It will. I guarantee it.

 

The thing is, it happens all the time in music, but people just go "huh" and get on with their lives, the musicians included. They assume it was coincidence. Coldplay just happened to come across a particularly catchy melody and a creator who is particularly attached to that tune/riff/solo/whatever you want to call it.

 

IF this goes to court and Coldplay loses, the precedent set will be huge. Those other cases that were ignored before will start coming out of the woodwork. Big labels may become legally paranoid, making songwriting difficult and creatively stifling, and tiny labels could be crushed by one of these cases. It could turn into a form of legal bullying- washed up musicians without cases could go after bands on tiny labels that could never afford to fight for a bit of quick cash, and big labels who want to buy a little label or sign someone specific could use the threat of that sort of legal action as leverage.

 

I wasn't even allowed to listen to pop music as a kid, and I've still heard dozens of songs with brief near-identical passages over the years. I'm still trying to figure out which old hymn the first part of Feist's "The Park" is from, because I know it, it's driving me crazy, and everyone else who would know the hymn instantly recognizes that passage in "The Park" the moment I play it for them, even if they can't remember the name either. Think of that times ten. We're dealing with the brink of a legal apocalypse here.

 

I think many of you think this is going to be some big radical change if the suit is successful, but it really isn't.

 

No, it's totally your prerogative, as long as Ian doesn't object (it is his board, after all.) It's equally our right to be thoroughly annoyed by it, and to say so repeatedly. :P:laugh3:

 

I totally agree with everything you said here.

:thinking:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:thinking:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:thinking:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:thinking:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm bored :bigcry:

Why is this still going on?

^I know, I already cleared it all up with two words: preemptive plagiarism :P

 

*runs back to Latin exam and stops hindering the legal discussions*

I think many of you think this is going to be some big radical change if the suit is successful, but it really isn't.

 

Human nature 101:

 

A rule is on the books. People at large don't entirely understand the existence or nature of the rule, so when something comes along, they ignore it.

 

One person doesn't ignore it. The rule is publicized and publicly explained. Dozens of people suddenly realize "hey, that other guy is breaking the rule too! Get him!"

 

Pitchfork wielding mob ensues, going after multiple random targets.

 

Don't believe me? Just look at the last season of Formula One- an obscure interpretation of a passing rule nearly decided the whole championchip, and because of the new application of that rule, many drivers were given light to severe penalties for something that wouldn't have mattered in the past.

Why is this still going on?

:laugh3: Because it's a pride thing. OH, and by the way, my ancient relations invented the letter G, so I get royalties!!! Whee!!:P

^ Are you serious, Chuck?? :stunned:

Sorry to rant, however:

Don't be sorry. I admire your passion

 

 

True, if in fact this was purely a matter of the recognition of intellectual property. I’m a music fan. Granted, I have no technical training or a graduate degree, but I can play it, read it and mess around writing it. That said, I still don’t see how this is a black and white case of “this sequence of music was written by me - it is my intellectual property - therefore I deserve credit and recognition for it”.

 

This is surely profit driven, and therefore that clouds the whole argument. If it were truly a case of acknowledgment and credit where credit due, why did Satriani not sue the band back in May when this little known four-minute-one-second piece made its way onto iTunes? Why is it only now after the song has received international acclaim and earned the band a string of Grammy nominations that he decides to take this to the courts?

 

Sure, if there even was a grain of truth to the “he-tried-to-but-Chris-and-Co-told-him-to-take-a-hike” rebuttal, then what stopped him trying again (perhaps just a wee bit harder) in the proceeding seven months? Answer: The time was not right to milk the song for the greatest possible money.

 

Admittedly, I won’t pretend to understand exactly what “iv - VII - III – i” VS. “VI - VII - III – i” means. I just don’t see how one line of musical jargon justifies me suddenly changing my tune and believing this is a direct copy, therefore giving Satriani the right to sue the pants off the band. I too have taken a keen interest in the case (mainly because – as I’m sure my cynicism shows - I feel a strong desire to defend Coldplay). Please understand too that this isn’t just a dig at your particular argument, Coldplagiarism, you’ve made your point (albeit with the intent, not unlike someone else, of pocketing some riches in the process).

 

To me, it looks like the general Anti-Coldplay bandwagon appears to share the view that “Coldplay scum” took one listen to Satriani’s tune, took another look at each other, and said “that should fit nicely in that Kahlo number we’ve got”. Then these same people take one listen to a pitch-shifted, tempo-modified video and then think it’s their God-given duty to drive Coldplay back into the fiery depths of hell.

