HatrinaHaterwitz said:

shorttrini said:

As I sit back and read these comments I can't help but think that, it has more to do with Robin the artist than it does the song. The form of the songs are different, (Marvin used a 16 bar form, (using 5 different chords) that repeats. Robin used an 8 bar form, using only 2 chords that repeat. Okay, sure the drum beats are similar, but I bet you, all of us in this group can name countless songs, from different genres that have the same pattern. All Robin did was write a song in the style of Marvin Gaye, that in and of itself, is no crime. Which why I goe back to my original point of it being more about Robin as an artist, than it does the song.

If that's actually the case, then why'd he offer a six figure settlement to the Gaye family, that they turned down, in the first place?

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner folks.

shorttrini said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

If that's actually the case, then why'd he offer a six figure settlement to the Gaye family, that they turned down, in the first place?

Two reasons. The first is out of respect, for Marvin and his legacy. The second, is to avoid the hassle of going to court in the first place. Your question to my response,just proves my point even further. It's a personal thing against Robin. It's as if people are saying, "How DARE this man mess with Marvin's music". Yet, if someone with a darker complexion were to do it, most of you would find every justification in the world, why it would be okay.... [Edited 8/27/13 11:32am] [Edited 8/27/13 11:34am]

-

If Robin wants to respect Marvin and his legacy and avoid court, he just needs to offer a certain percentage of the publishing. I'm sure this is why the family rejected the lump sum amount. They're probably smart enough to figure that this song will continue to make money long after it leaves the charts. Hell, he already got that endorsement deal with Beats by Dre. They probably figure they can get theirs as he gets his, if they're apart of the publishing.

-

Oh and btw, my opinion has nothing to do with Mr. Thicke's hue or the lack thereof.

AlexdeParis said:

Musicslave said:

-

-

That's goes back to my question I posed Friday. How much is too much? What legal precedent is in place to help determine when there's a little too much "commonplace music elements" or coincidence? I think a lot of artists (not Robin per say) get by with replaying the same music but not sampling the original track as a way of avoiding the infringement claims.

Replaying or recreating the same music would also be infringement. Bernard Edwards and Nile Rodgers are now credited as co-writers of "Rapper's Delight" because of this. OTOH, rhythms aren't able to be copyrighted; that's why Bo Diddley doesn't get credit every time someone uses the Bo Diddley beat. The fact that the two basslines in these songs are similar in function but not form (unlike, say, "Under Pressure" and "Ice Ice Baby") should be more than enough to deny any infringement claims.

Stop talking logic or copyright law - people just want to piss on Robin and Pharell. I'm not a huge fan of either one of them but whats the deal with supporting a BS case when there are so many real ones you could get on board with? I don't know the Gaye family but they sure look like they are trying to profit from Marvin rather than protecting his legacy. Ironically sort of like Robin and Pharell.

anyone want to hop on the bandwagon and go after the robert Randolph Band for their blatent ripoff of Stephen Stills "Love the One you're With"?

Musicslave said:

shorttrini said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said: Two reasons. The first is out of respect, for Marvin and his legacy. The second, is to avoid the hassle of going to court in the first place. Your question to my response,just proves my point even further. It's a personal thing against Robin. It's as if people are saying, "How DARE this man mess with Marvin's music". Yet, if someone with a darker complexion were to do it, most of you would find every justification in the world, why it would be okay.... [Edited 8/27/13 11:32am] [Edited 8/27/13 11:34am]

-

If Robin wants to respect Marvin and his legacy and avoid court, he just needs to offer a certain percentage of the publishing. I'm sure this is why the family rejected the lump sum amount. They're probably smart enough to figure that this song will continue to make money long after it leaves the charts. Hell, he already got that endorsement deal with Beats by Dre. They probably figure they can get theirs as he gets his, if they're apart of the publishing.

-

Oh and btw, my opinion has nothing to do with Mr. Thicke's hue or the lack thereof.

that's the thing, he does not respect his legacy.....that's the problem....

