You tell 'em Pedro.

KenB123
But what a great chord sequence to copy, ya hey dere!

Boring!
 
Bartok and Stravinsky have far better chord sequences, that would be much more fun to play and put to use ... but maybe that music is too far and out there for anyone to actually consider ... notes? ... chords? ... a progression? ... hmmm ... chord progression in with the rites of megalomania?
 
Folks just need to get smarter, than just use the same chord and song over and over again! But I am not sure they have heard any other music to make that call ... you have to have a feel for something different, and sometimes, it's just not there! Or they think an effect makes it different.

bitflipper
I wonder if Pachelbel's descendants have considered the potential for a monetary windfall. I'm sure there's some sleazebag entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles that'd take their case.
 
Oh yeah, that song is definitely a ripoff of "People Get Ready". If you played just those first chords to 100 people, 99 of them would start singing "People Get Ready". The remaining 1 would be somebody too young to have heard of Curtis Mayfield.

Thanks for that, Bit! I just stuck Rhino's reissue of SuperFly in the D: drive. Sounding awesome through my Beyerdynamics!

(Forgot to quote..."Boring! Barton and .......")

Man, are you missing the point. It's not about whether it must be new, different, complex, etc. If it is a pretty chord sequence, than so be it. And it doesn't mean it's the only pretty chord sequence out there. I guess I just don't get that comment of yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
 

Moshkito

KenB123
But what a great chord sequence to copy, ya hey dere!

Boring!
 
Bartok and Stravinsky have far better chord sequences

Stravinsky never used chords. He eschewed that outmoded construct very early in his career. All his music is made up of tiny fragments of dust from around the  hidden rim of Faberge' Eggs, drizzled in swan's tears and carefully carried into a pre-determined pattern by rare winged voles. I very much doubt that you'd be aware of that though, it needs a more open imagination to look past the accidental clashing of notes which may give the illusion of chords.

KenB123
(Forgot to quote..."Boring! Barton and .......")

Man, are you missing the point. It's not about whether it must be new, different, complex, etc. If it is a pretty chord sequence, than so be it. And it doesn't mean it's the only pretty chord sequence out there. I guess I just don't get that comment of yours.

Note to Ken...don't ever try.  you'll never get it.  none of us do.

jamesg1213

Moshkito

KenB123
But what a great chord sequence to copy, ya hey dere!

Boring!
 
Bartok and Stravinsky have far better chord sequences

Stravinsky never used chords. He eschewed that outmoded construct very early in his career. All his music is made up of tiny fragments of dust from around the  hidden rim of Faberge' Eggs, drizzled in swan's tears and carefully carried into a pre-determined pattern by rare winged voles. I very much doubt that you'd be aware of that though, it needs a more open imagination to look past the accidental clashing of notes which may give the illusion of chords.

beltrom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

"Not available in your country. Sorry."
 
Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rvmf6YlyNE
 
 

Beagle
chord progressions themselves are not a sole consideration for copyright.  
 
I-V-vi-IV is in hundreds of "hit" songs.
 
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/73-songs-you-can-play-with-the-same-four-chords#.nmJzdbX1Z
 
that chord progression originated in Pachelbell's Canon in D.
 

I should have mentioned the fact of copyright, but man to man, you at least have to change the vibe, tempo......SOMETHING...