Get Beatles?

Let's add the classical/doo wop I–vi–IV–V progression to this list. I don't have a list to offer, but if I did, it would probably be WAY too long to post. lol

Whether or not it was George's intent to "copy" any portion of He's So Fine or Oh Happy Day ( I believe it wasn't intentional at all) I agree with you when you said, this lawsuit was a $$$ grab.

To get back on topic, I must admit I too put the Beatles on the back burner from 1974 to the early 90s. I was way into prog, Southern and even alternative rock during this period of my life. Oh, I was also way too busy following the Dead. hehe

But as it's been said many times, you usually come back to your first love... and my first musical love was The Beatles. If that makes me a fanatic, then I will wear that badge with honor.

 

I agree with you. I just mentioned my grandmother because she was around during "Beatlemania". Listening to music like that in rural Wisconsin was considered rebellious, but the Monkees weren't.

 

Excuse me while I put one foot in the grave.

 

Well, the Monkees were a manufactured band--really the first boy band--whereas the Beatles were an actual rock band that rebelled in their own ways.

 

I think they are rather good. Of course they would have been better with Joe Satriani on guitar, Geddy Lee on bass, Dave Dexter Jr on spoons, and Animal on drums.

 

Great! You're on…please do so. But as we'll see, you'll fail to make a good case for any of them being more similar that "He's So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord."

First of all, the I-vi-ii (or IV)-V chord progression is much more common than the one you cite. This is the classic "doo-wop" chord progression ("In the Still of the Nite," "Angel Baby" and many others).

Just like the classic blues/rockabilly/country I-IV-V chord progression, it is indeed used in thousands of songs. However, the melody lines over those chord progressions tend to vary somewhat — and even if they don't, these chord progressions are recognized as a primary identifying feature of an entire genre. Given the sheer numbers of songs over the decades that have used these progressions, it was recognized early on that it would be foolish for any one songwriter to claim exclusivity on them. In fact, in both cases, actually identifying "whatever song first used this progression" would be an exercise in futility.

There is NO single corresponding primary identifying chord progression of the pop song genre — none.

In fact, no — as I clearly illustrated in my previous post, it is my contention that "He's So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord" share TWO distinct and separate melodic riffs, and those melodies are heard over the same chord progressions in each case.

You can't copyright a chord progression. But you CAN copyright a melody. As I also previously stated, "My Sweet Lord" might possibly have skated if only the chords and melody of the title phrase were identical to those of "He's So Fine."

But the second identical passage that followed made it clear that plagiarism — subconscious or otherwise — had taken place.

Both of these concerns were answered in the earlier paragraphs of this post.

 

How do you differentiate between a melody and a riff? Really they're not that different, especially when you're talking about a repeated melodic motif, which essentially serves the same function in a song as a riff.

If you think it's ok to have songs share riffs and chords--which they do--then it can't also be a problem for My Sweet Lord and He's So Fine to share a riff and chords.

 

The Eagles suck. The others you name are worth investing some effort into.

 

I will always hate peas.
But I do like the Black Eyed Peas.

 

If it does happen for you in 20 to 30 years, be sure to check back in this thread and let us know.

 

Yes! My father actively tried to get me to appreciate Mozart from my birth into my twenties. I liked a couple of things okay. But then suddenly in my early thirties I got it and it sounded like the voice of God. Yeah, I can relate.

 

There's some good tunes, but a lot of filler.

 

Melodies and riffs are easily differentiated. (I copied your phrase "melodic riff" in my previous response, but upon reflection, I should have simply said "melody.")

A riff is nearly always instrumental — that is, played by an instrument rather than sung. It can be an important part of a song, but it is NOT the song's melody.

A good example is "Day Tripper." A distinctive guitar riff starts the song and is repeated between verses (and echoed, in a different key, in the instrumental break). But this is not the melody of the song, which is sung by John and Paul in the verses and is completely unrelated to the riff.

Going back to our earlier example, if The Hollyridge Strings did a version of "Day Tripper" but decided not to use the song's riff in their arrangement, their treatment would still be instantly recognizable as "Day Tripper."

To bring it back home, there is no riff in "He's So Fine." I suppose you could consider the opening slide guitar part of "My Sweet Lord" (or the subsequent solo) to be a riff, but that's a stretch.

Both songs have melodies, sung in the verses by Judy Craig and George Harrison respectively. Not one but two separate components of their respective melodies are virtually identical and are sung over the same chords. Thus: plagiarism.

"He's So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord" do not "share a riff and chords"; they share two distinct melodies and the chords behind them.

A melody is the single most clearly identifiable component of any song. You can do two radically different arrangements of a given song, but if the melody is common to both, they're recognizable as the same song.

