In reply to the comment from LeafInTheStream... After discussing this stuff with a number of lawyers since December '08, I have become aware that in order to be considered for an Intellectual Property - Copyrights suit the songs must share the same; Melody, Harmony & Rhythm structures. So far, the only song that actually does that is Viva La Vida. This is why I did not pursue the melody analysis here. And, yes I do agree that at times melodies are indeed copied, as are chords. - Andrew
You're correct... to a point... however, Keep in mind that any person can put forth litigation, (no matter how ridiculous the court documents may initially appear), and sue you - in return costing you possibly thousands in legal bills. If a chord progression shares the same; harmonic function, tempo, rhythmic meter, and some kind of melodic movement within the voicings of a series of chords within said progression - you could find yourself with a very difficult case to fight in court. - Andrew
this reminds me of when John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival was sued because his solo material sounded similar to old CCR songs, even though he wrote the material that he was accused of copying.
i once read that you can't copy right chord progression. there's YT vid's that show songs using the same chord progression in different keys. for example how many metal songs would not exist if there was a copy right on the minor second interval?
I agree.These progressions and melodies are basic and instinctive to the human ear.Does this now mean that Satriani ripped off Cat Stevens?No.It's like trying to trademark and copyright eating and shitting.
* 2005 Nominated for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame[101] * 20 October 2005, ASCAP named Songwriter of the Year and Song of the Year for "The First Cut Is the Deepest"[102] * 8 June 2006, listed as #49 in Paste magazine's "100 Best Living Songwriters".[103] * 11 October 2006, awarded Songwriter of the Year for the second year running, for the same song "The First Cut Is the Deepest".[104]
As far as I've been informed... The most important thing would be how much money your Bossa version of Yesterday made? The publisher of the original work could, of course, hire a lawyer and file the suit. However, it would probably be dismissed immediately by the defendants attorney in District Court if the court did not agree on substantial infringement. That is to say "if" an entertainment copyright lawyer would actually take such a weak case in the first place. - Andrew
Just to doubly spell this out for you, this guys demonstration of the progression of each of the songs shows that they are actually really close, close enough in my opinion for one to "accidentally" come from the other, or be arrived at because of the (subconcious) influence of the other. clearly they aren't exactly the same, but that doesn't make it not plagiarism. I'm not sure how this(ese) guy(s) thinks this proves otherwise or anything.
@Janicemaxwell This guy did a 20 minute video analyzing the Satch song. They definitely lifted it, and even lost the lawsuit. But yeah, this is much more ambiguous.
I think this guy just pwned Cat Stevens. Comparing a 4 bar progression to a 16 bar progression with very dissimilar anticipations is down right desperate. This was all for publicity. If this never happened, I still wouldn't know who Satriani or Stevens are. So those who call them "world legends" are completely wrong.
You're right, you can only copyright a melody, and a uniquely recognizable hook. "Without litigation and potential monetary compensation, copyright infringement would not exist." This is somewhat true... However you can say the same about any lawsuit not existing without litigation or potential for monetary compensation, Copyrighting is to protect your material from being used without your permission, whether seeking compensation or not would be up to the copyright holder.
I agree 100% with you, even if it's accidental (because music it's infinite and it can intersect somewhere, sometimes), what you should do in that case is to clarify that it was a "cosmologic accident" and pay the fees.
6661Carl... The tones "Cb" and "B" are called enharmonic equivalents. And, in the key signature of "Gb Major" there is no "B natural" it is called by, "Cb." Go to: guitarweek (com)/keys/Gb/index.php for a more thorough explanation. Or, simply Google, "Key of Gb Major." Hope this helps - Andrew W.
Cat says "he does not intend to lay a lawsuit" and " there is a resemblance". I also read somewhere quoting "... I wish we could have some tea and I would tell them it's ok..."
That's true... It seems that most people believe the end of the world has come if someone uses someone elses idea... A friend of mine has instrumental versions of "Living for the City", and "Man in the Mirror" on one of his CD's, and all he did was contact the perspective copyright holders and signed a standard usage agreement which included paying $100 for every thousand CD's sold along with crediting them on the CD, DVD etc they're on. It's not a big deal at all, and very easy to do.
* 25 March 2007, received the German ECHO "special award for life achievements as musician and ambassador between cultures", Europe's Grammy, in Berlin[72] * 2008 Nominated for induction into the Songwriters Hall of Fame[105]
Don't know if it's different in America, but in Europe, we pronounce 'timbre' as in the French: it sounds a bit like 'TAMBRE'. I can't be more precise unless I used the phonetic alphabetic. 'im' in french is one of those nasal combinations like 'em' 'en' or 'an'. Sorry to be pedantic. Just for information.
One of my favourite soundalikes is alice coopers poison and guns n roses sweet child of mine lead guitar riff, i think slash lifted the main theme of that riff but i could be wrong.
Haha you are right there. My teacher always tells me it comes down to whether they want to sue you or not, but of course some songs are just too similar to be just coincidence. You just can't run away from that. All this just brings us back to the philosophical conundrum of whether true originality can really exist at this point.
