Spector on My Sweet Lord

[iarwain]

I was watching the Martin Scorcese documentary on George Harrison.
In it, Phil Spector says he was the one who insisted on My Sweet Lord
being the single.
He said this was met with resistance because of the religious
overtones.
Even George was uncomfortable with it.
But Phil said that was the hit song, that was the most commercial.

It made me wonder if George would have ever gotten sued for
plagiarizing "He's So Fine" if it weren't for Spector. If it had
never been a big hit, maybe he wouldn't have gotten sued.
George's reputation as a songwriter has probably taken a hit over this
as well. This is probably the most famous claim of plagiarizing in
popular music, don't you think? - except for maybe "Ice Ice Baby".

[moonpie]

Ray Parker Jr for "ghostbusters"

famously ripped of Huey Lewis and the News... the revealed later the
movie producers gave him a copy of the Huey and News song and said,
here, do something like THIS....

[copperhead]

On Oct 24, 1:13 pm, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It made me wonder if George would have ever gotten sued for
> plagiarizing "He's So Fine" if it weren't for Spector.  If it had
> never been a big hit, maybe he wouldn't have gotten sued.
> George's reputation as a songwriter has probably taken a hit over this
> as well.  This is probably the most famous claim of plagiarizing in
> popular music, don't you think? - except for maybe "Ice Ice Baby".

Certainly the stupidest, if not the most famous. If MSL plagiarized
HSF, then half od rock-n-roll plagiarized anything ever written by
Chuck Berry.

[scouser]

Well no one bothered to sue Billy Preston who released it first -
obviously George was a much better target.

However, i think one needs to take what PS said with a little pinch of
salt. He also said he was the one who got Dylan to the Concerts for
Bangladesh - i don't know how many claims i have heard of that. 2 of
us were laughing at visions of Dylan being bothered at every turn with
a variety of people getting him to Madison Square Gardens.

[Frank from Deeeetroit]

Believe the Threetles got sued over "whatever happened to" lines in
"Free As A Bird" from the "Shagri-Las" "Walking in the Sand" song.

[Eric Ramon]

On Oct 24, 11:33 am, moonpie <mr_rc_moon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:13:49 -0700 (PDT), iarwain
>

both Ghostbusters and I Want a New Drug are rip-offs of Motown. Check
out Nowhere to Run. Huey should have paid for that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRIOKvR2WM

[marcuscp]

On Oct 26, 1:58 am, Frank from Deeeetroit <dadurwe...@voyager.net>
wrote:

Really? Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME! Steve Martin on four. Ten Grand.

[BlackMonk]

On 10/25/2011 11:02 AM, scouser wrote:
> On Oct 24, 6:13 pm, iarwain<iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I was watching the Martin Scorcese documentary on George Harrison.
>> In it, Phil Spector says he was the one who insisted on My Sweet Lord
>> being the single.
>> He said this was met with resistance because of the religious
>> overtones.
>> Even George was uncomfortable with it.
>> But Phil said that was the hit song, that was the most commercial.
>>
>> It made me wonder if George would have ever gotten sued for
>> plagiarizing "He's So Fine" if it weren't for Spector. If it had
>> never been a big hit, maybe he wouldn't have gotten sued.
>> George's reputation as a songwriter has probably taken a hit over this
>> as well. This is probably the most famous claim of plagiarizing in
>> popular music, don't you think? - except for maybe "Ice Ice Baby".
>
> Well no one bothered to sue Billy Preston who released it first -
> obviously George was a much better target.
>

Billy Preston didn't write it, so George would have gotten sued, no
matter what, but Preston's version wasn't a hit and there's really no
point in suing over a record that doesn't sell. The publishers of "He's
So Fine" might not have even known about it.

[BlackMonk]

I don't think that went to court. At the time, I heard an interview with
Shadow Morton where he said it was an obvious lift from the Shangrii-Las
song, but that he didn't think it should go to court and was a matter
that should be settled between songwriters, which I took to mean that
Apple paid him off before Free As A Bird came out.

