Did Ed Sheeran ACTUALLY Plagiarize Marvin Gaye?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 кві 2023
- So...is there any actual merit to the Ed Sheeran/Marvin Gaye lawsuit?
The Grotesque Legacy of Music as Property (video essay on music as property)
• The Grotesque Legacy o...
My first video on the Ed Sheeran/Marvin Gaye lawsuit
• Why the Ed Sheeran law...
⦿ Adam Neely T-shirts! ⦿
teespring.com/stores/adam-nee...
⦿ SUPPORT ME ON PATREON ⦿
/ adamneely
⦿ FOLLOW ME ON THE INTERNETS ⦿
/ adamneely
/ its_adamneely
⦿ Check out some of my music ⦿
sungazermusic.bandcamp.com
insideoutsidemusic.bandcamp.com
adamneelymusic.bandcamp.com
Peace,
Adam
Wait till these lawyers find out about 12-bar blues.
This comment deserves far more thumbs up.
Or rhythm changes
I was just having a conversation with an intellectual copyright lawyer about this exact topic as the trouble with the current spell of frivolous copyright cases
The benchmark should be based on how differentiated the melody and the lyrics are
If one person copies it’s plagiarism, if thousands copy, it’s a new genre.
The entire country music industry would cease to exist under this kind of scrutiny.
@@PortableCoincidenceMachine "and the problem with that is...?" 🤓
Well country Is black music.
@@PortableCoincidenceMachine dude I hate country, but even as a joke this is a bad take.
If by "country music industry" you mean the loose collection of identical white dudes Nashville has ordained to keep writing the same song about drinking beer on a dirt road with a truck and a girl with long legs in a small town by the river etc., then you're right
But dig a little deeper, there's some really good underappreciated artists that are still making good country music, you just have to sift through the inane cookie-cutter garbage foisted on you by the industry.
Im shock little richard family ain't suing many music artist listen to little richard songs your see how many music artist have stolen from him elvis presly stole from little richard and when little richard finely met elvis he wrote little richard a check and little richard went whooo I love elvis he's so sweet and went shut up when interviewed about it also marven gay stole from little richard compare the songs
The defense team literally played the Axis of Awesome video in court to show that completely different songs can have the same chord progression! 😂
As an Aussie, I find that hilarious. They were hilarious live.
That's one of the easiest ways to explain to the jury. 4-Chord Progression is a pretty common element in Music and nobody owns. The extortionist are disgusting for milking money out of talented artists! So happy Ed won❤️❤️❤️
@@madamcuracha9391 If Ed had lost, it would have open the floodgates for countless other lawsuits, so I'm also glad he won!
@@WayneKitching Sadly, it won't stop the copyright trolls from trying!
Like George Harrison's case of plagerizing One Fine Day. I think he lost.
A similar thing has happened this very month at Eurovision: the winning song, power ballad "Tattoo" by Loreen, has been accused of plagiarism for sounding very similar to a song by an Ukranian pop artist.
And "The winner takes it all" by ABBA.
And a few handful of other songs.
When you realize it sounds like so many other songs... it's not plagiarism, it's just a chord that is used.
Imagine if copyright law, as applied to music, applied to food. Every restaurant that uses mirepoix getting sued by the estate of some French guy. Having to pay royalties if you want to season with thyme and rosemary. It's shocking just how brazen the corporate attacks on personal expression have become.
"just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait..."
it's just a matter of time in this economic climate - they done gone cray cray out there.
(the video I watched before this one, was cops literally stealing the cars of protesters)
If they applied to language in the way they apparently get used for music, you'd owe someone money *every time you spoke a single word, in any known language* - you'd get sued for using the word "the".
This is one of the most convincing analogies out there. I'm pretty sure these corporate idiots who just want money don't really care about how an artist would feel if their music was used as an influence. They're just greedy for whatever amount of money they can leech from it.
Tell me you don't understand anything related to intellectual property without telling me.. ridiculous argument.
@Jay "Intellectual property" is not property. You can't own an idea, it's impossible.
I hope the court finally plays one of Adam's videos to the parties involved so they can actually digest and understand it better before deciding anything.
Ha ha, then Adam could take them to court for plagiarising his arguments against plagiarism!
Law can be nutty.
Adam should instead market himself as an expert witness in copyright disputes. That's the only way his opinions could be made admissible in court and plus, he could charge $500 an hour for his time.
@@dinobuddy The only way to make money in music.
@@dinobuddy That would be money well spent. Especially if he gigged for them in the intervals.
U have be tone death and never heard iver of songs before to even come to a conclusion they sound the same
Great video, Adam - kudos for making it on tour and having it look and sound great!
A really interesting idea to acknowledge all those who went before, but honestly someone is going to be missed. Could you imagine trying this with literature? But I should say Adam is GENIUS, absolutely love his understanding of music theory and the effort to explain it to mortals like me. Thank you!
If the descendants and estate of songwriters and composers successfully make these suits, then the descendants of Pachelbel are probably going to expect a BIG payout.
Public domain.
@@pa28cfi joke.
The problem is that these are copyrighted songs, Pachelbel and others like him are public domain
I make some sick Polyester suits if you like, ADAM'S shirt is cotton blend and it's his own band, stay focused y'all
@@roachdoggjr5840 Expecting that people will understand "No, I'm not misunderstanding how copyright works -- I'm satirizing other people who don't understand how copyright works", in text, in front of total strangers, with no context, in a venue where misunderstanding the point is extremely common, is just doomed to fail.
Its heartwarming to see Adam giving a shoutout to unknown artists like Ed Sheeran and Marvin Gaye
Get outta here bot.
@@c31979839Not a bot lol
@@NummyGD I couldn't imagine what it's like defending a bot 🤣
@@c31979839 lmao what
Ive had to Google these guys.
I'm glad you brought up Beyoncé at the end there. because her latest record is a good example of an intentional effort on her part to give credit in areas where she probably didn't need to. Does she sample or interpolate Show Me Love? No, but the writers of that song are credited because she wanted to pay homage to the house legends that came before her, and who influenced her project. She's rich enough to do that, but is it really a viable strategy for every artist to do the same? I'm not sure.
I, for one, will welcome a day where every music credit is long as a movie credit or the authors of a scientific paper... /s
No, she wants to avoid a lawsuit.
You really think Beyonce wants to blow that money on that team? No, shes just afraid she will lose more if she doesnt. That's all.
@@skyisreallyhigh3333 This is a frankly delusional take. She and her husband retain the best lawyers in the business. They loan them out to other artists and pick up the bill. Money has not ever been a factor in the decision making of these two billionaires. Secondly, everyone and their mother has pointed out the fact that her song has no relation whatsoever to Show Me Love, and that it's a bizarre credit. They both use the same Korg preset, wow! So did a hundred other songs before, during, and after Show Me Love.
Right-Renaissance album itself is literally not making her any money because of how she chose to go about it.
The sad truth is that Ed also has independent teams review his songs for potential overlaps to recommend changes, he records his songwriting sessions (I imagine both as entertainment and as a way to prove the process), and takes numerous steps to credit the artists that have similar sounding songs. To be honest, I've been wondering if the attempt at being fair and crediting potential influences, even when they weren't an actual influence on the song, has set unrealistic expectations for artists.
Imagine film or literature being held to the same standards. A lot of TV shows are structured so similarly if they share a genre; the same goes for literature. If you pick up a young-adult fantasy novel, you can be sure that general structure, themes, philosophies, and writing techniques are used. Often times, the writer could be inspired by a previous work. Think of it this way... if you enjoy reading fantasy, ever wonder where goblins, elves, ogres, trolls, fairies, dragons, or the like come from -- ever wonder why they are usually given the same stereotypical personalities and appearances? It's because those types of characters were created long, long ago, both in writing and in spoken storytelling -- often breaking cultural and geographical boundaries. It would be utterly wonky to expect writers to cite any potential influence on their story, since the content of their work is based on the fundamental ideas of fantasy literature passed along through the many centuries.
