct. The intention of the music is completely relevant to the argument.
@@AC-pv6ij long winded and bs. The song was just dissected and the absolute derivative was easily seen. What you just said is like the greta van fleet claim their big influence was Aerosmith when no evidence can be presented. The chord progression is exactly the same except for the chorus.
@@AC-pv6ij blah blah blah. We just watched him point out that the chords, the bass line and the drums are exactly the same. You cant copyright a progression but that's the limit. Once other instrumentation is added the similarities are obvious and pointed out and shown clearly the music is clearly derivative. Save you pseudointellectual bs.
ABM I'm not defending this douche. I don't even like the song. I already stated that he should cop to it. My point is, that this copyright war going on, is going to stifle creativity, to the point that everything will have to be 12 bar blues, so that the "writer" won't get sued.
Can't tell you how many times i've heard opening instrumental prior to any words being sung, think its one song but once words come in its 2 completely different songs, words, style & tone. Love ed sheeran's song, it was what made him stand out to me as an artist & looking for more. Honestly i didnt know marvin gaye sang lets bring it on, thought the song was an oldie but goodie from back in the day.
Will add & feel free to tell me if i'm wrong, but going off of marvin gaye's rep implication of plagiarism, couldn't the group beegee's 'killing me softly' say the same basless accusation to marvin gayes 'lets get it on' opening with the opening instrumental trill sound that ed sheeran didn't put in his? It's how i perceive it, two completely different styles, lyrics, tone & message.
Not sure which sound effect/instrument is used perhaps electric or steel guitar, prior to the female singing ' i heard he sang a god song, i heard he had a style' theres that sound effect much like what marvin gaye uses cutting into instrumental & singing words 'lets get it on', a sound effect that ed sheeran does not use in his song at all. Both sounds similar in usage between marvins & bee gee's songs. I'm just saying over all marvin going after ed was petty. When listening to ed's song i never had my listening ear turn & hear 'lets get it on' as i have heard similarities in the past with artists who are not sheeran & gaye with different lyrics, chorus, meaning, etc during opening instrumentals.
@@crystalbluewaters Shitake... mushrooms. Dude, the two songs sound clearly alike. I'm not saying The co-writer of, "Let's Get It On", should've won but, there is definitely obvious influence in Ed Sheeran's song. Marvin Gaye didn't go after Ed... Marvin Gaye has been dead for a long time now.
@@sheogorathprinceofmadness2223 i don't hear it sorry. I do however hear the stylistic influence/muse of van morrison which ann in another comment thread states that when ed wrote this with his friend van morrison was their influence/muse. I can hear it in van morrisons song crazy love (i knew the song but not the artist, its bad on my part i know. Can't exactly check artists names while driving, & i come from an era where landlines & dial up were a thing as well as cassette tapes & beginning of cds which even then was limited $ ways. Loving the new tech & internet services we all enjoy now as well as youtube & music competitions on color tv rather than a static 3 show aluminum antenna'd dial switch tv, that have introduced new music for me to enjoy as well as artists of past & present who they were influenced by)
You should be brought in as an expert witness! You made it very clear to me, someone with absolutely ZERO music knowledge whatsoever (other than listening and enjoying music), that these songs are very different. Just another ridiculous lawsuit because someone wants free money.
And what is the purpose of music again? Enjoying the music and the ultimate verdict comes from the fans not from some nitpicking musicallogists who try to find one note that is the same yeah we have 12 notes in the octave so so the person who uses them to make music… Seriously the jury was right! Those are two entirely different songs - the harassment of young musicians, with the purpose of greed - has to stop!
All art is a progression of past inspiration and influence. These kind of lawsuits just expose how greedy and uncreative music labels are. I know both songs pretty well and I didn't even think about it until you pointed it out in this video. Copyright infringement should be far more obvious than this.
Fair play Nathan but ed townsend should have been credited as a cowriter. It's not creative to stack on top of something else to this extent and looking to the past for inspiration without acknowledging past creators is called ransacking.
Bob Boitt This isn't about the chord progression, though. It's about the whole arrangement that's like 98% the same. And yes, a lot of 50s songs have similar accompaniment parts, but there's a difference between a genre cliche and an actually recognizable accompaniment part. And I think this one falls into the latter category, unless you find at least a couple more songs that use very similar arrangement. I don't think demanding writing credits is totally unjust in this case, but since we are talking about the arrangement of the song, I think the one who deserves the writing credits and royalties should be the arranger of the Marvin Gaye song (considering that the arranger wasn't Marvin Gaye himself). If Marvin Gaye didn't write the arrangement, then he has nothing to do with the Ed Sheeran song and he doesn't deserve any writing credits, because the only thing that's similar between these two songs is the arrangement. Take the melody, lyrics, chords and song structure and write a new arrangement and it will sound nothing like Marvin Gaye's song. But of course this all is considering that this arrangement is really unique to the Marvin Gaye song. If it's not, then there's no case to be made here.
I wonder if the Marvin Gaye estate had anything to do with this.. I saw an interview with Marvin’s daughter after the Blurred Lines decision. She is Crazyyy. She was crying and saying that a great justice had been done that day. Clearly a manipulator.
My personal acid test is that when I hear a song, does it instantly call to mind another song I know. This has happened many times without lawsuits being involved. I know both these songs and have never made a connection between them.
I feel the same....! SO SO SO many melodies and lyrics are being transferred in essence from one song to another... like sometimes I feel like a new song, is basically 2 other songs converged... Even that I personally think is okay... However, I have loved both these songs, and have NEVER made that association... and I only hope that I will not like the Marvin Gaye song less now because of this assault.. Let us hope that artists can feel free to write freely, drawing on inspiration, knowledge and ALL their abilities, without fear that they may subconsciously be copying someone they admire... Or having to screen their own songs for subconscious infraction...
I understand your point, but "call to mind" involves so much of the listener, as the listener have an infinite of possible musical knowledge o hear training and expirience, thats something that you can't standardize. A song that has zero relation with other to me, can be the same to other people, thats why in these lawsuits everything gets technical
So glad you did this Dr. Beato!! I’m a longtime musician and guitar teacher, and the first time I heard this song I said out loud, “Oh, wow, that’s Let’s Get On!” How can he get away with that? I don’t think he should lose the lawsuit though because Ed’s song is melodically much different. Cool post!
And because you said "wow" that's why Marvin sued him. I thought the same thing. But, people are on here saying it's nothing like Marvin and that's being dishonest. The differences are not what the suit is about; but the similiarities! There are plenty of original songs released every day. Ed's was NOT!
Dear Marvin Gaye camp. Not everyone is stealing HIS music. Please stop the law suits. You are spoiling his memory. By the way, music follows certain patterns. Are you gonna sue every time someone has a similar pattern?
Paul L. Rogers All who grew up listing to Marvin Gaye music will mot settle for any type of copy rights infrengment. Your are delusional to think the Gaye family should stop suing people who attempt steal his music.
Michael Singleton look up Adam Neely's video titled "You Can't Own Chords". It may shed some light for you on the hilarity of this lawsuit against Sheeran. It basically outlines the difference between an I6 chord and a III chord and their role within functional harmony... And that you could argue with the lawsuits logic that in actuality Marvin Gaye copied Earth Angel. Look up contrafact and listen to examples where this sort of influencing has happened before. For instance, between the Jazz piece "I got rhythm" which uses rhythm changes and the Flintstones melody. Same chords different melody.
yeah what is the conclusion of your professor? Because for me it is so absurd. Because in music there is always a similarity. I mean we use similar instrument. So it is a common sense that some melodies can be sound similar. Because i think there is a limit on how many melodies and progression an artist could only produce. I mean it is common practice by genre, like in jpop where the progression IV△7-V7-iii7-vi are always present. Especially in jpop hits. Man the future is really scarry. I mean imagine hundreds or thousand years where a musician can't compose sh1t due to copyright. I think the world now is evolving where normal citizens can't own sh1t. Also the practice of making an absurd patent for me is pathetic. I think lawmakers should start inhibiting on making patents that are impossible to make at a time where the patents are made. I think there should be a real if not, a visible product first to make that patent. Because its becoming an impossible task to own sh1t now that the big companies are fighting to own copyrights even if it does not exist. Also, i know this is unrelated but we live in a subscription based now so..
I loved both songs having listened to them many times. Maybe it was the rhythm I liked. However, not once did "Thinking Out Loud" remind me of "Let's Get It On".
All I learned from my years in music-college years was this: You can only copyright the most single thing possible, eg The Melody. You can't copyright a genre/style/voicings or chords. Pretty simple. The Blurred line fiasco is some of the worst rulings ever. You can't copyright a common four chord structures due to the limitation of the classical/pop-music theory out there. My ruling for this new song, Ed is not guilty.
Agree, especially because even in your example, Robert Johnson borrowed extensively from blues contemporaries and musicians who came before him - Son House, Skip James, Willie Brown, etc.
I would never have thought these two songs were related before the lawsuit. After hearing the comparison I still don’t think the the similarities are enough to warrant a copyright infringement. Let’s be clear everyone steals from everyone. Thats the way artists learn and grow.
I guess that depends on what stealing really is. I think there's a line someone crosses when they go from being inspired by and putting their own creative twist on something versus taking it without making any unique contribution of their own. Generally, the person themself knows what they're doing. They know what side of the line they're on.
Gecko no such thing. You can't say that like it's black and white. It's not. If that were the case then millions of musicions wouldn't be able to create anything anymore. DJs wouldn't be able to do there thing and music would have died years ago
Listening to Thinking Out Loud, I had no idea what song Sheeran supposedly ripped off. After your comparison, I feel it is a musical style that is shared. But, the two songs are wholly different.
As a you Songwriter that is just starting out, the one thing this lawsuit teaches me is not to listen to Marvin Gaye anymore so I‘m not getting influenced by any of his chord progressions by accident 😅
Great video. As a music lover and hobbyist producer, I could feel a difference in listening to the songs but couldn’t articulate it. Pretty cool to hear a breakdown from someone with way more musical knowledge.
I lined them up and played them at the same time - basically layered. The tempo is the same, and there are some similar cord progressions, but they are very different songs. I'd also guess that if we went back and listened to hundreds of blues songs, we'd probably find something that influenced "Let's Get It On." Soul music came out of the blues and you could probably find specific blues songs that inspired some 60s-70s soul music. But nobody was suing to get rich from a song written by one of their dead relatives who was famous in an earlier era.
@@JChristelle05 Yeah as a fan of old blues and jazz I'm so used to hearing a million different songs which are basically just slightly different versions of each other. Although these songs have the same DNA they really don't sound that similar to me.
Chords, tempo, style and instrumentation are similar, but, the differing melody and lyrics seem to be (in my opinion) enough to make the song stand on its own. If the song had more than 4 chords in common, copied instrumentation like, flutes and harpsichords etc.. but bass, drums and guitars are a hard sell. 90% of all bands are bass, drums and guitars. The amount copied is not substantial enough (In my opinion). The original material is not complex enough to have a unique signature. 4 chords is a weak case. Try copying Bohemian Rapsody next time maybe.
I am a lawyer AND a musician and I find the idea of suing someone for creating music ridiculous. Art and music can only develop and always have developed by building upon previously existing art and music.
it's the jurors that they hope have no clue, and that's the real problem. Regardless of how much a music expert will show you how this shouldn't be, the bank teller sitting on the jury is going to just rule against Ed Sheeran because they 'sound' the same.
You make a fair point there. Lawyers do not need to have a deep knowledge regarding musical history and theory, they need to play their cards right and manipulate the jury into believing their arguments.
