I haven't read the article yet but here it is -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/m...dict/24492431/
Printable View
I haven't read the article yet but here it is -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/m...dict/24492431/
I'm just saying'/
Wow.
I remember a SDF posting which showed that Stevie Wonder had suggested to the Gaye family that they drop the case cos it was only the lawyers that would win. Maybe that is still the case!
Thanks for posting.
$7.4 million. Wonder how much would be split, but hopefully whatever monies the Gaye family receives, they spend it wisely.
Does anyone remember a song by Bunny Sigler that was similar to Got To Give It Up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ILn3Y1yNEI
Score one for the good guys!
Glad to hear it. I hope the verdict includes that Gaye will henceforth be listed as a co-writer on the song so that his estate gets future royalties. I felt very bad about this one. The song is a blatant rip-off of "Got To Give It Up." Pharrell doesn't write and cannot read music, he's known for his creative use of samples. It seemed a ridiculous stretch that he 'composed' a song so similar to GTGIU but did not acknwledge its influence. He seems like a good guy and is talented at what he does. This charade allowed Robin Thicke to throw Pharrell under the bus and soil Pharrell's reputation as a writer/producer. I also regret that they did not give Gaye -- an iconic, legendary artist -- the due respect of legal attribution before this had to go all the way to trial.
Well if Robin's career wasn't already destroyed by now, it's destroyed for good with this ruling. Pharrell's got struck a blow too.
Simply wonderful! Nona Gaye very poignant! The truth shall set you free!
Heck,even[helen keller]could've heard that it was a rip off.
First: I don't know about Thicke, but Williams can recover from this. I only hope Alan Thicke, his father, can help Robin with some tax relief if he screws up on his taxes. :)
Second: You would be surprised to find out just how many famous musical stars cannot read or write music, and barely play an instrument. Not even Paul McCartney can read or write music. So, that's a non-issue.
Third: This should send a chill down all musicians to check and get permission before attempting to release a song that sounds too much like another artist's song. But, it also stifles creativity. The odds are good that something someone creates will sound like someone else's song.
Here's the oddest twist about "Got To Give It Up". Marvin didn't create the song or recording. he did the scratch lyrics that form the final master, but he did not create the song. The engineer Art Stewart did.
Quote:
Second: You would be surprised to find out just how many famous musical stars cannot read or write music, and barely play an instrument. Not even Paul McCartney can read or write music. So, that's a non-issue.
It wasn't a non-issue here. Pharrell preemptively sued the Gaye estate on the grounds that he composed a song that did not infringe the copyright of "Got To Give It Up." However, since he can't read or write music, he was unable to adequately distinguish his process or product from the infringed work, and apparently, failed to convince a jury that he was capable of creating an original composition that did not borrow from Gaye's song.
Quote:
Third: This should send a chill down all musicians to check and get permission before attempting to release a song that sounds too much like another artist's song. But, it also stifles creativity. The odds are good that something someone creates will sound like someone else's song.
I respectfully disagree that this will stifle creativity. If anything it will heighten it. Kanye West is masterful and creative in his use of samples. So is Swizz Beatz. Pharrell, too, has created music that obviously references Prince, James Brown and Michael Jackson but not so closely that he has been accused of infringement. The issue is simply proper attribution of sampled work. Or to create something sufficiently original and distinctive. Most songs reference or recall prior songs but "Blurred Lines" is a sloppy retread of "Got To Give It Up." It may have been a hit but it is far from Pharrell's best work.
Good for the Gaye's
edafan
the amazing thing to me is that $7.4 million is probably more money that Marvin Gaye ever received in total royalties from Motown.
Hmm.....Wonder if Pharrell is still "Happy" now?
And how's that "room without a roof" holdin' up?....
