purplethunder3121 said:

babynoz said:

I wish that daggone Prince would turn Paisley Park into a music school.

The reason that the button pushers got their feet in the door in the first place is because the suits wanted to produce music on the cheap.


You get what you pay for...too many souless, assembly line compositions from flavor of the month producers.

Not all, but too many so called artists are more into their "brand" than caring about honing their craft.

Hell, branding used to be something you did to cattle or slaves.

It all started with The Mickey Mouse Club!?!

babynoz said:

nd33 said:

Or does that line borrow from this more which came out the same year as "Oops"?

3 out of 5 words are the same - "Funk you right on up" vs "Uptown funk you up".

.

.

Perhaps those songs from 1979 need to battle each other in the court room first and then the winner can move on to the final to battle "Uptown Funk". This is what music is all about, lawyers having a steady line of lucrative work

I'm ashamed to say that I hadn't heard this before--I knew the name "The Sequence" and I knew that Angie Stone had been a member, but I had never heard any of their tracks. I had, of course, heard the "Ring Ding Dong" bit--from Dr. Dre's use of it. Anyway, apparently, like everyone else tied to Sugarhill Records, they got worked out of their just deserts, and according to an Ebony interview with Stone (http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/interview-angie-stone-soul-on-the-outside-488/2#axzz3Ubc02hVB), Sylvia Robinson wound up selling the publishing to Dre, so he actually owns this one (the following is from the interview):

"Our song “Funk You Up,” that we wrote, Sylvia took 25% of publishing which left us 75%. Dr. Dre cut the song “Keep Their Heads Ringin’” and when I looked up we all had was 6%. Sylvia had sold the licensing and rights to the song over to Dr. Dre. Right now to the day Dr. Dre is collecting publishing on a song we wrote. . . . It is our legacy and we have Dr. Dre collecting publishing on our song. . . . .Can I please have my publishing back because it was never hers to sell?’

Maybe that's what people need to do... buy the publishing first (before they release something based on it that's gonna make a ton of money)--then they're in the clear. Some of these tracks aren't making anything currently, so you might be able to pay more than the current owners expect it's going to make--then, once you have the rights, then you reveal your smash hit. Do it through some round about way, so people don't know it's Pharrell or some other hit maker planning to rework it in to something profitable.

All you've got to do is be real confident it'll pay off. And these people know what's gonna work--that's why they're where they are.

I'm not serious--though I did find the Dr. Dre bought it out from under them story interesting. So, yeah, he might want to sue.

The line is pretty much the same. I just checked it out.

... but, it's just a short and overly simplistic line. As far as I can tell, it's just a rhythmic figure and there aren't even pitch variations present. Starting to sue people because of these type of things that kids could come up with on a whim seems tragicomical. Demanding millions because someone lifted something from your records that is almost embarrassing in its simplicity just makes everyone look really bad in the process.

... and don't give me that "real music" and "young talentless celebrity whores stealing from past generations" nonsense. The original line has less musical sophistication to it than "Itsy Bitsy Spider" if you want to put it that way.

[Edited 3/17/15 2:37am]

babynoz said:

Graycap23 said:

It's funny........it is mostly the button pushers that we are discussing, not actual musicians.

That's what zannaloaf doesn't understand.

I don't understand what's supposed to be the point you two are trying to make either.

Applying laws arbitrarily on some people while not applying them on others is not something that usually results in anything good. Especially when it's based on very loose interpretations of the existing laws as was the case with "Blurred Lines".

Lol simply hilarious. Once it's such a super hit and breaking records all over people quickly change their tune. Especially after "Blurred Lines". Look at Uncle Charlie just a few months ago. Ohhh and it seems the "originators" don't seem to mind too much according to these official tweets. Too bad...Music has been "inspired" or lifting from each other for decades. Yes including our man Prince did so. Maybe some of you need to re-evaluate what you're upset with exactly whenever this song and topic comes up.

I rest my case.

dollarsandcheese said:

Lol simply hilarious. Once it's such a super hit and breaking records all over people quickly change their tune. Especially after "Blurred Lines". Look at Uncle Charlie just a few months ago. Ohhh and it seems the "originators" don't seem to mind too much according to these official tweets. Too bad...Music has been "inspired" or lifting from each other for decades. Yes including our man Prince did so. Maybe some of you need to re-evaluate what you're upset with exactly whenever this song and topic comes up.

I rest my case.

.

I think it's true that the artists themselves aren't as stuck up on the sharing of ideas and taking inspiration from others as the people surrounding artists such as their family, lawyers and representatives. Artists know how it go. We're all inspired, by something, somewhere and that will always reflect through our work.

.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Marvin was still around that he'd say the same as Stevie Wonder and have let Blurred Lines do it's thing without any fuss.

