songs that sound like other songs

I think the impact of that case may have been somewhat tempered by the "Stairway to Heaven" decision (but I'm no expert here).

I listened to the Sheeran song for the first time right now-- Damn, I can immediately see why this lawsuit is happening.

um Ed, people most certainly own chords.

~proud owner of Csus2 since 1991~

how come Lady Gaga didn't get sued for "Born This Way"

(tbh I don't think she should have but y'know)

IIRC, Madonna called her basic or something in a TV interview, which is probably even worse than being sued.

At a bar the other night Stevie Nicks' "Edge of Seventeen" was too quiet to hear and I thought it was the Police's "Bring on the Night" for a couple of minutes.

Listen to the Manhattan's "Shining Star" (1980) and then Michael Bolton's "Soul Provider" (1989) and you will just as much Marvin - if not more - than in the Ed song.

Put them all in C for ease of comparison and you get something like

C Em F G
I've been really trying baby

C C/E F G
I'll be loving you till we're 70

C F
Honey you are my shining star

C Em F
I wanna be your soul provider

Listen to the Manhattan's "Shining Star" (1980) and then Michael Bolton's "Soul Provider" (1989)

Starting to understand why lawyers charge so much.

lolol

I find this lawsuit curious and kinda-scary. Fundamentally I don’t think litigiousness of this kind is honourable, and the plaintiff and his legal team deserve the worst for even considering it, a huge hearty “fuck you” to all of them

That said, it is interesting, to me, that a song with different chords, different melody, different tempo, different hooks, a completely different musical thesis, could nonetheless sound “the same” (or even “similar”) to the Gaye original. Like: it almost feels as if the Gaye might’ve been used as a reference for the mix, or something?

If I were an expert witness wrt the theoretical side of the material (speaking on behalf of the defense, obv) I’d be less likely to attempt to point out the dissimilarities between the two songs and more likely to attempt to define a set of characteristics that define “an Ed Sheeran song” and show that “Thinking Out Loud”, more than “copying Gaye”, copies Sheeran himself— Sheeran’s songwriting tropes are so narrow and repetitious and definable— it seems to me that it’d be an easier thing to prove that “Thinking” is definitively “an Ed Sheeran song” rather than disproving that it infringes on an existing Gaye song

I feel like a far more winnable lawsuit against Sheeran would be attempting to claim “The Shape Of You” as being a plagiaristic work— but again, guillotines and jails for all who pursue this type of stupid greedy litigation

very good point

this is so obviously a sheeran song, no chord progression can save it

stupid greedy suit

"Secondhand Love" by Pete Townshend and New Kids on the Block "Hangin' Tough."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-IRE8_7A3I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By86PcLufOU

ed sheeran gonna ruin pop music by being an insipid and unoriginal songwriter, just as we all feared

Aw because of this thread I will listen to a Sheeran song for the first time willingly… ILM : so much to answer for!

Wait it’s a song released 10y ago !? Why now !?

My god it’s horrible

common misconception about the case, Gaye estate isn't suing him because he stole the song, they're suing him because he's terrible

Personally I think they're suing him because they see a financial opportunity

also it's the co-writer ed townsend who's suing this time, not the gaye estate. tho i'm sure the gaye estate are kicking themselves for not thinking of it first

problem is these juries don't usually get how music works

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41y29ZrZX2L._SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_FMwebp_.jpg

Yeah, it's the heirs of Ed Townsend – including his daughter and sole living heir, Kathryn Townsend Griffin.

Wait it’s a song released 10y ago !? Why now !?

They actually sued first in 2017 (the same year Sheeran settled the infringement suit around his song "Photograph"); the case was dismissed; they refiled the next year, and it's taken this long to get to trial for whatever reason.

Are musicians watching this thread and using it for ideas for lawsuits

I've never heard a note of his music, but I hate cases like this. There are so many common chord progressions and musical ideas that have been used over and over, encouraging litigation over them is a dangerous precedent.

