I love this song. 'Down Under' by Men At Work. Takes me straight back to the '86 America's Cup win when I was in Primary school. The national pride we had then! I knew nothing about yachts or boat races but I knew all about the pride and glory of ripping that cup away from the Americans! The sound of the song is so essentially Australian to me. I love the words, the colloquialisms and local slang used in it. I love that he mouths a swear word as he slides the Kombi door open. I love the stuffed koala. I love that they used the word chunder in a lyric. Can you get any more Aussie than that?
I included the clip with some interesting info overlaid for your educational purposes. Such as, I never knew, until today, that the word zombie was a metaphor for marijuana. See, this blog is nothing if not informative.
So, here down under (sorry, just had to) there has been a legal stoush over a certain part of that song, that has allegedly been plagiarised from a popular Australian children's nursery rhyme. If you are an Aussie, then you'll know what I mean - the 'Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree' song. If you are from elsewhere, it's the flute riff in the song, no words but the tune is veeerrrry similar to this ditty. Watch the little video in this link and there is an example of one followed by the other. You can make up your own mind.
So basically what has happened is that the people who own the rights to this song now have sued the writers of the Men At Work song for plagiarising the melody of their song, which incidentally was written by a schoolteacher some 70 years ago and the rights were purchased after her death some 20 years ago. Now, bear in mind this song was originally written in 1978 and the extra flute riff added the following year. Many Aussies know and love this song, and I, for one, have always assumed that it was the actual 'Kookaburra' melody to be part of this song and loved it all the more for it's clever inclusion. I think I speak for the majority when I say that this was common knowledge.
Now in defense of the song's unique sound, the writers have insisted that the similarity is just that, a coincidence. Of course they should say that, they are being sued. Whatever. They may be telling the God's Honest Truth so help them, and good luck to them. I could care less. However I do read here some sort of admission, and I quote (from the second link)...
'According to court documents, Ham added the riff to the song to inject some "Australian flavor." He admitted he had heard the song while growing up in the country in the late 1950s and was "pretty sure" that Kookaburra was in his school's song book. Judge Jacobsen found that Ham deliberately included the bars from Kookaburra into the flute line, but accepted that Colin Hay didn't realize it was from the nursery rhyme until early in the last decade.'
What cracks me up about this whole thing is that the song is almost 30 years old. So why the legal battle now you ask? Excellent question. Well it's all thanks to a little TV quiz show here we have called Spi.cks and Spe.cks. Upon which the question was asked... well I quote here again
'The show's panelists were asked to name the Australian folksong that could be heard in the popular single which was first released in 1979.
The answer was "Kookaburra," a nursery rhyme written by teacher Marion Sinclair who later entered it into a competition run by the Girl Guides Association of Victoria.'
So it was only after this show aired, where I would imagine at least half of Australians would have been able to correctly answer that question, of something I would have considered fairly common knowledge. It was only then, that the songs "owners" realised this massive slight on their property and decided to pursue legal action. Again I quote from the same article....
'It wasn't until the quiz show in 2007 that Larrikin Managing Director Norman Lurie became aware of the songs' similarities and the potential for a law suit. ....Larrikin is seeking 40 to 60 percent of the royalties earned by "Down Under" in Australia during the last six years, the time limit imposed by Australian law. "Even if we win, they will still have had a free run for some 20-odd years," Larrikin's lawyer Adam Simpson told CNN.'
Hmm. Yes, you sue for all that cash, but I am sure the song's success was not based solely on the inclusion of that little melody in part of the song. Yes, you go right ahead and try and cash in on a song that was successful 30 years ago, but can only gain from royalties for the past 6 years. Jeepers, talk about clogging up our legal system. Maybe they should sue, and have the right to do so. But honestly, if they hadn't picked it up by now, why would they take it on authority from a television show that there was a basis to engage in legal proceedings?
The power of the media, huh?
Really, the only sensible thing to be said in all of this was this, as an afterthought....
' "It's just really a pity that Marion Sinclair, the lady who wrote it, didn't participate in income from the song when the song was at its height in the early 80s," he added'
Yes, I am sure your heart is bleeding that poor Marion misses out on all those dollars. Yes. Be sure and pass your winnings on to her family then, won't you. Sorry, but my BS meter is beeping all over that one.






.jpg)

