Ed Sheeran didn't copy Marvin Gaye... he copied a different soul song
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 кві 2023
- Listen to Naughty Juice on Spotify or check out their UA-cam channel: open.spotify.com/artist/6n7nk... @naughtyjuice7676 🎸😊
Thank you to J. Kenji López-Alt who drew to my attention the likeness between "Thinking Out Loud" and "Crazy Love".
And, an extra special thanks goes to Douglas Lind, Vidad Flowers, Ivan Pang, Waylon Fairbanks, Jon Dye, Austin Russell, Christopher Ryan, Toot & Paul Peijzel, the channel’s Patreon saints! 😇
SUPPORT ME ON PATREON: / davidbennettpiano 🎹
Listen to Naughty Juice on Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/6n7nkpNHM2PV8CWTyr6280?si=CZNC_1uARliR5XofSXZ9pQ 🎸😊
@@shaunkellison1761 as I made clear in my video, the only part of a song that should really be considered when judging whether it did or did not infringe on somebody else’s copyright is the melody. Thinking Out Loud shares a melody with Crazy Love but it does not share a melody with Let’s get it on.
Regardless, the court has just ruled this afternoon that Ed Sheeran is not guilty of plagiarising “Let’s get it on”
@@DavidBennettPianoThat’s a lie He did Steal the guys Music, and this is not the first time that he has done it, All they did was pay off a White crooked Judge 👨⚖️ to side in their favor, this is how Whites operate.
Reported for terrorism
Yet another example of why copyright laws are a complete joke.
They got this one right. The Led Zeppelin one was a joke.
It's not copyright laws, that are a joke. It's particular law suits like this or the one regarding "Blurred Lines".
If you wrote it you would probably feel differently.
@@glassesstapler let's ask Marvin Gaye how he feels. Wait, he's been dead for 40 years and his estate didn't write the song either. So yes, Copyright laws are still a joke for allowing those kind of people to profit on other people's work.
@@lz7ification my response was related to ownership and control of something you made. The fact that Marvin has passed is irrelevant. Unless your argument is when someone dies, their work should become public domain, or something.
That Golfing Out Loud mashup "mistake" had me laughing out loud. I know you're not necessarily known for comedy in your content, but... yeah, you could be. More of this!
😂
The other part of the song was stolen from Holding Back the years by Simply Red
He really got me 😅
Subtle humor like this is the best! Similar to Dr. Todd Grande's presentations.
Van Morrison has composed so many songs around those same four chords - or derivatives - in his 60 year career
The problem is that it isn't the songwriters themselves, who hear a song in a similar "style" and immediately scream for their lawyers, but rather corporations or their estate, people who don't understand the musical process. I find it hard to believe that if Marvin Gaye was still with us, he'd be pursuing these actions.
100% agreement!
This is why song copyright should only be valid while the artist is still alive. Your descendants have only one goal in mind, and that is to extract money. Since they don't want to do any work and live off of your riches because you actually wrote the music.
@@gredangeo Actually, I had the idea that copyright should be changed to use different criteria.
For example, with trademarks, you have to be actively using your trademark. You have to be seen to be using it, protecting it and so forth.
Otherwise, your trademark lapses from lack of use. After all, a "trademark" is a mark - a brand - that you use to do trade. So if you're not seen to be doing any trade and not seen to be defending your brand from imitators, then you lose it.
And my idea is that copyright should actually work in a similar way.
If you are actively selling / making use of / trading a piece of copyrighted work, then it remains copyrighted. But if you abandon it, are not making use of it, stop selling it (because it now costs more to sell and promote than you can profit), etc. then the copyright lapses, and it falls into the public domain.
This, I feel, is the only way to solve "the Mickey Mouse problem".
Basically, Mickey Mouse has been threatening to go out of copyright and enter the public domain many times, but every time it approaches the end of the copyright term, Disney heavily lobbies Congress to extend copyright... and it keeps getting longer and longer and longer, ostensibly just to protect Mickey Mouse (because Walt Disney is now dead, of course, so it's that extension that keeps getting extended for the post-Walt Empire of Disney to hold onto Mickey).
But, by my alternative criteria, Mickey Mouse could remain under Disney's copyright - somewhat indefinitely - as they're clearly still trading with Mickey Mouse. Mickey is still wandering around Disneyland / Disneyworld greeting visitors and getting his photo taken.
Yes, there is a bit of "give and take" to this new criteria. As I am basically handing Disney the means to "own" Mickey pretty much forever. But I think that's the compromise that has to be made, to stop the length of copyright being forever extended and extended and extended... which affects everything else.
Every time they extend the copyright term, Marvin Gaye's family can keep doing this shit.