Your closing thoughts are brilliant. That's a great idea. We should cite "inspiration" or "sources" when publishing new music
Given the number of lawsuits that Marvin Gaye's Estate have brought against musicians, I can only assume that he essentially invented music as a concept, including chord progressions.
you can say whatever you want dude.. the song is photocopied.. it doesn't take much to change a few things to make a song more unique.. it's either laziness or bad faith sorry
Its important not to forget what Adam Neely mention in this video when referring to the history white musical artist appropriating genres that were developed by black artist. This went on in the last 100 years and still happens to this day. Furthermore Im 100% for Adam's idea on the citation
eference system!
It's not Marvin Gaye's Estate. He didn't write Let's Get It On.
He didn't invent it, his lawyers copyrighted it.
KEep in mind Marvin will never see a PENNY of this even if the lawyers win (doubtful.)
@Lowness Funk ...Widespread appropriation is how a "genre" comes into being.
(Black musicians stole from each other all the time). The history of music is the history of cultural cross-pollination.
My favorite genre of youtube video is adam neely explaining why two similar sounding songs are't copyright infringing
@DG White Saviour complex would imply siding with Townsend over the Sheeren.
These two songs do NOT qualify, they are quite dissimilar when you examine all the things that CAN be "protected."
actually, that's not what he's explaining. he's explaining a musical opinion; not a legal one
BEST EXPLANATION and example of the 2 songs ever!!! Good job!!!
man such excellent points, especially the novel ideas about who should really get cited for songwriting credits, the limited number of progressions within a genre, etc, and AI being at our doorstep, which could be the end of creativity in the traditional sense
One of my biggest problems with these lawsuits is that they are almost always presented on behalf of dead people who likely would've never even thought to sue someone over a chord progression or a "vibe." Just like Townsend was clearly influenced by and writing in the style of doo-wop music, Marvin Gaye was probably influenced by artists and tried to channel styles he liked in his own music. And, of course, Ed Sheeran does the same. I've never met a musician who became a musician in a void without hearing other music. But it will always be hard to explain to some people that chords, vibes, sounds, progressions, etc. cannot be owned. Plus the whole money thing lol
yeah its because the actual musicians understand how it all works and their relatives hear something that sounds the same but have no clue how being a musician actually is and just want to cash in.
Keep in mind the JURY aren't musicians and don't understand that essential part that all of us musicians get, which is the very things everyone's talking about in this comments section. I honestly think Townsend's estate and Gaye's descendants are ruining the music industry because they're convincing every single jury in every single case they bring against a modern artist and fundamentally changing how musicians write their music. It's actually scary and dangerous. I now have no respect for those people. I'm sorry but I don't.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You'll notice very few lawsuits in which the two songs involved are both deeply obscure. One or the other song, or both, are typically very popular, financially remunerative tracks.
Rockin' Jimmy down the street who's hawking homemade cassettes of a song he wrote and recorded himself is in no danger of being sued for plagiarism, despite the fact that he ripped off a song that was a Belgium-only b-side in 1951...because there's no money on either side of that equation.
Both were influenced by Church Choirs because they were in it if I recall correctly.
But they CAN be owned which is the point of copyright
I'm no fan of Ed Sheeran, but anyone who enjoys any kind of music in general can see how much of a farce this lawsuit is.
Uuuuuuh. No it isn't. Marvin G made the original. Carrot Top Sheeran is leeching off it.
Have some common sense.
Not a farce at all
@@enzop2835 Common sense would require for you to know that what you said isnt true.
You're just an idiot who doesnt like ed Sheeran and you let your emotions get in the way of judgement.
These songs have different chord progressions and the melodies arent the same.
Music is all about playing in styles.
You would know that if you had common sense and watched the video before commenting and embarassing yourself.
@@CMJames do you guys realize HOW MANY SONGS THERE ARE ON EARTH.
it’s pretty much mathematically impossible to not mimic another song’s chord progression/rhythm without making some crazy song that has 0 rhythm?
It’s literally just a style of music. Nothing unique about it.
You’d be surprised how many people are crying plagiarism and cultural appropriation 🙄
What I like about this video is that it focuses on the conversation about the issue rather than a "did he do it". Music copyright is weird.
The idea of citation is somewhat interesting, but might be hard to implement if you don't know where the citation comes from.
Reminds me of how Jazz musicians love quoting licks from each other, but at some point we don't know where the original of something came from it's just part of the "scene" and the "language". And it'll continue to happen, lawyers involved or not. We'll definitely need to find a way to protects artists somehow, though.
Adam, your video from 4 years ago (then with Legal Eagle 3 years ago) had it right, but thanks for the update!
Now the new element of A.I. music (if it's music) really could crush human musicians worse than commercial radio crushed alternative rock in the early 2000's, IMO.
Lawsuits like this are ruining music.
No, they are ruining the music industry as it deserves to be.
Most music doesn’t exist in the music industry.
unoriginal artists like shereen are ruining music
No, they are ruing white artists chances of habitual theft
Today’s “music” is ruining music.
@@ThePolareyes53 No, capitalism is ruining music
More people need to be like Freddie Mercury.
“do whatever you want with my music, just don’t make it boring”
That being said, this is frivolous as fuck
@Legless Wonder
Two issues:
1. Freddie supposedly said this to his manager Jim Beach. Beach is the only source and he’s not entirely trustworthy. Beach may have said it to justify re-releasing Freddie’s music in all kinds of ways, squeezing every last penny out of Freddie’s legacy. But it could be true; Freddie was keen on leaving his loved ones, friends, family, and bandmembers in a secure financial situation.
2. Regardless, the quote has nothing to do with this video and plagiarism. If Freddie said it, then he meant it for Jim Beach, John Deacon, Roger Taylor, and Brian May. He trusted them to handle his musical legacy and to finish any unfinished songs. He definitely didn’t mean that anyone could plagiarise his music; that would indeed defeat the purpose of preserving his legacy and creating a healthy financial basis for the other members of Queen. There’s a reason why for the last albums all writing credits were shared equally even though Freddie was the most prolific writer in the band.
@@Brinta3 when?
@@lolosaulala48
When what?
@@Brinta3 when did we ask? 😂😂😂
Ummmm they sued Vanilla Ice tho.
This is so well spoken, and I love the statement from Sheeran. Pop music is so limited in it’s range, only so many chord changes are present.
I am glad he won.
It’s not only the chords but the bass line and drums beat
Adam doing a very good job of shooting this from this angle on a tour bus that appears to actually be in motion.
These types of lawsuits should just be almost universally dismissed by the legal system, because they blatantly and willingly ignore the entire historical and cultural context of music itself and how musicians have expressed themselves since time immemorial.
I agree with this. Short of blatant copying, I'm not sure that elements that define a genre or feel should be legally protected. Trying to assert copyright infringement for using a particular genre's sound or feel is like if a painter asserted infringement because another painter used the same shade of green. Yes... some elements may be similar or even identical, but the work as a whole is unique and not derived from the other work beyond being in the same stylistic genre.
Create sth and then watch someone make millions off it see how it feels.
@@jameswainaina9133 That's not what's happening here.
Are you claiming the estate created the music and not the artist?
