AlexdeParis said:

NDRU said:

I totally agree. Though this song does beg the question: Do we need to reconsider what parts of music can be copyrighted? As it is, I could make a song with the exact sound and chord changes as Smells Like Teen Spirit, as long as it had a different melody & lyrics, and it would be perfectly legal. But it wouldn't really be right.

Copyrighting a chord progression would be supremely ludicrous.

For instance, despite the chord similarities making this matchup relatively easy, would you argue these songs aren't sufficiently "original"?

I'm amused this thread is still kicking. At this point, just about every viewpoint has been rehashed multiple times...

I know I mentioned chords (because of copyright laws), but I was really thinking more of sound or feel. With certain songs, like Got to Give it Up, its the feel that really matters. RT & Pharrel admitted that they wanted to...er...capture that feel.

Well, that is the soul of the song. Maybe you can't copyright feel, but maybe you shouldn't just rip it off just because it's legal.

NDRU said:

AlexdeParis said:

Copyrighting a chord progression would be supremely ludicrous.

For instance, despite the chord similarities making this matchup relatively easy, would you argue these songs aren't sufficiently "original"?

I'm amused this thread is still kicking. At this point, just about every viewpoint has been rehashed multiple times...

I know I mentioned chords (because of copyright laws), but I was really thinking more of sound or feel. With certain songs, like Got to Give it Up, its the feel that really matters. RT & Pharrel admitted that they wanted to...er...capture that feel.

Well, that is the soul of the song. Maybe you can't copyright feel, but maybe you shouldn't just rip it off just because it's legal.

And to that I'd say, "why not?" Otherwise, you're going to have to differentiate between "ripping off" and "being inspired by" a previous composition. That can't end well for anyone (except the lawyers, of course).

1. Re: Chord progressions: they can never be copyrighted because then like 80% of rock songs and a huge number of actual Blues songs would be illegal! The "standard" blues is I-IV-I-V-I chord progression. Even if you're not a musician, you surely recognize that form..... whenever poeple are asked to make a song on the spot they use it... you know... "My baby done left me...... something something...." (then it changes to a new chord, the IV), "My baby done left me.....s omething somehting. ...." Then it goes to the V chord and a new lyric.... "Now my baby is gone, and Im' all alone" etc.....

.

Hell, even Kiss by Prince is basicaly that chord progression!

.

There are are only a few chord progressions used in the vast majority of pop songs. And some songs are built around 1 chord!

.

.

2. I'm not a lawyer but from what I've read, copyrights were NEVER MEANT TO GO ON AND ON! I think originally they were supposed to end like when the original owner died or 7 years or something. But once giant corporations like Disney etc. starting "owning the copyrights" (which is another issue in and of itself), they lobbied to get laws changed so copyrights keep getting extended for decades, just to enrich the corporations.

.

3. What is up with spacing? I"m using a mac and chrome and I can't paragraphs to be separated??? I have to use a "." to get a line break.

guitarslinger44 said:

Timmy84 said:

TBH, I think both sides are really playing a fucking media game with this. I doubt Marvin would've gave a fuck what Robin was doing. Time for this story (and this thread) to die, really.

I wondered about this actually, but I imagine that if that were the case, maybe the Gaye family would have taken the money. Maybe not though. I agree though that Marvin probably wouldn't have cared.

Yes, because you two are such experts on what Marvin would have thought.

BlaqueKnight said:

guitarslinger44 said:

I wondered about this actually, but I imagine that if that were the case, maybe the Gaye family would have taken the money. Maybe not though. I agree though that Marvin probably wouldn't have cared.

Yes, because you two are such experts on what Marvin would have thought.

And you are?

Timmy84 said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Yes, because you two are such experts on what Marvin would have thought.

And you are?

Unlike you two, I never professed to.

I do find it interesting that people so desperately want Thicke and Williams to be absolved of their bastardization of a classic groove in order to make inane pop fluff to the point that they make guesstimations of the mindset of artists they otherwise would not give two shits about.

I'll "keep it real" about the situation. It really isn't about what Marvin would think, even though I find it hard to believe that most artists' find their own work so trivial that they don't care about it. Nonetheless, its obvious what they did and they did it intentionally. When other artists have done this, they have ben severely chastised yet, Robin and Pharrell are supposed to be exempt? GTFOH.

BlaqueKnight said:

Timmy84 said:

And you are?

Unlike you two, I never professed to.

I do find it interesting that people so desperately want Thicke and Williams to be absolved of their bastardization of a classic groove in order to make inane pop fluff to the point that they make guesstimations of the mindset of artists they otherwise would not give two shits about.

