# Musical thievery, or homage, or what???



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A just-concluded "Blurred Lines" lawsuit resulted in a $7.7 million award for stealing some music. But of course that has been a time-honored practice in classical music right through the 20th century.

An LA Times article weighs in on the topic. Is it illegal to write variations on somebody else's theme? To use a passage as a foundation in your own work? What would this have meant for Handel, Beethoven, Stravinsky, and (of course) Williams? Should Wagner be able to claim a copyright on his "Tristan" chord?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...lines-classical-notebook-20150314-column.html

What's your take on this?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I believe in sampling in rap music and classical music so no... stealing directly music is bad but if it is reinvented then I'm good with it.


----------



## pianolearnerstride (Dec 17, 2014)

The article is idiotic. Completely. What is this person's reasoning? Historically musicians have stolen. Therefore it is ok to do it now. There were many things that have been done and accepted in history... slavery has been commonplace... countries have been built on the backs of slaves. So if I follow this guy's reasoning, slavery is ok today because we wouldn't have the countries we have today without slaves.

He could have made a legitimate argument about why this type of practice is legally or ethically correct. But instead he defaults to the child's argument. "They all did it, so it's ok for me to do it too."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Of course you can. Diabelli. Beethoven. Brahms. Handel.

As long as you pay appropriate homage in the title of the work.

You think Diabelli the hack minded that Beethoven immortalized him?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> You think Diabelli the hack minded that Beethoven immortalized him?


Well, given that he practically begged everyone he knew to compose variations on his own work, I'm not sure he'd have much cause to complain even if he did mind!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Is it illegal to write variations on somebody else's theme?


For the music of Wagner etc, the answer is generally 'no' (as I suspect you already know) as in many countries copyright expires after a number of years and it generally seems to be 'no' even within copyright if the source is acknowledged as Hpowders suggests


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

As to the Blurred Lines debacle, I haven't noticed anyone pointing out exactly what was plagiarized, i. e. What parts of the two songs are identical? In the past (legal cases) there would've had to have been a progression of chords or notes that was supposedly lifted. Here, the talk is about style, feeling, rhythm... most of it very subjective. And most people might agree that the two songs, while not identical, are similar. But what isn't similar? That's the scary part of the ruling in my opinion. Policing style and feeling would lead to choking inspiration to most music.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Max Richter's appropriation of The Four Seasons still remains a landmark recording in fact.

T.S. Eliot said that immature poets borrow whereas mature poets steal. For me, that is sufficient cause to do "intellectual robbery" with genius.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Saintbert said:


> As to the Blurred Lines debacle, I haven't noticed anyone pointing out exactly what was plagiarized, i. e. What parts of the two songs are identical? In the past (legal cases) there would've had to have been a progression of chords or notes that was supposedly lifted. Here, the talk is about style, feeling, rhythm... most of it very subjective. And most people might agree that the two songs, while not identical, are similar. But what isn't similar? That's the scary part of the ruling in my opinion. Policing style and feeling would lead to choking inspiration to most music.


There appears to be a strong feeling that it was a bad decision, though that doesn't mean that there can be no legitimate claims of plagiarism (e.g., My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine). I support the ruling only for the un-principled reason that Marvin Gaye = good, Robin Thicke = bad.

None of this has anything to do with Classical theme and variations. Pop songs are so short and simple that if you steal the tune, you've pretty much taken the whole thing. The Tristan chord issue is idiotic.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

For some detailed background on the case there's this article from a year ago: The Blurred Lines of Copyright Infringement of Music Become Even Blurrier as the Robin Thicke v. Marvin Gaye's Estate Lawsuit Continues

One thing I learned from this is that "Blurred Lines" was not the only Thicke song in the suit, but "Love After War" was also claimed to be infringing on "After the Dance." Anyway, focusing on "Blurred Lines":



> Gaye's family further included an expert report by musicologist Judith Finell, which points to multiple parallels in the two songs. According to the report, "Blurred Lines" contains "a constellation of at least eight substantially similar features" with Gaye's "Got to Give It Up": (1) the signature phrase; (2) hooks; (3) hooks with backup vocals; (4) the core theme in "Blurred Lines" and the backup hook in "Got to Give It Up"; (5) backup hooks; (6) bass melodies; (7) keyboard parts; and (8) unusual percussion choices. Additionally, according to the report, both songs share "departures from convention such as the unusual cowbell instrumentation, omission of guitar and use of male falsetto."


