5 ms·

As a hobby music producer I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind copyright infringement. It's so arbitrary. It's illegal to steal a melody but sophis

by cJ0th 9y ago

As a hobby music producer I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind copyright infringement. It's so arbitrary. It's illegal to steal a melody but sophisticated chord progressions are fine. It's illegal to copy the text of even the simplest verse but reverse engineering some complex synthesizer sounds is fine. Although I personally strive for it, I don't think originality is a point worth discussing. Music is about expression first and foremost. The difficulty we have today is that you can't freely express yourself. Many of the great hip hop records of the 90s, for instance, couldn't be produced today because sample clearing would be a nightmare. I do, of course, understand that each work requires, errm, work. So I am fine with some form of protection for the artist. But imho it should be a rather broad protection. That is, releasing a cover without permission or selling someone else work (i.e. 100% of the lyrics or melody or even arrangement...) as your own is not ok. But I think as long as there is any form of creative alteration involved then "copying" should be fair play. Especially when several years or even a decade have past.

ebbv 9y ago
That sounds reasonable but how do you define “any form of creativity/expression” legally? That’s the problem. If you know anything about writing music you should know why chord progressions can’t be copyrighted. There’s only 12 notes, there’s not that many unique chord progressions to be found in the Standard I/IV/V pop music format. Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply. The problem with limiting protection to only a few years is that would ensure an even more brutal cycle of song “remakes” for all pop music which would be even more stale than what we have now.
- tarsinge 9y ago
  > Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply Not quite true for pop melodies especially on basic progressions when you apply all the contraints (harmony related to the current chord, tension/release). Lyrics on the other hand...
  - ebbv 9y ago
    People are pretty flexible in what they’ll accept in a melody. You can play a lot with outside notes and weird rhythms if you have a good performance and as long as you bring it back to diatonic notes.
- kijin 9y ago
  The market can decide whether or not it wants all those stale remakes, whether with or without legal protection.
  - hashkb 9y ago
    That's the problem. The market likes repetitive crap. Artists need to be forced by the courts to be creative. Apparently.
- cJ0th 9y ago
  I'd say “any form of creativity/expression” means you take something and don't copy it 1:1. Copying 100% of a (lyric|composition|: not okay, taking a subset of it: fine. Admittedly, it has to be a bit more sophisticated than that. For instance, getting away with just omitting the very last word would be ridiculous. > If you know anything about writing music you should know why chord progressions can’t be copyrighted. There’s only 12 notes, there’s not that many unique chord progressions to be found in the Standard I/IV/V pop music format. yes and no. A chord can be played in many ways. For instance, when you play C major you could play the root an octave below the third and the fifth or one octave up. This alone is no worth copyright. But when the way every single chord of a progression is played is copied it gets questionable, imo. Even more so when you look at "jazzy" chords where you can sprinkle some "non necessary" notes in here and there for color. > The problem with limiting protection to only a few years is that would ensure an even more brutal cycle of song “remakes” for all pop music which would be even more stale than what we have now. You could be right, but personally I am not convinced.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    So let’s say I don’t copy 100%... but I asymptotically approach it. At what decimal do I infringe, or as long as I never reach unity am I cool?
    - cJ0th 9y ago
      Judges are humans not computers. The downside is, some sentences are incredibly unfair. The upside is, it works pretty well most of the time. Just look at the Fair Use doctrine. It seems to work reasonably well for literature. Why can't it apply to music? In particular this: > The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair. If a song has 500 words then wouldn't you say copying 20 is fair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
      - hashkb 9y ago
        Depends which 20. "I knew she was gonna meet her connection" maybe... "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need" def not ok.
- wyager 9y ago
  Preventing stale remakes probably shouldn’t be a function of copyright law.
- hashkb 9y ago
  You said "there's not many chord progressions to be found inside [a chord progression]". Pop music is free to get more complicated, using reharmonization, voice leading, instrumentation and every other trick in the "real music" book and stop 1/4/5ing us so hard. We (the audience) just love repetitive bullshit too much. It's our fault. Jazz, although built on a (less) restrictive harmonic foundation, tends to not have this problem, because the musicians and the audience are more talented.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >We (the audience) just love repetitive bullshit too much. It's our fault. Why is it a fault? Music is about what people love. Why should they stretch that to love something else? Because some consider it more "serious"? >Jazz, although built on a (less) restrictive harmonic foundation, tends to not have this problem, because the musicians and the audience are more talented. It tends to have the problem of very few caring about it -- and that audience is tiny (as seen in streaming rates, sales, etc) compared to other forms of music.