@@skyisreallyhigh3333So if you're father creates a product then dies its not your family's product anymore. Its actually the producer/songwriter family suing and not Marvin's family coz most likely Marvin did not have the publishing of the song so i'll rephrase my statement. "Let your late Grandfather or father create sth and then watch someone make millions off it see how it feels". Its called sampling. Do some research. Heck some artists dont even ask for any money to sample their original works. Have their people call your people. common courtesy. Dont just use my shit just because you're Ed Sheeran(or whoever) and think its ok. Theres rules and Laws to this.
@@jameswainaina9133 totally agree 👍🏻
Sheeran could give the songwriter credits and call it a day. Why make such fuss about it when the similarities are way too strong? 😅 Sheeran is freaking rich. It wouldn't count that much on the numbers
Funny how the copying the groove is what causes these lawsuits, because session musicians who don't get writing credit or royalties are often the ones that created the groove on hit songs in the first place
This is a common misconception: copyright does not serve the creators, it serves the publishers.
That is exactly correct, but they sign away their claim to copyright when they get paid for the session, and their payment takes this into account. They are not fools, and this practice is long established. In this case the bass player who created the groove is one of the most celebrated musicians of his generation and his groove is unique.
Rusty-1-A.N.S. Session musicians are hired to play the song as written or they are sometimes given permission to come up with a guitar or bass line etc. They are playing and getting paid as 'a work for hire'. They are NOT the publisher of said song! Similar to someone who hires a contractor to build a house. That house does NOT belong to the contractor or any he or she hires to to do the actual building of that house.."it belongs to the person (s) who is paying for that house to be built and files all the necessary permits and fees etc. to be granted deed, title!!!! So the publisher, copywrite holder (be they a producer, writer, musician) is the rightful owner of a piece of music.
@@rustystone3367 The construction example doesn't work, because neither party can generate a passive income as with copyright.
Here is a hypothetical copyrighted construction service: A law firm purchases plans for a house and licences them to a contractor. The contractor builds the house, someone buys it and becomes property owner.
But: Whenever someone who is not the owner visits the house, looks at the house, takes a picture of the house, takes a video of the house (even if it's just the background, not the focus), someone else wants to build a similar house, there are royalties to pay to the law firm. Not the architect, not the contractor, not the owner.
and THAT is the current state of the copyright.
DEFINITELY NOT. That's actually a pretty common 4-chord progression. It's very disgusting for the heirs of Townsend to extort Ed. I hope Ed wins!❤
Common? That's marvin Gaye's progression. Just like every nice progression of music it comes from what u call niggas. Ed Sheeran is 100% just like most of America copying blk culture. And your comment shows you're 1 of them. This is 100% a copy of marvin Gaye. Influence and sound. The issue with all this is white ppl. They steal everything blk ppl do. Everything. And that's ok to be inspired. but to hate the ppl u wanna be is the issue. Especially ur kind of hate.
He won.
Those two songs sound exactly the same
@@etvscandalfanpage2011 Similar but NOT EXACT!
@@etvscandalfanpage2011 Newsflash, a LOT of songs sound similar but are not the exact same.
How about Eddie Lovette's Gypsie Girl and Rita Marley's One Draw?
ua-cam.com/video/f8uHVtWWVok/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/QjqdR1FWe2I/v-deo.html
I agree with all the points you made here, Adam. However, encouraging MORE citations in songwriting makes me nervous. I think it's entirely possible to write a song that borrows aesthetics from many songs without even knowing it, and that's okay and shouldn't have legal consequences. If I've listened to artist X before and then time passes and I write a song, it might have elements from artist X that I'm not even aware of. If you put my original work under a microscope it probably shares tons of stylistic elements from artist X. I just think requiring so many citations opens the doors for too much bad-faith litigation if something sounds kinda similar without a citation.
i said the exact same thing. It can become really hard to know what is engrained in your "musical DNA" after 30+ years of absorbing great music from everywhere.
Not only is it entirely possible, I feel like it's impossible to NOT borrow from songs we've known. No matter how hard we try, there will be melodic ideas we like, and we like them because we've heard them before.
The thing though is that if there is a claim you can update the citation list. And you wouldnt lose all your royalties like you would in the current system if someone takes you to court.
Ran into this exact problem when recording music for the first time. The drummer we had hired found our song problematic, because he thought it sounded like we had ripped off a song that is quite famous in our country.
Our song:
ua-cam.com/video/R_gLTtH76pM/v-deo.html
The song we supposedly ripped off:
ua-cam.com/video/STzbPBvIQ-Y/v-deo.html
I had never heard of the song nor the band before I sat in a studio about to record my own material.
While writing it however, it did cross my mind that there must have been a ton of other songs with the same exact bassline in that particular phrasing. Its a very basic idea after all. Never thought it would be a problem though, as one can't really own ideas.
@@cjkenney If it worked that way, no problem. If it were a legal requirement that could incur damages, that would be much more problematic.
There's lots of petty lawsuits out there, but this one bugs me more than most. I'll never be able to play a note again without paying royalties to Alice in Chains or Mastodon.
Could you imagine if most punk and metal musicians were this petty? Certain bands would own entire sub genres.
@@idontevenlikemoney Don't speak too loud, Lars might hear you (?)
This Ed Sheeran song was an obvious rip-off.
It wasn't only the notes and chord progression it was the entire rhythm and vibe of the song as well.
I noticed it instantly the first time I heard it and it is not the first time he has done this.
No other choice than to play 8 string guitars and just chug in 19/8.
@@stevenc6969Inspired by isn't copying a song.
Interesting take on this. Thanks, Adam. Also: Did you shoot this on a tour bus? Seems tricky to shoot in the wild - but this looks great.
Your knowledge of music and your videos about music are really fascinating. I've learned a great deal about music from your videos and applied it to classical & opera. Your explanation about the different music genres was very easy to understand and straightforward, especially the doo-wop progressions.
If certain types of music styles are different from different eras, it makes sense that composers will be required to follow the "rules" of their time and still be individual artists.
Handel and Vivaldi were two of the greatest creators of music. I'm not, by any means, an expert, but they followed the rules for composition for their time. Once those rules were in place, their individual talents of expression went their separate ways in dramatic feeling. All composers can read the music of other composers and understand what the composer is doing.
Your idea about listing all of the musicians who contributed to the current artist's expression of a particular era & style makes perfect sense.
Haydn's "Surprise Symphony" lets the listener know that something _new and different_ will be heard.
You've really simulated everyone's thoughts on this subject.
Thanks again !
It makes a lot of sense to create mechanisms for better citation/reference, especially because it helps who’s learning.
The challenging part is where the creators can’t associate their work with its influences, as it can be part of their own creative process without consciously seeing that it’s based on something they’ve heard before
Exactly, and I mean honestly how granular can we get with this stuff? Marvin Gaye didn't invent the chords he combined to create the song, nor the system of music that describes the intervalic relationships to spell them, nor any of the instruments the song was played on. Was he supposed to credit all those people?
🎯
And the worst part is if all songs typically have a full list of inspirations and something is left off (either by forgetting about it or simply it being a coincidence that they have similar sounds or other aspects), it will automatically look like the artist is trying to rip off the person who wasn't included on the list. It inspires a guilty until proven innocent mindset to approach inspiration, which frankly would kill creativity dead.
A lot of musicians and writers I have seen will include their intentional inspirations in forewords/acknowledgements sections that are already common place in albums and novels, etc. Any more than that assumes a formulaic process of creativity that simply does not exist.
I was thinking the same! It's a nice idea in theory but all the influences over a musical composition can't be exhaustively quantified in a list of citations. Not to mention that that system wouldn't account for musical ideas that are not conscious references, but coincidentally happen to exist in an older piece of music as well as the work in question. I don't think musicians should be penalized for using older musical ideas either on purpose or 'by accident'.
