Badfinger Day After Day = Joe Jackson Breaking Us In Two?

These tunes sound so similar to me. Gotta wonder if a claim for compensation was ever made against Jackson and perhaps settled before it became news.

 

DOn't know but I noticed this years ago and always wondered if Badfinger ever did anything about it.

 

Badfinger was broken-up, Pete Ham: dead.

I asked Graham Maby about this (Joe's bassist):
He insists that "Day After Day" was not a hit in the UK, only in America,
and that it's a common chord progression. someone pointed out the similarity
only after their record charted, and even then the Badfinger record had to be
played for them so they could hear what all the fuss was about (not that the
Badfinger record was easy to find, it had been out of print for 12 or more years at that point).

Apparently no listeners in the UK ever makes a big deal about the similarity!

 

Thanks for the info. People here know just about everything :~).

I hear the similarity as being melodic as well as chordal.

 

My dad always mentioned this long before I heard Badfinger's song. Yes, there's the 3 opening chords and the very similar melody of the opening line (but then compare the melody of the opening line to Joe's own "Be My Number Two"). Apart from that both songs are different. It's entirely possible that Joe Jackson didn't even know "Day After Day" when he wrote "Breaking Us In Two".

 

I believe the My Sweet Lord decision turned on about 4 similar notes

 

Not to disparage Mr. Maby, but "Day After Day" was a hit in the UK, reaching #10 on the Melody Maker chart. Perhaps he was thinking about "Baby Blue", which was not released as a single in the UK?

 

Disagree totally. Its way more than the opening that is the same. I think he stole it.

 

If 'Day After Day' had been an obscure B-side released by an unknown 60's Swedish garage band I might go along with this.

 

Nah. The only similarities are the first two lines, and the fact that a piano features prominently in both. Try singing "Day After Day" along with "Breaking Us in Two". Can't be done.

 

I agree it's not the whole song. It is the most identifiable hook of one if not both songs, which would make it sufficient for a copyright claim in the opinion of this copyright attorney. And a musician being dead does not prevent their estate from bringing a claim. At this point, the statute of limitations would prevent a claim though.

 

Exactly. Look at the chords for Badfinger's Day After Day:

E D A E
E D A E
B A Amaj7 E
B F# A E Emaj7

Now the chords to Joe Jackson's Breaking Us In Two, transposed from F# to E to fit the key in which Badfinger's song is played:

E D/E E C D
E D/E C/A G

Note that Joe left out the A chord from Badfinger's song and added the C and D chord. After that Joe's song switches from F# to D for the rest of the verse and the bridge. Badfinger's song is E throughout the entire song.

Add the fact that the melody is only similar in the repeated opening line, I think it's very unfair to claim Joe stole the song.

 

Chords really are not considered in copyright analysis as a chord progression is not considered copyrightable (if it were, the estate of the first guy to bother copyrighting a twelve bar blues progression would now be richer than Bill Gates). Legally, the issue is the melody.

 

I think this evidence is even more empirical than Graham's (quite sincere) comments.

- - -

As for the George / "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit, if you were a mobster who owned the courts in a particular town,
you could sue anyone for one line of text or two consecutive notes and win just like he did.

 

What about "Day After Day" and "Precious And Few"???

 

"Day After Day"/"Breaking Us In Two" - first 5 bars (one and a half lines of verse) are almost identical

"My Sweet Lord"/"He's So Fine" - verse and chorus melodies are both one line and are both almost identical

 

George???---Don't you mean John vs.Morris Levy,involving the 'here come ol' flattop' line in"Come Together",which came from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me".

 

No similarity.

 

I believe Joe was well aware of the similarity, and well aware that you need to directly copy 8 consecutive notes of the melody before any claim of infringement will have merit.

So Joe's melody exactly matches only up to "I remember find--" and then he goes DOWN a note...and from there, the similarities begin to lose shape...although those first phrases also end on the same note, that won't count...and then Joe takes it elsewhere.

It's a perfectly okay nod to a great song, and Joe changed it up into something different enough to hold it's own.

 

> you need to directly copy 8 consecutive notes of the melody before any claim of infringement will have merit

What is the basis for this statement?

 

Come on. My Sweet Lord and He's so Fine are the same song, virtually from start to finish. Everyone who heard it back then knew it immediately. I think that people assumed it was just a tribute - similar to John's Happy Xmas/Stewball. Unfortunately for George, Stewball was public domain, and He's so Fine was not.

 

Really no discussion of any 8 note passages here

http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_brightharrisongs.html

 

True enough...it appears I've been buying into a myth.

So I'll amend my viewpoint to say I still think Joe was aware of the similarity, but changed it enough that it stands on its own...but I would have a hard time believing he had no idea about it. And if I had to judge the case, I wouldn't rule against Jackson.

 

from Wikipedia:

 

I know that!--But you said something about 'mobster that owned the courts'...wouldn't that apply(ALLEGEDLY) to Morris Levy,rather than Allan Klein???