Well then the Joe Satriani fans are doing this as well.

He is Satriani himself, I think :laugh3:

:laugh4:

Should it be considered a derivative though, if they arrived at the same melody through their own means?

 

"Derivative" in this case is just a technical term that they often use with regards to copyright. Usually, the derivative work is consciously taken from an existing piece. This is an unusual circumstance so perhaps there isn't a completely appropriate term for it. Derivative is just the one that makes the most sense and is an educated guess of what would likely be used in a "legal" sense, though I am not a lawyer.

Do Satriani has his own fan-made messageboard? :wacky:

We can put our leaked links there someday :D

That's really up to you guys. I completely understand that I am a guest here and you have the right to ban me. That would not be my choice, but I will respect it if that is the wish of the community.

 

You just went about it all wrong. Most people did not listen to your arguments because of your screen name and imagery. I don't know anything about formal music theory, but I understand plenty about politics. And you need to understand that you are talking to "The Base". You lost most of these people right away. It's a shame. You made some good points tonight, and there are a lot of people who missed out on that.

Guys, I've had a premonition... In the year 3000, no one will be able to write new music anymore because every single chord sequence is an owned piece of intellectual property :stunned:

Of the countless millions or so songs written the world, two bands can't have three similar (and popular) chord changes? Should Green day pay Oasis for 'boulevard of broken dreams'? and in turn, Johann Pachelbel sue Oasis for 'don't look back in anger'? melody, is one thing, but if people were so strict as to 'patent' simple chord sequences, there'd be no more songs to write. Surely,these aren't the only two songs with that sequence, and we've proven that Satriani's short guitar melody wasn't original either, so Im still trying to understand why he deserves compensation.

 

What makes this situation unique is the simultaneous combination of both melodic and harmonic content. I'm sorry, I don't listed to that much pop music so I don't know all your references specifically. However, Pachelbel has been dead for over 300 years and his Canon (the only piece anyone cares about) is in the public domain. No one could sue over use of it in a song.

"Derivative" in this case is just a technical term that they often use with regards to copyright. Usually, the derivative work is consciously taken from an existing piece. This is an unusual circumstance so perhaps there isn't a completely appropriate term for it. Derivative is just the one that makes the most sense and is an educated guess of what would likely be used in a "legal" sense, though I am not a lawyer.

 

 

I suppose this is one of those areas that could potentially be redefined by this case.

Sir, ma'am, it, whatever...you still don't get it. You don't think a lot of Coldplay fans haven't discussed the things you are bringing up? Believe it or not but a lot of us have. There are irrelevant comments made by fans by both parties but the majority of fans have discussed those issues and it's a shame that those discussions are overlooked.

 

You come to this form because you want Coldplay fans to accept "the facts". That is pretty rude if you ask me. I think any intelligent person will listen and accept the facts that are presented by the experts from both parties and who actually work in the music business for the record companies, and not from someone who "I have a degree in music composition therefore I know what I am talking about and you don't" so-called expert. Unless you actually work for a record company and you are one of their hired professionals and/or expert than you sir or ma'am are not an expert.

Coldplay is not F$%KEN pop music...just cause they experimented with one album does not mean that their are a pop band........

If you agree the melodies are similar (not exact) which...I also agree and you also said that the rest of the pieces sound nothing a like except for that specific progression ...then do you really think Joe should win and set the precident...because its gonna open doors...big doors...and not very many of them are good for music....

I concur :)

me too :thumbsup:

If you agree the melodies are similar (not exact) which...I also agree and you also said that the rest of the pieces sound nothing a like except for that specific progression ...then do you really think Joe should win and set the precident...because its gonna open doors...big doors...and not very many of them are good for music....

 

I think (I shouldn't speak for him, but I will) he is saying that it doesn't matter whether it is a coincidence or not. Joe Satriani owns THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF MUSIC. Maybe it is a coincidence that Coldplay bumped into it (which is what I like to believe), but it just doesn't matter. It is too similar on too many levels Therefore, Satriani should be compensated.

 

I think it is bad for music, too. But I understand this person's argument.

So Coldplay, Tappin Gofton (design and art direction), Eugene Delacroix and Dan Green (photography) can sue you for obviously copying their work without their permission? I think they can because that is registered to them and that is their work.

Actually you are very wrong here. What I've done is a parody which is protected under copyright law. If Coldplay had not used the Delacroix which is in the public domain, I could not have used that image. Everything else is just fonts and a suggestion of the original hand lettering. No one would confuse my image with an actual legit Coldplay one. I've done this kind of thing before.

 

Anyway, I think folks need to remember that they are hearing songs that have been edited and mixed so you're not really hearing the true version. When, and if, they go to court, the jurors will have access to technology that will break the songs down better than one's own freaking ear. They will be able to determine if there's any plagiarism and, if so, whether it's by coincidence or by accident. Remember, you can hear and see things that are not totally accurate even if you are an "expert."

Actually, I mostly made my conclusion based on working it out on paper if you will (well actually on the computer). I wrote down the chord progressions in each song, transposed them into the same key and compared the harmonic content. The melody is what it is. I didn't need to write that down to analyze it. Again the coincidence factor is irrelevant. Satch's music appears in the Coldplay. Case closed.

