Here we go *giggles*

MADONNA’S PUBLISHERS SUE MARY J. BLIGE: Battle between ‘Holiday’ and ‘Not Today’ begins.

*When the publishers who handle Madonna’s 1983 anthem “Holiday” first heard Mary J. Blige’s single “Not Today,” from the “Barbershop 2” soundtrack, they felt the songs sounded a little too close to ignore.


Maverick publishers have sued Blige and collaborators Eve and Dr. Dre over the song, reports the syndicated TV show “Celebrity Justice.”


"It sounds similar enough to bear further consideration,” New York musicologist Judith Finnell told “CJ.” “Both the pitches and the rhythms sound closely related."

-----

Sorry if this been posted before.

OMG they sound nothing alike....what fuckin clowns!!!!

Madonna's lost her mind. The two sound NOTHING alike. You hear me? NOTHING! I guess since her career seems to be floundering lately, she's gotta try and get some cash somehow. I'm being silly, but there's no case here. The only thing I can think of is MAYBE "not today" is said like "holiday," but even that isn't enough to build a case on.

If you want to hear how little they sound alike, check out a sound sample from Amazon. This song was also on Mary's album Love + Life, and I thought maybe the Barbershop 2 version was different...but it's the same. No similarity.

Well, I'm confused as to why Madonna or her publishing company would be suing Mary J. Blige; Madonna had nothing to do with writing Holiday. The last time I'd heard, Madonna's publishing was credited to Webo Girl, and Holiday was published by House of Fun Music/Spirit One Music. Does Maverick own the rights to this, or is this just an erroneous report?

Axchi696 said:

If I'm not mistaken over the course of the years in order to protect her catologue and her legacy Madonna has bought the rights to every song she has recorded, with the expction of I Want You.

ehuffnsd said:

So she was the one responsible for that God-awful cruise ship commercial that used 'Holiday' as its theme song?

same thing happened with Whitney's HeartBreak Hotel. It had a similar structre to Wham! feat George Michael's Carless Whisper

Nahh-ta-dayeee...

Cel-e-braa-eete

yeah i just heard it now, and it sounds too similar. This really should be looked into

Axchi696 said:

it wasn't as bad as "kids just want to have fun"

This is what's wrong with the music industry and nusiance suits in general. These songs are NOT similar enough for any rational thinking person to believe it's a steal. The same thing happenmed to Ray Parker Jr and "Ghostbusters" (though I can think of other crimes against the ears that song has committed) when Heuy Lewis sued and won. One critic pointed out that both "artists" should take a listen to the song "Pop Muzik" if they think they truly have an original idea on their hands.

This is unforgivable on Madonna's part. I could see if they truly ripped off "Holiday". But as it stands it seems delusional. As if Madonna needed the money. Or maybe she does. Pathetic!

CynicKill said:

Well, I guess since she's not blowing up with the tours, she gotta start suing somebody to keep her name in the paper

you people haven't a clue

it has nothing to do with Madonna, it's her publishers suing.....

jayaredee said:

Um, she's a part of her publisher, so yeah, it's her suing.

jayaredee said:

WOW! U can actually sue 4 money from the publishing of something U don't own the rights 2 and never had a hand in writing?! Somebody get me Paul McCartney's phone number, The Beatles publishing is worth billions and I WANT IN!!!


The preceeding message was brought 2 by sarcasm, with continued support from viewers like U.

npgmaverick said:

exactly, i don't understand where people's heads are at

jayaredee said:

You're the only one on about 10 message boards I've perused who thinks that.

I guess you're hopin' the judge is a Maddy fan.

OR that was good sarcasm on your part.
[Edited 1/19/05 11:41am]

VoicesCarry said:

so you have something against my opinion. i think it sounds similar and has a case.....

BlaqueKnight said:

and obviously VC was too blind to read everyone's reply

jayaredee said:

Where did I say that?

Anyways, now that we're suing over enunciation of one word, I wonder who's going to be the first to sue over "THE"?

jayaredee said:

Oops - as of the time I'd last read this thread, BlaqueKnight hadn't posted. It's still being laughed at by most, however.

VC, why can't you be friends with me? why do you keep coming after me? come on my fellow canadian brother, we have to work this out

She don't own the rights 2 Holiday, it's not under her 'Webo Girl' label.
Neither does Maverick, which is just an affiliate Warner label Madonna has
no part in anymore and never had any part in her 80's publishing rights..
What was that song Mary J. ripped off from 'Eye Hate U?'

jayaredee said:

My god, man, I'm not coming after you - it's called a difference of opinion? I really did think you were joking - so did RipHer2Shreds, as evidenced by his "" reply.

VoicesCarry said:

Wait. I'm all kinds of You were serious with the "This really should be looked into" comment?

After reading this (She's So Fine vs. My Sweet Lord) almost anything's possible...

Harrison's composition used the same motif A four times, which was then followed by motif B, but only three times, not four. Instead of a fourth repetition of motif B, there was a transitional phrase of the same approximate length. The original composition as performed by Billy Preston also contained the grace note after the second repetition of the line in motif B, but Harrison's version did not have this grace note.

Harrison's experts could not contest the basic findings of the Court, but did attempt to point out differences in the two songs. However, the judge found that while there may have been modest alterations to accommodate different words with a different number of syllables, the essential musical piece was not changed significantly. The experts also pointed out that Harrison's version of MSL omitted the grace note, but the judge ruled that this minor change did not change the genesis of the song as that which previously occurred in HSF.

With all the evidence pointing out the similarities between the two songs, the judge said it was "perfectly obvious . . . the two songs are virtually identical". The judge was convinced that neither Harrison nor Preston consciously set out to appropriate the melody of HSF for their own use, but such was not a defense.

Harrison conceded that he had heard HSF prior to writing MSL, and therefore, his subconscious knew the combination of sounds he put to the words of MSL would work, because they had already done so. Terming what occurred as subconscious plagiarism, the judge found that the case should be re-set for a trial on the issue of damages.

This ruling as to the copyright infringement was upheld on appeal with little comment. The appellate court noted that an infringement can be established when the holder of the copyright demonstrates that the second work is substantially similar to the protected work and the second composer had "access" to the first work. Harrison conceded that he had indeed heard HSF when it was popular, thus establishing the second point.

Harrison's main argument on appeal was that it was unsound policy to allow a finding of plagiarism based on subconscious copying, as there was no evidence that he purposely appropriated the melody of HSF for use in a composition he claimed as his own. This position was rejected by the appellate court, which pointed out that the Copyright Act did not require a showing of "intent to infringe" to support a finding of infringement.

...based on "subconscious copying"

Full article - http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm

tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm

theAudience said:

That was a crazy case. But even still - the minor similarities between those two songs seem more convincing than this Holiday, Not Today business. I'd never thought of them in the same breath, and I know both very well.