coldplagiarism

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

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: Very true.

Sounds good. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. I totally agree with everything you said here.