.

dollarsandcheese said:

Lol simply hilarious. Once it's such a super hit and breaking records all over people quickly change their tune. Especially after "Blurred Lines". Look at Uncle Charlie just a few months ago. Ohhh and it seems the "originators" don't seem to mind too much according to these official tweets. Too bad...Music has been "inspired" or lifting from each other for decades. Yes including our man Prince did so. Maybe some of you need to re-evaluate what you're upset with exactly whenever this song and topic comes up.

I rest my case.

LOL! Charlie Wilson may own Urban Adult Contemporary radio but he's making no where near the bread Bruno Mars is making. Despite all of the fake compliments people in the industry give each other, at the end of the day, it's all about the almighty dollar! Again, it's called the music BUSINESS. These people are not in the business because it's their favorite past time. They are in it to make MONEY. It's their job. And any opportunity they get to make some serious dough, most are going to take advantage of it.

I've never heard this Bruno Mars song but apparently, it was pretty big and made a lot of money. If it truly is an obvious rip-off of a Gap Band song that Charlie wrote or owns the rights to, then he would be a fool not to want in on the profits.

Ok, just take a look at the sheet music:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/...ad_web.png

It's marked as a percussive line on the sheet and there aren't even any pitch changes. A very rudimentary pattern that's just repeated.

I seriously don't think you should be allowed to copyright that. Sure, you can have a copyright on the lyrics to that repeated chant and the sound recording of it, but the chant itself and the rhythm it's based on, no. It's not unique to this recording at all.

Notice how all of these copyright cases are always about some really simplistic stuff?

novabrkr said:

Ok, just take a look at the sheet music:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/...ad_web.png

It's marked as a percussive line on the sheet and there aren't even any pitch changes. A very rudimentary pattern that's just repeated.

I seriously don't think you should be allowed to copyright that. Sure, you can have a copyright on the lyrics to that repeated chant and the sound recording of it, but the chant itself and the rhythm it's based on, no. It's not unique to this recording at all.

Notice how all of these copyright cases are always about some really simplistic stuff?

How obvious be it be on a non-simple track?

nd33 said:

One of these days, we all need to have a serious talk about Erykah Badu and her 'borrowing'....

novabrkr said:

babynoz said:

That's what zannaloaf doesn't understand.

I don't understand what's supposed to be the point you two are trying to make either.

Applying laws arbitrarily on some people while not applying them on others is not something that usually results in anything good. Especially when it's based on very loose interpretations of the existing laws as was the case with "Blurred Lines".

It's not complicated....there is no legal standard or precedent and until one is established these issues will continue to be decided on a case by case basis. Simple.

Last week Chris Hayes interviewed an attorney on MSNBC and he said that everyone assumes there is a legal precedent for this but there isn't.

Remember, the jury did not hear either song. Thicke and Pharrell basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with their own mouths.

What I don't understand is why everybody has their hair on fire like this is the first case of its kind....it's not.

I doubt this case will set a precedent either.

[Edited 3/17/15 9:54am]

This article explains it very well. People who think that Blurred lines in going to open some kind of floodgate need to chill.


http://www.billboard.com/...e-copycats



Why the 'Blurred Lines' Verdict Is an Uphill Battle for Copycats


By Eriq Gardner | March 13, 2015 11:30 AM EDT
Robin Thicke and Pharrell in Blurred Lines


In the music business, few things are as sacrosanct as credit and compensation. Inevitably, many aggrieved songwriters will hear news of the nearly $7.4 million verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for lifting from Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" to create "Blurred Lines" and consider it to be a sign that filing a copyright lawsuit makes sense.

In the days since the jury read the verdict -- which Howard King, Thicke and Williams' attorney, says he will appeal -- opinions of the verdict range from "ridiculously problematic" to cheers of "no more plagiarism… no more interpolating." The attitudes are perhaps reflective of larger ones -- confirmation that the expansive scope of copyright is eating the young, comeuppance for artist exploitation, a sign that the law trails modernity.


Yet for all the controversy that the "Blurred Lines" case has generated, the verdict is itself hollow. Make no mistake: it will be talked about decades from now, as we do about the 1976 ruling determining that George Harrison made a "subconscious" infringement on "He's So Fine" to create "My Sweet Lord." But even after hearing musicologists break down the songs in question -- not to mention Robin Thicke playing a piano medley on the witness stand in an effort to demonstrate how one song can influence another -- the five women and three men who comprised the "Blurred Lines" jury hardly are Supreme Court justices. There's not much legal precedent from the jury's decision, and every reason to believe it will be a rare one.

Some things do figure to change thanks to the highly publicized victory for Gaye's family. But first, and perhaps more significantly, several things won't.