 

At the same time, I’ve seen other musically-qualified folk posting jargon and then giving their reasons as to how this indicates this music is, in fact, not copied (to a legal-worthy degree, anyway). So who do I believe? I completely understand the point that it doesn’t matter if it was coincidental or intentional. What I’m trying to get across is the fact that this is a very hazy situation, driven by the need for money, and therefore it’s very hard to find credibility in Satriani’s argument.

 

If Satriani really felt a “dagger” through his heart after listening to Viva La Vida, then why wait this long? It’s the same deal with Creaky Boards. You can’t tell me that this isn’t a case of the green-eyed-monster. Again, I’m not saying the songs don’t have similar elements. I have ears. Any old Joe could hear that (and, evidently, did). It’s just that I don’t think you can persuade someone that this is a black and white case of robbing someone of their intellectual property when it’s clearly fuelled by the need for profit. If the answer is money, take the "dagger through my heart" emotion out of it.

 

... All of which brings me back to my first point. Your argument, Coldplagiarism, stems from the fact that you’ve seen an opportunity to make a bit of money from this whole situation. Musically trained or not, I won’t be persuaded by Joe Satriani or any bystander to believe that Coldplay, without a shred of doubt, have used a piece of music that is Satriani’s rightful property when the fact of the matter is that this entire palaver is fuelled by the opportunity to pocket some cash.

 

Case surely not closed.

 

I can't speak to most of this because it's a lot of speculation and I don't have the facts. I think it is reasonable to think that there was some calculation here. I'd love to see the "music jargon" used as an opposing argument to understand the context of it. It's a tough sell as far as I'm concerned. No amount of theorizing can definitively determine plagiarism (only likeliness), but it can be used to explain how similar the music is. That's hard to debate.

 

One thing about the pitch-shifting in the video comparison. There is a misconception among many Coldplay fans that this is somehow dishonest. It is not. It is a way of demonstrating the transposition of keys to get both pieces of music into the same key so they can be compared. If the key were irrelevant in this case, there would be no case at all. In the same way I had to work out the comparison "on paper" they did it with the actual recording to make it more accessible to the layperson who does not understand key transposition and roman numeral chord analysis.

:uhoh: Why are you laughing? :confused:

 

Well because I'm not Satriani and it was funny that it was suggested that I could be him.

I'm sure you'll get an A for your english essay, Mr. Coldplagiarism.. Are you an english teacher? :P

I'm sure you'll get an A for your english essay, Mr. Coldplagiarism.. Are you an english teacher? :P

No, he studied music he said, and English teachers usually get to the point much faster and more briefly. :p

^ :laugh3:

I know you all spend most of your life glued to this forum

and I used to aswell, but try to look at it from a rational point of view

 

maybe this guy is trying to start trouble, maybe he's not. he makes some good points.

it doesn't really matter

 

satriani's song was out first, and VLV does sounds IDENTICAL to the main riff.

however, they're two completely different songs

I coulnd't care less if they copied him or didn't copy him.

 

what really matters is.... jo satriani is SHIT.

^ Are you serious, Chuck?? :stunned:

Well of course!:laugh3: I want 1/10th of one cent for every G anyone on the planet uses, although I'm willing to offer a volume discount - 1000 G's for only $4.95, plus tax. Act now - supplies are limited. And remember, always credit the original source!!

Of course Rudy, this means that you can claim a letter and charge what you like! Remember, be generous if it's a vowel..:P (and you can't take Z, because we all need it to rest..):sleeping2:

I think you misunderstand. When I say "work it out on paper," that's like giving someone a math problem and having them do complex operation without a calculator so you "work it out on paper." I worked out the math if you will so I could analyze it. Math is not subjective, it is absolute. Music is built around mathematical principles. I was just trying to determine the answer with regards to the chord progressions. It's not like I wrote an essay of my opinions. It's just musical math.

 

No s**t. Really? I would not have known that even though I am a teacher. Thanks for pointing that out to me. :rolleyes: The point is....the courts are not going to go by what is written down on a piece of paper. In order for jurors to truly analyze the pieces they are going to use the technology to actually break it down for them with the assistance by the real musical experts.

 

For me, though I am good at music, I don't think it's worth paying attention to so-called experts who will not play a part in the case and who have nothing bother to do with their time. Just like I need to find something better to do with my time than replying to this idiotic thread. So I'll stop and let the real experts do the talking.

