As long as we are talking about infringement, aren't you infringing on the viva la vida album artwork with your merchandise?

technically he's not. its considered parody... at least in the US.

 

but we wont get into copyright/fair use. we'll be here all millenium.

awww that sucks. wow you know more about American laws then me and I'm American, haha.

Joe Satriani actually uses a slightly fancier chord with an added note, but I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible so I did not add the extra nuances above

 

Try as you might, Gmaj7 is not, and will never be, Bmin.

 

The combination of a virtually identical melodic line (save a couple dynamic flourishes) with the same chord progression gives Satriani the grounds to seek recourse here.

 

By "a couple of dynamic flourishes," did you mean "playing different notes"?

 

The similarity is strong during the first two beats of the measure, but there is substantial deviation in the melodies during the third and fourth beats. This is probably the part that you refer to as "a couple of dynamic flourishes." You imply that the differences are trivial, but there are differences.

 

 

As an added bonus, the songs have an almost identical rhythm and tempo, which is not a copyrightable element, but it adds another dimension of similarity to further bolster his claims.

 

They are both in 4/4, just like 80% of popular music.

 

You didn't say anything about the instrumental arrangements, which are completely different. The arrangement dramatically alters the sound and perception of a composition, which is significant because this is going to be decided by a jury, not by a college of learned musicologists.

 

You dismiss comparisons to prior art as irrelevant, but unique is better than generic when it comes to the strength of a plagiarism suit. "Unique" is not a word that I would use to describe either the melody or the chord progression.

 

I don't know if anyone has mentioned the Gin Blossoms "Hey Jelousy" yet, but that song sounds awfully similar to the Joe Satriani's "intellectual property," much more than any other comparison I've heard so far.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQhx4t1FmE]YouTube - Gin Blossoms - Hey Jealousy[/ame]

SatchPlay <- now that's funny, dont you think Mr. Satch?

 

Okay on a serious note (get it? note HAHHAHAH) thanks for your desires to show that the songs are alike by explaining in terms of music theory. BUT... it seems like you're saying that what's most important is that the melody is similar. Then why don't you explain that to us? You've only shown chord progression.

 

Furthermore, I think one should observe how Coldplay has behaved in the past with regard to mentioning inspiration from other songs. When asked about their songs, they've always mentioned if the song was inspired by another. In fact, they've always joked that they're plagiarists. Point is, Coldplay does get ideas from other songs, but they've never intentionally copied directly. Doing so would be totally out of character.

 

For example, on VH1 Storytellers Chris said Speed of Sound was inspired by a Kate Bush song (Running up that Hill I think?). The Scientist was inspired by George Harrison - Isn't it a pity.

 

Does anyone have any clips where Coldplay have spoken about Viva La Vida and what inspired them to write it? Because if it was inspird by Sachet's (HHAHAAHHA my sense of humour HAHAHAHA) song, they would have mentioned it.

 

Also, how do we know that Sachet met with Coldplay over this issue behind closed doors?

 

I agree with what you're saying, one should be objective and logical.

 

Saying Coldplay are totally innocent just because they're your favourite band is completely silly. I understand you're trying to influence people to be objective.

 

But your signature and art is not going to make anyone more objective, I promise you that.

Here's an interesting article:

 

 

Coldplay and Satriani: Similar features, but that's all

 

> Posted by Sean Piccoli on December 10, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Even if guitarist Joe Satriani has a dead-to-rights claim against Coldplay, he should drop it and get on with making music. His point is well-taken about the similarities between his 2004 song, If I Could Fly, and Coldplay's current, globe-trotting hit, Viva La Vida. Leave Coldplay to explain the likeness and let listeners decide whether it even matters.

 

The lawsuit that Satriani filed last week only fouls the air and makes musicians in general second-guess themselves. The current copyright regime already produces enough fear, intimidation and silencing of artistry.

 

That Satriani is the smaller, slighted party (David) and big bad, Grammy-nominated Coldplay (Goliath) has enough money to hire whole law firms isn't the point. The issue is why punish copying and its kin - borrowing, quotation, imitation, repetition, fair use and creative license - in music-making.

