Similar songs

**Garden Dreamer** · 08-02-2015

A bunch of prog songs have implemented the classic melody line from KC's Court of the Crimson King. The opening segment in Transatlantic's "The Whirlwind" is fairly close... Lana Lane's "Astrology Prelude"... a few more that I can't remember offhand...

**Halmyre** · 08-04-2015

Popped up on my iPod shuffle selection this morning - Bob Dylan's "4th Time Around", which brought to mind The Beatles' "Norwegian Wood".

**Rune Blackwings** · 08-04-2015

Originally Posted by bob_32_116

Plagiarism means passing off someone else's work or ideas as your own. Hence, there can be no such thing as "auto-plagiarism".

unless you are John Fogerty

**mogrooves** · 08-04-2015

Soon <---> The Way We Were

**firth5th** · 08-04-2015

Asia - Here Comes that Feeling
Genesis - in that quiet earth

**Halmyre** · 08-05-2015

Originally Posted by Rune Blackwings

unless you are John Fogerty

I was thinking about him as well. Sued for ripping off your own material...

**bob_32_116** · 08-05-2015

Originally Posted by Halmyre

I was thinking about him as well. Sued for ripping off your own material...

Well, irrespective of whether the suit was or was not justified, there needs to be a different name other than "plagiarism". There is a parallel in academic circles. When you submit a thesis for a higher degree, it is supposed to contain your own work, and it should be new work. Giving the results of someone else's work is fine, as long as you acknowledge the source (otherwise it's plagiarism). Giving the results of your own work that you already did and reported on elsewhere is also fine, BUT you have to acknowledge that fact, and the thesis has to show evidence of additional original work. In other words, you can't get credit for the thesis based on something you already did ages ago and for which you already got credit.

Although this guy Zaentz was obviously a money-grasping prick, the case was not totally frivolous. Fogerty would not have been allowed to simply re-record "Run Through the Jungle" and just change one or two words, for example. He may have written the song, but if the rights have been sold, he no longer has those rights - that's what "selling" means. You may have built your own house, but if you sell it to someone else, it is no longer yours to go and live in.

**Rune Blackwings** · 08-05-2015

Originally Posted by bob_32_116

Well, irrespective of whether the suit was or was not justified, there needs to be a different name other than "plagiarism". There is a parallel in academic circles. When you submit a thesis for a higher degree, it is supposed to contain your own work, and it should be new work. Giving the results of someone else's work is fine, as long as you acknowledge the source (otherwise it's plagiarism). Giving the results of your own work that you already did and reported on elsewhere is also fine, BUT you have to acknowledge that fact, and the thesis has to show evidence of additional original work. In other words, you can't get credit for the thesis based on something you already did ages ago and for which you already got credit.

Although this guy Zaentz was obviously a money-grasping prick, the case was not totally frivolous. Fogerty would not have been allowed to simply re-record "Run Through the Jungle" and just change one or two words, for example. He may have written the song, but if the rights have been sold, he no longer has those rights - that's what "selling" means. You may have built your own house, but if you sell it to someone else, it is no longer yours to go and live in.

The thing is: a house is pretty cut and dry. You build an item and you sell it. It is a good. However, ideas and creative properties are a bit more complicated. You make an album. You sell the album. The object that is the album is no longer yours to say you cannot sell it, but the work on the album is still yours. I take a photo of Arcturus. I give the photo to Arcturus. Technically, they can sell that photo, but to use it on an album or promotion piece or to even copy it, even though their images are on it, is considered an intellectual property infringement. Back to the house-even that can fall into intellectual property: I can build a house, sell you the house and physically, it is yours-BUT if there is a proprietary design or feature on the house, you cannot sell the idea or rights to that to another person building a house.

One of the more complicated intellectual property battles involved the song "Bittersweet Symphony":

From Wikipedia:
"Although the song's lyrics were written by Verve vocalist Richard Ashcroft, its distinctive passage for strings was sampled from the 1965 Andrew Oldham Orchestra symphonic recording of "The Last Time", arranged & written by David Whitaker, inspired by the 1965 Rolling Stones' song of the same title.[8][9]

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a licence to use a five-note sample from the Oldham recording, but former Stones manager Allen Klein (who owned the copyrights to the band’s pre-1970 songs) claimed that The Verve broke the agreement and used a larger portion.[10][11] Despite its original lyrics and string intro (by Wil Malone & Ashcroft), the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" was sampled from the Oldham track, which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Klein's holding company, and eventually settled out of court. The Verve relinquished all of their royalties to Klein, owner of ABKCO Records, whilst songwriting credits were changed to Jagger/Richards/Ashcroft.[12]

The Verve bassist Simon Jones said, "We were told it was going to be a 50/50 split, and then they saw how well the record was doing. They rung up and said we want 100 percent or take it out of the shops, you don't have much choice."[13] After losing the composer credits to the song, Ashcroft commented, "This is the best song Jagger and Richards have written in 20 years",[14] noting it was their biggest UK hit since "Brown Sugar".[13] On Ashcroft's return to touring, the song traditionally ended the set list. Ashcroft also reworked the single for VH2 Live for the music channel VH1, stripping the song of its strings. Ashcroft is quoted as saying during the show: "Despite all the legal angles and the bullshit, strip down to the chords and the lyrics and the melody and you realise there is such a good song there."[15]

In a Cash for Questions interview with Q magazine published in January 1999, Keith Richards was asked if he thought it was harsh taking all The Verve's royalties from "Bitter Sweet Symphony". He replied, "I'm out of whack here, this is serious lawyer shit. If The Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money."

