I'm working on a project that began as a Logic rendering of a Beatles MIDI downloaded from the Internet sometime in the 90s.
At some point, I took all the parts and inverted them, melodically, using Logic's MIDI transform function. To my surprise, the result was surprisingly musical, and required only a little adjustment to sound like a decent pop song. Now, every ascending passage descends and vice versa, and a bouncy major key has become a fairly grim minor.
I like it. But who wrote it?
I can't say I did, for obvious reasons.
But the result is a distinctly different piece of music from the original, and, really, not one to be reasonably (or fairly) credited to Lennon and McCartney.
I wonder about the general ethics / esthetics involved here, given that it's theoretically possible to produce a steady stream of "original" compositions this way.
There's a lot of similar videos on YouTube about "inverting" songs so-to-speak. I don't see a problem with this but I'm sure someone out there would take issue.... they always do.
What! You have an original song written by the Beatles which was never published?
Or...
Steve Jobs was quoted saying... "good artists borrow and great artists steal." However, he probably stole that quote from Picasso… who probably took it from Stravinsky. We stand on the shoulders of giants as we move forward in life.
So.... essentially, if you hadn't said a word about it, no one would have ever guessed where you got the inspiration from..... is that correct?
If it's not an obvious rip-off.... I don't think it's considered stealing. I see it as processing something through the filter of your brain both conscious and subconscious, and getting a unique outcome. But again.... I'm not a lawyer versed in copyright law. If no one recognizes it as having other origins.... it's obviously an original. That's how I look at it.
The secret is to take what you hear from others and make it your own in such a way that the one who inspired the idea doesn't recognize it as something they did in one form or another. We all do this constantly.
Chord progressions, as everyone knows, are not copyrightable. And if you reversed it, and have a different melody, which would obviously be the case, I think you're in the clear. You're under no obligation to even mention it or give credit to the "other" song or writer unless you simply want to let folks like in this forum know how it was achieved. I don't think I would have even done that. Just a simple..... here's a new song. Done
Edit: the only way I could see trouble brewing in a legal sense is if you sampled the original, reversed it and used it. That is a copyright violation. But.... if you don't do that, there's nothing to worry about.
Last edited by Guitarhacker; 08/18/2103:53 AM.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
Guitarhacker: "So.... essentially, if you hadn't said a word about it, no one would have ever guessed where you got the inspiration from..... is that correct?"
I guess that would depend on the listener; some people can hear things like that! But essentially, yeah. I'm not thinking of anything you could call an "interpretation" of the original, as a normal listener would hear it. A normal listener can recognize a theme in a different key, or a different mode, but not inverted.
But regardless of normal listeners and recognizeability, it's a trivial matter to reverse-engineer a reversed piece back into the original. And I don't know how such things actually play out in courts, but I can imagine a lawyer playing a contested song on a laptop and showing how you just do "select all" then take a certain menu option and suddenly you're listening to "Raindrops Keep Fallin On My Head" – and the jury going, whoa, it's the same song.
I suppose what you do to finesse the legal situation is take your inversion of "Raindrops" and call it something like "Neutrons Keep Shooting From the Ground" where the listener will get the winky-winky meaning.
In terms of "obligations", I would just feel dishonest if I presented such as I've described as completely original material. Plus it would be too easy to get caught, once any suspicions were raised!
Good idea Misha. Mark, can you upload the song in question for a brief period, to this very select audience, to allow us to see if we recognize it from the Beatles catalog?
Good idea Misha. Mark, can you upload the song in question for a brief period, to this very select audience, to allow us to see if we recognize it from the Beatles catalog?
Sure! I was of course thinking of doing that, but didn't want to if the discussion never took off.
To complicate things even further, the MIDI that I started out with says it is "(C)1996 by Eiko & Nobuo Takenaka". Not sure how that works, considering that these are note-for-note transcriptions of the original Beatles performances, but I certainly owe those folks a lot of credit here.
Inverting a Beatles' song has already been done. It played "Paul is dead"!
Mister Ed the Talking Horse got in trouble when his TV show theme was exposed as containing backwards Satanic messages. Here's the song reversed, if you try hard, you really can hear "someone sung this song for Satan" and "the source is the devil".
I don't recognize it. I might have figured out that it was reversed, or maybe not. There's only a few places that sound like they are reverse audio.
