bjaiken

You're probably right. I recognize that now. I am absolutely obsessed with this case. These message boards are unhealthy. arf...thank you for the definition. But even with that definition, how do you get to the heart of intent? In other words, Satriani will argue that the similarities are intentional, Coldplay will argue that they are not (coincidence). But it will be a jury of 12 that will help establish a "legal" definition if this thing goes all the way. If anybody has some legal insight, I am truly interested in understanding the case law. I am now realizing what some of you have been saying: it is not a PRO-COLDPLAY world out there. Like I said, I am looking everywhere to get opinions and, by and large, Coldplay are just getting blasted. I just shake my head in disbelief.

QUOTE]Merged That's fine...no hard feelings. It's just in this thread, everything is subject to Joe Satriani is STUPID...and Joe Satrian is a WHINER....and Joe Satriani SUCKS. I was just hoping we could start a new thread where we talk about the legal arguments and legal consequences...No big deal.

Because I was trying to get some legal discourse started. If no one wants to reply, it will just sink to the bottom. No one is hurt, right?

Joseph Satriani v. Coldplay Essentially, you will have a jury of 12 more clearly define, from the decision date forward, the distinction between influence and plagiarism. I have ZERO doubt that Coldplay has been influenced by Joe Satriani. Remember, if YOUR DIRECT INFLUENCES have been DIRECTLY INFLUENCED by someone else’s work, you, by definition, have been influenced. I would contend that The Creaky Boards have limited ability to influence, however, Satriani is influential enough that he has had an impact on a generation of artists and, consequently, some of those artists have gone on to influence Coldplay. I truly believe that creating music is an organic, progressive process. Now, we are faced with a case where influence is on trial. If artists are afraid, because of legal repercussions, to advance the sound of their previous influences, I think that music loses in the end. Whichever way the jury rules in this case, I am certain that Joe Satriani will go to his grave believing that Coldplay stole his music, and Coldplay will always believe that they didn't. But the magnitude of this decision moving forward is HUGE. I only hope that, for the sake of music, the jury does not convict Coldplay because I think that the unintended consequences are significant. These are just my opinions…

I LOVE the Coldplay statement but: 1. Joe Satriani spoke from the cuff, and it was probably ill advised; the Coldplay statement was prepared. It's night and day. 2. This is a moral victory only. This thing is not even close to over. 3. I am interested in the legality of all this. All we have so far is a "yes you did, not we didn't" situation.

Agreed.

As much as I LOVE the statement, it also tells me that there is no middle ground to work toward. Clearly, Satriani is confident that Coldplay stole his music. Clearly, Coldplay is confident that they were in no way influenced by his song. This is now a zero-sum game. I do not see how you can avoid a court case on this one unless Satriani backs down.

VERY strong statement. I am glad this finally came out :)

I posted a comment on this earlier in another thread. I found the section, and it is actually applicable to this case. This is a 2006 interview with Thom Yorke of Radiohead. Of course, this may not be well received here because I would bet money that one of the bands he is talking about is Coldplay. Nevertheless, it seems like he understands why and, in the end, roles with the punches pretty well. I thought the last paragraph was especially telling: Pitchfork: And of course most of the bands that've taken cues from you have done so from things like "High and Dry". Was it ever disappointing that when your peers looked to you guys they ignored Kid A and Amnesiac and took the simpler, more well-traveled road? TY: But that's the majors all over. "Oh, uh, shit, we need to find something else that looks like it." They spent loads of money and crap and they were right, so I can't argue with them I guess. It's business. But it upset me a lot, yes. I was really, really upset about it, and I tried my absolute best not to be, but yeah, it was kind of like-- that sort of thing of missing the point completely. When we put Kid A out, I specifically remember saying, "Copy that, you fucking..." Whatever. We've ripped off R.E.M. blind for years, you know-- amongst other people. Everybody does. It's how you rip them off, as John Lennon said.

If I had to guess, I would say that this part is spot on. But what I don't understand is that, if they knew this was coming, why didn't Coldplay, via their legal team, have a prepared statement ready. I get it, it is probably not good to push Chris in front of a live microphone for a series of questions (although, personally, I would love to hear what he has to say). But I think the longer this thing plays out without some type of formal response, the worse it gets for Coldplay. This is already starting to play itself out in the court of public opinion. Sometimes it is not good to stay quiet.

Yeah, I agree with this. In fact, I heard an interview where Thom Yorke said that Kid A was an attempt to create something that other bands could NOT copy. I can only guess that he was lumping Coldplay into that list. But a song like "High and Dry" certainly sounds a lot like Coldplay music. Especially the low to high vocal progression on the chorus.

Absolutely, this is the real deal. I have seen this clip before. And there is enough similarity that Satriani at least has a case. Now whether he will win, or it was good form to bring to it forward, are completely different debates. I think it is scary stuff.