So, as I say, the new criteria would be - like trademarks - a demonstration of "active use". You are actually trading - making money - from your copyright, so it remains yours.
BUT, counter to that, we now greatly reduce the copyright term. Basically, if you ain't done anything with it for, say, 5 or 10 years, then it's public domain.
After all, the original purpose of copyright is to protect the artists. Ironically, it was to defend "the little guy" from the corporations.
Because, before copyright, if you wrote a book or a song or whatever, then you'd release it to the world... but there was absolutely nothing stopping, say, Penguin Random House just copying your book / EMI just copying your song and then selling it.
And, you know, against such titans - who have the money, the distribution networks, the economies of scale, etc. - they'd crush some small independent publisher, and chase the original artist out of their own market. And would not legally be obliged to even give the original artist due credit, let alone any cut of the profits.
This was not theoretical. The world got together to establish copyright law, exactly because it was causing damage. Musicians were having "private concerts" and would not release their music widely, Some artists stopped creating any public works altogether - they just did stuff for themselves, and never released it publicly (because what's the point? The instant they did so, someone would steal it and, therefore, they could not make a decent living out of being a public artist, so they just became private artists for select audiences only).
Now, those big corporations ain't daft. They've managed to work out how to twist what was originally meant to be a legal defence AGAINST THEM, into something that works for them. And that's contract law - you can encourage artists to hand over the copyright via a contract, and then the defence that was meant to protect AGAINST you, now becomes a defence FOR you.
And, no, law is never going to touch and revise contract law. It's the foundation of everything legal. Most notably, the money in your pocket is technically a legal contract. So you don't mess with contract law, lest you fundamentally break how money works.
It shouldn't be a fixed length of time. It should be based on "active use".
Copyright is there to protect an artist, to allow them to make some kind of a living - an income - out of their work, to support themselves. And the people - the law - grants this, because we benefit from their art. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.
But there needs to be limits on how long it lasts, how it's transferred to other parties - both how corporations can prise it out of an artist's hands by contract, and how families can inherit it as a "cash cow" after the artist dies (RIP Marvin Gaye) - and so forth.
I think that, like trademarks, the "active use" thing should apply.
While Disney continue to very actively trade on Mickey Mouse - which they totally do - then they can keep him. They're actively making a living out of their copyrighted work.
Let Disney have that. Because, if we don't, then the copyright term - "artist's life + X years" - just keeps getting longer and longer, until we'll have "artist's life + 7 billion years" at the rate we're going. Just to protect Mickey. And this affects everything else - how long the Marvin Gaye family can keep doing this shit over and over again.
But, counter to that, because it works by this new criteria, we can greatly reduce the length of time by which something is considered to be "still in active use". Knock it down to 5 or 10 years, say.
If there's nowhere left to buy a work, it's not actively being promoted, and no copies have been sold - so it's not, in fact, making the artist a living anymore - within 10 years, then it falls into the public domain.
So Disney gets to keep Mickey. But, elsewhere, more things would actually fall into the public domain sooner (and, thus, would fall into historical archives to be preserved sooner, as another thing about copyright expiring and passing into the public domain, is that copyright was originally supposed to balance the artist's need to make a living against "the public good". My new criteria brings back the notion of "the public good" again, which constant extension of the length of copyright is just squeezing out, more and more).
And, like, I've mentioned trademarks. They already work this way. So we have empirical proof that, yup, you absolutely can use this criteria, as trademarks do and that's worked for a long time.
(Mind you, saying that, the "active use" criteria of trademarks means that it encourages trademark owners to actively protect their marks and send "cease and desist" letters out and all that, all the time. But I'm thinking that, come on, copyright is wielded constantly as a weapon anyway - it really wouldn't increase the amount of this shit going on, as too much already happens.
But it's worth noting that it also subtly changes the burden of proof. It's the copyright owner now proving their "active use" - with the assumption, if they can't prove it, that the copyright has lapsed. They've got to prove, in effect, that they deserve to keep their copyright because they are actively using it to make an honest living.
Like, for example, Mickey Mouse. He absolutely is still a primary symbol for the Disney company. Indeed, he's effectively a "trademark" of sorts. They are clearly still making active use of Mickey at their theme parks, where folks dressed as Mickey and Minnie and so forth wander around to the happy amusement of children (and "grown-up children") who visit.
Yeah, Disney would have zero problems proving "active use" over Mickey. But the family trying to cash in on an inherited copyright? Not so much. It'll fall into "public domain" faster, while giving Disney their "pound of flesh", so they don't constantly lobby Congress to keep further breaking the copyright system more and more.
Mickey is not worth it. Let Disney keep him, as long as they now stop messing with copyright extensions.