Zannaloaf said:

Zannaloaf said:

AlexdeParis said:

Replaying or recreating the same music would also be infringement. Bernard Edwards and Nile Rodgers are now credited as co-writers of "Rapper's Delight" because of this. OTOH, rhythms aren't able to be copyrighted; that's why Bo Diddley doesn't get credit every time someone uses the Bo Diddley beat. The fact that the two basslines in these songs are similar in function but not form (unlike, say, "Under Pressure" and "Ice Ice Baby") should be more than enough to deny any infringement claims.

Stop talking logic or copyright law - people just want to piss on Robin and Pharell. I'm not a huge fan of either one of them but whats the deal with supporting a BS case when there are so many real ones you could get on board with? I don't know the Gaye family but they sure look like they are trying to profit from Marvin rather than protecting his legacy. Ironically sort of like Robin and Pharell.

Exactly. Robin has been making Marvin soundalike songs since 2002. Guess they didn't go after him because they was no money to be made.

Don't get me wrong: Robin leaves a bad taste in my mouth over this but everyone is gross in this.

shorttrini said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

If that's actually the case, then why'd he offer a six figure settlement to the Gaye family, that they turned down, in the first place?

Two reasons. The first is out of respect, for Marvin and his legacy. The second, is to avoid the hassle of going to court in the first place. Your question to my response,just proves my point even further. It's a personal thing against Robin. It's as if people are saying, "How DARE this man mess with Marvin's music". Yet, if someone with a darker complexion were to do it, most of you would find every justification in the world, why it would be okay.... [Edited 8/27/13 11:32am] [Edited 8/27/13 11:34am]

1. Since when does someone just try to give someone threatening to sue them a six figure settlement, out of respect?

2. Pharell and TI are both listed as co-creators of "Blurred Lines" and plantiffs in the lawsuit against the Gaye family and just as wrong as Robin in my book.

So whatever!

phunkdaddy said:

Zannaloaf said:

anyone want to hop on the bandwagon and go after the robert Randolph Band for their blatent ripoff of Stephen Stills "Love the One you're With"?

Oh please! I've heard Crosby,Stills,& Nash version and the Isleys version and this is no blatant ripoff. [Edited 8/27/13 13:37pm]

People tend to throw the word "ripoff" around far too easily on here. That being said, it would certainly be much easier to prove infringement here because the melody of the chorus in this song is virtually identical to "Love the One You're With." The chord progressions are similar too for the most part. Anyone who knows the CSN song can sing along with this song effortlessly. It's not quite "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" territory, but it's pretty close.

AlexdeParis said:

phunkdaddy said:

Zannaloaf said: Oh please! I've heard Crosby,Stills,& Nash version and the Isleys version and this is no blatant ripoff. [Edited 8/27/13 13:37pm]

People tend to throw the word "ripoff" around far too easily on here. That being said, it would certainly be much easier to prove infringement here because the melody of the chorus in this song is virtually identical to "Love the One You're With." The chord progressions are similar too for the most part. Anyone who knows the CSN song can sing along with this song effortlessly. It's not quite "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" territory, but it's pretty close.

I respect your take on it but I don't quite get the similaritie here but for the sake of keeping order here let's be fair and call the black guy a copycat since some of the Robin apologists here seem to think most of us are picking on Robin because he's white. I confess. Black power baby(sarcasm).

phunkdaddy said:

AlexdeParis said:

People tend to throw the word "ripoff" around far too easily on here. That being said, it would certainly be much easier to prove infringement here because the melody of the chorus in this song is virtually identical to "Love the One You're With." The chord progressions are similar too for the most part. Anyone who knows the CSN song can sing along with this song effortlessly. It's not quite "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" territory, but it's pretty close.