You clearly didn't watch the video. It is the man in this video's opinion that Coldplay most likely did NOT steal the song from Cat Stevens. Cat Stevens was most likely trying to gain publicity for his new album. The Satriani song, however, that is another story.
in france we have for example alizee's "j'en ai marre" which is on a the same chord progression if we see in in major scale , this is 4 5 1 6 which is basically the 2 5 1 ( 4 and 5 are sub dominant chords; the 6 and 1 are in the same function too) the majority of the songs are 2 5 1 's over and over
I agree with you, coincidences DO happen. It was probably a coincidence, I'll give them the benifit of the doubt, however that doesn't negate the copyright. Artists are always recording covers, and using the same melodies as copyrighten songs, however they get permission before hand. If it's an accident, and a claim is filed, they check out its validity, and if it has merit, they just do what they would have done in the 1st place, and offer a royalty and credit. Which is what was done.
totally agree , sad that it has to go this way , coldplay just did a great job other artist are trying to get credit for it.. pretty sad. Especially from satriani , didnt expect that from him. hope he turns around.
Given, that is an accepted and common practice, and in this case i'd say it very possibly/feasobly (just stressing this here, possibly subconciously) happened with either Coldplay or satriani BUT i think there should still be a point of taking the song far enough from its "roots" if you will, and despite how arbitrary it is, i don't think the difference is really far enough it just seems more like it's tweaked, not used as a starting point.
You've done exactly the right thing. Coldplay has a good tune, but Foreigner Suite totally kills Viva la Vida. Roadsinger is unbelievably good!! I love Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, Yusuf Islam just released a NEW statement, said he's cool with Coldplay: ww w.entertainment.oneindia. in/music/international/2009/yusuf-islam-peace-coldplay-150609. html What a great guy.
Wentz said: "honestly this guys "theory" shows that it actually close enough that you could get one from trying to sound out the other and doing it wrong. and "or strumming around and stumbling acroww a seemingly original riff" This sounded like you were saying it's OK if it happened accidentally. Maybe I just read too much into it. I don't think Cat has a case, because the melody is not the same. However Satriani does. Also, Key doesn't matter in a copyright infringement case.
The 1st 3 notes of the Enanitos song are the same, but it's not the complete melody.. You can't sue for a partial melody. The melody has to be the same throughout the whole phrase, or at least have the same target notes in conjunction to the perspective key. In other words, since the Enanitos song only has the 1st 3 notes the same, it would not be a case of copyright infringement. However if the whole phrase was the same, then the one who held the copyright 1st wins ownership.
I'm not saying anybody copied anybody. I'm just saying that there are smilarities between Satriani's chorus and Coldplay's verse in "Viva la Vida" and that may be casual or not, that's something we can't know by guessing or even analyzing theory, but Satriani has the right to ask for a proper explanation, and we don't need to hear he did it for the money. It's a maestro, this is not Oceans' 11
To clarify further... A melody is more than just notes in order. A melody is also the rhythm of those notes in a phrase. So no, Satrianie's melody cannot be used by anyone else in their recording to make money, unless they are given permission from Satriani, which will usually include a monetary agreement.
I'm not familiar with those songs, however most artists will get permission from the original artist to cover a song, or use a melody or sample of a song. They will also have a set royalty they will pay along with crediting them. If the song by Kylie has an identical melody recorded as the New Order song, and she hasn't gotten permission, then yes, New Order should sue her. Live performances are excluded from copyright laws unless that live performance is recorded and sold by the artist.
@Rifalltoo Yup. They went to the future, stole coldplay's ideas and then went back to the past and made the song, so that it only LOOKS like coldplay is copying them, when in fact they copied coldplay. That makes complete sense....
It's very easy for non-musicians or non-artists to find copyright infringement cases trivial, because it's not your work being taken to profit someone else. Once you have something that you've created be stolen to profit someone else, you'll understand.
Thanks for the reply. So, to clarify: if I came out with a new piece of music that had exactly the same melody as "Yesterday", but somewhat different chords, and I gave it a Bossa Nova rhythm, are you suggesting that I could *not* be successfully sued for plagiarism? Surely, at the very least, there would be some debate regarding whether my chords were different enough from the original?
Not necessarily, you can't copyright a chord progression or a rhythmic loop. No sole entity should be allowed to do so, ever. Secondly, copyright infringement, when it comes to music, is ONLY an accepted notion because of its profitability. Without litigation and potential monetary compensation, copyright infringement would not exist. Classical Composers of the 18th century would find our current perception of music laughable.
Not comparing the melody is misleading. Songs can be re-harmonized with completely different chords, but it'd still be the same song. Chord changes far more complex than these pop tunes were lifted completely during the bebop era of Jazz to avoid infringement claims. If copying chord changes were the issue, nearly every blues tune every written is infringing on earlier work (ignoring public domain for the moment).
OK, so I've checked, and you must be referring to Dr Mike Bakers case. My mistake. However his case is completely different from this one. In his case, its a report that's a compilation of facts that's under fire. The copyrights in factual compilations are very thin, and since the company is not trying to profit from the report, and neither is he, their case is extremely weak... Totally different case, and I would have to agree with Dr Baker on that one.
