Did Green Day steal the melody for the X-Kid chorus from a Canadian boy band?

[IrelandCalling]

Some of the steals are jaw dropping, to quote one review from the Trilogy days, referencing Brutal Love. Warning is a perfect example as the riff is entirely lifted from the Kinks and that riff forms the main melody and thrust if the GD track, its only a step away from a cover of Picture Book really.

Boulevard utilises the Wonderwall chord progression but is wholly different. There are quite a few examples throughout GD's catalogue but no diffrent to many acts really. I guess it is more prominent in GDs case as some are genuinely surprising lifts of note for note melodies or riffs. Doesnt stop me enjoying what GD do with those pieces though; I enjoy Warning as much as Picture Book.

[Chin for a Day]

1 hour ago, IrelandCalling said:

Some of the steals are jaw dropping, to quote one review from the Trilogy days, referencing Brutal Love. Warning is a perfect example as the riff is entirely lifted from the Kinks and that riff forms the main melody and thrust if the GD track, its only a step away from a cover of Picture Book really.

Boulevard utilises the Wonderwall chord progression but is wholly different. There are quite a few examples throughout GD's catalogue but no diffrent to many acts really. I guess it is more prominent in GDs case as some are genuinely surprising lifts of note for note melodies or riffs. Doesnt stop me enjoying what GD do with those pieces though; I enjoy Warning as much as Picture Book.

This is the second post of yours I have agreed with this morning.

I've said this earlier, but even Ray Davies commented that he liked what they did with Picture Book. However, agreed, that one is a direct lift

[Hermione]

5 hours ago, IrelandCalling said:

Some of the steals are jaw dropping, to quote one review from the Trilogy days, referencing Brutal Love. Warning is a perfect example as the riff is entirely lifted from the Kinks and that riff forms the main melody and thrust if the GD track, its only a step away from a cover of Picture Book really.

Boulevard utilises the Wonderwall chord progression but is wholly different. There are quite a few examples throughout GD's catalogue but no diffrent to many acts really. I guess it is more prominent in GDs case as some are genuinely surprising lifts of note for note melodies or riffs. Doesnt stop me enjoying what GD do with those pieces though; I enjoy Warning as much as Picture Book.

Brutal Love isn't a "steal" though, it's an open and credited use of Sam Cooke's melody. No more a steal than sampling or covering a song.

[Insomniac1984]

Well, talking about chord progression. Remember Basket Case and Pachelbel, and SO MANY songs that have the same chord progression...

 

[IrelandCalling]

I know, they credited Sam Cooke for Brutal Love; the 'steal' mentioned is just a quote from a review. I love the Sam Cooke original and love Brutal Love aswell, it'd make my own 12-track Best Of the trilogy. 

I remember when Warning came out and the title track was Picture Book and Waiting seemed like the chorus melody of Downtown; however, what GD did with the melodies, arguably not similar much in the case of Downtown, was make it their own and two of the reasons I rate Warning as an album highly. 

Most acts have songs that reference others, consciously or subconciously, and its not sonething that bothers me at all. Boulevard as mentioned earlier a grand example; the progression is like Wonderwall but that a fairly common progression. Boulevard is nothing like Wonderwall.

[CocaColaX]

14 hours ago, Kuromignonne said:

Me neither. As for the Shenanigans track, it's a mix of demos and covers. I' don't know Blondie's songs, but looking on the album's booklet, "Outsider", "Tired Of Waiting For You" and "I Want To Be On TV" are mentioned as covers. 

Mine too! 

I was of course being sarcastic. 

Not a cover song, it was Ha Ha You're Dead, it has always reminded me of Accidents Never Happen, by Blondie. 

I do hear slightly what the original poster meant also, the other Moffat song intro Raining in my Mind. Are parts of 2 Moffat songs just a coincidence??

[Hero_Of_The_Hour]

13 hours ago, IcyMoffatt said:

I really doubt Billie would have listen to the Moffatts, too much a shitty pop band for his taste

And yet here we are with a topic discussing if not one but now possibly two Moffatts songs are identical to Green Day songs. What a time to be alive. 

[pacejunkie punk]

What song does Still Breathing borrow from?

[Chin for a Day]

10 minutes ago, pacejunkie punk said:

What song does Still Breathing borrow from?

The opening riff to The Struts Could Have been me. The writer of Could have been me was given credit on Still Breathing

[pacejunkie punk]

30 minutes ago, Scattered Wreck said:

The opening riff to The Struts Could Have been me. The writer of Could have been me was given credit on Still Breathing

Oh yeah I know that song. 

[Lauren]

So many people are saying it doesn't sound the same. While I think it wasn't an intentional steal or even enough of a similarity to be copyright infringement, the melodies are indeed similar. And instead of just saying that, I'm going to prove it musically.