For every "Blurred Lines" verdict, there are hundreds of unsuccessful lawsuits alleging song theft. Ask Kanye West, Coldplay and Elton John, all of whom have killed lawsuits in recent years without ever having to take a witness stand. Federal judges simply won't tolerate allegations concerning the infringement of unprotected, generic ideas -- and any attorney not warning clients of the long odds is committing borderline malpractice.


Anyone seeking a reason why the "Blurred Lines" verdict was different should start with Gaye's popularity: Not every musician has a Wikipedia page with a substantial section on "legacy," but Gaye did. There was never any doubt that Williams had access to "Got to Give It Up" -- indeed, he and Thicke admitted they were influenced by the song. Under what's known as the "inverse ratio rule," plaintiffs have a lower standard of proof of similarity when a high degree of access is shown, and while the "Blurred Lines" judge didn't cite the rule in allowing a trial, it's easy to imagine that he respected Gaye's name enough to let a jury decide the issue of copyright infringement. Once the case got into the hands of laymen, all bets were off.

Now, dozens in the music industry are expressing concern. Veteran publisher Richard Stumpf, chief executive of Atlas Music Group, says that a musician's subconscious influences now present a "scary situation." Attorney Larry Iser believes it might "inspire other lawyers to sue on genre and feel instead of the song itself." Glen Rothstein, another lawyer, says it could be a "game changer" for artistic freedom. Time will tell. But if history is any guide, even a lawsuit the size of "Blurred Lines" won't hold back artists from pushing boundaries. Ricky Reed, a producer/songwriter who has worked with Jason Derulo, Pitbull and -- of all people -- Thicke, says, "The creative community should not write from a place of fear. We will not censor ourselves."

If anything does shift as a result of the "Blurred Lines" verdict, it could be tactics.

Major artists from years past may feel encouraged by the verdict to attempt to wrangle a piece of profits through settlement, as Tom Petty did against Sam Smith over "Stay With Me." Some might even try lawsuits. When they do angle for a percentage, they'll have a nice round number shoot for: 50 percent. In awarding damages, the "Blurred Lines" jury came to $4 million, which was half of the publishing income, according to testimony at trial. (An additional $3.4 million was awarded in profits.) Asking for an equal share -- with nods to the "Blurred Lines" case -- may become the new standard.


Songwriters, publishers and record companies on the defensive still have wind at their backs. As mentioned, for all the "Blurred Lines" hullabaloo, most plaintiffs won't have Gaye's stature and will still be burdened by a trail of unsuccessful suits demonstrating that proof of similarity won't come easy. In fact, in the days leading up to the trial, the Gayes' lawyer worried that pre-trial rulings that limited the scope of copyright claims and evidence would open the doors to wholesale infringement of classic songs.

Once legal letters come, they'll be dealt with accordingly. Just don't expect those on the receiving end to make a rush to the courthouse like the one that Thicke and Williams made by pre-emptively suing the Gayes in the summer of 2013, which some legal experts now feel was a mistake. It's one thing to shrug off an alleged infringement as nothing more than the lifting of feeling. It's quite something else to invite a long and nasty legal battle with the possibility of a jury's unpredictability.

babynoz said:

This article explains it very well. People who think that Blurred lines in going to open some kind of floodgate need to chill.


http://www.billboard.com/...e-copycats



Why the 'Blurred Lines' Verdict Is an Uphill Battle for Copycats


By Eriq Gardner | March 13, 2015 11:30 AM EDT
Robin Thicke and Pharrell in Blurred Lines


In the music business, few things are as sacrosanct as credit and compensation. Inevitably, many aggrieved songwriters will hear news of the nearly $7.4 million verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for lifting from Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" to create "Blurred Lines" and consider it to be a sign that filing a copyright lawsuit makes sense.

In the days since the jury read the verdict -- which Howard King, Thicke and Williams' attorney, says he will appeal -- opinions of the verdict range from "ridiculously problematic" to cheers of "no more plagiarism… no more interpolating." The attitudes are perhaps reflective of larger ones -- confirmation that the expansive scope of copyright is eating the young, comeuppance for artist exploitation, a sign that the law trails modernity.


Yet for all the controversy that the "Blurred Lines" case has generated, the verdict is itself hollow. Make no mistake: it will be talked about decades from now, as we do about the 1976 ruling determining that George Harrison made a "subconscious" infringement on "He's So Fine" to create "My Sweet Lord." But even after hearing musicologists break down the songs in question -- not to mention Robin Thicke playing a piano medley on the witness stand in an effort to demonstrate how one song can influence another -- the five women and three men who comprised the "Blurred Lines" jury hardly are Supreme Court justices. There's not much legal precedent from the jury's decision, and every reason to believe it will be a rare one.

Some things do figure to change thanks to the highly publicized victory for Gaye's family. But first, and perhaps more significantly, several things won't.