In an interview with Uncut Magazine, Oldham stated, "As for Richard Ashcroft, well, I don't know how an artist can be severely damaged by that experience. Songwriters have learned to call songs their children, and he thinks he wrote something. He didn't. I hope he's got over it. It takes a while."[16]"

From Verve's site:
"In early 1998, The Verve's management issued a statement saying that the band would not have consented to the Nike commercial if they had retained publishing rights to their song in the first place, according to Ambrosia Healy, the band publicist.

"Though it is not The Verve's policy to have their music used in commercial advertising, a portion of 'Bitter Sweet Symphony' has been approved for use in a Nike television ad that is currently appearing in the U.S. for a limited run. This would not have happened had The Verve not lost the publishing copyright (and therefore artistic control) of 'Bitter Sweet Symphony' to Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Allen Klein/Abko Music," the statement read.

So here it is folks; Nike's sixty second spot -- a stylish, cinematic salute to athletic determination.

Nike Experience Bittersweet For Verve
The Verve, Hollywood Records & More
Posted Feb 16, 1998; Rolling Stone online

If it were up to the Verve, Nike never would have received permission to use the band's "Bitter Sweet Symphony" as the cornerstone of the company's new multimillion-dollar ad campaign. But thanks to a tangled web of music-publishing rights, the Verve claim that the decision wasn't really theirs to make.

"The Verve are a rock band, and they don't think their music should be used to endorse things," says the group's manager, Jazz Summers.

Problems for the Verve arose, however, because the band does not control publishing rights to "Bitter Sweet Symphony." Since the song includes a sample of the Andrew Oldham Orchestra's version of the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time," ABKCO, which owns the copyrights to many early Stones tracks, took control of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" last year. That meant ABKCO could sell the song's rights to any advertiser willing to pay for it, and that the advertiser could then -- without the Verve's permission -- hire studio musicians to re-record a sound-alike.

Rather than allow that to happen, the band members decided to license their actual recording of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" to one major advertiser in the hopes that this would deter others from wanting to buy the publishing rights. In the end, Nike beat out Budweiser, Coca-Cola, General Motors and others for the sweeping hit single.

Nike's sixty-second spot -- a stylish, cinematic salute to athletic determination -- is just the latest in a cascade of commercials utilizing pop music to sell everything from shoes to cars to computers. Among others in heavy rotation: Sly and the Family Stone's "Everyday People" (Toyota), David Bowie's "Heroes" (Microsoft), the Who's "I Can't Explain" (Ford), Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young's "Our House" (Chase Bank) and Erykah Badu's "On and On" (Levi's).

And the price to license these songs isn't cheap; most hits go for $250,000 or more. Nike paid $700,000 for "Bitter Sweet Symphony," but the band received only $175,000, while ABKCO pocketed $350,000. (The Verve are donating their share to the Red Cross Land Mine Appeal; they're asking ABKCO to do the same.)

Not that the Verve haven't benefited from the ads. Two weeks after the Nike commercial debuted, during the NFL playoffs, the Verve's Urban Hymns jumped thirty-four spots on the Billboard 200, hitting Number Thirty-six, the album's highest point since its release last September. Summers concedes that the ad may help generate the Verve's U.S. breakthrough: "If this music is being played during football games and 20 million people are listening to it for a minute, it's going to have an effect."

And a higher chart position is not all they got. "In our final negotiations with the band's manager, he was asking if [the Verve] could get tickets for the World Cup," says Nike's Mark Thomashow. So the band will be heading to Paris this summer for some soccer matches? "I said, 'Whatever it takes,' " says Thomashow."

**bob_32_116** · 08-05-2015

^^ "Bittersweet Symphony" indeed.

**Rune Blackwings** · 08-05-2015

Originally Posted by bob_32_116

^^ "Bittersweet Symphony" indeed.

yeah-intellectual property is already the rogue, out of control wild ride of law and this one is all that on steroids

**trurl** · 08-05-2015

The Verve are almost certainly douchebags, so whatever.

**Rune Blackwings** · 08-06-2015

Originally Posted by trurl

The Verve are almost certainly douchebags, so whatever.

sounds like the whole lot are a big circle jerk of douchiness

**ThomasKDye** · 08-06-2015

Rainbow - L.A. Connection and Deep Purple - One Man's Meat - Ritchie Blackmore seriously running out of ideas.
Jackson Browne - Running on Empty and Moody Blues - Sitting at the Wheel

**bob_32_116** · 08-21-2015

I was just listening to a radio programme called "Soulsides" that features music mostly from the 1960s era of soul. They played "Chains of Love" by the Drifters. I immediately recognised the opening guitar riff! Check it out and see what you think - it's easily available on Youtube.