A friend sent me this link:
http://www.wgmd.com/SOUNDS/FEATURES/051706-petty.mp3

I thought that was pretty funny. The two songs sound identical in places and have the same lyrical content.

I dont think the chilli peppers would do it consciously but it's pretty amusing.

It's not like it's a very innovative/unique rythm or chord progression.

There's only 12 notes in our music system. I've come up with riffs or whatever and then heard a song that I've never heard (or one I had heard and forgot) and noticed that they were practically the same. It happens.

But it's still strange, they're way too alike. I don't like Tom Petty at all, and I have been a gigantic fan of the chili peppers, but I hope the song gets pulled off the air. It's unoriginal, boring, cliche-chili peppers, I'm really disapointed.

John has been known to steal progressions before, it's not one of those "oh theres only so many chord progressions you can do", but the vocal melody (and even content ) are extremely alike. Listen to "I Know" by John Lennon, you'll hear the same riff from the begining to Soul To Squeeze, the end of "Give It Away" is taken from "Sweet Leaf " by Sabbath, Californication is taken from "Neighborhood Threat" by Iggy Pop, and the list goes on. Sure, it happens. There's also a difference between using a lick tastefully to add on to a piece, not form the whole song itself. Come on, who jumped on Vanilla Ice after using the Under Pressure bassline?

Maybe I would be saying something different if the song was actually good, but this isn't the case.

Well... I may be seeing both in concert this summer. I'll decide then.

Chord progression is one thing, that chord scheme isn't that 'original' in the first place...

However, the exact same tempo, drum beat, rhythm, and then almost a 80% identical vocal melody.

Now, I don't think it's smart to say RHCP clearly ripped off Petty. As a musician, sometimes you'll do part of a song and not realize till way later how close it is to something you heard in the past.

I'm just surprised it got through all the members, the label, and all the people in studio recording it without one person being like "Hey, wait a second..."

Hell, same effects on the guitars even.

-Anyone here know the song "Wake Up" by Rage Against the Machine? How about "Kashmir" by Led Zepplin? Yeah. Not as close, but still close.

It's called band influence. Get over it.

At the end of the day, all art is stealing.

ALL OF IT.

EVERY LAST BIT.

The end.

i concur. eventually every artist steals at least once from the artist who inspired him.

but what about the first artist?

"A good composer does not imitate; he steals."
-Igor Stravinsky

What is "stealing"? </clinton>

I think there's a difference between 'influence' and 'copying' though...

Did you even listen to the clip?

You can't copyright a chords, only melody/lyrics.

Yes, did you listen to the clip though? The melody's close to being identical, and so are the lyrics...

I've seen many things like this before - where people say two songs sound similar, and its really a freak accident. But listen to the clip - they're the exact same song

I just listened to the clip (I skipped around, the announcers are idiots). What bull**** - the radio guys are just sensationalizing it.

Like I said, chord progressions can't be copyrighted. Drum grooves can't be copyrighted. Neither can bass lines. Of course they sounded similar when mixed - they're both rock songs in 4, and in the same key.

Which brings up something else - I can buy two songs being in the same key, but at exactly the same tempo? I don't think so. The radio station doctored those clips.

As for the other stuff, I don't see the problem. The lyrics were different. The melodies were different. Can people honestly not hear the differences?

This is such crap. It's like complaining that some blues tune by Clapton sounds sort of like some blues tune by Muddy Waters. Same chords, similar lyrical content, different melody. Jesus.

...I'm not sure if the clip was doctored. It didn't sound like it.

The thing that really got me was the comparison of Petty's lyrics to the newer song. It's like the Chili Peppers listened to Petty all throughout their recording session and just made an homage to him.

Or it's like, you know, they think the same?

IS IT THAT DIFFICULT?

Yeah, they sped it up.
And the chorus is completely different.

-But it's still similar. I'm gonna check the later verses for lyrical similarities...

