Even musical geniuses like Joe Satriani can make mistakes sometimes. This one has nothing to do with his guitar playing.
The recent commotion over whether or not Coldplay ripped off guitar whiz Joe Satriani is nothing less than surprising and mystifying. My bewilderment has nothing to do with Coldplay however, but with Satriani, the guitar teacher-turned instrumental rock god.…
Article comments
76 - El Bicho
So Satriani is wrong to file a lawsuit that in part claims to know what Coldplay was thinking in their creation of the song, but the writer knows what was in Satriani's mind in terms of the timing of filing the lawsuit?
btw the statement "The Rolling Stones ought to be ashamed..." is wildly inaccurate because The Stones didn't file suit. They don't own the copyright to the song; ABKCO Records does.
77 - charlie
El Bicho, I didn't say The Rolling Stones filed the lawsuit (though they unjustly benefited from it, which I'll explain below). So, what I wrote about the Stones stands as accurate. Though I didn't mention the record company by name in my article, yes, The Stones "allowed" ABKCO Records to successfully sue The Verve over their use of an orchestral remix (of "The Last Time") that the Stones didn't write and then got complete songwriting credits to a song ("Bittersweet Symphony") they didn't deserve. That is accurate.
They (The Stones) could've tried to stop this lawsuit if they cared to do the right thing or at least shared songwriting credits and royalties, but for whatever reasons, chose not to and thus left The Verve without any profits from the single.
You see, The Verve HAD the license to use the Andrew Oldham Orchestra sample for "Bittersweet Symphony," then was told (via the ABKCO lawsuit) they used "too much" of it, which is bullshit. The result? Jagger/Richards got songwriting credit, and The Verve completely lost it.
And that was and still is wrong. The guitar, bass, drums, and vocals of "Bittersweet" are all The Verve's creation, as are some of the other sonic elements of the song. Only the strings were Oldham's, and they properly (until the lawsuit claimed otherwise) licensed those strings.
The Stones/Oldham were going to make some money off "Bittersweet" anyway due to the proper licensing The Verve were originally granted, but once it became a hit, ABKCO basically got greedy and wanted to get them and The Stones complete profits for the whole song. Needless to say, I've lost a little respect for Mick Jagger and Keith Richards because of this.
78 - El Bicho
The publishing royalties of "BS" were turned over to Allen Klein and ABKCO who owns the copyright to "The Last Time," not to The Stones. I don't see what proof you have that simply by asking Mick and/or Keith could have stopped Klein, so no it's not accurate to say they "allowed" it.
Besides, if The Verve had any legal standing, they wouldn't have settled out of court with such a lop-sided deal. Oldham filed a separate lawsuit 18 months later.
Now, whoever own the copyright to The Staple Singers' "This Maybe The Last Time" should have sued ABKCO, if they didn't.
79 - Charlie
Look El Bicho, the ABKCO lawsuit was totally uncalled for, but I really think Jagger/Richards could have convinced the greedy Allen Klein/ABKCO guys - who only sued The Verve once "B.S." became a hit - to settle for at least a 50/50 split of royalties for "B.S." with The Verve, who wrote 95% of the song. I may not have "proof," but I feel there's no way that company sued without input or some level of support from the Stones, since songwriting credits for this song reverted back to Jagger/Richards when all was said and done.
I'm not the biggest The Verve fan in the world, but bullshit like that really pisses me off, as does Keith Richards' quote in a 1998 Q magazine interview responding to whether it was right to take 100% of all royalties: "If they can write a better song, they can keep all the money." This, coming from a guy who hasn't written more than 3 or so memorable songs in 20 years! Again, Q Magazine interview Richards about this, not Allen Klein or ABKCO, so don't tell me he and The Stones had nothing to do with that lawsuit against The Verve. Sorry, but in my opinion, there's just no way Allen Klein went ahead with it without Keith Richards or Mick Jagger's blessing.