I want a million dollars in damages for the anxiety and distress I feel now every time I hear either song as a result of of this LAWSUIT.(s) My lifetime of love for both songs and the joy they brought me has now been replaced with fear and sadness for a beloved artist, Ed Sheeran and for every other songwriter living under the threat of baseless lawsuits like this one. The lawsuit wants 100 million dollars in damages, along with proceeds from all of his concert tours and I'm guessing a significant portion of all royalties earned since "Thinking out Loud" was released. All because Ed wrote a beautiful love song using a standard chord progression, and a standard rhythm, public domain elements to everyone else on the planet...why not him? It's the melody and lyrics that sell the song, no one cares about the basic four chords. I will not be happy until Sheeran Fights this one and wins for all songwriters. Never have I, even vaguely, associated one song with the other. No one owns standards. This is a travesty.
I can not agree with that logic at all. A derivative is a derivative, it is not an original. One has elements of the other. (Say it was a painting instead. And the painting looked exactly like a photograph when both were superimposed on each other. And the photo came first. But the painting was with different colors and texture. It would be clear to most that the painter got the idea from that exact photograph.) If I were judge and jury, I would compensate Marvin Gaye estate some money. Maybe 33%. After all, it is a derivative.
The BMW Isetta, the reliant robin, the Morgan 3-wheeler, the bubble car and the KTM X Bow have 3 wheels...... all right i'll shut up now i agree with your point XD
It’s the tempo and drums but it’s mostly the song is different enough because the melody is different. A lot of songs have the same chord progression. I don’t think it’s a rip off I think it’s heavy inspiration. Especially he gets to the “people fall in love in mysterious ways” super different.
I’ll say this about Blurred Lines: the first time I heard it, right from the first few bars, I instantly thought, “This sounds like a Marvin Gaye song.” Sure enough, I found the very song in question pretty quickly after listening to BL. I never had the same reaction to the Sheeran song (though I never actively listened to it as I did with BL the first time). Either way, you’re right; these suits are largely frivolous. Go back to the 50s and people were recycling the same musical forms over and over again. (Think “Blueberry Hill”) On the other hand, I do believe there is a very conscious effort on music producers, arrangers and writers to look for recognizable musical ideas, alter them just slightly, and use them to hook listeners. This has been going on forever, but now the field of musical invention seems to be getting absurdly narrow. It really is a lose-lose situation for music these days.
The first time I heard "Hotel California" I instantly thought of Jethro Tull's "We used to know". The songwriter, Ian Anderson, said, “It's not plagiarism. It's just the same chord sequence."
Fruity Ronster Well then too many people have a case if they were on top of their business but unfortunately most of these artists don't own their masters and the people that do are making backroom deals to avoid clearing samples, which ends up with so many songs sounding the same.
It's even difficult to draw the line at the melody. They've been recycled in folk to great effect for centuries, and it hasn't been a problem. Borrowing melodies is a big part of musical tradition. Wherever the line is drawn, Sheeran has quite obviously done nothing wrong.
Led Zeppelin's Trampled Under Foot and Styx's Renegade are basically the same song. Zeppelin could have sued Styx (Zeppelin's tune came out in '76, Styx's in '78).
the drum beat is a generic simple beat so thats not a creative aspect of the song. the chords are not complex or anything other than 4/4 patterns. the fact that ed actually does the drums in a loop with his guitar originally makes it instrumentally different as a base and the melody is completely different. melody is the key really to copyright not the basic accompaniment IMO. lawyers and judges need to understand that music is not about finding the similarities but about finding what is different.....its like videogame design or photography...you cant copyright a town but you can copyright your photo of the town someone else can take a photo in a similar spot and do a similar effect but it isn't yours
The real problem is complexity. The simpler something is, the less "unique" it is. I can make a more unique melody out of 20 notes then I can 5 notes. Gaye's original song is so SIMPLE that it lends itself to being copied out of sheer accessibility in creating a likewise simple song. It's like if clothing was copyrighted and I sued for someone else wearing jeans and a t-shirt. They are the most BASIC, SIMPLE items and are so much more likely to be copied then if someone was wearing a vest with robe underneath and a basket on their head.
Yeah but the fact that he performed them both live together shows that he knew they were similar. Pretty much snitchin on himself that he knew where he got the idea for the song from. This shows it wasn't a coincidence.
@@EricEustace yeah well but there is a big difference between inspiration and plagiarism. following the clothes reference is like if i see an actress i like with a cute dress and i create an ouffit for myself inspired in that one, with the same style but instead of a one piece dress i make it top and skirt. it would be similar enough to see were the inspiration came from but it wouldn't really be a copy. i don't really think this songs are similar enough to actually put someone on trial for it. feels more like a matter of greed than justice.
Susan Bravo I'm with you in this analysis. If ETownsend lawyers would succeed in court, I would be pleased to see The Who lawyers filing against ETownsend for copying in LGIO the Song is Over back track, for another 100million $. Crazy world .
@@EricEustace You said, "Yeah but the fact that he performed them both live together shows that he knew they were similar." While this is true, it's also not illegal to copy ideas that have their foundation in the public domain. If you write a song and I copy the tune, I'm legally safe if that tune can be traced to a 19th century public domain song, even though it was from you that I got the inspiration. A good defense strategy would be to find an old public domain song that has the same simple melodic structure and then claim that it is unprotectable under copyright law because it existed long before Gaye composed his song. As the original comment said, "Gaye's original song is so SIMPLE" that it is likely to be copied out of sheer accessibility --- and it is also is likely that it has been used sometime before. When determining if copyright infringement occurred, a court has to filter out the unprotected elements before looking at those that are actually creative innovations created by the plaintiff and make the determination based upon those alone.
@@eugenemartone7023 its a basic drum beat and a basic 4 note bass line. Its been repeated 100s of times. I dont think Sheeran stole anything. Like i stated in my previous comment, there are only so many chord progressions and patterns that can be used.
Not really because that case turned against Robin Thicke because, as I understand it, he made the mistake of admitting they got the idea for the song from Gaye's 'Got To Give It Up'. Had he not made that admission, he might have won, so that case really doesn't set a precedent.
I love both songs but never heard one within the other. To me they are completely different pieces of work. Similar in some respects, yes, but two completely different songs with complimentary styles. I would love it if someone had the time to do another comparison of similar styles and see just how many songs there would be that have the same rhythm and groove if tuned to the same key... everyone ripping from everyone? Copywrite infringement in music has such a fine line, there are only so many notes and combinations of how those notes can go together, that you are bound to sound similar at some point, but in my opinion, the songs should be looked at as a whole and by the hook. The hook in Gaye's song is clearly the part where he sings, "Let's get it on" where Sheeran's hook is, "Honey, your soul could never grow old it's evergreen." Completely different. Thank you for doing this comparison, I hope this reaches many people and opens their eyes to how a song is defined and what it means.
@@chrystalblue7170 Nonsense you can play C Emin, F and G with so many different rhythms, intonations frills and accompaniments that they sound different. That chord sequence could be Downtown or George Girl totally different sounds
Yes, these songs are different like identical twins are different. So different only close loved ones can tell the difference. Problem is they are out in public making money based on strangers being able to tell them apart.
Excellent analysis, Rick. Surely the word copy does what it says on the tin. Songs are discrete entities of key, time signatures, melody, lyrics, feel, dynamics etc. All notes, all keys, all time signatures, all beat counts etc are in the public domain. So unless everything is exactly duplicated - lyrics, notes, time etc it cannot possibly be a copy. I mean how many songs in an era or a genre sound similar? And why? Because that's what people of that time and musical interest want to hear! If copying were to mean just anything fairly similar there wouldn't be any new music or at least not much of it.
Beary Boy They don't actually care. The lawsuit is for 100 million. They're blatant trolls just looking for Ed to settle, which a lot of rich people and companies do instead of wasting time. Ed's side will either offer a few hundred thousand to settle, or win if he fights.
There's only so many chord progressions that can be made... and by transposing two different keys, there is even less different chord intervals progressions possible. Now transpose those few choices over different tempos... and of course anyone with a lot of time to waste and properly motivated to steal another artist's money will be able to find similarities. With the amount of songs coming out every day, it is inevitable that some will sound similar, no matter where the inspiration came from. I think that some "extinguished" artists or businesses are making a come back as legal leeches. I am a big Marvin Gaye fan, as I'm sure Ed Sheeran is. But this whole story is such a load of horse$h*t... can't believe they could win with this case..
Ruairidh McGhee I'm sure you are super cool and so great and all... but there are around 4000 possible chords.. 2500 are playable on guitar. And there is roughly 100 million songs in the world. So whatever "Pop" can do.. count again my friend! Thanks for your input!
Bald & Bearded Bald & Bearded Ready? Using just 7 triads from the diatonic major scale, we can make 7^4 = 2401 4-chord progressions. This doesn’t even count what we can make using harmonic minor with the ability to raise and flatten the seventh, or the use of dominant seventh chains. There are also plenty of pop songs, such as Nights in White Satin and No Rain, which play with mode mixture. Opening up another entire ballpark. If we assume we have all the seventh chords from the modern modes except for the diminished chords at our disposal, we have roughly 26 different chords at our disposal, 26^4 = 456 976 different 4 chord progressions. Sure, a fair few of those won’t sound nice, but don’t forget that a progression can have more than 4 chords. By the same calculations, we would have 308 915 776 different 6-chord progressions, and we haven’t even touched extensions, inversions, or music which doesn’t revolve around the diatonic major scale. I’m sure that out of all the progressions among this randomly generated list, you have not heard every nice-sounding one, nor has every nice-sounding one been used in a song, as most pieces will use familiar chord progressions. And when you say ‘Only 2000 chords can be played on a guitar’ think about it, that’s a lot to work with. 2000^4? You don’t need me to tell you that that’s a big number.
Malice Burgoyne Sort of, the rhythm guitar plays the same rhythm and the chords are the same, it stops there. I'd argue that there is at least enough of a transformation to make it its own song. However, that doesn't mean I don't think pop music needs to seek a little more originality.
Malice Burgoyne Your daughter was hearing the many similarities between the two songs, not looking for the differences. It's easy to hear the similarities in music; it's what our brains are designed to do. This is especially true with Top 40 pop music, which is actively trying to sound like songs you (presumably) already like. The differences, however, are what actually matter in a case of copyright infringement or plagiarism. No-one is arguing that the song is "original" or that Ed Sheeran didn't blatantly steal elements of Let's Get It On; we're arguing that the finished product is too different from what it's emulating to qualify as the type of infringement the suit alleges. If the suit was limited to the rhythm section and most of the chord progressions being eerily similar to Let's Get It On, then Ed Sheeran would pay what amounts to a very expensive sampling fee and move on. That's not what we ended up with. I wouldn't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't understand the theory, but the suit is full of terrible arguments buried in jargon that could prove to be disastrous if used as a legal precedent.