I hope you're right. If they didn't, then it is, in my opinion, very much theft. It's just way too similar.


The melodies were different? Okay, I haven't played music in years, and I don't remember much music theory, but uh, how can you not hear the similarities? It's not just "similar," it's almost the same exact same thing. I'm pretty sure the melody is just about the same.

I'm not some Tom Petty fanboy, nor do I hate the Chilli Peppers...these songs are just really, really similar.

The rhythms were different, the pitches were different - they sound similar because the songs are in the same key (though given that the radio station sped up or slowed down one of the tunes, they probably changed that too). The lyrics were also different. It's not plagarism.

http://gigit.com/songs/Folk%20University%20-%20Mary%20Jane's%20Last%20Dance.wma
Sped-ed up.

-(might possibly be a live version judging by the low quality, so take with a grain of salt)

Legally, no, but some may still consider it crossing the line.

Where do cover songs fall in the pantheon of plagiarism? (Heh, Pantheon of Plagiarism).
Could Hendrix's "Watchtower" cover be released these days? Sometimes the RIAA/copyright limits seem vague.

-Is a cover song considered "Fair Use"?

For a cover just ask permission from the original artist. You will probably have royalties to pay, if they think your album is going to make any money.

Some people however are cool and just enjoy the extra exposure.

Yeah, and this clearly wasn't a cover since as RHCP make no mention of Tom Petty in copyright info

Uh, IIRC cover songs fall in a similar vein as parody. You don't have to, AFAIK ask the original artist. I've heard stories of lots of artists being pissed because someone else covered a song, but they couldn't do anything about it. Happened to Johnny Cash several times. All of the artists came around when the actually heard the songs though.

Nope, as soon as you sample a part from a song long enough for it to become recognizable, you need the permission of the copyright holder (the publicist of the composer, most of the time) and the moral rights (from the composer himself) to use it. The same goes as well for a performance or recording, not just a sample.

Any self-respecting bar that has musicians playing covers pays performance rights to the proper copyright association in your country. That way, the musician doesn't have any rights to pay to play covers, and doesn't even have to worry about it. However, for a recording, there's no way around it. You MUST ask permission, which may (probably will) cost you money (either a set dollar amount or points on your record sales).

Yeah, and most of the time - if you look in the cd booklet, any cover song they rarely seem to print the lyrics for the song. It usually just lists the song and lists the original copyright info "Used with permission from etc"

Maybe you're thinking of the 'composer' technically not owning the rights for his songs and the party that owns it is letting other people use them without care for the 'composer's' wishes

What really bothers me is that this is retrogressive musically, and that people will like it despite its unoriginality.

Something doesn't have to be original to be good.

Like Detty's comments




:p

Thanks for enlightening me.

that sounds too much the same. they sped up Tom Petty's version to mix them together, however.

That's a remarkable resemblance, but seriously. These artists all have plenty of talent and don't need to rip off other artists to make a hit. The Red Hot Chili Peppers have made hits before. I believe that it is total coincidence.

Exactly. For a live cover, the venue is supposed to pay the Performing Rights Organization a fee every month to allow bands to play covers in order that the band, which is probably under the same or the other major PRO anyways, doesn't end up paying the fees. (Btw, it's ASCAP and BMI in America. SESAC is not even worth mentioning).

For a recorded cover, usually the label doing the recording has negotiated with the copyright holder for the rights to cover the song. If it's a local band doing a cover on their album, chances are they haven't done this and if they garner enough attention with their cover, they could be sued.

Meh, Tom Petty is still better.

Haha this is retarded. Who gives a damn?

I had heard both songs previously to clicking that link, and so after listening I put both songs on again and played them through. Are there similarities? Yes, however you can find similarities with plenty of songs. The two who have completely different vibes, as well as wholly different choruses/refrains. These guys are blowing this way out of proportion. And i have to agree with someone, I think they sped up "Mary Jane's last Dance" in the clip too.

me