Rip Offs?

It is an ongoing debate and controversy about what constitutes a rip-off in music. As more and more music is being created, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish whether a new song is actually stealing parts from another song. Other times, it might be that popular artists’ influence is too strong on many up and comers. While most of the time it is clear that something is original with indications of influence, sometimes there are moments of similarity where a song is too similar to another. Being inspired by another artist's work is not illegal, but directly copying their work without permission crosses a legal boundary. While plenty of judges have ended up making the decision of whether or not something is a rip-off, it is likely, if not certain, that many other instances of stolen riffs or melodies have gone under the radar. There are plenty of examples of resolved publicized cases to delve into, so it isn’t necessary that I pick out specific examples of things that I think are rip offs. I will use examples of known instances regarding this subject.

There is a lot of controversy regarding sampling, including laws and court rulings surrounding the subject. It was mainly considered to be a problem within the hip-hop or rap genre. However, sampling is also used in other genres. But sampling is controversial due to its use of existing recordings. Ironically, many modern songs do use sampling and interpolation, sometimes with less of an artistic approach. This issue will likely continue to evolve with AI. While sampling can still be viable, it has become iffy which is why it isn’t used too often in genres such as rock music.

A famous example of a sample turned rip-off in rock/alternative is The Verve’s Bittersweet Symphony copying parts of The Rolling Stone’s The Last Time, specifically taking directly from an instrumental version of the song done by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra. If you listen to the instrumental take of The Rolling Stones song you will immediately hear the similarities. The strangest and most confusing part about this instance is that it was originally a sample used with permission. What changed is unclear, other than the claim that The Verve used more than agreed on, for this to lead to a lawsuit and all of the royalties and most of the credit to go to The Rolling Stones (originally a 50/50 split). But eventually, in 2019, Mick and Keith gave The Verve all the credit and royalties back. All of this was a mess, and it didn’t actually end up where it started as The Verve then received all of the credit instead of some. This is one example of how confusing this kind of musical controversy can get. From this example, I can say that most of it seemingly had to do with issues behind the scenes, but it led to a public dispute reported in the media. 

Ripoffs are harder to distinguish when it’s not a direct sample. If it's a riff or something else regarding limited chords and notes, most of the time it is subjective. However, when it does get to be more of an objective, note by note rip-off it is more deplorable. Even then it rarely is ever considered objective, as controversy always surrounds this issue. Fans will take the side of the artists they love, and it won’t matter to many of them if something is a deliberate rip off or not. If it’s not a sample used without permission there seems to be a lot more of a gray area in deciding if it’s ok or not. If the intention and obviousness is there in a rip-off, it might be called out. If it’s related to a popular artist allegedly taking from more obscure artists, it might be forgotten about. Whichever way this issue goes, it will always be somewhat complicated.

Comparisons and influence are completely different from rip-offs and samples. Every artist has their influences, and it shouldn’t be shameful to show them. Of course artists are better off when their influences don’t drown out their originality. Comparisons from some critics and fans might distract from originality as well. The only way pointing out comparisons and influences is harmful is when it doesn’t allow an artist’s own style or abilities to shine. I feel like noting your influences can be admirable, and comparisons can be complimentary. But, again, sometimes artists might be too similar to someone else, constituting it as more of a rip-off.

When listening to music, I don’t think it’s always a good thing to try to focus on comparisons to other artists or similarities. I think that the focus should be on appreciating the originality of artists, and if not enough originality is found you can move on. It’ll be obvious to an avid music listener or a musician themselves if something sounds too similar to someone or something else. That instinct is important in shining light on something that is a rip-off. Either way, intentional plagiarism only distracts from the value of originality.