You're right. This poor guy got railroaded. Chords are limited and building blocks. It's the melody that matters. That's what makes the song. There's millions of songs with these chords and this rhythm. I loved Marvin and his work, but this was just his family trying to screw someone out of money. You can't copyright a style, a chord progression, or a title.
It's usually embittered broke ass "co-writers" who never managed to make a buck on anything else in the music industry
that wii ed sheeran mashup is way better than it needs to be
Ed Sheeran literally said in 2014 he was inspired by Van Morrison for Thinking Out Loud when recording the acoustic guitar for it, and said in court this week that after recording the song thought it sounded like it emulated Van Morrison production-wise, and mentioned Crazy Love and other songs with similar chord progressions. Van Morrison also told Ed a few years ago that he loved Thinking Out Loud. Crazy Love was released before Let's Get It On
Yeah when Ed mentioned “Crazy Love” in court I was like hold on, now, “Thinking Out Loud” sounds way more like that one than anything. Almost smart on his part to mention a song that it sounds even more like than the one he’s being sued over lol.
wonder if Van Morrison’s „influence” (or rather credits) are mentioned in the booklet of the album, and if not, why - not to share royalties. either way, if u can
name a few artists a song (songs!) is ripped from, it speaks volumes of defendant’s originality/talenta and perhaps is not as good as they’re painted…
@@korsunhoox But the court case is not about Ed Sheeran's originality or talent or lack thereof.
well, by proxy it IS, cuz, u’d agree, the case is about the money, which he’s paid a lot for the talent (here, of songwriting), so when it turns out it’s not all that (for it’s more songmimicking or songadjusting), the extent of fame might not be due…
can’t pay for food with respect pay out + this mythical „inspiration” drawn up as a stark antonym of a „rip” or „copy” is long applied semantic (rhetoric) abuse. there’s no rip, knock-off, copy etc. without first somebody else’s idea, a concept being „blown, breathed into” another one…
The question I ask is "would this approach to copyright law have theoretically allowed somebody to copyright the 12-bar blues?" For this case I think the answer is yes.
Yeah the 12 bar blues always crosses my mind when it comes to copyright. It seems that 'standards' for music chord progressions aren't allowed to exist anymore
Great point. Even back in the Renaissance and Baroque there were chord progressions like La Romanesca or La Follia. Who knows where they came from, they just sounded good and everybody used them.
It would also mean that country music was in deep doodoo.
Vibe and style is partly why “Uptown Funk” wound up having a mile long list of “writers”, since everyone involved with the “Minneapolis sound” that inspired Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars said “that’s my riffs!
I agree. A third of Prince and half of The Times catalog was Uptown Funk. Nobody sued them.
And Notorious by Duran Duran!
@@FlameOnTheBeat the copyright cases involving Levitating are not about style. Artikal Sound System accused Dua’s team of plagiarism because the melody, rhythm, and even lyrics of Levitating’s chorus are similar to their song, Live Your Life. The other copyright claim is also over melody, but that one is completely frivolous in my opinion as it’s a simple descending melody.
Those Marvin Gaye lawyers could find plagiarism in the singing of birds if they had money
At that point the birds could sue us since it's part of their biology
Actually, if you slow down bird song, then you can legitimately find musical patterns that echo things that Bach and Beethoven composed.
Of course, it's not because the birds are breaking copyright, it's because, ultimately, this stuff is about frequencies and harmonies - and the birds are, like us, opting for octaves, fifths, fourths, thirds, etc. for their harmoniously synchronous interplay with each other.
So, genuinely, you probably could record bird song, slow it down to a more "human" tempo and then find musical patterns in it that are "copyright infringement". And it really does, when you listen to such recordings with some species of bird, have a "Bach vibe / style" to it in places (but, luckily for the birds, Bach is all public domain now anyway).
But, yeah, let's not give Marvin Gaye's family any new ideas.
@@klaxoncow Like his father's murderous rage?
This case is being brought by the family of Let's Get It On's late co-writer Ed Townsend, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "Gaye's family". But don't let the facts get in the way...
On UA-cam "Veery Thrush Singing in Slow Motion", the slowed down part of the clip is quite like Vaughan Williams' The Wasps overture theme.
Your sense of humor surely is evolving, Mr. Bennett...
Yes, nearly good enough to merit the second "u"!
Ha
@@zzzaphod8507Second „u“?
@@jan_777 Humour ©
@@DavidBennettPiano I'm non-native, but I'm more used to American English lol
If Marvin were still here he’d definitely be disappointed in the current state of the music industry
I agree.
Did you know him personally?
the problem with music copyright laws is that the people who make up the laws have no idea how music works
There are so many cases like this where artist 1 sued artist 2 for copyright infringement, only to discover artist 3 did it first.