Elvis Costello used to perform a version of "Alison" that segued into "Tracks of My Tears" and (one time I saw him) "Kid" by the Pretenders, too. Maybe other songs? Once you start skirting some really common chord progressions there are any number of songs that seemingly (and often misleadingly) overlap. I mean, the doo wop chord progression alone!

according to Wikipedia Ed Townsend died in 2003, so unless he plagiarized his own death, it’s another estate situation. maybe they could also sue Sheeran (plus the aforementioned Pete Townsend!) for plagiarizing his name.

I Wrote a Song by UK Eurovision hopeful Mae Muller sounds like I'm an Albatraoz by AronChupa.

The most egregious example of "copyright infringement" that I've seen like this was Joe Satriani claiming that Coldplay's "Viva La Vida" was identical to the former's "If I Could Fly". They were identical, exactly identical. The issue wasn't plagiarism imo, because I will not accept that Coldplay, either consciously or subconsciously, were inspired in any way by "If I Could Fly". The issue was simply that, if you're a pop songwriter, and you're aiming for "mass appeal", then your harmonic/melodic choices become massively reduced, and it stands to reason that we will see "1000 monkeys" scenarios emerge; Coldplay and Satriani arrived at the same chords/melody the same way that two pigs might arrive at the same truffle.

I did like the fact that Keith Richards, while recording "Bridges To Babylon", overheard his daughter humming "Constant Craving" and had a "holy shit" moment when he realised that there was a similar "same result" in the chorus of "Has Anybody Seen My Baby?", and the band subsequently reached out to k.d. lang to ensure that she was fairly compensated

Curious why you think compensating the other songwriter was fair in the latter case, but an egregious demand in the former? It's the same situation (a claimed coincidence).

Oh, my usage of the term "egregious" was not directed toward Satriani or his filing, but rather the egregiousness of the similarities between the two songs. They were and are actually identical

Yep, sorry – just realized that (I had actually typed a mea culpa, and you beat me to it!)

It's cool on a personal level that lang got a cut, but hard not to also see that gesture as kind of a bad precedent, I guess...

I mean, what is interesting to me is that (I thought) the entire purpose of copyright is to prevent bad actors from using that copyright for profit-- me making a drink at home, calling it Pepsi and selling it to you, i.e. One files a copyright for the purpose of protecting their product, one pursues litigation to protect their copyright lest it enter into a state of dilution. Not (I thought) for the purpose of chasing down unwitting plagiarists and shaking them down for cash

there's a lot of greed involved obv, but some of it also comes understandably from songwriters who aren't rich and just getting by thinking one of the songs they have a songwriting credit was plagiarized and made someone else a lot of money. hard to not want a piece of the pie, even if it was inadvertent.

me making a drink at home, calling it Pepsi and selling it to you

Well, that's trademark (which is different, and you actually can infringe as a matter of law without awareness that you're doing it)

I think it's not just greed, but also a kind of tunnelvision. From the wiki to "Viva La Vida":

In May 2009, Yusuf Islam stated that the song is very similar to his song "Foreigner Suite," recorded under his former stage name, Cat Stevens. He said "My son brought it to my attention and said: 'Doesn't that sound like 'Foreigner Suite?'"[69] Islam said that any legal action he might take "depends on how well Satriani does."[69] Coldplay drummer Will Champion denied the claim, stating, "We're confident we haven't done anything wrong."[70] In June 2009, Islam later said, "They did copy my song but I don't think they did it on purpose," adding, "I don't want them to think I am angry with them. I'd love to sit down and have a cup of tea with them and let them know it's okay."[71]

In a documentary for Sveriges Television (2011) American music professor Dr. Lawrence Ferrara showed that the melody structures of "Viva la Vida", "If I Could Fly" and "Foreigner Suite" were very similar to the composition "Se tu m'ami" by the Italian composer Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, who died in 1736. "Obviously this is a work that we would call in the 'public domain'", Dr. Ferrara said.