Now .........what about Love After War??:rolleyes:
Now .........what about Love After War??:rolleyes:
And rightly. Take a look at this very interesting link, an article from Joe Bennett. To me it makes sense : http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did...m-marvin-gaye/
Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke deliberately created a similar sound and style. But this is common, it's just that artists usually choose a current or recent hit when they do this. Williams and Thicke chose a song that is nearly 40 years old, which makes it stand out. In my opinion [[for whatever it's worth - not much!) it's not the same song [[melody, etc) at all, the jury was wrong.
Excellent, thought-provoking article, phil. And now it sounds like the Gayes are reaching a bit with this bombshell:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-bl...sten-to-happy/
So this begs the question.....HOW MUCH DOES JOBETE RECEIVE???LOL!!
I'm no fan of Thicke, but I think he and Pharrell were hosed on that decision.
Haven't been reading this but..............all of this is yet subject to appeal and will go on for a few years I bet.
The lawyers will rip them hard on this one for fees.
And if the decision stands, Jobete or some publishing company will get something.
I think "Blurred Lines" is a decent song and fun to listen to, but it wears thin quickly. I think this is because it is, at its essence, an imitation. It's like a copy of a famous painting - you can enjoy it but it isn't like seeing the real thing. It's hard to explain but to me, it's just too derivative and even though Thicke has a decent voice it always sounds like he's posing, trying to sound Black, or trying to sound cool, or something. There's just no "there" there as they say.
Jobeterob, did you find it strange that Thicke et. al went in to Court first for some sort of Declaratory Judgment that they hadn't infringed on the Gaye song? Who does that? Isn't that like daring someone to sue you? I didn't think Courts usually did Declaratory Judgments of this type to begin with...?
Other thoughts from this: The talented musician/writer/singer Robin Thicke wanted to make a name for himself in R&B music. For many years, he was accepted as a good R&B singer, and made some good albums, but superstardom, and a hit recording eluded him. So, he teams up with record producer/writer Pharrell Williams during a bad time in his life as a substance abuser, and winds up with a hit single that gives him the runaway success he had always wanted. However, his personal life was in shambles, as he was doing drugs, drinking, and messing around on his wife. He slipped up in a very public way, and his fifteen minutes was over. His wife left him with the children, and he publicly humiliated himself trying to get her back with a new album. Again, the irony was that "Paula" was a great album, but it bombed, and did nothing to keep his marriage. And, now this.
I do not hate the guy. There are worse men out there. Even though he screwed up his own life, I feel bad for him, and wish him the best of luck.
I also think Pharrell Williams will keep rolling along, but will be wary of working with others again. As successful as his last album was, in my opinion, it just wasn't that good. It sounds like it was quickly thrown together to capitalize on the success of "Happy".
I wish both men the best of luck, however this case turns out after the appeals, and the Gaye children overreaching for more money.
I do not know anything about T.I..
Soulster, are the Pharrell solo albums better than his collaborations or productions on other singers?
Just in case y'all were wondering if an appeal was in the cards, Howard King said Pharrell is up to challenge this.
It appears that most of the musical community is very upset over this verdict. You have a bunch of laymen who don't understand the technical aspects of music. That, and Pharrell Williams and Thicke put on a lousy defense.
Thick started off playing a sort of "Rock?/Pop?" sound. They were so so. Then he went into R&B with a Curtis flavored track ,using the studio players used on Michael Jacksons "Thriller" sessions . to give it a "authentic sound". That made him some money and a R&B audience took notice. 21st century Blue Eyed Soul. He continued to copy the styles of Curtis, Marvin ,Michael and Prince , while arrogantly claiming that he composed in the spirit of but did not copy those that influenced him. Claimed he was great and created something new. Didn't show any respect for the ARTISTS of the genre. Take for example R. Kelly. Emulator Supreme. He can emulate Jackie , Otis , Michael and Sly. And admits to the fact ,that he is highly respectful of them artistically and is using what he learned from them to express his vision. Jam and Lewis let you know that Prince who is a product of J.B. ,Sly , Motown etc , is the basis for them , and they have built on them , added to the sound , the genre. Never claimed to create something new and you can hear past greats in all their music. Thick just came off disrespectful to me .