80 - Denobulan Earthworm
Ok seriously, upon a pretty thorough analysis of both tunes here's what I've got from my (a musician for 8 years) interpretation:
Music in its simplest terms is broken into 3 basic creative components:
1.Harmony - 2.Melody - 3.Rythm
When comparing each of these components in direct contrast, it doesn't look so good for Coldplay.
Rhythm - When compared on a METRNOME "Fly" and "Viva" are almost set at IDENTICAL tempos...off by 1 or 2 beats per minute. That is a minescule difference that no naked ear could pick out.
Satriani 1 - Coldplay 0
The way the rhythm is syncopated (the way the beats deviate from the simple 1-2-3-4 : 1-2-3-4 etc... pattern) are VERY similar...creating a similar groove and feel:
ex. d = eighth note r = rest
"They both closely follow this pattern"
4/4 | d r d r d d r d | r d r d d r d r |
Satriani 2 - Coldplay 0
Harmony - If you take apart the chord structure, "viva" shares the EXACT progression excerpting one minor difference: there is a chord substitution for the first chord. This substitution is just another way of playing the same thing, creating the same feel. To the naked ear the difference is unapparent as well as technically similar. It would be useless for me to explain this to someone unfamiliar with the theory in this field.
Satriani 3 - Coldplay 0
The "key" is irrelevant, any musician with a paper and pen or just an instrument could easily transpose (take from one key to another) a piece of music. You learn this in grade 10 music class. If I transposed a piece of someone else's music and called it my own...I would probably go to court and lose on purpose, out of pure shame.
Satriani 4 - Coldplay 0
Melody - The Coldplay tune is very simple and there are no real depth changes as far as the piece of music goes while the Satriani tune goes through various sections BUT, the head of "viva" song contains VERY SIMILAR pitching in the melody lines and in one case the melody is pitched the SAME WAY as "fly". The fact that the melody is sung in "viva" as opposed to played on guitar in "fly", makes no difference. Look at it this way: The "Music" is still there whether you play it on guitar, sing it, bang it out on pitched pots and pans...what I'm getting at it that if you played both tunes on the same instrument say...piano for example, you'll find them to sound VERY similar. One could argue that the presentation of the music, which is quite different, counts for something but this is not a case about stealing the arrangement and sounds, it's is the theft of the music itself.
Satriani 5 - Coldplay 1 (awarded a point for the difference in presentation)
There is a
great video that backs this up on youtube...
I've never heard a two songs this close from genres so distant. Coldplay, quite new and very popular have achieved great commercial success with "viva" at #1 for quite some time now. They've proven to know how to play the game of industry and latch onto a niche and fly with it.
Satriani revolutionized the guitar back in the 80's (with the album "surfing with the alien" and continued to do so for a very long time. And to my knowledge, this isn't the first time Coldplay has been suspected of ripping off music from other artists. If i was the judge, I'd of banged that little hammer thing along time ago!
81 - charlie
Denobulan, see comment #46 - that youtube guitar teacher made up chord similarities that DO NO EXIST (on Coldplay's guitarist's part). Your analysis, though I give you an b for effort, is so offbase and inaccurate (and irrelevant as far as common rhythms are considered) that it's not worth breaking down. Besides, I'm tired of doing it again and again.
I tell you what, why don't you write out the actual chord structures, please. These two songs don't have a single note in common. Prove me wrong by writing out the actual notes of the relevant sections of both songs.
82 - Denobulan Earthworm
I am pleased to see your truly diplomatic approach to this case and I admire that. So seeing that you seem to have a very unbiased analysis, and the leading knowledge that you do of ths situation: As a member of a hypothetical jury, who do you believe takes the cake on this one. Putting aside all rediculous claims about the presumed psychological intentions of either artists, and the notion that Satch is just "washed up".
83 - charlie
Earthworm, thanks so much for reaching out to me. Honestly (and I mean that sincerely), I believe Coldplay will and should prevail in this case.
Why? Because through "independent creation," the defendant (Coldplay) could easily prove how "Viva's" song structure bares little to no similarities and certainly no "substantial" infringement upon any melody of Satch's "If I Could Fly," as the Bee Gees did successfully in Selle v. Gibb, which dealt with its song "How Deep Is Your Love" having similarity to an unknown composer's melody, but ultimately no copyright infringement.
