Kanye West isn't nice. He's a prick of the highest order!b2 wrote: ALL PEOPLE ARE NICE!
SATRIANI SUES COLDPLAY
-
Bryceybhoy
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:28 am
The machine grinds on, this just in:
http://www.coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=242
http://www.coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=242
So, Joe: What is your purpose?With the greatest possible respect to Joe Satriani, we have now unfortunately found it necessary to respond publicly to his allegations. If there are any similarities between our two pieces of music, they are entirely coincidental, and just as surprising to us as to him. Joe Satriani is a great musician, but he did not write or have any influence on the song Viva La Vida. We respectfully ask him to accept our assurances of this and wish him well with all future endeavours. Coldplay.
-
Instrumentalrockrocks
- Member
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:26 am
First of all:
I get pissed off by people who have their opinions (not here on the Vai forum ofcourse) ready tough they are non-musicians or so-called not frequently music listeners.
There seem to be a lot of people who recognize another thing in the song... they say the french Alizee made a song very similar to satriani's and Coldplay's song.
Well, that is obviously not true:
Second: Satriani mentioned he worked on the song If I could Fly for over 14 years (back in 1990). Unless Joe is lying (wich he is probably not) I think that argument is just plain bullshit.
third: If Satriani is working has been working on this song for over 10 years, than I just know for sure he has somewhere a writing or a recording or whatever of it...
fourth: I respect the older music of Coldplay... Parachutes had some good moments on it (troubles, talk, etc) but nowadays they make crap music and because of that I think they do not have any good ideas anymore by themselves so they start stealing music.
It is really hard to judge about these subjects like music... But I think Satriani has a good change -> there are simply too many similarities in the songs...
Hope he wins this case
Groove On
I get pissed off by people who have their opinions (not here on the Vai forum ofcourse) ready tough they are non-musicians or so-called not frequently music listeners.
There seem to be a lot of people who recognize another thing in the song... they say the french Alizee made a song very similar to satriani's and Coldplay's song.
Well, that is obviously not true:
Second: Satriani mentioned he worked on the song If I could Fly for over 14 years (back in 1990). Unless Joe is lying (wich he is probably not) I think that argument is just plain bullshit.
third: If Satriani is working has been working on this song for over 10 years, than I just know for sure he has somewhere a writing or a recording or whatever of it...
fourth: I respect the older music of Coldplay... Parachutes had some good moments on it (troubles, talk, etc) but nowadays they make crap music and because of that I think they do not have any good ideas anymore by themselves so they start stealing music.
It is really hard to judge about these subjects like music... But I think Satriani has a good change -> there are simply too many similarities in the songs...
Hope he wins this case
Groove On
It's a lawsuit. Truth is only a concept now. We'll never know the truth, and whichever way this ends, music and its freedom looses.
Also, I'd be less inclined to doubt Satch's claim of plagiarism if he hadn't said that he wrote the song over a long period of time with an acoustic by humming a melody until he considered it "just right" (IIRC).
I find it more than likely that two gifted writers with a similar cultural background might hum a (very) similar melody over a given bunch of chords. Certainly far more likely than if Satch had written the melody by improvising on the guitar and comping the best bits (even then I wouldn't rule it out though).
Coldplay's reaction (or lack thereof) also seems to indicate to me that they are either (a) very stupid, thinking they can rip somebody off and he'll just suck it up, even as they collect Grammys for it or (b) they really are positive that they didn't plagiarize it and figured the bald guy would realize how ridiculous his claim was and not follow through. Somehow the latter sounds far more plausible to me.
Of course California lawyers are feeling the credit crunch right now (big layoffs, even lawfirms going bankrupt) and by the rules of the lawsuit game they do have a pretty good case, so it's not like anybody other than Satriani himself can stop this.
Also, I'd be less inclined to doubt Satch's claim of plagiarism if he hadn't said that he wrote the song over a long period of time with an acoustic by humming a melody until he considered it "just right" (IIRC).
I find it more than likely that two gifted writers with a similar cultural background might hum a (very) similar melody over a given bunch of chords. Certainly far more likely than if Satch had written the melody by improvising on the guitar and comping the best bits (even then I wouldn't rule it out though).
Coldplay's reaction (or lack thereof) also seems to indicate to me that they are either (a) very stupid, thinking they can rip somebody off and he'll just suck it up, even as they collect Grammys for it or (b) they really are positive that they didn't plagiarize it and figured the bald guy would realize how ridiculous his claim was and not follow through. Somehow the latter sounds far more plausible to me.
Of course California lawyers are feeling the credit crunch right now (big layoffs, even lawfirms going bankrupt) and by the rules of the lawsuit game they do have a pretty good case, so it's not like anybody other than Satriani himself can stop this.
-
lydian2000
- Member
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:43 am
Truth? Just listen carefully to both tracks.
