kitbradley said:

So I'm assuming in the album's liner notes, they don't say the song contains a sample of "Got To Give It Up" from Marvin Gaye? I have often times seen that. Where a song was clearly sampled yet was not credited in the liner notes. If this is the case with Robin, it's not fair. The Marvin song is definately sampled so the song writers should definately be compensated for it. I'm assuming Marvin was the writer or a co-writer on "Got To Give It Up"? His estate should be compensated.

It's not a sample.Pharrell rarely ever uses samples in the songs that he produces.

AlexdeParis said:

There clearly isn't a sample being used in the song. That being said, there's more than enough similarity to at least make it to trial.

I'm talking about "Got to Give It Up" of course. The claim that it's similar to "Sexy Ways" is quite ludicrous.

I agree with you on the "Sexy Ways" part.

SoulAlive said:

kitbradley said:

So I'm assuming in the album's liner notes, they don't say the song contains a sample of "Got To Give It Up" from Marvin Gaye? I have often times seen that. Where a song was clearly sampled yet was not credited in the liner notes. If this is the case with Robin, it's not fair. The Marvin song is definately sampled so the song writers should definately be compensated for it. I'm assuming Marvin was the writer or a co-writer on "Got To Give It Up"? His estate should be compensated.

It's not a sample.Pharrell rarely ever uses samples in the songs that he produces.

Saying Pharrell "rarely ever uses samples" means he has used samples at some point and does not exempt him from having done so again, in this particular instance.

Based on just listen on the tracks one after another I don't hear a reason for taking it to court. If they've been threatened by the Gaye family then that's not acceptable either.

AlexdeParis said:

Graycap23 said:

Clearly?

Why do I get hearing Marvin's scream (oooohhh) thru out the entire track?

I've heard "Got to Give It Up" countless times and that scream doesn't sound like it comes from it at all to me. It's a nice effort, but Marvin's screams are all wilder and less controlled. I think it's the fact that it's overlayed over a similar track to GTGIU. I think it sounds much more like MJ than MG.

SeventeenDayze said:

To sue the families of those who created this sound is pretty low.

I think this lawsuit is simply to clarify things and get everything out in the open,to prevent any confusion.Robin and Pharrell seem to be challenging the family's assertion that they stole/sampled the Marvin Gaye track.Marvin's family were threatening them,demanding money and so this is their way of dealing with that.It makes sense to let a judge decide the matter.

As I said earlier,many of today's songs have similiar chords,beats and ideas from old classic songs.But merely "channelling" an old song is not the same thing as stealing it.

SoulAlive said:

SeventeenDayze said:

To sue the families of those who created this sound is pretty low.

I think this lawsuit is simply to clarify things and get everything out in the open,to prevent any confusion.Robin and Pharrell seem to be challenging the family's assertion that they stole/sampled the Marvin Gaye track.Marvin's family were threatening them,demanding money and so this is their way of dealing with that.It makes sense to let a judge decide the matter.

As I said earlier,many of today's songs have similiar chords,beats and ideas from old classic songs.But merely "channelling" an old song is not the same thing as stealing it.

Eaxctly what is the test?

Note 4 note?

Note for note.....excep a slight change?

Didn't Vanilla Ice get in trouble 4 this same thing with Queen?

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

SoulAlive said:

It's not a sample.Pharrell rarely ever uses samples in the songs that he produces.

Saying Pharrell "rarely ever uses samples" means he has used samples at some point and does not exempt him from having done so again, in this particular instance.

If Pharrell had sampled the Marvin Gaye track,he would have cleared it beforehand.He's not dumb He's been in the business long enough to know that samples would have to be cleared/approved.What you hear on the "Blurred Lines" song is not a sample.

Graycap23 said:

SoulAlive said:

I think this lawsuit is simply to clarify things and get everything out in the open,to prevent any confusion.Robin and Pharrell seem to be challenging the family's assertion that they stole/sampled the Marvin Gaye track.Marvin's family were threatening them,demanding money and so this is their way of dealing with that.It makes sense to let a judge decide the matter.

As I said earlier,many of today's songs have similiar chords,beats and ideas from old classic songs.But merely "channelling" an old song is not the same thing as stealing it.

Eaxctly what is the test?

Note 4 note?

Note for note.....excep a slight change?

Didn't Vanilla Ice get in trouble 4 this same thing with Queen?