For every "Blurred Lines" verdict, there are hundreds of unsuccessful lawsuits alleging song theft. Ask Kanye West, Coldplay and Elton John, all of whom have killed lawsuits in recent years without ever having to take a witness stand. Federal judges simply won't tolerate allegations concerning the infringement of unprotected, generic ideas -- and any attorney not warning clients of the long odds is committing borderline malpractice.


Anyone seeking a reason why the "Blurred Lines" verdict was different should start with Gaye's popularity: Not every musician has a Wikipedia page with a substantial section on "legacy," but Gaye did. There was never any doubt that Williams had access to "Got to Give It Up" -- indeed, he and Thicke admitted they were influenced by the song. Under what's known as the "inverse ratio rule," plaintiffs have a lower standard of proof of similarity when a high degree of access is shown, and while the "Blurred Lines" judge didn't cite the rule in allowing a trial, it's easy to imagine that he respected Gaye's name enough to let a jury decide the issue of copyright infringement. Once the case got into the hands of laymen, all bets were off.

Now, dozens in the music industry are expressing concern. Veteran publisher Richard Stumpf, chief executive of Atlas Music Group, says that a musician's subconscious influences now present a "scary situation." Attorney Larry Iser believes it might "inspire other lawyers to sue on genre and feel instead of the song itself." Glen Rothstein, another lawyer, says it could be a "game changer" for artistic freedom. Time will tell. But if history is any guide, even a lawsuit the size of "Blurred Lines" won't hold back artists from pushing boundaries. Ricky Reed, a producer/songwriter who has worked with Jason Derulo, Pitbull and -- of all people -- Thicke, says, "The creative community should not write from a place of fear. We will not censor ourselves."

If anything does shift as a result of the "Blurred Lines" verdict, it could be tactics.

Major artists from years past may feel encouraged by the verdict to attempt to wrangle a piece of profits through settlement, as Tom Petty did against Sam Smith over "Stay With Me." Some might even try lawsuits. When they do angle for a percentage, they'll have a nice round number shoot for: 50 percent. In awarding damages, the "Blurred Lines" jury came to $4 million, which was half of the publishing income, according to testimony at trial. (An additional $3.4 million was awarded in profits.) Asking for an equal share -- with nods to the "Blurred Lines" case -- may become the new standard.


Songwriters, publishers and record companies on the defensive still have wind at their backs. As mentioned, for all the "Blurred Lines" hullabaloo, most plaintiffs won't have Gaye's stature and will still be burdened by a trail of unsuccessful suits demonstrating that proof of similarity won't come easy. In fact, in the days leading up to the trial, the Gayes' lawyer worried that pre-trial rulings that limited the scope of copyright claims and evidence would open the doors to wholesale infringement of classic songs.

Once legal letters come, they'll be dealt with accordingly. Just don't expect those on the receiving end to make a rush to the courthouse like the one that Thicke and Williams made by pre-emptively suing the Gayes in the summer of 2013, which some legal experts now feel was a mistake. It's one thing to shrug off an alleged infringement as nothing more than the lifting of feeling. It's quite something else to invite a long and nasty legal battle with the possibility of a jury's unpredictability.

I hope this shakes the poser's tree down 2 the ground. The last thing I need 2 hear is a cheapen version of anyone else's "hit" song. I say............sue and sue some more. Either write your own material..........or get out of the music biz.

I LOVE this rulling, even if it gets reversed.

Graycap23 said:

babynoz said:

This article explains it very well. People who think that Blurred lines in going to open some kind of floodgate need to chill.


http://www.billboard.com/...e-copycats



Why the 'Blurred Lines' Verdict Is an Uphill Battle for Copycats


By Eriq Gardner | March 13, 2015 11:30 AM EDT
Robin Thicke and Pharrell in Blurred Lines


In the music business, few things are as sacrosanct as credit and compensation. Inevitably, many aggrieved songwriters will hear news of the nearly $7.4 million verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for lifting from Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" to create "Blurred Lines" and consider it to be a sign that filing a copyright lawsuit makes sense.

In the days since the jury read the verdict -- which Howard King, Thicke and Williams' attorney, says he will appeal -- opinions of the verdict range from "ridiculously problematic" to cheers of "no more plagiarism… no more interpolating." The attitudes are perhaps reflective of larger ones -- confirmation that the expansive scope of copyright is eating the young, comeuppance for artist exploitation, a sign that the law trails modernity.


Yet for all the controversy that the "Blurred Lines" case has generated, the verdict is itself hollow. Make no mistake: it will be talked about decades from now, as we do about the 1976 ruling determining that George Harrison made a "subconscious" infringement on "He's So Fine" to create "My Sweet Lord." But even after hearing musicologists break down the songs in question -- not to mention Robin Thicke playing a piano medley on the witness stand in an effort to demonstrate how one song can influence another -- the five women and three men who comprised the "Blurred Lines" jury hardly are Supreme Court justices. There's not much legal precedent from the jury's decision, and every reason to believe it will be a rare one.

