The Scientist vs. Pieces

Brad · Board Mod

The Scientist vs. Pieces

NSS41 · NSS Founder & Board Admin

yeh i noticed that they kinda dragged pieces a bit but the song sounds good

ashley · Veteran Member

My cousin can play piano, and as a musician, she told me that Pieces and The Scientist are very different. I don't know, though.

Meh, they're both great songs and unless Coldplay drops a lawsuit, I think annoyed Coldplay fans need to shut up.

Brad · Board Mod

The article says "with minor tempo tweaking", but if you have a good ear for music you can also tell there are volume differences throughout the song along with LOTS of editing to Pieces, I don't know about The Scientist, and if you put it on a CD or and MP3 player you can totally see the difference if you can multitask with your ears. Keep taking music in school kiddies, it makes you smarter

.

Emily · Veteran Member

I love both those songs and the mix is sweet so I don't really care. All of them need to stop bitching about it, so what?

Phili · Board Mod

Coldplay is, I'm sorry to their fans, one of my least favourite bands and I really can't see Sum 41 intentionally copying them. I wish people would stop being so idiotic about this. If you want a real comparison, compare "There's No Solution" to "Numb" by Linkin Park. Seriously.

Brad · Board Mod

*In response to the claims that Sum 41 copies others music*

Music has always been a craft of borrowing. In traditional, or folk, music, melodies and lyrics were handed down from generation to generation. At every stage, musicians would change the tune or substitute words at will, adapting songs to their own situations.

Like their predecessors, the artists featured here have drawn from the music around them--whether by borrowing a guitar riff or taking a digital sample--to create something new. But unlike their folk ancestors, they all run the risk of getting sued.

Two technologies, separated by centuries, have brought us to this point. First, writing and printing gave birth to the composer and the idea that a single person could own a piece of music. Second, sound recording allowed music performances to be stored and replayed--again, permitting an individual (or a company) to claim it as property.

These two kinds of musical property are reflected in present-day copyright law: "publishing rights" apply to the ownership of written music and "master rights" apply to the ownership of a recording of that music. When you use a portion of someone else's recording of a song, you need permission from the publisher and "clearance" from the owner of that recording. When you record without these permissions--and the exorbitant fees that go with them--you're in trouble. Not surprisingly, only a few musicians, like Puff Daddy and Fatboy Slim, can afford to sample legally.

For our culture to be a space for free expression and for creativity to flourish, audio artists must be able to build on bits and pieces of preexisting music. While the "fair use" doctrine allows artists to appropriate other works, it does so only in cases of commentary or parody. Fair use doesn't apply to the majority of "second-takers," those artists who reuse sounds without directly referring to the original.

Most of these tracks would never have existed if the artists had adhered to copyright law. Many other works might never be heard unless we act soon to grant artists the right to create them.
Click here to see a list of (and download) songs that have been sued by record companies for copyright infringement.

Ooh, this site is awesome. Its a list of a bunch of things in media such as visual, video and audio that have been sued over copyright infringement. http://www.illegal-art.org/ is the link.

-- Edited by Brad at 17:34, 2005-08-13