Again, I am shocked, even sickened to my stomach that two artists I like are involved in a lawsuit with each other and that Satriani, of all people, can't see the difference between similar song structure and a pure rip-off.
More puzzling is that Satriani, nor his legal staff have pointed to anything specifically about the Coldplay song that rips him off; it isn't the lyrics, or any specific part, but "the song itself."
That won't and shouldn't fly in a copyright infringement case. And I bet that once he/his legal team tries and makes his case in court that Coldplay ripped him off, the jury won't buy it, no matter how much in depth music theory he may try and throw at them (like the wildly inaccurate infamous YouTube teacher I called out in an earlier comment, who made up similar chordal similarities in his comparison of the two songs).
No matter what happens, I hope Coldplay and its management learn a valuable lesson from all this: take copyright infringement accusations seriously and head-on from the outset. Even if you think there's nothing to them, don't ever assume such allegations will just go away if you ignore them (publicly or privately) long enough. That was Coldplay's mistake. The longer they took to respond to Satch, the more reason they had of suspicion that the band was guilty of plagiarism (wrong as they are).
I will rest easy knowing the facts are on Coldplay's side, but will a jury come to this same conclusion? We shall find out.
84 - Peter Katsiannis
You should not be writing about music.
To put your self above the musical sensibilities of Joe Satriani is bad enough.
Your eloquent ignorance is as vulgar as Coldplay's blatant and thorough ripoff.
85 - charlie
Hey Peter, feel free to prove note-by-note how Coldplay ripped off Satriani. Otherwise, you've got nothing on me or anyone else trying to make a genuine, unbiased assessment of these two songs.
86 - Pat
charlie, your "debunking" of the Youtube teacher's analysis that you are so proud of is completely off-base. He didn't "make up chord structures" or anything like that. He transposed Viva from Ab to F minor for various reasons (see his second video, you silly goose).
That said, the song is obviously a rip off. The melodic arcs are far too similar.
87 - Pat
And by far too similar, I actually mean "almost exactly the same." IE. The melodic arcs start with the same notes, the middle of the arc of both songs form perfect fifths with the other, then ends with three out of four of the same notes.
That's just the start. This is detailed in the Youtube teacher's (correct) analysis in his second video.
88 - Pat
Also worth mentioning, you are very snobbish to the people commenting here that don't agree with you. I'd think you would know better, being the author of this opinion piece, as that discourages future readership and especially commenting.
That said, you are clearly not "unbiased" or "genuine" or anything to that tune as you keep claiming. In every post, you hail Coldplay and degrade Satriani, promote Coldplay and insult Satriani. You clearly have a very strong bias, regardless if you try to make up for it by saying that you like some of his music.
89 - Charlie
Pat, if you think the "melodic arc" of "Viva" starts out the same as "Fly," please write out the notes. Think for yourself and not from the flawed YouTube teacher (who did indeed make up guitar chords that are not present in "Viva" to make a case of theoretical similarities that are not present between the two songs).
Like I've said elsewhere, Coldplay can easily prove through independent creation that every part of "Viva" is original content, from the strings, the airy electric guitar bits, bass and drums and vocals.
Also Pat, you are very much offbase about what I've said in this forum. If I come off as having an attitude, it's because people here have been rudely attacking me. I have a right to defend myself! And, never once did I "hail" Coldplay. So not only are you offbase, you're a liar. If anything, I "hail" Satriani but am willing to hold my admiration of his work back and readers in this forum have shown their appreciation for my unbiased analysis of this very serious case.
If you saw my record collection (no Coldplay, lots of Satriani cassettes, CDs, DVDs and signature guitar picks I use daily), you would think I should be biased TOWARD Joe Satriani. But you see, I clearly am not. I listen to two songs, and analyze based them based on 20 years of musical knowledge, learning songs and arrangements by ear and by notation. That's it.
Now Pat, like I've said to quite a few others who have yet to answer my challenge, if you think Coldplay ripped off Satriani, prove it with actual musical notation (as best you can do it without a music sheet).
