Did George Harrison Steal the Tune for His Song My Sweet Lord?
Here's a detailed look at the controversy surrounding George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord and the accusations of plagiarism and copyright infringement against him. This article explores the legal and musical aspects of the case, plus updates from 2023.
Introduction to the Controversy
The accusation that George Harrison stole the tune for My Sweet Lord from He's So Fine has been a topic of debate for decades. Although the claim was ultimately deemed baseless, the legal battle that ensued has left a lasting impact on both Harrison's legacy and the music industry.
The Legal Verdict in 1976
In 1976, George Harrison was found liable for copyright infringement in the case entitled Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music Ltd.. The lawsuit was based on the similarities between My Sweet Lord and He's So Fine. This article will dissect the problems with this verdict and the broader implications of the case.
Problems with the Verdict
The verdict has been criticized on several counts, making it a controversial decision. Here are the three main issues:
1. Predecessor Familiarity
The judge assumed that Harrison had heard He's So Fine simply because it was a hit in 1963. However, Harrison testified that he was not familiar with the song, which should have been a key consideration. This assumption undermined the legal basis for the lawsuit.
2. Imitative Melodies and Chord Progressions
The judge stated that the two songs were "virtually identical," citing the similar chord structures of ii V ii V I IV V. While these chord progressions are common in music, the melodies themselves are distinctly different. The article includes notated examples of both songs to illustrate these differences.
Any musician or music theorist could clearly see the differences between the melodies. Even non-musicians could recognize that the melodies of My Sweet Lord and He's So Fine are quite unique from one another.
3. Psychoanalytic Analysis
The judge's decision to delve into Harrison's subconscious psyche rather than focusing on verifiable evidence of imitation adds another layer of controversy. The judge's comment that Harrison copied the song subconsciously because his subconscious "knew it already worked in a song" is a nonsensical capitulation to psychoanalysis. This approach amplifies the poor musical analysis and misunderstanding of the songwriting process.
Updates and Clarifications (2023)
Recent updates to the case have shed new light on the original verdict. While the judge was indeed criticized for his ill-informed opinion, it has been revealed that he recognized Harrison's stature as a legendary musician. Consequently, the judge awarded the plaintiff only the original purchase price of the copyright, without any inflation adjustment.
This decision reveals a more nuanced and balanced perspective on the case. The new information indicates that the court respected Harrison's contributions to the music industry and recognized the complexities of songwriting.
Chord Progressions and Song Structure
Both My Sweet Lord and He's So Fine share a common chord progression: ii V ii V I IV V. This is not unique to these two songs but is a frequently used structure in popular music. The article provides detailed explanations and notations to demonstrate the differences in the melodic lines between the two songs.
Harrison's adherence to a common chord progression left him open to accusations of plagiarism by opportunist copyright holders. In contrast, Lennon and McCartney were known for incorporating more complex and unique chords, which could make it harder for others to claim similarities.
Conclusion
The case of My Sweet Lord versus He's So Fine is a fascinating example of the complexities involved in music copyright disputes. It highlights the importance of a thorough and objective analysis in such legal battles and the potential for misunderstanding and misinterpretation that can arise.
For more information on the case and related legal and musical topics, Google the lawsuit.