What about Lenny Kravitz copying Prince's Purple Rain on his song "Again". Lots of people do this to different degrees. I guess it is to the extent they copy the song. I like watching these videos cause sometimes I get ideas by listening to others music, but kinda gives you an idea on how far you can go legally and what is considered copying. I mean I think a lot of people listen to their favorite music and write similar style or sound right?
Did you notice the new lawsuit by Spirit, who claim their song Taurus was ripped off by Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven? I suppose this stuff goes on constantly but a lot of it we just don't hear much about.
The songs are both very similar but there's no need to make a big deal out of it, Yusuf has said he's not going to sue, he just didn't want Joe Satriani making a big thing out of Coldplay stealing 'his' song when Cat wrote the original song
Bottom line people is, if you're an artist, writer, or anyone who has intellectual property, always get it copyrighten, Satriani vs Coldplay is a prime example of why we have copyright laws. Copyrights don't care who the parties are nor their excuse, and neither should you... If they do it on accident or on purpose, doesn't matter... It's your right and obligation to pursue it to the end.
Hi JAustinMunn... Because Yusef saying Satch ripped him off would never get him the kind of media attention he's gotten in saying that Coldplay ripped him off. I love the shit Wasson does because it exposes all of these music industry dung-holes for what they're really about. GO WASSON !
Not going to bother looking at the melody?? Don't you think that if someone copied the melody from "Yesterday", but used somewhat different chords, that they could be sued for plagiarism? Very strange to say that we needn't bother looking at melody just because the chords are different.
Yeah but he's making the case that Satriani/Coldaply is not that similar to Cat Stevens. It's not necessarily plagiarism when you hear commonalities between two pieces of music, but Wasson showed that the Coldplay/Satriani seems to go beyond some minor similarities (not so with Cat Stevens).
I agree. It is a little greedy of Cat Stevens to think Cold Play's song plagiarized Foreginer Suite (I say this despite being a Cat Stevens fan since the mid 70s). Andrew, thanks for the analysis. Kids: no need to be agressive in your comments, please. Show a little more maturity... or at least a little respect for Andrew Wasson and the rest of adults here.
Search vid. with title "Coldplay-Satriani-Verdes-Stevens Viva La Vida Plagiarism?" I don't thinks, this is a copy. There are a lot of very popular chord progressions (like A E D), that are ir many songs. This one is not that popular, but the point is - since someone makes new songs there will always be songs, that sounds similar. I don't think someone stole this song from someone else. There just aren't that many progressions so you can always find song that sounds similar, just need to search.
Once again, you should probably watch THIS video. The Cat Stevens song is not similar enough to the Satriani OR the Coldplay song. Therefore your argument is fallacious.
thanks for the informative video. I ove coldplay and cat. yeah i think the songs only get more different from there. cool "heaven" though. yeah its the last part of the suite. your right its 18 min
No, not at all... Coldplays song is identical to the Satriani song, but as far as the Cat song there are only a couple notes that are similar, and the phrasing is way off, which nullifies any copyright infringement claim Cat would have against either Coldplay or Satriani.
A melody is more than just a note, and a painting is more than just a color of paint. A melody is a group of notes combined with a rhythm in a certain order to provoke a certain emotion or feeling. This is the only thing that can be copyrighten. A note cannot be copyrighten, nor can paint. Similar is not the same as identical... Cold Plays melody is identical to Satrianis, not similar. New Orders song can fit in perfectly to Kylies, but that's a far cry from being an identical melody.
The video shows that Cat Steven's song does NOT share many similarities to Viva la Vida. However, If you watch the videos about Satch and Coldplay, you'll see a different story.
Pretty much the same melody though. Coldplay are Radiohead-lite anyway. They make radio friendly songs and if you do that you are bound to use common chord progressions and cheesy melodies - hence the eventual satch crossover.
When viewed within the broader scope of music, and hell, sound for that matter, they have more than "minor" similarities. The chord progression lining up isnt exactly conclusive, its not like that is a hard thing to tweak. "Hey man, dont you think someone might think we stole this?" "not if we take it up a half step and shuffle some of those minors around a bit!!" "Right on!!" did this literally happen? god, i hope not.
Hey can u look into the melody of the saxophone chorus in the Billy Joel classic Movin Out. Different structure I know but when overlaid it is similar. Thanks, post a vid if possible?
If you do come up with a seemingly original riff, you publish it, and it turns out that someone else copyrighten that same riff, then yes.. you would have to pay them, and get permission to continue publication... If it was on purpose or by accident, it doesn't matter. If you have the copyright on it, it's yours.
who would have thought that a person would have to be like Albert Einstein to understand music.Mate I am impressed in your outstanding musical ability.Wow
@qwertypoiu4321 The fact of the matter is that it hasn't really damaged the credibility of the artist in question. Also, if you steal something stealthily, that act of stealing is non-coercive. You aren't using your authority to demand the object you are stealing, you are just stealing it without permission . Which means the government shouldn't commit coercion against it. Aka, the government can't use force to make the person return the object. At least according to your logic.