    - was8309 9y ago
      how much of what people currently 'love' is based on some natural meritocracy vs decades of big money marketing? It once wasn't a stretch at all for people to 'hear', love, and make a hit of a harmonically complicated song like Ray Charles' version of 'Come Rain or Come Shine', but now we seem incapable of doing so. Do you think there is no chance at all that audiences have been dumbed down?
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >how much of what people currently 'love' is based on some natural meritocracy vs decades of big money marketing? People liked simple melodies and harmonies for several millennia before the advent of a music industry and/or music marketing, so? >It once wasn't a stretch at all for people to 'hear', love, and make a hit of a harmonically complicated song like Ray Charles' version of 'Come Rain or Come Shine', but now we seem incapable of doing so. They might have gone to that, but not to Ornette Coleman or Schoenberg or Berg. >Do you think there is no chance at all that audiences have been dumbed down? I'd say, it's complicated. Basically, it's not the people's tastes in music that have been dumbed down per se, but the role that music plays in people's lives that has been dumbed down with mass constant access and music as muzak. But while you mention Come Rain or Come Shine or some such, I don't see e.g. Louie Louie being that elaborate, or Tea for Two for that matter. Heck, most rock n' roll of the 50s is the same BS chords and similar melodic lines over again with sophomore lyrics. And yet in the 70s people listened to 12+ minute long "opuses" and solos (that while requiring technical dexterity, aesthetically and culturally they were as much a joke as Nicky Ninaj, complete with King Arthur references and trivial re-uses of classical harmonies and pointless soloing). So, it's complicated.
onion2k 9y ago
Music is about expression first and foremost. That may be, but the music industry is much more about industry than music. Artists like Radiohead only want to "protect their art" when there's a chance of getting a worthwhile check in to the bargain.
- tejohnso 9y ago
  How do you know that a worthwhile check has anything to do with Radiohead's motives? What other artists are you implying belong to this group?
  - igotsideas 9y ago
    They are seeking 100% of the profits for that song. They could ask her to remove the song from the album if they felt like she was biting their music and had no monetary motives.
    - tome 9y ago
      Perhaps they think that a financial penalty will best discourage future infringers.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - scotchmi_st 9y ago
      Unless you’re basing that on some extra information, you seem to have not read the article. “To set the record straight, no lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they ‘will only accept 100%’ of the publishing of ‘Get Free.’ ”
  - walterstucco 9y ago
    Because Radiohead's Creep is itself not original and copied by another band from the 70s
  - onion2k 9y ago
    They sue artists who are successful and ignore smaller artists. Clearly it's about the money, otherwise they'd protect their songs against every infringement even if it costs them to do so rather than only protecting songs when there's the possibility of a pay out. These law suits are not about art.
JohnStrangeII 9y ago
What we see right now is the beginning of the "intellectual property" lawsuit wave. Music producers, artists, and record labels have always known that pop music doesn't come out of thin air and is highly repetitive. For some popular chord progressions and main melodies you can literally find thousands of practically identical songs. Until recently, copyright holders have avoided lawsuits except in cases of blatant copying, because of some form of legal MAD. However, as sales are declining and it gets harder and harder to make a sustained living even for fairly popular artists, this will change more and more. Laws have been implemented almost solely in favor of copyright holders (=companies and usually not the artists) and in almost complete disregard for art. There will be many more lawsuits of this kind in the future, and once the dam is broken, more large companies will jump in, too. Hobby musicians will get sued more and more, too, or at least their shares will be taken away from them. The vast majority of all pop songs is not original in the pro-IP and anti-art sense that lawmakers have facilitated over time, so it's going to be a large bloody legal slaughtering for the remaining bread crumbs. But maybe hobby music and private performances will benefit this in the long run. Mainstream music will become even less melodic and weirder than it already is, as these songs (e.g. in contemporary "R&B") are developed to avoid lawsuits while still kind of "sounding like a hit". It's a tricky business.
- cJ0th 9y ago
  > Mainstream music will become even less melodic and weirder than it already is, as these songs (e.g. in contemporary "R&B") are developed to avoid lawsuits while still kind of "sounding like a hit". It's a tricky business. I think this is a great example for what you're describing: Anne-Marie - Ciao Adios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqob4D3BoZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqob4D3BoZc Sounds actually quite fresh!
