Latest on MJJC

don't you LOVVVE originality??

144000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
10,310
Points
0
Location
united states
:D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X5cZC5U6dM
wink2ni3.gif
 
Last edited:
yeah the chorus has two lines that are carbon copies of YANA...but nothing else lol
 
J5master said:
yeah the chorus has two lines that are carbon copies of YANA...but nothing else lol
Click to expand...

yeahhh...other than that, the song is just fine. no problem. hey..if i didn't hear the dj tell me the title of the song, i swear, the hook would've prompted me to come up with the same title as the dj did.:D

yep...i def would've called the song 'lost'. yep...i sure would've:D
 
^ it's not even the two lines - just "(and) you are not alone".

the ironic thing is the "original" You Are Not Alone was jacked from someone else.
 
i understand the splitting hairs argument on who originally wrote what, but here's my take on that. i call it the coca cola mcdonald's syndrome. both ideas were started by someone who didn't have enough faith to keep their ideas. they just wanted the quick buck that an entrepreneur was willing to give them. and the entrepreneurs ended up with the product, because they believed in it. so, as far as i'm concerned, the products belong to the entreprenuers. as far as i'm concerned, the entrepreneurs 'wrote' the product, because they believed in it. a lot of original stuff was written, but the writer or 'creator' never stuck by it, because the money was more important than the belief. so, at the point that the originator gave up the idea for money, the idea is no longer theirs. the true originator is the person who believes in the product from beginning to end, and is willing to either go down with the ship or sail away with the gold. i truly don't believe that a person who genuinely believes in their product will be eluded by success. these guys wrote their song, apparently, and we never heard fromt them, until the r kelly/ michael jackson faith system kicked in, and saw success. and we know the intent of heart of michael buble. he copied what he knew was a sure fire hit from michael jackson in an era when it's cool to bash him in the media, but take the rip offs from other artists to the top of the american charts. becaues everybody knows in their heart that Michael Jackson is the true meaning of success. that's my take on it. most people don't believe in their song, until it's played on the radio. if it doesn't happen fast enough, they suspend their belief. instant gratification doesn't give good rewards. r kelly went to MJ becaues he knew there was money in it. i'm sure he had no idea which song MJ would like. MJ is the one with the genuine belief in the songs, from beginning to end. he believes in the ones that american radio refuses to play that he wrote. and his sales prove that he's right. so, for me, the true songwriter is the one who believes in the song, without ceasing. so, the true songwriter of you are not alone, is Michael Jackson, imo. and Michael Buble knew that he was copying Michael Jackson. and so did the los angeles dj who made a slight barb at MJ, but made no comment about this song 'lost' when he introduced it.
 
Last edited:
is that why they immediately filed for copyright claims in 1995 when the song was released?

note copyright of their original demo - 1993.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMckIGS8Ndw

Audio: Original c. 1993 demo "IF WE CAN START ALL OVER".
Composed by: Eddy Van Passel/ Danny Van Passel
Original Publisher: Van Passel Brothers Music

1995: Belgian right society SABAM confirmed, after examination, that the theme of the song "YOU ARE NOT ALONE" (that R. Kelly presented in 1995 to Michael Jackson) is original composed in 1993 by Eddy & Danny Van Passel.

The Court of Appeal in Brussels confirmed, September 4th 2007, "YOU ARE NOT ALONE" is a copy of "IF WE CAN START ALL OVER".

The song (performed by Michael Jackson, Diana ROSS and many others) is original composed by Eddy VAN PASSEL & Danny VAN PASSEL.

It's an original 'Van Passel Brothers Music' worldcopyright.