You are the man! Thanks for enlightening us with the video. You know the first song I learnt to play was Scientist by Coldplay. But eversince the Joe Satriani issue I have stopped playing all their songs. Stealing someone's piece of work is not good musicianship. Worse still is denying it.
Well done! I'm not an expert but there isn't enough similarity between the songs. Cat Steven's song is just different. Love his song, though no smoking gun. However Joe Satriani's song and Cold Play's....they are too close for comfort for me.
maybe you should try reading what i wrote again, cause you seem to think i don't think coldplay stole anything. You are like disagreeing with something i never said.
Ty for the explannations. But I wonder, in a 4 chord progression, doesn't many songs share the same progression? I'm sure that's the case, and they could all sue each other for an eternity... I don't get the point of the case itself. There is no trade mark on chrods as far as I know :s
Problem is i could list about 30 different songs that use the exact same chords as other songs, in fact theres a well knows 4 chord progression that been totally raped over the years by rock, pop, rap, hip hop etc etc you can put any instrument to them.
I say you don't know what a copyright is because you have shown that you don't... You can claim you know what it is all you want, but that really doesn't mean you do does it? As I said in the past, you can't sue because a melody is "similar" you can sue if it's identical, as with this case... Coldplay agreed, that's why they offered the royalties in lieu of going to court... This is the whole reason for copyrights, and that's another reason I'm pretty convinced you don't know about copyrights.
Todd Rundgren once said that all the music that will ever be made on this planet has already been made, and is just waiting to be discovered. So, after we figure out how Coldplay copied Cat Stevens, then we need to find out who Cat Stevens copied, and then who that guy copied, and so on. If there is one bright spot to all this, however, it would be that if Yusuf successfully sues Coldplay, the settlement will go to the aid of impoverished children, because Yusuf rolls like that. ^_^
Coming up with a similar melody is fine, it's when it's IDENTICAL to the copyrighten melody that is illegal... You can't steal someones melody and claim it as your own even if it's by accident... What part of copyrights don't you understand?
Why didnt cat stevens accuse jo satriani of copyright infrigment when joe's song came out back in 92.Most likely it was just a publicity thing..typical hollywood
It wouldn't have been worth it for Satriani to bother with sells of 1000 copies, but when his copyrighten melody is making another band millions, then yes he is well within his right. "So are you saying that no one ever again can use those same notes in a row then, is that it?" Yeah, that's right... What is it that you think a "copyright" is for? If someone is going to use a copyrighten melody then they have to get permission. which includes payment. I'm at a loss to see why this is unclear.
yeah, i can agree with you there... im not a fan of Coldplay, but i dont think they copied offa Cat at all... thats not to say they dont sound similar, but in my opinion, theyre far from copies... in my opinion anyways...
Some one invented the 12 notes on specific frequencies, we are all using them, no one is stopping people to invent music with 18 notes or whatever. some one invented these combinations of notes called chords, everyone is using them, some one came out with variations (7th, dim, aug, sus) and every one is using them. Someone invented the hundreds of rhythms, are there copyrights for using beguine or samba rhythms? When does a style become free to all, and when can it be defined plague ?
"it will get so technical that lawyers will go around looking at songs and calling on musical experts to analyze basic chord structures and patterns etc to scientifically find similarities..." As little as you know about copyrights, you know less about the legal system. Lawyers don't go in search of these cases, they are brought to them. Your whole argument is in direct conflict of the concept of copyrights. So how is it you expect us to believe you know what a copyright is?
You are clearly missing my point... MELODY and a recognizable hooks are the only things that can be copyrighten... The melody in the New Order Song and Kylie are no where close nor similar to each other... And as I said, just because a melody can fit into a song, doesn't mean the song has been infringed uppon.. It's only It's when that copyrighten melody is recorded by another artist that permission has to be given, or it's considered infringement.
If Coldplay is believed to have copied Satriani, shouldn't the question here have been if Satriani copied Cat Stevens?
In reply to the comment from LeafInTheStream...
After discussing this stuff with a number of lawyers since December '08, I have become aware that in order to be considered for an Intellectual Property - Copyrights suit the songs must share the same; Melody, Harmony & Rhythm structures. So far, the only song that actually does that is Viva La Vida. This is why I did not pursue the melody analysis here. And, yes I do agree that at times melodies are indeed copied, as are chords.
- Andrew
You're correct... to a point... however, Keep in mind that any person can put forth litigation, (no matter how ridiculous the court documents may initially appear), and sue you - in return costing you possibly thousands in legal bills. If a chord progression shares the same; harmonic function, tempo, rhythmic meter, and some kind of melodic movement within the voicings of a series of chords within said progression - you could find yourself with a very difficult case to fight in court. - Andrew
this reminds me of when John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival was sued because his solo material sounded similar to old CCR songs, even though he wrote the material that he was accused of copying.
now the question is:
Did Satriani copy Cat Stevens?
i once read that you can't copy right chord progression. there's YT vid's that show songs using the same chord progression in different keys. for example how many metal songs would not exist if there was a copy right on the minor second interval?
