For the record this song sucks ass. Does Robin Thicke not come across as a slimy, smug and dispicable 'c u next Tuesday' to everyone? I can't believe girls like this dude. Fuck, I'm just jealous I guess.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
bassie said:
What are other examples of this in music? I don't follow this aspect of things closely.
This is kind of unprecedented. Not to mention, blinking first is kind of a bad look in this case. I already said this elsewhere, but it's definitely something a musicologist would have fun with. No question the intention is to put the listener in mind of Got To Give It Up, but really they're biting the groove, not the song. Plus, it's pretty tight musically on its own terms. This falls in the "inspired by" category to me and, while that can be a fine line to walk, as a former sample clearance professional I don't think there's a strong enough case here.
It's certainly possible to argue that this is just Thicke/Pharrell/TI challenging the Gaye estate to shit or get off the pot, but the onus isn't on them to do that. They're not really gaining any advantage here. If the Gaye estate thinks there's a solid case, they should just file suit instead of merely threatening to. I have a feeling they know the case isn't that strong, and they're hoping the publicity will lead to Thicke/Pharrell/TI breaking them off with some cash on the courtroom steps (but no ownership). Personally I'd have just styled it out.
I don't get the smug and slimy impression. He seems pretty decent to me. Yeah, he had long hackeysacker hair in the 90s but still... His music is pretty fun and non-offensive (I've heard waaaay worse than "Blurred Lines"), he doesn't seem to partake in the typical eccentric rock star fashion (diva tantrums, overblown ego, etc.), plus I saw an interview where they said he's been with the same woman (Paula Patton) since high school or something and I just assumed they were a "normal" couple. I say normal as opposed to Will and Jada.
-is that a 4 bar loop of the main section of "got to give it up", in other words the whole groove?
-is that marvin's scream?
-were these parts simply replayed note-for-note by studio whizzes?
if any of the forgoing is true, why would they not have cleared this with the estate?
none of this to say i hate this song or that it doesn't genuinely and creatively build on the GTGIU framework....
-is that a 4 bar loop of the main section of "got to give it up", in other words the whole groove?
-is that marvin's scream?
-were these parts simply replayed note-for-note by studio whizzes?
if any of the forgoing is true, why would they not have cleared this with the estate?
none of this to say i hate this song or that it doesn't genuinely and creatively build on the GTGIU framework....
I dont hear the prominent GTGIU Bassline underneath Blurred Lines.
it's a very gray area as far as percussion is concerned. There's not really a precedent for clearing a replay of a percussive line, it's not the same thing as a melody or chord progression.
-is that a 4 bar loop of the main section of "got to give it up", in other words the whole groove?
-is that marvin's scream?
-were these parts simply replayed note-for-note by studio whizzes?
if any of the forgoing is true, why would they not have cleared this with the estate?
none of this to say i hate this song or that it doesn't genuinely and creatively build on the GTGIU framework....
I dont hear the prominent GTGIU Bassline underneath Blurred Lines.
Agreed. Ultimately, the Thicke track alters itself just enough to avoid any legal issues with the OG track that they are clearly trying to sound like.
It reminds me of a skit that Conan Obrian does where they ultimately play 'guess the tune that we are hinting at but cant afford to play so we will alter just enough to avoid legal ramifications'.
What are other examples of this in music? I don't follow this aspect of things closely.
This is kind of unprecedented. Not to mention, blinking first is kind of a bad look in this case.
Agreed that it's a bad look for public relations reasons, but these types of declaratory actions are far from unprecedented in the legal world. I haven't posted on the strut in a while but came here because i was curious about what people thought about this case. When I first heard Blurred Lines the resemblance to Got to Give it Up was so clear (to me) it felt almost like a tribute song. I don't know how the Gaye family will fair in Court but agree with others that it is probably an uphill battle. However, if the case proceeds with discovery (document requests, depositions, etc.), I'd be real curious to see how much the songwriters of Blurred Lines discussed Gaye's song both before and after producing it. There is no way it was not a topic of discussion (and probably documented in emails) and that is certainly leverage for the Gaye family in terms of settlement value.