- pault 9y ago
  What I can't figure out is how Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" (TLC - "No Scrubs") and Portugal, The Man's "Feel it Still" (Marelettes - "Please Mr. Postman") flew under the radar. Are the big producers clearing melodies and chord progressions like samples now?
  - 9y ago
delinka 9y ago
"...releasing a cover without permission...is not ok." I have to disagree with this. And it's already allowed with Compulsory Licensing. The writer of the song gets their cut as specified in the law. As to the rest of your comment, I don't think you mean "broad protection." Broad protection is exactly what allows 'silly' lawsuits. Something that's "too similar" gets into trouble because the protection for the original is too broad. Now, making a transformative work based on others is where I feel things get interesting and there should be lots of flexibility and leeway for the transforming artist. But how that could possibly be codified into law I have no idea...
- cJ0th 9y ago
  Sorry, I was a bit unclear as English is not my mother tongue. I thus expressed my thoughts not correctly/clumsy. "cover without permission": I meant to say stealing everything from a song (text+music) 100% while claiming it is your own. "broad protection": apparently not the correct word. I meant to say, the law should be less strict. > Now, making a transformative work based on others is where I feel things get interesting and there should be lots of flexibility and leeway for the transforming artist. yeah, I agree.
  - jboxee 9y ago
    I think this is why remixes exist. For me, I often find the interpretations of others' works sometimes more interesting than the original - this is within music as well as other fields like art in the form of painting/drawing.
walterstucco 9y ago
Radiohead have copied creep from the Hollies they can't seriously sue someone else for ripping it from them
coldtea 9y ago
>As a hobby music producer I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind copyright infringement. It's so arbitrary. It's illegal to steal a melody but sophisticated chord progressions are fine. It's illegal to copy the text of even the simplest verse but reverse engineering some complex synthesizer sounds is fine. So, what's not to understand? Seems very well defined. Melodies and lyrics are more important than sounds and chord progressions.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Exactly. Publishing in the music industry means melody and lyrics. Chord sequences aren't copyrighted unless they're outstanding and exceptional, and sometimes not even then. Arrangements only matter if they're sold as sheet music. Specific recordings and samples of specific arrangements are covered by a different kind of copyright ("mechanicals"). There is nothing arbitrary about this. Good melodies are incredibly hard to write, and certainly much harder than a generic chord sequence. The industry has always had backrooms of songwriters - some famous, some not - working on new songs. Today the work is done by topliners who work exclusively on melody and lyrics. The good ones are very in demand, even though most people have no idea who they are.
  - crazygringo 9y ago
    > There is nothing arbitrary about this. Good melodies are incredibly hard to write, and certainly much harder than a generic chord sequence. Hmmm... that doesn't correspond with my experience at all. Melodies are quite simple, conceptually -- there are only 12 notes. Whereas for chords, I couldn't personally begin to count them, but according to the first source which popped up in Google, for four-note chords, there are 495. [1] And they're incredibly complex, with whole arguments (and probably dissertations) on how to properly categorize and name them and how they function. In my experience composing, almost melodies feel like the easier part. Because it's only when you combine them with expressive and unique harmonies (chords) that they take on a distinctive personality and meaning of their own. Personally, I feel like the real creativity is in the harmonies, but the real point is that neither is meaningful without the other. Example: hum "The Girl from Ipanema" to yourself without harmonies -- it's the most boring, repetitive thing ever. Then add harmonies -- suddenly it becomes a lot more reasonable that it's the second most recorded pop song in history (according to Wikipedia). (Also, why compare "good melodies" with a "generic chord sequence"? Better to compare good with good.) [1] https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/19696-digging-deeper-how-many-chords-are-there https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/19696-digging-deeper-...
matchagaucho 9y ago
The learning curve for composing original music necessarily is one of emulation and derivation. Producers and Publishers have historically provided the copyright editing and filtering role. The advent of home recording studios and cheap-to-free distribution channels means more self-produced composers are skipping the editing process.
zer00eyz 9y ago
Arbitrary would be an understatement. It is downright insane Crediting a composer on silence is a copyright case: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3583315/You-cant-copyright-silence-theres-too-much-of-it-about.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/35...