I’m familiar with the Marvin Gaye tune and it never came to my mind while hearing Ed Sheeran’s song.
Me too!
You literally don't have ears then.
I heard two bars of it play in the grocery store, and I recognized it instantly. It is totally in your face.
@@Jay-wk9xj 😂
I don't think there's a person that associated these two songs before the lawsuit! Except obviously the ear guy in the comments and the people in the Marvin Gaye Estate, that I bet that they listen to every song that's succesful trying to find the slightest simliarity in order to sue! And it's so disrespectful to Marvin Gaye's legacy as a musician...
Van Morrison is so good. Lately I just toss his entire collection on shuffle and it can go for hours without a bad song playing
Ed Sheeran literally said in 2014 he was inspired by Van Morrison for Thinking Out Loud when recording the acoustic guitar for it, and said in court this week that after recording the song thought it sounded like it emulated Van Morrison production-wise, and mentioned Crazy Love and other songs with similar chord progressions. Van Morrison also told Ed a few years ago that he loved Thinking Out Loud.
Yeah all equally pedestrian
Tupelo honey!
He's still incredible in concert, too.
I’m so frustrated when lawsuits like this come up. It gives no creativity to artists.
As a wedding photographer, other photographers have inspired me. Different couples, different scene, different lighting is a different picture, even if the esthetics or theme are similar. I have also had other photographers “copy” my original ideas. I don’t sue them.
It is different if they stole my photos and just added a filter to them and used them as their own.
That should also apply to music as well.
Yeah, imagine people taking a photo of Niagara from the same observation point and getting sued for copying the idea, the lighting, the frame, the sunlight direction... That's exactly what happens with music. As a software developer I can come up with an amazing algorithm and the only protected aspect of it would be a particular implementation (it's probably a bit different in the US). Anybody can view my code (if I make it public), analyze it and create his own piece of code doing the same idea. They just can't copy paste my solution. You can literally make and run a facebook clone, just make it look different than original, because only the looks is (c) protected.
I do think it's important for artists to make a good faith effort not to have their songs sound too much like other popular songs. I think Ed Sheeran's problem is that he's TOO known for being inspired by other artists.
I feel like Ed Sheeran hit it on the head. You can interchange almost everything in Pop nowadays and it's literally impossible to avoid sounding like anything whether it's lyrics, tempo, vibe, chord progressions, etc. You can find similarities in almost every song and as David pointed out before. The Gaye Estate is a bit TOO hungrily hunting for things.
Nub on _Generation O!_ said pretty much the same thing 23 years ago.
That interchangeability is definitely a "nowadays" problem. In what was arguably the golden age of pop (80's) no two songs on the radio sounded the same. At that time originality was the criteria A&R departments used for selecting artists and material.
@@BrianBrayMedia 80s the golden age of Pop?
It's not actually the Gaye estate that's suing... it's the Townsend estate.
@@BrianBrayMedia lmao nostalgia brain speaking loudly here. this is absolutely not true.
When I heard about the court case I listened to Ed’s song and when I heard that chorus refrain I immediately felt it was familiar and eventually my mind made the connection back to Crazy Love, which it is MUCH more similar to and after googling I am glad that you made this eloquent video that confirms my thoughts.
As a song writer myself it’s anxiety material all this..
The thing is as you rightly mention that we’re all a product of our past influences, and nobody can claim ownership over combinations of notes or chords, it’s absolutely ridiculous and clearly just a game for lawyers to make money sending each other letters at the expense of hapless artists.
As Adam Neely said, it’s a pop soul record. If it didn’t have the things that make it sound like Marvin Gaye, it would be a pop soul record.
Apparently the issue with the Robin Thicke v Marvin Gaye lawsuit also had to do with the legal team messing up and forgetting to do a specific legal move (Rule 50) in the early stages, which meant that they couldn't file a legal procedure later to have the verdict overturned.
(Thank you Legal Eagle)
As a professional songwriter I think it's highly unlikely they wrote the song based on any other song. Most of the feel of a song is developed in the production and recording process...not in the writing process. As you say, songs in the same genre and same style sound similar. There are 2 main ways that a song would be protected by copyright...1. the songwriting...lyrics and melody...and 2. The specific recording of the song which is protected from being directly sampled.
You can find thousands of songs with a similar feel and groove to Marvin Gaye's song...including songs recorded long before the Marvin Gaye song. It's a ridiculous law suit which should fail.
maybe someone should sue these musical families so they should stop suing everyone else.
And it did!
agree 100%
We all know if Marvin was still alive this lawsuit would not be happening.