Some things do figure to change thanks to the highly publicized victory for Gaye's family. But first, and perhaps more significantly, several things won't.

For every "Blurred Lines" verdict, there are hundreds of unsuccessful lawsuits alleging song theft. Ask Kanye West, Coldplay and Elton John, all of whom have killed lawsuits in recent years without ever having to take a witness stand. Federal judges simply won't tolerate allegations concerning the infringement of unprotected, generic ideas -- and any attorney not warning clients of the long odds is committing borderline malpractice.


Anyone seeking a reason why the "Blurred Lines" verdict was different should start with Gaye's popularity: Not every musician has a Wikipedia page with a substantial section on "legacy," but Gaye did. There was never any doubt that Williams had access to "Got to Give It Up" -- indeed, he and Thicke admitted they were influenced by the song. Under what's known as the "inverse ratio rule," plaintiffs have a lower standard of proof of similarity when a high degree of access is shown, and while the "Blurred Lines" judge didn't cite the rule in allowing a trial, it's easy to imagine that he respected Gaye's name enough to let a jury decide the issue of copyright infringement. Once the case got into the hands of laymen, all bets were off.

Now, dozens in the music industry are expressing concern. Veteran publisher Richard Stumpf, chief executive of Atlas Music Group, says that a musician's subconscious influences now present a "scary situation." Attorney Larry Iser believes it might "inspire other lawyers to sue on genre and feel instead of the song itself." Glen Rothstein, another lawyer, says it could be a "game changer" for artistic freedom. Time will tell. But if history is any guide, even a lawsuit the size of "Blurred Lines" won't hold back artists from pushing boundaries. Ricky Reed, a producer/songwriter who has worked with Jason Derulo, Pitbull and -- of all people -- Thicke, says, "The creative community should not write from a place of fear. We will not censor ourselves."

If anything does shift as a result of the "Blurred Lines" verdict, it could be tactics.

Major artists from years past may feel encouraged by the verdict to attempt to wrangle a piece of profits through settlement, as Tom Petty did against Sam Smith over "Stay With Me." Some might even try lawsuits. When they do angle for a percentage, they'll have a nice round number shoot for: 50 percent. In awarding damages, the "Blurred Lines" jury came to $4 million, which was half of the publishing income, according to testimony at trial. (An additional $3.4 million was awarded in profits.) Asking for an equal share -- with nods to the "Blurred Lines" case -- may become the new standard.


Songwriters, publishers and record companies on the defensive still have wind at their backs. As mentioned, for all the "Blurred Lines" hullabaloo, most plaintiffs won't have Gaye's stature and will still be burdened by a trail of unsuccessful suits demonstrating that proof of similarity won't come easy. In fact, in the days leading up to the trial, the Gayes' lawyer worried that pre-trial rulings that limited the scope of copyright claims and evidence would open the doors to wholesale infringement of classic songs.

Once legal letters come, they'll be dealt with accordingly. Just don't expect those on the receiving end to make a rush to the courthouse like the one that Thicke and Williams made by pre-emptively suing the Gayes in the summer of 2013, which some legal experts now feel was a mistake. It's one thing to shrug off an alleged infringement as nothing more than the lifting of feeling. It's quite something else to invite a long and nasty legal battle with the possibility of a jury's unpredictability.

I hope this shakes the poser's tree down 2 the ground. The last thing I need 2 hear is a cheapen version of anyone else's "hit" song. I say............sue and sue some more. Either write your own material..........or get out of the music biz.

I LOVE this rulling, even if it gets reversed.

Exactly.

I honestly don't see what is so hard to understand about it. From listening to "Blurred Lines", it sounds to me that they took the actual music from the actual Marvin Gaye record (the actual music that was recorded onto his record) and looped a section of it over and over and just added some drum machines and other things to it. So yes, Marvin Gaye's actual "recording" is present as the basis of "Blurred Lines". Hell, they didn't even bother to re-record the music themselves. In other words, they simply mixed or "sampled" his actual song into theirs as the basis of their song. Hell, that's OK for a DJ and very creative for a DJ, but musicians are supposed to be making the music behind lyrics, not DJs. Hell, a song made on the basis of a sample isn't really a real "song", it's simply a "mix". Leave the mixing to the DJs where it belongs and DJs can't mix songs in an era when no new songs are being made, unless they want to mix over someone else's mix....someone else's mix being a song that was made from a sample.

.

As for "Uptown Funk", unless there is some old song that I've never heard of before being sampled into it, it sounds to me like all the music behind the lyrics has been made from scratch with no one else's record being the source of the music behind the lyrics. Sounds like a real song to me.......finally.

.

