The Blurred Lines/Marvin Gaye Controversy

[Anderton]

I checked out the song (via the soft core p*rn video, of course) and didn't see how the song ripped of Marvin Gaye. Now, I'm not familiar with everything Marvin Gaye did, but can anyone direct me to the song this is supposedly copying? Given that the jury was instructed to reach a verdict based solely on comparing sheet music, I figured there has to be a song out there somewhere that's similar.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Here you go Craig - the song is called "Got To Give It Up" - circa 1977.

 

Similar beats and overall vibe, but the melody and lyrics are not substantially similar IMHO - not to the point of copyright infringement.

 

 

Marvin Gaye - Got To Give It Up:

 

[video=youtube;fp7Q1OAzITM]

 

 

Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines:

 

[video=youtube;yyDUC1LUXSU]

 

 

Mashup / back to back comparisons between the two:

 

[video=youtube;ziz9HW2ZmmY]

 

 

[blue2blue]

Yeah. I like Marvin Gaye. (Except for the out of control base head part.) And I don't like Robin Thicke. (Does his mom, even?) And, if vibe and feel were covered by copyright, the Gaye family might have something. But, of course, if the Gaye/Pharrell/Thicke case constituted a binding precedent [jury verdicts don't, really], the pop publishing business would have to be reorganized around IP pools -- like those technology patent pools, since ownership of any one song by one person or writing partnership would be all but impossible.

 

With regard to musical specifics, I thought Lee Knight gave a nicely detailed breakdown in this forum a couple weeks ago; that and a couple of analyses by academic musicologists really put the nature of the jury verdict in sharp highlight: they completely ignored the judge's instruction to only consider the printed music for the Gay tune, since the recording was not covered by copyright (a label oversight).

[davd_indigo]

This whole case brings back to mind my opinion that the whole legal justice system is flawed

in its basic nature. Legal maneuvers or annoying personalities (Robin Thicke) should not alter

fact and reality. I've done some googling trying to find some specifics of this case and

have found very little. After his "win", the Gaye family lawyer said something about the

decision to limit his case to using the "sheet music". I've read that there were 2 musicology

"experts" that pointed out the similarities between the 2 songs.

 

 

I remember a couple of years ago that there was some patent dispute suit between (IIRC) Samsung

and Apple. They said it was wonkish and hard to explain. If there are technical issues

that the plagiarism case presented, maybe people who knew nothing about music should not

have been on the jury.

 

I wish someone had created an audio collage or montage illustrating "copied" elements. For example

the party noises in "Got To Give It Up" were preceded by "Barbra Ann" (Beach Boys) and "Memphis"

(Johnny Rivers) and probably dozens of others. And the concept of a bass line and a cowbell ?

When I listened to the 2 songs back to back I did notice a I, and a V chord that both songs

had in common. I suppose that proves the song was stolen.

 

I spoke to a friend in the UK soon after the verdict and he said the feeling over there is that

no money will ever be collected. If a verdict contradicts the law and facts, can it be allowed

to stand ?

[davie]

IMO I kind of agree with what Pharrell said. "..sets a horrible precedent for music and creativity going forward". I feel like this case is dangerously blurring the lines (yes, I went there) between what's considered inspired and copied. Its true that the bass groove, beat, and measure are very similar. Those high pitched screams in the background. Those are all the things that helped to re-create the "feel" of the Gaye tune. However the lyrical content and lead vocal melody are significantly different. As we start closer and closer nitpicking similarities between songs, things may start becoming a slippery slope. What exactly would you consider lawsuit-actionable? 50% similarity? 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20%...? Also these things aren't always easily clear-cut or quantifiable. And we'll have people handing out lawsuits left and right.

[Lee Knight]

 

 

 

 

You know, I'm really surprised that Billy Joe Armstrong (Green Day) hasn't been sued. Given how off the mark the Gaye estate and the subsequent legal actions have been, it does make sense that he would be overlooked in any witch hunt. He actually fits the infringement criteria.

 

 

 

Dont get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Amstrong's talent. He just happens to have the tendency to inadvertently lift whole phrases in their entirety from classic hits.

 

 

 

Only a specialist is going to understand what constitutes a "melody". And hopefully a "present" juror and a good defence lawyer with his understandable music expert witness. These aren't high level concepts but do require an understanding of how to solidly convey strict musical definitions and their specific meaning to a lay person.

 

 

 

Len Berstein on his Joy of Music tv special ere?

 

 

 

Simple: Melody = pitch + melodic rhythm

 

 

 

Armstrong gets away with it because, "that's not Georgie Girl! Listen to those drums and guitars!"