The fact they can sue on his behalf is six ridiculous shameful using a dead person for your own game
I think Marvin Gaye would be pissed that these things are being done in his name for the sake of money. His family is just going to destroy the state of music with these dumb lawsuits.
This isn't being done in Marvin Gaye's name. His estate isn't suing here... it's the Ed Townsend one.
Ive been involved in song writing for around 30 years , theres been quite a few occasions where ive been in the practice room and a guitarist and i would create riffs together and over the weeks that grew into a song that we were proud of , only for one of the members of the band upon hearing it say that sounds like so and so , we would then listen to said song and to our horror the song that we created sounded very similar to a song that sold millions , its more common than you would think .
The soul pop genre is so familiar to most musicians that if you asked a bunch of seasoned musicians to play a song in that style you'll most likely get a song that sounds similar to any of these songs. Similar to if you ask a guitar player to make a blues rock song, you will most likely get a Chuck Berry sounding tune. It's not plagiarism. It's just the pillars and elements that the genre stands on. It just so happens that this progression and groove are what make this genre. They are building blocks
The range of music in your brain that is available for this kind of analysis is very impressive!
Thank you David for explaining it so clearly. The opportunism of Gaye's estate is awful to behold.
First time I heard "Thinking out Loud," I absolutely heard similarities to both "Crazy Love" and "Let's Get it On." Noted. However, that is the very essence and nature of pop music. It is criminal to me that this example is getting legal attention while the entire history of blues music exists.
You address the issue brilliantly in this 8:17 of insight. Let's hope reason prevails and artists can continue to write new music in existing styles. Musicians are influenced by the music they love and these songs are dialogs across generations that can bring us together if we treat music as something shared.
We need to stop lawyers from ruining music.
Don't blame the lawyers, they are acting on behalf of clients who make the decisions.
Excellent video, David, I've seen quite a few videos going around about this subject but I haven't seen it articulated so clearly and concisely as here.
There must be a hundred + songs that sound similar. There are so many songs that have been written that it's nearly impossible to not copy something.
the telling factor in a lot of these is that the ones that win more often seem to be from artists who are long dead; meaning it's their "estate" suing not the artist themselves. Meaning it's more likely (imo) that is people that care less about the music and more about the $$$. Artists have often gone on record saying they don't feel this way examples; Tom Petty and McCartney have both said they were okay with instances where some claimed they were "ripped off"
I know both of the songs, and I never made the association between the two until the controversy came out
I don't believe you.
I made the association between the two songs immediately.
I find this subject absolutely riveting. I tried comparing a few songs from the list. Often the claims are preposterous. Thank you David for highlighting this very important issue and standing up for songwriters!
Nice one David. Copyright is an nightmare and the rules are unsuitable for purpose. The ones with the biggest lawyers win and the sole purpose of some companies is to make money from spurious copyright claims - only from successful songs of course. Glad my stuff is not mainstream :-)
That golfing thing should prove it 🤣
Plot twist: Nintendo is now sueing as well.
@@Universal_Craftsman 🤣
Triple-Q's Sucker mashup has been a long-time favorite of mine. It shows really well that when you take it to the extreme - yeah, all of it will sound the same. There's only so much you can do to make a thing of a certain style sound nice to a modern human listener, and there are more and more people trying to make those things with every day.
Finally I have been saying all along the "inspiration" was Van Morrison. Thank you David!!!
Back in the day, here in the USA there were dozens of folks who suggested that Marvin Gaye was influenced by Van. I am one. I know Van was quite popular here and it is very likely that Marvin heard his song and was influenced by it. But just like Van would have only been complimented, if Marvin were alive, he would be Horrified that someone suggested this kid should be sued. He too would have been complimented that a newbie had taken his simple influence and wrote a new original song. Families and publishers are greedier than these old performers were. Here in the USA, race plays a large role in this and it's sad. Many white artists lost battles in court to rappers who clearly stole actual parts of their songs ... see Roy Orbison. Very sad.
You don’t know Marvin Gaye please stop projecting. Also, white artists stealing from black artists is historically prolific
Fiiiiinally! Omg finally somebody with great audience said that! I wrote that on Beato’s vid. Off course Ed is ripping off Van and not at all Gaye. C’mon! Ed has said already he’s a big fan of Van and grew up listenning to him. Thank you for sharing❤ you can find also an interview of Ed saying he is very influence by Van’s music.
Please don't draw attention to another potential legal action - it was a seemingly innocent remark on an Australian TV show that led to legal action against Men at Work for their tiny use of a nursery rhyme in the song Down Under that destroyed one of the members lives, ultimately leading to his death. If anything were to happen to Van the Man, the estate or heirs could be alerted to some easy money.