And as for Charlie Wilson, that motherfucker is a sellout in every sense of the word. His old ass comes from making funk to selling out to shit hop, neo stool, adult contemporary, or whatever other dull mess is out there these days and he's been selling out since the 1990s. He'll do anything to get paid no matter how shitty it is. If he wants to get paid from some actual funk, then he needs to stop selling out and make some damn funk and hope it catches on. Hell, he's capable of making funk but apparently he's just looking for the easiest way to get paid.

.

.

.

[Edited 3/17/15 10:42am]

vainandy said:

I honestly don't see what is so hard to understand about it. From listening to "Blurred Lines", it sounds to me that they took the actual music from the actual Marvin Gaye record (the actual music that was recorded onto his record) and looped a section of it over and over and just added some drum machines and other things to it. So yes, Marvin Gaye's actual "recording" is present as the basis of "Blurred Lines". Hell, they didn't even bother to re-record the music themselves. In other words, they simply mixed or "sampled" his actual song into theirs as the basis of their song. Hell, that's OK for a DJ and very creative for a DJ, but musicians are supposed to be making the music behind lyrics, not DJs. Hell, a song made on the basis of a sample isn't really a real "song", it's simply a "mix". Leave the mixing to the DJs where it belongs and DJs can't mix songs in an era when no new songs are being made, unless they want to mix over someone else's mix....someone else's mix being a song that was made from a sample.

.

As for "Uptown Funk", unless there is some old song that I've never heard of before being sampled into it, it sounds to me like all the music behind the lyrics has been made from scratch with no one else's record being the source of the music behind the lyrics. Sounds like a real song to me.......finally.

.

And as for Charlie Wilson, that motherfucker is a sellout in every sense of the word. His old ass comes from making funk to selling out to shit hop, neo stool, adult contemporary, or whatever other dull mess is out there these days and he's been selling out since the 1990s. He'll do anything to get paid no matter how shitty it is. If he wants to get paid from some actual funk, then he needs to stop selling out and make some damn funk and hope it catches on. Hell, he's capable of making funk but apparently he's just looking for the easiest way to get paid.

.

.

.

[Edited 3/17/15 10:42am]

Preach, dammit....PREEEAAACH!

babynoz said:

Graycap23 said:

It's funny........it is mostly the button pushers that we are discussing, not actual musicians.

That's what zannaloaf doesn't understand.

How do I not understand that? I'm not condoning sampling. I dont care for it. I'd rather hear it replayed. Are you implying someone who produces doesnt know how ot play or compose?
The problem is after the Blurred Lines debacle everyone started ragging on other artists who are persectly competent players and writers as teh next in line to owe someone. And that is the problem with ths whole thing. I recall everyone went and Robin Thicke casue he has a lot of detractors and then when it was clear Pharell was behind it people were all...uh.....ok fine - now he is the bad guy. Samples can also be replatyed as opposed to lifted. Pretty easy- just hire decent studio guys. Pharell is a drummer so he probably did it (I dont know or care)
Again - most people have made this about money and who is owed what becasue of ripping off a song. the reality is the underlying song was not ripped off. And you can Google for days the number of songs that lifted from earlier songs directly, the main difference being the "feel" went elsewhere (like the Led Zeppelin Staiway to Heaven lawsuit that is ridiculous) . I gont get how one artist ripping a feel is ok just becasue they can play well live and someone who is essentially thought of as a button pusher deserves a lawsuit. It's like skills are an excuse to steal. And yeah- I prefer actual playing myself, but it won't excuse someone from stelaing.

vainandy said:

I honestly don't see what is so hard to understand about it. From listening to "Blurred Lines", it sounds to me that they took the actual music from the actual Marvin Gaye record (the actual music that was recorded onto his record) and looped a section of it over and over and just added some drum machines and other things to it. So yes, Marvin Gaye's actual "recording" is present as the basis of "Blurred Lines". Hell, they didn't even bother to re-record the music themselves. In other words, they simply mixed or "sampled" his actual song into theirs as the basis of their song. Hell, that's OK for a DJ and very creative for a DJ, but musicians are supposed to be making the music behind lyrics, not DJs. Hell, a song made on the basis of a sample isn't really a real "song", it's simply a "mix". Leave the mixing to the DJs where it belongs and DJs can't mix songs in an era when no new songs are being made, unless they want to mix over someone else's mix....someone else's mix being a song that was made from a sample.

.

As for "Uptown Funk", unless there is some old song that I've never heard of before being sampled into it, it sounds to me like all the music behind the lyrics has been made from scratch with no one else's record being the source of the music behind the lyrics. Sounds like a real song to me.......finally.

.

And as for Charlie Wilson, that motherfucker is a sellout in every sense of the word. His old ass comes from making funk to selling out to shit hop, neo stool, adult contemporary, or whatever other dull mess is out there these days and he's been selling out since the 1990s. He'll do anything to get paid no matter how shitty it is. If he wants to get paid from some actual funk, then he needs to stop selling out and make some damn funk and hope it catches on. Hell, he's capable of making funk but apparently he's just looking for the easiest way to get paid.

.

.

.

[Edited 3/17/15 10:42am]

No one's going to buy a funk album from Charlie Wilson in 2015 and it certainly won't get any support from radio. He has found a sound that works for him today. I think he's more popular now than he was when he was with the Gap Band. For those of you who listen to Urban Adult Contemporary, Charlie Wilson is royalty. I don't know who gets more airplay, Charllie or Kem? Both of these cats get mad spins on that particular format every hour. I swear! it's annoying! I'm not a fan of either one of them, but I got to give them credit, especially Charlie. I don't know of any other 70's funk/R&B artist who is still relevant, recording and getting all of that love from radio and consumers.

Zannaloaf said:

babynoz said:

That's what zannaloaf doesn't understand.

How do I not understand that? I'm not condoning sampling. I dont care for it. I'd rather hear it replayed. Are you implying someone who produces doesnt know how ot play or compose?
The problem is after the Blurred Lines debacle everyone started ragging on other artists who are persectly competent players and writers as teh next in line to owe someone. And that is the problem with ths whole thing. I recall everyone went and Robin Thicke casue he has a lot of detractors and then when it was clear Pharell was behind it people were all...uh.....ok fine - now he is the bad guy. Samples can also be replatyed as opposed to lifted. Pretty easy- just hire decent studio guys. Pharell is a drummer so he probably did it (I dont know or care)
Again - most people have made this about money and who is owed what becasue of ripping off a song. the reality is the underlying song was not ripped off. And you can Google for days the number of songs that lifted from earlier songs directly, the main difference being the "feel" went elsewhere (like the Led Zeppelin Staiway to Heaven lawsuit that is ridiculous) . I gont get how one artist ripping a feel is ok just becasue they can play well live and someone who is essentially thought of as a button pusher deserves a lawsuit. It's like skills are an excuse to steal. And yeah- I prefer actual playing myself, but it won't excuse someone from stelaing.

Ummm....now I'm the one not understanding. Your comment is kind of all over the place here. I don't get what you're saying.

Btw, I posted an article above that explains why nobody should be trippin over this specific verdict with Robin Thicke. Otherwise Andy pretty much nailed the rest.

kitbradley said:

No one's going to buy a funk album from Charlie Wilson in 2015 and it certainly won't get any support from radio. He has found a sound that works for him today. I think he's more popular now than he was when he was with the Gap Band. For those of you who listen to Urban Adult Contemporary, Charlie Wilson is royalty. I don't know who gets more airplay, Charllie or Kem? Both of these cats get mad spins on that particular format every hour. I swear! it's annoying! I'm not a fan of either one of them, but I got to give them credit, especially Charlie. I don't know of any other 70's funk/R&B artist who is still relevant, recording and getting all of that love from radio and consumers.

Amen KB.

I dig what Andy is gettin at (gawd KNOWS I'd LOVE a funk bomb from Charlie (and please....no degrading association with the likes of Snoop).....but...hell...a brotha hasta eat & that voice has never deserted him after all he's been thru (we are lucky he's not dead).

SoulAlive said:

I said this in another thread...

thanks to the Blurred Lines lawsuit,we're not gonna hear alot of songs that pay tribute to the past.I think it was great to see artists and bands reaching back and creating music inspired by the good ol' days.We needed to get back to the days of funk,disco and just plain good music...songs with actual grooves! Any time that young music fans can hear something like "Uptown Funk" on the radio,that's a good thing.They desperately need that.But alas,we probably won't get more songs like that anymore.Everyone will be too afraid of getting sued

i agree with you....but what i dont understand ....these artists have the connections and money to freaking call, get permission and pay for a damn sample.

fwiw, janelle monae - her sound is derivative of 70's 80s without straight up ripping anyone off.

i'm thinking though that uptown funk as such isolated instances of bars, mark ronson seriously diced up sounds from at least 20 differnet sources. its hard to peg the base of the record on ONE defining riff.

the horns stand out the most along with the snths that sound like jungle love....but i think uptown funk is a compilation rather than a rip of one particular song.

i do like the record tho. dammit! its my entire childhood in one record lololol

Ummm....dudes...for the 89 millionth time...

.....there are no samples from GTGIU in Blurred Lines.

.

The completely different cowbell patterns in Blurred Lines were played by either Pharrell or someone else in the studio that day.

.

terrig said:

babynoz said:

novabrkr said:

I don't understand what's supposed to be the point you two are trying to make either.

