Members Dendy Jarrett Posted January 27, 2015 Members Share Posted January 27, 2015 Just curious everyone's take on this. I heard on the NBC nightly news last night that the court ruled in Tom Petty's favor. I don't have the talent for song writing, but I play drums for many in Nashville who do. Some have written songs to find later that someone hijacked the melody, and other's have written songs in honest only to later discover a song they were completely unaware of that sounded just like the song they wrote (before they penned the song). Does this seem like a fair ruling? Will it set a precedence people should throughly investigate before they release a song? Have we reached a saturation point where there are no true "owned" melodies anymore? http://uproxx.com/music/2015/01/why-...-stay-with-me/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dendy Jarrett Posted January 27, 2015 Author Members Share Posted January 27, 2015 And for a comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84838260&x-yt-ts=1422327029&v=qkcZV97O3pw#t=12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tbry Posted January 27, 2015 Members Share Posted January 27, 2015 I heard the Sam Smith song sometime ago and did not connect it...now I can hear the chorus similarity plainly...but, his style vocal voicing timbre and delivery are so different that to me it is not an issue. How many different ways can a song be done? Lots I suppose but they are going to cross...a standard style of blues then could never be done again... McCartney wrote Oh Darling and the progression and 6/8 delivery could be tagged to a lot of songs. Heck, he was channeling Little Richard as he sang it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhino55 Posted January 27, 2015 Members Share Posted January 27, 2015 The first time I heard it, I thought it was rip off of Won't Back Down. I think it's interesting that in traditional formats like blues, country, gospel, etc everybody ripped off everybody and nobody cared. I guess there wasn't that much money to be made for the lawyers to care. With pop music on this level I guess there is money to be made so people care. At some point pop music will just be part of the songs that people grew up with much like traditional formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted January 28, 2015 Members Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'm just surprised Tom Petty would get all legal about something like this - he's always seemed such a grass-roots, stand up for the small guy, let me do my thing and I'll let you do yours type. His buddy George did get stung for My Sweet Lord sounding too much like He's So Fine, which I thought was rather much. Now Petty is taking the side of the litigious. Yeah, for pop music, which works with so much stock, standard, and imitative material, it seems a mighty fine line to draw between "influence" and "blatant copy". Maybe when you get older you start thinking about your legacy or something.... It's not like the Sam Smith tune came right on the heels of Petty's hit, either - don't you have to prove some actual damage done in these cases before winning means anything??? nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members oldgitplayer Posted January 28, 2015 Members Share Posted January 28, 2015 I expect that it wasn't so much Tom Petty behind the case, but the men in suits - the industry moguls who have spent their lives squeezing the artist dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mbfrancis Posted January 29, 2015 Members Share Posted January 29, 2015 Guys, they're only getting 12.5%, which is totally fair. It's not like Jagger/Richards who sued The Verve for their use of a small unauthorized sample and took 100% - yes, 100% - of "Bittersweet Symphony." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted January 29, 2015 Members Share Posted January 29, 2015 Guys, they're only getting 12.5%, which is totally fair. It's not like Jagger/Richards who sued The Verve for their use of a small unauthorized sample and took 100% - yes, 100% - of "Bittersweet Symphony." That's quite a story early on in the sampling era. But it's the Stones - we expect them to be jerks, right? nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members oldgitplayer Posted January 29, 2015 Members Share Posted January 29, 2015 That's quite a story early on in the sampling era. But it's the Stones - we expect them to be jerks, right? nat whilk ii Well it's Mick he is a jerk - right. He can never be forgiven for arranging legally that Mick Taylor would never see a cent in any kind of royalties once he had left the group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members shortchord Posted January 30, 2015 Members Share Posted January 30, 2015 There was no lawsuit or court ruling. The 12.5% share attributed to Petty was the result of an amicable agreement between the parties: http://www.tompetty.com/blog/statement-tom-petty-423041. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted February 11, 2015 Members Share Posted February 11, 2015 I expect that it wasn't so much Tom Petty behind the case, but the men in suits - the industry moguls who have spent their lives squeezing the artist dry. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted February 11, 2015 Members Share Posted February 11, 2015 The first time I heard it, I thought it was rip off of Won't Back Down. I think it's interesting that in traditional formats like blues, country, gospel, etc everybody ripped off everybody and nobody cared. I guess there wasn't that much money to be made for the lawyers to care. With pop music on this level I guess there is money to be made so people care. At some point pop music will just be part of the songs that people grew up with much like traditional formats. Interesting. The first time I heard Sam Smith`s tune, I liked it. I didn`t hear the Petty tune in there at all until I started to read about it, then thought about the melodies for both tunes. The chorus is definitely spot on but the verses were different and the chord progression was slightly different. I honestly don`t think it was a genuine attempt to rip off Petty. I know just for myself that I`ll often write something and think its original until I play it for some people and they`ll say, "Sounds like so and so" or "That`s the same melody from so and so." Its frustrating. Anyway, I think Petty handled it with grace and so did Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mikeo Posted February 11, 2015 Members Share Posted February 11, 2015 As part of the settlement, the Sun reported, Petty and Lynne were awarded a 12.5 percent stake in Smith’s song. I heard on Sirius Radio this should be a quick 12 million dollars, or more. Sam is like 22 and said he never heard the song I Won't Back Down. I bet he remember is for a long time to come. Shame on you Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.