There'd need to be an automatic license, though--similar to the way anyone who properly credits its writers can do a cover--because otherwise, can you imagine the headache a musician would have to go through, clearing rights to use 50 different songwriters' "inspirations"? Or even keeping track of them? I mean, most musicians I know are inspired by lots of things...but a lot of that percolates into their music unpredictably and unconsciously.
I'd much rather see a system in which copyright inheres more strongly the more original the copyrighted work is (which is to say: your song is a 12-bar blues in E with a standard blues progression? That part of the song just is NOT copyrightable...), and wherein more original or exotic melodic/harmonic elements can be credited automatically without need for "permission."
I noticed this was recorded from the bus you are using for the current Sungazer US tour. I'd be interested in hearing you compare and contrast touring by bus versus touring by plane. I found your video on traveling on a plane with gear very insightful and I think doing with same with your bus tour could also be equally as enlightening. For instance, I imagine it is easier to travel your gear on a bus, but that assumption may be wrong if there just isn't enough storage on the bus for the gear, the luggage, and the people. Thanks!
tiktoking from your bus >> tiktoking from your car
@@strangehermitage2299 like you didnt even read the comment haha
Thank you. Very helpful video. I agree that the practice of crediting one person doesn't make sense. Love and respect to all who came before and all involved in the current creation.
thank you very much for these videos! they have been really useful for writing my thesis on plagiarism in music
This happens so often I was wondering why youtube was sending me a notification about an old video
Firstly, just discovered your channel and think you have a very interesting content. And explanations are really smart. But i do have a question/suggestion. Can you create another video this time presenting examples of copyright infringements successfully indicted as such to show the flipside of the coin? Just curious
Great insight on this subject. Very well explained.
I really hope they lose this case. Yes, it's sounds "inspired" by "Let's get it on", but they are NOT the same songs :)
How is this guys comment from 10 hours ago?!?
@@tylerkellylefty42 wtf
@@tylerkellylefty42 probably Patreon
Bro your comment just broke the time barrier
@@tylerkellylefty42 probably time zone related
The biggest problem is that there is usually jurors involved, and they try to pick non-musician jurors who aren't influenced by their own career. But that also means they don't understand things like a chord progression and a beat aren't a song. It's a genre. But when you look at it the way a lawyer would present it: Showing the sheet music for the groove and bass and stating that the chord progressions and everything is the same... It looks like straight up plaigarism to someone who has never written a song.
It's the same thing that happened with blurred lines which also involved a Marvin Gaye song... If you strip away all the things that a person really shouldn't be able to own, the only part that was copywritten was "hey" which is barely even a word if we're honest. And that's a really dangerous precedent. How many songs have "yeah" as a lyric? Or any other word? How different does a song have to be to say it's original? Like Ed said, there's only so many notes. There's only so many timings, and only so much time you can make a song. And since you almost always need repetition to make the song a song... Then we probably ran out of "original songs" a long time ago. And that includes the bad sounding combinations.
So where does that leave us? Do we want to live in a world where we would have to say "all the music has been made" and every new song would just get sued? Might as well just stop selling gutiars at that point.
Now if Ed had written "Let's get it done" and had the same groove and bassline... That might be a case. An obvious attempt to rip off a song should be frowned upon. But does it matter legally?
I think the real issue should come down to one thing "does it hurt the artist?" because if you ask "does Ed's song take anything away from Marvin's estate?" the answer is simply NO. Nobody was in the checkout line with a Marvin Gaye album and then put it back on the shelf because Ed Sheeran had a similar sounding song. It never happened. If anything, people discovering the genre through Ed would increase sales of similar albums including Marvin Gaye's albums.
It's something we actually hear a lot about lately. It's called "standing" and it's very important. You have to be able to show that you were hurt in some meaningful way and that the law can do something to fix it. So if we break it down, Ed didn't take anything away from Marvin. And if the court were to rule against Ed, the court couldn't actually fix the issue because there's no damage to fix.
As for the uber-long writing credits... I don't buy it. If the AI song samples the music, sure. You should definitely give credit for a sampled song. But if we force the norm to be writing every single artist I've ever possibly listened to or been inspired by, it's just creating a huge wave of lawsuits from every musician who's ever made any song suing any random artist who has a song in the same key and isn't listed on the ridiculously long list of every musician all the way back to Beethoven. And frankly that just brings us back to square one.
Nice analogy… now if only common sense is not a rarity nowadays maybe this lawsuit will not exist…
why doesn't anyone ever question why copyright lasts 70 years after artists death, but patents don't? Is it because there would be little technological advancements? because then you could argue that all you have to do is pay the patent owner for the right to use.
@@RockG.o.d because a copyright is for a completed work. A patent is for an idea.
@@JC-fj7oo so patents don't exist for completed work?
@@RockG.o.d generally no. Completed works are protected under copyrights and trademarks
what a great, common sense, skilled explanation! thanks Adam
A very nice video! And very sane, compelling arguments to boot!
My problem is the money side of things. I think your idea of a 'show your reference/sources' concept is great. It would be so easy to do with modern music streaming platforms as well, just click a 'sources' tab and go straight to the music that influenced that song. It would even be a great way of discovering more music you like and the 'source' artist potentially profiting from being sourced, without the newer artist having to straight up pay them.
On the other side of things, I worry that it might make things worse. A lot of people don't really care about the 'paying homage' thing. They'll just be like "Oh, so this guy used my song as a reference without my permission and they even wrote it down in their references? Aww yiss, lawsuit time".
At least most of the time when a song is similar you can just be like "Well there's songs a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and i that all have similar styles, so it's not like I copied your work specifically, it's just in a similar style". If you write down that you used song 'a' specifically as a reference though then it might be much easier for them to sue for copyright.
@@XdivineExp yeah, agreed. It sounds like a nice idea but I think it’s naive. For one, it’d be impossible to truly list every single reference. Where do you draw the line on what’s similar or different enough to include or exclude? And what’s the end goal with it? To invite more lawsuits? Certainly it doesn’t make sense to use it as a means of reimbursement, because if you fraction off a song’s profits to 500 influencing artists, nobody is going to make enough money to even bother writing music.
Nothing is truly unique in art because humans learn and create via pattern recognition and synthesis of things they’ve already experienced. We’re really not much different from AI in that regard, so I find it amusing that people are frantically trying to bail water out of the creativity boat when a massive tsunami of AI is about to crash down on them. There’s no putting the cat back in the bag and the ones who succeed will be the ones who adapt and figure out a way to take advantage of it.
You mean like a 'liner notes on steroids' kinda thing? I like that idea but unfortunately, we (as consumers) can't even get record companies to provide the digital art and liner notes that should come with the digital purchase of any song or album. When i was growing up, that is EXACTLY how i learned about obscure artists who came before and influenced the artist's work - LINER NOTES. I used to read liner notes on albums incessantly to find out who that guy was influenced by in order to make the piece of art that i held in my hand.
Amen. The problem with these lawsuits, IMO, is that there are no progressions or melodies that can’t be related to an earlier iteration. Music as an art form is about re-interpretation.
Here after the verdict. Enjoyed your analysis and viewpoints.
Ahhh so should all these folks prior sue Marvin’s estate? I’m really proud of y’all for making these videos and showing the world why knowing music theory is so important! Keep it up
The fact that you think its marvins estate tells me you gathered virtually nothing from the video. human toilet
@@TMeyer-cc9cw dumbass how is that so? I know it was Ed Townsend estate suing. Marvin’s estate has gone after people in the past for other songs. One wrong fact doesn’t mean I didn’t gather anything from the video
@@TMeyer-cc9cw you ok?
@@ruawee2925 R U Ok?
