http://uk.businessinsider.com/ap-mor...-appeal-2016-8
Printable View
They can do whatever they want. What they are telling you is that true creativity is dead and they want to make money off of the dead!
Hey marv,i think that true creativity died in the eighties.
"The musicians said the ruling could have "adverse impact on their own creativity, on the creativity of future artists, and on the music industry in general."
This really angers me as what creativity is involved when one steals product from someone else? If I was to repaint the Mona Lisa and add a cat sitting on her lap, the only creativity I can see is I added my 2 cents to a masterpiece. Does it make it mine? No! All too often, today's artists take something, try to make it their own and then complain when someone says, "Hey, you borrowed that from put artist name here." If these 200 artists are so concerned about their creativity then go and be creative and create something new and see if people like it. It is too easy to take something that had success, tweek it a bit knowing that young people will not know the original artist and call it your own. When I first heard the Ed Sheeran song, I heard "Let's Get it On".
Many new artists complain that it is a natural chord progression that can cause the similarity in sound and I understand that but when they add the same percussion and in Blurred Lines case the same Owwws and Ohhs that Marvin used, then what? Where is the line drawn between creativity and stealing?
Before the 70s, musicians commonly borrowed music from other artists, and the practice was looked upon as flattery. Nowadays, you all are calling it stealing, ripping off, or some term a lawyer thought up. The crowd here seems to only like it if it involves music and artists they like. Interesting.
For one brief moment in the early 90s it was revived in the form of NewQuote:
Originally Posted by arr&bee
Jack. It didn't last very long, but it and Chicago House Music did make a stab at some really creative and original sounds.
Right on Satipe!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by satipe
What Robin Thicke and Pharrell stole was the style of "Got To Give It Up." Style and arrangement are the same, not doubt. They, however, did not steal the song. If you played "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up" back to back on a piano you would realize they sound nothing alike. The melodies, the chords don't match up.
That may be true Brad, but upon hearing "Blurred Lines" it sounds like "Got to Give It Up" and with Robin Thicke's "habit" of heavily "borrowing" from Marvin Gaye's recordings and style in the past, it is very difficult to think he and Pharrell are innocent of infringement.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradsupremes
Guilty period. Why not just pay for the right right to record the song? Oh $$$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2
I believe it is due to vanity and ego. They want to be perceived as creative "artist" when in reality, they do not possess a fraction of the talent of a Marvin Gaye.Quote:
Originally Posted by detmotownguy
Unfortunately, "perception is reality". And no matter how different technically the song structure of "Blurred Lines" may be from "Got to Give it Up", a large swath of the public [[myself included), hears it differently.
We've been in the age of "sampling" for a while now. All this is partly the result of music programs being cut from schools across the country. You have "musicians" now, that cannot play an instrument. People that "write" songs that only know about creating a hook and repeating it. I could have predict that someday it would lead to what we have today in regards to the music industry.
I for one definitely support the appeal and disagree with the original judgement. Folks can argue and debate back and forth all day about how one song sounds like, or feels like another one, or cloud the issue with talk about no more creativity because of music programs being cut, which I am also against, but feel like that really has anything to do with the issue at hand.
At the end of the day there are copyright laws in existence with specific guidelines relative to this particular situation. Copyright law states that if a song or a composition is not identical to a previously created song or composition for more than eight consecutive measures there is no copyright infringement. There is absolutely nothing in the copyright laws that states "oh, well as far as public opinion...", or "oh, well it sounds the other song", or "oh, well I can tell that they listened to the first song", the law is specific, point blank, period!
In this case, the songs are not identical for even one measure. The lyric and melody are not the same, the chord progressions are not the same, if the bass parts, and the percussion parts of each song were musically transcribed anyone could readily see that they are not the same, the songs aren't even in the same key. What the hell are the copyright laws in place if they aren't followed and used in regards to arriving at a fair and adequate judgement in the case.
There have been many many songs that sound or feel like another song, that's been happening in this business. I even read that "I Can't Help Myself" actually was "Where Did Our Love Go" revisited. If you analyze those two songs musically, that's a true statement, and they are definitely more similar in composition "Got To Give It Up" and "Blurred Lines". On both "Where Did Our Love Go" and "I Can't Help Myself" the melody of the first phrase begins on the 3rd degree of the scale and ends on the 1st degree. The melody of the second phrase begins on the 3rd degree of the scale and ends on the 6th degree. The melody of the third phrase emphasizes the 5th and 4th degrees of the scale. The melody of the fourth phrase both begin on the 3rd degree of the scale and descend. The chord progressions of "Where Did Our Love Go" are 1,5,2,5-4, and the chord progressions of "I Can't Help Myself" are 1,5,2,4-5. Those two songs are way more similar in composition, but I suppose that's not a problem basically because Holland-Dozier-Holland wrote both songs.
Let's not even talk about how many times an A&R person has said to an artist something like "You know that song by "so and so" that's a big hit? Go back in the studio and bring me something like that!" Now as far as creativity is concerned, in my opinion Pharrell was creative in coming up with a song that so beautifully paid homage to Marvin without, according to copyright laws, committing an infringement, and not one of us living today can say whether Marvin would have been upset about it, or felt honored by it.
To me, this case resulting in a judgement that totally disregards the laws that are in place pertaining to it, which according to the provisions of said laws in this case there was no law broken, but was based on public opinion ignorant of the actual law, isn't too far removed from all the other bullshit that's been going on in this country, and I'm going to leave it at that.
Amen!!! I totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by brothadc
Donald Trump likes Got To Give It Up and Blurred Lines? Oh no
^ What does Jabba the Hut have to do with this?
I don't know what's going to happen with this appeal tbh...
As someone stated artist have always borrowed,the difference is that i'm sure an arrangement was probobly made beforehand out of respect and legal fees...listen to the backbeats of[turn on your lovelights-bobby blue bland-mickey's monkey-the miracles]-[tramp-carla&otis-i'm losing you-the temptations]just two examples.
Nothing. Just consider that person that wrote it has a reputation for putting things up that don't belong........anywhere! LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
Yeah, this is, what their second appeal or third? I've lost count.
Bravo, I couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by brothadc
I have said from the very beginning that the Gaye's have no case, and if anyone has come across as money hungry, it's them.
In fact, THEY should be paying Pharrell and Thicke for bringing so much spotlight back to Marvin. I'd like to know how much "GTGIU" has made since all of this nonsense came to light?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marybrewster
You only say they are money hungry because they are a Black family. The won the lawsuit and that is all that matters.
Are you really accusing marybrewster of racism? All she was doing was stating her opinion. Theres not a racist bone in marybrewsters body and yet you are willing to go there!!! SMH just smh.Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2
You really need to apologize to Marybrewster.
You cannot steal a style.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradsupremes
Many musicians, Ralph included, seem to side with Pharrell and Thicke
At the beginning of the trial I remember somebody posted here an article written by a musicologist demonstrating all the differences between the two songs. It was evident.
So, serious question: y'all really think this whole decision will be overturned? They did shorten the price after the first appeal. They may just decide that because they weren't allowed to hear the actual songs [[probably a Sony thing), they would say "no, this shouldn't go."
Hello can you explain your statement,if someone else wrote this you would be right on their case,and people need to know your facts,please say what you mean for future reference please,Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2