Jump to content

Zooey

Members
  • Content Count

    11,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Zooey last won the day on March 28 2015

Zooey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,796 Excellent

About Zooey

  • Rank
    Guru

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's more like a hidden track and not part of the sequencing of the album. I wouldn't consider "Endless Nameless" to be the last track on Nirvana's Nevermind or "Disgustipated" to be the last track on Tool's "Undertow" for the same reason. But if you do consider Her Majesty to be the closing track of Abbey Road, then maybe the endless loop ("never could be any other way") is the final track of Sgt. Pepper's instead of Day in the Life.
  2. But being on a cheap end of expensive was not what Harmony was known for. At least in my lifetime. I think the designs are cool enough, they remind me of certain Eastwood guitars. The price is actually good for a US made guitar, though you can get a "Fullerton Standard" G&L for the same or cheaper. It seems like a stretch to me that they set up a new production line for guitars, maybe these are OEMed by another company. Like Heritage, which is also in Kalamazoo, I think.
  3. So weird. Looks like the brand was purchased by Bandlab, a tech company headquartered in Singapore that makes a music collaboration app. They make a lot of effort to make it seem like they have a connection to the historic Harmony brand, but I really doubt they have any connection at all. They've certainly demonstrated they don't really understand the appeal of the original Harmony company. I'm guessing they bought the trademark from Sears out of bankruptcy, or acquired it from someone who did. There are a quite a few guitar brands that have little or no connection to the historic company of the same name. Some of them do a good job, some not so much. For example, Supro is owned by the same company that makes Pigtronix pedals. I think people like their amps. Ampeg has been passed around a lot (owned by Saint Louis Music aka Crate, then LOUD aka Mackie, then Yahama Guitar Group aka Line 6).
  4. I use drum machines to sound like drum machines. I'm no good at programming real drum parts anyway so I don't try to make it be something it's not. My only hardware drum machine at the moment is a Roland R8 that I like because it has 8 analog outputs. Mostly I use VIs or sample packs in Ableton Live's Drum Rack now, or my own one hit samples I have collected or made over the years. This thing is pretty cool: http://www.soniccouture.com/en/products/27-electronica/g58-electro-acoustic/
  5. Beethoven's Pathetique sonota is ruined for me because I hear Billy Joel lyrics over it now.
  6. I think Ice Ice Baby is an actual sample, so he was sunk from the beginning. He probably gave up songwriting credit because he had no leverage. I don't know if a jury in 1990 would have necessarily found Ice Ice Baby to be a copy of Under Pressure. Same story with the Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony." Nobody really thinks it is a copy of "The Last Time." Songwriting credit was agreed to as part of an out of court settlement.
  7. Since there are no similarities of lyrics or melody, the claim rests entirely on the instrumental track. There's a descending, staccato synth part that is similar in both songs. Though as many have pointed out, the Art of Noise did that in "Moments in Love" over 30 years ago. I bet that the jury was also influenced by the shout out at the beginning of the song where Juicy J. says, "you know what it is." It's really skimpy evidence of copying. I wonder if other hip hop, dance and electronica producers are salivating now at what else might be copyrightable. Like, could Diplo sue anyone who creates an instrumental track that contains a distorted kick drum playing the bass line, a "drop" between the transition between verse and chorus, and a monophonic synth sound that sounds like a vocal sample?
  8. It was never just about the drum beat. Here's a description of what the expert witness testified to: https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8522201/katy-perry-dark-horse-trial-musicologist-backs-up-copyright-claim This is the same kind of thing that we saw with Blurred Lines. The jury got to hear two productions that sounded similar, then an expert witness came in and pointed out all the little similarities that by themselves should not even be considered copyrightable. The Billboard article uses the word "beat" to refer to the whole track, not the drum beat. Probably because that's the terminology that was used at trial.
  9. I derailed the thread with my speculation about sampling. I was thrown by the CNN article that says they "used the underlying beat." A "beat" in hip hop is the instrumental backing track.
  10. Except that "beat" doesn't mean "beat" for purposes of hip hop. It means everything in the song that is not rapping.
  11. Yeah, you're right. The claim was infringement of the composition. This looks a lot like the Blurred Lines verdict. I don't think the two compositions are close enough to say that one is a copy of the other. The similarities are a similar sparseness of production, the drum pattern, a keyboard part that alternates between two half tones, and Juicy J. saying "you know who it is."
  12. The Sesame Street episode is banned? I watched that on PBS with my kids! Anywho, for purposes of rap music, "beat" doesn't mean the drums or percussion. It means the entire instrumental track. If Katy Perry's producers used the actual sound recording of that beat without a license, then I am not surprised at the verdict. That's an easier case to make than proving Katy Perry plagiarized the composition.
×
×
  • Create New...