Imagine writing a really simple piece of music that nobody would describe as a work of genius and then claiming someone copied you when they write something similar. It's like a painter saying you can't use the primary colours because they already did and you're copying them
Imagine writing “let’s get it on” and someone writes the music to it and says “this is not the same song! Nope! Completely different. Why? Because I say so!”
Then someone plays both songs.
Then Ed says “ you gonna believe me or your lying ears?”
@@unc1589 Bingo. I'm unsure how this whole video doesn't musically prove that Ed has just copied the song and made gazillions of money
@@fearinwaves there is literally a limited amount of possible combination of chords. The big difference in songs is solely the lyrics themselves at this point. To say it's copyright because you follow a basic chord combo is beyond stupid as you would not have nearly over half the music we have today.
@@poekpally if his argument is that there’s only so many pieces of music people can make before it repeats itself (total bullshit) then he needs to pay the man who came up with it first.
@@fearinwaves he didn't come up with those chords, it existed before him.
You're amazing. This is so clearly articulated and would probably make for great testimony at the trial. Music is so much bigger than what meets the eye and is understood by the average listener.
I could see songwriting credits becoming like scientific papers, where there is a lead author or two, then a bunch more authors listed who contributed in some way. They could also give a references page 😂
also the upward melody at ''hide the scars to fade away the shake up'' and stuff. just details make that song so sick in vocals especially
Adam! I saw you at Ableton Loop in Berlin back in like 2016 or 2017, when you were on an All-Star panel with Andrew Huang and Rachel Collier. Great to see you’re still making vids (and btw you look amazing!)! Just subbed to your channel and glad your analysis of these songs is being used in court! Keep up the great work.👌🏽👏🏽🍻🥁🎸
It would be great to open an album cover and see a works cited page because not only would it give credit to where the inspiration came from, it would make discovering other music a lot easier. I don't know how many times I've paused your videos because you mentioned some obscure music that I went and searched for and listened to before continuing your video. I'd love to see Radiohead's works cited page, or Jack White's works cited page because then I could spend the rest of my life going down musical rabbits holes discovering all sorts of amazing new music.
dinosaur jr
I agree that would be really cool, but at the same time it invites a situation where somebody is gonna feel slighted because they weren't included in a list of citations they feel they should have been on. I feel like there has to be some limiting principle in who you have to credit, especially as people are getting more and more litigious about this stuff. I feel like we had a pretty good balance of fairness when only melody and lyrics were able to be copywritten, or at least there was a broad understanding that was the case, if not a legal one.
And it puts an impossible task on musicians - when creating songs, you may have absolutely no idea what you have heard in the past that inspires a particular style, or frankly you might have stumbled it entirely on your own with never having heard the "originators" of a genre/style. In such cases, your lack of citation may seem like appropriation or some slight form of plagiarism when entirely none is there, nor would it have been possible to cite anyone.
It's the same reason the vast majority of novels, and visual art doesn't have bibliographies - but many do have forewords and acknowledgements that do mention the intentional inspirations they had.
It's really really bad more musical creativity, collaboration, and the conversation of inspiration to try to shoe-horn research practices into something creative and artistic in nature.
Your underlying assumption is that there WAS a 'source.' I've written dozens of sings with changes that exist in other tunes. Most of the time, I don't notice till I'm nearly done. That melody is my response to those changes, but only if Was aware of the other tune while I'm composing.
To me, this "Works cited" idea sounds atrocious and would lead to the death of many brilliant aspiring musicians. Why? Gee, I don't remember every single song I've ever listened to before. Imagine publishing a song with two hundred artists listed, and then you get a lawsuit because you missed somebody you may have heard at the grocery store. This whole lawsuit is a bogus money-grab, and if it passes it will either spell the end of copyright or new music. Perhaps copyright could use some serious revamping though.
my friend used to mash up "folsom prison blues" and "you are my sunshine" it was amazing.
While I completely agree with your point about the fact that musicians riff off each other all the time, and that genres are built around a formal framework that codifies them as genres, the problem with how to decide who needs to cite which source in songwriting credits is so incredibly murky and potentially fraught that I feel there will need to be a simpler solution or we'll all be reading legal disclaimers until we die and none of us will ever be able to make any music ever again.
Good video. "Ed Sheeran was definitely channelling a Let's Get It On vibe when he wrote Thinking Out Loud". I wonder if he really was when he *wrote* it or is that more when he *produced/arranged* it. I think i heard the story of him and Amy Wadge writing it together and they actually thought it sounded like a Van Morrison song, which would be a very different vibe. This difference between vibe and writing of lyrics and melody is important here I think, as there are plenty of examples where the melody and lyrics are separated from vibe. Andy Summers would tell you that his guitar sound and riff are as much to do with Every Breath You Take as Stings lyrics and melody, but the law would and does disagree with him!
Yikes, you follow Ed sheeran enough to know the story behind his songwriting process?! 🤮
Very well made point, although don't tell Van or he'll want in on the act too
@@nedisahonkey you should try it sometime, you might learn something
@@AJ-ed7mx Try Ed sheeran's music? No thanks. I just as soon take a long stroll off a short cliff.
@@nedisahonkey you're pretty cringe
The problem with listing every songwriter who had some input on your vibe or genre is that we have a tendency as humans to be drawn to the same things, and we can "spontaneously" generate things that we may have actually heard before but we aren't conscious of that when we put word and note to paper.
If you require too much specificity then you will simply do away with writing new music in an existing genre altogether for fear of accidentally leaving someone that you've never even heard of out of your song credits and opening yourself up to legal action with no possible defense.
That’s where AI would actually be useful. You could create a program to listen to your work and then automatically generate the reference list for you, so everyone who deserves credit can be credited, and you don’t need to worry about being sued.
@@kchilvers1758 at that point you're crediting people who you may have never heard - what's the point? Why not just replace this system with a tool for finding similar music?
@@evilduck5691 that’s a great point and a great suggestion. I guess the point is that you’re crediting people who you haven’t heard, but who have influenced the people you have heard, and I’m not sure that I personally would see that as a bad thing. But I’m not married to my opinion and would happily change my mind if points and opinions such as yours were further presented to me.
Great suggestion regarding the tool for finding music. I’d be interested to hear your thought on what that would look like.
I know absolutely nothing about guitar,guitars and bass. However, I'm conviced that you are knowledgeable and know what you talking about. Thanks for making me more understanding of what is going on with the claim and counter claim of musical piracy
On an unrelated note (note! haha! 🎵) that is a great new haircut you got, man. It really suits you.
Adam, just such brilliant assessment, my friend. SO well stated, so clear, so appropriately convincing. Meaning, it is clear you are not self-serving; your goal is to assign proper regard for the original innovators and establish some kind of working model going forward for ALL of us. A gifted communicator you are, sir. And I fully agree with your theoretical assessment of the whole issue. I remain a huge fan. ;-)
As a member of the philosophical academic community, your point regarding academic work and its citing of sources was spot-on. There's most definitely a parallel to be found between it and the practice of incorporating elements belonging to the musical repertoire of whatever genre or musical culture your original composition fits into. As in academia, to me (and to your point), it shows an engagement and connection with the "current" that you are working with; whether that work is "hermeneutic"* or directly inserted into that tradition. Appropriate and plentiful use of sources shows respect and understanding of those whose work allows you to do what you do.
Great video, as always. I love your channel and your band, and I'm grateful that you spend so much of your time and energy in producing as much quality content as you do.
*the use of hermeneutic here is intended to correlate with the practice of producing music which pays homage to, or interprets (thereby rehashing), another artist's work in a different style as the original. I'm not sure if the usage is appropriate but I hope it conveys what I meant it to.