by cJ0th 9y ago

ebbv 9y ago

That sounds reasonable but how do you define “any form of creativity/expression” legally? That’s the problem. If you know anything about writing music you should know why chord progressions can’t be copyrighted. There’s only 12 notes, there’s not that many unique chord progressions to be found in the Standard I/IV/V pop music format. Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply. The problem with limiting protection to only a few years is that would ensure an even more brutal cycle of song “remakes” for all pop music which would be even more stale than what we have now.

tarsinge 9y ago
> Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply Not quite true for pop melodies especially on basic progressions when you apply all the contraints (harmony related to the current chord, tension/release). Lyrics on the other hand...
- ebbv 9y ago
  People are pretty flexible in what they’ll accept in a melody. You can play a lot with outside notes and weird rhythms if you have a good performance and as long as you bring it back to diatonic notes.
kijin 9y ago
The market can decide whether or not it wants all those stale remakes, whether with or without legal protection.
- hashkb 9y ago
  That's the problem. The market likes repetitive crap. Artists need to be forced by the courts to be creative. Apparently.
cJ0th 9y ago
I'd say “any form of creativity/expression” means you take something and don't copy it 1:1. Copying 100% of a (lyric|composition|: not okay, taking a subset of it: fine. Admittedly, it has to be a bit more sophisticated than that. For instance, getting away with just omitting the very last word would be ridiculous. > If you know anything about writing music you should know why chord progressions can’t be copyrighted. There’s only 12 notes, there’s not that many unique chord progressions to be found in the Standard I/IV/V pop music format. yes and no. A chord can be played in many ways. For instance, when you play C major you could play the root an octave below the third and the fifth or one octave up. This alone is no worth copyright. But when the way every single chord of a progression is played is copied it gets questionable, imo. Even more so when you look at "jazzy" chords where you can sprinkle some "non necessary" notes in here and there for color. > The problem with limiting protection to only a few years is that would ensure an even more brutal cycle of song “remakes” for all pop music which would be even more stale than what we have now. You could be right, but personally I am not convinced.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  So let’s say I don’t copy 100%... but I asymptotically approach it. At what decimal do I infringe, or as long as I never reach unity am I cool?
  - cJ0th 9y ago
    Judges are humans not computers. The downside is, some sentences are incredibly unfair. The upside is, it works pretty well most of the time. Just look at the Fair Use doctrine. It seems to work reasonably well for literature. Why can't it apply to music? In particular this: > The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair. If a song has 500 words then wouldn't you say copying 20 is fair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
    - hashkb 9y ago
      Depends which 20. "I knew she was gonna meet her connection" maybe... "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need" def not ok.
wyager 9y ago
Preventing stale remakes probably shouldn’t be a function of copyright law.
hashkb 9y ago
You said "there's not many chord progressions to be found inside [a chord progression]". Pop music is free to get more complicated, using reharmonization, voice leading, instrumentation and every other trick in the "real music" book and stop 1/4/5ing us so hard. We (the audience) just love repetitive bullshit too much. It's our fault. Jazz, although built on a (less) restrictive harmonic foundation, tends to not have this problem, because the musicians and the audience are more talented.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >We (the audience) just love repetitive bullshit too much. It's our fault. Why is it a fault? Music is about what people love. Why should they stretch that to love something else? Because some consider it more "serious"? >Jazz, although built on a (less) restrictive harmonic foundation, tends to not have this problem, because the musicians and the audience are more talented. It tends to have the problem of very few caring about it -- and that audience is tiny (as seen in streaming rates, sales, etc) compared to other forms of music.
  - was8309 9y ago
    how much of what people currently 'love' is based on some natural meritocracy vs decades of big money marketing? It once wasn't a stretch at all for people to 'hear', love, and make a hit of a harmonically complicated song like Ray Charles' version of 'Come Rain or Come Shine', but now we seem incapable of doing so. Do you think there is no chance at all that audiences have been dumbed down?
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >how much of what people currently 'love' is based on some natural meritocracy vs decades of big money marketing? People liked simple melodies and harmonies for several millennia before the advent of a music industry and/or music marketing, so? >It once wasn't a stretch at all for people to 'hear', love, and make a hit of a harmonically complicated song like Ray Charles' version of 'Come Rain or Come Shine', but now we seem incapable of doing so. They might have gone to that, but not to Ornette Coleman or Schoenberg or Berg. >Do you think there is no chance at all that audiences have been dumbed down? I'd say, it's complicated. Basically, it's not the people's tastes in music that have been dumbed down per se, but the role that music plays in people's lives that has been dumbed down with mass constant access and music as muzak. But while you mention Come Rain or Come Shine or some such, I don't see e.g. Louie Louie being that elaborate, or Tea for Two for that matter. Heck, most rock n' roll of the 50s is the same BS chords and similar melodic lines over again with sophomore lyrics. And yet in the 70s people listened to 12+ minute long "opuses" and solos (that while requiring technical dexterity, aesthetically and culturally they were as much a joke as Nicky Ninaj, complete with King Arthur references and trivial re-uses of classical harmonies and pointless soloing). So, it's complicated.