I respect your take on it but I don't quite get the similaritie here but for the sake of keeping order here let's be fair and call the black guy a copycat since some of the Robin apologists here seem to think most of us are picking on Robin because he's white. I confess. Black power baby(sarcasm).

exactly...

it's not a race issue, it's an issue of lack of authenticity

phunkdaddy said:

AlexdeParis said:

People tend to throw the word "ripoff" around far too easily on here. That being said, it would certainly be much easier to prove infringement here because the melody of the chorus in this song is virtually identical to "Love the One You're With." The chord progressions are similar too for the most part. Anyone who knows the CSN song can sing along with this song effortlessly. It's not quite "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" territory, but it's pretty close.

I respect your take on it but I don't quite get the similaritie here but for the sake of keeping order here let's be fair and call the black guy a copycat since some of the Robin apologists here seem to think most of us are picking on Robin because he's white. I confess. Black power baby(sarcasm).

Yeah, fuck his color. If someone steals, we're gonna call him or her out. Least what we think is stealing. Because what one think is stealing, another thinks it's original. You're not gonna win every argument.

Still eff him, Pharrell and T.I.

phunkdaddy said:

AlexdeParis said:

People tend to throw the word "ripoff" around far too easily on here. That being said, it would certainly be much easier to prove infringement here because the melody of the chorus in this song is virtually identical to "Love the One You're With." The chord progressions are similar too for the most part. Anyone who knows the CSN song can sing along with this song effortlessly. It's not quite "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" territory, but it's pretty close.

I respect your take on it but I don't quite get the similaritie here but for the sake of keeping order here let's be fair and call the black guy a copycat

Are you saying you don't get the similarities between "Love the One You're With" and the Robert Randolph song? The melody is almost exactly the same! It's actually pretty similar through the verses as well, but it is really glaring in the chorus. Swap out "There's been a change" for "There's a rose" and there you are.

If you were instead saying you don't get the similarity between the two songs above and the lawsuit, I agree with that. It's too different claims completely. This lawsuit is about the style of "Got to Give It Up" being aped versus the melody of "Love the One You're With" being used here. The latter is easily copyright infringement according to the law. I've never heard of the former being considered infringement, so a ruling against the authors of "Blurred Lines" would be setting legal precedent.

To apply yet another analogy, pretend the original song is a famous painting like, say, "Starry Starry Night." Thicke and company used the same colors and paint type to paint a different scene. Whoever is credited with writing that Robert Randolph song painted the same scene as "Starry Starry Night" with different colors. It looks like everyone here has already made up their minds anyway, but I hope that makes sense. They're both supposed to make you think of "Starry Starry Night" (and they both would), but only one would be considered infringement as we know it.

Timmy84 said:

phunkdaddy said:

I respect your take on it but I don't quite get the similaritie here but for the sake of keeping order here let's be fair and call the black guy a copycat since some of the Robin apologists here seem to think most of us are picking on Robin because he's white. I confess. Black power baby(sarcasm).

Yeah, fuck his color. If someone steals, we're gonna call him or her out. Least what we think is stealing. Because what one think is stealing, another thinks it's original. You're not gonna win every argument.

Still eff him, Pharrell and T.I.

I guess since Pharell and TI weren't on the VMAs getting twerked on by Miley the other night, some people don't realize "Blurred Lines" is their song too.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah, fuck his color. If someone steals, we're gonna call him or her out. Least what we think is stealing. Because what one think is stealing, another thinks it's original. You're not gonna win every argument.

Still eff him, Pharrell and T.I.

I guess since Pharell and TI weren't on the VMAs getting twerked on by Miley the other night, some people don't realize "Blurred Lines" is their song too.

Shoot, look at how the news first broke out, it was all Robin, Robin, Robin but there were two other guilty parties.

It's probably been shared before but I can't help it:

http://whatrhymeswithhug.me/

Robin Thicke's 2 main f*** ups:

1. Showing total disrespect to the legecy of the late Marvin Gaye.
2. Performing on the same stage with Miley Cyrus while she's acting a damn fool.

Because of both of THOSE^ acts of sin, I find this MFer (Robin Thicke) guilty as charge. As a punishment, Robin needs to have his ghetto pass, hood pass, AND his street cred revoke immediately.