I wrote this as a separate comment, but I actually think it really fits here as a good discussion.
I think this is a really difficult one, since people can't own an idea. People can only patent the technical side of things or trademark a name or certain look. For example with video games, you can't protect the idea of a 2D platformer like Mario, eating little dots like Pac-Man or shooting demons like Doom. You can only protect the visual style and music. People can also not protect the idea of selling burgers with a car drive through system. So this is basically exactly the same idea. I totally understand of crediting the right people, which is the the most ethical thing to do. But it raises a very difficult question, to what extent? If somebody makes some reggae music, do you always have to credit Bob Marley? Or with gypsy jazz Django Reinhardt? That's practically not only completely undoable, in mainy cases these musicians also got there inspiration from somewhere or (accidentally) even copied someone else. That's gonna be a big rabbit hole spiraling down endlessly.
Thing is, citations in philosophical work represent intentional and purposeful research and direct engagement with the work cited. Artistic work and creative inspiration doesn't work that way - so many times, the germination of a song is just noodling around and creating some musical phrase you enjoy or are inspired by. It might resonate with you because you know exactly who inspired it, because you vaguely remember something like it on a radio at a gas station years ago, or because to you it is an entirely new idea (even if it's very close to something that is common to everyone else). Having to do research to find out what possible heritage your random musical idea might have will kill the vast majority of inspiration dead before it ever becomes a song.
And if some version of a works cited section becomes the norm for music, it will falsely implicate anyone who is ignorant or truly wasn't inspired by something that they happened to sound like in some way - creating a place of guilty until proven innocent (which is basically impossible to do: try to prove you *weren't* inspired by someone when people believe you have been).
Also, despite Adam's examples here, genre and style are extremely vague and notoriously difficult to pin down or define - so there is no clarity on who/what would be expected to be included in a works cited section anyway.
And if, in this case, pop soul ballad conventions are so clear as Adam says, then the only evidence of direct inspiration from "Let's Get It On" is that the song is successful and well-known. But it could be entirely feasible that the songwriters used the conventions of the genre and innovated on them in a way that happened to be already innovated on. No person is regularly always conscious of the elements of every single song they have ever heard.
The current system of artists freely mentioning intentional inspiration in forewords and acknowledgements is enough. We could encourage more musicians to be forthright about inspirations, but anything bibliographic is far too far.
Just saw Sungazer. Fucking amazing show. Adam was just walking around the crowd at the end like a normal human. Had to really work to keep my spaghetti from spilling
I appreciate your explanation. Makes sense. You definitely sound like you know your stuff.
The problem with "ownership" is that if you go back far enough it becomes impossible to say who created something. Let alone that even the people that got famous with ideas and styles may not be the people who actually created it. But there's no way to check that. That song "earth angel" may very well be taken from some random street artist. Who knows. I would even go as far as to say "who can proof any subgenre was actually created by any particular band or group of people"? Things are not documented well enough to ever really know for sure.
Exactly
Imagine having to cite every song you’ve ever heard with the same chord progression as the song you wrote. It doesn’t seem feasible to cite influences, especially when many artists have so many different ones that they pull small nuances from
@@partysodown I wonder if you'd also have to cite every notable instrument builder and classical composer. Those are after all the reason why your instrument has a certain tuning to start with 😶 And that tuning and those intervals are the reason why you end up with certain progressions. I wonder where the list would end. Just to be save cite every Neanderthal and tribe because rhythmic elements you may use in your song might lead back to then 😮
It is actually impossible to own an idea.
Yes, it’s a naive idea. At some point people will just have to get over ourselves and accept that we’re all sharing in the same ideas of expression and just restructuring what we’ve already experienced.
Nothing proves that so clearly as AI, which generates new stuff via pattern recognition and repetition, which is essentially the same way the human brain works. Except AI can do it in a far more prolific and efficient way, and humans are left feeling really un-special seeing how easily they are replaced.
I always thought Like A Virgin sounded like a happy version of Billie Jean. Then I found out on the LAV tour, Madonna would literally switch to Billie Jean in the middle of the song. Funny how the 2 biggest pop stars on the planet at the time never had a squabble about that.
I may have my dates mixed up, but I believe the two of them had the same manager at the time. That probably kept a lid on any squabbles of that kind (and may have been the reason for the similar songs in the first place)
because the songs have nothing to do in common sorry
If I'm not mistaken "Like a virgin" is in F# major, while "Billie Jean" is in F# minor, so there is some truth to that, it's probably no coincidence. It is also worth noting that Michael Jackson got the idea to "Billie Jean" from Hall & Oates, so it only shows that every new piece of music simply builds upon what was made before it! (But that doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to receive monetary compensation for it.)
@@j.lindback f minor and f major are 2 completely different keys,, the songs are nothing alike.. michael jackson said he was inspired by a song by hall and oates but again they got nothing to do with each other to the point that even hall said he never noticed any similarities,, a lot of people here seem to mistake inspiration with copying which is the case with ed sheeran
In an interview on VH1, the songwriter who wrote Like A Virgin explained how he took the riff from Billie Jean, played it upside down or backwards, and this was the basis for creating the song “Like A Virgin”. . . 😅
That remark in the end about playing things better your own that are derivative of other artists as a forum of respect to the former work is very important here. Especially for checking the egos of other musicians who let their arrogance and insecurities get in a way of things like this
Would've been great to have used a clip of Axis of Awesome from after Jordan transitioned. I believe she did do a live performance of the 4 chord song afterwards. Thanks for the great video though!
Oh boy, here we go again
Thank you for all you do for music making culture and education Adam ✨🎶🤘🏼💛
Hey Adam can you explain this:
Copyright protected content : Air On The G String
Claimed by: LatinAutorPerf, Hexacorp (music publishing), Wise Music Group, Warner Chappell, Sony Music Publishing, UMPG Publishing, and Kobalt Music Publishing
Isn't J.S Bach Air on The G String public domain?
If you got that for using a Bach composition on a UA-cam video (just going out on a limb here), it refers to a specific recording of the piece by this or that artist/orchestra. Those are also copyright-protected. Like when a radio station plays the Beatles single Twist and Shout, which is a cover song, they still get royalties as the record's performers (or at least someone does for the ownership of that copyright)
@@izzardclips9350 nope. See a video called copyright fraud by LatinAutorPerf. I made a simplified arragement for kids to learn the melody in piano with separated hands. It was made in MIDI with virtual instruments. No sampling.
Ed Townsend's: for your love, has a whiff of Charles Trenet's 1946 classic: La Mer (aka "Beyond the sea"), which can still be heard today being played by mardi gras bands in Louisiana.
The citation of sources part is a great analogy. Writers and musicians alike feel and look alien when they write/sing about a genre without taking something from what came before. Researchers even place little respect to new ones who fail to cite authorities/figures in a topic.
Lawyer: You should sue!
Artist: Actually, I'm not that concerned. What's the point of a lawsuit?
Lawyer: So you can get the compensation you deserver.
Artist: But I don't actually care that much.
Lawyer: Sorry. Let me put this another way. I bill you $1,000 per hour and this will take hundreds of hours.
Artist: So you will make significantly more money then me in the deal?
Lawyer: Well...yes...but...this is about justice for your music!
Copyright is often not held by the artist and more often record company
The idea that an attorney went out to find a song that sounded similar to Marvin Gaye’s is kinda ridiculous. Lots of attorneys are overworked as it is. The attorneys here were likely approached by the family and asked to represent them. A case like this would halt, and I mean halt, most mid sized firms based on the complexity and public interest alone. All of the other hundreds of matters would have to be worked on by others and it’s very likely not worth it unless it’s a specialized firm that they reached out to. But I know attorneys have that bad guy rep from lots of movies so it’s understandable.