Excellent commentary Rick! The problem seems to be rooted in the fact that the word ‘arrangement’ has two fundamentally different musical meanings, and legally, the copyright distinction is being eroded by the equivocation of the two meanings. Song copyright covers the original arrangement (sequence of the musical notes/rhythm) of the melody in a song. In this limited context, an arranger can be liable for infringement by violating the composer’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works of his/her song. This blurring of the distinction seems to be a result of the continuing extension of copyright protection to samples (fragments; phrases; notes... or even silence a la Cage's 4'33") of a recorded 'arrangement', as a result of sound recording copyright infringement litigation (song/melodic sequence arrangement + stylistic arrangement). As arrangers, our work cannot be copyrighted. Yet, this case shows an attempt to extend the intellectual property meaning of ‘arrangement’ to also include ‘stylistic arrangements’ - creative instrumentation choices, backing grooves, stylistic clichés and embellishments (i.e. Phil Spector’s ‘wall of sound’ arranging style can’t be copyrighted). In this case, the absence of any copyright infringement of the melodic arrangement (sequence) is the salient distinction. I hope this case results in a new legal distinction between both meanings of 'arrangement' - one (melodic sequence) subject to copyright protection and the other (stylistic) not, since it is part of the musical language/vernacular and thus not the intellectual 'property' of an individual or corporation.
Once I made a song for a girl in NZ, then it developed. I made variations, put trombon layers above the third stanza of lyrics and even allowed myself to dislocate it’s ending onto a tragic melody in minor chords. I was very happy with it. Then a friend told me “yo, the chorus melody sounds like wicked game by Chris Isaak” I checked it. It was true. Exact same guitar chords. The song ended in the trash bin... :(
Love your work, from a fellow composer/jazz musician! Keep breaking down these lawsuits for the laypersons that don’t understand: melodic, harmonic and rhythmic structure. Thank you!
I think all lawyers should be sued for suing in the same sue style that other suers have sued in.
Like a dense clamoring paradox of sue layered on sue, interlaced with suing sues and suing for that too.
So sue me...
Agreed
Hahaha!
😆😆
Its time for all the people in the Top 20 list to start suing each others, cause they all sound the same to me.
AMEN
All those songs are by like the same 2 Swedish guys.
BallNuts I think he is referring to Max Martin and Johan Shuster, two internationally successful swedish songwriters.
Probably would be a company suing themselves if it happened
I think john mayer mentioned the same thing in the "hot ones" video
Nickelback should sue themselves because every song sounds the same.
And Five Finger
Some guy did once get sued for plagiarizing themselves! yeah it actually happened can't remember who it was
There is more than one song???
or because every song sounds like them!
ROFLMAO!
Rick your love of music and your ability to break down a song always impresses me. You make it so most of us nonmusicians can’t understand a bit more. Thank you!
Just a heads up, I have copyright on 130 BPM.
Jason Bone see you in court ;)
Time to sue the metronomes.
I have the copyright for 130.5 BPM
*GENE SIMMONS INTENSIFIES*
Dammit. Ok, but what about 131 and a half?
My friends and I sometimes play this game at parties we call "four chord song" where somebody gets a guitar and plays a four chord progression and we sing all of the songs we can think of that fit. This is exactly what that's like
MarlonOwnsYourCake prepare to be sued by marvin gaye's family
Marco More ahahaha
If you don't already know about the Axis of Awesome then you need to look them up. They do the 4 chord thing as part of their act. They have been doing it for many many years.
Yep. The defence could do that in court.
MarlonOwnsYourCake how many times can you play that game before you run out of chord progressions? Sounds fun though. I wish i had musical friends. Or just any friends at all.
News flash - The pop scene has been using the same 3 or 4 chord progressions for decades upon decades now...
yep, 4 chords song proves that.
Yeah but they're not allowed to be popular charts toppers! Lmao
1_5_6m_4 right?
Now there's a chord case!
The reality is musicians, producers and engineers are lazy now for some reason. I'm sure someone must of mentioned to Ed the similarities of the song, of course they did it's the MUSIC INDUSTRY. But it's still down to Ed or the producer who should have transformed the song and worked on making it sound less like Let's get it on.
this video is by far the best in explaining the similarities and differences between the two songs! keep up the good work. U've gained a new subscriber
If this is copyright infringement, drummers and bass players need to start getting royalties.
Jared Cook totally agree!!
If they are included in the ASCAP licensing then yeah...but most aren't
Well, that's the point....they aren't include because it's not covered by copyright....
Excuse me, I'd like to copyright the guitar chords G,C,D,E,A & F 😀
Wrong. This is about publishing, not recordings. Those musicians don't make a cent on radio airplay unless they have a piece of the publishing.
If using a chord structure and groove is a plagiation then the whole history of blues and jazz should be sued. What a non sense
Wow !!! You are correct. And almost every song on Mexican radio has the same chord progressions... how will we ever solve this problem...Lawyers!!!
Curro, don't say that around Jimmy Page!!! It ruins his day. LOL
True- this is often how songwriters write! Its a common process and practice. They call it their “influences”. They take a song they love, and write lyrics over it, or take the beat, or change the key, there’s really very little truly original music anymore unfortunately. It took me a long time to learn it actually was OK to do this- bc i was taught differently in my fine art studies, and in writing, its a bigger No-No to just copy/plagiarize. But there’s many different ways to write a song. Im not great at it, I more so just do covers myself when I sing, but I have been trying, and have written just a few songs in my lifetime and have many pieces of songs I’ve never finished floating around. Most of the time Ive tried to create something original, usually just starting with improv singing freestyle a melody/lyrics (when Im alone, I cant freestyle publicly Im in awe of those who can), then I try to find chords that will work for the melody. But Ive never been professionally trained in songwriting so that’s just been my personal natural process or inclination. Its only been recently that I tried the method a lot of people use, singing or writing on TOP of another piece that’s used as inspiration. I like both ways!
I know this is such a common chord progression used all over the place in almost all genres, how can anyone justify copyrights on that?
Dude yes all musician should be paying royalties to each other haha!!
Marvin's " family" have made more money on lawsuits than Marvin made in his career.. They must have a group of 500 people scanning radio stations around the world 24/7 looking for the odd note Marvin might have used in his songs .. They're relentless. RIP Marvin!!
S4 Dreamland yeah it feels really dirty doesn’t it. Like people who didn’t make the music are now taking the money from artists who are making fantastic new music. To the degree that we can picture it, I find it very hard to believe Marvin would care about it, in fact I think it would be the opposite of that. He would be happy small notes and elements of his music had found there way into others artistry
@S4 Dreamland and Ben: IKR! it seems like music is more about copyrights and ownership rather the actual music and notes. If we keep going this day we'll be living without noises or sounds because someone will "own" that, too. It's ridiculous. Someone owns everything and Ed Sheeran was trying to make music not to copy, and if he was, listen to like the Chainsmokers all of their songs are the same chord progression and beats, like all of the other pop songs now.
S4 Dreamland I think he would be spinning in his grave.
Easy money.
They probably built a computer program
In the court case Ed played over 100 songs with the same chord progression with a guitar.
There are many previous artists before Marvin Gaye who could sue Marvin for the same song.
I think that it's disgusting that this was actually a legal company that purchased the rights and then go out and use it to sue everyone.
Rick beato is a conartist himself.. What a hypocrite it makes me mad...it's not ok to be a conartist and dishonest about it
It will be a sad day when we have people afraid to create music
TeZOcatlipoca - well I can’t see why they would want to sue an artist with no money
Crid Games exactly
I think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion🤔😉 Actually I did it on my channel, would be cool if some others did it as well... cause the lawsuit could be pretty dangerous especially for smaller artists...
Its already a sad day do to people stealing music.
TeZOcatlipoca Well you certainly could research on the artist you may find how much they are worth online because chances are if they are millionaires information is out there. However it just isn't worth the time and effort to file a lawsuit against a bunch of small indie artists that are most likely never going to get a huge pay out on like you would with someone like Ed Sheeran always remember money talks.
I sang "do re mi" in music class and I was sued by Guido of Arezzo. Fml
Best comment.
Best I've heard it put so far 😆
Strings play my guitar
you're not trying to make money and fortune from it though, are you?
@@mak_9000 dumb comment. Copyright infringement doesn't only count if it makes loads of money. When your a musical expert, feel free to come back and comment with the EXACT reason this lawsuit isn't frivolous... I'll wait.
Let someone copyright the famous "4 chords". Hilarity ensues. This is asinine.
Emmanuel Florac .
Emmanuel Florac I want the axis of awesome to do that
Can I copyright the sound that a guitar makes 😳
I would like this but there's 666 and i dont wanna ruin it
When it's just feel or just chord sequence that sounds similar you have to allow it. That would come under the concept of different songs in the same style. But when all the parts apart from the vocal part are so similar that you can alternate bars from one song and the other and barely notice the difference then you are doing something very wrong. For me the fundamental issue is that the vocal part is just one part. The other instrumental parts matter just as much.
Imagine if someone claimed to have written a new violin concerto when in fact they'd just transposed the orchestral parts of a Shostakovich one up a semitone and written a brand new soloist part and substituted in the moments where the orchestra plays the soloist's melody with the new melody instead of Shostakovich's, and then altered the bass note in a few places for a slightly different chord every so often.
Just try arguing that that isn't stealing from Shostakovich and his publisher shouldn't try to sue. Only if you can successfully argue that, can you also argue that Sheeran shouldn't be sued.
Great video Rick! I love hearing how song writers are inspired by others. There are often are songs that are "derivatives" from other songs and many great artists do not "copy" but are influenced by other artists. You can certainly hear the Beatles vibe in other artists' songs. This is what I think is so cool about the artistry of music. Painters were influenced by other painters, writers by other writers and so on. Even John Mayer, who is a great musical artist, is quoted in his Continuum Album: “Eric Clapton knows I steal from him and is still cool with it” (from the credits on Continuum). I would not say John steals from Eric and I do not think Eric Clapton would sue him. But, it is very cool to hear a bit of Clapton run within a Mayer song (and you may pick out other influences in his music). And, many artists do this subconsciously but this demonstrates how the music world is connected and how it grows. It is one thing to "copy" but that is not the case here. So, I feel this should not have been a legal issue.
It seems like a conscious rip-off when the sections of two songs are played side by side - they are practically the same song. I feel that Gaye should at least share in the songwriting credits.
@@mbarrett99
No one stole anything from Marvin or his co-writers. If anything his artistic legacy will be remembered.
But his artist's legacy was already remembered...that's how it landed in court.
By the way, I own the strumming patterns
DDDD, UUUU, UDUD. DUDU, and DDU UD. I also own Am G C progression. I will see all of the beginner ukulele players in court, thank you very much.
Edit: A certain person doesn’t understand that I own music in general. Whoever wrote twinkle twinkle little star is gonna’ get sued in the afterlife.
Okay. Thank God you didn't say you owned Ba Dum Tss. Because that's mine
sausthab bir singh Tuladhar ExCuSE Me????!!!!!!! I never said I DID NOT own it!!!!!!!!!!!
@@dippyfresh8155 you done goofed up
Hit u with that DDU DU DDU DU
You can't sue me for UUD UUD DDU DDU because I got that from the quark configuration of Helium-4 as protons have two up quarks and one down, and neutrons are the opposite. :)
Then the composer of twinkle twinkle little stars should have sued the composer of ABC!
and baa baa black sheep
But they are both Mozart, should his estate sue his estate?
@@yuchanbot No, but he arranged the music from a French lullaby.
the melody is by a composer that has been dead for over 70 years, therefore: public property
@Tuturu! - Emphasis on 70 years, not on dead. If the death of a composer invalidated a copyright, the industry would be in even bigger trouble.
Dude you're walking the same speed as me. See you in court, buddy
This comment got me rollin!!!
This is too funny man...lol
Well done!
😂😂😂😂😂
hahaha it made my day dude
Truthfully if the lawsuit had gone in a different direction the courts would be flooded with thousands of similar cases 🎶🔥 let’s not kill the creative process
Ian Anderson, Jethro Tull was asked why he didn't sue some bands who obviously ripped of some of his music. He basically said that every musician, including himself takes from other musicians and he'd be a hypocrite and spiting his own face if he went and sued. He was right.
yeah music is essentially taking other peoples ideas and turning into something you created, like with every Beatles song they just have repetition isn't that what music really is repeating itself over and over again through the ages.