90 - Charlie
Also Pat (and others), you want a more debatable case for copyright infringement? Try comparing Janet Jackson's piano chords on "Again" with Paul McCartney's "Let It Be." I hear at least three-to-four chords in a row on "Again" that at one point are sequentially like the start of "Let It Be." Should Paul have sued? I don't know. Probably not.
The point of me bring this up is that unlike Satriani vs Coldplay, at least Sir Paul, if he did sue, could point to 3-4 piano chords/sequence of notes in a row (on Janet's "Again," which is in the key of C major) that sound almost exactly like one of his main progressions (on "L.I.B.," also in C major). The same can not be said of "Viva" as compared to "If I Could Fly."
91 - Marcia Neil
Many musicians and other performers know they should not have royalty payments when performing other people's music, and many company owners want a lot of money so that the company 'runs' itself using employees. When two or more songs sound alike, they come from the same source, which is not necessarily directly from the performers/dedications named. Some performers/dedications might well create more superlative music than the tunes they publicly perform and are dedicated to them.
92 - fxg
you suck donkey ass
93 - So not Quadrophenic
Now, I've done a bit of research on this~and still don't know who to side with. Both have things going for them.
I admit, my knowledge of music theory is rudimentary, but I have looked into this quite a bit.
Coldplay's arguments rely mainly on the definition of music plagiarism itself. The snippet that supposedly was plagiarized is about 7 seconds in length-and is almost exactly the same. The chord progression differs at the beginning, and the rest is the same, and the actual rhythm of the snippet is near identical. Of course, Satriani accents it differently, but it could be argued that that part is substantially similar. However, not the entire song, which is required. So, by legal standards, Coldplay is safe.
Satriani, however, could argue that because that similarity is present discernibly in multiple places in the song that it is substantially similar. There is also a striking similarity in the melodic arc of the song in some places, thoes which I am too addled and lazt to find.
I apologize in advance for any typos, beccause I suck abysmally at typing.
94 - Marcia Neil
There is no plagiarism when two or more songs (or two or more album themes) originate from the same source -- there are only different performers who agree or are coerced into public performances.
95 - So not Quadrophenic
Also, forgot to add this, Satriani seems to just be fussing over this one. Chord progression and melodic arc are not justifiable reasons for a suit, and there are many cases where there are two songs that are far more close than these two. There is an Avenged Sevenfold song that sounds almost identical to the Rolling Stones song, "Paint it Black," and I don't see the Stones suing them. Satriani also seems to forget that the arrangement in the songs is radically different-and in the end, they don't sound very similar. In places, they look similar, but only very rarely do they actually sound alike.
96 - Charlie Doherty
UPDATE 9/15/09: Satriani suit dismissed! And rightly so. I'm still a big time fan of his but he was and still is totally, 100% wrong about Coldplay stealing his music.
For him to say the "second" he heard "Viva" that he knew it was a rip off of one of his songs just doesn't make any sense.
The only similarity - from a musical notation standpoint - between the two songs is vocalist Chris Martin, throughout the song, holding out an eighth note for five notes, going up a half pitch then down 1 1/2 pitches (or notes), while Satch does that same progression a few times on his instrumental "If I Could Fly," particularly at the start of the song's two choruses.
That's it. That's the similarity - but not even CLOSE to the same notes, as I've explained elsewhere since this needless controversy started.
97 - El Bicho
"Satriani suit dismissed!"
Nice try. More like 'Satriani suit settled for an undisclosed amount with no admittance of wrongdoing!' if you read the article you linked to. If he was 100% wrong, then Coldplay should have fought it. They didn't.
98 - Charlie D
El Bicho, I respect you're opinion but you're wrong here. It's not clear yet a "financial settlement" has been reached yet. But it sure looks like it.
If Coldplay did just throw money at Satch (in Michael Jackson-like fashion) knowing that will make the lawsuit go away, not only is that a stupid mistake, it says something about the legal system in this country, and in many people's minds (including yours El Bicho, I know) automatically means Coldplay is privately admitting to plagiarism.
