Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 149 posts

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#11

Post by golemotron »

ebbv wrote: post #9
jimnotgym wrote: post #7

For anyone who doesn't play the guitar, 'Creep' and the Hollies track is is derived from come feature a rather obvious chord progression. Physically it is the result of sliding an open E chord down the neck to produce higher notes then, la piece de resistance, taking a finger off. Radiohead added a killer feature of turning the gain up on the amplifier for the chorus, genius. It's the kind of thing teenagers everywhe…

Chord progressions aren’t copyright-able. So no, that obvious thing isn’t. What is subject to copyright is the melody. That’s what they got the claim on. The vocal melody.

And it's the same melody. It really is. Open and shut case.

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#12

Post by cturner »

tr0ut wrote: post #5

I think this is just the nature of music. It requires a rather rigid system which does not offer enough diversity to be completely unique. All musical genres need to at least share the same root elements for association. https://youtu.be/Co9mW_9hH2g

Western tonality has some rules. Composers can operate outside of that if they want. With computers, a single composer could make up a new set of rules for every piece. You can turn a drum beat into a note by accelerating the wave form, invent your own scales.

It is interesting that even electronic artists tend to operate within the constraints of the western tradition. It is probably a struggle to find an audience once you start doing wacky things. Or maybe it will happen, but has not yet.

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#13

Post by tarsinge »

ebbv wrote: post #6
cJ0th wrote: post #4

As a hobby music producer I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind copyright infringement. It's so arbitrary. It's illegal to steal a melody but sophisticated chord progressions are fine. It's illegal to copy the text of even the simplest verse but reverse engineering some complex synthesizer sounds is fine. Although I personally strive for it, I don't think originality is a point worth discussing. Music is…

That sounds reasonable but how do you define “any form of creativity/expression” legally? That’s the problem. If you know anything about writing music you should know why chord progressions can’t be copyrighted. There’s only 12 notes, there’s not that many unique chord progressions to be found in the Standard I/IV/V pop music format. Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply. The proble…

> Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply

Not quite true for pop melodies especially on basic progressions when you apply all the contraints (harmony related to the current chord, tension/release). Lyrics on the other hand...

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#15

Post by ebbv »

tarsinge wrote: post #13
ebbv wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds reasonable but how do you define “any form of creativity/expression” legally? That’s the problem. If you know anything about writing music you should know why chord progressions can’t be copyrighted. There’s only 12 notes, there’s not that many unique chord progressions to be found in the Standard I/IV/V pop music format. Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply. The proble…

> Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply Not quite true for pop melodies especially on basic progressions when you apply all the contraints (harmony related to the current chord, tension/release). Lyrics on the other hand...

People are pretty flexible in what they’ll accept in a melody. You can play a lot with outside notes and weird rhythms if you have a good performance and as long as you bring it back to diatonic notes.

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#16

Post by jasode »

The issue with Lana Del Ray's "Get Free", Radiohead's "Creep", and Hollies "Air That I Breathe" is that we (and/or the courts) don't put the chord progression of "I–III–IV–iv" in the same everybody-and-their-dog-has-been-doing-it bucket as "I-IV-V" or the "I–V–vi–IV"[1] (axis of Awesome parodied in the youtube video[2]).

If musicologists for Lana Del Ray can find an out-of-copyright work such as a very old classical piece or folk song that uses that progression, the potential lawsuit would have no merit. Until then, that chord progression's very identifiable "chromatic movement and eerie tension" is easy to notice so it will always attract new lawsuits.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%9...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#17

Post by jimnotgym »

ebbv wrote: post #9
jimnotgym wrote: post #7

For anyone who doesn't play the guitar, 'Creep' and the Hollies track is is derived from come feature a rather obvious chord progression. Physically it is the result of sliding an open E chord down the neck to produce higher notes then, la piece de resistance, taking a finger off. Radiohead added a killer feature of turning the gain up on the amplifier for the chorus, genius. It's the kind of thing teenagers everywhe…

Chord progressions aren’t copyright-able. So no, that obvious thing isn’t. What is subject to copyright is the melody. That’s what they got the claim on. The vocal melody.

Which as the article states is astonishingly similar to the Hollies song.

Pick up a guitar and strum that progression in the rather obvious way that it appears on either record (like someone who is rather less than a virtuoso). Now add some words so the syllables fit with the strumming pattern...If you are not now singing that dreary melody you are a true musical genius.

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#18

Post by kijin »

ebbv wrote: post #6
cJ0th wrote: post #4

As a hobby music producer I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind copyright infringement. It's so arbitrary. It's illegal to steal a melody but sophisticated chord progressions are fine. It's illegal to copy the text of even the simplest verse but reverse engineering some complex synthesizer sounds is fine. Although I personally strive for it, I don't think originality is a point worth discussing. Music is…

That sounds reasonable but how do you define “any form of creativity/expression” legally? That’s the problem. If you know anything about writing music you should know why chord progressions can’t be copyrighted. There’s only 12 notes, there’s not that many unique chord progressions to be found in the Standard I/IV/V pop music format. Melodies and lyrics, on the other hand, there’s a nearly infinite supply. The proble…

The market can decide whether or not it wants all those stale remakes, whether with or without legal protection.

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#19

Post by bitwize »

ebbv wrote: post #10
tr0ut wrote: post #5

I think this is just the nature of music. It requires a rather rigid system which does not offer enough diversity to be completely unique. All musical genres need to at least share the same root elements for association. https://youtu.be/Co9mW_9hH2g

This is not true. There is nothing rigid about music. You can do whatever you want. Unless you care about being popular. Then what you run up against is what people enjoy.

You can do whatever you want, but the estate of John Cage owns the copyright on not making music, so if you plan to not make music at all, lawyer up.

Re: Lana Del Rey, Radiohead, and the Difficulty of Making Original Music

#20

Post by jimnotgym »

golemotron wrote: post #11
ebbv wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chord progressions aren’t copyright-able. So no, that obvious thing isn’t. What is subject to copyright is the melody. That’s what they got the claim on. The vocal melody.

And it's the same melody. It really is. Open and shut case.

An open and shut case for the Hollies. How do Radiohead feature?

If I copy a song, then lose an infringement suit to the original composer, can I really claim a subsequent infringement?

Post reply on HN