Well, JT ripped off Bach, so what the hell!
@I STAN Kim Jong-Un but Can't STAND Trump I think it was a joke, as JT did their own version of Bourrée
@I STAN Kim Jong-Un but Can't STAND Trump Agreed. But that’s totally different, than obvious plagiarism.
I don't see it as ripping others off.
Different key, different lyrics, different melody, different vibe. It’s a simple chord progression that has probably been used millions of times. Damn lawyers.
Dont blame the lawyers though, its their job, if someone pays them enough, they do their job. Sure they can decline but a job is a job sooo...
If they were signed to the same record label this would not be an issue. Listen to just about any modern music and it all sounds the same. Same loops over and over. Same song writers. This is not even argued about. The record labels know their doing it.
You think different key, lyrics and "vibe" matter? So if I put a capo on a Beatles song, add some effect to alter the "vibe" and change some lyrics, it's now a new song, my own composition? Smh
Only 24 chord progressions in existence?
Leo B There are obviously many facets to a song, I just stated a few. If I wrote a song using a I-IV-V chord progression, just strumming each chord once, do I now own this progression? If anyone else uses it, can I sue them?
I always assumed this was just a common “love song” progression
It is.
Well i guess that's what you assumed, quit stealing BLACK art hell we don't steal yalls, be creative, be original.
Quit stealing BLACK art , hell we dont mimick yalls weak ass songs.
I just wanted to be the 600th. I am and so.. thanks for commenting :]
Steven Davis using the same chord progression isn’t stealing you racist fuck
My vote is to stick with the premise that what defines a song is the melody and lyrics.
This video should be played for the courtroom. Nice job, Rick!
Ed will be hiring Goons to take out Rick Beato for this video. LOL
Exactly..I hope this breakdown is used in the case bc it clearly shows the difference in the song
@@Unpopularity If you make an interpretation but do not seek permission, when the lawyers come for you...they will come for you hard.
I believe the law should be change too many law suit over almost the same beat so what I am pretty sure some of Marvin songs and beat and Rhythm has songs from the 1950s and 1960s they should look into that as well and then have those people sue Marvin Gaye’s family
@@rosehampton2511 The argument you are stating is just silly and not why Ed should lose this case . It is simple...Yes, many beats could be said to be derivative and artists do their own versions of those beats. The problem here, is that Ed did not base his song on his version of the beat, he based his song on more or less COPYING Marvin's version of the beat...hence why we all hear the similarities and point to it and not to other songs which could be said to be derivative of that type of beat/musical structure. Even Ed acknowledged the similarities in concert when he linked both songs together.
I don't think anyone should have a patent on a groove and 4 chords. I wonder what would happen if this was the attitude in the 50s. All 50s rocknroll is basically the same groove and harmony.
No doubt, there goes the blues!
vecernicek2 I'm just curious, what do you think would make it more similar to Gaye's song?
Jon, for me to consider a song a rip off, it would have to use some unique idea of the original, which is essential to and uniquely characteristic of the song. I don't consider a groove to be that, groove is just a groove and it is more of an element of musical style rather than a particular song. And as to the chord progression, it is way too generic.
Very Good Point.
It's not just the chord progression. There are lots of other elements that show an uncanny resemblance.
It's standard rhythm, with a standard progression. It's like suing for using a blues structure.
Don’t open THAT can of worms. 😲
As a musician myself, i don't think this is a ripoff. Artists can be creative and sometimes we create different melodies or rhythms that still sound the same because so many things in music already have been done. That's why we try new sound effects, new synthesizers, new drum (loop) effects, etc etc... Sometimes a song will have lots of similarities, that's just how it is.
I agree.. Also as a musician.. for my Sins.. A similar chord progression for sure, and feel perhaps.. Although I wouldn't compare 'feel' when it comes to Sheeran and Gaye..Marvin makes Sheeran sound like a singing cat Imo.. 🐱
I'm pretty sure Sheerans audience have no idea who Marvin Gaye is.. So you could argue that someone like Sheeran would 'borrow' from him... But I think if anything it's a fluke/coincedence in this case.. No... One's a pretty forgettable albeit successful pop singer and the other is a musical legend who's contribution to music is timeless... I know who people will be still listening to in 50 yrs time.. 😉
@A K Prob yes.. As for people knowing who Marvin is... Of course! Lol. I was saying Sheeran fans mostly wouldn't 😉
@@JerryTremaine Very true. I mean, Ed Sheeran has made some good music. I will never argue that. But i also think it goes from generation to generation. Though in some cases, i feel like, the older i become the more i think that the 70's/80's & 90's were really great times. I'm from 85. So i do feel like i missed a whole lot and when i was younger i wasn't really interested in "older" music.
Now i've learned to have much more respect (and be more open minded) for other genres/different artists.
I'm more in to "dance" music anyway. But like i said, i learned to appreciate different genres and artists in general.
@@DBLCreations snap! I grew up with it luckily.. The old man was a music promoter.. He Worked with Don Arden.. So my 'education' is all over the shop! Yea.. Even knocking out the odd dance tune.. Lol.. Its all good.. Well mostly... 😉
I do not think of let's get it on with Eds song Let's get it on is a Classic I like them both but no it doesn't take me to Let's Get it on No one can Match Marvin
You can't sue a chord progression otherwise every blues song would be suing each other.
Literally Jimi's Voodoo Child is like every great blues lick it's the stuff around it that makes it unique and jimi. Shits wild simple same chord progressions can be sue worthy 😂😂😂
seriously!!!!! hahaha perfect point!
@@praywithoutceasing4939 can Zeppelin claim an entire band's sound as copywrite infringement? If so, they should have their lawyers look into Greta Van Fleet!! I mean Holy Van Zeppelin they could be the same band!! lol
As long as you give credit to the original artist. Most of these so called musicians don't, thats where you run into copyright infringement problems.
@@praywithoutceasing4939 hah! so true!
If you are going to try to “copyright” that chord progression you will have to go back a lot further than “Get It On” and sue about 15 to 20 percent of music. Also, if you are able to copyright a groove, we are really in trouble!
It's not even the same chord progression, but a similar one.
Right on op. Well said
Writing songs is like building a house with the chords acting as the interior frame and all housing frames are similar if not standard. The creativity and uniqueness comes from the design of the exterior facade…and in the case of music the melody is what’s unique.
There are tons of examples on UA-cam of many hit songs using the same four chords. No different here.
2-5-1 chord progression in jazz is almost universal. The licks may vary but basic structure is the same.
So in this song, if the chords are identical but the melodies are not, it’s just 2 different songs with similar style.
@@willhawkinsandninemilestation really great way of explaining it.
I'm neither a musician nor an artist, but I am a music and art lover. After finding out about this lawsuit, and watching this video, it occurred to me that another way of looking at the differences and similarities between these two songs is by using paintings as an analogy. Two pieces of art may use exactly the same color palette, and even the same brush strokes, but use entirely different subject matters and compositions, making them totally different works of art. If we recognize that the chords and chord progressions are analogous to the color palette and brush stroke style, and that the lyrics and melodies are the subjects and compositions, I think it seems patently obvious (pun intended) that we are looking at, or listening to, different works of art.
Perfectly said and I agree. However, they might use the same analogy and argue that it is more like a paint-by-numbers piece of art, where the foundation of the work was the same and they merely used different colors overtop to change it slightly.
Perfect analogy! . . But somewhere along the way, greed manages to change everything. Two great - but DIFFERENT -songs!
Why use two words when twenty will do!
Love this perspective. Van Gogh and Monet both did paintings of Sunflowers in a vase. Both were impressionists. Monet inspired Van Gogh, there is no way anyone would mistake Van Gogh's sunflowers for Monet's.
Totally!
Both songs are in my collection. I love them both. It never occurred to me that they were similar. Can you dig up every song that ever used this progression or this "feel".
Try listening
I go back to only 12 notes, songs in D sorta have D chords, as do those in all other keys. Rick knows a lot more about music than I ever will.
@@bigpants6121 well Ed jury says no
@@TheGoldenDonuttt I still say yes!
You cannot copyright a tempo
You cannot copyright a rhythm
You cannot copyright a chord progression
Saxoprane the blues is screwed if u can
All those elements when brought together form a unique SONG
And YES you CAN copyright a SONG.................
it's a good thing he didnt steal the song then
Saxoprane I agree 100%
He stole the main element of the song and added to it still Stolen
3:39 Ed Townsend also better sue Ed sheerean for his stealing his first name
Yeah, I mean, how could he miss that. His real name is likely Edward, so here you have a case where someone is not only suspected ot ripping off music, but he also is named Edward and then, as another musician, applied the same kind of abbreviation technique to that name to use as his music brand name.
Found this because of reading the article of Ed Sheeran winning the lawsuit today in 2023. Loved watching you.
Same
I'm from there to bbc😂😂
Same
Same😂
Same 😅😂
If Ed Sheeran was an unknown Indie artist and attempted to distribute "Thinking Out Loud" through a DSP there's a good chance it would've been blocked because of its likeness to "Let's Get It On". I appreciate the breakdown of the comparison in this video and understand why and how he found favor in the courts. However, I certainly have to point out the double standard between mainstream artists versus the hurdles that indie artist face when trying to get their music out.
Does the latest ruling impact that though? Like, might it make it easier for all artists in general or just those in a more privileged position?
How are you so sure? Do you know similar examples or work in the industry? If the similarity between songs is limited to just the supporting chords, would a song really be blocked? That's where most of the songs are alike, so to me it seems weird. But I am not in the industry, I just speak from my common sense.
@@squidink3470 In my opinion this is an isolated case and will not have any impact. It depends on the judge and Jury and whether or not the music and lyrics are similar for each song presented...so outcomes will still vary.
Chord progressions are universal however the musician should be mindful to surround those chords with instruments sounds so that it is unique their style.
Ed had nearly identical compositions during the verses if he had done what I've mentioned, there would've been no case to begin with.
I do believe that overall there are double standards on the distribution side for indie vs mainstream. Definitely when it comes to royalty payments through DSP publishers and streaming service viewership. Many indie artists have been complaining about DSPs blockages when it comes to likeness even when there are no similarities.
If your fart sounds anything like mine I will see you in court
Derrick Miller lmao
nowledge 😏
Do you have a link to them Spotify so we can listen and respect your intellectual property?
I ALWAYS. appreciate a well timed fart.... joke!
Ha ha ha ha . Yes I agree but they will smell different thus making a lawsuit tricky
what is so dangerous is that the decision nearly always made by someone with no musical training or understanding - rather the most convincing lawyer is likely to prevail. This lawsuit is ridiculous.
Sure, but that's jury trials in the first place. We're tried by peers not necesarrily experts in criminal law, forensics, or any matter of psychology. It's always been about the pageantry.
Don't forget the venue. That's almost if not more important than the facts or the law. People go in with their minds made up ahead of time sometimes.
The whole issue with copyright is whether it's confusing to the public, not someone with musical training.
It is not!
@@potbellyjoe Exactly; it only becomes more obvious with these suits because we can have experts objectively compare the components. The whole idea of trial by jury is essentially trial by idiots convinced by the most charismatic side. They'll get things right, but they'll also get things wrong, and the odds are not too dissimilar. It would honestly just be cheaper to flip a coin - the same 50/50 result is achieved.
