Opinion ID: 787063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Walser's Methodology

Text: 13 There is nothing inherently unsound about Dr. Walser's musicological methodology in this case. The district court is correct that Dr. Walser's methodology is selective, in as much as it discounts notes that he characterizes as ornamental. Dr. Walser, however, explained that the melody (pitch and rhythm) and bassline of a song cannot be divorced from the harmonic rhythm of a song. According to Dr. Walser, notes falling on the beat will be more prominent to the ear than notes falling off the beat. Thus, Dr. Walser opined that, even though measure three of both choruses were not identical in numerical pitch sequence or note selection, they both emphasize [d] the second scale degree, C, over an A in the bass, resolving to the third scale degree, D, over a D in the bass in the last half of the measure. Dr. Walser provided a comparable analysis for measures one, three, and eight. 14 Similarly, Dr. Walser explained that some artists will ornament their notes in ways that others do not. Dr. Walser testified at deposition that both Carey and Xscape ornament their notes with melismas and appoggiaturas, both of which are technical terms for moving up to the next note and then back again. Dr. Walser testified that he did not notate these ornaments in his transcriptions, or take them into account in his opinion, because he took that to be a matter of the singer customizing the song and regarded those notes as not structural; they are ornamental. As we said in Newton v. Diamond, 349 F.3d 591 (2003), we can consider only [the defendant's] appropriation of the song's compositional elements and must remove from consideration all the elements unique to [Plaintiff's] performance. Id. at 595. Dr. Walser's methodology sought to remove notes he perceived as performance-related. 15 To a certain extent, Dr. Walser's methodology does concentrate on how the two choruses sound to his expert ears, which led the district court to conclude that his testimony related to intrinsic and not extrinsic similarity. We do not agree, however, that Dr. Walser's testimony was an intrinsic rather than extrinsic analysis. He was not testifying, as the intrinsic test would require, as to whether subjectively the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the [two choruses] to be substantially similar. Three Boys, 212 F.3d at 485(quoting Pasillas v. McDonald's Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir.1991)). Instead, he was stating that, although the two choruses are not exactly identical on paper, when examined in the structural context of harmony, rhythm, and meter, they are remarkably similar. We, therefore, cannot accept the district court's conclusion that Dr. Walser did not adequately explain, based on objective criteria, why [his] particular subset of notes is more important, or more appropriately analyzed, than the other notes present in the songs. The district court erred in completely discounting Dr. Walser's expert opinion. 16