Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DM72

Did Robin Thicke's "blurred Lines" Steal From Marvin Gaye's Got To Give It Up?" You Be The Judge.

45 posts in this topic



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRcVQDELAd4



If you didn't know, Robin Thicke is suing the relatives of Marvin Gaye BEFORE they take him to court for copyright infringement.

The first time I heard blurred Lines, the first thing I thought was that "this is a modern take on "Got To Give It Up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the grounds of Thicke's lawsuit, slander?

 

It definitely sounds close, and "in the same spirit" as Got to Give It Up.


The question is how close/far do the two songs/melodies need to be to justify infringement.

 

With modern pop music so many different writers, composers, consultants etc etc etc go into making each song into the finished product you hear on the radio, that it's completely feesible to think that somwhere along the way certain melodies and hooks are being lifted from previous works without giving the proper credit.

 

Most modern pop music along with other genres are really more "creations" than artistry.  Everything is so fine tuned and refined, along with mass-adveritised that of course it is going to succeed.

 

And lets not forget the new trend of pretending new songs/albums have been "leaked" in order to manufacture buzzed ahead of time.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine was a DJ on Fox 5 a couple of weeks ago, and he was mixing the two songs together. I had heard Blurred Lines a good amount of times before that. It wasn't until that morning, when he mixed the two songs, that I realized just how much alike they sounded.

 

But I don't think it was Thicke's attention to infringe copyright because why they might sound similar, they are different songs. I don't think any judge would say it is infringement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine was a DJ on Fox 5 a couple of weeks ago, and he was mixing the two songs together. I had heard Blurred Lines a good amount of times before that. It wasn't until that morning, when he mixed the two songs, that I realized just how much alike they sounded.

 

But I don't think it was Thicke's attention to infringe copyright because why they might sound similar, they are different songs. I don't think any judge would say it is infringement.

 

I hear some people say that, but still. Yeah, they're different songs but I didn't think you can take an idea and change it a little bit and make money off of it. It would be like me taking The Mona Lisa and adding a different background and giving her a different hair color and put some glasses on her. Different painting, but you see my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some info...

 

http://www.parade.com/65765/harrymarquez/robin-thicke-suing-marvin-gayes-estate/

 

This “Blurred Lines” case is interesting because its writers are going on the offensive to protect their song. Their six page complaint mentions that the defendants believe their songs “‘feel’ or ‘sound’ the same.” Thicke et al acknowledge that this is exactly the case, that “Blurred Lines” might “feel” or “sound” the same because “the intent in producing ‘Blurred Lines’ was to evoke an era” (that’s the late 1970s for you whippersnappers). They go on to say that their song is “starkly different” from their defendants’ songs, and that “being reminiscent of a ‘sound’ is not copyright infringement.”

 

So why are they suing? Other than attorneys fees, Thicke et al do not want any money from the Gayes and Bridgeport. Instead, they want the defendants to clearly acknowledge that the current chart topper does not infringe on their works, thus defusing any future threat of litigation. Thicke et al would be able to keep whatever income they generate from their song, which is probably a lot of money based on high volume sales and YouTube ad revenue, as well as licensing opportunities. If they are successful, the plaintiffs will have just saved themselves most of that money and an even greater amount of worry. If not, don’t expect Bridgeport and Gaye family to hold back with a countersuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear some people say that, but still. Yeah, they're different songs but I didn't think you can take an idea and change it a little bit and make money off of it. It would be like me taking The Mona Lisa and adding a different background and giving her a different hair color and put some glasses on her. Different painting, but you see my point.

It's different with music though. It's only a certain amount of notes you can play. It's hard to make a song and it doesn't sound like another song.

 

The way I see it, I see it as if you are knowingly sampling someone's song and they call you out on it, you have to pay up. But I don't think whoever produced this song, was thinking about Marvin Gaye's song. Like I said, I heard Blurred Line's a lot and I never thought about putting the two together. And I love Got to Give it Up. It's probably my third favorite Marvin Gaye song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's different with music though. It's only a certain amount of notes you can play. It's hard to make a song and it doesn't sound like another song.