 

It might seem like a paradox, but copying is crucial to music's diversity. Somebody takes a fragment of an existing song, adapts it and extends it, and in the process creates something new, which in turn becomes a starting point for another innovation. African chants begat American slave songs which begat blues which begat jazz and rock. Gospel begat soul which begat funk which begat hip-hop.

 

Now, one could argue that Coldplay did nothing to advance music by duplicating (innocently or not) features of a four-year-old Satriani track. That's the shortsighted view. Picking two songs in isolation and litigating their resemblances only serves the interests of lawyers and copyright holders.

 

It also discourages creation based on copying and turns music appreciation into a game of gotcha. So what if Red Hot Chili Peppers' Dani California sounds like Tom Petty's Mary Jane's Last Dance? I can name at least a dozen rock, pop and reggae songs that use a particular root/major fifth/minor sixth/major fourth turnaround chord progression. Does that make me a witness to a crime?

 

It's one thing if somebody knowingly steals a composition, records it first and reaps the benefits before the real author has had the chance to do the same. That's outright theft and it ought to be stopped, and the court system is set up to prove or disprove that kind of claim.

 

All Coldplay did was repeat a melody and a chord progression that already had been composed, recorded and in circulation for four years. It's possible Coldplay did so without realizing it. It's also possible they knew the Satriani song -- though they say they didn't -- and decided they were improving on the basic elements enough to call it their own composition.

 

That should be allowed without the threat of litigation. It's not the job of a songwriter to police his own work for legally actionable similarities to someone else's -- indeed, the whole legal apparatus that exists to scare songwriters away from repetition is fundamentally flawed.

 

And this culture is far too consumed with the thought that somebody is stealing something from me - my song, my screenplay, my business plan, my spouse, whatever - and is making a fortune off of me and having the good life that should have been mine. Give it a rest.

 

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/arts/music/blog/2008/12/coldplay_v_satriani_similar_fe.html

 

I agree Aprophet, there are some interesting points being made here. If music was not commodity, none of this would really matter. There is no question that there are major examples of pre-existing music being used to create newer music. I could point all the way back to the whole development of Western Religious music from the Middle Ages which was all based on existing Gregorian Chants. Not only was that "allowed' it was the rule. Composers were expected to use the chants as a starting off point. Not to do so was sacrilege. Much later on composers used others work to create new pieces. Johannes Brahms' Variations On A Theme By Haydn comes to mind, though the theme may not have actually been Haydn's. Bela Bartok based much of his music on Hungarian folk songs. I could go on.

 

The major musical difference in those examples though is that such music is so much more complex and academically driven so the level of change and permutation is infinitely more diverse. Musicians back then were brought up in the field from a young age and were very well schooled both academically as well as performers. In the modern age, a lot of pop/rock bands are made of up kids who learn a few chords as teenagers and learn just enough to make something that sounds decent, but they don't have those years of study and experience. A few get lucky and make it big and some of these people may be very naturally gifted like having a great natural singing voice or have a keen sense of writing melodies, but they haven't harnesses all their musical potential. I don't claim to know the background of the Coldplay guys, but this is very true of most mainstream pop/rock musicians. Look at the Beatles even. It's the same thing. They weren't great musicians or have a lot of training, but they did have some natural talent and did cool things with what they had.

 

What we have here is almost a transplant of a musical idea where the voice is exchanged in place of the guitar. It's not quite the same thing as the examples I gave above in terms of sophistication and development, though the result sounds nice.

 

By the way, despite bringing up some interesting thoughts, the author of this article is not totally credible because he doesn't know what he is talking about musically. He fires off words like major fifth and major fourth to make it sound like he is an expert. Sadly, there is no such thing. Second, thirds, sixths and sevenths can be major or minor, but fourths and fifths can not. They are either perfect or imperfect. Usually they are perfect. I also discussed why The Petty/Chili Peppers thing is very different.

 

Anyway, I think many of you would feel very different if you created something which earned you money and then someone else was making a ton of money off of something you owned.

