AlexdeParis said:

Scorp said:

amen

I think you missed the sarcasm.

Aaliyah featuring Slick Rick "Got To Give It Up"

Did Robin Thicke Blur Lin...ARE SONGS]

[Edited 8/17/13 16:24pm]

I'd be interested to know how copyright cases around issues like this one actually work - i.e. cases where there's no sample, but there's a very close resemblance of elements of the composition; perhaps even close enough to suggest that the later one has been based on the first. I realise that it's very often the case that what distinguishes the musical side of a piece of work is its melody and chord sequence, and thus that constitutes the essence of what's owned, but that surely can't be all that's legally 'protectable'.

I mean, popular music has constantly evolved a lot during the period it's been possibly to make a lot of money off of the royalties of records, and I'm guessing copyright law must have evolved with it, such that it's not simply words/melody/chords. Look at the way the more groove-based stuff you hear today is often credited to various producers and those involved with making it. That's quite different to some guy in a room in Tin Pan Alley coming up with a melody and a chord sequence, and I'm guessing it reflects the fact that if the present-day writer of the melody and chords (if it's not just all on one chord, or no chords!) tried to claim sole ownership, he could be successfully challenged. Also, there have been earlier cases where contributors of other elements have been successful in getting a piece of the pie (admittedly, outside the U.S.) - e.g. the flute in Land Down Under, or the organist in Whiter Shade of Pale.

I would guess that, in principle, it ultimately comes down to what a jury in a trial - guided, I suppose, by 'expert witnesses' from each side - would agree did or didn't constitute theft of intellectual property. And, in practice (here's the rub!), it would come down to who's got the legal clout, and who can successfully play the system to protect their interests. I mean, Robin and his 'people' are one up by doing the latter, but that must be because they realise there's at least a chance that the former would go against them.

I tell you if you plot both basslines onto a staff and compare them, you won't have a case.

Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it. ~ John Lennon

Cinny said:

I also have perspective that this has notched up interest in "Got To Give It Up" and probably Marvin Gaye's catalog for a new generation, or an audience that missed it the first time around.

.

Tally for a new hit, and a tally for a catalog sale. This is a music win-win.

Got To Give It Up is already a staple on old school adult urban radio stations. I hear it

at least 2 to 3 times a week. It's cool if a the new generation catch on but this song

never went anywhere and it's also still a staple in nightclubs. No disrespect to Robin but

it's not like Marvin's version disappeared or been forgotten.

phunkdaddy said:

old school adult urban

This is what I mean about Blurred Lines reaching an audience outside of that box.

I don't see Robin or Pharrell winning this suit. The Gaye estate is fiercely protective of Marvin's legacy. Its the reason why they won't approve of any of his muziq being used in any attempts at making movies on Marvin's life. Most likely their going to have to settle for major undisclosed funds or stop distribution of the mega hit.

TonyVanDam said:

Zannaloaf said:

Marvin borrowed that WOOOOOH from Ronald Isley. Go check out some early Isley Brothers. Stone cold ripoff.

Which tracks?

Cinny said:

MickyDolenz said:

AlexdeParis said:

Cinny said:

I tell you if you plot both basslines onto a staff and compare them, you won't have a case.

Exactly. It's the juxtaposition of the elements that simulates the vibe of the song, which is (1) legal and (2) exactly what they were attempting. I haven't heard either in a while, but I believe almost accomplished the same thing musically with "Cream" (although a part of the melody is very similar to "Bang a Gong").

Yeah it is more the choice of instruments and HOW they are playing.

AlexdeParis said:

MickyDolenz said:

Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it. ~ John Lennon

This is my 2nd favorite quote from Lennon. If the first isn't obvious, it's the one about growing up.

Here's a recent quote by John Oates:

.

There’s also a legend that Hall & Oates’ No.1 hit “I Can’t Go For That” served as the inspiration for a hit for another artist later on – Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean.” According to John himself, the legend of MJ using the duo’s bass riff in “Billie Jean” wasn’t just a myth – it’s actually true.

“Well, that’s what he told us,” John recalled. “[Michael] came to one of our shows one year…he said that he used to love to work out his dance choreography routines to that song. Then he just eventually took the idea and ran with it.”

.

"Michael Jackson once said directly to me that he hoped I didn't mind that he copped that groove. That's okay; it's something we all do." ~ Daryl Hall

.

George Harrison speaking about the My Sweet Lord lawsuit. Go to around 0:20. George later bought the publishing to He's So Fine, so he made money from both songs.