I'll "keep it real" about the situation. It really isn't about what Marvin would think, even though I find it hard to believe that most artists' find their own work so trivial that they don't care about it. Nonetheless, its obvious what they did and they did it intentionally. When other artists have done this, they have ben severely chastised yet, Robin and Pharrell are supposed to be exempt? GTFOH.

Completely agree!

I'm not going to sit here and proclaim to know all there is to know about copyrighting and sampling, but I do know what I hear. To me, the song sounds like GTGIU, but y'all say that it's a totally different song. Okay, so can someone please explain to me (in laymen terms) how can two totally different songs that use completely different chords or whatever this major/minor stuff is sounds exactly alike. Is it because I have "untrained ears"? When I say that I'm confuse, I so mean it.

mimi02 said:

I'm not going to sit here and proclaim to know all there is to know about copyrighting and sampling, but I do know what I hear. To me, the song sounds like GTGIU, but y'all say that it's a totally different song. Okay, so can someone please explain to me (in laymen terms) how can two totally different songs that use completely different chords or whatever this major/minor stuff is sounds exactly alike. Is it because I have "untrained ears"? When I say that I'm confuse, I so mean it.

I'm not an expert, but I"ll try. The short answer is:

.

Blurred Lines uses similar instruments, rhythm and feel of GTGIU, using a structure that is a simplified, dumbed down version of GTIGU's structure , but --importantly-- with a new melody and new lyrics.

.

First, let's stop using the word "sampling" in this conversation. "Sampling" is basically recording a segment of one thing (e.g. an 8 bar section of a song) and "playing it" again in another song. E.g., Puff Daddy "sampled" the main riff of Diana Ross' "I'm Coming Out", adde some more instruments on it, and rapped over it to create his song Mo Money Mo Problems or whatever it's called. SAMPLING IS LITERALLY USING A SOUND RECORDING of another song. If you sample someone else's song/recording, you must pay them for it.

.

No one actually thinks Blurred Lines "samples" Got To Give it up (they did appear to sample that scream which may or may not have come from Dont' STop til You get enough").

.

Anyway.... you can also just simply "replay" or "re-sing" parts of someone else's song. In effect, Rapper's Delight replays the music of Good Times becuase Sylvia Robinson hired a band to basically copy the bass, guitar, piano and drums of Good Times, but they played it again using their own instruments and made a new recording of it. (they also sampled some other stuff for a few seconds but let's forget that for now).

That is still copyright infringement. You can't just play someone else's original melody and claim it's your own song. Now the legalities of whether you can replay a bass line alone, or just a small piano riff etc. is not clear. In some cases people have sued for that, in other cases people have "lifted" elements and gotten away with it. The bass line of Give It To Me Baby was used for Thriller, etc. but Rick James was cool with it.

So ....back to Blurred LInes. Most people think the song sounds very similar to Got To Give it Up. I thought so the first time I heard Blurred LInes too.

At first I thought "oh they are just palying the saming backing chords, bass line etc. " as GTGIU.

ALso, they cerated a drum/percussion track that sounds similar (particularly the prominent cowbell rhythm).

Moreover, they used production techniques that make it have similar sound.... e.g. they picked instruments and created sound effects that are similar to those used in GTGIU. The aforementioned cowbell, the choice of electric piano sound (Rhodes-type), the crowd noises etc. They pretty much admitted this when Robin said they wantd to make a song "like Marvin's". It was clearly deliberate. THIS IN ITSELF is not copyright infringement. You could cerate a whole new song using the exact same instruments as GTGIU but it would be a whole new song.

The "feel" is harder to explain. But the overall groove or rhtyhm is very similar to GTGIU. For example, the Rhodes piano is sort of Reggae-ish in the way it's playing simple chords on the "and" beat of each beat. And the rhythm track is a similar beat, especially the cowbell, but not exactly the same (I haven't copared the drum tracks note for note) but close enough to "remind you" of the beat of GTGIU. Again, this was deliberate, they were trying to make a song like GTGIU.

IN terms of the chords and bass line.... when I learned how to play both songs, I realized they use different chords and different bass lines. HOWEVER, the more I think about it, basically what they did is SIMPLIFY or DUMB DOWN the chord progression and bass line of GTGIU for Blurred lines. Basically they made it 2 chords instead of 4 . And they made the bass line a bit simpler for the most part and added a new riff.

The melodies are pretty different IMO but I haven't compared them note for note.

.

If it's true that copyright law really just protects lyrics and melody, then BY LAW Blurred Lines is not infringing. It has a different melody and clearly different lyrics.

