I agree too. They appear to be based on the same traditional folk song, but I don't see much in common other than that same basic repeating melody. You could possibly even argue that this would be allowed pre-rule change as a case of sampling. But the rule change removes all doubt for me
The problem is that this repeating melody is most of the song.
U Karchme repeats this motif (let's call it "the hook" from now on) throughout the song, switching between vocals and bagpipes as the lead. Let's compare it to Danza Ex Machina.
(0:00-0:15) Danza Ex Machina starts with a short intro with the hook faintly audible..
(0:15-0:45) then it's the hook repeated twice with vocals.
(0:45-1:04) Instrumental with some sort of synthesizer in place of bagpipes. This part starts same as the hook, but then there's some noticeable variation in the melody.
(1:04-1:19) Vocals. The hook, but slight variation at the end.
(1:19-1:34) Instrumental. The hook.
(1:34-2:10) Vocal part that's completely different to anything in U Karchme.
(2:10-2:26) Vocal. The hook, but again with the slight modification at the end.
(2:26-3:01) Instrumental. The hook twice.
As for the rhythmic section. Both songs are in the same tempo (about 65 bpm) and signature (4/4).
I analyzed the rhythm pattern in correspondive parts - 1:19 in Danza Ex Machina and 1:28 in U Karchme.
Thank YT for the playback speed option
It's ofc different in other fragments, but I already took way too much time extracting just this one. Probably someone with a more trained ear could point out mistakes in the notation above.
Do whatever you want with this. My opinion is that it would make the song invalid under the old rule, because the main motif is identical with minor variations and repeating throughout most of both songs. It's valid under new rule thanks to those minor variations, the original 1:34-2:10 fragment and the beat being different - despite the same tempo and signature.
here's your analysis
@pyryniemi
I guess I've got too much free time lately.