[marcuscp]

I doubt that very much.

[BlackMonk]

Why? You don't think that Apple would want to avoid a court case
involving "Free as A Bird," so they'd pay off the writer of a famous
song that "Free as A Bird" obviously resembles? (You might not have
heard it, but I noticed the similarity right away, before I ever saw it
mentioned anywhere.)

[marcuscp]

.Resemblance is not plagiarism, it has to be a copy as far as I know.
Different melody, different chords (major vs minor, to boot).

[BlackMonk]

It doesn't have to be a copy. If one is recognizable as similar to the
other, that could be enough. In this case, it's not just the lyrics to
one line. The next line in FAAB also echoes "Remember" and the melodies
are very similar.

Besides, Apple might have wanted to avoid a potential court case regardless.

[brilton]

On 26/10/11 8:06 PM, BlackMonk wrote:

>
> It doesn't have to be a copy. If one is recognizable as similar to the
> other, that could be enough. In this case, it's not just the lyrics to
> one line. The next line in FAAB also echoes "Remember" and the melodies
> are very similar.
>
> Besides, Apple might have wanted to avoid a potential court case
> regardless.

Sic 'em, Rex!

[marcuscp]

Nah, it's Apple who play hardball. e.g. last year our band played some
Let It Be 40th anniversary concerts and we were legaly threatened with
shut down if we dared reproducing on stage the in-between song patter
("We'd like to thank you all etc") as it would constitute a crossing
over to a different licence. Saying those little adlibs would
neccessitate a theatrical licence as we would now be considered
ACTORS. Total bullshit. Total assholes. They'd crush Morton if he
tried to sue them on this.
I don't understand your "Remember" example, but you haven't mentioned
the "Blue Moon' slide solo (also used by Clapton for "Sunshine of Your
Love").

[iarwain]

> Ray Parker Jr for "ghostbusters" famously ripped of Huey Lewis and the News

I've listened to those repeatedly and I don't see how it's ripped
off.
The rhythm guitar part is the most similar.
The horn parts aren't the same, the lyrics aren't the same, and what
little vocal melody there is isn't the same either.
You can see that the one song is based on the other, but I wouldn't
consider that plagiarism.
John and Paul said they would often take another song as a starting
point and twist it around until it was unrecognizeable.

[iarwain]

> Billy Preston didn't write it, so George would have gotten sued, no matter what

That brings up another point. Billy Preston was talking about the
song in the Harrison documentary, and to hear him tell it, it sounded
like he, George, and Delaney and Bonnie all wrote the song together.
I wonder how George got sole writing credit.

Maybe they all realized it was He's So Fine and George offered to take
the risk :)

[Skokiaan]

On Oct 25, 10:58 am, Frank from Deeeetroit <dadurwe...@voyager.net>
wrote:

Wouldn't they have to sue Yoko? "Free As A Bird" would have been
copyrighted in the 80's (if not earlier) as a solo Lennon composition
when it was included in The Lost Lennon Tapes.

[moonpie]

damn, "unavailable in your area"

I've been getting that a lot lately

oh well, thanks for posting anyway

[moonpie]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:19:45 -0700 (PDT), iarwain
<iarw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Ray Parker Jr for "ghostbusters" famously ripped of Huey Lewis and the News
>
>I've listened to those repeatedly and I don't see how it's ripped
>off.
>The rhythm guitar part is the most similar.

good point. It gets back to the whole idea of authorship and what
"parts of a song/composition" actually form the authorship.

the legal definition is vocal melody and lyrics and backing.

Harrison obviously got busted on vocal melody.

BUT ray parker jr didnt steal Hueys vocal melody, he stole the rhythm
track.

hhhmmmmmmmmmm

so, is "plagiarism" now up to interpretation?

[marcuscp]

True. Morton would have even less luck sueing Yoko. He'd be eaten
alive, and in this case, deservedly so.