A judge will decide all of this.

Well, I don't know who's scream it is, Marvin's or Micheal's because I haven't listened to it that closely. From just the brief exposure I've had to the song, I thought they were sampling "Got To Give It Up". Every person I know over the age of 35 who's heard the song has asked me who is the guy doing the "Marvin Gaye song"?

when Pharrell produced Nelly's "Hot In Heeere",he used a sample of Chuck Brown's "Bustin Loose"...it was an obvious sample and it was it credited.I doubt he would use a sample from a high-profile artist (Marvin Gaye) and not give credit.Pharrell has more class than that.

...

[Edited 8/16/13 9:24am]

Graycap23 said:

AlexdeParis said:

I've heard "Got to Give It Up" countless times and that scream doesn't sound like it comes from it at all to me. It's a nice effort, but Marvin's screams are all wilder and less controlled. I think it's the fact that it's overlayed over a similar track to GTGIU. I think it sounds much more like MJ than MG.

Oh hell, somebody better hold back Jermaine!

SoulAlive said:

Lots of today's songs have similiar chords to older songs,but unless they sampled the Marvin Gaye song directly,I don't think there's a case here.

That's very true. It can be tough standard to meet. "Sounds like" isn't always enough. Songs throughout time have sounded like each other. "Feels like" is even more ambiguous.

I'm not saying that Thicke is above reproach in this instance, but, legally, he's not "guilty" simply because someone says his song sounds like another song. A more thorough analysis would have to take place for him to be legally liable for sampling without permission/compensation.

kitbradley said:

Well, I don't know who's scream it is, Marvin's or Micheal's because I haven't listened to it that closely. From just the brief exposure I've had to the song, I thought they were sampling "Got To Give It Up". Every person I know over the age of 35 who's heard the song has asked me who is the guy doing the "Marvin Gaye song"?

play Michael Jackson's "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" and listen to the part where he says,at the beginning....

"you make me feel like....you make me feel like......Woooooohhhh!"

that "Wooooohhhh" is what you hear on "Blurred Lines"

SoulAlive said:

Graycap23 said:

Eaxctly what is the test?

Note 4 note?

Note for note.....excep a slight change?

Didn't Vanilla Ice get in trouble 4 this same thing with Queen?

A judge will decide all of this.

"The music is used to provide a feel, mood, or atmosphere; generally the same as the original. The sampled song will compete directly with the original. It is generally the case that the readily identifiable riffs or hooks in a particular song are what generate the sales."

coltrane3 said:

SoulAlive said:

Lots of today's songs have similiar chords to older songs,but unless they sampled the Marvin Gaye song directly,I don't think there's a case here.

That's very true. It can be tough standard to meet. "Sounds like" isn't always enough. Songs throughout time have sounded like each other. "Feels like" is even more ambiguous.

I'm not saying that Thicke is above reproach in this instance, but, legally, he's not "guilty" simply because someone says his song sounds like another song. A more thorough analysis would have to take place for him to be legally liable for sampling without permission/compensation.

People are saying that the new Katy Perry single sounds like another artist's song.Half of the "new" songs that I hear today,remind me of old songs from the past "Blurred Lines"" is obviously influenced by the Marvin Gaye song,but I wouldn't call it a straight rip-off.

SoulAlive said:

kitbradley said:

Well, I don't know who's scream it is, Marvin's or Micheal's because I haven't listened to it that closely. From just the brief exposure I've had to the song, I thought they were sampling "Got To Give It Up". Every person I know over the age of 35 who's heard the song has asked me who is the guy doing the "Marvin Gaye song"?

play Michael Jackson's "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" and listen to the part where he says,at the beginning....

"you make me feel like....you make me feel like......Woooooohhhh!"

that "Wooooohhhh" is what you hear on "Blurred Lines"

Ok.

I've heard Marvin do that live so I thought it was him.

Graycap23 said:

SoulAlive said:

I think this lawsuit is simply to clarify things and get everything out in the open,to prevent any confusion.Robin and Pharrell seem to be challenging the family's assertion that they stole/sampled the Marvin Gaye track.Marvin's family were threatening them,demanding money and so this is their way of dealing with that.It makes sense to let a judge decide the matter.

As I said earlier,many of today's songs have similiar chords,beats and ideas from old classic songs.But merely "channelling" an old song is not the same thing as stealing it.