When the numerical and desirable combinations are few, it's understandable that, whether intentional or not, those chord progressions will recur throughout time. Ownership or rights over so limited range of the possible combinations that actually sound good together seems like trying to own the common sounds made using the human voice box- because one person thinks they're the first. Why not credit the lyre or harp players of ancient Egypt then? Legally or not, looking at it from a common-sense moral perspective, it seems to me to be absurd to try and claim ownership over something like this. Unlike, say, a great painting - which has an incredibly large set of possible arrangements of colors, shapes, textures, layers, etc.- to lay claim to something so basic is in my mind at least like trying to lay an intellectual property claim to the shape of a perfect sphere of any given size. And I say this as both a fan of Deep Purple and of Coldplay. Personally, I could have raised some lawsuit over the intellectual property rights to the original keyboard sounds & components of Clocks, but I did not, and I will not. Why? Because it's ridiculous; it's so very simple, and unless the piece is used in a manner very close to the original & as a whole, it's just not the same. (And because I gave it away as a gift to the world, I simply wanted more people to enjoy music, and not get bogged down in the mud of ownership fights). Taking some chord progressions, riffs, or other snips, and then saying that's significant enough to claim ownership over a fragment of music, which can easily be assembled just by one's own dabblings and is in fact a common recurrence by all musical writers throughout time, is not being realistic about our nature, or the nature of music in general.

I would have to say that were we to look closely at almost any musical act, past or present, there would almost undoubtedly be similarities or patterns used that were either close to or the same as the original. So, even if Coldplay modeled a part of one song after another, it's been the same thing throughout history. The folk singers complained that the rock & rollers took their stuff, but then their stuff was often taken from older traditional folk singers, and on back to Aunt Sally in the hills of Carolina, etc. Aunt Sally might have lived from 1820 - 1880, and the original might have the same patterns as the latest version, but trying to go back and credit her is a bygone thing, and that's for a whole song! Taking so small a piece that can occur of natural human volition and claiming rights to it is simply like trying to own the color medium blue.

 

It's all about context and degree. The reasons you bring up are exactly why chord progressions usually don't get copyright protection. In many ways, it's like trying to own a color as you suggest. It's the other elements that make up the painting, to use you analogy, which paint the bigger picture and given the context of all the elements, the degree of similarity can be more easily determined. There's a difference between suggesting the sound world or vibe of another work and using the exact same notes. Satriani sounds nothing like Coldplay. It's the musical note combinations that is in question.

That's what they said about section 13.1 of the Canadian Human rights act when they passed it. It basically deals with the illegality of hate speech overruling free speech. They said it's application was for very specific circumstances that would rarely if ever come up; that the laws murky nature would be made up for by the intelligence of judges. Now we have random extremist groups taking major magazines to court for calling them extreme. See? Or if you want the victim's very cutting and entertaining perspective: http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080326_105422_105422

 

 

It's never enough to say oh, it won't matter it probably won't happen. Legal precedents can be twisted around to mean things that were never intended, and lawyers can be creative with them in ways that were never expected.

I understand the intent of your message, but I don't think this is the same thing. I think everyone here is looking at this like it is some major precedent, whereas I just see it as just upholding copyright law. I think if we were comparing lyrics for example, that is something we could read and everyone here understands, this would not be so controversial because it would be obvious to those who speak the language.

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.

 

This makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to "roll your eyes" at me, at least make a point that makes sense. What's the logic here? We can only communicate or digest information with technology, not with paper? WTF? How I worked out the math here is completely irrelevant to how the information is presented in court anyway so why are you making a big deal about this? This is a red herring and a very stupid conversation. You don't have a clue what you talking about.

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."

 

This is quasi-gibberish as far as I'm concerned. What this looks like to me is that the guy who wrote this hung around musicians and heard them speak and then attempted to parrot what they said in a written form. ii V I (2m,5,1,6m?) is a common chord progression, just as IV V I (4,5,1,6m?) is. Then he throws in terms like relative in places that don't make sense. Where the vi (his 6 m) comes into play makes no sense either. Chord progressions usually end on the I/i chord (i in these examples). You don't end on a vi, unless you're trying to create a suspenseful moment that needs to get resolved with a few more chords. So between his strange notation and chord progressions that have nothing to do with either song, I can easily say this guy has no idea what he is talking about.