[Nil]

On 26 Oct 2011, moonpie <mr_rc_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

Must be a southern thing. We Yankees can get to it without a problem.

I don't really hear the connection between "Nowhere to Run" and
"Ghostbusters."

[BlackMonk]

Shadow Morton has a few things going for him that you don't; Paul
McCartney is a big fan of the Shangri Las, while I don't know if Morton
has the same ethical lapses as Alan Klein, having been on Red Bird
Morton essentially went to the same "business school," so he could
probably fight as dirty as Apple could if he wanted, and there's no way
Apple could have claimed that Lennon and McCartney were unfamiliar with
Remember or even that they were indifferent to it given what I just said
about McCartney's fanboying.

I don't think I ever noticed the solo being similar to Blue Moon. FAAB
usually doesn't hold my attention that long.

[marcuscp]

I wasn't implying that the Blue Moon similarity was sueable, just that
musicians have referenced and borrowed bits of other's music since
forever. I actually love FAAB, has a very clever "Beatley" structure,
and the slide guitar is great fun to play (in open E). My Sweet Lord
had SO many similarities, chordally and melodically that it was always
going to have problems. "Remember " would be laughed out of court.
Three word phrase the same? One sung in minor key, the other major?
Get outta here!

[TheWalrusWasDanny]

> Well no one bothered to sue Billy Preston who released it first -
> obviously George was a much better target.

They wouldn't target BP..since he didn't write it..GH wrote the song.

Danny

[BlackMonk]

It's more than that. If it were only the same lyrical phrase for three
words, it would be laughed out of court, but it's a longer phrase, sung
to a similar melody.

Shangri las: Whatever happened to the boy that I once knew
next Shangri Las verse: Whatever happened to the life I gave to you
Beatles:Whatever happened to the life that we once knew.

The next line is similar melodically, too, though not the same, since
the Beatles' line is longer.

There's also a similarity in the way FAAB goes straight into the next
verse after the bridge the way Remember does after the "Whatever
happened to" verses, leaving out the "oh no" section that was used
before the first chorus.

When I first heard John's demo, I thought that he didn't have a bridge,
so as a placeholder he sang a bit of the Shangri Las song, probably
because the piano chords reminded him of it.

[rwalker]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:24:48 -0700 (PDT), marcuscp
<phelan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I actually love FAAB, has a very clever "Beatley" structure,
>and the slide guitar is great fun to play (in open E).

I just listened to it last night and was thinking what a great job
they did with it. It sure does meet with a lot of grief among certain
quarters though.

[Stephen X. Carter]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:14:50 -0700 (PDT), marcuscp
<phelan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nah, it's Apple who play hardball. e.g. last year our band played some
>Let It Be 40th anniversary concerts and we were legaly threatened with
>shut down if we dared reproducing on stage the in-between song patter
>("We'd like to thank you all etc") as it would constitute a crossing
>over to a different licence. Saying those little adlibs would
>neccessitate a theatrical licence as we would now be considered
>ACTORS. Total bullshit. Total assholes. They'd crush Morton if he
>tried to sue them on this.

I wonder if it's the corporate lawyer types, rather than The Fab Two
(plus widows) who are behind this.

Some years ago a Stones' tribute band got a sort of "cease & desist"
letter from the Stones' lawyers, and treated it with the utter contempt
and ridicule that it rightly deserved, and publicised it to the maximum
they could, and totally ignored the stupid thing.

Not long after that, by chance, the singer (pretend Mick) in the band
happened to meet Jagger's PA at a village fete in an obscure country
village, and she told him that Jagger was totally dismayed by what had
happened, and that as far as he was concerned he was quite happy with
their activities. ("Tribute" band can only be good publicity IMHO).

I was told this story by the pretend Mick.

So daft lawyers or Beatles?.

--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*

[marcuscp]

On Oct 27, 1:08 pm, Stephen X. Carter <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:14:50 -0700 (PDT), marcuscp
>

> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*

> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*

Daft lawyers, definitely, and over-zealous little Hitlers in local
performing rights associations.