The second I heard about the Sheeran and Gaye Lawsuit, the first thing I thought was "When will I get an Adam Neely video on this".
babe wake up it's time for the annual "this lawsuit is dumb because it's common musical tropes" video from adam neely
Good video, brother...
Consider me... Subscribed!
Just a few points...
1. Mainstream Rock, Rhythm and Blues abd Pop is all so unbelievably derivative and formulaic that these 'infringement suits' are absolutely inevitable.
My guess is that we haven't established Razor Sharp, Precise metrics that any judge can employ in a completely objective fashion to distinguish between 'Very Similar but not similar to the point of criminality AND So similar that it's criminal.
Where do we draw the line?
The thing about the legal system is that (in theory) we should have very clear and consise metrics that ANY judge can use to ensure that the law is applied fairly, and evenly and (hopefully) without prejudice.
How the hell can we decide upon objective metrics to use in these 'copyright infringement cases'? It's damn near impossible!
If the justice system wasn't so unbelievably corrupt, THIS WOULD be a big issue! The system is remarkably corrupt, though so I'm not terribly bothered by this 'issue'.
2. Is it just me, or is there something a little 'funky' about The 'Trustees that manage Marvin Gaye's Estate?
The last 'copyright infringement' trial that I remember was ALSO courtesy of Gaye's Estate.
They accused Pharrell and Robin Thicke for 'plagiarising' 'Got to Give it up' when composing the song 'Blurred Lines'.
At least, that's what my memory is telling me.
I also VAGUELY remember others issued by The Gaye Estate from years prior.
Can this this all be just a giant coincidence? Could if be that The Trustees of Gaye's Estate aren't 'money hungry' at all and it just so happens that Marvin Gaye is simply the most emulated musician of all time? It is certainly 'possible'. It however is very 'implausible'.
For the record, I very much dig on Marvin Gaye. He's a legend.
I think that there may be something a bit 'sketchy' about the folks that manage Gaye's Estate.
3. I recently rewstched a video courtesy of Michael (Creator and Content Maker of The Original V Sauce Channel). The video dealt with an age old philisophical query.
Is there a finite amount or an infinitive amount of potential music that can be made.
The answer is 'infinite'... UNLESS we're exclusively talking about music thst people will enjoy.
If we're dealing exclusively with music that people will actually enjoy listening to, it's finite.
You can play one quarter note of 'Middle C' on a piano and you can can call it a 'song'.
Then you can do two quarter notes. Then 3. You can do this Ad. Infinitum. Would anyone be interested in listening to this, though?
I doubt it. Kanye West may dig it, but he's a 'special case'.
Anyway... Michael referenced this one particular Woman who did something pretty astonishing.
She determined the maximum amount of 'Original Melodies' using notes from one octave.
Here's the number.
123, 511, 211, 975, 209, 861, 551, 554, 920, 705, 787, 036
So... suffice to say, that's a pretty big number.
'Why then', Michael asked, 'does all Popular Music Sound Incredibly Similar?
Frankly, I think the answer is quite apparent.
We're simply far less impressive than we percieve ourselves to be.
Many, many people have espouced very legitimate concerns in regards to Artificial Intelligence.
I echo many of their sentiments.
That being said, I would like to use AI to concoct some Original Compositions that are all very dissimilar to the conventional 'formulas' that we've milked dry as a bone.
Let's face it... The Counting Crows, Gin Blossoms, Goo Goo Dolls, Matchbox Twenty and Third Eye Blind cannot help us when it comes to this matter.
So... I'm not opposed to some careful and cautious AI use just for 'inspiration purposes'.
After we steal all of AI's awesome, innovative and progressive ideas, we can lie and give all the credit to Fred Durst.
Who cares? AI will never find out.
Oh... shit...
It's reading all of this right now... isn't it?
Dammit!
Tell my Wife and Kids that I love them!
I'm toast.
There isn't one single person who heard Ed's song for the first time and said to themselves, "This sounds exactly like Marvin Gaye!"
I did, but I just went with he a fan and they inspired him. Like this guy said lots of songs have a very similar sound.
The two songs are 41 years apart. Guarantee if they were 2-3 years apart everyone would notice. It’s not that the songs aren’t similar Marvin Gaye has just been forgotten over time
Huh? I did, I assumed it was sampled.
That's actually what I thought...like someone else said I thought it was as a sample...GUILTY GUILTY.
He probably should have changed things up a little. If the melody, harmony, harmonic rhythm (and consequently the bass part and drum groove), arrangement and overall vibe are 'similar', that seems to go beyond 'inspired by'. With a more unique melody or a different harmonic rhythm, Sheeran's argument would be stronger. I would argue that the decision in the similar lawsuit involving the song Blurred Lines was wrong, but in that case the two songs had even more differences that the two in this case.
Copyright has gone bananas in the past few decades and it's stifling creativity.
I agree with citing sources. I always wondered why that isn't a thing. From elementary school on they teach us about citing sources to avoid plagiarism. It always just seemed weird that when it comes to creative work that's not a thing.
This is a great exposé. I will check the other videos also. What do you think of David Bowie in this sense - he has done the "adopting a style" thing so many times, but transforming it at the same time. Starman -> Somewhere over the Rainbow, in the chorus. Same melody, I think, for a couple of beats.
One problem with saying that someone owns a vibe, feel or genre, is that ownership will be credited to the registered composer of a given song.
Yet in reality, even if we manage to choose the most correct seminal song for a genre, it's highly likely that the feel was created by largely uncredited people in the studio. So we won't be rewarding or acknowledging the right people anyway.
Take away all the money from lyricists and give it to the bass players and drummers for great justice.
I know that it's different and a song is a standalone piece of art that gets sold and profited from but this feels like if the Stanley Kubrick estate sued every filmmaker that uses the "wave of blood spilling out from an elevator" scene.
Yeah it's a weird standard that we don't apply to anything else. Agatha Cristie's estate doesn't sue literally every murder mystery writer.
I do that kinda ''extra tension'' thing quite a bit in my singing. You could say it's style development. I really resonate with it.
"I Can Hear Music" was performed by the Ronettes (first) and the Beach Boys (cover) but it was written by Jeff Barry, Ellie Greenwich and Phil Spector.
Afro Caribbean music does NOT follow the "rules" of copyright. If feel and chord progressions are copyrightable, 2/3 of Afro Caribbean music copyrights are void and the entire genre of reggae now belongs to Universal Music Group (as I believe they currently own the publishing rights to the earliest recorded examples of the genre).
Yep. In practice a citation model would mean that those who can afford to hire lawyers and musicologists to engage in motivated reasoning will be the best equipped to exploit the natural fuzziness of musical influence and genre development to bully their way into ownership of basically anything they like
yeah and 30% of all pop music could be deemed plagarised under this "feel" parameter. for example the song that goes "im a rebel just for kicks" is a dead knockoff of "mr postman"
Don’t give UMG ideas😂
Yup, especially when you consider we have the history of “riddims” which anyone can hop on and profit from because the transformative-ness comes from the lyrics.
We also take phrases from others’ songs and nobody cares because it’s a “cultural motif” (like if I incorporated the phrases “DRIVER” “zim zimmer” or “bad gyal, who nah tek back chat”, none of the original artists/lyricists would take you to court for writing credits on your song). Kind of like in jazz where they have “moifs” anyone can use even though technically someone came up with it first. Idk I think pop (and western music in general) has a different relationship with “ownership” over art.
@@DDoubleEDouble Yes - exactly. This is also common in Calypso, Mento, Soca, Kompa, Zouk and even Cuban music.