[Edited 8/17/13 20:00pm]

I was going to bring up "My Sweet Lord" as an example of how a court might decide what is enfringement but I actually find that song to be way too close to "He's So Fine".

I know "Blurred Lines" is not as close to "Got To Give It Up" as "My Sweet Lord" is to "He's So Fine".

Cinny said:

I was going to bring up "My Sweet Lord" as an example of how a court might decide what is enfringement but I actually find that song to be way too close to "He's So Fine".

George said that the musicologists in court played around 25 songs that had the same notes and sound. Daryl Hall said that everyone copies. Even though they are by the same writers/producers, The Whispers' Rock Steady & Paula Abdul's Knocked Out are pretty much the same song with different lyrics. So are Right Now by Al B. Sure! and Alone With You by Tevin Campbell, the chorus to both even have just about identical words. Lots of songs sound alike, and it happened long before sampling machines were invented. On occasion, James Brown and the Bar Kays have been known to copy other songs.

.

Here's the 4 Chord Song:

At the beginning of this song is a riff used on a lot of old blues songs:

This is fun. Someone should start a match this groove thread.

Shawy89 said:

Y not put Marvine Gay's GTGIU in the credits pannel? No big deal, Thicke....

Because you have to pay.

Cinny said:

I was going to bring up "My Sweet Lord" as an example of how a court might decide what is enfringement but I actually find that song to be way too close to "He's So Fine".

I know "Blurred Lines" is not as close to "Got To Give It Up" as "My Sweet Lord" is to "He's So Fine".

Not even close. "My Sweet Lord" is clearly a rip-off (conscious or not) of "He's So Fine." It's also a much better song, so there's that.

listen at 18:51

[Edited 8/17/13 23:38pm]

I'm pretty sure there's no legally established basis for what constitutes a sample -- and even if there is, I really, really doubt that ONLY jacking a melody counts as a sample. If that's the case, why even bother paying producers since that would essentially mean their original work doesn't matter as long as somebody else wrote the melody? Honestly, the first time I heard Blurred Lines, I immediately thought of Got to Give it Up -- I don't think there's much similarity in the Funkadelic song, but I find it absolutely STUNNING that anybody would say BL and GTGIU aren't damn near the same EXCEPT for the melody. I always tend to listen to my music on headphones, so I don't know if that makes the similarities more obvious or what. At any rate, I've been telling everybody since Blurred Lines came out that they should just listen to Marvin's song instead since, you know, Marvin wasn't a flaming misogynist.

Also, let's remember that Thicke and his attorneys said there are "no similarities" between Blurred Lines and Got to Give it Up. I'm sorry, but only a total lunatic would think there are no similarities between the two.

Seems like Robin Thicke is going the route of a colonist on this one....show up, steal it and pretend it was yours all along.

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?

Also, tons of people on blogs, on YouTube, Facebook, and everywhere have been saying since Blurred Lines came out that it copies GTGIU -- go back to the older YouTube comments on both the short and long version of GTGIU, and you'll see that folks were talking about Blurred Lines ripping Marvin off long before Thicke's weird-ass preemptive lawsuit. I highly doubt that all these people just all independently of one another said Blurred Lines copied Got to Give it Up in some kind of freak coincidence.

AlexdeParis said:

Cinny said:

I was going to bring up "My Sweet Lord" as an example of how a court might decide what is enfringement but I actually find that song to be way too close to "He's So Fine".

I know "Blurred Lines" is not as close to "Got To Give It Up" as "My Sweet Lord" is to "He's So Fine".

Not even close. "My Sweet Lord" is clearly a rip-off (conscious or not) of "He's So Fine." It's also a much better song, so there's that.

It's like I said earlier....many songs have similiar chords/melodies.We mentioned "Billie Jean"/I Can't Go For That",but someone on this site once mentioned that "Billie Jean" actually borrows from Steely Dan's "Do It Again" not sure I see alot of similarity there,but it proves that,in pop music, everything is influeced by what came before it.

speaking of "Billie Jean"....Billy Ocean's 1984 hit "Carribean Queen (No More Love On The Run)" borrows heavily from the MJ hit...far more than "Blurred Lines" borrows from GTGIU.

Robin Thicke Reveals Origins of "Blurred Lines"

Robin Thicke's ubiquitous R&B-pop hit "Blurred Lines" has owned the No. 1 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 for the past seven weeks—the most time spent atop the chart this year. But the track's inspiration extends far beyond 2013. The Los Angeles blue-eyed soul singer tells Fuse that a No. 1 hit in 1977 by Marvin Gaye helped shape "Blurred Lines."