 

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".

 

Think of the key change thing like changing the font in a document. The words are really the same, they just appear to look a bit different. That's not the best example, but it is similar. The end result is the same sentence structure when it's all said and done.

Coldplagiarism,

 

I went to dinner, had three glasses of wine, a fine conversation with some from friends, and come back to see you still at the top of the boards. I thought I had persistence and passion about this issue, but now I consider myself an amateur.

 

Anyhow, I am very glad you came to this message board. I wish some things in your approach were different (i.e. user name, pictures), but I respect your opinion. In fact, I look at this issue completely different after your contributions. Thank you.

 

That is not to say that I don't feel horrible for Coldplay. In fact, if it were most other bands, I probably would not care. I like their music a lot, and I think they are going to be hurt by this case whether they win or not in court. I just pray that they have a legal team that will show them good guidance. The good things is that, regardless of what happens, I will still buy their records and support them. Their music makes me happy.

To coldplagiarism:

 

I read your first post closely and I check out a little the rest...

 

I'm not a musical expert and I know, as a Coldplay fan I can sound non objective...but, as you said yourself, you're not a fan and as a result, you may not be aware of the boys character...

 

-->On Coldplay sincerity: I trully think they're are honest when they say they don't ripped off Satriani. And for that I'll give you two example:

 

1) they have no shame saying they were inspired by others (for that, check out the many interviews where they explain how they get their inspiration for a particular track). So if they were inspired by Satriani, they would said so...

 

2)If they want to use a piece of music, they ASK and PAY for it!! Just like they did for the piece of Kraftwerk 'Computer love' that they used on the song 'Talk'.

Check this interview (from 2min30 on the video) where they relate this story and I hope that objectively, you'll see that they are honest people and it's not their style to copy (just look at how Guy mock Jay-Z for this...)

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7mDAgWq85s]YouTube - Coldplay - Max Master Documentary 2008 Part Three[/ame]

 

So if they want to ripp off Satriani, they would have humbly ask, just like they did before...

 

---> On the way they handle the situation: I guess, knowing the boys a little, that they don't take this seriously at first...v.v They recevie tones of claims like that and believing that they're innocent, they probably thought that this one was not really serious and that Joe would believe in their honesty...Clearly, they were wrong...

 

--->On the plagiat thing, you said you were a musician so explain to me the really strange ressemblance between 'If I could Fly' of Joe and Frances Limon by Los Enanitos Verdes (which was created BEFORE Joe's song). I repeat I'm not a musician expert but this one look more like a plagiat to me than the Coldplay case...

 

No hearted feelings here, I just hope you understand our point of view here a litle more better...^^

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.

 

Would you say that my Viva La Fraude parody artwork is almost like the Viva La Vida album cover? I would. What's the difference? The basic art in the background is the exact same, except I put a guitar and sunglasses on the guy normally holding the rifle (to suggest Satriani). My paint splatter patterns are different and the hand pained text is different, party because the letters are not the same. The basic skeleton is there with a few minor flourishes. This controversy is the same thing. If the painting was not in the public domain, there's no way I could use it for anything commercial because I'd be employing art that was copyrighted.

 

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.

 

The Ghostbusters example is interesting because intent was actually involved here. Huey Lewis had been approached to write the Ghostbusters theme because the producers wanted a song that sounded like "I Want A New Drug" in the film. Lewis declined. Ray Parker Jr. was then asked to put together his best "I Want A New Drug" sounding song, which he did. This case was settled out of court, where clearly some compensation was thrown Lewis' way. So really here they tried to copy as closely as they could and they got just a bit too close and Ray Parker Jr. knew it. Your premise that it needs to be 100% identical is just wrong. Throwing a couple paint splatters different on an otherwise identical canvases does not negate copyright law.

 

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.

 

You might be right about changing people's minds. However, I've given nothing but factual valid information here. Most probably just aren't ready to accept it. That's the truth. I've tried to keep opinion out of it as much as possible, except in many cases where I've complimented Coldplay.

 

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.

