Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: opeth.db Dec 13 2008, 07:26 PM

Posted by: MickeM Dec 13 2008, 07:43 PM

Good video you found! He presents it very well I think

Posted by: Smikey2006 Dec 13 2008, 07:55 PM

he should have brought up the fact that the melodies are very similar as well

Posted by: Outlaw2112 Dec 13 2008, 07:57 PM

Is that you?

Posted by: MickeM Dec 13 2008, 08:01 PM

He did, he said Joes guitar and the vocals were similar.

Posted by: AlexLion Dec 13 2008, 08:07 PM

That was good video (inspired me dive into some theory as well), at least he`s on Satriani`s side:)

Posted by: Trond Vold Dec 13 2008, 08:10 PM

Thanks for the video. That was quite interesting

Posted by: Iluha Dec 13 2008, 08:34 PM

Actually he said they were diffrent.

Posted by: skennington Dec 13 2008, 09:45 PM

Nice explanation (his opinion of course, but sounds pretty knowledgeable) what I got out of it was the fact that he believes the rhythm, melody and harmony are essentially the same. Not good for Coldplay.

Posted by: Fsgdjv Dec 13 2008, 10:44 PM

Wow, so the rythm and chord progressions are similar. Damn, I had no idea.

Posted by: Capt.Z Dec 13 2008, 10:46 PM

Looking into the theory sure clears things up... GO SATRIANI!!!

Posted by: Canis Dec 13 2008, 11:22 PM

Great explanation! Not only did he show me how hopeless I am at theory, but he really presented Joe's case good... I might dare to bet that Joe will win this

Posted by: MickeM Dec 14 2008, 01:25 AM

Yes he did but in the sense of one being vocals and one being guitar.

The way he said it leaves a bit of own interpretion but just by listening to the two songs leaves no doubt to me the melodies sound the same but with two different instruments. With his brilliant analysis I doubt he'd miss that one part which everybody else have heard.

Posted by: wrk Dec 14 2008, 01:45 AM

This video got me the idea that it could be an interesting lesson series to analyze and explain the harmony structure of songs. I somehow saw David Wallimann sitting there with a blackboard explaining those things ...

Beside that the video was interesting done, what it's about is still a poor story ...

Posted by: Fran Dec 14 2008, 02:06 AM

Interesting video if only for the theory approach

Posted by: Pedja Simovic Dec 14 2008, 05:11 AM

Cool video
I think by now we are all aware that Satriani has really strong case - its pretty obvious from start actually.

The thing I am interested is to see how will Coldplay defend their case in court (since they have add lib singing in chorus - anybody who does music professionally could do that ! , so it almost sounds like a cover to extent and of course how far will Satriani drag them into it? Will he take half milion, milion , less? What will happen with that song ? Will Coldplay be able to play it live or they have to in future pay royalties for every time they play it ?

Things like that I am very much looking forward.

And the guy who made this video did a nice job although I am not happy that he didn't analyze MELODY which is really important thing since this is instrumental vs singing type of thing.

Overall thanks for sharing this video , I am excited to see where this will go and hope Satriani wins it

Posted by: opeth.db Dec 14 2008, 02:48 PM

I wish. If it was (No offence GMC) I wouldn't be here

Posted by: kjutte Dec 14 2008, 02:59 PM

why not?
it's still a nice community.

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Dec 14 2008, 03:07 PM

Someone could create one to prove why Coldplay should win. It's all just propaganda but unfortunately most fools will just believe it. I however don't consider bias to be a true opinion.

Posted by: MickeM Dec 14 2008, 03:26 PM

Since you think Coldplay have a case by all means go ahead and prove it

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Dec 14 2008, 03:28 PM

Unfortunately unlike this sad loser I haven't the time to put together a video on the case. I barely have time to do anything lately.

Posted by: Tuubsu Dec 14 2008, 05:26 PM

Maybe if you would cut down on calling people you don't know sad losers and wishing them bad things, you would have time to make a vid...

I think he did a good explanation and your opinion is heard! What about if you would just shut up if your just gonna call people names again and add nothing valid to your opinion...

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Dec 14 2008, 05:34 PM

I gave my opinion in the last post before the one you quoted. I meant by my comment on this why bother spending the time to make a video comparison that is worth nothing as it wont be used in the court case. I think people just need to leave it be until the outcome is realised. I think anybody who wastes their time is a loser but if they enjoyed putting it together then fair enough. Good for them

Posted by: Tuubsu Dec 14 2008, 05:57 PM

That means we agree! jippee! BUT, MY point was that (Here comes the hippie-talk!) You could leave out the "name-callings" and such which you have done the whole time you've been discussing about this trial, cos I think it creates a hostile environment, man!...(end hippie-talk) I mean I've been banned from here because of less in my opinion (one thing I don't seem to understand why)

Posted by: opeth.db Dec 14 2008, 09:13 PM

One of the main reasons I joined here is because I needed to improve my playing and understanding of theory. THe guy in the video seems to have a good grasp on it hence I wouldn't be in the market looking for a website to teach me such things.

But yes..you are correct. GMC is a fanatastic community and glad I am here

Posted by: Xose Pineda Dec 15 2008, 01:10 AM

Yeah... As a teacher for example...

I like the way he explains the stuff. Nice video. Smooth and clear...

Cheers!

Posted by: jdriver Dec 15 2008, 09:24 PM

I probably should just leave this alone, but... you think every action must have a practical purpose to be worthwhile? You might want to read Henry David Thoreau's Walden. One man's waste of time is another man's enlightenment. I say three cheers for wasting time.. what point is there in living in a beautiful world if you won't stop to look at it.

-signed, One Happy Loser.