criteria

Date: Apr 24, 2006

criteria

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Howdy,

Sorry it took so long to get back. The judges make a group decision every week but we rotate the "lead judge" designation around. The "lead judge" is responbsible for compiling and assessing all of the scores, and making the final call. We have everything from Recording Artists and Managers to Studio Owners and Lawyers, so it makes a pretty diverse set of input.

The voting is based on the following criteria.

Melody, Arrangement, Lyrical Poetry (If Applicable), Lyrical Theme (If Applicable), Vocal and Lead Performance, Entertainment Value, and Marketability.

Melody, Lyrical Poetry, and Marketability getting the highest weight.

This week I would agree it was a close race between Meandering Pandas and Aaron Lee Doyle. The scoring was reasonably close, but Cup of Tea edged out primarilly because of some of the unique turns used in the melody and the more effective use of imagery in the lyrics. Each of the songs needs some tweaking in the performance and chorus flow, so we focused in on the poetic themes and melody. Aaron Lee Doyle is excellent at arrangement and production, but we try to put that aside and focus on the core song. One of the things that hurt Doyle was the fact that he chopped his hook off the first time when returning to the verse. You want to let your listener savor it a little. The anthemic melody in Doyle's chorus is EXCELLENT though. Both songs have good marketability in different arenas, but Pandas are a little more current and unique in their style of writing. (Almost a little Coldplay in there) When it came down to it, the decision was made on creativity and imagery, but it was not a large gap. It was interesting as well, that the strength of each of these songs is very different. It would be great of we could create a hybrid song, because taking the best of these two would make a pretty awesone tune.

Hope that helps.

TES

Jack · Senior Member

yea, thanks, it helped a lot.

But I do have a concern. When a "cover" song is submitted, like anytime I have submitted my take on "Ohio" by Neil Young, it is removed. It being mine and any one of the others that I tailed.

This week, 1/05/2007 we have a third place song "Change the world" by E Grizzly(congrats to you Mr. Grizzly).

The above song lifts the riff from the Alvin Lee tune "I'd Love To Change The World" (C)1971 Chrys-A-Lee Music Ltd. Heck it even took most of the title:)

I assume when a noticeable cover is submitted there is a small voice in the back of the AW collective head that says "this is copyrighted work and cannot be played here."

The "change the world" song commits copyright infringement as I understand it....but not only was it not removed...it went on to place!

I, personally, would like a better understanding of the process and/or guidelines that seem to elevate the one and pinch off the head of the other.

BC · Senior Member

A sample is not the same as a cover, but you are correct -- there can still be copyright issues. A cover song is a definite infringement and goes against the terms of this site-- you simply don't have any legal right to the composition. But a sample goes into a grey area as the majority of the tune is original. Ultimately, if a copyright holder wishes for the song to be removed, it is their responsibility to ask us to remove it, and we will -- we're not fighters. But seeing as how we don't make any money off of the tune and it isn't hurting sales of the copyrighted material, we aren't a big threat to the record companies. So it then comes down to the spirit of what Artist Weekly is about: original music from unsigned artists. An original rap song that uses a sample still falls into that category in my mind, and in the minds of the judges.

Jack · Senior Member

that is bs BC and you know it. I could pick apart what you ascribe to the samples with well documented...ah, documents.

None the less, much like a radio talkshow host can "hang up" on me, I suppose this to ends any further discussion.

No harm, no foul on my side...just curious.

-- Edited by Jack at 19:05, 2007-01-11

BC · Senior Member

Come on. You must see the difference between a cover song and an original song that uses a sample?

BTW, if it's any consolation, we all liked your cover of Ohio. Heck, that's the only reason we didn't take it down right away.

-- Edited by BC at 20:17, 2007-01-11

Jack · Senior Member

And I thank you but this really is in pursuit of the gray areas.

Lest it be considered, examples here are for demonstration of this line of thinking, these are all high quality songs, each a bad motha in its' own right:)

Can we look at Bruce Richards current song here, "God ain't cryin' " for the resemblance to the vocal sounds/stylings of Tom Petty, Inc.?

Nope, 'cause everyone sounds like somebody. Not convincing enough argument

But E gives me cause to listen a little closer, pay a little more attention to something I have already heard. 'Sall I'm sayin'.

By definition, it isn't a sample that is in question in my thinking, there is no sampling:)

I'm just saying, 'sall

Ya'll don't have access to lawyering thinking up 'er?

Jack · Senior Member

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

---------

That being said, factor one suggests a cover is no more an infringement then the song in question.