"Western".. but also really particularly American culture (which shaped so much of the music industry and music law) is often more individualistic. Although it's worth noting that European folk music traditions are much less so.
0:50 When I saw Twenty One Pilots live, they mashed up Mulberry Street with Bennie and the Jets. Those two songs do sound very similar, and I think it was a cool nod to inspiration. I definitely think this shows that Sheeran could've been inspired. I personally don't think the songs are similar enough and I think the quality is so different and the time difference that it won't affect Marvin Gaye's track.
I remember meeting you at thomann, you lost your phone. I found it in the Piano department haha. That's where I recognize you from! that is so crazy :DDD hope youre doing well
Update Ed Sheeran didn't Plagiarize Marvin Gaye:ua-cam.com/video/LXoUJPqIcNU/v-deo.html
I absolutely agree with you, Adam, and I love your work. I think that “Thinking out loud” is vastly different in the actual melody style and feel to “Let’s get it on”. It reminds me of how the Simple Minds song “Belfast Child” is based on the traditional folk song “She Moved through the fair” - but they are not interchangeable
Many older folk songs are usually classed as 'traditional' so copyright doesn't apply.
Careful, Adam. I think you just signed yourself up to be an Expert Witness in the trial! 😂
@@user-mm8vw1ow1x I dunno, I reckon 12Tone could do a good job.
@@DerekHartley if I'm not mistaken, Rick Beato may actually be an expert witness
I love this! Smart and concise, not even one sided. Nice !
I think there is a big problem with making a citing system for songs. In academia you can cite because you actively read a source of information - you can't use another scientific paper unless you HAVE that paper and know you should cite it. With music it's not like you sit and listen to a bunch of songs in a style before writing in that style. I've several times written a song just to have someone tell me "oh, isn't that X song?". Either subconsciously because I've heard it 5 years ago, or by pure coincidence, artists can end up with similar songs. This makes it rather difficult to cite anyone. Half the time I wouldn't even be totally sure what genre to categorize my songs as.
The idea of listing all the contributors to songwriting is actually something that we're already familiar with in a different medium: Film Credits.
Back in the day, film credits were limited to certain ATL (above the line) talent exclusively, despite the fact that films take a village to bring to life. Through a lot of effort on the part of various guilds and unions in the film industry, changes were made so that it was required that all contributors to a film's creation were credited for it in the final credit. This has a significant impact inside the industry, where having credited work is often what leads to further work down the line for people, especially below the line talent like Gaffers, Key Grips, et. al.
That is to say, I 100% agree with you that all the contributors to a song's creation should be credited for it. It's perfectly reasonable and would be a small way to make the industry more equitable.
The song he is clearly referencing has the function of invoking the mood of a style long past. I think adequate time has passed for that to be ok.
Even if it was disproportionately referencing a single song, if that single song is the most influential example of that style(Motown soul ballads of the 70s) for Ed personally, then it is totally expected.
Why should any amount of time need to pass? How long should it be? What is considered "disproportionate" reference? The entire premise is absurd.
@@ruskerdax5547 Copyright has always had a time element, it started with 14 years, then 28 years, and now life of the artist +70 years. Reworking a 14 year old song that already had a chance to make money and work its way through culturally is definitely different than reworking a song that's new. Not absurd at all.
@@ZacDonald You can make money without copyright. When it comes to using violent threats to prevent others from innovating and making derivative works -- that's what copyright is -- 70+ is way too long. So is 28 years, 14 years, and 1 second. They're all arbitrary amounts of time used to justify threats in the false claim of enabling creatives to make money, but it's really just protectionism and stifling of innovation. Get rid of it all.
@@ruskerdax5547 Sorry, flat wrong on the end point. Copyright and patent law are quite necessary to some extent. While I can agree Death +70 is grotesquely too long, but removing creative protections from the get go will stifle creativity and innovation far faster. Protecting core ideas allows smaller groups to make a profit on their ideas and creations to either market themselves or sell/rent the rights to. If you remove that the possibility for say, a highschool garage band could come up with a way of arranging music to basically be a new genre, and a major record label could somehow discover it and just run with it even if the original band could prove that they publicly released the concept well prior to the bigger corporation. It's really hard to put in effort to create something new or innovative when someone better off can just grift your idea and profit from it in a way a newer business cannot. The laws are supposed to prevent that and/or set a precedent for creators to be compensated for their creations.
Now how Copyright and Patent laws work in most countries is appalling at best, and in many ways does along the lines of what you are thinking, and being abused to protect profits rather than protect creative and innovative ideas. The point that needs work is containing the scope of these laws and preventing the extension of keeping the idea. Far more egregious examples of copyright and patent law causing actual problems is easier to see in Pharmaceuticals and Disney.
@@ckwi2245 You've been brainwashed into believing those laws actually protect creativity, but they don't. In your very example, you don't think think that could happen even now? All laws can be subverted with money, and if it's really a game-changing creative work but somehow also unique to a person, it's just going to be copied. The high school band has no hope of winning. The laws only exist for large corporations to use the violence of governments to protect their position in the market, not the other way around.
The laws cannot be tempered. On top of that, any amount of time you think is appropriate for how long something should remain IP is completely made up and arbitrary, and will only be extended for the reasons I just explained. Their purpose is not to protect creativity, but to stifle it and allow only certain people access to profit from it. All IP is anti-market garbage. People would still be creative without flimsy, arbitrary laws that don't even work in their favor "protecting" them.
@AdamNeely A new one for you new Yusuf/Cat Stevens new album cut "Pagen Run" vs. Warren Zevon - Lawers, Guns and Money. in the chorus... thoughts?
Clarity in Wisdom. Well Said!!!!
My only concern with citing artists in music is those many times when I come up with a cool melody or phrase only for it just to be me involuntarily quoting another melody from a song that I like lol
Adam, can I ask how you would like your citation-system to work in the following situation?
A musical project I have planned involves taking some old blues standards and translating the lyrics into Scots Gaelic. The topics of loneliness, heart-ache and being broke are common across the world, and I think it would be a cool way to merge two cultures that I love.
The song that sparked this idea is Sittin' on Top of the World (Suidhe air Mullach an t-Saoghal). I've had to amend the content of the lyrics slightly - the verse about getting a freight-train out of town has become about going to the big city to catch a boat to the New World as this is more in keeping the plight of an 18th/19th Century Scotsman down on his luck. Complicating matters further, I know and perform this song more in the Chicago blues style, because of Cream's rendition of Howlin' Wolf's arrangement.
So we go Country Blues > Chicago Blues > British Blues > Teuchter Blues - what would be the most appropriate way to ensure Credit is given to all those involved in the evolution of this song? It feels ungainly to go into too much detail, but feels slightly wrong lumping everyone in together, especially if it means putting my own name next to musical legends (and in the case of Jack Bruce, one of my musical heroes).
Thanks
The thing about blues is it pre dates both recording technology and copyright laws.. travelling musicians would pick up the earliest songs from eachother, on the road.. resulting in nobody actually knowing who first wrote em..
Wouldn't it be AMAZING if we all just loved inspiring/being inspired by each other, being open about our influences, only noble intentions and somehow never any harm done, no headache to begin with... That is very unlike the world we live in.
The judge that decided Blurred Lines owed 7 million to Marvin Gaye's estate created a desperate and blind monster.
Once some disreputable person finds that they can profit from winning a false claim,
it sets a precedent for that plaintiff to continue finding music being infringed on everywhere.
Now it becomes a multi-million dollar income stream, and a justification to attack every ghost of a chance to profit.
The judge who determined that Marvin's copyright was infringed on simply proved that harassing successful songwriters can be profitable for the unworthy survivors of an avoidable tragedy.