3 ms·

There's a giant difference between randomly hitting on the same melody as an existing massive hit AND then re-using that melody as the first hook in your own so

There's a giant difference between randomly hitting on the same melody as an existing massive hit AND then re-using that melody as the first hook in your own song. And Scrubs by TLC is a massive cross-generational hit that Sheeran can't claim not to know without making himself look like a tourist in the pop world. Sheeran's lifting was so blatant I assumed he was intentionally quoting it. Doing that is fine - and it happens regularly, especially in rap and R&B - and is even encouraged when there is overlap in the publishing rights holders (label, publishing company) with the original writer. But royalties should and do follow. So I'm just baffled that he still thinks he is being taken advantage of here. Fwiw, a much less fair copyright infringement case was the Tom Petty vs Sam Smith case around "Won't Back Down" and "Stay with Me." The musical similarity there was much smaller and there are likely scores of gospel songs that use a similar melody.

unfocussed_mike 4y ago
It is worth noting that some melodies have a sort of institutional quality -- you can hear them so much they fade into the background of everything, and you become sort of blind to the fact that you "stole" them, and for it to be only blindingly obvious once pointed out. It's actually bizarrely possible he lifted it without realising, and even that other people approved it without realising. Because the tiniest shift of context can make people blind to the obvious. When I was learning to play a new (to me) instrument -- an unusual fretless acoustic instrument -- I worked through a little arrangement of a very, very well known pop song, to teach myself a bunch of chords, progression moves and techniques. I slowed it down, changed its rhythm slightly. But to me it was utterly recognisable. I played a recording to several people who knew pop really well and nobody spotted it. Even though I gave the arrangement a name that was a clear pun on the original title. Once I pointed it out, everyone spotted it. Because it's obvious. But only if you're looking for it. The reason it wasn't easy to spot is the shift in context. Because without crucial elements of context, it's actually only a chord sequence. (Though I really did leave a _lot_ of it in)
- a_e_k 4y ago
  "Down Under" (1981) and "Kookaburra" (1932) is another good example of that. I can't say that I would ever have noticed the riff without someone pointing it out. And "Kookaburra" is a song that I first heard in grade school, so I'd argue that it has that institutional quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kookaburra_(song)#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kookaburra_(song)#Copyright_st...
  - unfocussed_mike 4y ago
    It's an extreme example but you might enjoy this website, which is one of the low-key-greatest things on the web: http://www.folias.nl/ http://www.folias.nl/ A lot of the lawsuits that come up will I think end up resolving in this way -- pointing out that there are borderline-ancestral components to melodies and it's possible to come up with things that sound similar despite conscious effort not to.
open-source-ux 4y ago
"Sheeran's lifting was so blatant I assumed he was intentionally quoting it." This BBC article features a side-by-side comparison of the songs. People can made their own mind whether they think it amounts to plagiarism. (Scroll down the middle of the page to the video in the article) Ed Sheeran: Copyright case was about honesty, not money: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61026308 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61026308 I don't think the claim of plagiarism holds at all. Also, it was Sheeran who brought the case to court to clear his name of the accusation (not the other party). Musicians and composers have always been influenced by other music artists. This is particularly true for orchestral music (classical works or soundtracks). Here's a 1941 film soundtrack - listen to the first minute. I'm guessing at least 95% of HN readers will guess which other film soundtrack was probably influenced by this. Inspiration, coincidence or plagiarism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf47W9rXzRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf47W9rXzRM

unfocussed_mike 4y ago

It is worth noting that some melodies have a sort of institutional quality -- you can hear them so much they fade into the background of everything, and you become sort of blind to the fact that you "stole" them, and for it to be only blindingly obvious once pointed out. It's actually bizarrely possible he lifted it without realising, and even that other people approved it without realising. Because the tiniest shift of context can make people blind to the obvious. When I was learning to play a new (to me) instrument -- an unusual fretless acoustic instrument -- I worked through a little arrangement of a very, very well known pop song, to teach myself a bunch of chords, progression moves and techniques. I slowed it down, changed its rhythm slightly. But to me it was utterly recognisable. I played a recording to several people who knew pop really well and nobody spotted it. Even though I gave the arrangement a name that was a clear pun on the original title. Once I pointed it out, everyone spotted it. Because it's obvious. But only if you're looking for it. The reason it wasn't easy to spot is the shift in context. Because without crucial elements of context, it's actually only a chord sequence. (Though I really did leave a _lot_ of it in)

a_e_k 4y ago
"Down Under" (1981) and "Kookaburra" (1932) is another good example of that. I can't say that I would ever have noticed the riff without someone pointing it out. And "Kookaburra" is a song that I first heard in grade school, so I'd argue that it has that institutional quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kookaburra_(song)#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kookaburra_(song)#Copyright_st...
- unfocussed_mike 4y ago
  It's an extreme example but you might enjoy this website, which is one of the low-key-greatest things on the web: http://www.folias.nl/ http://www.folias.nl/ A lot of the lawsuits that come up will I think end up resolving in this way -- pointing out that there are borderline-ancestral components to melodies and it's possible to come up with things that sound similar despite conscious effort not to.

open-source-ux 4y ago

"Sheeran's lifting was so blatant I assumed he was intentionally quoting it." This BBC article features a side-by-side comparison of the songs. People can made their own mind whether they think it amounts to plagiarism. (Scroll down the middle of the page to the video in the article) Ed Sheeran: Copyright case was about honesty, not money: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61026308 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61026308 I don't think the claim of plagiarism holds at all. Also, it was Sheeran who brought the case to court to clear his name of the accusation (not the other party). Musicians and composers have always been influenced by other music artists. This is particularly true for orchestral music (classical works or soundtracks). Here's a 1941 film soundtrack - listen to the first minute. I'm guessing at least 95% of HN readers will guess which other film soundtrack was probably influenced by this. Inspiration, coincidence or plagiarism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf47W9rXzRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf47W9rXzRM