onion2k 9y ago

Music is about expression first and foremost. That may be, but the music industry is much more about industry than music. Artists like Radiohead only want to "protect their art" when there's a chance of getting a worthwhile check in to the bargain.

tejohnso 9y ago
How do you know that a worthwhile check has anything to do with Radiohead's motives? What other artists are you implying belong to this group?
- igotsideas 9y ago
  They are seeking 100% of the profits for that song. They could ask her to remove the song from the album if they felt like she was biting their music and had no monetary motives.
  - tome 9y ago
    Perhaps they think that a financial penalty will best discourage future infringers.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - scotchmi_st 9y ago
    Unless you’re basing that on some extra information, you seem to have not read the article. “To set the record straight, no lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they ‘will only accept 100%’ of the publishing of ‘Get Free.’ ”
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Because Radiohead's Creep is itself not original and copied by another band from the 70s
- onion2k 9y ago
  They sue artists who are successful and ignore smaller artists. Clearly it's about the money, otherwise they'd protect their songs against every infringement even if it costs them to do so rather than only protecting songs when there's the possibility of a pay out. These law suits are not about art.

JohnStrangeII 9y ago

What we see right now is the beginning of the "intellectual property" lawsuit wave. Music producers, artists, and record labels have always known that pop music doesn't come out of thin air and is highly repetitive. For some popular chord progressions and main melodies you can literally find thousands of practically identical songs. Until recently, copyright holders have avoided lawsuits except in cases of blatant copying, because of some form of legal MAD. However, as sales are declining and it gets harder and harder to make a sustained living even for fairly popular artists, this will change more and more. Laws have been implemented almost solely in favor of copyright holders (=companies and usually not the artists) and in almost complete disregard for art. There will be many more lawsuits of this kind in the future, and once the dam is broken, more large companies will jump in, too. Hobby musicians will get sued more and more, too, or at least their shares will be taken away from them. The vast majority of all pop songs is not original in the pro-IP and anti-art sense that lawmakers have facilitated over time, so it's going to be a large bloody legal slaughtering for the remaining bread crumbs. But maybe hobby music and private performances will benefit this in the long run. Mainstream music will become even less melodic and weirder than it already is, as these songs (e.g. in contemporary "R&B") are developed to avoid lawsuits while still kind of "sounding like a hit". It's a tricky business.