Wonderful vid. Thanks for posting. One question though, the piece from Cat Stevens that you played, was that the part named "Heaven"? Thank you.
I agree.These progressions and melodies are basic and instinctive to the human ear.Does this now mean that Satriani ripped off Cat Stevens?No.It's like trying to trademark and copyright eating and shitting.
Maybe these 4 similarities are the vibration of the rotation and wobble of the earth
* 2005 Nominated for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame[101]
* 20 October 2005, ASCAP named Songwriter of the Year and Song of the Year for "The First Cut Is the Deepest"[102]
* 8 June 2006, listed as #49 in Paste magazine's "100 Best Living Songwriters".[103]
* 11 October 2006, awarded Songwriter of the Year for the second year running, for the same song "The First Cut Is the Deepest".[104]
As far as I've been informed...
The most important thing would be how much money your Bossa version of Yesterday made? The publisher of the original work could, of course, hire a lawyer and file the suit. However, it would probably be dismissed immediately by the defendants attorney in District Court if the court did not agree on substantial infringement. That is to say "if" an entertainment copyright lawyer would actually take such a weak case in the first place.
- Andrew
Just to doubly spell this out for you, this guys demonstration of the progression of each of the songs shows that they are actually really close, close enough in my opinion for one to "accidentally" come from the other, or be arrived at because of the (subconcious) influence of the other. clearly they aren't exactly the same, but that doesn't make it not plagiarism. I'm not sure how this(ese) guy(s) thinks this proves otherwise or anything.
@Janicemaxwell This guy did a 20 minute video analyzing the Satch song. They definitely lifted it, and even lost the lawsuit. But yeah, this is much more ambiguous.
I think this guy just pwned Cat Stevens. Comparing a 4 bar progression to a 16 bar progression with very dissimilar anticipations is down right desperate. This was all for publicity. If this never happened, I still wouldn't know who Satriani or Stevens are. So those who call them "world legends" are completely wrong.
You're right, you can only copyright a melody, and a uniquely recognizable hook.
"Without litigation and potential monetary compensation, copyright infringement would not exist."
This is somewhat true... However you can say the same about any lawsuit not existing without litigation or potential for monetary compensation,
Copyrighting is to protect your material from being used without your permission, whether seeking compensation or not would be up to the copyright holder.
I agree 100% with you, even if it's accidental (because music it's infinite and it can intersect somewhere, sometimes), what you should do in that case is to clarify that it was a "cosmologic accident" and pay the fees.
6661Carl...
The tones "Cb" and "B" are called enharmonic equivalents. And, in the key signature of "Gb Major" there is no "B natural" it is called by, "Cb."
Go to: guitarweek (com)/keys/Gb/index.php for a more thorough explanation.
Or, simply Google, "Key of Gb Major."
Hope this helps - Andrew W.
It depends. - Andrew
I really dig your videos, man. Keep it up!
Cat says "he does not intend to lay a lawsuit" and " there is a resemblance". I also read somewhere quoting "... I wish we could have some tea and I would tell them it's ok..."
That's true... It seems that most people believe the end of the world has come if someone uses someone elses idea...
A friend of mine has instrumental versions of "Living for the City", and "Man in the Mirror" on one of his CD's, and all he did was contact the perspective copyright holders and signed a standard usage agreement which included paying $100 for every thousand CD's sold along with crediting them on the CD, DVD etc they're on.
It's not a big deal at all, and very easy to do.
* 25 March 2007, received the German ECHO "special award for life achievements as musician and ambassador between cultures", Europe's Grammy, in Berlin[72]
* 2008 Nominated for induction into the Songwriters Hall of Fame[105]
Don't know if it's different in America, but in Europe, we pronounce 'timbre' as in the French: it sounds a bit like 'TAMBRE'. I can't be more precise unless I used the phonetic alphabetic. 'im' in french is one of those nasal combinations like 'em' 'en' or 'an'. Sorry to be pedantic. Just for information.
One of my favourite soundalikes is alice coopers poison and guns n roses sweet child of mine lead guitar riff, i think slash lifted the main theme of that riff but i could be wrong.
Haha you are right there. My teacher always tells me it comes down to whether they want to sue you or not, but of course some songs are just too similar to be just coincidence. You just can't run away from that. All this just brings us back to the philosophical conundrum of whether true originality can really exist at this point.
You clearly didn't watch the video. It is the man in this video's opinion that Coldplay most likely did NOT steal the song from Cat Stevens.
Cat Stevens was most likely trying to gain publicity for his new album.
The Satriani song, however, that is another story.
in france we have for example alizee's "j'en ai marre" which is on a the same chord progression
if we see in in major scale , this is 4 5 1 6
which is basically the 2 5 1 ( 4 and 5 are sub dominant chords; the 6 and 1 are in the same function too)
the majority of the songs are 2 5 1 's over and over
Hahaha, you know he knew nothing about music when he says chords like 4,1,3,6 are simple and then starts throwing out random numbers and fractions.
Imagine if Bach patented his work? Or the guy who invented the tonal scale.
I agree with you, coincidences DO happen.