Agree?

[Edited 9/3/13 16:31pm]

AlexdeParis said:

phunkdaddy said:

Zannaloaf said: Oh please! I've heard Crosby,Stills,& Nash version and the Isleys version and this is no blatant ripoff. [Edited 8/27/13 13:37pm]

People tend to throw the word "ripoff" around far too easily on here. That being said, it would certainly be much easier to prove infringement here because the melody of the chorus in this song is virtually identical to "Love the One You're With." The chord progressions are similar too for the most part. Anyone who knows the CSN song can sing along with this song effortlessly. It's not quite "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" territory, but it's pretty close.

EXACTLY- anyone not hearing it is not listening. I heard this on the radio the other day and love the track, but then I realized I was singing an Isley Bothers song....by way of Stephen Stills. My point is that this happens a fair amount, but like most things people gang up on one person for it becasue they are target du jour.

TonyVanDam said:

Robin Thicke's 2 main f*** ups:

1. Showing total disrespect to the legecy of the late Marvin Gaye.
2. Performing on the same stage with Miley Cyrus while she's acting a damn fool.

Because of both of THOSE^ acts of sin, I find this MFer (Robin Thicke) guilty as charge. As a publishment, Robin needs to have his ghetto pass, hood pass, AND his street cred revoke immediately.

Agree?

I guess he'll serve the same life sentence Justin Timerlake got 10 years ago.

namepeace said:

TonyVanDam said:

Robin Thicke's 2 main f*** ups:

1. Showing total disrespect to the legecy of the late Marvin Gaye.
2. Performing on the same stage with Miley Cyrus while she's acting a damn fool.

Because of both of THOSE^ acts of sin, I find this MFer (Robin Thicke) guilty as charge. As a publishment, Robin needs to have his ghetto pass, hood pass, AND his street cred revoke immediately.

Agree?

I guess he'll serve the same life sentence Justin Timerlake got 10 years ago.

Justin TimberlKE NEVER HAD A HOOD PASS. He has always been a pop star (NSync).

Robin tried to come up through R&B music. Mainstreamers have always known who Justin Timberlake is. They didn't know Robin until after "Lost Without You", then they were like "That's a white guy?"

He f*cked up and may not have a foundation when he starts to fall off.

BlaqueKnight said:

namepeace said:

I guess he'll serve the same life sentence Justin Timerlake got 10 years ago.

Justin TimberlKE NEVER HAD A HOOD PASS. He has always been a pop star (NSync).

Robin tried to come up through R&B music. Mainstreamers have always known who Justin Timberlake is. They didn't know Robin until after "Lost Without You", then they were like "That's a white guy?"

He f*cked up and may not have a foundation when he starts to fall off.

...and there you have it, the real moral to this debacle of a story.

I think a lot of poeple on here don't understand what is copyrightable.

From my understanding, a song is only copyrighted based on lyrics and melody.

Chord progressions cannot be copyrighted. Otherwise, every standard blues song would be infrignement (I-IV-I-V-I) etc.

I'm not sure but I don't think even riffs can be copyrighted. Mariah's song "Make it ahppen" uses pretty much identical riffs to sections of an older song "I wanna thank you" but her melody and lyrics are completely different.

I admit when I heard Blurred Lines I thought it sounded like Got To Give it Up, but I think it's really the drum track (the cowbells in particular), adn the base line sound similar but I think it's not exactly the same. ANd the rhythm pattern is similar.

So I thought it was a "rip off" too, but legally if it's not the same melody or lyrics I don't think there is a case.

I think Gaga's BOrn This Way is a much bigger rip off or Express Yourself.

Also, all the people saying "sample".... yes if you use the atual sound recording (that is a sample) you ahve to pay. Thick and Pharell didn't do that.

If you "replay" the melody using your own instruments or sing it in your own voice. you still have to pay, but again , they didnt' do that.