Very interesting and informative segment, David!
Entertaining and insightful as always ✨🎶💛🤘🏼
Thanks 😊
The 'Blurred Lines' lawsuit was initiated by Pharrel & his lawyers AGAINST the Marvin Gaye Estate .. they didn't want anyone to possibly sue them in the future so they asked for 'declaratory relief'.. it was rejected & then the Gaye family counter-sued.
IMO, if you're writing a song 'inspired by' or 'similar to' another song today, have your lawyers make sure it's ok first .. much rather lose out on a small percentage of the profits then the ENTIRE thing after you're sued & lose.
ps: Don't be greedy & you won't get sued.
I suspect the lawyers would also say no. Just in case. The best legal advice would be don't write anything, then you'll never have a problem.
But, being inspired or similar to another song isn't always conscious. I could write a simple guitar riff using basic well known music theory right now and there'd be at least 100 songs "similar" to it and subconsciously I was inspired by the music I listen to.
Makes sense considering this ed lyric...
Take my hand, stop, put Van the Man on the jukebox
And then we start to dance, and now I'm singing like
Another example of two songs with exactly the same chords and rhythm but different melodies are 'La Bamba' & 'Twist and Shout': as I'm sure you all already know, Bruce Springsteen sometimes plays a mash-up of them.
Those songs have same melodies also almost exactly
In my ears, Ed Sheeran's Bad habits sound like Smalltown boy by Bronski Beat
OMG, I've been wondering where I'd heard it before!
Oh wow I never made the connection but they do have some similarities to each other. Not sure if it’s sampled but it could definitely have some influence.
Loved your video!! Really worried that styles and vibes start being copyrighted now.....
If you are out of ideas for videos can you make a video about the chord progression VI/iv/i/III (Minor scale) i really love it!!! ❤❤❤
Ed Sheeran writes formulaic songs based on very generic chord changes. Any one of his songs can be compared to several others that came before.
Listen to classical music, each piece uses elements of older pieces.
So, it’s nothing new.
@@jan_777 it’s nothing new, yes, because there are only twelve notes. But there is a clear difference between someone who actually tries to come up with unique chord progressions and someone who just keeps recycling ones that have been used thousands of times.
@@KevyNova “Unique chord progressions” Guess you don’t know much about music theory, do you?
All through the great composer, it has never been about unique chord progressions, but about unique melodies.
And “new” chord progression also meant a new era, a new style.
@@jan_777 Chord progressions are generally not all that important in most classical music. Much of it simply isn't chord progression based music in the way that pop, rock, jazz, folk, blues, soul etc are.
Some classical pieces use themes etc that have been used before, many don't. Even when they do, as in Stravinsky's use of a theme from Rimsky-Korsakov in The Firebird, or Bartok's occasional use of Hungarian folk melodies, the quotations tend to be fleeting, and of little structural consequence in the music's architecture.
@@peterfitton4529 Wonder why modern music uses so many chord progressions from classical pieces if that wasn’t chord based😜
If Ed’s legal team have any sense they will fly you out there to assist; your musical theory knowledge and ability to find similar styled music is urgently needed.
It’s hard for my brain to even consider Sheeran in the same universe of talent as Gaye or Morrison it’s hard to compare the songs
Thank you for a reasoned argument for common sense using logic, good analysis, and humor. And thank you for clearly stating something I've been thinking about for sometime - corporations and estates mining present artists' income unjustly. Even though modern chromatics allow more creativity than possible in very early ancient musics, there are limits. Chord progressions keep you in a certain lane for composition - there will just be some similarities in different compositions. If the modern penchant for robbing each other doesn't stop, nobody's going to want to create anything - and wouldn't that make for a sad, silent world?
Well done! As a lawyer and musician, I totally agree with you.
And the “melody” of Let's Get It On is really just a vibe (it's a great record). Copyright law derives from the days of Tin Pan Alley, when sheet music sales were a big thing. Songs in those days had to have a very specific, discernible top line. To apply the same laws to a lot of modern music is just absurd.
YES! When I heard it 1st I thought it was more in the “feel” of Van The man’s crazy love rather than let’s get it on (or…have I told you lately?)
5:05 Still the funniest thing in the world to me that Creedence's label came for John Fogerty over his solo music. In what world would a jury ever rule in favor of the industry suits over the likable rockstar? Top-tier example of major label thickheadedness.
John Fogerty might just be the most unlikeable man in music history to be fair.