cJ0th 9y ago
> Mainstream music will become even less melodic and weirder than it already is, as these songs (e.g. in contemporary "R&B") are developed to avoid lawsuits while still kind of "sounding like a hit". It's a tricky business. I think this is a great example for what you're describing: Anne-Marie - Ciao Adios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqob4D3BoZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqob4D3BoZc Sounds actually quite fresh!
pault 9y ago
What I can't figure out is how Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" (TLC - "No Scrubs") and Portugal, The Man's "Feel it Still" (Marelettes - "Please Mr. Postman") flew under the radar. Are the big producers clearing melodies and chord progressions like samples now?
- 9y ago

delinka 9y ago

"...releasing a cover without permission...is not ok." I have to disagree with this. And it's already allowed with Compulsory Licensing. The writer of the song gets their cut as specified in the law. As to the rest of your comment, I don't think you mean "broad protection." Broad protection is exactly what allows 'silly' lawsuits. Something that's "too similar" gets into trouble because the protection for the original is too broad. Now, making a transformative work based on others is where I feel things get interesting and there should be lots of flexibility and leeway for the transforming artist. But how that could possibly be codified into law I have no idea...

cJ0th 9y ago
Sorry, I was a bit unclear as English is not my mother tongue. I thus expressed my thoughts not correctly/clumsy. "cover without permission": I meant to say stealing everything from a song (text+music) 100% while claiming it is your own. "broad protection": apparently not the correct word. I meant to say, the law should be less strict. > Now, making a transformative work based on others is where I feel things get interesting and there should be lots of flexibility and leeway for the transforming artist. yeah, I agree.
- jboxee 9y ago
  I think this is why remixes exist. For me, I often find the interpretations of others' works sometimes more interesting than the original - this is within music as well as other fields like art in the form of painting/drawing.

walterstucco 9y ago

Radiohead have copied creep from the Hollies they can't seriously sue someone else for ripping it from them

coldtea 9y ago

>As a hobby music producer I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind copyright infringement. It's so arbitrary. It's illegal to steal a melody but sophisticated chord progressions are fine. It's illegal to copy the text of even the simplest verse but reverse engineering some complex synthesizer sounds is fine. So, what's not to understand? Seems very well defined. Melodies and lyrics are more important than sounds and chord progressions.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Exactly. Publishing in the music industry means melody and lyrics. Chord sequences aren't copyrighted unless they're outstanding and exceptional, and sometimes not even then. Arrangements only matter if they're sold as sheet music. Specific recordings and samples of specific arrangements are covered by a different kind of copyright ("mechanicals"). There is nothing arbitrary about this. Good melodies are incredibly hard to write, and certainly much harder than a generic chord sequence. The industry has always had backrooms of songwriters - some famous, some not - working on new songs. Today the work is done by topliners who work exclusively on melody and lyrics. The good ones are very in demand, even though most people have no idea who they are.
- crazygringo 9y ago
  > There is nothing arbitrary about this. Good melodies are incredibly hard to write, and certainly much harder than a generic chord sequence. Hmmm... that doesn't correspond with my experience at all. Melodies are quite simple, conceptually -- there are only 12 notes. Whereas for chords, I couldn't personally begin to count them, but according to the first source which popped up in Google, for four-note chords, there are 495. [1] And they're incredibly complex, with whole arguments (and probably dissertations) on how to properly categorize and name them and how they function. In my experience composing, almost melodies feel like the easier part. Because it's only when you combine them with expressive and unique harmonies (chords) that they take on a distinctive personality and meaning of their own. Personally, I feel like the real creativity is in the harmonies, but the real point is that neither is meaningful without the other. Example: hum "The Girl from Ipanema" to yourself without harmonies -- it's the most boring, repetitive thing ever. Then add harmonies -- suddenly it becomes a lot more reasonable that it's the second most recorded pop song in history (according to Wikipedia). (Also, why compare "good melodies" with a "generic chord sequence"? Better to compare good with good.) [1] https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/19696-digging-deeper-how-many-chords-are-there https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/19696-digging-deeper-...

matchagaucho 9y ago

The learning curve for composing original music necessarily is one of emulation and derivation. Producers and Publishers have historically provided the copyright editing and filtering role. The advent of home recording studios and cheap-to-free distribution channels means more self-produced composers are skipping the editing process.

zer00eyz 9y ago

Arbitrary would be an understatement. It is downright insane Crediting a composer on silence is a copyright case: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3583315/You-cant-copyright-silence-theres-too-much-of-it-about.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/35...