335_e543b2bc3392872944f3fea89e2237d6.jpg
 
i'm not disputing that. i don't think any songwriter goes without copyrighting the song. it's what happens after that, that i'm disputing.

there was another song, called 'louie louie' the original writers copyrighted that one too, but then they gave the song to someone else for a small amount of money. to the writers that must have been a big amount, becuase they accepted it. the ones who bought the song took it to the top of the charts. so, in my view it belongs to the ones who HELD ONTO IT after copyright, and rode it themselves all the way..

how come van passel and co. didn't ride the song to the top, themselves? if they have the talent, and the belief, why didn't they?

it's possible to copyright a song, and then give it up. people make contracts of that type all the time. it would be easier for me to accept the van passels as the true owners, if they went after r. kelly, or Michael LONG before the song went to number 1.

to me, this is no different than the hordes of people who waited till they saw that billie jean hit number 1, then they went to court claiming to have written the song, instead of Michael. many people write many things. and many people are faced with doubters. only the person who never suspends their belief is the true owner of what they believe in. that's where i'm coming from.
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
how come van passel and co. didn't ride the song to the top, themselves? if they have the talent, and the belief, why didn't they?
Click to expand...
because like most unknown talents, it's near-impossible to jump to super stardom from being essentially nobody in the business. you heard how Michael does not ever listen to demos sent to him - he seeks out "reputable" songwriters that are already established for the sake of legality issues.

it's possible to copyright a song, and then give it up. people make contracts of that type all the time.
Click to expand...
if such a contract was made, R. Kelly wouldn't have lost the case.

it would be easier for me to accept the van passels as the true owners, if they went after r. kelly, or Michael LONG before the song went to number 1.
Click to expand...
they filed for copyright infringements only 2 weeks after the song was released - have you not read the scanned documents above?

you're digging for illogical excuses.
 
arXter said:
because like most unknown talents, it's near-impossible to jump to super stardom from being essentially nobody in the business. you heard how Michael does not ever listen to demos sent to him - he seeks out "reputable" songwriters that are already established for the sake of legality issues.


if such a contract was made, R. Kelly wouldn't have lost the case.


they filed for copyright infringements only 2 weeks after the song was released - have you not read the scanned documents above?

you're digging for illogical excuses.
Click to expand...

i'm not digging...let's respect.

i'm not illogical. the song rocketed to number 1 in it's first week.

and....you may believe that it's nearly impossible to succeed, but not everybody does.

they don't have to rocket to superstardom. they only have to rocket to stardom. or one hit wonderdom....i think you get my point, if you want to.

the fact that you believe that it's nearly impossible to rocket, make my point, clearly for me. if the van passels have your belief system, they won't be willing to carry the song themselves. and take on the patience and suffering that goes along with it. there is no way, if the van passels truly believed in the song, that they would have not pandered it before the world, shamelessly until it gave them a good measure of success. they could've played the clubs, traveled the world, acting as if they knew they had a number 1. there are independent artists everywhere. they have their originals, they keep them, they pander them

the mystery lies in whether the van passels went to r. kelly, or decided to keep the song. how could r. kelly otherwise have heard it? did they keep their rights, or did they give their rights to r. kelly? did they sell their rights to him, or did they allow him to hear something that they could have perfectly been able to keep for themselves and not let kelly hear?
 
Last edited:
actually, it was two weeks when the court was making a comparison and came to a conclusion. so it must have been much earlier since they made the claim - i don't know how you can call that "LONG before" it reach no. 1

it's quite sad that you're taking this position when the evidence is right in front of you and the court made a 10-year long decision fighting against the powerful suits of corporation. i wonder what you'd say to those who dig for speculative reasons against Michael's vindication.
 
arXter said:
actually, it was two weeks when the court was making a comparison and came to a conclusion. so it must have been much earlier since they made the claim - i don't know how you can call that "LONG before" it reach no. 1

it's quite sad that you're taking this position when the evidence is right in front of you and the court made a 10-year long decision fighting against the powerful suits of corporation. i wonder what you'd say to those who dig for speculative reasons against Michael's vindication.
Click to expand...

i really don't understand what you're saying here. but you don't sound sure where i boldened your words. like i said, it didn't take long for the song to reach number 1. not all the evidence is there. whatever happened between the time they copyrighted the song, and it got to r. kelly, had to require them to part from riding the song hard, themselves. even if it meant self publshing and selling it from the trunk of their own cars.

what you're not seeing here is, i'm talking about believeing in what you write. if you truly believe beyond the doubters, and you hold on as if you do, you will be the only one who will succeed with the song. if not, somebody else will. this is an argument i'm clearly not going to win with you. you don't get where i'm coming from, so, i'll just leave it.
 
