http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/ne...p2z2kFxwd4XBjK

Scuz the pun but think this is a bit Petty. This could open the floodgates for masses of writs. Aren't they only so many chords so of course you going to get music that sounds like rip offs

Thoughts anyone?

It's not "petty", they're undeniably similar.

I think Sam and co. used those A and C chords and just hoped for the best. But when Petty called them out on it they knew there was no way they'd escape a law suit, so they paid out.

I don't believe it was a coincidence for a minute. If you don't know I Won't Back Down then you're certainly no musician.

I didn't say I was a musician and yes I know *I won't back down*. I was also a big fan of the Travelling Wilburys . Most of their songs had the same vibe as won't back down. which is no surprise as Petty was a co writer.

IMO I just don't think the two songs are so similar that he deserves writing credits . But that's my opinion and you are allowed yours.

Not 'petty' at all. It's been widely commented on, even in this forum. The whiney little dweeb's been found out, and rightly so.

You're being overly defensive.

I meant if Sam didn't know IWBD but he's certainly not a musician, implying he must've heard it and therefore he ripped off the chord progressions.

I remember a feature on a tv show in the 90's which said all the musical notes would be used up by 2004.

There must be cases now where songs are sounding the same because they have used up all the original ways.

The chorus is pretty much the same and it bugged me that I felt I'd heard ot before.

It really doesn't sound that similar to me. Are they actually the same notes or just same chords? I thought it had to be 8 consecutive notes for it to be plagiarism? I'd have let him take me to court and prove it isn't a ripoff.

OK I checked it out and it does have quite a few same notes actually.. can see why they settled. But it does seem slightly unfair that you can get a credit on a song that you've had no input on. If it was a well known song and it was reasonable to assume that Sam had heard it, then fair enough, but it was a tiny hit in the UK 2 years before Sam was even born.

The musical world is not defined by what was a "tiny hit" in the UK.

It is a well known song, your lack of knowledge of it does not change that

If that's the case why has Stay With Me been nominated for 3 Grammys and for a BRIt award? The 150 Grammy members and the 1000 BRIT awards members are all professional people in the music industry who have had many more years experience than Sam and his co-writers, who are all in ther 20's. If this was a blatant copy, don't you think they would have noticed and not nominated it?

You say a musician must know Won't Back Down so all those voting members must know it and did not consider that Stay With Me was a copy so they voted for it on its own merit.

Hmm... He didn't go after The Chili Peppers or The Strokes, which again makes me go hmm...

That's all irrelevant. Smith's been called out on it and coughed up. End of debate.

I suspect it was simply cheaper to settle than fight the case. The Rolling Stones did something similar a few years ago when one of their songs was very similar to constant craving by K.D. Lang and they had to give her a credit.

I was quite surprised no one seemed to notice how similar Bruce Springsteen's Working on a Dream was to In my Arms by Teddy Thompson.

I have been listening to music for long enough to realise there are loads of new records that sound like old one. IMO Pete Townsend of the WHO took a much more sensible approach

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...-fans-20130816

This. I very much doubt he was inspired by nor tried to rip off the earlier single. It's pretty cutthroat that someone would to try to profit from what is ultimately a flattering coincidence. The way it works is that Petty would have profited anyway...

1. You know I've heard that stupid Sam Smith on the radio for a while now and kept thinking isn't this just a crap version of something I've heard before? Thank-you Tom Petty for reminding me you got there first! Or at least before Sam Smith anyway.

2. This argument that all the chord/note combos have been used is about as clever as saying "I've seen all the colours known to man, how can an artist ever make an original painting!?!?!" Or "Oh no we've used all the words in the dictionary, how can make an original book!?!"

What makes songs different it not just the chord combinations, but the tempos, the notes in the melodies, the beats, what instruments are used.

Sure you might get some overlap of chord progressions being similar, but when pretty much the whole song sounds the same it’s pretty much odds on you can cough the word plagiarist. Loudly.

Ultimately Sam Smith himself is probably too musically clueless to have heard Tom Petty's original and the similarity is down to whatever major label hack songwriter/producer he was working with thinking they could borrow from Petty and nobody would notice.

It’s also down to the utterly cynical way in which major labels write music. I understand the suits have got musical experts to analysis what chords have tended to make hits and then they order their songwriters to recycle those chord patterns ad infinitum meaning so much of today’s music sounds like such a samey mush.

This was interesting and written months ago.

....They’re not just similar — there are whole passages that are identical.

Of the four phrases, three are virtually identical. The pitches are the same; the rhythms are the same; the chords are pretty much the same, with Petty’s D subbed out for Smith’s C (a change that doesn’t really affect the harmony). Even the structure of the lyrics is similar — the songs’ titles both arrive on the same notes in the first full bar and are repeated in the last phrase.

When does similarity become plagiarism? Well, first off, Party A actually has to bother suing Party B.

If Party A does decide to sue, they need to prove two things: access and similarity. Had Sam Smith heard I Won’t Back Down before? It’s the first song from Petty’s first solo album and has had its fair share of covers, so it seems pretty likely.

As to similarity, though, I think Smith’s position would be pretty hard to defend. That’s a lot of notes that are the same.

Of course, even if Smith had heard I Won’t Back Down before, it’s distinctly possible that he didn’t intentionally copy it. Every composer is hugely influenced by the music he or she listens to, and it’s all too easy to think you’ve come up with an original tune when in fact it’s nestled somewhere deep in your subconscious because you’ve heard it before.

Whole article:
https://medium.com/world-of-music/di...y-d660968268df

I'm surprised that he'd want a credit on this terrible song.

Good article and he goes on to say this

Of course, even if Smith had heard I Won’t Back Down before, it’s distinctly possible that he didn’t intentionally copy it. Every composer is hugely influenced by the music he or she listens to, and it’s all too easy to think you’ve come up with an original tune when in fact it’s nestled somewhere deep in your subconscious because you’ve heard it before. In fact, this very thing happened to me a few years ago: I wrote some music for a play whose chords I realised, too late (after the first performance), were pretty much identical to those in an Alexis Ffrench piece I was transcribing at the time.

For this reason — and because, to be honest, I prefer the Sam Smith - I reckon I, for one, can forgive him.

I am an ENG Lit. Graduate and there is no longer an original story. Every write uses a device/ plot or structure that has been done before

Look I'll be fair twingle it could be just a happy accident they are the same, but given how cynical the music biz is now and how similar the songs are I doubt it. If you prefer Sam Smiths take on it I wouldn't want to spoil that for you and I'm glad you enjoy the song.

And yes there are certain structures and devices that repeat in most forms of art, but it is how the artist reinterprets them in their own vision that make them interesting.

Just because that is the case doesn't also mean that originality is impossible. There's always mavericks that come along every now and again and change the way we think about things. That's what makes life fun.

seems TP admits it was probably an accident.

I didn't realise you could have accidental plagiarism, and I didn't realise you could have an accidental lawsuit either but it seems you can. Strange

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...appen-20150129