[REMOVE ADS]




Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 52
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,831
    Rep Power
    392

    Those Lawsuit Happy Gaye's are at it Again!


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,831
    Rep Power
    392
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,279
    Rep Power
    519
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    710
    Rep Power
    211
    That's what I read too Reese.....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308


    this truth denier's own confession at 4:30

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,831
    Rep Power
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by reese View Post
    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.
    I'll have to dig further; that wasn't my impression, but I could very well be wrong. Thanks for the comment!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    I heard a brief comparison of the two songs. I don't hear a similarity.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,279
    Rep Power
    519

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    I heard a brief comparison of the two songs. I don't hear a similarity.
    Neither do I Ralph - but I thought I was the only one who didn't

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    388
    Rep Power
    177
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,646
    Rep Power
    317
    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?


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,617
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    I heard a brief comparison of the two songs. I don't hear a similarity.
    I thought it was a clear rip off, eight bars in.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Drew, the 4 chord repeat sequence would make most 50s songs and Doo Wop guilty as sin.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    388
    Rep Power
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    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:

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    The guy really lays it out, Drew. Thanks for posting this.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,973
    Rep Power
    229
    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,281
    Rep Power
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by motony View Post
    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.
    And then there is Len Barry's "1-2-3" vs Supremes "Ask Any Girl". I didn't think the 2 songs sounded similar.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,944
    Rep Power
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by milven View Post
    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?

    I Do! Ed Towshend's "For You Love" was a staple of 'oldies radio' back in the '80s and the song was remade by The Temptations [as part of a medley with Sam Cooke's "You Send Me"] for their For Lovers Only LP in 1995.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,944
    Rep Power
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by lockhartgary View Post
    And then there is Len Barry's "1-2-3" vs Supremes "Ask Any Girl". I didn't think the 2 songs sounded similar.
    I agree with you lockhart, however, Motown sued the writers of "1-2-3" and that lawsuit went through [with Motown getting 15% of the writer's share for the song and Holland-Dozier-Holland listed as co-writers of the song].

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by milven View Post
    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?

    Gosh doesn’t that sound a lot like ALLEY- OOP!?

    just kidding !

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,798
    Rep Power
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Motown Eddie View Post
    I agree with you lockhart, however, Motown sued the writers of "1-2-3" and that lawsuit went through [with Motown getting 15% of the writer's share for the song and Holland-Dozier-Holland listed as co-writers of the song].
    I thought that "1-2-3" sounded like "Ask Any Girl" from the very first time I heard it; also "It May Be Winter Outside" and "Everything Is Good About You".

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,983
    Rep Power
    351
    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.

  24. #24
    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.)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance View Post
    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.)
    It seems we hear this again and again.

    Also, there was a CBC podcast recently which said there was no money in music anymore - which probably contributes to driving these lawsuits

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Rep Power
    255
    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.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Rep Power
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance View Post
    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.)
    Being a writer/composer myself, I have experienced same situations as you did.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Unless I missed it, I'm surprised George Harrison's My Sweet Lord hasn't been mentioned.
    Last edited by ralpht; 04-29-2023 at 12:22 PM.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by jobucats View Post
    Being a writer/composer myself, I have experienced same situations as you did.
    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.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    Unless I missed it, I'm surprised George Harrison's My Sweet Lord hasn't been mentioned.
    Oh it probably will be..
    Last edited by ralpht; 04-29-2023 at 01:17 PM.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    Unless I missed it, I'm surprised George Harrison's My Sweet Lord hasn't been mentioned.




  32. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Boog,thank you.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Rep Power
    255
    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.


  34. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,666
    Rep Power
    312
    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.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,973
    Rep Power
    229
    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.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,018
    Rep Power
    314
    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.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,018
    Rep Power
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceNHarmony View Post
    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.
    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.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,018
    Rep Power
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by mysterysinger View Post
    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.
    The fact that the Gaye family was able to get the judge and jury to think about "the feel" is one of the only reasons they won their case [[that and Robin/Pharrell pre-emptively suing them, yeah that wasn't smart lol).

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/media...ict/index.html

    In the end, they lost their case and it was the Townsends.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    77
    Rep Power
    171
    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.

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    44,439
    Rep Power
    897
    So I just found out that [see if you can follow this] the plaintiff is my sister’s ex-husband’s current mother-in-law. My sister is relishing this, because the mother-in-law is very…litigious, shall we say. Even tried to sue my ex-brother-in-law, I’m told. This world is too small.😁
    Last edited by sansradio; 05-04-2023 at 01:47 PM.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by sansradio View Post
    So I just found out that [see if you can follow this] the plaintiff is my sister’s ex-husband’s current mother-in-law. My sister is relishing this, because the mother-in-law is very…litigious, shall we say. Even tried to sue my ex-brother-in-law, I’m told. This world is too small.😁
    Hopefully she gets nailed on the costs.

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    44,439
    Rep Power
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by jobeterob View Post
    Hopefully she gets nailed on the costs.
    No doubt. As my sister texted me, “Cheaters never win.”