Even if I think Joe is now too full of himself(hence the very aggressive response when an interviewers dares to criticize the quality of his last albums) I hope he will definitely win this case, because to me it's so obvious.
Even if I think Joe is now too full of himself(hence the very aggressive response when an interviewers dares to criticize the quality of his last albums) I hope he will definitely win this case, because to me it's so obvious.
-
Instrumentalrockrocks
- Member
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:26 am
agressive? I'm interested.. any links?lydian2000 wrote:Truth? Just listen carefully to both tracks.
Even if I think Joe is now too full of himself(hence the very aggressive response when an interviewers dares to criticize the quality of his last albums) I hope he will definitely win this case, because to me it's so obvious.
oh and btw happy birthday
Groove On
-
notavirtuoso
- Member
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:56 pm
Actually he said that about the song in interviews when Is There Love in Space? came out. I can't remember which album he was working on when he first wrote it, but he didn't include it because it didn't fit the rest of whatever album it was. I'm thinking it was the self titled '95 album, which would make sense because it's so blues heavy. Then in later sessions he'd come back to it and tweak it a little more but I guess he was more interested in his new material than finishing old stuff, so it was sidelined again. Then finally when his creative well was running dry he decided to dust it off and finish it. That last bit's just an assumption.wasoota wrote:
Also, I'd be less inclined to doubt Satch's claim of plagiarism if he hadn't said that he wrote the song over a long period of time with an acoustic by humming a melody until he considered it "just right" (IIRC).
Yeah, that's what I remember. It was in the ITLIS podcast or something. My point is he sang the melody.
Courts don't rule on "the truth", they apply the law to an issue based only on what is presented to them. So e.g. if the parties decide not to present "the whole truth", the court will rule on whatever they have and will never know nor care about "the whole truth". The nature of a civil trial practically requires both parties to distort the truth to the maximum extent that they can provide reasonable 'proof' of their claims. So Satch's guys may say "you burglared my house and stole the tape back in '91" and Coldplay's guys will answer "Joe who?" That's the Spiel.
E.g. I may buy something in a store but the store can obviously still sue me for theft. But now, if I am unable to present a receipt in court, I will eventually be sentenced to pay damages for a theft that never happened, because legally I was unable to avert the claim by the store that I took without paying.
A criminal court might find "reasonable doubt" that I stole and not convict, but civil proceedings don't have such a high burden of proof. They usually only require a 'preponderance of evidence', i.e. "this seems more likely than that". That's not even anywhere near "the truth", but that's how it works. So it's very possible to win a civil trial despite being totally 'wrong', simply because you have better 'proof' for your position.
A trial is a mechanism to end a dispute, not to "find the truth".
You mean "truth" as in proof that the two are similar. There is no doubt about that. I mean "truth" as in "what really transpired". Short of a 'confession' by Coldplay, we'll never have that (because by the nature of the issue, obviously nobody will believe their denials, even if true). Plagiarism is the legal sense means "too similar not to have been copied", plagiarism in the true sense of the word means "actually copied". We'll never know whether it was "actually copied".lydian2000 wrote:Truth? Just listen carefully to both tracks.
Courts don't rule on "the truth", they apply the law to an issue based only on what is presented to them. So e.g. if the parties decide not to present "the whole truth", the court will rule on whatever they have and will never know nor care about "the whole truth". The nature of a civil trial practically requires both parties to distort the truth to the maximum extent that they can provide reasonable 'proof' of their claims. So Satch's guys may say "you burglared my house and stole the tape back in '91" and Coldplay's guys will answer "Joe who?" That's the Spiel.
E.g. I may buy something in a store but the store can obviously still sue me for theft. But now, if I am unable to present a receipt in court, I will eventually be sentenced to pay damages for a theft that never happened, because legally I was unable to avert the claim by the store that I took without paying.
A criminal court might find "reasonable doubt" that I stole and not convict, but civil proceedings don't have such a high burden of proof. They usually only require a 'preponderance of evidence', i.e. "this seems more likely than that". That's not even anywhere near "the truth", but that's how it works. So it's very possible to win a civil trial despite being totally 'wrong', simply because you have better 'proof' for your position.
A trial is a mechanism to end a dispute, not to "find the truth".
I demand more shakespeare quotes
ive been reading so mch crap over this coldplay thing, its gotten ridiculous with the amount of nonence going about
i think its a coinsidnce but the attitude and reactions of some people towards it is ridiculous
ive been reading so mch crap over this coldplay thing, its gotten ridiculous with the amount of nonence going about
i think its a coinsidnce but the attitude and reactions of some people towards it is ridiculous
-
Shredded Heat
- Member
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:03 pm
al wrote:I demand more shakespeare quotes
I don't know about the original context of this, but it seems apply quite well to lawyersWilliam Shakespeare wrote:The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils.
P.S. don't get upset with me if you're a lawyer (I know how touchy you guys can be)