Eaxctly what is the test?

Note 4 note?

Note for note.....excep a slight change?

Didn't Vanilla Ice get in trouble 4 this same thing with Queen?

I'm not trying to come off as an apologist, but I think it's more than a slight change. I remember you didn't even notice the similarities until someone pointed it out here. Part of what I loved about the song from the beginning is that it sounded like they tried to pay tribute to one of Marvin's biggest hits while still coming up with something fresh. It's clearly the inspiration, but I don't think it's a ripoff. I think they thought they were being clever. I'd agree, but I can see how some wouldn't.

(And at the risk of changing the subject and having people throw things at me, I'd add that this should all be a moot point because a 36-year-old song written by a man who died 29 years ago should be in the public domain anyway.)

I'm still shocked Hall & Oates didn't sue Outkast because I swear "Ms. Jackson" has the same chord progression as "Out of Touch." I've never heard the Outkast song without immediately thinking of H&O. Maybe I've just been hearing things?

AlexdeParis said:

Graycap23 said:

Eaxctly what is the test?

Note 4 note?

Note for note.....excep a slight change?

Didn't Vanilla Ice get in trouble 4 this same thing with Queen?

I'm not trying to come off as an apologist, but I think it's more than a slight change. I remember you didn't even notice the similarities until someone pointed it out here. Part of what I loved about the song from the beginning is that it sounded like they tried to pay tribute to one of Marvin's biggest hits while still coming up with something fresh. It's clearly the inspiration, but I don't think it's a ripoff. I think they thought they were being clever. I'd agree, but I can see how some wouldn't.

(And at the risk of changing the subject and having people throw things at me, I'd add that this should all be a moot point because a 36-year-old song written by a man who died 29 years ago should be in the public domain anyway.)

I knew it was from somewhere I just didn't know where because I've yet 2 actually listened 2 the song closely. Every time I've heard the song, it was on my computer with the volume relatively low. Anyone listening 2 the song, would immediately know that music is from something "old school".

[Edited 8/16/13 9:41am]

AlexdeParis said:

I'm still shocked Hall & Oates didn't sue Outkast because I swear "Ms. Jackson" has the same chord progression as "Out of Touch." I've never heard the Outkast song without immediately thinking of H&O. Maybe I've just been hearing things?

So many songs sound like other songs,H&O probably thought "why bother?" Michael Jackson created "Billie Jean" by using a few elements of "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)" but H&O was okay with that.It's pop music,ideas are frequently recycled.

Graycap23 said:

SoulAlive said:

A judge will decide all of this.

"The music is used to provide a feel, mood, or atmosphere; generally the same as the original. The sampled song will compete directly with the original. It is generally the case that the readily identifiable riffs or hooks in a particular song are what generate the sales."

and this is why sampling has proliferated and became as prolific as it has over the past 26 years....for that very reason...

the record executives know the riffs and hooks would go over the ears of the new generation of listerners when this pop ascension movement started

so did the producers and so did the artists.....they knew it.....

people were not looking at the song credits as to who actually did what, they were caught up in the moment

the adult following had been pushed out by the end of teh 80s

the sales initially went off the roof because sampling walked in unison with the rising age of video, but now the industry has to come up w/every gimmick imaginable to sale a record

if sampling became illegal.....

there would be hours of dead air on the radio, or programmers would revert back to playing the very classic songs that have been hijacked time and time again...

culture has been obliterated and thats' why it's remote that we here anything authentic anymore

what's the saying "be careful what you wish for because you just may get it, and when you get it your got, because there aint no other place to go to"...

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

WTF????

They know good and damn well that's the music from GTGIU!

The question is WHO wrote the music and therefore owns the copyright to it, that's not named in this lawsuit?

One listen shows that while yes, they did try to "evoke" "GTGIU", I cannot hear a single discernible sample used in Thicke's "hit". The Rhodes organ and drums were made to SOUND LIKE the original, but having used samples in some of my work, the time (not to mention money) it would take to use samples here isn't worth it. As SoulAlive pointed out, Pharrell used Chuck Brown's "Busting Loose", and acknowledged it. I truly doubt he thought he could pull a fast one on listeners in order to take credit and save some money.

While the lawsuit seems "low" on the outset, I'd have to side with team "Blurred Lines" on this one. They are protecting their NEW composition . Simple as that.

