My first Russian commercial!

This forum is for sharing your Reason creations with the rest of the community. If you post a song expecting feedback please take time to leave some for others.
Forum rules
Remember to begin your thread subject with a genre, ie.: (Hiphop) New instrumental

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2228
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:No, he composed the melody(...)
mcatalao wrote:
Yorick, technically if you didn't change anything in the melody, then it's still his music. It's your arrangement, your production but his music.

For example, All by myself has a full chorus that is not part of Rach's concerto. 
Sting's russians, has a section with a different melody.

Anyway, as i said and since there isn't any copyright infringement (i still think credit should be given), i don't see any problem. Great work as usual!

Music is more than melody...if only the sequence of note lengths were copied, would that still violate copyright?
Or if I do another tune with identical instrument setup.
Similarities can be a coincidence, but if there is an identical long note sequence then the probability decreases drastically for each note.  
Two notes in sequence...144 combinations
Three notes: 1728 combination.
Four notes...20736
five notes...248832 combinations.
10 notes...61917364224 combinations.

...and I didn't count the combinations with different note length and position...

Hmm lets try that. (My math is still version 0.4 so there could be something very wrong with my calculations :) )

Lets assume:
Two notes, one bar of music, quantized to 1/64 note slots
Each note can be positioned in any of 64 positions, and have any length from 1/64 to 1/1.

Two notes can then be combined in 144 x 64 x (64 x 64) = 37748736 combinations.
Oh well, didn't take into account that a lot of those combinations will have notes with a length extending the bar end.
If we have 64 notes instead==>
3,6312888910597152042036363356292e+119 combinations.

Damn, that's a big number, considering there's only 1.2 x 10²³ stars in the universe and between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable universe.




User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2228
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

Lol, if that was a commercial in Sweden, there would be a MSM rage far far more angry than any atrocities any terrorist organization or country did.

User avatar
orthodox
Posts: 787
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

jappe wrote:
Lol, if that was a commercial...
That's a clear amateur parody. Youtube only.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:No, he composed the melody(...)
mcatalao wrote:
Yorick, technically if you didn't change anything in the melody, then it's still his music. It's your arrangement, your production but his music.

For example, All by myself has a full chorus that is not part of Rach's concerto. 
Sting's russians, has a section with a different melody.

Anyway, as i said and since there isn't any copyright infringement (i still think credit should be given), i don't see any problem. Great work as usual!

A lot of classical music is in the public domain, so there's no copyright infringement if you use it, and if you substantially rearrange it, as I did with Amazing Grace for example, you can claim 50% of the publishing.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/amazi ... =303563537

But with the Russian spot, it's not like I woke up one day, listened to the classical piece and said "hey I'll rip it off". They have been using that piece in past commercials apparently. If it's not public domain, they will have bought the right to use it. The gig I was asked to do, was to approximate the melody and reinterpret it in a band context, because of the storyline, that the hot/tired band are playing the song more traditionally, but sluggishly, and then they drink Kvas, get inspired and play it in a rockband style and create a party. 
That was the gig. Other composers were competing on the same gig, doing their own take on it.
There are other melodic elements than just the main motif. The OhOhOh-OhOhOh vocal hook is nowhere in the classical piece. The bassline melodies aren't in it. (And many a pop bassist has been given writing credits for their contributions) It's completely different harmonization with different parts, different instrumentation, and the main motif does vary off the classical piece in any case. It's just obviously, and intentionally, recognizably referencing it.
But that's why I said "I did all the music" rather than "I composed all the music" in any case. :)

George, this is the translation I was given btw:

Fly away on the wings of wind
To the homeland, my dear song,
To the land where we can sing you freely,
Where it was so carefree for you and me.
 

User avatar
orthodox
Posts: 787
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:George, this is the translation I was given btw:

Fly away on the wings of wind
To the homeland, my dear song,
To the land where we can sing you freely,
Where it was so carefree for you and me.
 
Btw, the lyrics are by the same author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polovtsian ... ranslation

Once again, no legal issues. That was long before a concept of copyright infringement appeared.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

orthodox wrote:Btw, the lyrics are by the same author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polovtsian ... ranslation Once again, no legal issues. That was long before a concept of copyright infringement appeared.
Hey man, of course they're the same author... as I said in the above post, that was the gig.
I think you're misunderstanding the process. I tried to clarify.
Companies often buy the right to use songs, then they pay music houses to create original versions of those songs, or integrate the song into a new composition (a derivative work) a new arrangement, or a hybridization. It's not copyright infringement, because a license has been paid to use it. With public domain material, they may do the same, but there's no license necessary because the copyright has expired.