[Anderton]

Steve Miller was another "riff lifter" who was never fingered. But back in those days, licks weren't considered quite so precious.

 

If the Blurred Lines settlement becomes a precedent, Prince is in real trouble... But what makes Prince cool is that he can update the cliches and make them fresh.

[AlamoJoe]

Steve Miller was another "riff lifter" who was never fingered. But back in those days, licks weren't considered quite so precious.

 

If the Blurred Lines settlement becomes a precedent, Prince is in real trouble... But what makes Prince cool is that he can update the cliches and make them fresh.

 

Totally agree...Prince never gets enough credit for his guitar playing either. The guy is a GIANT soloist. Lenny Kravitz is the one who oughta be worried..

[RoadRanger]

Kinda funny, I was learning "Whiskey Man" yesterday, sure sounds a lot like "Same Old Song and Dance" .

[onelife]

Steve Miller was another "riff lifter" who was never fingered. But back in those days, licks weren't considered quite so precious.

 

If the Blurred Lines settlement becomes a precedent, Prince is in real trouble... But what makes Prince cool is that he can update the cliches and make them fresh.

 

I hate to sound like a griping geezer but there is a difference between learning to play an instrument, where the performer is responsible for making the sound, and 'creating' music by moving cells around on a spreadsheet.

 

When someone plays the saxophone, for example, half the instrument is inside the player's body which makes everything they play unique.

 

SRV obviously got a lot from Hendrix but will go down in history as one of the greatest stratocaster players of all time.

 

[Notes_Norton]

I think it opens a big can of worms.

 

Countless riffs have been played in different songs.

 

Does Deep Purple's "Hush" take any income from the Beatles even though the "na, na..." riff is the same as the one in "A Day In The Life"?

 

Does Steve Miller's "Keep On Rcckin' Me" hurt the sales of Free's "All Right Now"?

 

We could go on and on, riffs have been shared throughout history.

 

And both jazz and rock players have been quoting the melodies of other songs in their improvised solos for years. When I first head "Sunshine Of Your Love" and Eric Clapton started his guitar solo by quoting "Blue Moon" by Rogers & Hart it put a big smile on my face. It's like a musical joke. Paul Desmond used to quote quite a bit in his solos, and he's not alone in that.

 

So what does this decision mean? Will it be a "Landmark Decision"?

 

If I play a syncopated ninth chord arpeggio am I ripping off "I Got You" from James Brown?

 

You get where I'm going here?

 

Yet, I could do a parody of the Marvin Gaye song, copy the figure AND the melody note for note but change the words (Ala Weird Al or 2 Live Crew) and get under the fair use laws and be legal.

 

I agree that Thicke copied the background figure, but I don't like the fact that Gaye's family won the lawsuit. I don't think "Blurred LInes" takes even one potential sale away from "Got To Give It Up".

 

So in summary, since "Blurred Lines" doesn't hurt the sales of "Got To Give It Up", I think the decision was wrong. But I wasn't on the jury, so the decision wasn't mine to make.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[RoadRanger]

Kinda reminds me of a scifi story I read once. In the future babies are screened for musical talent and raised completely isolated from previous music and just taught how to play and compose. The goal is to write a song that doesn't "infringe" on another song even though copyrights have been extended to forever. Most never succeed .

 

Kind funny, a young country singer/songwriter I was working with was all depressed that every chord progression he came up with was previously used. I had to explain to him that chord progressions aren't copyrightable.

[RockViolin]

 

 

Methinks they tipped the scales leaving it in the same key, with beat, tempo, and vibe being so similar. A lot of people may not catch the similarities/discrepancies between motives, melodies, riffs, but the afore mentioned carry a lot of weight in this type of music.

 

Turn things around some, a bit of stretto here, some ostinato there and wahoo, it's a whole new song!

 

Speaking of Prince, as far as the art goes, he took from the past and then blew the doors off. And there is no question really, for me, as to where the past stops and he starts. What he brings is more than what he pulls from...most of the time. He should be fined for a few too many Good Gawds though, and for makin Sheila E do it too.

 

Mozart wrote in the same musical language as Haydn. Mozart studied with Haydn. A LOT of people might not be able to tell the difference between the two. I've played quite a bit of both and never came across a single moment that seemed as though Mozart was making a robbery of it though. I dunno. Just a thought.

 

Yeah well, I know porn when I see it.

 

 

 

[1001gear]

There are many instances of Beethoven ripping Maestro Haydn as well. I can't be specific offhand but you know I'm not kidding. I suppose the lineage makes it ok. What concerns me - well not that much but a point of concern with the Gaye award is now these vets have territorial rights. Buh bye creative freedom.