We really need to move to trial by expert panels, made up of independent large bodies of experts that are drawn from randomly and the experts are subject to peer review. This is basically how science is done and I don't see a problem with it here and much to gain. Trials will also likely be cheaper because they can proceed quicker.
Just wait for that hedgefund/dodgy lawyer to buy up the rights to the first recording of a 12 bar blues track - that will be the end of popular music, ^oo^
Shut your mouth, I've been trying to patent snare hits on two and four for years. They keep laughing at me, but I'm serious.
The most amazing case I heard was very similar to that. A dodgy lawyer bought the rights to the Australian folk song "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" after the composer died, and then sued Men at Work for basing the1 bar flute riff for Down Under on it. Ridiculous
That would be Normal Lurie, managing Director of music sales at the Warner Music group, parent to the rights holding Larrakin Music. Warner music, hero of the modern music industry.
Wow so ridiculous. It is standard fare for soloist to stick a short phrase of something familiar in their solo. Imagine all the lawsuits.
I think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion🤔😉 Actually I did it on my channel, would be cool if some others did it as well... cause the lawsuit could be pretty dangerous especially for smaller artists...
Your video is expertly presented. Thank you for coming forward. I was worried this lawsuit could go the other way. Even though I hear 2 completely different songs. Congratulations to Ed Sheeran.
The beginnings of the songs are exactly the same
@@02WIFE
WOW, I don't hear it.
I must really be tone death.
Another video mentioned the hardest song to play. (forgot title). That one sounded like...Lost Between Moon and New York City.
@@ilax4244 You don't hear the similarities in the beginning with his demonstration?
@@02WIFE
No, but I will go back to listen again.
@@02WIFE
Madonna said Lady Gaga had a song that sounded like hers. That one was more obvious. Don't remember titles.
Hey Rick, Your channel just got a plug on Fox news where they were discussing the Ed Sheeran verdict. Said you had the best comparison out there to listen to! Congrats!!!
SUE FOX NEWS!
Oh, wait…. By the time you get to court they may not be in business and no money anymore🤣😂
Coming from Fox News is that a good thing!?? 😏
foxnews is for kiddie diddlers.
@@kingsbishops4197 🤭
I, for one, welcome the Fox News viewers to this channel. You should spend more time watching Rick! Anything over 30 minutes a day of news and opinion on current events is bad for your mental health.
I am no fan of theft, but these lawsuits (and their clear ignorance of how music is written) are setting a dangerous precedent. There are only 12 notes and so many popularly acceptable rhythmic ways to arrange them. I think it should mostly be up to the free market to vote with their money for/against creative works.
There was no theft
Michael Noneofyabusiness oh there are thieves, he's just saying that he's not a fan of stealing, he didn't say that ed sheeran stole something, it's general message, "I'm not a fan of stealing too" are you?
Michael Noneofyabusiness so says you??
Michael Noneofyabusiness At the end, theft of money by lawyer's.
There aren’t only 12 notes.
That is such a basic sound anyone could stumble on their own.. even if it was something complex copied you can’t claim time signatures and chords. That’s like claiming a combination of blue red and yellow in a painting can’t be used by other painters. This kind of thing is bad for the music community/industry imo
Think of it like this, you won't get in trouble unless you blow up and make millions off that song. Money attracts lawyers.
Yeah, well, someone already "stumbled upon it," so stumble upon something else.
Reminds of people who have patented numbers. So stupid.
XakTerrible too many songs sound similar to think that way.
It’s not a direct copy.
No way. Ed Sheeran's producers and label knew exactly what they were doing. They were recycling a proven winner. He's big enough they could have licensed the use but they cheaped out
Awesome analysis. I think it's similar but certainly not a ripoff. Ed Sheeran may have been inspired by the Marvin Gaye song but after you broke it down, its completely different with some similarities. Good job.
it is not completely different.
Yeah, descendants of Bach should sue everyone in music, he practically invented diatonic harmony that is pervasive in western music, today.
Isnt his music in public domain?
@@madbeef420 Of course, I was being sarcastic
@@patriciodasilva7902 sarcasm is hard to sense over text sometimes. My mistake
This whole thing was so cordial. Great stuff. I’m not used to seeing it in UA-cam.
70 after the death of the artist the song becomes public domain according to US law as far as I know
Groove and chords don’t make a song lyrics and melody do....otherwise every D C G song written a million times over is plagiarism which is foolish
Exactly, it would by like if some bard from Ireland centuries ago had copyrighted end-rhyme.
Im with you on this one. 100%
Use commas
The chords aren't even the same.
now get the copyright for an d c g song from the 18 hundreds and sue the crap out of small artists. boom. millionaire.
I guess every 12 bar blues in A or Rock n Roll shuffle is under investigation...
Chuck Berry would be a trillionaire....
Exactly
Well, only the ones that have made money.
Bill Todd exactly right, that was going to be my comment. If you went back to old blues songs then everyone would be getting sued right now even instrumentalist playing a 12 bar blues. I think you should come down to melody and lyrics otherwise you’ll be getting sued over every single standard cord progression, 1-6-4-5, 3-6-2-5-1 etc.
That was my first though too.
As a musician who has written a few things, one of the things I noticed right away in attempting to write something and not sound like someone else is that, due to the number of simple chord progressions that sound pleasing to the ear, it is rather difficult to not be reminded of someone else. I call it cross melody syndrome when I can't seem to play something that doesn't sound like something else, I have heard some other time. As someone who sings and plays rhythm, it is really easy to do this with G,D,C songs, whether you throw in the E min or not. There are only so many patterns to pick the notes in that have a simple enough and yet rhythmic enough pattern to call it music or a melody. The same works with strumming patterns.
One of my favorite things to hear is when one musician says when they hear another musician do a cover version of a song is, "you made it your own". In other words, they had the ability to make you forget enough about the original artist to the point that they could appreciate them instead. I think it is the same way when some talented guy has some studio musicians fill in around his material, to try to make a recording. The studio musician will improvise it on the spot, based on their idea of what should fit there, based on what they have heard and played. The idea is in the way something is "fit" that really matters. If musicians will be required to play what doesn't fit a completely stripped drum beat when they start adding a simple base line or simple rhythm guitar track, to allow a vocalist or lead guitarist to embellish, then music is dead as an art form.
I see chords, notes, patterns, etc. as simply building blocks, like bricks or cement blocks. There are only so many worthwhile structures you can make with them. Imagine the conundrum of copyright infringement if buildings were considered works of art, all the way down to what the building blocks are made of and how they are made? Technically I believe they are a work of art, yet a necessary part of life we would struggle to live without. Could you imagine life without any music, since all of the great artists of the past owned it all and we could only listen to how they arranged the pieces?
I think the hardest thing to prove is intent or the intentional use of the original material. If there was some way to go back in time, through eyewitness accounts, computer records, text messages, email, etc., and find something where it shows Sheeran was like look at what I did with Marvin Gaye's song by tuning a half step different and adding this new part. It is possible and it is doable, especially given the computer technology that is often used to create or mix new material, by rehashing and mixing up old ones.
Let's take Kid Rock's song "All Summer Long" for example. It may only seem like a really clever way to rehash and pay tribute to Lynyrd Skynyrd and Sweet Home Alabama, and arguably it is, but where is the kudos to Warren Zevon for his use of Werewolves of London during the verse? Frankly, I don't care that is how it worked out, nor do I think Kid Rock owes those guys anything and like patents, I was under the impression you could straight up use someone's material, at least in pieces and parts, after so much time elapsed and that is why so much of top 40 radio sounded so much like years past if you pay attention. Eminem used the drum beat and bassline from Aerosmith's dream on for a song not too long ago. If anything, artists of today could help generate royalties for artists, by generating interest in older, forgotten songs.
If you are a musician, I challenge to play Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star and the ABC song that kids use to learn their ABC's and then tell me if one is ripping off someone and someone owes someone some money. In other words, the lawsuit is asinine in my opinion.
PS....I wanted to include these, since the musicians themselves talk about the problem in their songs:
Gavin Rossdale - "We live in a wheel and everyone steals and when we rise it's like the Strawberry Fields"
James Hetfield - " "I've already Heard this song before"
Aerosmith - "It's the same old song and dance my friends"
These cases should be decided by a judge and jury of professional-level musicians who are independent thinkers. Your typical judge, with joe sixpack jury, can be easily swayed by any silver tongued lawyer. The songs really arent the same, nevertheless, the Blurred Lines outcome will likely be repeated until this legal serfdom is fixed.
Mark Ruby I totally agree with this!
So judges, in your opinion, can be easily swayed by the silver tongue of a good lawyer, but you think a bunch of musicians are gonna be smarter and more able than a judge. LMAO!!! You clearly don’t know any musicians, lawyers or judges.
False, who needs professional level musicians? Is not the debate between...professional level musicians? Any one with not....a deaf ear, can make this call.... if you don't get this... sadly you never will
@@andrewkennedy-reagan3289 And you don't think Ed Sheeran can afford a silver-tongued lawyer? Regardless of the veracity or merit of the case, the comments her are mostly idiotic. Intellectual properties are difficult, and a slippery slope. My real question is how the hell did Ed Sheeran not realize how completely similar his verse was? Musicians my age have that and a 1000 other songs as ear-worms, and would at LEAST have the drums with a slightly different groove. Be real, it's not JUST the chord progression. This isn't Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" vs "He's So Fine." Like movies, books and all genres of music, the diversity is getting squashed and laymen notice it all sound the same. Quite a task to come up with new hooks to rock songs - but I do believe we SHOULD have new hooks, regardless of the inspiration. Maybe if Marvin was still alive we wouldn't feel Ed was being put-upon, instead of indignant that a no-name shill that seems to be getting a pay-off. By the way, the most vulnerable and easily swayed group on the planet in legal issues and conflicts seem to have been musicians of all periods.
@@andrewkennedy-reagan3289 Judges are extremely vulnerable to BS. Musicians, i can honestly say, are NOT.
There ya go. I have experience with both :)
I got sued for copying someone who came out of the woodwork, an artist I never heard about and who's song I had never heard in my life, because of 3 piano notes somewhere in the riff... AND LOST!There are so many musicians nowadays writing and producing music.. everyone is making pop music with pretty much the same chords and instruments, everyone having pretty much the same influences.. we've reached a point of saturation where anything you write is in danger of being sued.
I also got sued by a lawyer representing a well known software company that starts with "M" because some lawyer in his car heard what reminded him of the software's mnemonic.. The guy obviously had no musical ear because he was way off.. I won, but still had to defend and prepare a case.. Lawyers... He thought he could make a quick buck I guess..
I am certain that if you were to compile in a computer all the music ever written since 300 years ago, you could probably find that any musical sequence has already been done a couple of times, eather by Bach or who ever, and in the advent of a pursuit, one could say: "well, sorry buddy, as a matter of fact you yourself copied Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Willy Nelson and ABBA..."
feels bad man
Big can of worms opened with the Blurred Lines ruling. Now the lawyers are going fishing with 'em. Literally insane. Terrible for music.
Agreed. Copyright is supposed to encourage people to create, not make them afraid to.
These law suits have been going on fir years,George Harrison's my sweet lord for example it's nothing new.
Yes, but George Harrison was sued for copying both the melody and chord progressions from He's So Fine. That's different from coming up with a new song with a similar feel to another song.
I couldn't agree more. The "Blurred Lines" ruling set a bad precedent. Despite that, I still believe you can copyright a song, but you cannot copyright how it's played. Melodies and lyrics can be copyrighted, but, while I'm not in the habit of quoting Flavor Flav, he had a point when he said, "Y'all can't copyright beats!" The same goes for grooves as far as I'm concerned.