.

It's possible that copying specific riffs could also be copyright infringement. But Pharrell and Robin SIMPLIFIED the RIFFS so techically they are now "different". A court would have to decide if that is infringement.

.

In summary, they were clearly trying to make a song that sounds like Marvin's. They admitted it. They used similar instruments, similar rhythm, similar feel.

.

They took the overall chord progression and bass line and dumbed them down so they are now different but in a way similar to GTGIU.

.

So the songs are now different because Blurred Lines is like a really simplified dumbed down structure of GTIGU with a new melody and new lyrics, using similar instruments and rhythm.

GaryMF said:

mimi02 said:

I'm not going to sit here and proclaim to know all there is to know about copyrighting and sampling, but I do know what I hear. To me, the song sounds like GTGIU, but y'all say that it's a totally different song. Okay, so can someone please explain to me (in laymen terms) how can two totally different songs that use completely different chords or whatever this major/minor stuff is sounds exactly alike. Is it because I have "untrained ears"? When I say that I'm confuse, I so mean it.

I'm not an expert, but I"ll try. The short answer is:

.

Blurred Lines uses similar instruments, rhythm and feel of GTGIU, using a structure that is a simplified, dumbed down version of GTIGU's structure , but --importantly-- with a new melody and new lyrics.

.

First, let's stop using the word "sampling" in this conversation. "Sampling" is basically recording a segment of one thing (e.g. an 8 bar section of a song) and "playing it" again in another song. E.g., Puff Daddy "sampled" the main riff of Diana Ross' "I'm Coming Out", adde some more instruments on it, and rapped over it to create his song Mo Money Mo Problems or whatever it's called. SAMPLING IS LITERALLY USING A SOUND RECORDING of another song. If you sample someone else's song/recording, you must pay them for it.

.

No one actually thinks Blurred Lines "samples" Got To Give it up (they did appear to sample that scream which may or may not have come from Dont' STop til You get enough").

.

Anyway.... you can also just simply "replay" or "re-sing" parts of someone else's song. In effect, Rapper's Delight replays the music of Good Times becuase Sylvia Robinson hired a band to basically copy the bass, guitar, piano and drums of Good Times, but they played it again using their own instruments and made a new recording of it. (they also sampled some other stuff for a few seconds but let's forget that for now).

That is still copyright infringement. You can't just play someone else's original melody and claim it's your own song. Now the legalities of whether you can replay a bass line alone, or just a small piano riff etc. is not clear. In some cases people have sued for that, in other cases people have "lifted" elements and gotten away with it. The bass line of Give It To Me Baby was used for Thriller, etc. but Rick James was cool with it.

So ....back to Blurred LInes. Most people think the song sounds very similar to Got To Give it Up. I thought so the first time I heard Blurred LInes too.

At first I thought "oh they are just palying the saming backing chords, bass line etc. " as GTGIU.

ALso, they cerated a drum/percussion track that sounds similar (particularly the prominent cowbell rhythm).

Moreover, they used production techniques that make it have similar sound.... e.g. they picked instruments and created sound effects that are similar to those used in GTGIU. The aforementioned cowbell, the choice of electric piano sound (Rhodes-type), the crowd noises etc. They pretty much admitted this when Robin said they wantd to make a song "like Marvin's". It was clearly deliberate. THIS IN ITSELF is not copyright infringement. You could cerate a whole new song using the exact same instruments as GTGIU but it would be a whole new song.

The "feel" is harder to explain. But the overall groove or rhtyhm is very similar to GTGIU. For example, the Rhodes piano is sort of Reggae-ish in the way it's playing simple chords on the "and" beat of each beat. And the rhythm track is a similar beat, especially the cowbell, but not exactly the same (I haven't copared the drum tracks note for note) but close enough to "remind you" of the beat of GTGIU. Again, this was deliberate, they were trying to make a song like GTGIU.

IN terms of the chords and bass line.... when I learned how to play both songs, I realized they use different chords and different bass lines. HOWEVER, the more I think about it, basically what they did is SIMPLIFY or DUMB DOWN the chord progression and bass line of GTGIU for Blurred lines. Basically they made it 2 chords instead of 4 . And they made the bass line a bit simpler for the most part and added a new riff.

The melodies are pretty different IMO but I haven't compared them note for note.

.

If it's true that copyright law really just protects lyrics and melody, then BY LAW Blurred Lines is not infringing. It has a different melody and clearly different lyrics.

.