 

You keep bringing up great examples I have long since forgotten about. My mom used to love that Andrew Lloyd Webber stuff and I remember hearing that chromatic lick for the first time and saying that it totally sounds like Echoes. That's a really interesting example because as you have pointed out, it is largely based on the chromatic scale. What makes those two musical fragments a little bit similar is that the note relationship between the two points (i.e where the scale starts and where it stops) is the same intervallic distance in both cases. It seems to me there is a similar rhythmic component too. It's been way too long since I've heard the Phantom of the Opera, but my recollection is that the similarity is pretty damn close. This is a real gray area because it's just a short riff largely based on the chromatic scale (which you can't copyright). The logic here I'm sure is that it's just not enough music to make a fuss over, though I think Waters rightly feels that he knew where it came from. Andrew Lloyd Webber almost certainly knew the Pink Floyd tune because he flirted with progressive rock in the 70s and released an album called Variations featuring musicians from the scene at the time. In this case, it is my opinion that Waters was certainly copied, however because of the nature of the material or lack thereof, finding him guilty would not have been good for the reasons you mentioned.

 

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

Thanks man. I thought it was pretty funny and clever myself. Just one of those wordplay coincidences. ;)

^^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.

 

Again, this is an irrelevant point. I don't care if the tempo is half the speed and the keys are a perfect fifth apart. it doesn't change a damn thing. To argue that it does just indicates to the informed person that you don't know anything about music. If I took a word document you wrote, opened it up, changed the font, and used doubled spacing instead of single spacing, would the material still be the same? This is what you are arguing. It makes no sense.

Coldplagiarism,

 

I went to dinner, had three glasses of wine, a fine conversation with some from friends, and come back to see you still at the top of the boards. I thought I had persistence and passion about this issue, but now I consider myself an amateur.

 

Anyhow, I am very glad you came to this message board. I wish some things in your approach were different (i.e. user name, pictures), but I respect your opinion. In fact, I look at this issue completely different after your contributions. Thank you.

 

That is not to say that I don't feel horrible for Coldplay. In fact, if it were most other bands, I probably would not care. I like their music a lot, and I think they are going to be hurt by this case whether they win or not in court. I just pray that they have a legal team that will show them good guidance. The good things is that, regardless of what happens, I will still buy their records and support them. Their music makes me happy.

 

I actually took a long break too. There's so many responses. I'm just trying to get back to as many people as possible since many took the time to write. If i missed someone I apologize. I'll be going to bed soon so if I didn't respond, I'll will attempt to do so later. I started this mess so it would be lame to leave people hanging.

 

For the record, I love that people are passionate about music here. It may not be the kind that gets me all fired up, but music is supposed to inspire people. That's super cool. As a big music fan, I know how music I like makes me feel. I don't think that people here should view Coldplay any differently regardless of what happens. If you like it, in the end that all that matters.

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?

 

That's a fairly compelling reason for me giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did not intentionally do any copying. My point is that I don't think that matters in the end, legally speaking.

Man, you have too much free time!!

Find a hobby!

I think he's already found a hobby. It's a job he needs.

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.

 

Well you are most welcome here. But don't expect some people to be nice at you since this is a Coldplay fan forum and obviously, with your siggy, avi and username... that you are mocking our musical inspiration. :D

 

For the record, I love that people are passionate about music here. It may not be the kind that gets me all fired up, but music is supposed to inspire people. That's super cool. As a big music fan, I know how music I like makes me feel. I don't think that people here should view Coldplay any differently regardless of what happens. If you like it, in the end that all that matters.

 

This is, by far the best message you've said and should be the conclusion to all of this.

this thread should be :lock: :lock: :lock:

 

Anyway, welcome to Coldplaying! :dance:

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.

Sounds good.

 

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, I'm not sure I follow you here. There's more than that going on. Rhythm and melody are of course tied to one another here. I'm trying to understand your point. Are any of the matching melody or rhythmic notes in your assertion the same. In other words, does the pitch and rhythmic value match at the same time? I'll take a listen again later (got to get to bed here) and see if I can nail this down more specifically, but it seems to me that there's a lot more that matches here or else I don't think we'd be having this discussion. The melodic skeleton is the same. There might be some slight rhythmic variances and flourishes in play and it sounds like you might be using those to assert dissimilarity.