That's wrong, of course but everyone has the right to their opinion. Mine happens to be based on musical facts and common sense, not gut instinct or bias towards or against an artist like many others out there (especially Coldplay haters).
I would love to get my fellow Satch fans in a room with a chalkboard and go over note by note both songs and maybe, just maybe then they will see why these songs ("Viva" and "Fly") don't have a single piece of music or melody that matches up note for note. The only similarities you're hearing are what I've described in the article and in countless comments here, including the one before last (#96).
I could give a crap about Coldplay in general but I hate it when musicians get unjustly sued, especially when the accuser is someone I've been listening to and learning the music of for over 15 years and should know better than me. [I've taught guitar and piano privately on the side over the years but he was a professional guitar teacher for pete's sake!]
I know I've explained this a thousand times now but if I could talk to Joe Satriani himself, I'd love for the man himself to tell me exactly how Chris Martin's often-repeated melody of C-C#-Bb is a rip of his tune's progression of F#-G-E.
True, the first notes of these progressions (C for Martin, F# for Satch) are held out/paused for exactly five eighth notes long and that the progression goes up a half step and down one-and-a-half steps from those first notes. But if you listen to blues standards (with its I-IV-V progressions), you should know THIS similarity is nothing to be concerned about.
What is Martin supposed to do, hold out/pause that "C" note for two or three eighth notes instead of five? Give me a break. [You're average Top 40 pop rock song has tons more similarities to past hits that could be construed as ripoffs than this, which isn't even close to a ripoff, just a short structural similarity common in most music.]
Satch. Is. Suing. Over. This. Simple. Three-note-progression. See how ridiculous he is now for suing?
Not only are the notes and melody not the same, but legally speaking, he can't say Coldplay took "substantial portions" of his material. Case closed, and (ill-advised) payoff or not, rightly "dismissed."
99 - El Bicho
Considering the document has been sealed, what else could it mean? And not to keep disagreeing with you, but I don't presume that just because they paid Satch to go away means they admit guilt. The costs to deal with lawsuits can be a lot.
However, with all their money, I don't see why they didn't fight, if they are 100% in the right as you state. It's a bad precedent, but there must be some room for concern on their part, and they likely learned something from George Harrison's case/travesty.
100 - Joe Rubino
I'm not a fan of either Coldplay or Joe, but I don't see what the issue is. Anybody saying "no" is either tone-deaf or an unabashed Coldplay fan. The songs are so similar that, to a person who didn't know which was published first, Joe's could be thought to be an instrumental version of Coldplay's hit. Charlie- you need to do yourself a favor and go onto You Tube and see the Guitar Instructor from Canada who, in two very long videos (9 minutes and 7 minutes), broke down both songs scientifically to demonstrate their similarity. He illustrated stunning similarities in tempo, chords, and melody. You can bet that Joe got paid on this one.
101 - Charlie
Joe, thanks for your comment (#100, no less and congrats for that). But yes, he is the "Youtube" teacher I referred to in earlier comments. He presents the strongest case that the two songs have too much in common to not be plagiaristic but he is wrong in his analysis and makes up chords in the Coldplay song that do not exist to make a crucial point! The songs do not have the same melody and chords.
That is crucial and he fails to demonstrate the exact guitar chords Coldplay plays, nor does he demonstrate how Coldplay's singer imitates a Satriani guitar line. I could go on but I've said enough here.
102 - Charlie
And if you don't know what I'm talking about Joe, watch the teacher in the 7-minute mark make up a G major chord, A major chord, D major seventh + 9 chord and b minor chord that don't exist in "Viva" right after playing the chorus of Satch's "If I Could Fly," which is E minor 7, A major, D major seventh + 9, and B minor. "Viva" has one-note guitar lines, that's it (no actual chords).
The bass (always one note at a time here) goes a completely different route, even if it's a similar tempo as "Fly." But thousands of songs have the same tempo so that's nothing. And that bass line is: D flat, E flat, A flat, F (minor). Can Andrew the Youtube teacher explain how that rips off Satch? No way.