I've articulated my position on this matter clearly on several occasions. Rather than responding to or acknowledging the points I've made (or the errors you've made, beyond your incorrect accounting of the chords), you've just come back each time with a new tack, and these have proven to be no more successful than your earlier ones.

I think I've addressed the "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" question fully. If you're determined not to get it, then by all means stick with your take on it and go on pretending that the flaws in your position were never pointed out.

 

Too many notes...

 

As I've said several times, I think trying to differentiate between a repeated melody and a riff--and allowing the copying of one but not the other--is trying to create a distinction where there isn't one. A repeated melodic motif is nothing more than a sung riff. In fact, you might as well call it a repeated vocal motif, since a riff is an instrumental melody.

We clearly aren't going to agree, so we'll have to just agree to disagree.

 

Totally unprecedented!

 

Who does that?

 

I agree that we are unlikely to agree, but I have one more question: when did I ever say that copying either a repeated melody OR a riff was permissible? The only thing I said was that two of the most prominent chord progressions (I-IV-V and I-vi-ii-V) were used again and again because they define their respective genres, and their origins couldn't reliably be traced to one source.

Copying distinct riffs is no more permissible than copying melodies. Do you think if someone put out a song with the exact "Day Tripper" riff in it, they wouldn't get in trouble? (Though with the advent of sampling in the last couple of decades, this may be more of a gray area than before. What was the song that didn't just copy but used outright the "Ventura Highway" riff? Still, that was more of an ornamentation than the actual foundation of that song, I believe.)

 

As Paul said

You've got to get it
You've got to get it don't forget
It doesn't come around again
You've got to get it
You've got to get it and you've got to get it good

 

I think you get on a track and gradually deviate off a given direction when something else comes along that grabs your interest. While in the midst of being obsessed with one thing, you use that as the criteria for everything else, rejecting anything that doesn't meet it, instead of noticing what it has to offer of its own. But then, something else clicks with you, and your boundaries of appreciation broaden, maybe you suddenly begin to take notice of lyrics, for example.

With me, I was 8 years-old when the Beatles first appeared on U.S. television and everything changed overnight. However, I was still young enough to be influenced by my ridiculing parents, even though I did like what I was seeing and hearing, though afraid to admit it on some level, and so on. A couple of years later, the Monkees came on the scene, and then as a 10 year-old I was ready and hooked. Soon outgrowing that, I turned back to the Beatles as a 13 year-old, beginning with A Hard Day's Night and that period of music that introduced them to us, while also acknowledging the newly released Abbey Road's appeal. From there it was as I assume it is for all of us, slowly but surely digging into their full catalog, sometimes a little leerily ("Magical Mystery Tour? I don't know. Don't like the weird cover much nor the droopy Strawberry Fields Forever..."). But then the fuller appreciation develops of their own gradual development and change over the years. It's still astounding and unmatched, the transformation that they went thru over a short period of 8 years. No other band to this day can claim that same achievement.

 

You could argue that the classic rock n roll riff that progresses along the 12-bar blues progression has been copied a ton of times. I'm talking about the one used in songs like Johnny B. Goode, Roll Over Beethoven, and then later on by the Beatles and others in songs like I'm Down and even in the late 60s (Get Back).

Without doing research into it, my guess is that riff can be traced to Chuck Berry (but perhaps someone knows of someone using it earlier than him). To my knowledge no one has tried to sue other artists on Chuck Berry's behalf. Maybe you think they should? Certainly that riff has formed the foundation for countless rock n roll songs.

 

They had a bit of help on records from the jazz guitarist Barney Kessel, so did other contemporary groups. Many "groups" of that era owe a lot to the jazz musicians who played on their recordings,

They were all "groups" of singers, a "band" is something totally different, pop singers who played instruments highjacked the name as it sounds more cool. Even a trio of girl singers, call themselves a band, for cryin'out loud.

 

What I mean by manufactured is that they were created as a commercial product from the beginning. That's in contrast to the organic creation of the Beatles, the Stones, etc.

 

Quite!

The Monkees were a bit of a joke for many like me at the time.

 

I assume you mean the bit where a chord is played and then there is a rhythmic back and forth between the fifth note of that chord and the sixth. The classic version of this in the key of A would be alternating between 57x455 and 59x455. The guitarist playing this riff would use his pinky finger to hit the F# note on the fifth string.

Your use of the term "foundation" is key, because this is indeed simply an underlying rhythm pattern, as opposed to a distinct riff such as the one found in "Day Tripper" or "I Feel Fine." And just like the two chord progressions I mentioned, its origin is obscured in the mists of time. It surely goes back much further than Chuck Berry — likely to the country blues players of the 20s and 30s.

This riff, with only slight variations, underpins tens of thousands of songs, and is easily distinguishable from a unique riff with a variety of notes (that are not necessarily of equal duration) such as the two I mentioned.