dangerous new trend in commercials ?

[D_dup3]

I've been a musician since I was a preteen & a regular writer/composer (with some small success, mostly in the world of local commercials).

 

We've all seen the incresed use of pop music tunes in the past couple decades, with "classics" being used in both films & TV ads & an increasingly rapid turnover of new hit songs being sold for commercials.

 

I've noticed a new trend, however: the use of music that captures the "feel" of hits by mimicking their harmonic & rhythmic elements & thereby bypassing copyright laws.

 

I've heard commercials on national TV programming that so closely imitate recent hits by Pink, No Doubt & OutKast that are so close you can name the tune in seconds but, as said, they do this by slightly altering the song's parts.

 

Have ad agencies finally caught on to the perfect way to exploit writers?

[Eric VB]

Wow! Thanks for the info, d. I must admit I haven't noticed this trend yet myself, although I have been cutting down on TV time and generally hit the mute button (or turn the volume down) whenever commercials are aired.

 

How can anyone get away with this? Ok, sure, you can't copyright a chord progression, and the '50s are full of I/vi/IV/V songs, and the various forms of a 12-bar blues are still going strong.

 

But the type of music you've cited is probably more identifiable by the beat or the rhythm. How are the rhythms being "slightly altered"? Add or remove an 8th or 16th? Played karaoke-style, like a poorly played cover? You can't copyright a rhythm per se. For example, you can't copyright "thump thump CLAP " (3 quarters and a quarter rest), but try to use it and see how fast Brian May and Queen take you to court over infringing on "We Will Rock You". (I sure hope they make royalties everytime that gets played at a sporting event.)

 

I'm not sure what harmonic elements you're referring to, d. The only things that come to mind are either BGV's or the often percussive/rhythmic use of instruments/samples that are typically looped. I can't imagine it's BGV's unless they are played instrumentally instead of sung.

 

Obviously this isn't a problem for songs with generic rhythm sections that feature 4/4 boom-tap-boom-tap drums and 4ths/8ths-on-the-root bass. Most people wouldn't have a clue what song was being referred to in that case. Remember house music? You could transition from one song to the next and use the same drum/bass machine under everything (kind of like "hooked on classics").

 

How about latin music? Each substyle has a certain

unmistakable rhythm, like a cha-cha, but those rhythms aren't copyrightable. Then again, they're used so often that it would be almost impossible to identify any of those rhythms with a particular hit song or artist (unless you're an American teen who's knowledge of music only encompasses the 10 songs currently being pushed on radio).

 

Is hiphop that generic? Are there only so many syncopated 4/4 rhythm loops being used, differentiated only by "instrumentation" and embellishment? (Certainly that formula seeems limiting.) In all pop music, rhythm is more powerful if it is short -- 4 or sometimes 8 beats -- and repeated. In most guitar bands, the rhythm is often embedded in a riff that is perhaps more easily protected, because it has an identifiable sequence of pitches attached to it. Are we limited to defending only our melodic and lyrical ideas?

 

OTOH, what if there were stricter enforcement of sound-alike songs? Would that be the end to trends? Would artists be prohibited from releasing new material if it sounds too much like their existing catalog, especially in a rhythmic context?

 

Is there a reasonable way to protect characteristic rhythmic elements without limiting overall artistic creativity? Can I still use "um ah ah" (1, & of 2, & of 3) as a rhythm after it becomes inseparatably identified with a big hit?

 

Obviously this is a big can of worms and goes beyond d's observation that writers/publishers are getting screwed out of royalties yet again.

[D_dup3]

Personally I leave the sound up. I just trained myself years ago to block the "intended content" (i.e., the ad inself).

Once I noticed that this wasn't just an attempt to copy of Pink's "God is a DJ" (noticable from it's chord pad) & No Doubt's "Hella Good"( very distinctive harmonic twist & therefore the most distinctive example of this sort of thing), the first 2 ads I noticed using this approach, I tried to catch them again too see what they were being used to shill but I haven't caught them again. The OutKast tune being imitated ("I Like The Way You Move") is in a currently run ad for Chevy Tahoe SUV.

Watch for it during prime time, esp on NBC.