No. It's terrible for bland pop music like Ed makes.
When I first heard Blurred Lines I immediately heard Marvin Gaye....as for the Ed Sheehan song, I didn't hear Marvin this time and Let's Get it on is one of my all time favorites.
Same here. To me, the backing track is a common sound, and it primarily for background noise. The melody is what makes the songs, which Marvin and Ed did completely different. I never once thought of Marvin when I heard Ed’s song.
With Blurred Lines I immediately thought of Marvin. The song itself is just similar structure and would have been fine. But the icing on the cake is the addition of the random background party type vocal noises like Marvin’s song.
What a joke, all music is derivative it's about time people realised this.
So where will we draw the line though when people are ripping each other off, ESPECIALLY Arguably a song on the top hundred songs of all time LOL
Derivative and copied are two different things. In this case it's derivative IMO. The melody and Harmony are totally different as is the chorus.
I always found it amusing when I found two songs that were practically the same in certain aspects but I never thought one musician was "stealing" from the other. Not only is it highly likely to come up with something that already exists by accident, I also think it is perfectly acceptable to use aspects of existing songs on purpose (especially rhythm-wise).
Yes true however insert a corporate greedy cares not for music record label and it's influence on a young artist, then this is what happens. Also are we assuming Ed and his record label reps have never heard "Lets get it on"? I agree its acceptable to use "aspects" of an existing song but as artist we should strive to be original and improve on that which we borrow. Paul Giamatti is an original actor/artist one of my favorites.
@@underhander4753 Exactly, I had never heard "Lets get it on", but my mom had. She immediately thought she recognized it and I said it was a newish song and she basically looked at me like I was stupid lmao.
I thought imitation was the most sincere form of flattery. It's a 100 million dollar lawsuit now I suppose.
Totally disagree with that logic. A derivative is a derivative. It is not an original. One has elements of the other. (Say it was a painting instead. And the painting looked exactly like a photograph, when both were superimposed on each other. And the photo came first. But the painting was with different colors and texture. It would be clear to most that the painter got the idea from that exact photograph.) If I were judge and jury, I would compensate Marvin Gaye estate some money. Maybe 33%. After all, it is a derivative.
Especially a musician like Ed who has listened to a lot...and he should have heard it himself. Change ONE note in the chorus, boom, problem solved.
If we let copyright cover the beat, underlying chords, etc., then you will effectively kill songwriting. ALL forms of music and songs are built on the foundation of what came before them. This suit is ridiculous. I can't find anything about resolution to this case...it was supposed to go to trial in September, but it doesn't seem that happened. Townsend's estate is trying to pull some sneaky tricks to allow "Let's Get It On" to be played in court in opposition to recent court rulings involving Led Zeppelin. Again...ridiculous.
@I STAN Kim Jong-Un but Can't STAND Trump Asian environmental sounds ripped off African environmental sounds. Africa's suing
I dunno, check out Queen/David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice - Bowie/Queen sued Vanilla Ice for using the iconic chord progression in the beginning of their song "Under Pressure" in Vanilla Ice's "Ice ice Baby"! So I don't think it is ridiculous - just something in caselaw that is evolving!
Beats/rhythm that are new and ground breaking, as in a new genre, can be copyrighted. They have been copyrighted.
Nope
@@rodger7029 Just saying "Nope" doesn't make it so.
This is like going back to old arguments about Vanilla Ice and Queen (Under Pressure!), and Phil Collins' Sussudio & Princes' 1999. Great video Rick!
If an artist could automatically get a writing credit and thus royalties for another artist using their chord progression, the estate of Johann Pachelbel would be the richest family in music ever to have lived
The song sound completely different .. I am no expert with the cords and progressions
The estate of the inventor of the well-tempered tuning system would have to be paid royalties by ALL (yes, ALL) artists including Bach and Mozart.
@@benjamindavis6091 It would be Aphrodite's Child that made that would get royalties from every song then. Rain and Tears was heavily based on Pachelbel's Canon in D. Ed Sheeran won anyway, so It's all moot now. Chord Progressions can't be copyrighted
If this suit had any validity the estate of Robert Johnson would’ve sued every artist who’s ever done a 12 bar blues
Wyatt Brownell not really the same thing and I think you know it. There’s a difference between a disenfranchised community expressing themselves as a whole through a shared musical lexicon (what all socially-conscious musical movements do) and an established mainstream artist pilfering a beat, chord progression, and tempo from a famous artist’s hit song from generations past.
@@STRANGEANATOMYBAND There is exactly no difference from a copyright standpoint. You can talk about social consciousness all you want but the topic here is copyright law.
@@STRANGEANATOMYBAND RJ wasn't taking part in a socially conscious musical movement. He was playing guitar, drinking whiskey and banging other dudes' wives.
@@STRANGEANATOMYBAND "disenfranchised community" SJW alert
@@STRANGEANATOMYBAND speaking as an unaffiliated lawyer, you are absolutely correct. The intention of the music is completely relevant to the argument.
Chords are not a song. Period!
They're just a frame, upon which a song is built.
The song is derivative and its obvious it is.
@@AC-pv6ij long winded and bs. The song was just dissected and the absolute derivative was easily seen.
What you just said is like the greta van fleet claim their big influence was Aerosmith when no evidence can be presented.
The chord progression is exactly the same except for the chorus.
@@AC-pv6ij blah blah blah. We just watched him point out that the chords, the bass line and the drums are exactly the same.
You cant copyright a progression but that's the limit.
Once other instrumentation is added the similarities are obvious and pointed out and shown clearly the music is clearly derivative.
Save you pseudointellectual bs.
So what is arrangement?
ABM
I'm not defending this douche. I don't even like the song. I already stated that he should cop to it. My point is, that this copyright war going on, is going to stifle creativity, to the point that everything will have to be 12 bar blues, so that the "writer" won't get sued.
Can't tell you how many times i've heard opening instrumental prior to any words being sung, think its one song but once words come in its 2 completely different songs, words, style & tone. Love ed sheeran's song, it was what made him stand out to me as an artist & looking for more. Honestly i didnt know marvin gaye sang lets bring it on, thought the song was an oldie but goodie from back in the day.
Will add & feel free to tell me if i'm wrong, but going off of marvin gaye's rep implication of plagiarism, couldn't the group beegee's 'killing me softly' say the same basless accusation to marvin gayes 'lets get it on' opening with the opening instrumental trill sound that ed sheeran didn't put in his? It's how i perceive it, two completely different styles, lyrics, tone & message.
It is an oldie but a goodie from back in the day, what are you talking about?
Not sure which sound effect/instrument is used perhaps electric or steel guitar, prior to the female singing ' i heard he sang a god song, i heard he had a style' theres that sound effect much like what marvin gaye uses cutting into instrumental & singing words 'lets get it on', a sound effect that ed sheeran does not use in his song at all. Both sounds similar in usage between marvins & bee gee's songs. I'm just saying over all marvin going after ed was petty. When listening to ed's song i never had my listening ear turn & hear 'lets get it on' as i have heard similarities in the past with artists who are not sheeran & gaye with different lyrics, chorus, meaning, etc during opening instrumentals.
@@crystalbluewaters Shitake... mushrooms.
Dude, the two songs sound clearly alike. I'm not saying The co-writer of, "Let's Get It On", should've won but, there is definitely obvious influence in Ed Sheeran's song. Marvin Gaye didn't go after Ed... Marvin Gaye has been dead for a long time now.
@@sheogorathprinceofmadness2223 i don't hear it sorry. I do however hear the stylistic influence/muse of van morrison which ann in another comment thread states that when ed wrote this with his friend van morrison was their influence/muse. I can hear it in van morrisons song crazy love (i knew the song but not the artist, its bad on my part i know. Can't exactly check artists names while driving, & i come from an era where landlines & dial up were a thing as well as cassette tapes & beginning of cds which even then was limited $ ways. Loving the new tech & internet services we all enjoy now as well as youtube & music competitions on color tv rather than a static 3 show aluminum antenna'd dial switch tv, that have introduced new music for me to enjoy as well as artists of past & present who they were influenced by)
You should be brought in as an expert witness! You made it very clear to me, someone with absolutely ZERO music knowledge whatsoever (other than listening and enjoying music), that these songs are very different. Just another ridiculous lawsuit because someone wants free money.
And what is the purpose of music again? Enjoying the music and the ultimate verdict comes from the fans not from some nitpicking musicallogists who try to find one note that is the same yeah we have 12 notes in the octave so so the person who uses them to make music… Seriously the jury was right! Those are two entirely different songs - the harassment of young musicians, with the purpose of greed - has to stop!
All art is a progression of past inspiration and influence. These kind of lawsuits just expose how greedy and uncreative music labels are. I know both songs pretty well and I didn't even think about it until you pointed it out in this video. Copyright infringement should be far more obvious than this.
Every 50's song, every Blues tune, every old country song, on and on. You cant outlaw a chord progression.
Fair play Nathan but ed townsend should have been credited as a cowriter. It's not creative to stack on top of something else to this extent and looking to the past for inspiration without acknowledging past creators is called ransacking.
Bob Boitt
This isn't about the chord progression, though. It's about the whole arrangement that's like 98% the same. And yes, a lot of 50s songs have similar accompaniment parts, but there's a difference between a genre cliche and an actually recognizable accompaniment part. And I think this one falls into the latter category, unless you find at least a couple more songs that use very similar arrangement.
I don't think demanding writing credits is totally unjust in this case, but since we are talking about the arrangement of the song, I think the one who deserves the writing credits and royalties should be the arranger of the Marvin Gaye song (considering that the arranger wasn't Marvin Gaye himself). If Marvin Gaye didn't write the arrangement, then he has nothing to do with the Ed Sheeran song and he doesn't deserve any writing credits, because the only thing that's similar between these two songs is the arrangement. Take the melody, lyrics, chords and song structure and write a new arrangement and it will sound nothing like Marvin Gaye's song.
But of course this all is considering that this arrangement is really unique to the Marvin Gaye song. If it's not, then there's no case to be made here.
I wonder if the Marvin Gaye estate had anything to do with this.. I saw an interview with Marvin’s daughter after the Blurred Lines decision. She is Crazyyy. She was crying and saying that a great justice had been done that day. Clearly a manipulator.
Really? First time my daughters played it to me I said "Get It On, Marvin Gaye" I actually thought they were using a sample.
My personal acid test is that when I hear a song, does it instantly call to mind another song I know. This has happened many times without lawsuits being involved. I know both these songs and have never made a connection between them.
It's not 'call to mind', that's influence, it's 'confuse with' which would enter infringement territory.
Agreed 💯
@MrB0gart Harsh! 😂
I feel the same....! SO SO SO many melodies and lyrics are being transferred in essence from one song to another... like sometimes I feel like a new song, is basically 2 other songs converged... Even that I personally think is okay...
However, I have loved both these songs, and have NEVER made that association... and I only hope that I will not like the Marvin Gaye song less now because of this assault..
Let us hope that artists can feel free to write freely, drawing on inspiration, knowledge and ALL their abilities, without fear that they may subconsciously be copying someone they admire... Or having to screen their own songs for subconscious infraction...
I understand your point, but "call to mind" involves so much of the listener, as the listener have an infinite of possible musical knowledge o hear training and expirience, thats something that you can't standardize.
