• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Every Song Sounds Like Something Else

#81
Another famous case was Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen's "Under Pressure" and using it in "Ice Ice Baby".

There are plenty of songs which sound like other songs. Many blues songs for example.

The bass line in The Romantics "What I Like About You" is very similar to John Mellencamp's "R.O.C.K. In The USA"






Listen to the guitar riff at 25 seconds in Chicago's "Alive Again" and compare it KISS "I Was Made For Loving You".



 
#83
Kmonk said:
The bass line in The Romantics "What I Like About You" is very similar to John Mellencamp's "R.O.C.K. In The USA"
Click to expand...

This is a great example and illustrates an important point about copyright law.

Yes, the groove and feel and bass line are similar between those two songs. But, just like "Blurred Lines," that's not the previously accepted test for infringement. R.O.C.K. and WILAY have vastly different main melodies, and that sets them apart in a fundamental way. I doubt The Romantics would win a copyright infringement suit against John Mellencamp.

In order for a bass line to constitute a "main melodic component" and qualify for copyright protection, it has to be so central to the song as to literally define it. Example: "Under Pressure."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kmonk
#86
I haven't read the entire thread, so pardon me if this has been mentioned before. Vsauce (cool, weird science-y channel on YouTube) did a really fascinating video about the concept of whether or not we'll ever run out of "new" music. (Linked here or watch below):



One of the sites he references is Sounds Just Like, where you can listen to two separate tracks and here the stark similarities between them.

Doesn't mean every song is a purposeful rip-off of another song, but it's interesting to think about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassFishingInAmerica and Spectrum
#87
electracoyote said:
This is a great example and illustrates an important point about copyright law.

Yes, the groove and feel and bass line are similar between those two songs. But, just like "Blurred Lines," that's not the previously accepted test for infringement. R.O.C.K. and WILAY have vastly different main melodies, and that sets them apart in a fundamental way. I doubt The Romantics would win a copyright infringement suit against John Mellencamp.

In order for a bass line to constitute a "main melodic component" and qualify for copyright protection, it has to be so central to the song as to literally define it. Example: "Under Pressure."
Click to expand...
I don't understand. You say it's the melodic component that matters. Well, that's not what they were arguing in Blurred Lines. They were arguing over the similar rhythms and overall feel of the song. Melody never came into question. That's why it's so ridiculous. If this was the case for every song in question. The industry would be consumed in litigation.
 
#88
verycoolname said:
I haven't read the entire thread, so pardon me if this has been mentioned before. Vsauce (cool, weird science-y channel on YouTube) did a really fascinating video about the concept of whether or not we'll ever run out of "new" music. (Linked here or watch below):



One of the sites he references is Sounds Just Like, where you can listen to two separate tracks and here the stark similarities between them.

Doesn't mean every song is a purposeful rip-off of another song, but it's interesting to think about.
Click to expand...


Thumbs up for the Vsauce post!

I think almost every old school blues song is a blatant ripoff of some other old school blues song. The vocal melodies are often identical, except maybe when the number of syllables forces a variation. Ironically, Led Zeppelin's rip-offs of some of those tunes were actually the freshest, exciting, and most creative versions of them, which is why they made money, which is why they got sued. (Well, also because Zep blatantly stole some lyrics, too, which was a legit grievance).
 
  • Like
Reactions: verycoolname
#89
BassFishingInAmerica said:
I don't understand. You say it's the melodic component that matters. Well, that's not what they were arguing in Blurred Lines. They were arguing over the similar rhythms and overall feel of the song. Melody never came into question. That's why it's so ridiculous. If this was the case for every song in question. The industry would be consumed in litigation.
Click to expand...

That was electracoyote's point: in the 1980s this Blurred Lines thing would've been thrown out of court. A lot of people think it is a bad precedent.
 
#93
electracoyote said:
This is a great example and illustrates an important point about copyright law.