If you hear it & think of the OutKast tune, you'll know what I mean; it doesn't duplicate any of the lines from the record but carries all it' "feel" & harmonic character.

 

The first couple times I thought maybe they just were similar but after hearing 3 separate items in the last 2 months I think it's gotta be a new game.

 

As you already know rhythms can't be copyrighted, either, no matter how unique*. Brian May could only get ya if you if you used that rhythm along with the right pitches).

Only melodies & lyrics are copyrightable as compositions. Of course, entire audio works are protected under SR guidelines but the trick here seems to be that one gets directed to build an imitation of a current/recent hit (not much different than the standard practice of just trying to imitate a popular record for a "new" one).

 

The alterations are just the sort of thing one might play if jamming around on the song (or maybe what comes out of one of those "Band in a Box" computer variation programs...never actually used one myself) but these ad tunes are so distinctive & clearly built to mimic the songs I've cited.

 

In one way it's nothing new; record producers & ad agencies have always imitated popular songs but this is something more insidious...at least seems so to me.

 

Of course, whoever writes these must still get their fee (unless it's indeed a computer programmed variation) but it definitely would alleviate any need to acquire the rights to the imitated music, which would now only needed for any lyric tie-ins.

 

[* This is a bit unfortunate in one way. Most of us are accutomed to thinking of the tune of a song as the pitches but research hes consistently shown that the rhythm of a melody is more distinctive than the exact pitches.

Try this: take a simple tune that's very well known.

Play it for several people following these 2 methods.

First play it with all the pitches exactly correct but distort the rhythm; shorten long notes, lengthen short notes, speedup & slow down, etc., but keep the pitches exactly correct. Most people won't recognize it.

Then, without indicating that you're playing the same song, play a version that has various incorrect pitches---even all of them wrong---but is metrically correct.

More people will recognize the intended song when the rhythm's intact than when the melody is.]

[Loufrance]

Originally posted by d:

I've been a musician since I was a preteen & a regular writer/composer (with some small success, mostly in the world of local commercials).

 

We've all seen the incresed use of pop music tunes in the past couple decades, with "classics" being used in both films & TV ads & an increasingly rapid turnover of new hit songs being sold for commercials.

 

I've noticed a new trend, however: the use of music that captures the "feel" of hits by mimicking their harmonic & rhythmic elements & thereby bypassing copyright laws.

 

I've heard commercials on national TV programming that so closely imitate recent hits by Pink, No Doubt & OutKast that are so close you can name the tune in seconds but, as said, they do this by slightly altering the song's parts.

 

Have ad agencies finally caught on to the perfect way to exploit writers?

I thought I was just a little crazy when I noticed alot of commercial (and some shows) seem to imatate recent hit songs. You are right though, I also find it VERY annoying when they take a "classic" song and make you sick of it because it's been played in an advert so much. Alot of the songs they do that to you might have liked then you can't listen to it anymore I don't think I'd every let them use a song I made for a commercial plus it seems like most of the artist that let their songs be used in advert's shouldn't have the need to they should have made and saved up enough money when their record was on the top 40.

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

I don't think I'd every [sic] let them use a song I made for a commercial

Well, sure. A song written for the recording industry isn't intended for the jingle market (at least not initially). But if you have a jingle to sell, and you can't sell it because all the ad adgencies are just "borrowing" from whatever beat made the top 40, then things would be a little different.

 

I think I read in Al Kasha's book that ASCAP was formed because friends of Stephen Foster found out he died flat broke, even though he had written several hit songs. Thanks to them, authors (and publishers) receive a royalty payment every time their song is broadcast or performed. (For recorded music, the performers also see a royalty payment.)

 

I don't remember where I read this, but there was a musicians strike in the '40s. At least one of the concerns was that radio jingle bands were being replaced by recordings. (Yes, they actually had live musicians play the radio station "call letters music" every time it was aired back then.) In the end the musicians lost out.

 

Now the recording industry has problems of its own, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

In short, everyone likes free music. (Everyone likes free art and movies, too, for that matter.) But don't let history repeat itself. Don't turn all the songwriters and composers into penniless Stephen Fosters again.

[D_dup3]

Glad to see somebody besides just Ric & me in this thread but...

...I personally don't really mind what a writer does with their own material (though compositions leased by copyright holders can sometimes step outsidde that range); I'm no more tired of hearing certain "classics" in these settings than I was just from their overplay on radio, etc.

 

...I'm not talking about the mere alteration of songs or lyrics (as in the new commercial I've seen that uses Gwen Stefani's "Holla Back Girl" but adapts the lyrics to fit the product---© holders have to sign off on those alterations, just like one must get their permission to significantly alter lysics on a cover recording);

 

...my actual point is that what I describe* suggest that businesses may've found a loophole around paying a fee to anyone.

If, for instance, these are program-generated, "Band-in-a-Box"-style creations, there's not even need to hire a writer at all!

 

[* I'm still at the stage of investigating whether it is an actual fact---one friend suggested that these may be cases where the artist has agreed to the treatment & is getting a lease fee.]

 

 

BTW, the WW2 era strike to which Ric refers was a ban by the musicians union not just on the use of recordings of music by broadcasters (though that was a large part of it) but on the use of shellac & other industrial materials & machinery deemed vital to the war effort.

[Hugo H]

I don't remember where I read this, but there was a musicians strike in the '40s.

little history note: that's when BMI formed.

[Hugo H]

As far as the rest goes, it may be that the ad agencies have found a loophole of some sort. But with the number of lawyers we have around, I'm sure it's an issue that'll be fought about.

 

Didn't someone once say that the music industry makes more money from lawsuits than anything else?

[D_dup3]

Originally posted by Hugo H:

As far as the rest goes, it may be that the ad agencies have found a loophole of some sort. But with the number of lawyers we have around, I'm sure it's an issue that'll be fought about.

 

There's no---& likely can never be---any restriction on making a composition that merely resembles another.

[Hugo H]

You and I know that, but tell it to a lawyer and he'll ask what "resembles" means

[D_dup3]

Then you say something about his face & your...

but back to the point.

[Loufrance]

I have a question about songwriting, When you go to a publisher if your just starting out do you usually have to sell your rights to the song?

[yidneth]

I remember this happening in tv series like south park and in simpsoms, to make a song with a sound recognizeable, but I wonder why they don't have a look in new talents and maybe giving a chance to new ones not to standard copycats

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

I have a question about songwriting, When you go to a publisher if your just starting out do you usually have to sell your rights to the song?

That's an excellent question, Loufrance! Could you post it under a new topic so it doesn't get lost in this thread, though? Thanks!

 

[Or maybe David can wave his magic moderators wand?]

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by yidneth:

[...] I wonder why they don't have a look in new talents and maybe giving a chance to new ones not to standard copycats

Hey Priscilla, nice to see you posting again!

 

I'll be the first to admit I don't know how things work from the other side of this. If someone has some advertising experience or knows someone that does, maybe they can explain it.

Or even someone that understands it better from the musicians point of view. (Probably the people over in the Biz forum have a better handle on this.)

 

I imagine company X always gets its ad music from company Y, which in turn gets its music from the same small pool of musicians that have been good sellers in the past.

 

I do know someone that used to provide material for a large corporation's ads. Maybe I can ask her about it.

[D_dup3]

Please let's stick to the subject here!

I ask that you take that particular discussion & other genral queries about © into another thread.

Not only is that more appropriate but you are likely to get increased response if posted under a heading that will attract those with interest or info on that specific subject.

Thanks!

[thanksforhelpethan]

Well mostly in reference to ricbassguy my main focus of music is hip hop and classical. I rarely do a song with just 4 or 8 looped bars, granted I havent been doing beats for decades though. But I make songs that are 32 64 and even a few have been 128. Sure some bars are just the same sound played every bar or 2 like snares or claps and the such. But I am trying to experiment with long playings of harps flutes or other bow string instruments. Still working on mixing up classical with hip hop but its getting there.

 

Peace

[Nu2Keys]

The theme song for the Lewis Black segment "Back in Black" in The Daily Show was originally AC/DC's "Back in Black" but it has been changed and now it is a song SO CLOSE to "Back in Black" to make you think of it and enough different, I guess, to not be copyright infringement. In a related note, any Beatles songs that you hear on commercials are not really the versions by the Beatles, but remakes by someone who sounds close enough but, again, different enough to avoid lawsuits.