[marcuscp]

True, in a sense that Lennon used words from other peoples songs to
fill in the gaps of his unfinished songs, tho' he probably recycled
his own words more often. Whether he'd bother changing those words if
he'd finished the song, we'll never know. After the "here come old
flat top" imbroglio - perhaps maybe.
The piano chords are completely different even if you think they
reminded him of it. If anything, John ripped those chords off for
Help! (the first 3 anyway)
Remember: Dm / Bb / G7 / A.
Help!..........Bm / G / E7 / A
FAAB........F / D7 / G / A (Esus)

[brilton]

On 27/10/11 10:35 AM, marcuscp wrote:

>
> Daft lawyers, definitely, and over-zealous little Hitlers in local
> performing rights associations.

APRA?

[marcuscp]

Yep. In Melbourne.

[brilton]

My dealings with APRA have always been happy, but then, I'm just
receiving music royalties through them, and am not a performing musician
anymore.

[BlackMonk]

Completely different?

Dm is the relative minor of F, a simple substitution; G and G7 are
interchangable, and the last chord is the same. The only chord that's
really different is the second and even they have a note in common.

[marcuscp]

The sequence is completely different: Dm - Bb - G7, F - D7(F#) - G.
It's a sequence, pattern that matters. A chord in common does not.

[BlackMonk]

It's not "a chord," it's three chords out of four. Dm and F are not very
different, nor are G7 and G. As a result, the two progressions don't
sound very different. Besides, legally, the melodic and lyrical
similarity are more important than the underlying chord progression.

The bottom line in a plagerism case is "Would a person familiar with
Remember listen to FAAB and think 'hey, that sounds like Remember,'" and
that happened quite a few times. That's why Shadow was asked about it in
the first place.

[Nil]

On 27 Oct 2011, BlackMonk <Blac...@msn.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

I don't hear it. For one thing, the G in the Shangrila's song is a G
minor, not G major. Then after that, the harmony goes in a different
direction than "Help". The only similarity is the bass motion from D to
Bb to G.

FaaB doesn't have any similar bass motion, and the harmony is very
different. And for the "Whatever happened to" line, the melody spells
out a very different part of the underlying harmony.

I'd say that John may have had a bit of "Remember" in the back of his
mind, but didn't consciously use it and only the faintest wisp of it
made it into his song. I don't hear any part of "Remember" in the music
of FaaB. There may have been a bit of a tip 'o the hat in the lyric.

[marcuscp]

On Oct 27, 5:28 pm, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2011, BlackMonk <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote in

Hey, you're right about the Gm - just had another listen. There goes
my Help! theory. Sony on 4. Ten Grand. So, apart from a few words,
it's just the A chord at the end of the FAAB bit that's a guilty party
here.
Morton would have had better luck checking this out, same chords with
just the Gm and Bb switched around:
http://youtu.be/TJAfLE39ZZ8

[Stephen X. Carter]

In the case of the Stones' incident it was in the UK.

--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!

Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*

[brilton]

On 27/10/11 4:10 PM, Stephen X. Carter wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:27:54 +0800, brilton<not...@yacht.net> wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/11 10:35 AM, marcuscp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Daft lawyers, definitely, and over-zealous little Hitlers in local
>>> performing rights associations.
>>
>>
>>
>> APRA?
>
> In the case of the Stones' incident it was in the UK.

Yes, but I assumed marcuscp was relating this to his own personal
experiences.

[scouser]

On Oct 27, 12:37 am, TheWalrusWasDanny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net>
wrote:

Yes i realise it - that was clumsily put - i meant no one got off
their arses when BP released it first.
After the Court case the Judge said he liked "both" the songs... "He's
So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord". George did later buy the rights to "He's
So Fine" as well. and here is the 1975 version of My Sweet Lord by the
Chiffons...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlTnwUXGx6k

[brilton]

On 28/10/11 6:08 PM, scouser wrote:


> After the Court case the Judge said he liked "both" the songs... "He's
> So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord".