Don't be sorry. I admire your passion

 

 

 

 

I can't speak to most of this because it's a lot of speculation and I don't have the facts. I think it is reasonable to think that there was some calculation here. I'd love to see the "music jargon" used as an opposing argument to understand the context of it. It's a tough sell as far as I'm concerned. No amount of theorizing can definitively determine plagiarism (only likeliness), but it can be used to explain how similar the music is. That's hard to debate.

 

One thing about the pitch-shifting in the video comparison. There is a misconception among many Coldplay fans that this is somehow dishonest. It is not. It is a way of demonstrating the transposition of keys to get both pieces of music into the same key so they can be compared. If the key were irrelevant in this case, there would be no case at all. In the same way I had to work out the comparison "on paper" they did it with the actual recording to make it more accessible to the layperson who does not understand key transposition and roman numeral chord analysis.

 

Here's one such example from Digg:

 

"This just doesn't fly. For the refrain, Satriani uses a 2m,5,1,6m relative chord progression. Cold Play uses a 4,5,1,6m relative chord progression. 2m and 4 are harmonicaly related, however, the chord progressions are distinct, not copies. Dismiss. Cold Play never goes into the 4,3m vamp that Satriani uses to highlight his melodic developments. Dismiss. The "feel" is very similar, although Cold Play is a little "choppier" or more stilted on the offbeats, however, there are numerous songs that use these feels and "feel" is not copyrightable or "actionable". Words are, however, Satriani's tune is wordless. Dismiss. If I were judge this would be-- dismissed."

 

And to your second point: I understand about the key-change being necessary to illustrate similarities and the fact that it doesn't necessarily change the case here. What irks me is the fact that people see the video without even understanding there has been modification and then just assume: "Oh, total copy. Note for note copy. Sue them. Just like the stole from Kraftwerk and Creaky Boards".

 

For me ignorance = my intolerance.

I think you put it best when you said "almost identical".

 

ALMOST is the difference. Have you ever listened to a TV show where the song is ALMOST identical to that pop song you love, or that theme tune you know, or that little happy birthday diddy. Guess what, they can't be sued because its not identical, but ALMOST identical.

 

You're right. They're similar. So was Ghostbusters and I want a new drug. So was Billie Jean and I Can't Go For That. But they're completely different songs. Whether or not Coldplay was directly or indirectly influence by Satriani remains to be seen (if they were they'd probably ask - the did it before with Kraftwerk why wouldn't they this time for Satriani - an incredibly talented and well known musician in his own right), however the fact is they aren't identical so its a moot point.

 

And honestly, dont waste your time here. This is a place for die-hard coldplay fans, we're not going to change our minds on this... well maybe we would if someone presented a valid argument but that remains to be read.

 

Oh and PS: Remember when Roger Waters tried to claim Andrew Lloyd Webber ripped off Echoes for Phantom of the Opera -- that got tossed out because it was a bloody chromatic scale. Something Waters didn't invent/own/copyright/trademark/conceive. It's music people. Unless you're ripping off huge sections (which could even be justified as sampling) than shut up.

 

Though I will give you some credit: Coldplagerism is VERY clever.

^^Yeah, a lot of the time we end up pointing out that the video has been pitch-shifted, people are saying "they totally copied it because even the key and tempo are identical." Which isn't true.

hahahaha

 

don't want to use any G anymore :D

Well, I invented music, but the patent laws only gave me 90 years of royalties..:( And nobody rights music like that anymore!:laugh3: And I knew this gal named Rachel, and she invented tea! Of course, it wasn't until Mr. Cup came along and drew a cup that her invention could be applied, other than in the abstract. Hence, ever since, if you "draw up a cup of tea" it has real historical significance.:P Now go claim your millions from the masses, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.:)

I need to go konk out - past my beddie-bye time.:sleeping:

You know, I don't really know where to put this so I'll just stick it here, but I think the really unfortunate thing overshadowing this whole case is that win or lose, Viva la Vida is always going to be in the public's eyes "that song that was copied", when one of the greatest things about the song is that it has some of the best lyrics Chris has ever written.

 

For the first time he came up with a story, a character, and a different point of view. He used subtler lyrical tools like alliteration rather than just endlessly rhyming everything. He managed to avoid his usual cliches like fishes in ponds or barrels. And most importantly, the song works on two completely different levels talking about two different things, and using them as metaphors for each other. It's kind of brilliant, and it has nothing to do with melody.

 

But no one is going to remember that now.