 

Taken from the SECOND half of the chorus (it's slightly different from the first half but more similar to X-Kid):

Misery

is what I feel

when you're not around

so I can't heal

 

The melody notes are:

A G# B

A A G# B

A A G# A B

B E D# C# B

 

The closest melody to this that I can find in X-Kid comes from the second half of the verse, right before the chorus:

then I crashed 

into a wall

man I fell 

to pieces on the floor

 

the melody notes are:

G# A B

G# G# A B

G# A B

B E D# C# B B

 

Now, let's compare. Misery on the left, X-Kid on the right. 

A G# B / G# A B (same rhythm but the first two notes are switched)

A A G# B / G# G# A B (same rhythm but again, G# and A are switched)

A A G# A B / G# A B (identical except Misery adds two extra syllables in front)

B E D# C# B / B E D# C# B B (identical except X kid adds an extra syllable at the end)

 

so, aside from being in the same key (which makes them seem even more similar), the melody notes and rhythms themselves are very similar. Again, it's not close enough to be considered a copyright infringement. But I have no idea why some people are saying they barely sound similar at all because, at least those specific sections, are really close. 

[1039Revolutions]

1 hour ago, Lauren said:

So many people are saying it doesn't sound the same. While I think it wasn't an intentional steal or even enough of a similarity to be copyright infringement, the melodies are indeed similar. And instead of just saying that, I'm going to prove it musically.

 

Taken from the SECOND half of the chorus (it's slightly different from the first half but more similar to X-Kid):

Misery

is what I feel

when you're not around

so I can't heal

 

The melody notes are:

A G# B

A A G# B

A A G# A B

B E D# C# B

 

The closest melody to this that I can find in X-Kid comes from the second half of the verse, right before the chorus:

then I crashed 

into a wall

man I fell 

to pieces on the floor

 

the melody notes are:

G# A B

G# G# A B

G# A B

B E D# C# B B

 

Now, let's compare. Misery on the left, X-Kid on the right. 

A G# B / G# A B (same rhythm but the first two notes are switched)

A A G# B / G# G# A B (same rhythm but again, G# and A are switched)

A A G# A B / G# A B (identical except Misery adds two extra syllables in front)

B E D# C# B / B E D# C# B B (identical except X kid adds an extra syllable at the end)

 

so, aside from being in the same key (which makes them seem even more similar), the melody notes and rhythms themselves are very similar. Again, it's not close enough to be considered a copyright infringement. But I have no idea why some people are saying they barely sound similar at all because, at least those specific sections, are really close. 

Yes, thank you! Nice way of articulating what I was trying to say. 

If you played the guitar chords and the vocal melody together on the piano for each song at the chorus, it would be very difficult to tell which was which.

[The Bellie]

4 hours ago, Lauren said:

So many people are saying it doesn't sound the same. While I think it wasn't an intentional steal or even enough of a similarity to be copyright infringement, the melodies are indeed similar. And instead of just saying that, I'm going to prove it musically.

I don't find the two songs to sound close enough to say "it sounds the same". I don't question the comparison you've made, however it's just one side of the "musical" aspect, which isn't only about the notes and the key. In addition to the arguments that were already given here, hearing the two songs does not at all give me the same feeling, the atmosphere isn't the same, the instruments and the vocals are very differently led, and the lyrics are different. Even if the notes were exactly the same, all this is enough for me to say they're not the same or even quite similar songs, let alone Green Day getting inspired by this precise song.

[GreenDayTheory]

I think you can't copyright melody but i don't know

[Second favourite son]

2 hours ago, GreenDayTheory said:

I think you can't copyright melody but i don't know

Melody is absolutely subject to copyright law (at least in the UK, where I'm from, and the US, where it really matters).  Chord progressions are slightly different, as there are only a set number that will work and it's far too hard to prove those were plagiarised unless they're really unusual, in which case the song will generally sound bad to many people anyway and so won't have the level commercial success needed to attract a lawsuit.  But a huge range of artists, from Led Zeppelin to Ed Sheeran to Pharrell Williams have all recently been involved in legal cases where they've been accused of stealing other people's melodies without any credit given or revenue shared.

23 hours ago, IrelandCalling said:

Some of the steals are jaw dropping, to quote one review from the Trilogy days, referencing Brutal Love. Warning is a perfect example as the riff is entirely lifted from the Kinks and that riff forms the main melody and thrust if the GD track, its only a step away from a cover of Picture Book really.

