Last year guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani filed a lawsuit against Coldplay alleging that ‘Viva La Vida’ contained “substantial, original portions” of a track he put out in 2004 called ‘If I Could Fly.’

Coldplay responded by saying that if the two songs were similar it was purely coincidental. Dozens of video mashups, music theory analyses, and editorials followed. The two songs were revealed to be quite similar indeed – virtually the same melody and chord progression, though in different keys, and with different arrangements and song structure.

The world will likely never know if Chris Martin and Co. did consciously rip off Satriani’s work. The two parties settle out of court last week, and as part of the terms Coldplay will have no obligation to admit wrongdoing.

Members of Coldplay have talked about their philosophy on ‘borrowing’ from other artists’ work in the past, however. “We’re definitely good, but I don’t think you can say we’re that original,” Christ Martin admitted in an interview with Rolling Stone. “I regard us as being incredibly good plagiarists.” In another article guitarist Johnny Buckland notes that the song ‘Fix You’ is a close copy of Elbow’s ‘Grace Under Pressure.’ “We’ve never so directly stolen off anyone before,” he said. “We’ve never paid for our plagiarism.”

For some, that kind of honesty probably comes as a bit of a shock. Especially when the band in question is so high-profile. Shocking that they did it in the first place, and even more shocking that they talked about it. Doesn’t artistic integrity forbid that kind of blatant plagiarism?

Art vs. Law

I was curious to find out what other musicians thought about the practice of using pieces of other peoples’ songs, so I posed the question to a few people on Twitter. Most of the participants in my unscientific survey said that they often borrow a chord progression or groove, but that they rarely, or never lift a melody or lyric. Everyone seemed to agree that subconscious copying was nearly unavoidable.

During the course of the discussion one individual said that while she considered any intentional copying to be unacceptable, she had no problem borrowing from works in the public domain. This turned out to be a common philosophy.

This was a very telling statement! It reveals that artists’ reasons for not copying other artists is not primarily a matter of artistic integrity, but rather a matter of legal integrity. Think about that for a moment – we have no problem absorbing pieces of other people’s creative works into our own, as long as no law prohibits it.

Two possible conclusions could be drawn from this:

1. Most artists lack integrity, because the only thing preventing them from stealing is the law.
2. Building on the works that have come before is a natural part of artistic expression, but the law is artificially restrictive.

So which is it? Is ‘plagarism’ wrong because it goes against the principles of artistic expression, or is it wrong because the law has made it wrong? To put it another way: if copyright law was removed would it still be wrong to copy?

History of Plagiarism

History may have some insight into this philosophical dilemma (as it often does, oddly enough…) First, let’s go way back to the Homeric epics The Iliad and The Odyssey. Who wrote those tales? Homer, obviously. Yet, most modern scholars believe that Homer was not a literal individual, but rather the sum of centuries of oral tradition that produced these two great works. In other words, two of the world’s most beloved pieces of literature were created through a process of iterative plagiarism that lasted hundreds of years.

Pablo Picasso – a decent authority on art – is also famously quoted as saying, “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” Poet T.S. Elliot later altered the phrase a bit for his own purposes, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

The practice of one artist ‘borrowing’ from another is clearly not new. It also appears that at least a few notable creative figures were ok with it.

Creating in the Void

When I was younger and just beginning to devote time to writing music seriously, I used to think that in order to write something original I had to sequester myself in my room until the song I was working on was finished. I refused to listen to music, watch movies, read books – I was determined to create a sterile environment in which my masterpiece could remain pure.

And you know what? Every song I wrote still managed to sound just like Pedro the Lion – my favorite band at the time. You can’t escape outside influences. And why would you want to? When did sterility ever produce anything?

Every artist borrows both consciously and subconsciously from the artists that came before them. We take what someone else created and we add, subtract and manipulate it until it is transformed into something greater than the sum of its parts. That’s not a bad thing. It’s essential to the progress of artistic expression!

Transformative Works

Which brings us back to T.S. Elliot. When the poet Elliot quoted Picasso it was in the context of a review he was writing about playwright Philip Massinger. Massinger apparently had the tendency to borrow a bit too freely from one of his contemporaries – William Shakespeare. Here’s what Elliot wrote:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.

The key to the legitimate reuse of creative works is not in what you take or how much, but in the end result. The end justifies the means, in this case. The law calls this end result a ‘transformative work.’

If you can take something that someone else has created and through your own creativity make it better, or give it new meaning, or a new kind of beauty or value, then what reason could there possibly be not to do it? Fear of a smeared reputation? Fear of legal action? If what you create is truly transformative that shouldn’t be an issue.

The bottom line is that art is collaborative. The artists who embrace this fact and treat it as a powerful resource create great art.

What do you think? Do you agree or am I way off base? Looking forward to your comments. Those who don’t probably end up sounding a whole lot like their favorite band anyway.

Coldplay seems to be a love ‘em or hate ‘em kind of band. That’s not uncommon when a group reaches the level of success that they have, although Coldplay does seem more divisive than most. Perhaps it’s frontman Chris Martin’s penchant for writing political commentary on his knuckles, perhaps it’s something else.

Regardless of how you feel about Coldplay as a band, Strawberry Swing is among the best of their new songs and the video -- which features Martin as a superhero battling giant squirrels -- is downright incredible. I can only imagine the amount of time and energy that went into to producing this animation, which was produced by Shyanola. The group’s previous credits include bands like Beck and Radiohead.

You may never look at sidewalk chalk the same way again.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb9X5jMofEo

Download this video from 

A band like Coldplay doesn’t need to give anything away. They’re already doing quite well for themselves - Viva la Vida went double platinum without breaking a sweat, and the band consistently sells out arenas across the known world like they’re U2.

 Yet, it was announced a while back that Coldplay would be releasing a live album which would be available for download in it’s entirety on the band’s website – for free. The album is called LeftRightLeftRightLeft and features songs from Viva la Vida and previous releases. Again, Chris Martin and co. could have made a killing on an album like this, so what have they gained by giving it away instead?

First of all, I think that this is an impressive move. In a world where so many big-name acts are guarding their material like they’ll never release another song it is refreshing to see a band like Coldplay doing something for the fans. And it is for the fans. Giving away this record is a big step in cultivating loyalty among the band’s substantial base of fans. This is especially important when you are as successful as Coldplay – the bigger you get the less likeable you are. It becomes a lot more difficult to connect with fans and engender support. How many people do you hear bashing Coldplay just because they are immensely popular?

As a promotional tool, LeftRightLeftRightLeft is incredible. Releasing a live album just as you are about to kick off a North American tour is a smart move, and is likely to provide a big push for attendance. Bob Lefsetz agrees, writing, “They didn’t wait until the tour was over, not like the Stones.  They’re not selling every night’s performance, a rough approximation of the experience.  They’re giving away FANTASY!  THE CONCERT OF YOUR DREAMS!  THAT MAKES YOU WANT TO GO TO THE SHOW!” He’s right. LeftRight has obviously been tweaked in post production, but it still sounds live – you still feel the energy, you still feel like you’re there. It get’s you thinking that these guys must put on a pretty good show. That’s going to sell tickets.

Say what you want about Coldplay – love them or hate them, they know what they’re doing.