Thicke, 36, recalls the studio session with Pharrell that resulted in the mega hit. "I said [to Pharrell], 'I'd love to do something like 'Got to Give It Up,'" Thicke tells Fuse. "Pharrell and I started messing with drums, then he said the, 'Hey hey hey!' [line]. I hopped in the booth and the rest just came flying out."

Easy enough! But how about that NSFW video full of nude models? Well, following sexy visuals for past singles "Sex Therapy" and "Love After War," which involved Versailles-gaudy mansions, lingerie and low-lit, soap opera-worthy bedroom action, Thicke was aiming for a different kind of arousal.

"I wanted to do something funny and silly," he adds. "I had just done [parody show] Real Husbands of Hollywood and had such a great time doing comedy. I'd never done a video like that. [Pharrell, T.I. and I] were doing our old man barbeque dances and having a blast."

And while "Blurred Lines" is unquestionably the biggest hit of his career, Thicke admits he's already sick of the song, but adds, "I will happily sing it for the rest of my life. You can be sure of that."

http://www.fuse.tv/videos...-interview

kitbradley said:

This is a smart marketing move. The "scandal" will cause enough people to go to youtube to listen to the song and, therefore, help keep it in the #1 spot on Billboard a little while longer.

I think that the various "scandals" associated with this song,is one of the reasons why it's become a massive hit First,there was the video,then the R-rated version of the video,and then the absurd claims that the song lyrics are "rape-y" all of that stuff has kept this song in the public's mind.Even as we speak,the song is still Number One on the charts.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

After reading the lawsuit, this is the part that stands out to me:

(b) the Gayes do not have an interest in the copyright to the composition "Got To Give It Up" sufficient to confer standing on them to pursue claims of infringement of that composition;

If Marvin's family feels like this song is a straight rip-off of "Got To Be Enough",why didn't they simply file a lawsuit already? Notice that they have not even responded to Robin's lawsuit yet.I'm not sure that they are truly confident that they have a case.Pharrell and Robin,on the other hand,seem totally prepared to prove their side.

This MF done lost his damn mind; him and fake ass Pharrell.

SoulAlive said:

speaking of "Billie Jean"....Billy Ocean's 1984 hit "Carribean Queen (No More Love On The Run)" borrows heavily from the MJ hit...far more than "Blurred Lines" borrows from GTGIU.

I don't really like Caribbean Queen, but I disagree. The synth and bassline and the guitar lick are really similar, but Caribbean Queen doesn't rely on Billie Jean for its entire groove or sound -- there are a lot of elements in CQ aside from what it takes from Billie Jean. If you look at it as a full package, Blurred Lines is a bigger ripoff. Basically everything that's awesome and memorable about Blurred Lines is from GTGIU, and once you take out the parts from GTGIU, there's hardly anything left to the song. The melody isn't really very catchy without the production, and the lyrics can be interpreted as completely inane to completely hideous. Point blank, nobody is buying Blurred Lines because they like the melody or the words (good gods, if anybody likes the words, I will kill myself tomorrow). People are buying it or listening to it for the elements it took from GTGIU, and those elements undoubtedly took more time and craft to create than the damn words and melody. When people say they like BL because it's different from anything on the radio right now, they're not saying it's because hearing about tearing a woman's ass in two is something that really makes their life complete -- it's because of everything in the song EXCEPT the melody and words. And those memorable parts came from Marvin (and the tiny MJ sample). If Men At Work got in trouble for Down Under, Thicke desperately needs to get in some shit for this, too. I'm not sure how differently Australian courts view copyright from American ones, but I think if you get a judge who actually remembers GTGIU from its heyday, things won't go so well for Thicke.

Interestingly enough, if you Google "Take That To the Bank" and "Robin Thicke," the second result is the YouTube audio of "Ain't No Hat For That." I hadn't heard Thicke's song, but the similarities are really uncanny. In that one, even the melody is similar. I also hope Shalamar comes forward and points this out.

Also, I stand corrected on saying that this is probably a sample, since it seems like they just re-did the production of GTGIU rather than directly using the recording (although there are one or two parts that I'm not entirely certain of even on that). However, sampling is far from the only form of musical copyright infringement, so I'm not sure why there's such a huge fixation here on whether it is or isn't a direct sample. If it copies Marvin too closely, it's infringement regardless of the technology used.

[Edited 8/18/13 2:08am]