Yes, the groove and feel and bass line are similar between those two songs. But, just like "Blurred Lines," that's not the previously accepted test for infringement. R.O.C.K. and WILAY have vastly different main melodies, and that sets them apart in a fundamental way. I doubt The Romantics would win a copyright infringement suit against John Mellencamp.

In order for a bass line to constitute a "main melodic component" and qualify for copyright protection, it has to be so central to the song as to literally define it. Example: "Under Pressure."
Click to expand...

The melodies are slightly different and the rhythm is similar enough that I think a judge or a jury would find in favor of The Romantics. I find fewer similarities between the Chiffons "He's So Fine" and George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" yet Harrison lost in court.

My brother is an Intellectual Property Attorney and believes that the examples I mentioned could hold up in court. He said it really depends on the judge or the jury. It makes for interesting discussion though. Especially since so many of the songs from the 1950s and 60s had very similar rhythm and melodies. In fact, if you listen to very early rock and roll, it borrowed from swing and the big band era.
 
#94
BassFishingInAmerica said:
I don't understand. You say it's the melodic component that matters. Well, that's not what they were arguing in Blurred Lines. They were arguing over the similar rhythms and overall feel of the song. Melody never came into question. That's why it's so ridiculous. If this was the case for every song in question. The industry would be consumed in litigation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why so many musicians and recording professionals are so concerned over the "Blurred Lines" verdict. Aspects like main melodies and chord progressions were left completely out of the decision.

The jury was even instructed to compare the songs using the elements presented on the sheet music--which does NOT include the feel and groove. "Feel" and "groove" have never been used before as a test for infringement.
 
Last edited:
#95
Kmonk said:
The melodies are slightly different and the rhythm is similar enough that I think a judge or a jury would find in favor of The Romantics. I find fewer similarities between the Chiffons "He's So Fine" and George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" yet Harrison lost in court.

My brother is an Intellectual Property Attorney and believes that the examples I mentioned could hold up in court. He said it really depends on the judge or the jury. It makes for interesting discussion though. Especially since so many of the songs from the 1950s and 60s had very similar rhythm and melodies. In fact, if you listen to very early rock and roll, it borrowed from swing and the big band era.
Click to expand...

See, I find "My Sweet Lord" to be a clear-cut case of infringement. When I hear the identical chord progression between the two combined with the identical melody on the lines "He's so fine" and "My sweet Lord," that holds up as a valid test. And the similarities go beyond that, into the next musical phrase. I fully understand why Harrison lost.

I also think the main vocal melodies on "R.O.C.K." and "WILAY" are not nearly similar enough to prove copying. When I hear "They come from the cities and they come from the smaller towns," it sounds nothing like the melody in "What I like about you, you hold me tight." Not even close. I fully understand why this one never went to court.
 
#96
Jughead6 said:
Apologies. I am a bit of a car nut and couldn't resist :thumbsup:

I also understand the point you were making. Like cars and houses, there is very little innovation in popular music because we have settled on a formula that meets our expectations (and sells records). There are always exceptions to the rule, but they are considered odd (like the 3 wheel Reliant Robin car). Except for the lyrics, it is hard to imagine writing any pop/rock music that someone else hasn't already written in some form.
Click to expand...

No problem. It made me laugh. The day I start taking anything here seriously, I'm in deep #$&&$#.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jughead6
#98
So if I wanted to record a song that had falsetto voice, an electric piano playing offbeats, a bass doing octave jumps, and funk style drumming... I can be sued. That's basically the "feel" of a particular song.

If a did a song with rapping and sometimes screaming, a guitar doing wacky sound effects, then synchronizing a blues-scale with the bassist, and a simple rock beat... I can be sued by Rage Against the Machine.

That's the "feel" of a song.
 
#99
The Offspring's 'Why don't you get a job' ripping off The Beatles song obladi oblada springs to mind but as the old saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun! whether they have intentionally ripped off a song is important though
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back