• Blog Entries

    • By thesubmittedone in ES Coverage 4
      So, last week I went through the Falcons game and came up with a few players I thought were intriguing to keep our eyes on as we moved forward through the preseason (with a ton of video to boot, probably too much as that page is/was a bummer to load ); either because they had disappointing outings and we hoped to see improvements from them, or because they looked surprisingly good and we hoped to see the continuation of that level of play. I intentionally focused on players who weren't being talked about a whole lot that week so as to avoid any media redundancy.   
      The disappointments I honed in on against the Falcons were Stephen Paea, Arie Kuandjio and Niles Paul. The impressive performances came from Kendall Reyes, Anthony Lanier (before the rest of the world started noticing him), Carlos Fields, and a special guest appearance from Terrence Garvin.
       
      So how did these guys do against the Jets? And were there any other performances to add to the current list of Extremeskins Coverage intrigue? Let's find out, shall we (with a little less video for the sake of our browsers, mmkay)?     
       

      Stephen Paea, 90
       
      Watching the game in the pressbox at FedEx field, I made it a point to focus in on Paea with my cheap Walmart-purchased binoculars (hey, it was last minute, Spaceman Spiff said I'd probably need them) when he came into the game. From what I saw, he was much improved, however, we must keep in mind that he came in about five minutes into the 2nd half, which means he was playing against lesser talent (and may further indicate a demotion on the depth chart). That being said, last week against the Falcons, he seemed to be moving in slow motion and the only positive he showed really was with his arm strength.
      Against the Jets, however, it was a different story. He moved very well and was a lot more explosive off the snap, to say the least. Let's take a look at a couple of examples.
       
      Here, he's lined up at RDE and you can see him move laterally well while penetrating, putting himself in the perfect position to make the tackle: 

       
      Here, again at RDE, he shows good lateral quickness another time by cutting to his left to find the open lane to the QB, then he puts on the jets to get the sack:

       
      Suffice to say, much better from Stephen Paea. 
       
       

          Arie Kuandjio, 74
       
      Unfortunately, the same can't be said about Arie Kuandjio, who continued to disappoint. Most of his plays aren't necessarily a negative, but they're plays where he can't be considered as having had a positive impact. He often is either out of position or generally not involved when he otherwise should be. But then there's bad as well. 
      Here, at LG, his guy gets underneath and is able to push him back, who then winds up making the tackle on Keith Marshall:

       
      Here, again at LG, is the play I believe John Keim was talking about a couple days ago when he mentioned Kuandjio getting pushed to the ground: 

       
       
      Yeah, let's hope we get a better showing from him against the Bills. 
       
       
        Niles Paul, 84 
          
      Good news for Niles, though, he definitely looked better overall. He did whiff on his first play, but then seemed to make up for it with better blocking in general. Let's take a look.
      Here, lined up at FB and motioned to the left, is the aforementioned whiff:  

       
      Here, lined up on the outside to the left at TE, you'll see him get a solid block on #21 of the Jets and maintain it throughout the play:

       
      Here, lined up as the outside TE on the right side, you'll see him execute a perfect block: 
       

       
      Overall, a better showing from Niles Paul. 
       

      Kendall Reyes, 97
       
      Kendall Reyes continued to impress for the most part. Nothing spectacular, just solid, and I get the sense that we'll be hearing that a lot when it comes to his play throughout the season.
       
      Here, at RDE, he gets some decent pressure on the QB and flushes him outside of the pocket:

       

      Anthony Lanier II, 72 
       
      By far, the most interesting aspect of Lanier's game was how much earlier he was put into the rotation than in the Falcons game, which may indicate he's moving up the depth chart a little. I asked him about it after the game and he seemed to agree. As for his performance, it wasn't as enjoyable to watch as the film against the Falcons (that's not to say he played poorly or regressed, just nothing splashy), but he certainly had his moments. Here are a few examples. 
       
       Here, at RDE, he gets quick interior penetration: 

       
      Here, lined up at LDE, he gets a near sack after beating #64 of the Jets handedly (gotta love the way he lays out there):

       
       
      Here, lined up at RDE, of course is his end of game sack. This one's all about his hustle and awareness: 

       
       
       

         Terrence Garvin, 52
       
      All Garvin has done these past two games is make plays, so I'm putting him here instead of Fields. Last week against the Falcons, he was in on a bunch of plays along with Fields and Lanier, so I didn't give him his own spot and just mentioned his play secondarily. I don't know if it's the weaker competition or not, but he's really impressive out there. Let's take a look at some of the plays he made against the Jets. 
       
      Here, lined up on the right side at ILB, you have to love his back pedal and then quick reaction to break up the pass: 

       
      Here, again lined up on the right side at ILB, he shows his speed as he slices his way through to apply quick pressure on the QB, causing the incompletion: 

       
      He was also in on a fumble recovery (right place, right time, so no need for a video really), but it just shows his hustle. He's really flying around out there and is fun to watch. 
       
      Well, that does it for now. We'll see how these guys look on Friday against the Bills as well as their spots in the rotation. Will they improve, stay the same or regress? Will we see them higher on the depth chart, the same, or lower? I might do a part 2 of this if I have the time and add some others to the list. Hope you all enjoyed it, see you around on the board!

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.

Jumbo and WhoRUSupposed2Be 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

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

spjunkies 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:

 

DC9 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.