ScarletMacaw Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Ha ha ha...Thicke, Pharrell Williams and the other guy owe more than $7 million for copyright infringement for "Blurred Lines." Seems it's a bit too reminiscent of a Marvin Gaye song...I have mixed feelings though because there is no comparison..."Blurred Lines" has NO SOUL. There's a link to Spotify where you can compare the two: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/business/media/blurred-lines-infringed-on-marvin-gaye-copyright-jury-rules.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles J. White Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I don't agree with this legal case at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpMan Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Well, if ever there was an example of a legitimate claim, this was it. This case also shows that the judge and jury did not make their decision based solely on how the two songs sounded when compared together. They had music experts come in and analyze the sheet music of both songs and according to reports, it was this analysis which made the difference and not how the songs sounded side by side. This was a pretty blatant case here, Williams & Thicke pretty much lifted the melody and composition of the Gaye song, even including the background "party" noises from the Gaye song and then added their own lyrics. My takeaway here is the jury used the opinion and analysis of musical experts comparing the sheet music of both pieces to make a decision. This is a very good thing for future cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 What a pair of knobs, this is a clear case of ripping off a Marvyn Gaye tune, what were they thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarletMacaw Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Just to clarify what I said initially--apparently the Gaye estate isn't going to get the whole $7 million, but several million. To me the notes of the melody sound quite similar but the rhythm is different. The lyrics of the Gaye song are unintelligible...hard to know how they compare."Blurred Lines" is a misogynistic, smirky piece of drivel and therefore I'm happy about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bloggs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Musician-attorney Joe Escalante says the 'Blurred Lines' jury 'got it wrong' http://www.scpr.org/programs/the-frame/2015/03/11/41936/musician-attorney-joe-escalante-says-the-blurred-l/ A Music Theory Expert Explains Why the “Blurred Lines” Copyright Decision Is Wrong: http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines-copyright-decision-is-wrong What’s Wrong With the ‘Blurred Lines’ Copyright Ruling http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/arts/music/whats-wrong-with-the-blurred-lines-copyright-ruling.html The "Blurred Lines" Verdict Is Bad News, Even If You Hate Robin Thicke http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-blurred-lines-verdict-is-bad-news-even-if-you-ha-1690817200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillumpuffer Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 We should all collectively sue that Pharrell Williams bloke for the insult to (my) ears for the song "Happy". Dull dull and more dull. I could have written that in 2 minutes whilst making a curry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Clearly a rip off, and clearly the correct decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Ask George: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarletMacaw Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 I don't think I agree with the reasoning of most of these people. I don't believe a genre is created by people "copying from each other" as Escalante claims and the ruling will not have a "chilling effect," it will simply nudge people to give credit where credit is due. Zep should have credited Willie Dixon on Whole Lotta Love but would they not have recorded it if they had realized they needed to add the credit when they recorded it? Of course not; they did covers of other Dixon tunes and credited him. I also think the NY Times commentary is bullshit. "Texture" is only a metaphor when applied to music. The fact that many contemporary songs are mostly written by producers is the reason why many of them are not songs at all, just collections of background sounds while some "recording artist" (often not a singer at all) recites or bleats some words. Again, I don't think the two tunes resemble each other that much but in any case, Thicke and Pharrell needed to be slapped down, especially Thicke, and since flogging them or beheading them would be wrong, at least this is some type of justice. Musician-attorney Joe Escalante says the 'Blurred Lines' jury 'got it wrong' http://www.scpr.org/programs/the-frame/2015/03/11/41936/musician-attorney-joe-escalante-says-the-blurred-l/ A Music Theory Expert Explains Why the “Blurred Lines” Copyright Decision Is Wrong: http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines-copyright-decision-is-wrong What’s Wrong With the ‘Blurred Lines’ Copyright Ruling http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/arts/music/whats-wrong-with-the-blurred-lines-copyright-ruling.html The "Blurred Lines" Verdict Is Bad News, Even If You Hate Robin Thicke http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-blurred-lines-verdict-is-bad-news-even-if-you-ha-1690817200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross62 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 We should all collectively sue that Pharrell Williams bloke for the insult to (my) ears for the song "Happy". Dull dull and more dull. I could have written that in 2 minutes whilst making a curry. The bloke who wears the weird Mountie hat isn't out of the woods yet http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/marvin-gayes-family-claim-pharrell-5316275 And if we're suing him for insulting our ears can we also sue him for having the gall to continually wear the silly hat? "The judge rules in favour of the world Mr. Williams,your hat collection will be burned in a televised ceremony at dawn". "And stop channeling Marvin Gaye!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 What's Goin' On? I Heard It Through The Grapevine How Sweet It Is Mercy, Mercy Me Let's Get It On Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpMan Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 We should all collectively sue that Pharrell Williams bloke for the insult to (my) ears for the song "Happy". Dull dull and more dull. I could have written that in 2 minutes whilst making a curry. You asked for it...you got it! The family of Marvin Gaye are now contemplating suing Williams for Happy, claiming it is the same as a 1965 Gaye tune. I don't agree with this and in fact I cannot stand the hypocrites which are the Gaye family. Marvin Gate was a genius and his family nothing but vampires that sucked the man dry his whole life until his own father ended that life in 84' with a bullet. Marvin's mom, who he was defending at the time from the abusive father / husband defended her abusive husband in court as a result. Nothing has changed since 84', Gaye's family are scum and nothing more. Any monies which are awarded in any of these cases should go straight to the victims of domestic violence and not Gaye's vampire family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Spot on, IpMan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 You asked for it...you got it! The family of Marvin Gaye are now contemplating suing Williams for Happy, claiming it is the same as a 1965 Gaye tune. I don't agree with this and in fact I cannot stand the hypocrites which are the Gaye family. Marvin Gate was a genius and his family nothing but vampires that sucked the man dry his whole life until his own father ended that life in 84' with a bullet. Marvin's mom, who he was defending at the time from the abusive father / husband defended her abusive husband in court as a result. Nothing has changed since 84', Gaye's family are scum and nothing more. Any monies which are awarded in any of these cases should go straight to the victims of domestic violence and not Gaye's vampire family. Marvin Gaye's parents were elderly when he died in 1984. I assume they're both dead now. Furthermore, Gaye had at least two children. Why shouldn't his children benefit from his estate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.