 

 

Goodness, maybe I should just take my avatar's advice, have a cup of tea, head for bed, and wait for this all to blow over... :snore:

hahahaha

 

don't want to use any G anymore :D

Quick Rudy - claim the letter A, and you can get the royalties from all the teachers who give A's!:laugh3:

You know, I don't really know where to put this so I'll just stick it here, but I think the really unfortunate thing overshadowing this whole case is that win or lose, Viva la Vida is always going to be in the public's eyes "that song that was copied", when one of the greatest things about the song is that it has some of the best lyrics Chris has ever written.

 

For the first time he came up with a story, a character, and a different point of view. He used subtler lyrical tools like alliteration rather than just endlessly rhyming everything. He managed to avoid his usual cliches like fishes in ponds or barrels. And most importantly, the song works on two completely different levels talking about two different things, and using them as metaphors for each other. It's kind of brilliant, and it has nothing to do with melody.

 

But no one is going to remember that now.

 

 

Goodness, maybe I should just take my avatar's advice, have a cup of tea, head for bed, and wait for this all to blow over... :snore:

 

I think your giving the case too much credit. Appart from here (and digg) i had heard nothing about it. no one i spoke to has mentioned it/known about it (and they all know im a big coldplay fan so they would have rubbed it in my face). Hell, most people I know wouldn't even know who Joe Sat. is (only me and my other music nerd bud do). Viva la Vida is a great song. It always will be. Copied or not, its great.

 

People forget this stuff anyways. I hate to keep brining it up, but does anyone remember that Ghostbusters might have ripped off Huey Lewis? Does anyone mention MJ might have lifted the groove of a Hall and Oates song? Hell no! Billie Jean is considered one of the greatest pop songs of all time and is still being played 26 years later on radio stations and clubs around the world. If its good it'll stick.

 

One might argue Sat. was hoping his tune would stick... jealousy is a real bitch.

What gets to me is that if Coldplay did take the song from Satriani they would probably say yah they took it. They openly admit to borrowing from artists they admire. Joe Satriani isnt an artist they look up too or listen too...so they probably never even heard his song. Point being why would they admit to taking ideas from other artists and negate Satriani?

 

p.s. COLDPLAY FUCKIN ROCK PPL WHO BELIEVE OTHERWISE CAN *&%(*&$!

hmm

 

To the original poster:

 

I read through a few pages of this thread, then I just skipped to the end. So if I make some points that have already been made - I apologize.

 

I read your quote about Satriani fans being musicians and musicians knowing music. I absolutely agree. I would say a majority of Satriani fans are musicians/guitar players who know a lot about theory whereas a majority of Coldplay fans are not musicians (and if they are - most of them don't know much about theory).

 

So after saying that - I am actually a Coldplay fan who studied music theory!

 

Here's the deal:

Yeah they totally sound alike.

 

Here's the problem:

Only 4 melodic notes directly match between the two songs.

Only 3 rhythmic notes directly match between the two songs.

 

Yeah, you could argue that Chris might have heard the Satriani tune and decided to change it up a tad to make it his own - but the melodies are used in such different ways for each song that I can't see it. Satriani's tune uses the melody for an explosion into the chorus... Coldplay uses the melody to gradually start the verse.

 

If Chris had really wanted to rip off the melody, I'd assume he'd rip it for the feeling and mood that it gave him when he originally heard the Satriani tune. But in Viva la Vida, the melody is used in a completely different way, which suggests to me that the "plagiarism" is absolutely accidental.

 

 

And here's the problem with attacking Coldplay on how they handled the situation:

 

Do you know how many people plagiarize Coldplay daily? Right now I bet there is some asshole in his dorm room claiming the chorus of Yellow as his own. And the plagiarism doesn't just end at the amateur level - check out Sum 41's "Pieces" with Coldplay's "The Scientist" OR listen to Ashlee Simpson's "Eyes Wide Open" with Coldplay's "Square One." These two songs are extremely identical to Coldplay's songs - there's no question about it. Those two popular bands have completely ripped off Coldplay and you know what...

 

Coldplay hasn't done anything about it. They understand that music sounds alike. Either that, or they just don't care if someone completely steals from them.

 

So, yeah the melodies sound the same. There are even some of the same notes and rhythms, but the mood of each is completely different, which suggests that it's completely accidental. I don't know how the law suit is going to go in court - but I won't agree with your assessment of how Coldplay has handled the situation. They could have been absolute dicks to many other people about plagiarism so I'm sure when they heard about the lawsuit they were offended.

 

It should be an interesting case.

 

 

 

 

http://www.myspace.com/themodernantiques