It's interesting that rhythm isn't held to the same standard as melody in copyright cases. Why can't someone sue for using the Bo Diddley beat? The beat has his NAME on it for god's sake! :^)
They could. However, Bo Diddley did not really invent it, or at least modified only slightly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Diddley_beat
My main complaint with the Ed Sheeran song is not any similarities to earlier songs. It's how bad and unsatisfying that "chorus" is. I just can't get past the fact that it sounds like a prechorus. You want it to go to something bigger and better and more centered around the tonic chord after that. But it just goes back to the verse. "Let's Get It On" doesn't really have a chorus, and yet somehow it's more satisfying and cathartic.
Well, like, that's just your opinion, man...
i went back and listened to Eds song because of the comparisons. Was never a huge fan of either song. turns out the parts i like from Eds song is parts similar to Marvins. Soul
Its the same problem for me, i dont enjoy the chorus in Eds song.
Another excellent video, thank you David.
Completely agree with you on the Van, and the general argument of the video
Ed Sheeran literally said in 2014 he was inspired by Van Morrison for Thinking Out Loud when recording the acoustic guitar for it, and said in court this week that after recording the song thought it sounded like it emulated Van Morrison production-wise, and mentioned Crazy Love and other songs with similar chord progressions. Van Morrison also told Ed a few years ago that he loved Thinking Out Loud. Crazy Love was released before Let's Get it On
I believe I first discovered your channel 4 years ago through you covering songs that sound similar, full cycle
Very curious to know your thoughts on Chicago’s 25 Or 6 To 4 vs Led Zeppelin’s arrangement of Babe I’m Gonna Leave You.
I definitely got a Van vibe from this one yeah. But also look at “ Just haven’t met you yet “ Buble that’s got a Van feel 🎵👌
Ed Sheeran literally said in 2014 he was inspired by Van Morrison for Thinking Out Loud when recording the acoustic guitar for it, and said in court this week that after recording the song thought it sounded like it emulated Van Morrison production-wise, and mentioned Crazy Love and other songs with similar chord progressions. Van Morrison also told Ed a few years ago that he loved Thinking Out Loud.
@@veronicam2935 ooow the plot thickens….great insight ! I bet they actually co wrote it 🎶🎸
Van Morrison should sue Wii Sports should sue Mozart....It's really worrying that the "vibe" of a song is now copyrightable.
Love the Wii Sports golf music comparison! I wasn't aware of the Van Morrison song, I'd say he's got a good case considering the outcome of the Blurred Lines case - I don't think that bore much resemblance to Got to give it Up. I did a mashup of Thinking Out Loud and Let's get it On a few years ago, but the song is so generic it could fit to any number of other songs... like Midnight train to Georgia :)
Great post! did Van rip himself off on crazy love from tupelo honey? LOL
I don't care for soul music at all. But the implications of the case scares me.
Unless a song would make listening to another song redundant then i wouldnt call it plagiarizm.
There should be a board of artists that join together to counter sue. Artists estates that bring silly lawsuits like this.
I guarantee there are lots of artists from the 40s 50s and 60s that could likely sue Marvin Gaye's Estate on the sillyness of Chords and Vibes.
You should do a video on the songs that use the chord progression on Let's Get It On and Thinking Out Loud (couldn't find one in your channel)
The Wii Sports Golf mashup was amazing. Very niche and very smooth. Worth a Like just out of that pure creative moment of genius.
Also, Marvin Gaye and Ed Townsend would be rolling in their graves at their money hungry families suing innocent songwriters/artists over and over. I only hope this doesn’t smear the name of Marvin Gaye - he was a huge influence in music and really changed the musical dynamic at the time and well into the future. It’s so sad.
Crazy Love blows the case out of the water. I wish Van Morrison would sue the Marvin Gaye team. Maybe that would stop this mess.
Thanks for the update and perspective, and I agree. Will Van Morrison sue Marvin Gaye?
The floating comic sans text *chefs kiss*
I think the big question is if Marvin Gaye would have sued Ed Sheeran. I don't think he would have, but we'll never know 😊
Ok the wii sports bit genuinely made me laugh, well done Dave
As always writing a comment to support the channel
I KNEW I had heard that chorus melody from somewhere. Would love to hear somebody tape the Let's Get It On Instrumental and the Crazy Love chorus together and sling the Sheeran vocals over it. Paste in the lower 5th parts at the front of the chorus which is the most generic move ever and voila! Another Ed "Rippy bits" Sheeran amalgamated regurgitated classic!
He might not be a thief but he has definitely heard these two songs; I think he's a lazy artist who relies on letting his subconscious do the heavy lifting too much and ends up accidentally writing other people's stuff again. The tempo, rhythm, drum pattern, feel - entirely present in Let's Get It On. The exact relevant pitches and timing of that descending run in Crazy love is identical to the Sheeran track, which also happens to be the same tempo as Let's Get It On. He's basically the sitcom writer of pop music at this point.
