Just wondered what everyone else thinks about this track.
I'm split. It is solidly produced, but the original track that they've lifted from is just about identical.
The other thing about this song, is that the style reminds me a lot of Black Eyed Peas. I can't help think that this was a deliberate thing..
So on one hand, I like it. But on the other, It's a blatent copy and an attempt to sound like someone else.
So here is the Madcon track
and an edit of the original
and probably the closest Peas track. Has an almost identical drum track
It's an interesting one. I dare say that the BEP's were influenced by the same people, and are probably as guilty of lifting and changing someone else's idea. This isn't the only example, but it's the most recent, blatent and probably successful cover/sampler.
Is this what popular music is all about ? I was having a chat with some mates and they say that no music is honestly original, because you are influenced by others as you grow up. Therefore, you are bound to work to what you like, and that there are only a certain amount of notes you can use. But then I thought, if we all agreed to this idea...then what's the point of copyright and intellectual ownership, if something isn't completely unique?
Same with lyrics. Just how far can you go to protect your song. Or how much of it can you claim to be 'unique' in the first place?
It really has got me thinking, and I've realised how many songs I've heard lately that are remixed re-releases, covers, sample heavily or seem to resemble older tracks.. but they either get permission or get away with it..
Can we be really original, or are we always going to end up sounding like a new version of yesterday's news ?