Naturally you recall George recounting that anecdote about the judge
after the case saying "actually, I like *both* songs", and George's
lawyer saying "ah, hang on, in your judgement, you ruled that..."

Ah, you know the rest anyway.

Still amusing though.

[marcus]

On Oct 26, 1:15 am, BlackMonk <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 11:48 PM, marcuscp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2:41 pm, BlackMonk<BlackM...@msn.com>  wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2011 10:43 PM, marcuscp wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 26, 1:58 am, Frank from Deeeetroit<dadurwe...@voyager.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Believe the Threetles got sued over "whatever happened to" lines in
> >>>> "Free As A Bird" from the "Shagri-Las" "Walking in the Sand" song.
>
> >>> Really? Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME! Steve Martin on four. Ten Grand.
>
> >> I don't think that went to court. At the time, I heard an interview with
> >> Shadow Morton where he said it was an obvious lift from the Shangrii-Las
> >> song, but that he didn't think it should go to court and was a matter
> >> that should be settled between songwriters, which I took to mean that
> >> Apple paid him off before Free As A Bird came out.
>
> > I doubt that very much.
>
> Why? You don't think that Apple would want to avoid a court case
> involving "Free as A Bird," so they'd pay off the writer of a famous
> song that "Free as A Bird" obviously resembles? (You might not have
> heard it, but I noticed the similarity right away, before I ever saw it

> mentioned anywhere.)-

Never once, in the 16 years since the song was released, has "Whatever
happened to.." from "Free As A Bird" reminded me of the same phrase
"Walking In The Sand", also a song I know well. In fact, I never
heard of this "controversy" until reading it here now.

Merely repeating a phrase shouldn't be considered plagiarism...if
anything it's common usage, no one owns that very common phrase.

FWIW, when my book came out in 1982, my publisher had to pay Apple $50
for the use of the title, "As I Write This Letter". In that case
because the book was obviously about The Beatles, and contained the
opening line of a Beatles song, it could not be used for free (as
opposed to a song title which can be used for free).

Marc

http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=105989674

http://www.amazon.com/Write-This-Letter-Generation-Remembers/dp/0876501374

[Skokiaan]

By the time of the court settlement, Alan Klein owned the publishing
to "He's So Fine." George ended up paying is own former manager
$700K.

[who?]

> http://www.amazon.com/Write-This-Letter-Generation-Remembers/dp/08765...

Marcus, that is such nonsense that you had to pay Apple
$ 50 for the use of that title.

[marcus]

Actually, now that I think of it, it wasn't Apple, it was the company
holding the copyright to the song...eventually that became Michael
Jackson's company.

At the time, my publisher was glad it wasn't more. He took it upon
himself to ask permission, figuring there might be more problems if we
went ahead and published without asking.

[scouser]

in a black humour way... i watched "Little Malcolm and his Struggle
against the Eunuchs" yesterday - first film George produced - Suba
Films (Apple) - have you seen it?

[who?]

You might have been able to fight it in court, but it would have
cost more than that for court fees.

[BlackMonk]

It wasn't just those three words and there are musical similarities as
well. Whether you heard them or not, many other people did.

> FWIW, when my book came out in 1982, my publisher had to pay Apple $50
> for the use of the title, "As I Write This Letter". In that case
> because the book was obviously about The Beatles, and contained the
> opening line of a Beatles song, it could not be used for free (as
> opposed to a song title which can be used for free).
>

Are you sure about that? If I'm writing a history of Wings and I call
it "Band On The Run," it's no less of quote than yours was. Most titles
are also lyrics unless we're talking Mike Nesmith.

[BlackMonk]

I don't think there's anything odd about that. If he liked "He's So
Fine," then why wouldn't he like a song that "unconsciously plagiarized" it?

I'm pretty sure the judgment didn't say he thought George's song was
crap or anything like that.