He mighta pulled a Flaming Lips though, who knows.
Ed Sheeran literally said in 2014 he was inspired by Van Morrison for Thinking Out Loud when recording the acoustic guitar for it, and said in court this week that after recording the song thought it sounded like it emulated Van Morrison production-wise, and mentioned Crazy Love and other songs with similar chord progressions. Van Morrison also told Ed a few years ago that he loved Thinking Out Loud. Crazy Love was released before Let's Get it On
Nice video David, totally agree with your comments.
Superb video, BTW. Make more vids on this topic pls.
'Where there's a hit, there's a writ'.
Man, those golf course selection guitar licks are so tasty at that tempo.
4:11 Don't forget the melody right after that, which Stewart got from Bobby Womack's If You Want My Love (Put Something Down On It).
Just imagine if blues artists started suing each other. It would never end.
I loved the inclusion of the Wii Golf theme as an example!! LOL!
Excellent video. If the estate of Marvin Gaye win again on style and vibe because a musically illiterate jury gets hoodwinked. In the short term the estate gets a big payout but in the long term Marvin Gayes place gets forgotten because no songwriter will go near his music. Money grabbing beneficiaries probably don’t care about that
I always listen to this playlist while I'm studying 💗
Appreciate the new sponsor.
Thanks Nicholas 👍
They should reverse that Blurred Lines ruling as bad precedents are a toxic foundation for a lot of future worse precedents. They are going to need an AI just to analyze new potential songs on their dangerously similar “vibeness” to previous music to avoid the industry of lawsuits that will spawn from these bad rulings. And good luck to autotune hiphop where much of it is copied vibe. This could be worse for music than Napster could have ever achieved.
I want a full mashup with Thinking Out Loud and that golf music.
Maybe Van Morrison can sue Marvin Gaye. Then we can all live next door to each other.
Ed Sheeran literally said in 2014 he was inspired by Van Morrison for Thinking Out Loud when recording the acoustic guitar for it, and said in court this week that after recording the song thought it sounded like it emulated Van Morrison production-wise, and mentioned Crazy Love and other songs with similar chord progressions. Van Morrison also told Ed a few years ago that he loved Thinking Out Loud.
Eventually everything comes back around again..There are only so many chords and rhythms. I think we could find these types of inspirations in more music if you listen close.
No-one in suing the unsuccessful songwriter, are they? What if it was meant as a tribute? Even though Sheeran is not my bag I wish him luck.
The saddest copyright case was the one around 'Telstar' by producer Joe Meek, with the Tornados. It was a worldwide smash hit, but a French composer claimed it copied his music *which hadn't even been recorded*. Joe Meek got no royalties and lost his mind, killing himself and his landlady. A decent film was made a few years ago about it, called Telstar.
What do you think of Cheap Trick song If You want My Love, big big Beatles/ George Harrison lifting of ideas, slight changes but clearly using crucial chords and patterns found in While My Guitar Gently weeps and Oooohs
This is why I’m gonna do video recording of my future compositions.
Great analysis David!
I guess it's popular to look like someone who just woke up in the UK. Boris Johnson and Ed Sheeran has the same hairstyle
It’s all basic structures that pop music uses. Literally millions and millions of songs have the same structures. If a song uses some weird jazz chords and another song is the same then that’s something to look at but trying to say some generic chord progressions are copyrighted is like saying the color red is copyrighted
One of the best, intelligence-driven, articulate takes I've read on what has unfortunately become a huge problem in this increasingly litigious, money-grabbing world. My take: let your ears be the judge - not music theory, in these cases. If it "smells bad" ("hears bad"), then become suspicious. If you trust your ears, you'll immediately perk up when it's time to suspect an actual ripoff, rather than just forgivable similarities. And, as pointed out - the MELODY is the thing that will be the final arbiter.
As one of the jurors in this case noted, what iced the deal in Sheeran's win was a simple "smell test" - the songs in question can NOT be confused one with the other by any reasonable person (i.e., who is not looking for a money grab) when viewed in the context of an out-and-out ripoff. They arrived at this conclusion after hearing Ed PERFORM his song in court. Simple - the melodies were very dissimilar, even though the building blocks WERE similar.
The bigger ugly problem, _in some cases_ : lawyers are willing to go for YEARS without getting paid, in order to divvy up the goods if they win the case - if the prize is big enough. -Enter Sheeran and "Thinking Out Loud." Such is the price society has to pay when plaintiffs bring a LEGIT case.
After the original song as been done then may be the songs that sound a lot like the original should lose any critical acclaim they ever had, if any. or not be rated if that's even possible.
The Wii Sports music did make me laugh :D