It's possible that copying specific riffs could also be copyright infringement. But Pharrell and Robin SIMPLIFIED the RIFFS so techically they are now "different". A court would have to decide if that is infringement.

.

In summary, they were clearly trying to make a song that sounds like Marvin's. They admitted it. They used similar instruments, similar rhythm, similar feel.

.

They took the overall chord progression and bass line and dumbed them down so they are now different but in a way similar to GTGIU.

.

So the songs are now different because Blurred Lines is like a really simplified dumbed down structure of GTIGU with a new melody and new lyrics, using similar instruments and rhythm.

Ok, I think I understand now. Thanks

lawd, this thread of dumbfuckery is still going on?? a thread for bitching folks who are so superficial and/or musically untrained, that they can't differentiate a beat or rhythm from a fucking melody or chord progression, i.e. composition??? sweet jebus

please, let's put this pathetic thread to rest

and start a new one instead about, dunno, let's say about Janelle Monae and how she rapes Stevie Wonder. about her "lack of authenticity", how she "hijacks" a legend, what an unoriginal thief she is, how she has no repsect for the greats. so where is the "Fuck Janelle" thread?



















oh, btw, in real life I absolutley adore Janelle and what a breathe of fresh air she is in the music business, but that's beside the point

[Edited 10/8/13 2:10am]

BombSquad said:

lawd, this thread of dumbfuckery is still going on?? a thread for bitching folks who are so superficial and/or musically untrained, that they can't differentiate a beat or rhythm from a fucking melody or chord progression, i.e. composition??? sweet jebus

please, let's put this pathetic thread to rest

and start a new one instead about, dunno, let's say about Janelle Monae and how she rapes Stevie Wonder. about her "lack of authenticity", how she "hijacks" a legend, what an unoriginal thief she is, how she has no repsect for the greats. so where is the "Fuck Janelle" thread?



















oh, btw, in real life I absolutley adore Janelle and what a breathe of fresh air she is in the music business, but that's beside the point

[Edited 10/8/13 2:10am]

Well, ma'am or sir, you know that there is a very simple solution to your frustration over this thread and that's not to post a dergotory comment. By posting what you did (i.e. "a thread for bitching folks who are so superficial and/or musically untrained, that they can't differentiate a beat or rhythm from a fucking melody or chord progression, i.e. composition???"), you're doing the opposite of what you've requested ("please, let's put this pathetic thread to rest"). So, basically, you're only adding to your frustration, because people will more than likely respond to being insulted.

Well, as for this "musically-untrained" listener, I had a question and thankfully someone answered it w/o being condesending.

Really, anyone is free to start a thread and anyone is free to post a comment, but folks don't need to go to the proverbial "there".

BlaqueKnight said:

I love Stevie but he can GTFOHWTBS. Blurred Lines is the most obvious, derivative song in the past 5 years or so and anyone claiming otherwise is either deaf or has an agenda. Stevie fails to see what's going on here. This is a mass campaign of opinion manipulation.

okay.... so you admit that its not anymore about the MUSIC and song similatrites at all?whoppitywhooop, well isn't that special......

you just made clear that it's about something compeltely else. at least for you.

Stevie however is the muscial expert, not on an expert "what's going on" or "mass campaigns" or "opinion manipulation", and on music he gave his opinion. but if you have another non-musical beef with Thicke going on which is rather obvious from this thread, well, fine. but do not blame the boring song, it's ridiculous

[Edited 10/9/13 2:31am]

mimi02 said:

Well, ma'am or sir, you know that there is a very simple solution to your frustration over this thread and that's not to post a dergotory comment. By posting what you did (i.e. "a thread for bitching folks who are so superficial and/or musically untrained, that they can't differentiate a beat or rhythm from a fucking melody or chord progression, i.e. composition???"), you're doing the opposite of what you've requested ("please, let's put this pathetic thread to rest"). So, basically, you're only adding to your frustration, because people will more than likely respond to being insulted.

Well, as for this "musically-untrained" listener, I had a question and thankfully someone answered it w/o being condesending.

Really, anyone is free to start a thread and anyone is free to post a comment, but folks don't need to go to the proverbial "there".

BombSquad said:

BlaqueKnight said:

I love Stevie but he can GTFOHWTBS. Blurred Lines is the most obvious, derivative song in the past 5 years or so and anyone claiming otherwise is either deaf or has an agenda. Stevie fails to see what's going on here. This is a mass campaign of opinion manipulation.

okay.... so you admit that its not anymore about the MUSIC and song similatrites at all?whoppitywhooop, well isn't that special......

you just made clear that it's about something compeltely else. at least for you.