"Depends on how well Satriani does"?!? "They did copy my song"?!? Yeeesh

I like Dr. Ferrara's approach. We should find examples of every possible chord progression and melody that exists in songs that are PD so anybody accused of harmonic/melodic plagiarism can say "oh no, I didn't plagiarise that Marvin Gaye song, I actually plagiarised Verdi" (and then play the example)

I just did some quick Googling, and it appears (contra my understanding) that the "innocent infringer" defense to copyright infringement – i.e., lack of awareness of the prior work – isn't such a slam dunk after all, at least in the US, due to various legal developments in the past century.

Michael Jackson's "Will You Be There?" was a famous case of court finding "no actually, your song wasn't original either!", though not in an American court.

After seven years, an Italian court ruled in favor of Carrisi because Jackson failed to show up to court. In a follow-up case some months later, the court ruled in favor of Jackson and rejected the claim, stating that while the two songs were very similar, they both may have been inspired by The Ink Spots' 1939 hit "Bless You for Being an Angel".

Earth Angel C Am F G

Stand by Me C Am F G

Wonderful World C Am F G

Last Kiss C Am F G

Where Have all the Flowers Gone C Am F G

etc.

Let it Be C G Am F

No Woman No Cry C G Am F

I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For C G Am F

Don't Stop Believing C G Am F

etc.

fuck, i wrote a doo wop song about dismembering someone as a 20 something and played it for someone and they said "isn't that Oh, Donna?"

lots of those progressions just kinda...jump at you

Fwiw, here's what the plaintiffs' expert witness in the Sheeran case (the guy whom Sheeran said is "putting in notes to try and find similarities") had to say beyond the chord progressions:

Stewart told the jury that the 1973 hit and Sheeran's 2014 chart-topper "Thinking Out Loud" use nearly identical chord progressions and rhythmic anticipation.

Stewart also testified that he found similarities in the two songs' melodies, including the tune of their respective opening lines, "I've been really trying, baby" from "Let's Get It On" and "When your legs don't work like they used to before" from "Thinking Out Loud." He said the songs' choruses and interludes have similar pitch sequences as well, and that 70% of "Thinking Out Loud" is attributable to "Let's Get It On."

"These are similar melodies, and they're happening simultaneously with the same accompaniment," Stewart told the jury. "It's the same creative choices."

In cross-examination, the attorney for Sheeran and the music publishers:

pointed out that a combination of the same chord progression and rhythm used in "Let's Get It On" was present in multiple songs before 1973, including covers of "Georgy Girl" by the Seekers. (...) In opening arguments the day before, (the attorney had) told the jury that the tunes are "very, very different" and Stewart's melodic analysis is entirely without merit.

The chorus of "You've Got a Friend" and the verse of "Trains and Boats and Planes" use very similar melodies.

Jury deliberations in the Sheeran trial begin today. In y'day's closing arguments, Sheeran's attorney said – "If we start to dissect every song to hunt for similarities and hand out ownership to things as basic as chord progressions and the manner in which they are performed, nothing will be left for songwriters to create. You would be removing an essential element in every songwriter's tool kit. Is that really what we want to do to music?"

Sheeran wins! After 2.5 hrs of deliberations.

good, I think his attorney was exactly right in that statement

Sheeran guilty of seditious conspiracy!

Proud Boys not rip-off of Proud Mary!

The difference between “most other I-iii-IV-V songs” (substitute I6 for iii in the case of “Thinking…”; functionally the same chord)— the difference IS those anticipations. Drawing parallels between these songs and the standard earlier examples of songs with the same progression (“The Weight”, “Just Like A Woman”, “Ziggy Stardust”) only (to my ears) emphasizes the general “mood” similarities between Sheeran and Gaye, which are notable!

Glad Sheeran won and I hope that professor/expert witness has something shitty happen to him this year

This just in: Sheehan to start writing atonal aleatory 12-tone pieces inna Schoenberg stylee, accompanied by Yoko Ono screams and occaional input from Tibetan yak herders who do circular breathing, so as to never have to go through this shit again

what if this could lead to pop songwriters being forced into only using convoluted, lawsuit-safe chord progressions and everyone just gets acclimated to it?!!