A song that has zero relation with other to me, can be the same to other people, thats why in these lawsuits everything gets technical
So glad you did this Dr. Beato!! I’m a longtime musician and guitar teacher, and the first time I heard this song I said out loud, “Oh, wow, that’s Let’s Get On!” How can he get away with that? I don’t think he should lose the lawsuit though because Ed’s song is melodically much different. Cool post!
And because you said "wow" that's why Marvin sued him. I thought the same thing. But, people are on here saying it's nothing like Marvin and that's being dishonest. The differences are not what the suit is about; but the similiarities! There are plenty of original songs released every day. Ed's was NOT!
@@CarlosPickens Exactly!
Dear Marvin Gaye camp. Not everyone is stealing HIS music. Please stop the law suits. You are spoiling his memory. By the way, music follows certain patterns. Are you gonna sue every time someone has a similar pattern?
Paul L. Rogers All who grew up listing to Marvin Gaye music will mot settle for any type of copy rights infrengment. Your are delusional to think the Gaye family should stop suing people who attempt steal his music.
There is none. Chord progression is chord progression. It does not change. That is why so many songs sound alike.
Paul L. Rogers Marvin recorded that song 40 plus years ago what your are stating BS.
yawn
Michael Singleton look up Adam Neely's video titled "You Can't Own Chords". It may shed some light for you on the hilarity of this lawsuit against Sheeran. It basically outlines the difference between an I6 chord and a III chord and their role within functional harmony... And that you could argue with the lawsuits logic that in actuality Marvin Gaye copied Earth Angel. Look up contrafact and listen to examples where this sort of influencing has happened before. For instance, between the Jazz piece "I got rhythm" which uses rhythm changes and the Flintstones melody. Same chords different melody.
Warning ⚠️: This comment is Copyrighted ©️
🤣😂🤣
Warning ⚠️: This comment is Copyrighted ©️
See you in court.
Marning ⚠️: This cowwent is Copyrighted ©️
absolutely NO similarities!
Key Master no similarities with what? I can’t see anything to compare.
I'm in business law class right now and my law professor is using this video right now to illustrate copyright law, that's pretty cool
What conclusions did you students and your professor come to?
yeah what is the conclusion of your professor? Because for me it is so absurd. Because in music there is always a similarity. I mean we use similar instrument. So it is a common sense that some melodies can be sound similar. Because i think there is a limit on how many melodies and progression an artist could only produce. I mean it is common practice by genre, like in jpop where the progression IV△7-V7-iii7-vi are always present. Especially in jpop hits.
Man the future is really scarry. I mean imagine hundreds or thousand years where a musician can't compose sh1t due to copyright. I think the world now is evolving where normal citizens can't own sh1t. Also the practice of making an absurd patent for me is pathetic. I think lawmakers should start inhibiting on making patents that are impossible to make at a time where the patents are made. I think there should be a real if not, a visible product first to make that patent. Because its becoming an impossible task to own sh1t now that the big companies are fighting to own copyrights even if it does not exist.
Also, i know this is unrelated but we live in a subscription based now so..
@@fredsmith6324 Enjoy being wrong.
@@fredsmith6324 Absolutely!
@@fredsmith6324 Is this about your feelings, because in the real world its not.
I loved both songs having listened to them many times. Maybe it was the rhythm I liked. However, not once did "Thinking Out Loud" remind me of "Let's Get It On".
If marvin was still alive he’d never sue Ed for being inspired by his music, but to encourage and collab with Ed. His family are greedy pigs
Egg _ Marvin died in 1984.
All I learned from my years in music-college years was this: You can only copyright the most single thing possible, eg The Melody. You can't copyright a genre/style/voicings or chords. Pretty simple. The Blurred line fiasco is some of the worst rulings ever. You can't copyright a common four chord structures due to the limitation of the classical/pop-music theory out there. My ruling for this new song, Ed is not guilty.
So should Robert Johnsons family sue every blues guitarist that ever lived? Its essentially what is being argued. This stuff is getting ridiculous.
Agree, especially because even in your example, Robert Johnson borrowed extensively from blues contemporaries and musicians who came before him - Son House, Skip James, Willie Brown, etc.
I would never have thought these two songs were related before the lawsuit. After hearing the comparison I still don’t think the the similarities are enough to warrant a copyright infringement. Let’s be clear everyone steals from everyone. Thats the way artists learn and grow.
The last 2 of your sentences are nonsense.
I guess that depends on what stealing really is. I think there's a line someone crosses when they go from being inspired by and putting their own creative twist on something versus taking it without making any unique contribution of their own. Generally, the person themself knows what they're doing. They know what side of the line they're on.
Funny how they only come after the songs that were massive. Almost as if this is all about money...
Taxi Joe how dare you suggest such a thing ha ha ! I 😂
Taxi Joe Excatly !!!!
Funny how a popular song gets more recognition than a non-popular song. You're an idiot.
girlgreenivy that and you don't want people from earning money by cheating through a song that you've made.
Gecko no such thing. You can't say that like it's black and white. It's not. If that were the case then millions of musicions wouldn't be able to create anything anymore.
DJs wouldn't be able to do there thing and music would have died years ago
Q: What do you call 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
ouch
Chris Boylan you borrowed that line from Poolhall Junkies. Christopher Walken could sue! lol
my answer was " a good start"
What about, “Time to get the red ants.”?
Tbf is not the lawyers fault if the estate of Gaye wanted to sue.
Listening to Thinking Out Loud, I had no idea what song Sheeran supposedly ripped off. After your comparison, I feel it is a musical style that is shared. But, the two songs are wholly different.
Putting aside the fact that the melodies are completely different, the fact that you even had to transpose Marvin Gaye's "Let's get It on"
says it all
The second chord is a minor iii.
The second chord is a I in first inversion.
That's all. Everyone should have gone out for coffee after that.
As a you Songwriter that is just starting out, the one thing this lawsuit teaches me is not to listen to Marvin Gaye anymore so I‘m not getting influenced by any of his chord progressions by accident 😅
Great video. As a music lover and hobbyist producer, I could feel a difference in listening to the songs but couldn’t articulate it. Pretty cool to hear a breakdown from someone with way more musical knowledge.
I lined them up and played them at the same time - basically layered. The tempo is the same, and there are some similar cord progressions, but they are very different songs. I'd also guess that if we went back and listened to hundreds of blues songs, we'd probably find something that influenced "Let's Get It On." Soul music came out of the blues and you could probably find specific blues songs that inspired some 60s-70s soul music. But nobody was suing to get rich from a song written by one of their dead relatives who was famous in an earlier era.
@@JChristelle05 Yeah as a fan of old blues and jazz I'm so used to hearing a million different songs which are basically just slightly different versions of each other. Although these songs have the same DNA they really don't sound that similar to me.
Chords, tempo, style and instrumentation are similar, but, the differing melody and lyrics seem to be (in my opinion) enough to make the song stand on its own. If the song had more than 4 chords in common, copied instrumentation like, flutes and harpsichords etc.. but bass, drums and guitars are a hard sell. 90% of all bands are bass, drums and guitars. The amount copied is not substantial enough (In my opinion). The original material is not complex enough to have a unique signature. 4 chords is a weak case. Try copying Bohemian Rapsody next time maybe.
proof that lawyers have absolutely no clue when it comes to music
Well, even if they do know, that $100,000,000 is pretty tempting
FVR lawyers work for an employer. Don’t blame lawyers, blame the company suing Sheeren
I am a lawyer AND a musician and I find the idea of suing someone for creating music ridiculous. Art and music can only develop and always have developed by building upon previously existing art and music.
it's the jurors that they hope have no clue, and that's the real problem. Regardless of how much a music expert will show you how this shouldn't be, the bank teller sitting on the jury is going to just rule against Ed Sheeran because they 'sound' the same.
You make a fair point there. Lawyers do not need to have a deep knowledge regarding musical history and theory, they need to play their cards right and manipulate the jury into believing their arguments.
I want a million dollars in damages for the anxiety and distress I feel now every time I hear either song as a result of of this LAWSUIT.(s)
My lifetime of love for both songs and the joy they brought me has now been replaced with fear and sadness for a beloved artist, Ed Sheeran and for every other songwriter living under the threat of baseless lawsuits like this one.
The lawsuit wants 100 million dollars in damages, along with proceeds from all of his concert tours and I'm guessing a significant portion of all royalties earned since "Thinking out Loud" was released. All because Ed wrote a beautiful love song using a standard chord progression, and a standard rhythm, public domain elements to everyone else on the planet...why not him?
It's the melody and lyrics that sell the song, no one cares about the basic four chords.
I will not be happy until Sheeran Fights this one and wins for all songwriters.
Never have I, even vaguely, associated one song with the other. No one owns standards. This is a travesty.
He actually won🥺
lmao settle down soft(lad/lass)
And it's such a cis song! That should be work another $500k!
I can not agree with that logic at all. A derivative is a derivative, it is not an original. One has elements of the other. (Say it was a painting instead. And the painting looked exactly like a photograph when both were superimposed on each other. And the photo came first. But the painting was with different colors and texture. It would be clear to most that the painter got the idea from that exact photograph.) If I were judge and jury, I would compensate Marvin Gaye estate some money. Maybe 33%. After all, it is a derivative.
@@migdersyramirez729 just read this morning that the jury has only just been selected so it's not over yet.
All cars have 4 wheels and a steering wheel...
These are different songs with the same base...
Stop with these stupid legal attacks...
Not all cars are called Ford though, not all cars have the same engine, or design.
Mark Norville well that was the point different melody and lyrics
Mark Norville the comment argument makes sense tho.slightly Same chords,drums. Different melody and lyrics
The BMW Isetta, the reliant robin, the Morgan 3-wheeler, the bubble car and the KTM X Bow have 3 wheels...... all right i'll shut up now i agree with your point XD
It’s the tempo and drums but it’s mostly the song is different enough because the melody is different. A lot of songs have the same chord progression. I don’t think it’s a rip off I think it’s heavy inspiration. Especially he gets to the “people fall in love in mysterious ways” super different.
I’ll say this about Blurred Lines: the first time I heard it, right from the first few bars, I instantly thought, “This sounds like a Marvin Gaye song.” Sure enough, I found the very song in question pretty quickly after listening to BL. I never had the same reaction to the Sheeran song (though I never actively listened to it as I did with BL the first time). Either way, you’re right; these suits are largely frivolous. Go back to the 50s and people were recycling the same musical forms over and over again. (Think “Blueberry Hill”)
On the other hand, I do believe there is a very conscious effort on music producers, arrangers and writers to look for recognizable musical ideas, alter them just slightly, and use them to hook listeners. This has been going on forever, but now the field of musical invention seems to be getting absurdly narrow. It really is a lose-lose situation for music these days.
Thicke lost the suit ONLY because he admitted creating Blurred Lines from the Gaye tune.
The first time I heard "Hotel California" I instantly thought of Jethro Tull's "We used to know". The songwriter, Ian Anderson, said, “It's not plagiarism. It's just the same chord sequence."
exactly
Should be based entirely on the melody...too many songs have the exact same chords for this to be a reasonable thing to do
Fruity Ronster Well then too many people have a case if they were on top of their business but unfortunately most of these artists don't own their masters and the people that do are making backroom deals to avoid clearing samples, which ends up with so many songs sounding the same.
It's even difficult to draw the line at the melody. They've been recycled in folk to great effect for centuries, and it hasn't been a problem. Borrowing melodies is a big part of musical tradition. Wherever the line is drawn, Sheeran has quite obviously done nothing wrong.
Nate P the folk melodies would most likely be in the public domain, No?