All that said, I can't stand "BL". I find it corny as fuck and don't understand how it became the "hit" it did.

AlexdeParis said:

I'm still shocked Hall & Oates didn't sue Outkast because I swear "Ms. Jackson" has the same chord progression as "Out of Touch." I've never heard the Outkast song without immediately thinking of H&O. Maybe I've just been hearing things?

I would agree if BL just made people "think of" GTGIU but I personally hear GTGIU when I hear BL. Since Robin and crew were first to draw the line in the sand by filing their lawsuit, we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

Graycap23 said:

AlexdeParis said:

I'm not trying to come off as an apologist, but I think it's more than a slight change. I remember you didn't even notice the similarities until someone pointed it out here. Part of what I loved about the song from the beginning is that it sounded like they tried to pay tribute to one of Marvin's biggest hits while still coming up with something fresh. It's clearly the inspiration, but I don't think it's a ripoff. I think they thought they were being clever. I'd agree, but I can see how some wouldn't.

(And at the risk of changing the subject and having people throw things at me, I'd add that this should all be a moot point because a 36-year-old song written by a man who died 29 years ago should be in the public domain anyway.)

I knew it was from somewhere I just didn't know where because I've yet 2 actually listened 2 the song closely. Every time I've heard the song, it was on my computer with the volume relatively low. Anyone listening 2 the song, would immediately know that music is from something "old school".

Definitely.

mjscarousal said:

Very disappointed in Robin. This man is really suing the Marvin Gaye family

He should be kissing the ground they walk on and respectfully giving them the credit since it was obviously sampled or inspired by Got To Give It Up.

I dont know what to think. Robin is cool I guess but these artists out now have no respect for the legendary artists This move by Thicke is straight up tacky... Im actually quite shocked.

it's not quite that severe Robin and Pharrell are simply trying to get everything clarified.They have been threatened by Marvin's estate,so they want to clarify everything and have it all settled.Their view is that the music on "Blurred Lines" was not sampled/stolen from the Marvin Gaye classic and they simply want a judge to settle it.I agree with what they're doing.

Robin isn't really "suing" Marvin's family...he's just protecting his song.

CocoRock said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

The question is WHO wrote the music and therefore owns the copyright to it, that's not named in this lawsuit?

One listen shows that while yes, they did try to "evoke" "GTGIU", I cannot hear a single discernible sample used in Thicke's "hit". The Rhodes organ and drums were made to SOUND LIKE the original, but having used samples in some of my work, the time (not to mention money) it would take to use samples here isn't worth it. As SoulAlive pointed out, Pharrell used Chuck Brown's "Busting Loose", and acknowledged it. I truly doubt he thought he could pull a fast one on listeners in order to take credit and save some money.

While the lawsuit seems "low" on the outset, I'd have to side with team "Blurred Lines" on this one. They are protecting their NEW composition . Simple as that.

This is what I was saying. It's clearly supposed to sound like it without being a straight copy. I don't think I can believe industry veterans in 2013 would sample one of Marvin Gaye's most successful singles without giving credit.

All that said, I can't stand "BL". I find it corny as fuck and don't understand how it became the "hit" it did.

You crazy, this joint is fire! Every 36 years, this groove goes straight to #1.

AlexdeParis said:

CocoRock said:

This is what I was saying. It's clearly supposed to sound like it without being a straight copy. I don't think I can believe industry veterans in 2013 would sample one of Marvin Gaye's most successful singles without giving credit.

All that said, I can't stand "BL". I find it corny as fuck and don't understand how it became the "hit" it did.

You crazy, this joint is fire! Every 36 years, this groove goes straight to #1.

George Clinton just tweeted:

George Clinton ✔ @george_clinton

No sample of #Funkadelic's 'Sexy Ways' in @RobinThicke's 'Blurred Lines' - yet Armen Boladian thinks so? We support @RobinThicke @Pharrell!

AlexdeParis said:

CocoRock said:

This is what I was saying. It's clearly supposed to sound like it without being a straight copy. I don't think I can believe industry veterans in 2013 would sample one of Marvin Gaye's most successful singles without giving credit.

All that said, I can't stand "BL". I find it corny as fuck and don't understand how it became the "hit" it did.

You crazy, this joint is fire! Every 36 years, this groove goes straight to #1.

And WHO made the "groove"?