There's an interview with GQ where Thicke admits him and Pharrell were trying to come up with a song with a similar "groove" as Got to Give it up....So...Fuck him and Pharrell and T.I.
I...the BITING floodgates open up years ago, but this is somehow "against the rules"?
It's true. And I don't disagree. Although, I will say this one happens to come off less like a refreshing flip/interpolation and more like an outright attempt to borrow a little too heavily from a classic...to me it's like a Wyclef/Puffy move but with slightly more smoke and mirrors to it....and they are fronting like it's a total coincidence that this track reminds people of Marvin's track.
I...the BITING floodgates open up years ago, but this is somehow "against the rules"?
It's true. And I don't disagree. Although, I will say this one happens to come off less like a refreshing flip/interpolation and more like an outright attempt to borrow a little too heavily from a classic...to me it's like a Wyclef/Puffy move but with slightly more smoke and mirrors to it....and they are fronting like it's a total coincidence that this track reminds people of Marvin's track.
But how are they frontin' if they stated they were reaching for a GTGIU type groove?
This is what the game hath wrought though. Every label has a musicologist on payroll for this exact science. If it sounds like they were trying to skirt the issue to save themselves from a lawsuit that is because they were!
Old artists, publishing houses, sample trolls that buy up rights for the express purpose of filing lawsuits, estates of dead legends, all are suit-happy and it is absolutely out of control. This particular instance is kind of bad optics but you can't blame artists for trying to protect themselves.
I...the BITING floodgates open up years ago, but this is somehow "against the rules"?
It's true. And I don't disagree. Although, I will say this one happens to come off less like a refreshing flip/interpolation and more like an outright attempt to borrow a little too heavily from a classic...to me it's like a Wyclef/Puffy move but with slightly more smoke and mirrors to it....and they are fronting like it's a total coincidence that this track reminds people of Marvin's track.
But how are they frontin' if they stated they were reaching for a GTGIU type groove?
Exactly. Here's an excerpt from the interview. I'm don't see any "smoke and mirrors" with public statements like this. Can you copyright a "groove?"
GQ: What's the origin story behind your new single "Blurred Lines"?
Robin Thicke: Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." I was like, "Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove." Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it. The whole thing was done in a couple hours???normally, those are the best ones. Him and I would go back and forth where I'd sing a line and he'd be like, "Hey, hey, hey!" We started acting like we were two old men on a porch hollering at girls like, "Hey, where you going, girl? Come over here!" That's why, in the video, we're doing all these old men dances. It was great.
I...the BITING floodgates open up years ago, but this is somehow "against the rules"?
It's true. And I don't disagree. Although, I will say this one happens to come off less like a refreshing flip/interpolation and more like an outright attempt to borrow a little too heavily from a classic...to me it's like a Wyclef/Puffy move but with slightly more smoke and mirrors to it....and they are fronting like it's a total coincidence that this track reminds people of Marvin's track.
But how are they frontin' if they stated they were reaching for a GTGIU type groove?
Exactly. Here's an excerpt from the interview. I'm don't see any "smoke and mirrors" with public statements like this. Can you copyright a "groove?"
GQ: What's the origin story behind your new single "Blurred Lines"?
Robin Thicke: Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." I was like, "Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove." Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it. The whole thing was done in a couple hours???normally, those are the best ones. Him and I would go back and forth where I'd sing a line and he'd be like, "Hey, hey, hey!" We started acting like we were two old men on a porch hollering at girls like, "Hey, where you going, girl? Come over here!" That's why, in the video, we're doing all these old men dances. It was great.
My bad Meistro and Batmon. I didn't realize they came out and said they were going for that groove. That seems to incriminate the Thicke camp even more, in my opinion. I've always interpreted the idea of "play that groove" to mean 'do what the rhythym section is doing on that track'...for the most part.
Regardless of the legality of stealing a groove or the vibe of a groove, it would be almost total silence without the GTGIU sound to it...with an accapella of Thicke saying "domesticate ya" in the most annoying way possible.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It seems to me that the above interview and the sound of this record together make a smoking gun for the Gaye family to use to their advantage.