It was probably a coincidence, I'll give them the benifit of the doubt, however that doesn't negate the copyright.
Artists are always recording covers, and using the same melodies as copyrighten songs, however they get permission before hand.
If it's an accident, and a claim is filed, they check out its validity, and if it has merit, they just do what they would have done in the 1st place, and offer a royalty and credit. Which is what was done.
Consider this, Weird Al even asks for permission before he does a parody of a song.
totally agree , sad that it has to go this way , coldplay just did a great job other artist are trying to get credit for it.. pretty sad. Especially from satriani , didnt expect that from him. hope he turns around.
Given, that is an accepted and common practice, and in this case i'd say it very possibly/feasobly (just stressing this here, possibly subconciously) happened with either Coldplay or satriani BUT i think there should still be a point of taking the song far enough from its "roots" if you will, and despite how arbitrary it is, i don't think the difference is really far enough it just seems more like it's tweaked, not used as a starting point.
You've done exactly the right thing.
Coldplay has a good tune, but Foreigner Suite totally kills Viva la Vida.
Roadsinger is unbelievably good!! I love Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, Yusuf Islam just released a NEW statement, said he's cool with Coldplay:
ww w.entertainment.oneindia. in/music/international/2009/yusuf-islam-peace-coldplay-150609. html
What a great guy.
Wentz said: "honestly this guys "theory" shows that it actually close enough that you could get one from trying to sound out the other and doing it wrong.
and
"or strumming around and stumbling acroww a seemingly original riff"
This sounded like you were saying it's OK if it happened accidentally. Maybe I just read too much into it.
I don't think Cat has a case, because the melody is not the same. However Satriani does.
Also, Key doesn't matter in a copyright infringement case.
The 1st 3 notes of the Enanitos song are the same, but it's not the complete melody.. You can't sue for a partial melody. The melody has to be the same throughout the whole phrase, or at least have the same target notes in conjunction to the perspective key.
In other words, since the Enanitos song only has the 1st 3 notes the same, it would not be a case of copyright infringement.
However if the whole phrase was the same, then the one who held the copyright 1st wins ownership.
I'm not saying anybody copied anybody. I'm just saying that there are smilarities between Satriani's chorus and Coldplay's verse in "Viva la Vida" and that may be casual or not, that's something we can't know by guessing or even analyzing theory, but Satriani has the right to ask for a proper explanation, and we don't need to hear he did it for the money. It's a maestro, this is not Oceans' 11
To clarify further... A melody is more than just notes in order. A melody is also the rhythm of those notes in a phrase.
So no, Satrianie's melody cannot be used by anyone else in their recording to make money, unless they are given permission from Satriani, which will usually include a monetary agreement.
I heard a quote today... From a folk musician. He said, "Good musicians borrow music. Great musicians steal it."
Hmm... Something to ponder?
I'm not familiar with those songs, however most artists will get permission from the original artist to cover a song, or use a melody or sample of a song. They will also have a set royalty they will pay along with crediting them.
If the song by Kylie has an identical melody recorded as the New Order song, and she hasn't gotten permission, then yes, New Order should sue her.
Live performances are excluded from copyright laws unless that live performance is recorded and sold by the artist.
@Rifalltoo Yup. They went to the future, stole coldplay's ideas and then went back to the past and made the song, so that it only LOOKS like coldplay is copying them, when in fact they copied coldplay. That makes complete sense....
C♭ (musical note) is a chromatic semitone lower than C♮. In other words, Mr Andrew Wasson is an excellent music theorist!
It's very easy for non-musicians or non-artists to find copyright infringement cases trivial, because it's not your work being taken to profit someone else.
Once you have something that you've created be stolen to profit someone else, you'll understand.
Thanks for the reply.
So, to clarify: if I came out with a new piece of music that had exactly the same melody as "Yesterday", but somewhat different chords, and I gave it a Bossa Nova rhythm, are you suggesting that I could *not* be successfully sued for plagiarism? Surely, at the very least, there would be some debate regarding whether my chords were different enough from the original?
Not necessarily, you can't copyright a chord progression or a rhythmic loop. No sole entity should be allowed to do so, ever.
Secondly, copyright infringement, when it comes to music, is ONLY an accepted notion because of its profitability. Without litigation and potential monetary compensation, copyright infringement would not exist.
Classical Composers of the 18th century would find our current perception of music laughable.
Another great video, well done. Someone needs to put you on TV doing lessons and explanations like this.
hahaha X D Cat Stevens was feeling left out of the music world
Not comparing the melody is misleading.
Songs can be re-harmonized with completely different chords, but it'd still be the same song.
Chord changes far more complex than these pop tunes were lifted completely during the bebop era of Jazz to avoid infringement claims.
If copying chord changes were the issue, nearly every blues tune every written is infringing on earlier work (ignoring public domain for the moment).
OK, so I've checked, and you must be referring to Dr Mike Bakers case. My mistake.
However his case is completely different from this one.
In his case, its a report that's a compilation of facts that's under fire. The copyrights in factual compilations are very thin, and since the company is not trying to profit from the report, and neither is he, their case is extremely weak...