From other articles I have read it seems like Thicke's comments about Gaye's music have been important to the trial. This is what Thicke said in GQ, quoted in this article:



> Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up.' I was like, 'Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.' Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it.


...which really sounds like he _was_ trying to copy Gaye.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Well, given that he practically begged everyone he knew to compose variations on his own work, I'm not sure he'd have much cause to complain even if he did mind!


I'm kinda hurt that I never received an invitation. I do have some ideas.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> From other articles I have read it seems like Thicke's comments about Gaye's music have been important to the trial. This is what Thicke said in GQ, quoted in this article:
> 
> _Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up.' I was like, 'Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.' Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it._
> 
> ...which really sounds like he _was_ trying to copy Gaye.


My guess is what Thicke was doing was unexceptional in the pop world, but he just shouldn't have admitted it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

An interesting case that I just learned of recently. Richard Strauss wrote his _Aus Italien _in 1886, basing the fourth part on the famous song _Funiculi Funicula_, thinking it was a Neapolitan folk tune. Unfortunately, the song had been written just six years before. The author sued Strauss and won.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> My guess is what Thicke was doing was unexceptional in the pop world, but he just shouldn't have admitted it.


Yeah, that sort of thing is very common. For example in the Pixies documentary _Gouge_ Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead says

"We don't use guitar as much anymore now... you know, there are only a handful of Pixies albums... you kinda can't keep copying them. It's what we've done for so long."






This is just reverence, crediting your forebears. I'm sure Thicke thought of his comment as praising Gaye. I know I have heard about many great bands by hearing who the artists I like have been inspired by.


----------



## Illuminatedtoiletpaper (Apr 12, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> There appears to be a strong feeling that it was a bad decision, though that doesn't mean that there can be no legitimate claims of plagiarism (e.g., My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine). I support the ruling only for the un-principled reason that Marvin Gaye = good, Robin Thicke = bad.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with Classical theme and variations. Pop songs are so short and simple that if you steal the tune, you've pretty much taken the whole thing. The Tristan chord issue is idiotic.


With the Harrison / Chiffons song, Harrison should have been considered alright for writing a better song. There are so many little musical tricks like melodies or sections that get re-used and reshuffled... but I also understand the nature of money.

Concerning 'Blurred Lines', the songs don't bear enough similarity to me. I like both songs... oh well...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Intellectual property" is clear enough in concept but often hopelessly vague in practice. In music, "resemblances" are open to dispute and should not be actionable unless they include the larger part of a work or reproduce its central features with reasonable exactness. We don't know the musical details of this case (I don't, anyway), but coincidence is not only possible in music, especially in simple music like popular songs, but likely. There are only twelve tones in an octave, and lots of tunes resemble each other in noticeable ways. 

The purpose of copyright is to allow creators to profit from their own work and to prevent others from stealing those profits. It is not to protect the egos of creators. If someone uses a musical idea invented by another, but in a different manner and for a different purpose, profits are unlikely to be in question. The sharing of ideas is essential to the vitality of the arts and sciences. Squabbling over chord progressions and "hooks" is likely to be mostly about ego and, particularly in the case of a composer's "estate," greed.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Indeed, here is a most creative example sampling being utilized in classical music. This will indicate the future of how classical music will be proceeding.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

No matter what you think of intellectual property in music in general, the Gaye/Thicke decision is a disaster, and I hope it will be overturned.

I'm inclined to say there should be _no_ intellectual property in music.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> No matter what you think of intellectual property in music in general, the Gaye/Thicke decision is a disaster, and I hope it will be overturned.
> 
> I'm inclined to say there should be _no_ intellectual property in music.


Doesn't there have to be some? If Justin Bieber just steals a song from song from a little known writer and turns it into a hit, should their be no royalties paid?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> Doesn't there have to be some? If Justin Bieber just steals a song from song from a little known writer and turns it into a hit, should their be no royalties paid?


While the idea of this happening sounds bad to me as well, it may be the price to pay for musical freedom.