I know they're not your words, I'm just quoting you for the context, but I really hate when Green Day using melodies written by others in a completely legal and legitimate way is referred to as stealing.  Brutal Love credits Sam Cooke, Waiting credits Petula Clark (well, actually her songwriter Tony Hatch).  Hearing a tune in an existing piece of music and being able to know how to use it successfully in something you're working on requires a huge amount of talent.  Being influenced by music from earlier artists is one thing, but transferring that influence to a completely different genre of music as successfully as Green Day have requires an incredible amount of talent.

That said, I think this instance with the Moffats is just a coincidence.  I can definitely hear the similarities in the melody and rhythm, but a) there are still quite a few differences and it's not really similar enough for a credible legal case and b) the feelings of the two songs are completely different from each other - ignoring the melody, rhythm etc, the songs aren't remotely alike.  With Green Day's clear track record of properly crediting any original songwriters for parts used in their songs (including one on the same album), it's incredibly unlikely that this is anything other than a coincidence.

[GreenDayTheory]

22 minutes ago, Second favourite son said:

Melody is absolutely subject to copyright law (at least in the UK, where I'm from, and the US, where it really matters).  Chord progressions are slightly different, as there are only a set number that will work and it's far too hard to prove those were plagiarised unless they're really unusual, in which case the song will generally sound bad to many people anyway and so won't have the level commercial success needed to attract a lawsuit.  But a huge range of artists, from Led Zeppelin to Ed Sheeran to Pharrell Williams have all recently been involved in legal cases where they've been accused of stealing other people's melodies without any credit given or revenue shared.

I know they're not your words, I'm just quoting you for the context, but I really hate when Green Day using melodies written by others in a completely legal and legitimate way is referred to as stealing.  Brutal Love credits Sam Cooke, Waiting credits Petula Clark (well, actually her songwriter Tony Hatch).  Hearing a tune in an existing piece of music and being able to know how to use it successfully in something you're working on requires a huge amount of talent.  Being influenced by music from earlier artists is one thing, but transferring that influence to a completely different genre of music as successfully as Green Day have requires an incredible amount of talent.

That said, I think this instance with the Moffats is just a coincidence.  I can definitely hear the similarities in the melody and rhythm, but a) there are still quite a few differences and it's not really similar enough for a credible legal case and b) the feelings of the two songs are completely different from each other - ignoring the melody, rhythm etc, the songs aren't remotely alike.  With Green Day's clear track record of properly crediting any original songwriters for parts used in their songs (including one on the same album), it's incredibly unlikely that this is anything other than a coincidence.

With that said,there's only a few original tunes out there because there are a only a definite amount of notes.

It's like copyrighting names 

[IcyMoffatt]

The Moffatts used to be known in the USA when they were kids. They played country music until 1997. After 1997, they switched to pop rock music, but this change never worked out in the USA. They became unknown there, but very popular in Canada (except in my province), Europe and mostly Asia (which they still have a huge fanbase over there today 16 years after the breakup). So, the only way Billie Joe could have heard about the Moffatts was before 1997 or he watched the movie Teaching Mrs. Tingle in which Misery is part of the soundtrack.

Anyway, it's just a coincidence. GD always credits the song parts they used from other artists. It would not make sens for the band to risk a legal issue with the Moffatts if it was really a copy infrightment, just because they thought this canadian band was enough unknown to the american public and broke up in 2001. In addition, X-Kid was recorded in 2012. Billie Joe doesn't remember most of that year because of his addiction problems. It's a dark hole for him. So, he might not remember to ever hear about the Moffatts.

By the way, if you want me to try to contact the Moffatts and ask them what they think about X-Kid, let me know. I know where to find them on social medias.

12 hours ago, Hero_Of_The_Hour said:

And yet here we are with a topic discussing if not one but now possibly two Moffatts songs are identical to Green Day songs. What a time to be alive. 

LoL, I never thought I would someday discuss about the Moffatts and Green Day in the same forum/topic whatever the subject might be!

[Lauren]

7 hours ago, Kuromignonne said:

I don't find the two songs to sound close enough to say "it sounds the same". I don't question the comparison you've made, however it's just one side of the "musical" aspect, which isn't only about the notes and the key. In addition to the arguments that were already given here, hearing the two songs does not at all give me the same feeling, the atmosphere isn't the same, the instruments and the vocals are very differently led, and the lyrics are different. Even if the notes were exactly the same, all this is enough for me to say they're not the same or even quite similar songs, let alone Green Day getting inspired by this precise song.

If the notes were exactly the same, it would be enough for them to be sued for copyright infringement. It does not matter what the instruments are doing -- words and melodies are what are copyrighted. 

The way you're describing it, the only way for songs to be "the same" is for them to literally be the exact same song. There are plenty of people who tell someone "wow you look exactly like your dad/mom/brother/sister/celebrity/random person I know!" Unless they're identical twins, of course they don't literally look EXACTLY the same. But similar enough to immediately remind them of someone. 