Dude, I like all of those band, but it is not exactly a laundry list for those who want to listen to something that is along the lines of Coldplay :D

Not helpful, but true. This is a legal matter. No amount of name signing is going to change that.

1. hmmm, I think its a little like comparing apples and oranges. Joe Satriani is famous for the work he does for Joe Satriani; Brian Eno is primarily famous for the work he does for several bands. 2. I don't think Brian Eno can catalogue ALL of his influences any better than Coldplay. But it does bring up an interesting point. I remember a few years back the Red Hot Chili Pepper's were taking some heat because "Dani California" displayed some similarities to Tom Petty's "Mary Jane's Last Dance." The funny thing is that Rick Rubin produced both songs. Do I think that a producer is able to clearly identify every source of inspiration - No (there are just so damn many). Do I think that a producer is able to distinguish the similarities between one project he worked on, Dani California, and another project he worked on, Mary Jane's Last Dance - Yes. BUT THE CHILI PEPPERS STILL TOOK CRITICISM. It just shows me that a lot of these plagiarism arguments are spurious. Of course Rick Rubin would stop the Chili Peppers if he thought they were plagiarizing. No one would know better than a man who worked on BOTH projects. And yet...."no, no, no....the Chili Peppers plagiarized" argument was everywhere.

This is an interesting question. Music like Coldplays, I don't know. But three comments on bands that are probably going to be mentioned: 1. Radiohead - One of my absolute favorite bands, but it has been my experience that it is actually work to get to like these guys. But now, I love this band to death. Not a "first listen" band though. 2. U2 - Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby will be obvious, but if you enjoy the ambient sound of some of the new Coldplay songs, I would recommend The Unforgettable Fire. A Sort of Homecoming, Bad, and MLK...good stuff. And much like Coldplay, I think seeing them live allows their music to take on a whole new dynamic. 3. The Killers - In my opinion, the only band that has the chops and ambition to challenge Coldplay for the new biggest band in the world title. If you don't like Radiohead, this is the opposite end of the spectrum. A lot of times my first impression is their stuff is cheesy, but it always grows on me. Perhaps a guilty pleasure for me. I like all three of their albums and the B-side disc. Besides that, I could give you a list of a hundred bands that I, personally, like. These just seem appropriate to the conversation.

I have met Coldplay several times. I am not well connected, I just live in Los Angeles, and they always role through here whenever they do promotion. Every member of the band is as approachable as you could possibly imagine. I always ask for autographs on my Coldplay items (even though I have one photo with Chris) because I have the "collector bug." Not once has a member of the band made me feel like I was putting them out or inconveniencing them in any way. As a fan, it is sometimes scary to meet the musicians that you are fans of because sometimes they are not as nice as you had hoped. But with Coldplay, I only like them more after each encounter.

This will be a polarizing issue, no doubt. I especially agree with the "if he is going to do this, all musicians should just sue everyone" point. I think Satriani is just opening up a can of worms, and I still think the timing was especially poor.

I can not argue with this. But the line between plagiarism and inspiration is not exactly black and white. The key is to be influenced, but not "overly influenced." Admittedly, this is a fine line to walk. Some would argue that it does not matter whether or not you steal an exact riff from someone if the song is "overly influenced" by another band's music. How do you define "overly influenced?" I don't pretend to know. To be honest, I think Coldplay walks this line very closely without going over it (which is fine by me). I think other people would disagree and, consequently, this becomes a source of criticism directed toward Coldplay (for example, how many times have Coldplay fans argued with Radiohead fans over this very issue). So did Coldplay, in their search for inspiration, become overly influenced by the Satriani song as to cross this ambiguous line for the first time...I don't know. Only Chris Martin can answer this question, which is why I am anxiously awaiting his comments.

:laugh3: Maybe, but Chris is a very good communicator and is great at being open and sincere. I don't think a court will convict them (but goofier things have happened). They should just acknowledge the similarities and state that they are unintentional. If they have never heard the song, end of story. Even if they had heard the song, it is impossible to catalogue every tune one hears. Therefore, any similarities are completely unintentional (a subconscious INFLUENCE). Either way, the songs are very distinct and separate. I remember Nirvana stating that they were reluctant to release "Smells Like Teen Spirit" because they felt like it was a Pixies rip off. Influences are one thing, stealing is another matter. I think Coldplay should just be honest and attack this straight on.

Me too!

I agree...Coldplay would not settle if they felt that they were in no way influenced. I am very interested to hear Coldplay's side.

I agree...this sounds like miscommunication. I can't fault the man for being passionate about his music. I don't understand why this was not ironed out. I certainly hope, for everyone's sake, it settles out. It has gone too far already.

Ok, I see your point.

I should qualify that. HE IS NOT STUPID. He just feels differently.