 

The way I see it, I see it as if you are knowingly sampling someone's song and they call you out on it, you have to pay up. But I don't think whoever produced this song, was thinking about Marvin Gaye's song. Like I said, I heard Blurred Line's a lot and I never thought about putting the two together. And I love Got to Give it Up. It's probably my third favorite Marvin Gaye song.

 

Well, Thicke and company did admit to listening to Got To Give It Up in the studio while recording this song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their's goes "dun dun dun dunnunun... dun dun dun dununun."


 


Our's goes "dun dun dun dununun... dun DUN dun dununun".


5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't the same. There is a similarity in Thicke's opening sequence, but shortly after the similarities are gone. This isn't like Ice Ice Baby which clearly used the same beat as Under Pressure.

 

Besides, there are a lot of songs that would surprise you in their similarity to other songs. There was a comedian who did a bit on it based off the Fibonacci Sequence, though I can't remember who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Thicke and company did admit to listening to Got To Give It Up in the studio while recording this song.

True that. And they were the ones to sue first. It does seem like a guilty conscious.

Meh, I am a bad person to talk to this about. I believe in sampling just as long as you throw your own twist in it and give credit where credit is due.

Their's goes "dun dun dun dunnunun... dun dun dun dununun."

 

Our's goes "dun dun dun dununun... dun DUN dun dununun".

Even when I was younger, I knew just how dumb he, Vanilla Ice, sounded in that interview. lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thicke was quoted in MANY interviews saying the insipration for his song was to make a song "that had the groove" of "Got to Give it Up",it's not like it'sa secret or anything.  I like both songs, but don't think they are the same, similar yes but that's about it, both songs make it into my "beats" playlist, along with some George Clinton & Parliment/P-Funk.

 

I love the fact that he is suing, he is taking the time honored American tradition of suing someone solely to reach a settlement-in hopes that the fear of paying a large legal bill will be big enough to scare someone into settling even if they have not done anything wrong- and stopping it before it can happen, I think it is brilliant.

 

When a company's only hope of creating new revenue is to sue other companies, it's time to get out of the business, sell all assests to someone else and move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with elkabong.  There is some similarity, but they're not the same.

 

This isn't a My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with elkabong.  There is some similarity, but they're not the same.

 

This isn't a My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine scenario.

 

Which weren't the same either.   That decision was a miscarriage of justice, IMO.

 

Music is math.   There are a limited number of good combinations, which is why mixing stuff is so easy in the first place.   I suspect that if you programmed every rock song since1980 into a computer, you could find an earlier song that felt the same in one sequence or another.  

 

And speaking of mixes, time to repost my favorite:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either it stole some portion of music exactly or it didnt. Being close doesn't matter. Google "4 chord song" and you'll find a bunch of videos of people playing dozens of songs with the same 4 chords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either it stole some portion of music exactly or it didnt. Being close doesn't matter. Google "4 chord song" and you'll find a bunch of videos of people playing dozens of ones with the same 4 chords.

Here's one of my favorites:

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing that matters is the actual melody of the song. Everything else is pretty much inconsequential. Should be an easy case for Thickes lawyers. Which is why I'm sure he's filing the suit to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear a lot of people pretty much saying that just about every song sounds like another song.

Hear lies the problem. When THIS many people who listen to Blurred Lines say it immediately made them think about Got to give it up, there's a problem. IMO, to get FULL credit you have to be original. I think Blurred Lines is an updated take on a song that came out in 77.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that Thicke's song is called Blurred Lines. I won't call Pop Music art, at least not Pop Music these days. But creation/creativity has blurry lines. What's influenced vs copied? Sometimes you create something subconsciously that you didn't realize is so close to something you came across years and years ago. Really good art, the creation of it, happens at a subconscious level.

 

I like music and won't even pretend to know the whole Lexicon of music out there. I'm still finding songs that I like by a certain band is their rendition of a Bob Dylan classic. He was so prodigious that he's everywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because one of the first steps in writing a song is deciding what song/songs you want to emulate.

I hear a lot of people pretty much saying that just about every song sounds like another song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which weren't the same either.   That decision was a miscarriage of justice, IMO.

 

 

 

The amount awarded was a miscarriage of justice.  I'd agree with that.  But the songs sound a LOT alike.  Didn't Harrison himself admit they were basically the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You crazy. Got To Give It Up is the perfect party song.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.