  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by sansradio View Post
    So I just found out that [see if you can follow this] the plaintiff is my sister’s ex-husband’s current mother-in-law. My sister is relishing this, because the mother-in-law is very…litigious, shall we say. Even tried to sue my ex-brother-in-law, I’m told. This world is too small.😁
    Wow. When people say "you can't make this stuff up" they need to cite THIS as a quality example!

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    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.
    But when that's the argument , since all songs are based on limited chord progressions and finite notes, what's then the point of copyrights?? Should be a free for all ? ....and just watch how lots of classics can now be tapped into and modified just enough to sound familiar yet be passed off as creatively/supposedly new.

    "that ain't LOVE HANGOVER, its just your lyin' ears thinking so !!"
    Last edited by Boogiedown; 05-05-2023 at 02:57 PM.

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    44,439
    Rep Power
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance View Post
    Wow. When people say "you can't make this stuff up" they need to cite THIS as a quality example!
    Okay?!?? Talk about your six degrees of separation, hunh? I was gobsmacked.

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    388
    Rep Power
    177
    Just in case someone hasn't seen this comedic sketch yet - I see it as a good reminder that chord progressions and "feel" are part of the most basic building blocks of composition. The lyrics, the single note-by-note melodies, and iconic arrangement components are what are protectable and able to be owned as intellectual property. That iconic arrangement part is what is so often at the heart of disputes. This is a real time demonstration of how the underlying chord progressions of songs are not unique.



    Per the description on youtube, the songs they've chosen to spotlight here are:
    Journey - Don't Stop Believing

    James Blunt - You're Beautiful

    Alphaville - Forever Young

    Jason Mraz - I'm Yours

    Mika - Happy Ending

    Alex Lloyd - Amazing

    The Calling - Wherever You WIll Go

    Elton John - Can You Feel The Love Tonight

    Maroon 5 - She Will Be Loved

    The Last Goodnight - Pictures Of You

    U2 - With Or Without You

    Crowded House - Fall At Your Feet

    Kasey Chambers - Not Pretty Enough

    The Beatles - Let it Be

    Red Hot Chili Peppers - Under the Bridge

    Daryl Braithwaite - The Horses

    Bob Marley - No Woman No Cry

    Marcy Playground - Sex and Candy

    Men At Work - Land Down Under

    Banjo Patterson's Waltzing Matilda

    A Ha - Take On Me

    Green Day - When I Come Around

    Eagle Eye Cherry - Save Tonight

    Toto - Africa

    Beyonce - If I Were A Boy

    The Offspring - Self Esteem

    The Offspring - You're Gonna Go Far Kid

    Pink - You and Your Hand

    Lady Gaga - Poker Face

    Aqua - Barbie Girl

    The Fray - You Found Me

    30h!3 - Don't Trust Me

    MGMT - Kids

    Tim Minchin - Canvas Bags

    Natalie Imbruglia - Torn

    Five For Fighting - Superman

    Axis Of Awesome - Birdplane

    Missy Higgins - Scar

  48. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460
    https://apple.news/AYzTJM5DaRfKXVRVeyuePsQ

    Ed Sheeran talks about law suit

  49. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,018
    Rep Power
    314
    I hope we leave this era of litigation over pop music. It's been silly since the Blurred Lines days, maybe earlier than that.

  50. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    326
    I though for sure that if Thicke & Pharrell had to pay up for "Blurred Lines", that Sheeran was going to lose because this one sounds far more egregious to my ear. For the record, it's the heirs of Ed Townsend who brought the suit, not the Gaye Family.

    I believe that the problem here is that everyone keeps mentioning the chord progression, when that's not what's tripping-up everyone. You can't copyright chord progressions, so, I don't know why Crump used that strategy.

    Again, it's not the chord progression nor the melody of the song that's the problem here.

    Rather than listen to the ENTIRE song, simply listen to the HOOK of "Thinking Out Loud". After that [[or if you know how to mix or have a mixer handy), play the intro of "Let's Get It On" & listen to the basslines & rhythmic accents of the BASS notes that you're hearing.

    I haven't transposed both songs, but to my ear, the intervals of the notes & the rhythm of that bassline played on "Thinking Out Loud", sounds more than a little similar to that of "LGIO".

    Which is why wily Ed DID NOT want that concert footage of him going into "LGIO" at his concert, opting instead for an acoustic guitar which WOULD NOT duplicate those bass notes which are played on his song.

    I thought that the "Blurred Lines" decision was wrong, as the percussion licks were deemed to be "derivative". To my ear, the rhythms aren't the same at all. I believe that Thicke & Pharrell lost because of their pre-emptive strike, where they decided to sue first.

    The catch here is that the decision wasn't handed-down by musicologists. The decision was made by regular people, some of whom most likely don't know a crotchet from a dotted 8th note.

    To me, the answer lies in the bassline, the primary difference being that the bassline on "LGIO", adds a few notes not heard in "TOL". But again, listen to the interval of those notes & WHICH notes are emphasized on both.

    It doesn't matter whether the 2 songs share the same key. The question is, do those bass notes played on both share the same intervals & are the same notes emphasized in both.

    Sheeran was being cute & it's written all over his face when he slides into "LGIO" during his concert, smiling all the way as that crowd cheered.

    Just one man's opinion
    Last edited by juicefree20; 05-31-2023 at 02:39 AM. Reason: Additional thought

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.