I see both points here lol

But it looks like all parties got what they wanted anyway. The original writers won the suit, R Kelly got to work with Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson got another number one hit. :lol: It's all gravy lol
 
J5master said:
I see both points here lol

But it looks like all parties got what they wanted anyway. The original writers won the suit, R Kelly got to work with Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson got another number one hit. :lol: It's all gravy lol
Click to expand...

you're right, lol...it looks like gravy. i guess it's just a matter of what people see as gravy, but, if all parties are satisfied, cool...

apparently, buble is getting gravy from it too.


i do know that some people may never be satisfied...cus the song 'louie louie' was sold for seven hundred and fifty bucks. the buyers made millions..and later, the original songwriters fought to get some of that money, even though they sold the rights. and, they won their suit to an extent, anyway(so you never know). they got SOME money, but never the great amount that the original buyers got. so..if people can be satisfied with less...that's cool. but as we can see on this thread and forum...it's still hard not to think of MJ first, when it comes to yana...and he still gained the MOST from it..and deservedly so. His belief system rocks!!:punk:
 
Last edited:
J5master said:
I see both points here lol

But it looks like all parties got what they wanted anyway. The original writers won the suit, R Kelly got to work with Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson got another number one hit. :lol: It's all gravy lol
Click to expand...
they hardly got a good deal and it's not what i'd call justice. 12 years of effort just to have their work recognised in Belgium only, and with no past royalty compensations. put yourself in their shoes, you wouldn't be thinking about gravy lol
 
Last edited:
if i knew more about the situation, and i mean information that past the documents (cuz u know how "documents" are in the MJ world lol...especially regarding the recent Neverland fiasco)....then I'd give u more sympathy. I wanna know how the hell R Kelly heard it. What was the relations/transactions between them and R Kelly.

Its all really weird to me, that aaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllll of the songs that R Kelly wrote for other people, and himself, and he was already an established songwriter and artist ("I Believe I Can Fly"), he FINALLY gets to work with his idol Michael Jackson, so he decides to look around the world for the PERFECT MJ song...and finds it in these people, and just snatches it up and gives it to MJ. THere HAS to be some type of transaction...that's what's missing here.
 
Last edited:
J5master said:
if i knew more about the situation, and i mean information that past the documents (cuz u know how "documents" are in the MJ world lol...especially regarding the recent Neverland fiasco)....then I'd give u more sympathy. I wanna know how the hell R Kelly heard it. What was the relations/transactions between them and R Kelly.

Its all really weird to me, that aaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllll of the songs that R Kelly wrote for other people, and himself, and he was already an established songwriter and artist ("I Believe I Can Fly"), he FINALLY gets to work with his idol Michael Jackson, so he decides to look around the world for the PERFECT MJ song...and finds it in these people, and just snatches it up and gives it to MJ. THere HAS to be some type of transaction...that's what's missing here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I also found the whole story rather weird. One wonders, is it possible that a songwriter could write a song that has already been written without knowing it? Must be possible... bah, who knows... :D
 
J5master said:
if i knew more about the situation, and i mean information that past the documents (cuz u know how "documents" are in the MJ world lol...especially regarding the recent Neverland fiasco)....then I'd give u more sympathy. I wanna know how the hell R Kelly heard it. What was the relations/transactions between them and R Kelly.