Totally different case, and I would have to agree with Dr Baker on that one.
What about Lenny Kravitz copying Prince's Purple Rain on his song "Again". Lots of people do this to different degrees. I guess it is to the extent they copy the song. I like watching these videos cause sometimes I get ideas by listening to others music, but kinda gives you an idea on how far you can go legally and what is considered copying. I mean I think a lot of people listen to their favorite music and write similar style or sound right?
Did you notice the new lawsuit by Spirit, who claim their song Taurus was ripped off by Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven? I suppose this stuff goes on constantly but a lot of it we just don't hear much about.
You are an amazing instructor. Possibly because you remind me of my professors I had in college. But you're very easy to listen to.
The songs are both very similar but there's no need to make a big deal out of it, Yusuf has said he's not going to sue, he just didn't want Joe Satriani making a big thing out of Coldplay stealing 'his' song when Cat wrote the original song
Bottom line people is, if you're an artist, writer, or anyone who has intellectual property, always get it copyrighten,
Satriani vs Coldplay is a prime example of why we have copyright laws.
Copyrights don't care who the parties are nor their excuse, and neither should you... If they do it on accident or on purpose, doesn't matter... It's your right and obligation to pursue it to the end.
Agree -some similarity but different song. surprised Yousuf would even dignify claim with a press release.
Funny that he doesn't call Cat Stevens be his present name, Mr Yussuf Islam...
Hi JAustinMunn... Because Yusef saying Satch ripped him off would never get him the kind of media attention he's gotten in saying that Coldplay ripped him off. I love the shit Wasson does because it exposes all of these music industry dung-holes for what they're really about.
GO WASSON !
what classical guitar are you using, it had a really nice sound?
Not going to bother looking at the melody?? Don't you think that if someone copied the melody from "Yesterday", but used somewhat different chords, that they could be sued for plagiarism? Very strange to say that we needn't bother looking at melody just because the chords are different.
Yeah but he's making the case that Satriani/Coldaply is not that similar to Cat Stevens. It's not necessarily plagiarism when you hear commonalities between two pieces of music, but Wasson showed that the Coldplay/Satriani seems to go beyond some minor similarities (not so with Cat Stevens).
I agree. It is a little greedy of Cat Stevens to think Cold Play's song plagiarized Foreginer Suite (I say this despite being a Cat Stevens fan since the mid 70s).
Andrew, thanks for the analysis.
Kids: no need to be agressive in your comments, please. Show a little more maturity... or at least a little respect for Andrew Wasson and the rest of adults here.
Search vid. with title "Coldplay-Satriani-Verdes-Stevens Viva La Vida Plagiarism?"
I don't thinks, this is a copy. There are a lot of very popular chord progressions (like A E D), that are ir many songs.
This one is not that popular, but the point is - since someone makes new songs there will always be songs, that sounds similar. I don't think someone stole this song from someone else.
There just aren't that many progressions so you can always find song that sounds similar, just need to search.
There are some similarities as far as diatonic substitution but I think Satriani got his inspiration from Stevens.
Once again, you should probably watch THIS video. The Cat Stevens song is not similar enough to the Satriani OR the Coldplay song. Therefore your argument is fallacious.
I cant play a guitar a bit, and I have rhythm, but every time someone starts talking in technical terms im completely lost.
thanks for the informative video. I ove coldplay and cat. yeah i think the songs only get more different from there. cool "heaven" though. yeah its the last part of the suite. your right its 18 min
No, not at all... Coldplays song is identical to the Satriani song, but as far as the Cat song there are only a couple notes that are similar, and the phrasing is way off, which nullifies any copyright infringement claim Cat would have against either Coldplay or Satriani.
A melody is more than just a note, and a painting is more than just a color of paint.
A melody is a group of notes combined with a rhythm in a certain order to provoke a certain emotion or feeling. This is the only thing that can be copyrighten. A note cannot be copyrighten, nor can paint.
Similar is not the same as identical... Cold Plays melody is identical to Satrianis, not similar.
New Orders song can fit in perfectly to Kylies, but that's a far cry from being an identical melody.
The video shows that Cat Steven's song does NOT share many similarities to Viva la Vida. However, If you watch the videos about Satch and Coldplay, you'll see a different story.
Pretty much the same melody though. Coldplay are Radiohead-lite anyway. They make radio friendly songs and if you do that you are bound to use common chord progressions and cheesy melodies - hence the eventual satch crossover.
Settlement doesn't mean you officially win, but if Satriani got a royalty agreement and credit from them, then I would say he won hid battle.
When viewed within the broader scope of music, and hell, sound for that matter, they have more than "minor" similarities. The chord progression lining up isnt exactly conclusive, its not like that is a hard thing to tweak. "Hey man, dont you think someone might think we stole this?" "not if we take it up a half step and shuffle some of those minors around a bit!!" "Right on!!" did this literally happen? god, i hope not.
i want that b.c rich on the background :D
Hey can u look into the melody of the saxophone chorus in the Billy Joel classic Movin Out. Different structure I know but when overlaid it is similar. Thanks, post a vid if possible?
this guy knows his shit.