[RockViolin]

There are many instances of Beethoven ripping Maestro Haydn as well. I can't be specific offhand but you know I'm not kidding. I suppose the lineage makes it ok. What concerns me - well not that much but a point of concern with the Gaye award is now these vets have territorial rights. Buh bye creative freedom.

 

Well, I was actually saying that in all the playing and listening I've done, I've never heard Mozart 'ripping' Haydn. I haven't played or heard everything Haydn wrote though. It's the same language, a language that had only come so far. Beethoven's language too, and I can't say I'd ever take him for Haydn either. Resemblances occur, but nobody is grabbing material, or changing a note here and there and then parading it around. Not one single second where I could say, hey, that reminded a bit of Haydn's "London" symphony, or the "Clock" is what I mean. Nothing even close. That may not have much bearing here though.

 

As for creative freedom. it's still there, in some ways far more than before. Precious little creativity goin on though when the music is moribund and hopelessly derivative.

[1001gear]

Beethoven has quoted and paraphrased Haydn in ways that would for sure stand as infringement in today's system. I don't have enough Haydn in my head to recall the instances I've come across but they're there. Any musicologists ?

[RockViolin]

Beethoven has quoted and paraphrased Haydn in ways that would for sure stand as infringement in today's system. I don't have enough Haydn in my head to recall the instances I've come across but they're there. Any musicologists ?

 

Rachmaninoff has quoted Paganini, quite thoroughly. But it's not because he was lazy, or there were millions to be made by by coppin someone else's groove and with a bit of shuffling and a happy accident or two he scrapes past being a fraud.

 

[RockViolin]

Speaking of Rachmaninoff...Eric Carmen owes his estate some serious coin!

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

Rachmaninoff has quoted Paganini, quite thoroughly. But it's not because he was lazy, or there were millions to be made by by coppin someone else's groove and with a bit of shuffling and a happy accident or two he scrapes past being a fraud.

 

Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody is one of my favorite pieces of music. Yes, he quoted Paganini, but think of how much the world of music would have lost if he hadn't done so.

[RockViolin]

 

Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody is one of my favorite pieces of music. Yes, he quoted Paganini, but think of how much the world of music would have lost if he hadn't done so.

 

I agree. I mentioned him just to provide an example of a classical composer quoting another, for all the right reasons. I don't get the feeling that he's trying to get away with something.

[Notes_Norton]

Eric Carmen put words to Rachmaninoff ("All By Myself")

 

Dan Fogelberg did the same to Tchaikovsky's 1812 ("Same Old Lang Syne")

 

Of course these were PD by then

 

Dvorak quoted Beethoven's #9 in his own #9

 

IMHO they went a bit too far, but I'm on the outside looking in.

 

Notes

 

 

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

I agree. I mentioned him just to provide an example of a classical composer quoting another, for all the right reasons. I don't get the feeling that he's trying to get away with something.

 

Quite true - if he was trying to pretend it was entirely his and not give credit where it was due, he probably shouldn't have named it Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.

[RockViolin]

Eric Carmen put words to Rachmaninoff ("All By Myself")

 

Dan Fogelberg did the same to Tchaikovsky's 1812 ("Same Old Lang Syne")

 

Of course these were PD by then

 

Dvorak quoted Beethoven's #9 in his own #9

 

IMHO they went a bit too far, but I'm on the outside looking in.

 

Notes

 

 

 

"All By Myself" = Rachmaninoff Symphony #2 with Eric Carmen dripping all over it. It's a gorgeous symphony I've played quite a few times...and there should be a law!

 

His (Rach's) 2nd piano concerto is a favorite of mine too.

[RockViolin]

Eric Carmen put words to Rachmaninoff ("All By Myself")

 

Dan Fogelberg did the same to Tchaikovsky's 1812 ("Same Old Lang Syne")

 

Of course these were PD by then

 

Dvorak quoted Beethoven's #9 in his own #9

 

IMHO they went a bit too far, but I'm on the outside looking in.

 

Notes

 

 

 

I've played the "New World" symphony too...can't bring to mind the Beethoven bit, (I'll have a listen later) but I'd hazard a guess that it's a fairly brief episode or a rather small device in the scope of things, and again, not done due to a lack of alternate ideas or with the intent to pull the wool. Just paying his respects in an artful manner.

[onelife]

Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody is one of my favorite pieces of music. Yes, he quoted Paganini, but think of how much the world of music would have lost if he hadn't done so.

 

How many people knew "He's So Fine" before an exBeatle recorded "My Sweet Lord"?

 

[video=youtube;13BK0OT4Py0]