https://www.kare11.com/article/news/...5-48ed0c14f52e
Printable View
LOS ANGELES — Ed Sheeran took the witness stand in a New York courtroom Tuesday to deny allegations that his hit song “Thinking Out Loud” ripped off Marvin Gaye's soul classic “Let's Get It On.”
Sheeran, 32, was called to testify in the civil trial by the heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye's co-writer on the 1973 soul classic. The family has accused the English star of violating their copyright, claiming his 2014 hit bore “striking similarities” and “overt common elements” to the famed Gaye track.
Is the Gaye family in on this lawsuit? They profiled it last night on NIGHTLINE and I was under the impression that it was the heirs of Ed Townsend.
That's what I read too Reese.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZjVZKVN7k
this truth denier's own confession at 4:30:p
I heard a brief comparison of the two songs. I don't hear a similarity.
I hear different lyrics, different melody ... so is the claim that you can own the four repeating chords? Or that you can own a song's speed / tempo? Personally, I believe that a simple four chord loop and a groove are too generic to be sticking points of intellectual property. To me, artists arguing over who can own a "groove" is like fast food chains arguing over who can own the underlying concept of a burger on a bun.
I also thought it was Ed Townsend's heirs that brought the lawsuit. Is there anyone here old enough to remember Ed's 1958 hit, FOR YOUR LOVE?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sqRAQl4txk
Drew, the 4 chord repeat sequence would make most 50s songs and Doo Wop guilty as sin.
Ralph, the album I'm wrapping up right now closes with a I vi IV V song ... pretty sure we'd all be in trouble if a progression that simple became ownable!
The only thing I can say about it all is that I'm grateful that copyright infringement is decided on a case-by-case basis. Considering all the recent copyright cases that I completely disagree with over the past few years, it is still one of those things where every case is treated as an individual situation.
Anyone who wants to dive into the deep end of some of the recent music copyright disputes, check this video out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg&t=86s
The guy really lays it out, Drew. Thanks for posting this.
as a HUGE Motown fan and a fan of both artists I NEVER thought "Mashed Potato Time" was a rip off of "Please Mr.Postman" but Motown sued & won. Now "The 81" by Candy & the Kisses WAS a direct rip off of "In My Lonely Room" but never heard any lawsuit about that...I guess because it wasn't a big hit.
I think the overall feel of "Thinking Out Loud" is very similar to "Let's Get It On" but there are enough differences for it not to be a copy and I hope the lawsuit fails.
I'm going to add this experience to the conversation: I always fancied myself as a songwriter and musician as young as 12 when I did my first so-called song, "Hot Summer Nights" [[uggg). By the 90s I had a 4-track recorder and nearly every instrument needed to do Motown-styled music - including brass instruments. Around '91, I came up with this little song and recorded the music and I thought it was the best thing I had done up to that point. Flash forward to when we started getting "The Complete Motown Singles" releases. There was one song that made my blood run ice cold. I played it several times and there was no getting around it- the song I had done in the 90s was a dead ringer for a Motown record I had never heard of: "Never Say No To Your Baby" by the Hit Pack. So essentially I had ripped off a song a decade or so before I had actually heard it. So when I hear about a lawsuit like this latest one, I honestly am thankful I never thought enough of my stuff to try for a career in music [[and I say that only half jokingly.)
When listening to the studio versions [[and not Ed's 'live' version), to my ears, there is enough similarity between the two songs to warrant a lawsuit case.
Yes, a lot of songs use that same chord pattern in the verses. The issue is that the chord patterns move rhythmically similar to each other to the point of being identical. Add to that, Ed's phrasing of his lyrics to this already established chord pattern is way too similar.
It appears that, for most of each song, one could drop Ed's lyrics over Marvin's instrumental track AND Marvin's lyrics over Ed's track and each would almost perfectly align. Of course, I had not checked to see if they are both in the same key.
The way the verses move into the chorus are, to my ears, almost identical, with there being a slight break in the instrumental and the almost identical way each singer falls into the chorus.
Yes, this is coming from someone who also believed Robin Thicke's song was a rip-off of Marvin's "Got to Give It Up."
Yes, in the court trial, I hope they compared the studio versions of the 2 songs especially since Ed was able to sing his acoustic version.
Unless I missed it, I'm surprised George Harrison's My Sweet Lord hasn't been mentioned.
I remember when my dad was teaching me about playing music, he took his guitar and played a few basic chord progressions and sang a bunch of songs to the exact same music. He told me how everyone use to write all these blues and rock n roll songs to the same chord structure and nobody thought anything about it. Except when someone got a whiff of money. I just recently read about Peggy Lee going through this. Some guy claimed Peggy copped his tune. In court, her defense team brought in Jimmy Durante who sat at a piano and sang a million songs to the same melody this guy claimed was his. I think in the end the guy lost his case.
Boog,thank you.
And Len Barry's team had to settle by paying 15% of their royalties to Motown for the song, "1,2,3", which was too similar to the Supremes' "Ask Any Girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU0PTOBl38c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rilbe9Oy6I
I call bullshit on pretty much all of these lawsuits. Those of us of the Motown generation [[and Beatles, etc) tend to think that each and every generation since has been directly influenced by the music that we love when, in fact, anyone under 50 would not have been in direct contact with that generation of music makers. In this case, Ed Sheeren has had tons of hits; what would be the purpose of his 'copying' any song from decades ago? I still hear MG's 'GTGIU' as a direct copy of 'Boogie Shoes'. Do I think that Gaye, in his doobie-addled state of mind, purposely copied 'Boogie Shoes'? Nope.
sorry, I don't hear Hes So Fine in My Sweet Lord. all recent records at a time might be similar....always in Rock/Soul.
They're not the same song. I used to believe Blurred Lines and Got to Give It Up were the same but I have to say having listened to it as someone approaching 40, I don't hear the similarities in those songs and I do not hear it in these songs. These suits are stupid and I hope the jury don't buy into it like the jury bought it for Blurred Lines.
Funny thing about GTGIU is he was inspired to create the song from listening to Johnnie Taylor's "Disco Lady" [[his working title for the song was called "Dancing Lady" LMAO). And I don't think GTGIU was at all "original" and why would it? Most pop songs have the same chord progressions and if we're gonna sue songs for that, what's the purpose of pop music? Especially since Motown itself relied on repetitiveness throughout its glory years.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/media...ict/index.html
In the end, they lost their case and it was the Townsends.
I think Ed's lucky to have won it. The second chord in his song is different but ever since the Blurred Lines case result indicated that you could be done for nicking a vibe which set a dangerous precedent, he was on shaky ground. And the opening of the chorus is a bit too close for comfort to the chorus of Piece Of My Heart for my liking.
Ed is a talented guy, but his songwriting over the years has become more and more generic, which does leave him open to these kind of lawsuits - a shame, as his pre-major label deal stuff [[pre-2011) had a freshness and quite unique quality to it.