Stevie however is the muscial expert, not on an expert "what's going on" or "mass campaigns" or "opinion manipulation", and on music he gave his opinion. but if you have another non-musical beef with Thicke going on which is rather obvious from this thread, well, fine. but do not blame the boring song, it's ridiculous

[Edited 10/9/13 2:31am]

Way to take a comment out of context and twist it to fit what you want it ot.

When many people hear blurred lines, it reminds them of GTGIU. There is not a damn thing you can type to change that FACT. So, no matter what snarky little comment or condescending remark you pull out of your ass, that remains as a FACT. This would not even be a topic if that weren't the case. You can't use words to disprove sounds. I know all of the notes, chord progressions and rythmns in both songs. That doesn't change the fact that they structured this song to sound as much like Marvin's song. No copyright law written on a piece of paper can change the FACT that when people hear it, it reminds them of Marvin Gaye's classic. Why is that? We all know why already. Nothing left to be said. Its not a sample but it sure rides the hell out of Marvin's song.

[Edited 10/9/13 11:33am]

I will say one thing in defense of this song, with respect to the various Miley & Robin controversies.

With all of Miley's controversy, nobody is saying anything about her music. If she had done something noteworthy OTHER than dance (badly) then we might be talking about something else.

With Robin's story, at least a lot of people like his song. It's still about the music. I like it, myself, and even though I know he ripped off something significant, I think it would be a perfectly entertaining song with another instrumental track behind it (see Jimmy Fallon & the Roots' version). So while that may not be raising the bar very high, I do think he raised it higher than his partner in shame, Miley.

BombSquad said:

mimi02 said:

Well, ma'am or sir, you know that there is a very simple solution to your frustration over this thread and that's not to post a dergotory comment. By posting what you did (i.e. "a thread for bitching folks who are so superficial and/or musically untrained, that they can't differentiate a beat or rhythm from a fucking melody or chord progression, i.e. composition???"), you're doing the opposite of what you've requested ("please, let's put this pathetic thread to rest"). So, basically, you're only adding to your frustration, because people will more than likely respond to being insulted.

Well, as for this "musically-untrained" listener, I had a question and thankfully someone answered it w/o being condesending.

Really, anyone is free to start a thread and anyone is free to post a comment, but folks don't need to go to the proverbial "there".

Point?

BlaqueKnight said:

BombSquad said:

okay.... so you admit that its not anymore about the MUSIC and song similatrites at all?whoppitywhooop, well isn't that special......

you just made clear that it's about something compeltely else. at least for you.

Stevie however is the muscial expert, not on an expert "what's going on" or "mass campaigns" or "opinion manipulation", and on music he gave his opinion. but if you have another non-musical beef with Thicke going on which is rather obvious from this thread, well, fine. but do not blame the boring song, it's ridiculous

Way to take a comment out of context and twist it to fit what you want it ot.

When many people hear blurred lines, it reminds them of GTGIU. There is not a damn thing you can type to change that FACT. So, no matter what snarky little comment or condescending remark you pull out of your ass, that remains as a FACT. This would not even be a topic if that weren't the case. You can't use words to disprove sounds. I know all of the notes, chord progressions and rythmns in both songs. That doesn't change the fact that they structured this song to sound as much like Marvin's song. No copyright law written on a piece of paper can change the FACT that when people hear it, it reminds them of Marvin Gaye's classic. Why is that? We all know why already. Nothing left to be said. Its not a sample but it sure rides the hell out of Marvin's song.

and "Valerie" by Mark Ronson reminds everyone of You Can't Hurry Love, so what? and how many thousand other intentional Motown/HDH rip-offs are out there?


sure BL reminds everyone of Marvin, the producers made it sound like that, it was the intention! who denies that? same case with Janelle Monae. but no comment from you on that, I wonder why... so tell me, are Janelle (or Afrika Bambaata, Michael Jackson and thousand others) in the same bag of unoriginal thiefes as Thicke is? if not then you have no credibility left


BL and GTGIU sound the same, yes, no one will win a price for noticing this. but they are still entirely different compositions and therefore NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT. no matter how you slice it.


Thicke had bad luck that BL exploded in such a big way. if it had remained just an album track or B-side, then the majority would have loved how he pays homage to a legend, and that at least some current artists still shape their music after the classic acts, and how the ignorant younger generations will never appreciate those old sounds and that those sounds will never make it to the oh so horrible current charts & radio playlists yadda yadda yaaa bitch bitch bitch

but suddenly a HIT? nahhh! this is EVIL!!!

[Edited 10/10/13 1:03am]