|
|
|
|
|
|
by coldtea
2508 days ago
|
|
|
>The "prior art" from 1984 he mentions is radically different in the note pattern used which alone defeats that entire line of argument. It's not radically different at all. I'm a musician, but even for a lay person, this is as close as it gets without it being 100% the same. >Similarly, reaching back to classical music to talk about modern synth beats is a red herring. This doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that referring to a 18th century invention to invalidate a 2019 patent is a red herring. Music is music. >The final blow is recognition and feel. A huge number of people would recognize Dark Horse exclusively by the playing of that short set of notes much as they could instantly recognize Billie Jean by its opening rift (or any number of other songs). This alone indicates that the notes in question are more than superficial. No, it only indicates that these persons have a limited repertoire. |
|
|
> This doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that referring to a 18th century invention to invalidate a 2019 patent is a red herring. Music is music.
Point out even one classical music piece were any instrument is used even remotely similarly to how this piece ties together the song. It does not exist. Trimming out a few similar notes used in an entirely different manner for an entirely different effect is like saying Picasso and Rembrandt are similar because they use similar lines and curves.
> No, it only indicates that these persons have a limited repertoire.
Copyright exists for the general public (as stated in the US constitution). If you need an expert to tell you two pieces of music seem to be similar, but actually are not, then there's probably something wrong.