If someone who comes up with a tune, or chord progression, or rhythmic pattern or "owns" it, that is bad for music. If someone else can take it and do something better with it, why should we, the people, be deprived of that music?

It's not fair, but art has nothing to do with fairness.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Musicians are always entitled to come up with something better that's based on an existing work. They just have to pay some royalties to do so.

Look how often performers record cover tunes. Intellectual property doesn't prevent that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Piracy was a big problem even in Beethoven's day. If you sold a work for publishing in Vienna, and somebody took a copy to London, it might be immediately published there and you could no longer sell it in that market. Composers had to be very careful to publish on a schedule to prevent this, because the laws certainly didn't protect them.


----------



## michaels (Oct 3, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Musicians are always entitled to come up with something better that's based on an existing work. They just have to pay some royalties to do so.
> 
> Look how often performers record cover tunes. Intellectual property doesn't prevent that.


Actually there are license fees for performing covers. Some can be quite substantial. Others are outright prohibited.


----------



## pianolearnerstride (Dec 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> While the idea of this happening sounds bad to me as well, it may be the price to pay for musical freedom.
> 
> If someone who comes up with a tune, or chord progression, or rhythmic pattern or "owns" it, that is bad for music. If someone else can take it and do something better with it, why should we, the people, be deprived of that music?
> 
> It's not fair, but art has nothing to do with fairness.


Do you feel this way about writing also? Or paintings?

If I take your novel... change a few names around and sell it as my own...


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

michaels said:


> Actually there are license fees for performing covers. Some can be quite substantial. Others are outright prohibited.


But cover tunes are recorded nonetheless. IP doesn't prevent that. Often it's a big shot performer paying money to a little known songwriter. Without IP, they'd just take the tune for free.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

pianolearnerstride said:


> Do you feel this way about writing also? Or paintings?
> 
> If I take your novel... change a few names around and sell it as my own...


This analogy doesn't work - a good analogy would be if you took the plot of my novel, and wrote your own. So what if you did? What if your novel was better than mine? The reading public should be deprived of your better novel because of this abstract idea of fairness? That's not how art works.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> This analogy doesn't work - a good analogy would be if you took the plot of my novel, and wrote your own. So what if you did? What if your novel was better than mine? The reading public should be deprived of your better novel because of this abstract idea of fairness? That's not how art works.


It's entirely how art works, at least since the advent of copyright law. Most composers consider themselves "professionals," meaning that's how they make their living, put food on the table, send kids to college, all the rest. Are you arguing that there's no such thing as "intellectual property"? Or does that only apply to music?

There have been plenty of cases where a writer proposed a plot to a Hollywood producer, angling to write the screenplay. They were turned down, only to see their plot reappear, with somebody else's name, in a movie. Is that how art should work?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> It's entirely how art works, at least since the advent of copyright law. Most composers consider themselves "professionals," meaning that's how they make their living, put food on the table, send kids to college, all the rest. Are you arguing that there's no such thing as "intellectual property"? Or does that only apply to music?
> 
> There have been plenty of cases where a writer proposed a plot to a Hollywood producer, angling to write the screenplay. They were turned down, only to see their plot reappear, with somebody else's name, in a movie. Is that how art should work?


There are common law tort claims available in a case like that - unjust enrichment, for example.

I'm not sure I'm fully committed to the position I've put out. I haven't really thought it through. However I find this Robin Thicke verdict alarming. All art takes elements of what came before, sometimes more than others. Can we trust the legal system to decide when this becomes theft? Clearly, in light of this verdict, we can't.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> All art takes elements of what came before, sometimes more than others. Can we trust the legal system to decide when this becomes theft?


Well, I guess I'm not sure what alternative there is.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Well, I guess I'm not sure what alternative there is.


Maybe my faith in the system will be restored when it's overturned on appeal.

Though the system has failed before, in a big way - sampling in hip-hop should be much freer than it is.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> Maybe my faith in the system will be restored when it's overturned on appeal.
> 
> Though the system has failed before, in a big way - sampling in hip-hop should be much freer than it is.


I agree with you here in fact... the fact that Public Enemy albums during the 1980's and 1990's are the epitome of sampling and its sonic complexity that can't be paralleled is an indication that our fair use laws need to be revised... we really need higher quality rap sampling sooner or later.


----------