Plenty of Christian artists and churches do something similar with hymns or Psalms. Reworking older public domain material into new arrangements, new songs etc.
Copyright infringement is when a piece still under copyright, is used without permission. Either in whole, part, quoted or plagiarised.
That's not the case with the song in the OP, which is an original arrangement/derivative work of an existing piece being used as a sonic brand, that if not in the public domain, would most certainly have been bought by the company.

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:Just got the link sent to me.

I did all the music and the bulk of the vocals except for a couple of melody passes they recorded over mine in Russia. They recorded the spoken voice over too:


What's cool is I don't speak any Russian. I laboriously worked to get the right phrasing for the lyrics.
Kinda psyched it made it through! :)

Leighbeater wrote: Nice one, thanks for letting us know it's good inspiration
Yay! That's awesome Leigh. Take care, and all the best.

User avatar
bitley
Posts: 1308
Joined: 03 Jul 2015
Location: sweden

Post 26 Jan 2015

Great! Tell them to send 1000 bottles of Kvass around the globe as a thank you to all of us for viewing it. ;)

mcatalao
Posts: 1116
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

Yorick, i didn't accuse you of nothing, no need to be so defensive. 

I was just trying to state this is a common practice in pop music.

mcatalao
Posts: 1116
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

jappe wrote: Music is more than melody...if only the sequence of note lengths were copied, would that still violate copyright?
Or if I do another tune with identical instrument setup.
Similarities can be a coincidence, but if there is an identical long note sequence then the probability decreases drastically for each note.  
Two notes in sequence...144 combinations
Three notes: 1728 combination.
Four notes...20736
five notes...248832 combinations.
10 notes...61917364224 combinations.

...and I didn't count the combinations with different note length and position...

Hmm lets try that. (My math is still version 0.4 so there could be something very wrong with my calculations :) )

Lets assume:
Two notes, one bar of music, quantized to 1/64 note slots
Each note can be positioned in any of 64 positions, and have any length from 1/64 to 1/1.

Two notes can then be combined in 144 x 64 x (64 x 64) = 37748736 combinations.
Oh well, didn't take into account that a lot of those combinations will have notes with a length extending the bar end.
If we have 64 notes instead==>
3,6312888910597152042036363356292e+119 combinations.

Damn, that's a big number, considering there's only 1.2 x 10²³ stars in the universe and between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable universe.


Hey, your forgot pauses. They are important too... :)

So, basically you are giving me reason. If the possible permutations are so many (yep, order counts, and even octave changes can count too) why do we still see so many cases of plagiarism? Or even if there isn't place for plagiarism, why there are so many melodies that look alike? 

Anyway... The definition of music, is more than melody and rhythm and harmony, or arrangement. These are elements, much like perspective, color, or density in a painting. but the fact a paint thosent have form, or perspective doesn't make it less of a painting in its definition.
 
Let me post you a different question. Xenakis Rebonds a and b, are works for percussion, probably the most important percussion solo contemporary works in the late 20th century.
Would you say it's not music because they don't have melody and harmony?  Metastasis is an incomprehensible score for orchestra, where there is not a single tonal reference. Same for most 12 note, all the micro-tonality and sequential stuff around. These all lack an harmonic and melodic definition, and still they are regarded as core for contemporary music.

And lets not talk about the thousands of 2 chord house and EDM music around, that most of the time don't even have melody, are those not music because they don't have melody?

Anyway... Definitions apart, plagiarism is so even if one uses a motif of a song (you don't even need to use the whole song, or a whole melody of a song), and that's the base for most plagiarism suits all over the place. Recognizable melodies even if a bit changes.

User avatar
orthodox
Posts: 787
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

mcatalao wrote:Anyway... Definitions apart, plagiarism is so even if one uses a motif of a song (you don't even need to use the whole song, or a whole melody of a song), and that's the base for most plagiarism suits all over the place. Recognizable melodies even if a bit changes.
For example, Shostakovich was accused of plagiarism for this piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA8E0ZFt9hU
They said it resembled "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" in the rhythm.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
orthodox
Posts: 787
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jan 2015

GeorgeFeb wrote:Who they? Bush & Obama? :D
No. It was Clinton, of course. He was playing the sax in the meantime.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests