Peter Darrington, former member of the band Cable and current member of the band The Hudson Super Six, just recently wrote a post concerning Muse's new song, "Psycho," and how he feels it sounds like one of his band's songs, "Heartbreakin'." Apparently, some friends of his notified him of the songs' similarities, especially in light of the fact Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were recently ruled to have copied a Marvin Gaye song, which cost them $7.3 million.
The major issue with Darrington's comments, however, is the fact that The Hudson Super Six released their song, "Heartbreakin'," in 2013. The main riff used in Muse's new song, "Psycho," has been one they've played live since 1999, 14 years prior to the release of "Heartbreakin'." So while I personally don't think the songs sound so much alike they'd warrant a lawsuit, if any band could take the other to court over the matter, it'd be Muse claiming Peter Darrington and The Hudson Super Six stole their riff, since they started playing it 16 years ago, 14 years before the release of "Heartbreakin'."
When this was all brought to the attention of Darrington, he responded with this following comment:
"To be clear. My article contains NOTHING accusatory or defamatory against Muse. Its purpose was three fold. 1. Pointing out that the Blurred Lines verdict could be a game changer for plagiarism claims, that the whole thing is a controversial and dangerously subjective area. 2. The parallels I draw between Muse's record and our record illustrate a personal point of view that when you feel it has happened to you, it's gutting, like it must be equally gutting if you feel you've put your all into writing a great song only to have someone make a claim against you. 3. I also wanted people to listen to our record. Job done. Whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike, I couldn't care less. As for the idea that Muse might seek litigation against my group - I think they're a bit more grown up than that. We sell a handful of records. A 100% of nothing is nothing."
Nice attempt in backtracking, wasn't it? It sounds to me the only thing Darrington was attempting to do here was garner attention for his band, and while he definitely accomplished that, the old adage about how any kind of publicity is good publicity, doesn't always work. Sure, more people are now familiar with the band The Hudson Super Six, yet they're also more familiar with the band's sad attempt of garnering publicity through making a claim that a major band may have stolen their riff when that wouldn't have been chronologically possible. Perhaps Mr. Darrington should do more research prior to making such claims in the future.
This is what worried me following the Robin Thicke/Pharrell Williams ruling. There are three main questions it sparked: 1) Will more such lawsuits be filed in the future? 2) Will it negatively impact new artists? 3) Will this result in more bands coming forward about being ripped off just to generate attention?
I sincerely hope that the Robin Thicke/Pharrell Williams lawsuit and ruling was simply an aberration and it doesn't become the start of a growing trend. It'd truly be a shame to see the quantity of talented new musicians shrink due to the fear of such lawsuits.
http://www.nme.com/news/muse/83578
The major issue with Darrington's comments, however, is the fact that The Hudson Super Six released their song, "Heartbreakin'," in 2013. The main riff used in Muse's new song, "Psycho," has been one they've played live since 1999, 14 years prior to the release of "Heartbreakin'." So while I personally don't think the songs sound so much alike they'd warrant a lawsuit, if any band could take the other to court over the matter, it'd be Muse claiming Peter Darrington and The Hudson Super Six stole their riff, since they started playing it 16 years ago, 14 years before the release of "Heartbreakin'."
When this was all brought to the attention of Darrington, he responded with this following comment:
"To be clear. My article contains NOTHING accusatory or defamatory against Muse. Its purpose was three fold. 1. Pointing out that the Blurred Lines verdict could be a game changer for plagiarism claims, that the whole thing is a controversial and dangerously subjective area. 2. The parallels I draw between Muse's record and our record illustrate a personal point of view that when you feel it has happened to you, it's gutting, like it must be equally gutting if you feel you've put your all into writing a great song only to have someone make a claim against you. 3. I also wanted people to listen to our record. Job done. Whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike, I couldn't care less. As for the idea that Muse might seek litigation against my group - I think they're a bit more grown up than that. We sell a handful of records. A 100% of nothing is nothing."
Nice attempt in backtracking, wasn't it? It sounds to me the only thing Darrington was attempting to do here was garner attention for his band, and while he definitely accomplished that, the old adage about how any kind of publicity is good publicity, doesn't always work. Sure, more people are now familiar with the band The Hudson Super Six, yet they're also more familiar with the band's sad attempt of garnering publicity through making a claim that a major band may have stolen their riff when that wouldn't have been chronologically possible. Perhaps Mr. Darrington should do more research prior to making such claims in the future.
This is what worried me following the Robin Thicke/Pharrell Williams ruling. There are three main questions it sparked: 1) Will more such lawsuits be filed in the future? 2) Will it negatively impact new artists? 3) Will this result in more bands coming forward about being ripped off just to generate attention?
I sincerely hope that the Robin Thicke/Pharrell Williams lawsuit and ruling was simply an aberration and it doesn't become the start of a growing trend. It'd truly be a shame to see the quantity of talented new musicians shrink due to the fear of such lawsuits.
http://www.nme.com/news/muse/83578
Comments
Post a Comment