Why Oh Why Oh Why, Ed Sheeran?

Never thought I'd say it but I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for this multi-millionaire songwriter:

"Sheeran has serenaded London's High Court in an attempt to prove he did not copy portions of his 2017 hit Shape of You from another artist."

Taking every opportunity to increase his audience demographic, I see. 

The star is accused of lifting his song's "Oh I, oh I, oh I" hook from Sami Chokri's 2015 single Oh Why.

Asked whether his final melody bore a similarity to Chokri's song, he added: "Fundamentally, yes. They are based around the minor pentatonic scale [and] they both have vowels in them."

Love the sarcasm. Not sure if the judge will appreciate it.

The singer was also accused of being an "obsessive music squirrel"

Nuts to that. That's just rude.

Sheeran was repeatedly asked who had come up with the "oh I" phrase, but explained it had been a collaborative effort with his co-writers Steve Mac and Johnny McDaid.

"It was all of us three bouncing back and forth in a circle," he said. "That was how it originated."

"Three people could not create the germ of the melody," suggested Mr Sutcliffe [QC representing Mr. Chokri].

"Why can't three people create a melody?" Sheeran replied.

Good reply. I can easily imagine three people creating a melody. I'm not sure why you'd need three people but I can easily imagine it.

"Your approach is take it, change it and make lots of money, isn't it?" Mr Sutcliffe asked the star.

That's called the artistic process. Except for the money part, obviously.

"No," he replied, later adding that a "musicologist went over the song [Shape of You] and found similarities and we changed the similarities".

That's interesting. Do record companies regularly employ musicologists to check for copyright?

What I find curious about these cases is that, when it comes down to it, they are basically having a philosophical argument about what a song is.

It's a bit like golf.

I remember reading about a legal case in America concerning a professional golfer who had some kind of ailment which made it difficult for him to walk between the holes. So he wanted to be transported on a golf cart. However, some of the other players complained that this would be unfair and it eventually wound up in court. In order to reach its conclusion, the court had to decide whether walking between the holes is an essential part of golf. Basically, they had to decide what golf actually is.

I think the High Court is doing the same here. It boils down to definitions. My understanding is that a song is legally defined as the combination of a particular melody and a particular lyric (which seems a bit harsh on the rhythm and the harmony but there we go). 

And what's disputed in this case is basically a two-bar, eight-note melodic phrase, lasting around three seconds. In one song, the lyric goes "why oh why oh why oh why" and, in the other song, the lyric goes "I oh I oh I oh I". On the surface, it's an absurd argument. How could such a fleeting phrase be considered the essence of a song? On the other hand, that fleeting phrase is very hooky. In both songs, it gets repeated and sticks in your mind. It's not such a stretch to argue that, without those two bars, each song would be very different.

Now, I don't know the ins and outs of this case and have no idea which way the verdict will go. But it's a good reminder that songs are built (and, apparently, litigated) on the tiniest of details. Song is a form where a mere handful of notes and vowel sounds can, and often do, make all the difference.

God is in the detail, as someone once said.

Send in the lawyers.