Well spoken Flipsta, well spoken. Thumbs up for intelligent UA-cam comments.
If you do come up with a seemingly original riff, you publish it, and it turns out that someone else copyrighten that same riff, then yes.. you would have to pay them, and get permission to continue publication...
If it was on purpose or by accident, it doesn't matter. If you have the copyright on it, it's yours.
who would have thought that a person would have to be like Albert Einstein to understand music.Mate I am impressed in your outstanding musical ability.Wow
So what your saying is Satriani and Coldplay copied from Cat Stevens?
@qwertypoiu4321 The fact of the matter is that it hasn't really damaged the credibility of the artist in question. Also, if you steal something stealthily, that act of stealing is non-coercive. You aren't using your authority to demand the object you are stealing, you are just stealing it without permission . Which means the government shouldn't commit coercion against it. Aka, the government can't use force to make the person return the object. At least according to your logic.
You are the man! Thanks for enlightening us with the video. You know the first song I learnt to play was Scientist by Coldplay. But eversince the Joe Satriani issue I have stopped playing all their songs. Stealing someone's piece of work is not good musicianship. Worse still is denying it.
Well done! I'm not an expert but there isn't enough similarity between the songs. Cat Steven's song is just different. Love his song, though no smoking gun. However Joe Satriani's song and Cold Play's....they are too close for comfort for me.
maybe you should try reading what i wrote again, cause you seem to think i don't think coldplay stole anything. You are like disagreeing with something i never said.
Haha, I was going to say the same thing...
Ty for the explannations.
But I wonder, in a 4 chord progression, doesn't many songs share the same progression? I'm sure that's the case, and they could all sue each other for an eternity... I don't get the point of the case itself. There is no trade mark on chrods as far as I know :s
Problem is i could list about 30 different songs that use the exact same chords as other songs, in fact theres a well knows 4 chord progression that been totally raped over the years by rock, pop, rap, hip hop etc etc you can put any instrument to them.
I say you don't know what a copyright is because you have shown that you don't... You can claim you know what it is all you want, but that really doesn't mean you do does it?
As I said in the past, you can't sue because a melody is "similar" you can sue if it's identical, as with this case... Coldplay agreed, that's why they offered the royalties in lieu of going to court...
This is the whole reason for copyrights, and that's another reason I'm pretty convinced you don't know about copyrights.
Todd Rundgren once said that all the music that will ever be made on this planet has already been made, and is just waiting to be discovered. So, after we figure out how Coldplay copied Cat Stevens, then we need to find out who Cat Stevens copied, and then who that guy copied, and so on. If there is one bright spot to all this, however, it would be that if Yusuf successfully sues Coldplay, the settlement will go to the aid of impoverished children, because Yusuf rolls like that. ^_^
Coming up with a similar melody is fine, it's when it's IDENTICAL to the copyrighten melody that is illegal...
You can't steal someones melody and claim it as your own even if it's by accident...
What part of copyrights don't you understand?
Why didnt cat stevens accuse jo satriani of copyright infrigment when joe's song came out back in 92.Most likely it was just a publicity thing..typical hollywood
Also it's extremely similiar to New Order's Bizzare Love Triangle.
It has nothing to do with the key it's in, it has to do with the chords structure/melodic line.
It wouldn't have been worth it for Satriani to bother with sells of 1000 copies, but when his copyrighten melody is making another band millions, then yes he is well within his right.
"So are you saying that no one ever again can use those same notes in a row then, is that it?"
Yeah, that's right... What is it that you think a "copyright" is for?
If someone is going to use a copyrighten melody then they have to get permission. which includes payment.
I'm at a loss to see why this is unclear.
Blatant ripoff
yeah, i can agree with you there... im not a fan of Coldplay, but i dont think they copied offa Cat at all... thats not to say they dont sound similar, but in my opinion, theyre far from copies... in my opinion anyways...
Some one invented the 12 notes on specific frequencies, we are all using them, no one is stopping people to invent music with 18 notes or whatever.
some one invented these combinations of notes called chords, everyone is using them, some one came out with variations (7th, dim, aug, sus) and every one is using them.
Someone invented the hundreds of rhythms, are there copyrights for using beguine or samba rhythms?
When does a style become free to all, and when can it be defined plague ?
"it will get so technical that lawyers will go around looking at songs and calling on musical experts to analyze basic chord structures and patterns etc to scientifically find similarities..."
As little as you know about copyrights, you know less about the legal system. Lawyers don't go in search of these cases, they are brought to them.
Your whole argument is in direct conflict of the concept of copyrights. So how is it you expect us to believe you know what a copyright is?
You are clearly missing my point... MELODY and a recognizable hooks are the only things that can be copyrighten... The melody in the New Order Song and Kylie are no where close nor similar to each other...
And as I said, just because a melody can fit into a song, doesn't mean the song has been infringed uppon..
It's only It's when that copyrighten melody is recorded by another artist that permission has to be given, or it's considered infringement.
I see and hear the similarities, but I don't think it's enough to claim they stole it.
That actually applies to all copyrighten material, not just Mr. Satriani.