BlaqueKnight said:

namepeace said:

I guess he'll serve the same life sentence Justin Timerlake got 10 years ago.

Justin TimberlKE NEVER HAD A HOOD PASS. He has always been a pop star (NSync).

Robin tried to come up through R&B music. Mainstreamers have always known who Justin Timberlake is. They didn't know Robin until after "Lost Without You", then they were like "That's a white guy?"

He f*cked up and may not have a foundation when he starts to fall off.

Agreed, the paths to stardom were different, but converged at some point.

N'Sync had the pop sound, but Justified clearly aimed for the R&B crossover sound, with Pharrell mainly behind the boards. FS/LS and 20/20 aim for an R&B sound. Since FS and Evolution dropped the same year (IIRC), JT and RT had than a few producers and collaborators in common.

It was CLEAR that JT was going for a "pass." The Internets DO show that there is a dispute over whether he actually had it, but if he ever did, it was allegedly revoked after that Super Bowl. That lasted about 10 minutes. 20/20's spent more time atop the R&B charts than it has the pop charts. FS/LS also topped the R&B charts.

JT is a bigger presence in "black music" than most black male R&B singers, which is a HUGE factor in his overall success. Now, RT is as well.

RT started from a very different place, with a quirky mix of musical and personal styles. But he also started as an adult artist, not a boy band star.

But JT and RT are now plowing the same ground and have been for the last several years.

[Edited 9/4/13 11:44am]

[Edited 9/4/13 14:18pm]

Honestly, in what way would this destroy or be negative for Robin's career (as some sound like here)? Nobody, but hardcore music fans care about stuff like this. I'm a hardcore music fan and don't give a crap.

namepeace said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Justin TimberlKE NEVER HAD A HOOD PASS. He has always been a pop star (NSync).

Robin tried to come up through R&B music. Mainstreamers have always known who Justin Timberlake is. They didn't know Robin until after "Lost Without You", then they were like "That's a white guy?"

He f*cked up and may not have a foundation when he starts to fall off.

Agreed, the paths to stardom were different, but converged at some point.

N'Sync had the pop sound, but Justified clearly aimed for the R&B crossover sound, with Pharrell mainly behind the boards. FS/LS and 20/20 aim for an R&B sound. Since FS and Evolution dropped the same year (IIRC), JT and RT had than a few producers and collaborators in common.

It was CLEAR that JT was going for a "pass." The Internets DO show that there is a dispute over whether he actually had it, but if he ever did, it was allegedly revoked after that Super Bowl. That lasted about 10 minutes. 20/20's spent more time atop the R&B charts than it has the pop charts. FS/LS also topped the R&B charts.

JT is a bigger presence in "black music" than most black male R&B singers, which is a HUGE factor in his overall success. Now, RT is as well.

RT started from a very different place, with a quirky mix of musical and personal styles. But he also started as an adult artist, not a boy band star.

But JT and RT are now plowing the same ground and have been for the last several years.

[Edited 9/4/13 11:44am]

[Edited 9/4/13 14:18pm]

This is all true but he just seems phoney to me. His package is phoney. It just seems like he intentionally copies certain black artists sounds because that is what he or label wants to promote but there are far better African American R&B singers that have been making R&B longer than him. I view him as a "pop" star and although he does make "descent" music, I think he just makes that particular type of music because its "safe" for him and he thinks that is what people expects from him. Its not that much difference from 20/20, FSLS, and Justified. Ive heard loads of more inspiring R&B music and much better singers but he is the medias golden boy so they will hype anything he does up

[Edited 9/4/13 21:55pm]

mjscarousal said:

namepeace said:

JT is a bigger presence in "black music" than most black male R&B singers, which is a HUGE factor in his overall success. Now, RT is as well.