Its all really weird to me, that aaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllll of the songs that R Kelly wrote for other people, and himself, and he was already an established songwriter and artist ("I Believe I Can Fly"), he FINALLY gets to work with his idol Michael Jackson, so he decides to look around the world for the PERFECT MJ song...and finds it in these people, and just snatches it up and gives it to MJ. THere HAS to be some type of transaction...that's what's missing here.
Click to expand...

you are striking very close to where i'm coming from. the unwritten rule is, that NOBODY believes in a unsolicited original song. (look how critics are blasting the ESTABLISHED MJ's songs past the HIStory years)


the only one who can truly believe..is the songwriter himself or herself.

if i were a gambling man, i'd bet my life savings, that somewhere along the line, the van passel brothers lost belief in their own song. and now that they saw it hit number 1, they suddenly believe in it again. copyright has nothing to do with it. you can get it and give it up in a backroom deal. all you have to do is give somebody permission to do something, and then, claim that you didn't give them permission, once you see the song perfom in a way that YOU the songwriter didn't believe it would perform. NObody believed that MJ would sell forty million..except MJ. today, NOBODY believes that MJ can repeat that. but i bet MJ Does.

most people share the belief that arxter does...that it's nearly impossible to shoot to superstardom. and most of those people who believe in that manner happen to be songwriters. it's a RARE songwriter who believes the outrageous. and most people slam that kind of believer. and from that premise comes all the points i've been making on this thread.

so...i'm saying i'll place a bet that the van passel brothers brought their 'misfortune' upon themselves. i don't care that i don't have ALL the info. my evidence is that MOST people believe that you are a loon if you believe in irrational beliefs as a songwriter.
 
Last edited:
It's possible for one songwriter to have similar arrangements and tempos in their songs to another composition(s). There are SO many songs written every day that it isn't at all unlikely that similarities would occure, even down to specific arrangements, cord progressions, melody, etc...

"You Are Not Alone" wouldn't have been the hit that it was anyway if Michael hadn't sung it. To be honest, I really never could get in to that song. It's the only song on "History" that I don't really like.
 
Last edited:
J5master said:
And One Republic ain't complaining so...gravy to me then :lol:
Click to expand...

One who? lol no i'm talking about his confessions of plagiarism of Finnish artists.

and wbss21, i guess it is possible that this near-exact arranged, produced and composed demo could have been done by coincidence... i guess the law didn't look at it that way, though.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
It's possible for one songwriter to have similar arrangements and tempos in their songs to another composition(s). There are SO many songs written every day that it isn't at all unlikely that similarities would occure, even down to specific arrangements, cord progressions, melody, etc...
Click to expand...


that's an eerie statement for you to make. it's no wonder that songwriters feel like they are the most disrespected artists in the world.

and it reminds me of a contest that vh1 held recently, where they invited songwriters to enter for a chance to win a producing session with flava flav. and in the rules, vh1(mtv networks)expressly stated that because of the vast volume of songs that are entered into their contests of the past, and their experience with them, it is entirely possible for an entrant's work to be completely exactly like a theme that mtv networks may have used in the past...or in the future(how's that for a howl?) so entrants have to not hold mtv networks liable in any way if their themes in the future copy an entrant's theme, entered into a contest. the entrant, just by entering, relinquishes copyright, and the entrant's work is solely the property of mtv networks.


so..there...how's that for respect?

even Janet said in her interview with ryan seacrest on american top 40, that MJ wrote so many songs that it's impossible not to copy some of them. and ryan seacrest agreed. that part of the interview has since been edited out.
 
Last edited:
thats why MJ even copies his own songs sometimes :lol:

I think for this next album, MJ should follow the sampling trend and SAMPLE his own old school songs :lol:
 
I just meant that certain parts of songs can and have had similar or even identical cord progression, melody, lyrical content and arrangement to other songs already written, purely by coincidence. I'm not saying that's the case with "You Are Not Alone", I'm just saying that has happened.

Of course, if you're truly a gifted song writer, you don't need to copy or sample, lol. If it happens by coinsidence, then it happens by coinsidence, that's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top