Thicke/Williams/Interscope have the best lawyers and musicologists money can buy, they would not have made this move if they didn't feel strong in their position.
I assume thats the case. It seems the machine behind a Robin Thicke would know exactly what they are doing. I feel like sonically they have done just enough to legally separate themselves from owing the Gaye estate anything....although, that interview might complicate things for the Thicke side.
Side note: anyone know if there is any software that compares two songs and determines if one track is too similar to another? Seems like that could totally be possible...(*decides to stop being lazy and google it myself): Apparently there are some things like this in development: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928095458.htm Pretty interesting article on the idea of algorithmically determining music plagiarism etc.
it's not that simple. and if I'm reading the reports correctly, the Gaye estate has been NOT suing for a little while now.
Interscope having a great legal team doesn't mean they're not wrong....it sounds to me like folks are trying to make the entire scenerio seem more complicated than it actually is, in order to defend some type of "Right to Interpolate" bullshit. Thicke and Co were arrogant in their use of the song without consent and this suit sets a fucked up precedent.
Also. This isnt about cow bells, drums or drum patterns. This is about the groove. If you cant hear the groove from "Got to give it up" in " Blurred lines" cut your ears off.
These fools went in the studio like "hey let's make a song like "Got to Give it up".
They come out with a #1 song that sounds exactly like "Got to Give it up".
Marvin's people are like "Dudes yall need to break bread".
Interscope tells them "Hey man, yall can take what we give you and fuck off or see us in court, we're ballin!".
..yet folks are like. "uh, yah bruh. i kinda see where Thicke and em are coming from tho. Yall need to stop being on Marvin's nuts its jus some cow bells tho".
Yeah, ok
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
I think they should have cleared it up front, but at the same time this kind of shit makes it prohibitively expensive to make records. Ask any producer about records they could have made, or gotten licensed to a movie or commercial or video game, except for the fact that there was a sample and it would have cost too much money to clear. I don't know if this record would have gotten made if they had to clear it, I don't know how easy the Gaye estate is to clear with.
Cowbell is a different pattern. Bassline is different. Chord progression, and melody are different.
ETA: I don't really have an opinion about the overall worth of the record. I kind of don't give a shit. But I don't automatically believe that Marvin's estate is due money, that is a very slippery slope considering how music has been made for the last 30 years.
I have experience in copyright litigation, but not as it relates to music. This appears to be the gist of the law in the 1st Circuit, which is probably similar to the 9th Circuit where the case is pending in district court (I believe):
To succeed on a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ???(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.??? Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). As part of the second prong, a plaintiff must prove that the copyrighted and alleged infringing works are ???substantially similar.??? Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir.2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In determining substantial similarity, courts apply the ???ordinary observer,??? or, ???in musical milieu, the ordinary listener test.??? Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant's work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work only if an ordinary person of reasonable attentiveness would, upon listening to both, conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectable expression.
As much as the law might be based on an "ordinary listener" test, the reason I think this case will settle is because the judge or jury will be guided by experts on both sides. Also, that GQ interview is not an admission of guilt but it will definitely help the Gayes.
Comments
b/w
I ain't mad at this track.
don't look if you've eaten recently, or plan to.
This is kind of unprecedented. Not to mention, blinking first is kind of a bad look in this case. I already said this elsewhere, but it's definitely something a musicologist would have fun with. No question the intention is to put the listener in mind of Got To Give It Up, but really they're biting the groove, not the song. Plus, it's pretty tight musically on its own terms. This falls in the "inspired by" category to me and, while that can be a fine line to walk, as a former sample clearance professional I don't think there's a strong enough case here.
It's certainly possible to argue that this is just Thicke/Pharrell/TI challenging the Gaye estate to shit or get off the pot, but the onus isn't on them to do that. They're not really gaining any advantage here. If the Gaye estate thinks there's a solid case, they should just file suit instead of merely threatening to. I have a feeling they know the case isn't that strong, and they're hoping the publicity will lead to Thicke/Pharrell/TI breaking them off with some cash on the courtroom steps (but no ownership). Personally I'd have just styled it out.