This is all true but he just seems phoney to me. His package is phoney. It just seems like he intentionally copies certain black artists sounds because that is what he or label wants to promote but there are far better African American R&B singers that have been making R&B longer than him. I view him as a "pop" star and although he does make "descent" music, I think he just makes that particular type of music because its "safe" for him and he thinks that is what people expects from him. Its not that much difference from 20/20, FSLS, and Justified. Ive heard loads of more inspiring R&B music and much better singers but he is the medias golden boy so they will hype anything he does up

[Edited 9/4/13 21:55pm]

Yes, it's a fact that JT (and now RT) are more visible on the R&B scene than many if not most of their black peers. And that only makes them bigger pop stars because the R&B cred (such as it is) is worth its weight in gold to pop audiences. WHY is a really interesting question for another thread.

JT IS an entertainer -- his modern Rap & Beats sound is only one platform. There are better artists out there (black and white) but JT's been a star for 15+ years and has done TV and film. It's why he's been able to take 6-7 years between albums, it's just another platform. RT's only now experiencing that (type) of stardom.

shorttrini said:

As I sit back and read these comments I can't help but think that, it has more to do with Robin the artist than it does the song. The form of the songs are different, (Marvin used a 16 bar form, (using 5 different chords) that repeats. Robin used an 8 bar form, using only 2 chords that repeat. Okay, sure the drum beats are similar, but I bet you, all of us in this group can name countless songs, from different genres that have the same pattern. All Robin did was write a song in the style of Marvin Gaye, that in and of itself, is no crime. Which why I goe back to my original point of it being more about Robin as an artist, than it does the song.

Yup.

I finally listened to both this morning & I think Thicke is actually in the right here. The style & feel is very similar but not a direct rip of the vocal melody or the bass line.

It's not against the law to write a song that reminds people of another song. We can say Thicke's unoriginal, maybe they sit around and listen to old records and try to come up with something that sounds kind of ilke that but change it just enough so you can't be sued. But that's his right.

A lot of us would just read the headline "Robin Thicke vs Marvin Gaye" and be on Marvin's side without reading anything else. What's Robin Thicke ever done for us compared to the great Marvin? But it's NOT Marvin bringing the suit!

I'm not sure if these newspapers are right in getting the opinion of musicologists, though -- I've taken media law classes, and it's pretty rare for journalists to get the law right. This Forbes article makes the point that in copyright, similarity means "similar in the eyes of the ordinary member of the intended audience." I remember showing one of my friends GTGIU on YouTube (specifically to show her the similarities with Blurred Lines) long before this lawsuit surfaced, and most of the comments on GTGIU at the time were about how it was incredibly similar to BL, how BL used it as the backbone, etc. Sure, the Thicke stans are over there in force now, but if anybody were to dig back in the comments from before the lawsuit you'd see most ordinary listeners felt they were similar. I've also seen lots of blogs (including non-music ones) before the lawsuit who pointed out that GTGIU was the basis for BL.

And if it was about his race, well, I certainly don't remember any backlash against Teena Marie or George Michael. There's a backlash against Robin Thicke because he's a mediocre, overrated narcissist. End of story.

Arbwyth said:

I'm not sure if these newspapers are right in getting the opinion of musicologists, though -- I've taken media law classes, and it's pretty rare for journalists to get the law right. This Forbes article makes the point that in copyright, similarity means "similar in the eyes of the ordinary member of the intended audience." I remember showing one of my friends GTGIU on YouTube (specifically to show her the similarities with Blurred Lines) long before this lawsuit surfaced, and most of the comments on GTGIU at the time were about how it was incredibly similar to BL, how BL used it as the backbone, etc. Sure, the Thicke stans are over there in force now, but if anybody were to dig back in the comments from before the lawsuit you'd see most ordinary listeners felt they were similar. I've also seen lots of blogs (including non-music ones) before the lawsuit who pointed out that GTGIU was the basis for BL.

And if it was about his race, well, I certainly don't remember any backlash against Teena Marie or George Michael. There's a backlash against Robin Thicke because he's a mediocre, overrated narcissist. End of story.

Timmy84 said:

FUCK Robin Thicke.

That's all.

I would hereby like to nominate you for Orger of the year. Or century.