Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by OldDog52, Jun 29, 2018.
They're both in 4. I don't know where you get 6/8?
I'd like to hear something from the 14th century or before that sounds remotely like "Flash Light."
Exactly what I was thinking.
You're absolutely correct. I was initially mistakenly comparing it to a different Ed Sheeran song.
It is absolutely a total rip off without doubt.You're absolutely correct.
Goodness! They're just in for the money!
The song "Waiting In Vain" has the same feel with Bob's (albeit reggae) and of Annie Lennox's (pop-jazz)? And what about the countless blues, rock & roll, boogie pieces that go chugging in I-I-IV-I-V-IV-I-V- from intro to end?
What they should look out for are words or melodies that are the same for around 8 bars - maybe distantly similar to plagiarism in research.
Without even a hint of plagiarism, I wouldn't dream of it, I underwrite the songs that make the 'ol world swing. And, I'm not never sheeran nothin' with nobody. Never.
See you in the funny papers, buster.
Funny Talkbass conspiracy.
For years, people have been spelling Squier as "Squire" because of the famous Bass Player from Yes. Now, people seem to spell Sheeran as "Sheehan" because of Bass Extraordinaire Billy Sheehan maybe?
Do we see the world through "bass colored glasses"?
Well, don't put words in my mouth. I don't think it's a ripoff at all.
No excuse for plagiarism. Its a dearth of ideas not a limited number of musical choices. Music is incredibly derivative today.
12 notes times an infinite number of rhythmic choices -
Go listen to Slave's Watching You and Odyssey's Inside Out. Music is exactly the same. Melody and lyrics are different. Should there be a case? The Blurred Lines verdict was ridiculous! I would appeal that until the end of time! The Gaye family does not deserve a penny.
Axis of Awesome was, well, awesome! Case in point indeed!
P.S. DWBass, did you not notice that the Gaye family has nothing to do with this? Marvin had a co-writer on "Let's Get It On" and the plaintiff purchased his rights as a basis for this claim.
I listened to Watching You (never heard before) - and immediately thought Inside Out.
The plagiarist is also in it for the money.
If they bought the asset it does not compromise the law suit at all. And it ought not to be shaky. Sheeran is a multi millionaire who could steal from anyone and afford the legal battle. He could steal from some lesser lights and they would not be able to afford calling him on it. Sheeran is no victim here.
He is a victim if there was no foul, no plagarism. The plaintiff is a lawyer, for crissake. He doesn't know music from mulch. He can probably pursue this himself at no real cost while Ed Sheeran (an actual musician) will spend big bucks on expensive legal talent. If the court decides there is no plagarism (and I personally don't hear any, but that's only my opinion), I hope he counter sues and cleans the plaintiffs clock. I paid attention to the Led Zepplin/Spirit and Robin Thicke/ Marvin Gaye cases. In BOTH of those examples, I heard what I thought was clear, outright lifting of another artist's work. But not this time.
That the plaintiff is a lawyer and is someone who paid for the asset does not in anyway disqualify the claim. The claim will have to be decided by the facts. Plagarism must be proved. Musicologist experts will be asked to break the song down. I hear the lift ...
Some poster above quoted 2 songs and said no plagiarism - so I listened to the one I didn't know and it immediately brought to mind the one I do know.
Courts always carry a problem of disparity - due to legal costs
Sheeran lifted a hook - is it enough - the courts will decide after a lengthy review of the matter with expert testimony.
Sheeran might be a creep - maybe he steals from guys who can't afford to mount a legal action. Being a musician does not make him a saint. But who is a nice guy or who is a lawyer and who is a musician is irrelevant.
I'm no particular fan of Ed Sheeran and I sure don't know if he's a decent sort or a creep. Unless you know him personally, neither do you. Nor do I know if he deliberately copied "Let's Get It On" or not. Neither do you. What I do know is that the plaintiff doesn't know squat about music and is just looking for a free payday. If this action had any real merit, the Gaye family would be party to it. They have shown quite clearly that they are more than willing to defend Marvin's intellectual property rights, pretty aggressively. Good for them, they should. That they are staying away from this tells me a lot. I do not hear a direct lift from "Let's Get It On". I do hear a vague similarity in a couple of musical phrases. A vague similarity, that's all. Hell, the famous "He's So Fine/My Sweet Lord" case was MUCH clearer and the judge there found only "subconscious plagiarism". This case is WAY weaker.
Funny how they are staying away from this one but aggressively went after Pharrell for Blurred Lines which sounded nothing like GTGIU outside of a similar cowbell pattern. And won, mind you.
Hi Greg, did you see the video I linked to in post #53? It shows Ed Sheeran singing a "mash up" of Thinking Out Loud and Let's Get It On at one of his performances. This is documented video evidence that Sheeran himself recognizes the musical similarity between the two songs, believes the similarity has entertainment value, and has profited from the entertainment value of the two songs' similarity as part of his live act. While that does not in and of itself prove he deliberately copied the song, I think it's at the very least probable cause for the case to have its day in court. If Sheeran is smart he'll settle before it gets to that point.
There are two court cases that awarded the plaintiffs for plagiarism, and those two are still the standard in my book: George Harrison "My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine" and Ray Parker Jr. "Ghostbusters/I Want A New Drug."
The specifics and musical arguments that decided those cases make sense.
If you wanted to compile a list of recorded songs that were released and published for profit that have a chord progression that goes I--I over the major 3rd--IV--V, it would take you the rest of your life. That is akin to the alphabet; you can't copyright letters of the alphabet, and you shouldn't be able to copyright common chord progressions, even if the tempos are similar. Even "Let's Get It On" was hardly the first song with that progression at a similar tempo.
Sheeran's main melody is completely different from "Let's Get It On." That creates a huge fundamental gulf between the two songs.
This is another money grab over nebulous concepts like "feel" and "groove." And that doesn't cut it in my book. These new rulings and verdicts are setting a very dangerous and unreasonable precedent. Intellectual property defense lawyers need to step up their game.
I believe the Ghostbusters thing was settled out of court.