I was going to capture it but couldn't figure out how.... so I can't reverse it to unlock the magic .... oh well.
It's actually pretty cool sounding. The only thing is that the melody line.... that flute sounding thing..... if it's the original melody to the song, if reversed would give it away.... then your simple solution is to delete that midi track and create your own. It becomes totally unidentifiable at that point I would assume.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.com Add nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
OK, I'll say it, if anyone bothered to look you'd get caught. ie, if I wrote a song and you inverted it, it would catch my attention enough to notice (IF I heard it).
Not many Beatles left to worry about these days, and I doubt they are on your Soundcloud channel <grin>
Simply knowing it was a Beatles song tipped me off enough to know it was familiar, let alone if it was a song I wrote.
I'd still have to re-engineer it back to prove anything, but that would be the easy part if I had the same tools.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
PS – Another "conceptual" thing I considered was taking the original recording, isolating the vocal and fixing one long and horribly flat note of Paul's that's been bothering me for 50 years now. But then a voice from deep within my soul said: NO, DO NOT GO THERE, and I didn't even let myself try it for chuckles and yucks – I didn't want that corrected version in my head!
The copy is “substantially similar” to the protectable elements of the original work.
There's no doubt that the work has been copied. It's rhythmically identical to the original melody, with the intervals exactly inverted.
So it's a copy that's substantially similar.
While The Beatles didn't compose the work, the derivative relies entirely on their creative work - none of it could exist without the source material, and the resulting material lacks anything that creatively transforms it.
It's a bit like taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa, and claiming the negative of the painting is your own creative work.
Sure, it was "transformed" - but every element of that transformed painting came from the painter, even if it's an inversion of some of those creative choices.
Since the derivative work is 100% built on a melody by Lennon and McCartney, not crediting them for the result would simply be wrong, as you'd be passing off someone else's work as your own.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows® Today!
If you’ve already purchased Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®, great news—a new update is now available! This update introduces a handy new feature: a vertical cursor in the Tracks window that shows the current location across all tracks, and more.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Boot Camp: The AI Lyrics Generator
With Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows®, we've introduced an exciting new feature: the AI Lyrics Generator! In this video, Tobin guides you step-by-step on how to make the most of this new tool.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Boot Camp: The AI Lyrics Generator video.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using VST3 Plugins
Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows® now includes support for VST3 plugins, bringing even more creative possibilities to your music production. Join Simon as he guides you through the process in this easy-to-follow demonstration!
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using VST3 Plugins
Video: Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Windows: Using The BB Stem Splitter!
In this video, Tobin provides a crash course on using the new BB Stem Splitter feature included in Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows®. During this process he also uses the Audio Chord Wizard (ACW) and the new Equalize Tempo feature.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using the BB Stem Splitter
Check out the forum post for some optional Tips & Tricks!
Congrats to Misha (Rustyspoon)…downloaded/installed a full Audiophile 2025!
Breaking News!
We’re thrilled to announce that Rustyspoon has made PG history as the very first person to successfully complete the download and install of the full Band-in-a-Box 2025 Windows Audiophile Edition (with FLAC files)—a whopping 610GB of data!
A big shoutout to Rustyspoon for stepping up to be our test "elf!"
With the launch of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows, we're adding new videos to our YouTube channel. We'll also share them here once they are published so you can easily find all the Band-in-a-Box® 2025 and new Add-on videos in one place!
Whether it's a summary of the new features, demonstrations of the 202 new RealTracks, new XPro Styles PAK 8, or Xtra Styles PAKs 18, information on the 2025 49-PAK, or detailed tutorials for other Band-in-a-Box® 2025 features, we have you covered!
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows is here, packed with major new features and an incredible collection of available new content! This includes 202 RealTracks (in Sets 449-467), plus 20 bonus Unreleased RealTracks in the 2025 49-PAK. There are new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 4, two new sets of “RealDrums Stems,” XPro Styles PAK 8, Xtra Styles PAK 19, and more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 with savings of up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special—available until December 31, 2024! Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all the purchase options available.
2025 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
We've packed our Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK with some incredible Add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is automatically included with most Band-in-a-Box® for Windows 2025 packages, but for even more Add-ons (including 20 Unreleased RealTracks!) upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for only $49. You can see the full lists of items in each package, and listen to demos here.
If you have any questions, feel free to connect with us directly—we’re here to help!
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.