scorp84 said:

Scorp said:

drug money or not,

Robin Thicke hijacked music from one of the all time luminaries and his career has been shot since

that was all time hijacking that took place

It really wasn't a "hijacking" of any kind. It was an homage to Marvin Gaye, sound-wise. It's possible to recreate a "sound" without copying musical notes and phrases. This is precisely why Chuck Brown didn't go after Pharrell for "Hot in Herre" (which was inspired by "Bustin' Loose"). Why didn't they go after Pharrell for "Give it 2 Me" for Madonna, which was inspired by the same Marvin Gaye song? Probably cuz it wasn't a smash hit. Marvin Gaye's estate, like every other music legend's estate, looks for any possible avenue to generate revenue. They struck gold, or "platinum" with a throwaway track written and produced by Pharrell Williams that just happened to become a major success. That's all this "saga" is about.

wait, it was an "homage"?............lollllllllllllllllll

I've heard it all now....

some homage......

Scorp said:

scorp84 said:

Scorp said: It really wasn't a "hijacking" of any kind. It was an homage to Marvin Gaye, sound-wise. It's possible to recreate a "sound" without copying musical notes and phrases. This is precisely why Chuck Brown didn't go after Pharrell for "Hot in Herre" (which was inspired by "Bustin' Loose"). Why didn't they go after Pharrell for "Give it 2 Me" for Madonna, which was inspired by the same Marvin Gaye song? Probably cuz it wasn't a smash hit. Marvin Gaye's estate, like every other music legend's estate, looks for any possible avenue to generate revenue. They struck gold, or "platinum" with a throwaway track written and produced by Pharrell Williams that just happened to become a major success. That's all this "saga" is about.

wait, it was an "homage"?............lollllllllllllllllll

I've heard it all now....

some homage......

I don't doubt you've heard it. Listening is something different altogether. The songs aren't the same.

George Clinton, in his new book, says Funkadelic was also named in the suit, and that if he was asked, he would go to court ... to speak in defense of Robin Thicke.

I think the main thing propelling the suit, is the idea that Marvin Gaye and Funkadelic are great, and Robin Thicke is shit, so taking money out of his pocket is no problem.

scorp84 said:

Scorp said:

wait, it was an "homage"?............lollllllllllllllllll

I've heard it all now....

some homage......

I don't doubt you've heard it. Listening is something different altogether. The songs aren't the same.

u really believe this

this is just like VAnilla Ice when he hijacked Queen's classic Under Pressure

he used the entire riff and added/changed/altered one note of the song to technically suggest he didn't hijack

Robin Thicke/Pharrell hijacked Marvin Gaye,

he's not the first person to do so and won't be the last....

Scorp said:

scorp84 said:

Scorp said:

u really believe this

this is just like VAnilla Ice when he hijacked Queen's classic Under Pressure

he used the entire riff and added/changed/altered one note of the song to technically suggest he didn't hijack

Robin Thicke/Pharrell hijacked Marvin Gaye,

he's not the first person to do so and won't be the last....

No. Vanilla Ice's producer literally sampled the melody from "Pressure", looped it and threw a drum beat and a couple synth bass lines on top of it. That's a totally different situation. Try again.

both these guys hijacked major classic works and tried to take credit for it

this been going on for over 20 years, nothing new.......

someone else coming down the pike will be hijacking too

SoulAlive said:

Marvin's kids just want some more drug money.If they win this case,that's where the money is gonna go.

laurarichardson said:

SoulAlive said:

Marvin's kids just want some more drug money.If they win this case,that's where the money is gonna go.

---- It does not matter if it goes up their asses. They are they will get money out of this if they win as they should. All the court is going to do is look at the notation of both songs and see if the proper amount of notes was used. If Pharrel was not such a moron who would have just given credit and none of this would be happening.

exactly, which shows the fact he and Thicke hijacked Marvin Gaye's music and try to sell it as their own

meaning, they hijacked it.......

I've heard hundreds of songs over the past 20 years where the music of the actual artist has been hijacked w/out receiving credit for it......

Here it is! The supposed evidence! They sure lined things up grapically to try and make the notation look as close as they possibly could, to convince a non-reader. It ain't no "Stay with me".

.

Music readers, take a look. Laughable....

.

http://www.hollywoodrepor...lurred.pdf

.

[Edited 3/10/15 18:39pm]

nd33 said:

Here it is! The supposed evidence! They sure lined things up grapically to try and make the notation look as close as they possibly could, to convince a non-reader. It ain't no "Stay with me".

.

Music readers, take a look. Laughable....

.

http://www.hollywoodrepor...lurred.pdf

.

I came back to this thread to eat my words that they deserved ZERO, but now I am just interested in what the musicologist said.

To be honest, if they can specifically stop Robin Thicke from biting Marvin Gaye, then this lawsuit is right on time. But I fear this ruling will make it too easy to sue writers working in similar genres/styles.

Ouch! The $7.4M judgment is favor of the Gaye estate gotta hurt more than the Paula album flop.

[Edited 3/11/15 6:09am]

I can't believe people are still in denial about how they ripped off "Got To Give It Up". When "Blurred Lines" first came out, I constantly heard people asking, "Who is that singing the Marvin Gaye song?" (because they had no idea who Robin Thicke was). While it was not a cover of the song, unless you have a build-up of earwax, it was obvious they were sampling Gaye's tune. I'm glad the court decided they way they did. It was absolutely the right thing to do.

kitbradley said:

I can't believe people are still in denial about how they ripped off "Got To Give It Up". When "Blurred Lines" first came out, I constantly heard people asking, "Who is that singing the Marvin Gaye song?" (because they had no idea who Robin Thicke was). While it was not a cover of the song, unless you have a build-up of earwax, it was obvious they were sampling Gaye's tune. I'm glad the court decided they way they did. It was absolutely the right thing to do.

.

It's depends what you mean by "ripped off". If you mean they used a similar-ish tempo, based around a 4 on the floor kick pattern with a prominent synopated cowbell, then yes.

.

But by definition the songwriting (which is what the Gaye family owned the rights to) is in the melody and lyrics, NOT the rhythm patterns (which you can't copyright). That's why you can write a song and then play it in different styles....eg here's Beatles played reggae style:

.

.

If you were to reggae-ize Blurred Lines, you will not hear any similarity to GTGIU.

.

So in that sense, I'd say without hesitation, no, they didn't rip it off and I think over the coming days, you'll find that the vast majority of working songwriters and musicians agree.

.

I'd go as far as saying, if you take out the cowbell, no-one would've heard a similiarity in the first place.

Therefore it shall become known as the $7MIL cowbell.

[Edited 3/11/15 7:50am]

Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" Enjoying Sales Boost


Link