 

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.

I don't think any of this matters really. Your observations are 100% correct of course, but it does not lead to a definitive conclusion. I think it probably was accidental, but not for any of these reasons.

 

 

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.

I can't really speak to any of this because I don't know anything about the examples you gave. I can only react to what I see. As I said before, I don't know exactly what took place. From my perspective, with the limited information I've stumbled across it appears that Coldplay didn't take Satriani seriously when he contacted them initially. Whether people here realize it or not, Satriani is a legend and when someone of his clout makes an allegation, I would take it seriously. That Coldplay didn't appear to until there was a lawsuit makes me question their handling of this. If different facts emerge, I will be happy to reassess the situation. All I'm saying is that if the aforementioned scenario is true, that's my reaction.

As long as we are talking about infringement, aren't you infringing on the viva la vida album artwork with your merchandise?

 

What adamschoales said. That and the fact that the painting itself is in the public domain. If the painting was original art that Coldplay created, I could only try to recreate it myself, not lift it completely. Thanks Coldplay!! The other important thing here is that my image does not cause confusion in the marketplace. If reasonable people thought that it was an official Coldplay design and people were buying my stuff instead of real Coldplay merchandise, it would be illegal. So would anyone here accidentally buy a Coldplagiarism T-shirt instead of a real Coldplay one? :laugh3::laugh3:

 

technically he's not. its considered parody... at least in the US.

 

but we wont get into copyright/fair use. we'll be here all millenium.

 

Very true.

Try as you might, Gmaj7 is not, and will never be, Bmin.

 

What are you talking about? I have no idea what you think your point is. I mentioned b minor as the key of the Satriani piece. There is no Gmaj7 chord there.

 

By "a couple of dynamic flourishes," did you mean "playing different notes"?

 

The similarity is strong during the first two beats of the measure, but there is substantial deviation in the melodies during the third and fourth beats. This is probably the part that you refer to as "a couple of dynamic flourishes." You imply that the differences are trivial, but there are differences.

 

I'm talking about ornamentation. Things that get added in between the basic melodic skeleton. For example Satriani sometimes throws licks in there and in the Coldplay, a quick sucession of words results in to extra notes in the middle of the melodic phrase.

 

They are both in 4/4, just like 80% of popular music.

 

This is so silly it doesn't deserve an answer. I made no reference to the time signature. That of course sets up the rhythmic divisions, but says absolutely nothing about the grove itself.

 

You didn't say anything about the instrumental arrangements, which are completely different. The arrangement dramatically alters the sound and perception of a composition, which is significant because this is going to be decided by a jury, not by a college of learned musicologists.

Your point is well taken with regards to the jury, but the arrangement should have nothing to do with it. Potential jurors should be tested during Voir dire to see if they have any musical aptitude at all. There are many people out there completely unfit to judge this.

 

You dismiss comparisons to prior art as irrelevant, but unique is better than generic when it comes to the strength of a plagiarism suit. "Unique" is not a word that I would use to describe either the melody or the chord progression.

 

What dismissals are you referring to. I can't comment if I don't know. To some extent I agree with you about the "unique" factor since it's four chords and a short melody. However, it is the combination of the melody and harmony that makes it less generic.

 

I don't know if anyone has mentioned the Gin Blossoms "Hey Jelousy" yet, but that song sounds awfully similar to the Joe Satriani's "intellectual property," much more than any other comparison I've heard so far.

I know the Gin Blossoms song well. What sounds similar to you?

Picture of coldplagiarism.

 

HAHAHAHA ... i bet he's going to spend the next 5 days replying to this useless thread. Hey, loser! Get a job! Still bored? Get another job ... you douchebag!

Just ban this fuck and leave us in peace.

Hi!!

I think that Coldplagiarism is a person who likes the sensationalism. Why does he join in a forum of Coldplay's fans? Why does he put any links where he sell T-Shirts, posters...with his invented and pirated, at the same time, the Viva La Vida's cover in a forum of Coldplay's fans?

He is a sensationalist person who want to get some ''popularity'' revolutionizing people of the forum, and also with his fabolous analysis of the two songs...

 

Bye!^^