[Danny McEvoy]

> Nah, it's Apple who play hardball. e.g. last year our band played some
> Let It Be 40th anniversary concerts and we were legaly threatened with
> shut down if we dared reproducing on stage the in-between song patter
> ("We'd like to thank you all etc") as it would constitute a crossing
> over to a different licence. Saying those little adlibs would
> neccessitate a theatrical licence as we would now be considered
> ACTORS.

Wow! Unbelievable!!..how did Apple get to hear about it??

Danny

[brilton]

Would love to. But it's probably extremely hard to find.

[brilton]

I didn't say it was odd. I think you missed the point. Never mind.

[marcus]

On Oct 28, 6:59 pm, BlackMonk <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote:

>
> Are you sure about that?  If I'm writing a history of Wings and I call
> it "Band On The Run," it's no less of quote than yours was. Most titles
> are also lyrics unless we're talking Mike Nesmith.

In August 1981, my publisher(then called Pierian Press, and later
changed to Popular Culture Ink) had me write to Joan Schulman, the
Copyright Manager of Beechwood Music Corporation/Glenwood Music
Corporation asking permission to use the lyric, "As I Write This
Letter" from the song, "P.S. I Love You" for the title of my book. He
asked me to do this based on his previous experience that lyrics used
as book titles required permission due to copyright laws. He told me
that song titles do not require the same permission.

Schulman wrote back to me that they would be agreeable to the usage
for a "maximum printing of 10,000 copies of yout book to be sold at no
more than $25.00 per copy, for a fee of $50.00." Then asked me to
advise her if this was agreeable. If so, she said she would "provide
you with the correct copyright acknowledgement which must be used with
these lyrics."

I wrote back that the arrangement was fine, and she replied in a
subsequent letter thanking me for my letter and the enclosed check for
$50.00. Adding this:

"The following is the correct copyright acknowledgement to be used
with the lyrics of the above song:

'Copyright (c) 1962,1963 by MPL COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
Assigned to and Copyrighted (c) 1963 by BEECHWOOD
MUSIC CORPORATION for the UNITED STATES and CANADA
Used by Permission All Rights
Reserved'


And so I did. The book was published in the spring of 1982.

Wow, I just realized that was almost 30 years ago. Pardon me, while I
slither away, and feel old.

[scouser]

The clue is in the word "both"

[scouser]

> I didn't say it was odd. I think you missed the point. Never mind.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Its out now on amazon...

[BlackMonk]

You didn't use the word "odd," but you evidently thought it was
significant enough to remark upon. I don't think there's anything at all
remarkable about a person liking both songs.

You're correct that I don't see your point. The judge said that he
thought it was "unconscious plagiarism" and ruled against George for
that reason. Whether he liked George's song or not would have no bearing
on that judgment.

[BlackMonk]

Right. He likes the original song and the one that plagiarized from it.
No one ever claimed that the two were identical.

If I wrote a song that used the melody from the verse of "Give Me Love
(Give Me Peace On Earth) for the bridge, it would be a different song,
but I'd still get sued for it.

[BlackMonk]

Ok, now that Scouser pointed it out, I see what you were talking about,
though I still think it was a silly thing (borderline dishonest,
actually) for George's lawyer to say.

[brilton]

Yeah, look, I apologise that you might have misunderstood me, as I
didn't make myself clear in my first post in this thread. Knowing that
scouser is such a huge George Harrison fan, I referred to an anecdote
about the court case that George related in a promo radio interview
around 1976-77 (either to promote "Best Of George Harrison" or "33 &
1/3"), and I assumed that she knew what I was talking about and the rest
of the exchange. Paraphrasing George's words from memory, the
post-verdict conversation went sort of along the lines of:

Judge: Actually, I like *both* songs.

George's Lawyer: Ahh, hang on, in your verdict, you ruled that they were
the same song.

Judge: Oops, sorry! I mean that I like the *song*, with the two
different set of lyrics.

A rough paraphrase. You could be right that the lawyer might have been
imprudent to say that. I was just saying it was an amusing little anecdote.