Of course the entire song isn't the same. But take out the chunk that I mentioned, and they are very similar, similar enough that if I played Misery's melody on piano with no words, a ton of my friends would be like "hey you're playing X-kid!"

Again, I don't think Green Day intentionally did this. It's just a coincidence. And there aren't enough consecutive similar notes (I believe it has to be 8) for it to be copyright infringement. but they're definitely very similar. 

[LaughingClock]

https://youtu.be/1GWMvCXdsG4

[Chin for a Day]

1 hour ago, Lauren said:

If the notes were exactly the same, it would be enough for them to be sued for copyright infringement. It does not matter what the instruments are doing -- words and melodies are what are copyrighted. 

 

That is not exactly true, thus the Blurred Lines lawsuit. The judge ruled that a groove or a feeling cannot be infringed upon.  So, based on that lawsuit, it is much more than the sheet music. I think it is still under appeal (not sure), but if it is not reversed it can change the way composers approach music.

 

[The Bellie]

4 hours ago, Lauren said:

The way you're describing it, the only way for songs to be "the same" is for them to literally be the exact same song.

That's not what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant that there are so many other different aspects between these two songs, when I listen to them, that even if the notes were as close as can be, with all the existing differences, I wouldn't find the two songs to be alike.

4 hours ago, Lauren said:

if I played Misery's melody on piano with no words, a ton of my friends would be like "hey you're playing X-kid!

I believe you, and my point is that the songs are not reduced to the sound of their melody on the piano...

[Alan86]

[Lauren]

16 hours ago, Kuromignonne said:

That's not what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant that there are so many other different aspects between these two songs, when I listen to them, that even if the notes were as close as can be, with all the existing differences, I wouldn't find the two songs to be alike.

I believe you, and my point is that the songs are not reduced to the sound of their melody on the piano...

Then what is an example of two songs that sound alike to you?

19 hours ago, Scattered Wreck said:

That is not exactly true, thus the Blurred Lines lawsuit. The judge ruled that a groove or a feeling cannot be infringed upon.  So, based on that lawsuit, it is much more than the sheet music. I think it is still under appeal (not sure), but if it is not reversed it can change the way composers approach music.

 

Then it looks like Pachelbel is coming back from the grave to sue thousands of artists for ripping off Canon in D  

 

but my point was, the person replying to me said they didn't care if the melodies were exactly the same, they didn't think the songs sounded similar because the accompaniments are different. But I'm saying it doesn't matter what the accompaniment is doing if the melodies are exactly the same -- it's still copyright infringement. I can't just take the exact melody of Holiday and sing it with different words and play it over accordion music and call it my own song (with the exception being if it was a clear parody). 

[Chin for a Day]

27 minutes ago, Lauren said:

Then what is an example of two songs that sound alike to you?

Then it looks like Pachelbel is coming back from the grave to sue thousands of artists for ripping off Canon in D  

 

but my point was, the person replying to me said they didn't care if the melodies were exactly the same, they didn't think the songs sounded similar because the accompaniments are different. But I'm saying it doesn't matter what the accompaniment is doing if the melodies are exactly the same -- it's still copyright infringement. I can't just take the exact melody of Holiday and sing it with different words and play it over accordion music and call it my own song (with the exception being if it was a clear parody). 

Also not 100% true. There are two types of copyright infringement, one is the actual composition, meaning the melody and lyrics. That copyright is owned by the composer. The other is the arrangement, that copyright is owned by the recording artist. There can be multiple arrangement copyrights but only one composition copyright. For example Green Day owns the copyright to the original recording of Basket Case and Alanis Morrisette would own the copyright of her acoustic version of it. Also, while you automatically own the copyright once you put pen to paper and write a song, if you don't register the copyright it can get hard to prove. 

[Hermione]

On 9/4/2017 at 1:00 PM, Second favourite son said:

I know they're not your words, I'm just quoting you for the context, but I really hate when Green Day using melodies written by others in a completely legal and legitimate way is referred to as stealing.  Brutal Love credits Sam Cooke, Waiting credits Petula Clark (well, actually her songwriter Tony Hatch).  Hearing a tune in an existing piece of music and being able to know how to use it successfully in something you're working on requires a huge amount of talent.  Being influenced by music from earlier artists is one thing, but transferring that influence to a completely different genre of music as successfully as Green Day have requires an incredible amount of talent.

 

I agree, and although Waiting obviously sounds like Downtown I never noticed credit was given for it! I always thought it was cool how it gave it a little shout out with "downtown, lights will be shining..." but nice to know proper credit was given as well.