Nate P I like your comment about "draw the line." I bet Robin Thicke cringes at any statement about LINES...as in Blurred Lines...🤔
Led Zeppelin's Trampled Under Foot and Styx's Renegade are basically the same song. Zeppelin could have sued Styx (Zeppelin's tune came out in '76, Styx's in '78).
the drum beat is a generic simple beat so thats not a creative aspect of the song. the chords are not complex or anything other than 4/4 patterns. the fact that ed actually does the drums in a loop with his guitar originally makes it instrumentally different as a base and the melody is completely different. melody is the key really to copyright not the basic accompaniment IMO. lawyers and judges need to understand that music is not about finding the similarities but about finding what is different.....its like videogame design or photography...you cant copyright a town but you can copyright your photo of the town someone else can take a photo in a similar spot and do a similar effect but it isn't yours
Well, that was settled today! Good for Ed!
The real problem is complexity. The simpler something is, the less "unique" it is. I can make a more unique melody out of 20 notes then I can 5 notes. Gaye's original song is so SIMPLE that it lends itself to being copied out of sheer accessibility in creating a likewise simple song. It's like if clothing was copyrighted and I sued for someone else wearing jeans and a t-shirt. They are the most BASIC, SIMPLE items and are so much more likely to be copied then if someone was wearing a vest with robe underneath and a basket on their head.
Yeah but the fact that he performed them both live together shows that he knew they were similar. Pretty much snitchin on himself that he knew where he got the idea for the song from. This shows it wasn't a coincidence.
@@EricEustace yeah well but there is a big difference between inspiration and plagiarism. following the clothes reference is like if i see an actress i like with a cute dress and i create an ouffit for myself inspired in that one, with the same style but instead of a one piece dress i make it top and skirt. it would be similar enough to see were the inspiration came from but it wouldn't really be a copy. i don't really think this songs are similar enough to actually put someone on trial for it. feels more like a matter of greed than justice.
Susan Bravo I'm with you in this analysis. If ETownsend lawyers would succeed in court, I would be pleased to see The Who lawyers filing against ETownsend for copying in LGIO the Song is Over back track, for another 100million $. Crazy world .
@@EricEustace You said, "Yeah but the fact that he performed them both live together shows that he knew they were similar." While this is true, it's also not illegal to copy ideas that have their foundation in the public domain. If you write a song and I copy the tune, I'm legally safe if that tune can be traced to a 19th century public domain song, even though it was from you that I got the inspiration. A good defense strategy would be to find an old public domain song that has the same simple melodic structure and then claim that it is unprotectable under copyright law because it existed long before Gaye composed his song. As the original comment said, "Gaye's original song is so SIMPLE" that it is likely to be copied out of sheer accessibility --- and it is also is likely that it has been used sometime before. When determining if copyright infringement occurred, a court has to filter out the unprotected elements before looking at those that are actually creative innovations created by the plaintiff and make the determination based upon those alone.
@@eugenemartone7023 its a basic drum beat and a basic 4 note bass line. Its been repeated 100s of times. I dont think Sheeran stole anything. Like i stated in my previous comment, there are only so many chord progressions and patterns that can be used.
With the Blurred Lines found guilty of stealing a musical style... it was truly a turning point for the worse.
I would venture to say that it really began in earnest with Rick James vs MC Hammer.
Not really because that case turned against Robin Thicke because, as I understand it, he made the mistake of admitting they got the idea for the song from Gaye's 'Got To Give It Up'. Had he not made that admission, he might have won, so that case really doesn't set a precedent.
I love both songs but never heard one within the other. To me they are completely different pieces of work. Similar in some respects, yes, but two completely different songs with complimentary styles. I would love it if someone had the time to do another comparison of similar styles and see just how many songs there would be that have the same rhythm and groove if tuned to the same key... everyone ripping from everyone? Copywrite infringement in music has such a fine line, there are only so many notes and combinations of how those notes can go together, that you are bound to sound similar at some point, but in my opinion, the songs should be looked at as a whole and by the hook. The hook in Gaye's song is clearly the part where he sings, "Let's get it on" where Sheeran's hook is, "Honey, your soul could never grow old it's evergreen." Completely different. Thank you for doing this comparison, I hope this reaches many people and opens their eyes to how a song is defined and what it means.
You too need your ears and sanity checked, listen to the relevant verses they are identical ffs
All sounds are similar. There are only so many notes.
@@chrystalblue7170 Nonsense you can play C Emin, F and G with so many different rhythms, intonations frills and accompaniments that they sound different. That chord sequence could be Downtown or George Girl totally different sounds
Yes, these songs are different like identical twins are different. So different only close loved ones can tell the difference. Problem is they are out in public making money based on strangers being able to tell them apart.
Excellent analysis, Rick. Surely the word copy does what it says on the tin. Songs are discrete entities of key, time signatures, melody, lyrics, feel, dynamics etc. All notes, all keys, all time signatures, all beat counts etc are in the public domain. So unless everything is exactly duplicated - lyrics, notes, time etc it cannot possibly be a copy. I mean how many songs in an era or a genre sound similar? And why? Because that's what people of that time and musical interest want to hear! If copying were to mean just anything fairly similar there wouldn't be any new music or at least not much of it.
They're definetly not close enough to warrant a lawsuit
Beary Boy They don't actually care. The lawsuit is for 100 million. They're blatant trolls just looking for Ed to settle, which a lot of rich people and companies do instead of wasting time. Ed's side will either offer a few hundred thousand to settle, or win if he fights.
Yes. Theyre exactly the same. But u cant own chord progressions so it doesnt hold up
Michael Herd which Ed?
ed sullivan. who do you think?
Ed Grimley.
There's only so many chord progressions that can be made... and by transposing two different keys, there is even less different chord intervals progressions possible. Now transpose those few choices over different tempos... and of course anyone with a lot of time to waste and properly motivated to steal another artist's money will be able to find similarities. With the amount of songs coming out every day, it is inevitable that some will sound similar, no matter where the inspiration came from.
I think that some "extinguished" artists or businesses are making a come back as legal leeches.
I am a big Marvin Gaye fan, as I'm sure Ed Sheeran is. But this whole story is such a load of horse$h*t... can't believe they could win with this case..
Bald & Bearded 'There's only so many'? Try again. Perhaps you mean, 'Pop is limited to only so many chord progressions'.
Ruairidh McGhee I'm sure you are super cool and so great and all... but there are around 4000 possible chords.. 2500 are playable on guitar. And there is roughly 100 million songs in the world. So whatever "Pop" can do.. count again my friend! Thanks for your input!
Bald & Bearded Bald & Bearded Ready? Using just 7 triads from the diatonic major scale, we can make 7^4 = 2401 4-chord progressions. This doesn’t even count what we can make using harmonic minor with the ability to raise and flatten the seventh, or the use of dominant seventh chains. There are also plenty of pop songs, such as Nights in White Satin and No Rain, which play with mode mixture. Opening up another entire ballpark.
If we assume we have all the seventh chords from the modern modes except for the diminished chords at our disposal, we have roughly 26 different chords at our disposal, 26^4 = 456 976 different 4 chord progressions. Sure, a fair few of those won’t sound nice, but don’t forget that a progression can have more than 4 chords. By the same calculations, we would have 308 915 776 different 6-chord progressions, and we haven’t even touched extensions, inversions, or music which doesn’t revolve around the diatonic major scale.
I’m sure that out of all the progressions among this randomly generated list, you have not heard every nice-sounding one, nor has every nice-sounding one been used in a song, as most pieces will use familiar chord progressions. And when you say ‘Only 2000 chords can be played on a guitar’ think about it, that’s a lot to work with. 2000^4? You don’t need me to tell you that that’s a big number.
Malice Burgoyne Sort of, the rhythm guitar plays the same rhythm and the chords are the same, it stops there. I'd argue that there is at least enough of a transformation to make it its own song. However, that doesn't mean I don't think pop music needs to seek a little more originality.
Malice Burgoyne
Your daughter was hearing the many similarities between the two songs, not looking for the differences. It's easy to hear the similarities in music; it's what our brains are designed to do. This is especially true with Top 40 pop music, which is actively trying to sound like songs you (presumably) already like.
The differences, however, are what actually matter in a case of copyright infringement or plagiarism.
No-one is arguing that the song is "original" or that Ed Sheeran didn't blatantly steal elements of Let's Get It On; we're arguing that the finished product is too different from what it's emulating to qualify as the type of infringement the suit alleges.
If the suit was limited to the rhythm section and most of the chord progressions being eerily similar to Let's Get It On, then Ed Sheeran would pay what amounts to a very expensive sampling fee and move on.
That's not what we ended up with.
I wouldn't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't understand the theory, but the suit is full of terrible arguments buried in jargon that could prove to be disastrous if used as a legal precedent.
Excellent commentary Rick! The problem seems to be rooted in the fact that the word ‘arrangement’ has two fundamentally different musical meanings, and legally, the copyright distinction is being eroded by the equivocation of the two meanings. Song copyright covers the original arrangement (sequence of the musical notes/rhythm) of the melody in a song. In this limited context, an arranger can be liable for infringement by violating the composer’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works of his/her song.
This blurring of the distinction seems to be a result of the continuing extension of copyright protection to samples (fragments; phrases; notes... or even silence a la Cage's 4'33") of a recorded 'arrangement', as a result of sound recording copyright infringement litigation (song/melodic sequence arrangement + stylistic arrangement).
As arrangers, our work cannot be copyrighted. Yet, this case shows an attempt to extend the intellectual property meaning of ‘arrangement’ to also include ‘stylistic arrangements’ - creative instrumentation choices, backing grooves, stylistic clichés and embellishments (i.e. Phil Spector’s ‘wall of sound’ arranging style can’t be copyrighted).
In this case, the absence of any copyright infringement of the melodic arrangement (sequence) is the salient distinction. I hope this case results in a new legal distinction between both meanings of 'arrangement' - one (melodic sequence) subject to copyright protection and the other (stylistic) not, since it is part of the musical language/vernacular and thus not the intellectual 'property' of an individual or corporation.
We serve food here, sir.
Basically he said they should base it off the melody.
It's terrible marvin Gayes fAmily is doing this
Spot-on, dolomuse. Exactly. Well said. One melodic sequence subject to copyright protection, but not stylistic interpretations.
The definitive test is to try to put Gaye’s lyrics to Sheeran’s music and then do vice versa. Then decide.
I copyright all songs in A=440Hz
Aha, so my Bach A=415Hz is safe
No, Bach came back from his grave to sue you for that too
Every song is 4 bars of another song and changing the words of a r&b song to christian words is still the same r&b song.
Ah, My Lordships, Mother Earth begs to differ. IN the Eastern Appalachians, most certainly pigs can fly when they hear, Elvira
@@donkatsuuuuuu Or just tune to 438hz wich is more inlign with the universe.
Once I made a song for a girl in NZ, then it developed. I made variations, put trombon layers above the third stanza of lyrics and even allowed myself to dislocate it’s ending onto a tragic melody in minor chords. I was very happy with it. Then a friend told me “yo, the chorus melody sounds like wicked game by Chris Isaak” I checked it. It was true. Exact same guitar chords. The song ended in the trash bin... :(
_But wait!_
They were both partially made by someone called Ed!
Case closed, lock him up boys!
How do you not have a zillion likes?!
Who are they gonna lock up?
@@mrlee6516 that would be Ed.. lol..
Love your work, from a fellow composer/jazz musician! Keep breaking down these lawsuits for the laypersons that don’t understand: melodic, harmonic and rhythmic structure. Thank you!