Applying laws arbitrarily on some people while not applying them on others is not something that usually results in anything good. Especially when it's based on very loose interpretations of the existing laws as was the case with "Blurred Lines".

It's not complicated....there is no legal standard or precedent and until one is established these issues will continue to be decided on a case by case basis. Simple.

Last week Chris Hayes interviewed an attorney on MSNBC and he said that everyone assumes there is a legal precedent for this but there isn't.

Remember, the jury did not hear either song. Thicke and Pharrell basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with their own mouths.

What I don't understand is why everybody has their hair on fire like this is the first case of its kind....it's not.

I doubt this case will set a precedent either.

[Edited 3/17/15 9:54am]

$$$$$$$

Don't know how many times we have to explain.

Robin fucked himself by being arrogant in more ways than one to the point he lost

his beautiful wife.

phunkdaddy said:

babynoz said:

It's not complicated....there is no legal standard or precedent and until one is established these issues will continue to be decided on a case by case basis. Simple.

Last week Chris Hayes interviewed an attorney on MSNBC and he said that everyone assumes there is a legal precedent for this but there isn't.

Remember, the jury did not hear either song. Thicke and Pharrell basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with their own mouths.

What I don't understand is why everybody has their hair on fire like this is the first case of its kind....it's not.

I doubt this case will set a precedent either.

[Edited 3/17/15 9:54am]

$$$$$$$

Don't know how many times we have to explain.

Robin fucked himself by being arrogant in more ways than one to the point he lost

his beautiful wife.

What I don't understand is the argument that a huge number of similar cases would somehow benefit the current state of music. It seems to be what Greycap is saying and Babynoz at least doesn't seem to have a problem with the current cases being based on very questionable evidence (correct me if I'm wrong, but at least you two have been presenting your arguments as if you were in agreement over these issues).

Suggesting that any type of "overall improvements" would result from these cases is just pure speculation. Doesn't seem likely to me. As a general rule, applying laws differently on different groups of people never results in anything good. Here we seem to have some sort of a generation gap thing going on, with the "old timers" getting sheer enjoyment out of seeing the young musicians getting into trouble.

novabrkr said:

phunkdaddy said:

$$$$$$$

Don't know how many times we have to explain.

Robin fucked himself by being arrogant in more ways than one to the point he lost

his beautiful wife.

What I don't understand is the argument that a huge number of similar cases would somehow benefit the current state of music. It seems to be what Greycap is saying and Babynoz at least doesn't seem to have a problem with the current cases being based on very questionable evidence (correct me if I'm wrong, but at least you two have been presenting your arguments as if you were in agreement over these issues).

Suggesting that any type of "overall improvements" would result from these cases is just pure speculation. Doesn't seem likely to me. As a general rule, applying laws differently on different groups of people never results in anything good. Here we seem to have some sort of a generation gap thing going on, with the "old timers" getting sheer enjoyment out of seeing the young musicians getting into trouble.

.

It won't help anything, because artists have been borrowing inspiration from each other or whatever you want to call it, since the beginning of time.

.

Anyone who's written songs knows that.

.

Graycap23 said:

novabrkr said:

Ok, just take a look at the sheet music:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/...ad_web.png

It's marked as a percussive line on the sheet and there aren't even any pitch changes. A very rudimentary pattern that's just repeated.

I seriously don't think you should be allowed to copyright that. Sure, you can have a copyright on the lyrics to that repeated chant and the sound recording of it, but the chant itself and the rhythm it's based on, no. It's not unique to this recording at all.

Notice how all of these copyright cases are always about some really simplistic stuff?

How obvious be it be on a non-simple track?

"How obvious would it be on a non-simple track?", you mean?

Not as obvious, of course. It's just a bit absurd that most of these cases result from people using very rudimentary musical patterns. It's never anything too sophisticated that you'd think would be worth stealing because it actually would demand a good amount of work to be able to come up with something as challenging yourself. But it's all enty-level stuff and even kiddie-level type of stuff, as seems to be the case here (and let's face it, the keyboard bass line in "Got To Give It Up" was hardly the most sophisticated thing on Marvin's records).

One explanation for it is just that musicians themselves do not think these type of triviliaties belong to anyone, while non-musicians tend to overvalue their importance and uniqueness. To the extent of being worth of millions, it seems.

[Edited 3/17/15 23:41pm]

Again . . . from a bird's eye view, what are considered "statements against interest" are what sunk Pharrell and Thicke.

They openly talked about doing a song in the tradition of "Got To Give It Up" while in the studio making the song.

Then they produced a song with some similarities to GTGIU. Cue the lawsuit.

Had they kept their mouths shut, my guess is the case would have been harder to win and there would be no talk of bad precedents, floodgates, etc.

Every case will fall on its own facts. The Blurred Lines case had a smoking howitzer that 9 of 10 copyright cases don't and won't have.