It’s about time!
Good luck collecting!
I don't care what the judge says. If you played "Got To Give It Up" and then "Blurred Lines" on a piano, you would easily realize they are not the same song or that "Blurred Lines" doesn't resemble "Got To Give It Up" in any sense. I'm with Thicke/Pharrell on this.
In my humble opinion, the similarities are not in the melody of the song, which is why it cannot be heard on piano. It's more in the background rhythm of the song and tempo. To my ears, they are not identical songs but it is clear to me that Got to Give It Up inspired Blurred Lines and basically borrows/samples from it. That cowbell rhythm [[I think that is what I am hearing in Marvin's song?) is very similar to that in Blurred Lines. Furthermore, in around 3:18 of Marvin's song [[part 1), his background vocal is extremely similar to the "you know you want it" lyrics, featured Blurred Lines. I suppose it is possible to hear a song differently, depending on what you are focusing on, but to me, I am not surprised they won the suit.
In that theory, I wonder if there was ever a lawsuit with "Love Hangover". The background vocals of "Love to love you" are clearly a rip from Donna Summer's "Love to Love You Baby?"
That's because the arrangements are similar. The sound of "Blurred Lines" is copied from "Got To Give It Up." The actual song wasn't. I could take the "Hokey Pokey" and give it an arrangement that sounds exactly like "Baby Love." That doesn't mean the song was stolen.
Congratulations to the family of Marvin Gaye!
And some folks don’t understand the law.
Woah, that's a lot of money being owed. Personally I don't know if the songs are in any way similar in terms of the actual music / structure etc, but as songs I can hear that they sound alike.
...To add on to my post, it is possible that the similarities in Blurred Lines were unintentional. Art inspires new art everyday. Art is cumulative of our experiences and influences. Same applies to music. When someone knowingly and deliberately takes something from a preexisting piece of art or music, then yes, credit is due. In this case, it is arguable that lines are somewhat blurred [[how punny!). It is what it is.
If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck chances are it’s a duck.
Its the groove!! The groove is similar and since when is a groove "copyrightable" Bill Withers summed it all up by saying if this is the case then the whole of Rock & Roll owes it to Chuck Berry.
Why didn't the MJ estate sue Cee Lo Green for "bright lights bigger city" or S club 7 for "don't stop movin" when both are clearly emulating the groove of Bille Jean... or is it cos they never made enough money to make suing them worthwhile
You got that right Marv! If Jobete can win publishing for mashed potato time Gaye’s family certainly deserves this!
I'm just chiming in for the sake of conversation here, hoping to help articulate why people are so up in arms about this. Removing music from it, think about it like this: to say that songs with similar "feel" but different compositional elements are the same is akin saying two people wearing the same outfit are the same person. On the outside they look similar but they are obviously not identical.
Listen to these two versions of "Crazy" that have completely different feel, groove, and instrumentation. However, we recognize they are the same song because of the lyrics, the melody, and the chord progression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N4jf6rtyuw
The lyrics, melody, and chords of "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up" are different. The parts the instruments are playing are different between the two songs. However, both have the same instrumentation and a similar tempo. Not the same compositional elements. The reason why two different songs will sound different when played on one instrument alone [[piano, guitar, sang acapella, etc) is because those foundational compositional elements are different.
Sam Smith had to add Tom Petty as a writers credit for his hit "Stay With Me" because it had the same Melody and the Chord Progression as Petty's "Won't Back Down." They are two totally different tempos, different instrumentation, use different key centers, and have a different "feel," but Smith did the right thing by settling with Tom Petty because two out of the three of those basic compositional elements [[chords and melody, obviously the lyrics are different) were too similar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr4KbSU_UZw
All that said, it's insane that Robin Thicke preemptively sued the Gaye family. They should have just said publicly that the melody, chords, and lyrics are different and that you can't copyright a "feel" or a particular combination of instruments playing at a particular speed. I think this whole thing would have played out differently if that were the case. If we were still in the doo-wop era, with all of those 12/8 ballads of the time, everyone would be suing everyone for these same reasons.
Lastly, please note that I do think that "Blurred Lines" is a terrible song for a lot of different reasons, I just don't agree that it's infringement.
I agree with the preemptive part.. its like igniting a fuse..
The issue here is once the Gaye's won this suit they then went on say "Happy by Pharrell sounded alot like Aint that Peculiar don't you think?"
Isn't that Smokey to decided AS the composer of that song? Besides i think Happy has more in common with the "feel" of Land of 1000 dances than Ain't that Peculiar.
I'll make it easy for you.........
His name should be Robin THIEF, not Robin Thicke!
Good one! I can’t believe this conversation is continuing. Marv, sometimes u just have to dumb it down!
Last edited by marv2; 12-14-2018 at 10:04 PM.
Robin and them sued them first. The ruling was fair.
Just to throw it out there, it seems there are a few posts here asking, "How could anyone say that Robin copied Marvin?" It's not as if they entered a court room with a simple boom box and played back the song one time and the judge made a decision. I'm sure both sides brought in multiple music experts, analytical sound samples/exhibits, etc, to drive home their points. To me, it's very clear that one song influenced the other, with some identical musical elements shared between them. I also agree that Marvin influenced Robin Thicke's singing style 100%.
If I remember correctly, I thought I read the judge barred musical experts from coming in to compare the songs on piano. By simply playing the two songs on a piano, it would have been very clear they are nothing alike and the ruling would have favored Thicke. The only thing Thicke stole was the sound of "Got To Give It Up" and that cannot be copyrighted.
You're right Brad, I read something similar.
Though in the case of "Million Dollar Baby" for me "plagiarism" is evident https://www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism
That was only after Marvin Gaye's Estate sued Robin Thicke over it!
The songwriting credits on the album went to Andre Harrell and Thicke. They’re still listed as the composers of “Million Dolla Baby” on the album credits at AllMusic.com. However, Gaye is listed as the sole composer on the ASCAP site, which may have been a result of the settlement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/..._entertainment
I had forgotten about that aspect of the trial and agree with you entirely. The songs as written bear no similarity though the intros have the same feel. It's looked upon by the industry as a bad ruling. Maybe Gary US Bonds can sue those greedy, griftin' Gayes claiming GTGIU was copied from Quarter To Three??
Last edited by PeaceNHarmony; 12-17-2018 at 04:54 PM.
I'm not even too sure of that, Brad... it's possible... but I'm not too sure.
To be fair, other decisions similar to this haven't gone to the person who sued them first.
I still say the reason the Gaye family won was due to Robin and Pharrell suing THEM first. If that hadn't been the case, maybe a suit wouldn't have happened.
I wonder if Robin is talented. His follow up album bombed.
Bookmarks