If you agree the melodies are similar (not exact) which...I also agree and you also said that the rest of the pieces sound nothing a like except for that specific progression ...then do you really think Joe should win and set the precident...because its gonna open doors...big doors...and not very many of them are good for music....

Word.

 

 

You know, the history of copywrite is actually pretty fascinating, as I understand it. It was originally set up with the intent of creating a large body of work in the public domain for people to draw from. But then Walt Disney started making lots of money and his company kept getting the laws changed so that they could keep control of Mickey Mouse.

 

But on the downside, this is the sort of mess that happens because of those changes.

Again the coincidence factor is irrelevant. Satch's music appears in the Coldplay. Case closed.

 

Then modern music as we know it is scewed. Case closed.

well legally the melody has to match note for note 8-9 notes in a row to be considered plagerism. Can you transpose both melodies and tell me that both melodies match note for note through the entire progression? Cause I hear it breaking off quite a few times....

Well then the Joe Satriani fans are doing this as well.

 

Well, I've seen some bonehead Satch fan comments too like those who definitively say it was copied intentionally. They have no way of knowing that. However, my main issue is the lack of musical understanding and the Satriani fan base is almost exclusively musicians so they tend to already understand the musical points better. I'm sure some people will take offense to that and I'm sorry about that, but it's just a simple fact. I tried to say it as non-dick-like as possible. Satriani has just always been a niche artist that musicians follow. There was a brief period where he had mainstream popularity, but it was a fluke and I'm sure it surprised him as much as it did the rest of us. He just doesn't appeal to the mass public, only nerdy musicians.

I know you'd like a nice big slugfest over the real issues in this case, and it looks like you're getting it to a certain extent. But being a Coldplay fan means getting hit by the haters of the world repeatedly right where it hurts, and a lot of the younger or newer ones especially aren't going to have developed as thick a skin as some of us who've lived through a few atease trolling sessions. They're kids on a messageboard- it's supposed to be something fun devoted to something they love, and instead we're all pretty bruised right now. You're not going to get top notch rationality right now.

 

I do feel bad about that. I have intense interest in the legality and theory behind this and it isn't exactly FUN. And a lot of people are going to be upset simply because their favorite band, a band they have invested a lot of time and energy in, is getting dumped on. I get that.

Hey look the thread's been recreated...

 

Be nice eh? It's been a bad week around here.

 

I know you'd like a nice big slugfest over the real issues in this case, and it looks like you're getting it to a certain extent. But being a Coldplay fan means getting hit by the haters of the world repeatedly right where it hurts, and a lot of the younger or newer ones especially aren't going to have developed as thick a skin as some of us who've lived through a few atease trolling sessions. They're kids on a messageboard- it's supposed to be something fun devoted to something they love, and instead we're all pretty bruised right now. You're not going to get top notch rationality right now. If you'd been here a couple of days ago I might have argued, (and yes I have studied music structure in college and write a bit myself) but now I'm just tired.

 

I'm saying this as an artist. Images speak louder than words. Human nature, dude. What do you expect. Every glimpse of you screams "rude". You don't seem to be from atease (pity, really), so I'm not going to toy with you; I'm just saying this plainly. But people are going to be upset.

 

 

And since my first post is lost in the proper thread for all this I ask again: What's up with the 7 page essay? The papers I wrote for university weren't that long! :stunned:

Fair enough. Good points. I have no emotional investment in the band and I find the graphic hilarious considering the circumstances. That's all.

Ugh..... do we really need ANOTHER one of these??? :dozey:

 

Shouldn't all the Satriani crap be in the same thread????

 

Sorry but i'm so sick of this going on an on and on......... not one of us can do shit!!!!

 

Not the Satriani fans nor a single coldplayer......... get over it already!!!!

 

Who else is sick of all this??? :inquisitive:

He is Satriani himself, I think :laugh3:

 

:laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3:

 

Classic. That would be funny. Sorry to disappoint you.

Actually you are very wrong here. What I've done is a parody which is protected under copyright law. If Coldplay had not used the Delacroix which is in the public domain, I could not have used that image. Everything else is just fonts and a suggestion of the original hand lettering. No one would confuse my image with an actual legit Coldplay one. I've done this kind of thing before.

 

 

Actually, I mostly made my conclusion based on working it out on paper if you will (well actually on the computer). I wrote down the chord progressions in each song, transposed them into the same key and compared the harmonic content. The melody is what it is. I didn't need to write that down to analyze it. Again the coincidence factor is irrelevant. Satch's music appears in the Coldplay. Case closed.

 

So you copied before? How interesting!

 

Case is not closed. You say that you made your conclusion based on working it out on paper but yet you did not need write it down to analyze. So why bother writing it down if you didn't need to? To prove you can type? Just because you based your determination off of your writing that will not be the case in court. The music business and the court will not rely on what one writes down on paper to determine the result. They are going to use and provide technology for the jurors to help settle this case because the jurors are not going to be the "expert" that you are. So, the case is open.

You just went about it all wrong. Most people did not listen to your arguments because of your screen name and imagery. I don't know anything about formal music theory, but I understand plenty about politics. And you need to understand that you are talking to "The Base". You lost most of these people right away. It's a shame. You made some good points tonight, and there are a lot of people who missed out on that.

Again, fair enough. As I said before, I initially made the graphic to amuse myself and some friends. When I decided to come here, I jut decided to use it for a laugh. Is it wrong that it amuses me? :D