What was that Isley Bros vs Micheal Bolton story? It sounds too close so u owe me money type steez?
If they ruled for Gaye and them couldnt that open the flood gates to cats asking for reparations for previous interpolations.
No wonder the queues are always huge for the bird's khazi. I thought I knew what went on in there...
Every day a school day on The Strut.
:hi:
-is that a 4 bar loop of the main section of "got to give it up", in other words the whole groove?
-is that marvin's scream?
-were these parts simply replayed note-for-note by studio whizzes?
if any of the forgoing is true, why would they not have cleared this with the estate?
none of this to say i hate this song or that it doesn't genuinely and creatively build on the GTGIU framework....
I dont hear the prominent GTGIU Bassline underneath Blurred Lines.
it's a very gray area as far as percussion is concerned. There's not really a precedent for clearing a replay of a percussive line, it's not the same thing as a melody or chord progression.
Agreed. Ultimately, the Thicke track alters itself just enough to avoid any legal issues with the OG track that they are clearly trying to sound like.
It reminds me of a skit that Conan Obrian does where they ultimately play 'guess the tune that we are hinting at but cant afford to play so we will alter just enough to avoid legal ramifications'.
It sucks but I bet Thicke gets away with it.
Agreed that it's a bad look for public relations reasons, but these types of declaratory actions are far from unprecedented in the legal world. I haven't posted on the strut in a while but came here because i was curious about what people thought about this case. When I first heard Blurred Lines the resemblance to Got to Give it Up was so clear (to me) it felt almost like a tribute song. I don't know how the Gaye family will fair in Court but agree with others that it is probably an uphill battle. However, if the case proceeds with discovery (document requests, depositions, etc.), I'd be real curious to see how much the songwriters of Blurred Lines discussed Gaye's song both before and after producing it. There is no way it was not a topic of discussion (and probably documented in emails) and that is certainly leverage for the Gaye family in terms of settlement value.
Yall have listened to decades of cats jackin,payola-ing,sampling, interpolating, ghosting, and covering plenty of beats.
I dont think the Gaye Estate has a case.
And if Thicke, TI, and Skateboard P are "protecting" themselves from a foreseen suit, Im not that appalled at all.
Yall have let the BITING floodgates open up years ago, but this is somehow "against the rules"?
U think they were trying to be on some "no 'sample' payment" sneaky shit, and are attacking cause they know they got "caught"?
If your going to court anyways, whats the harm in being on Offense?
Or is Gaye that Wholy 'n' shit and if it was Johnny Gill there would be no whoop-dee-doo?
A lot of the outrage is "ZOMG u cant sue marvin gay cuz u not as kewl as him!" Motherfuckers don't look a single line past the names.
Dude.......no
It's true. And I don't disagree. Although, I will say this one happens to come off less like a refreshing flip/interpolation and more like an outright attempt to borrow a little too heavily from a classic...to me it's like a Wyclef/Puffy move but with slightly more smoke and mirrors to it....and they are fronting like it's a total coincidence that this track reminds people of Marvin's track.
But how are they frontin' if they stated they were reaching for a GTGIU type groove?
Old artists, publishing houses, sample trolls that buy up rights for the express purpose of filing lawsuits, estates of dead legends, all are suit-happy and it is absolutely out of control. This particular instance is kind of bad optics but you can't blame artists for trying to protect themselves.
Exactly. Here's an excerpt from the interview. I'm don't see any "smoke and mirrors" with public statements like this. Can you copyright a "groove?"
GQ: What's the origin story behind your new single "Blurred Lines"?
Robin Thicke: Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." I was like, "Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove." Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it. The whole thing was done in a couple hours???normally, those are the best ones. Him and I would go back and forth where I'd sing a line and he'd be like, "Hey, hey, hey!" We started acting like we were two old men on a porch hollering at girls like, "Hey, where you going, girl? Come over here!" That's why, in the video, we're doing all these old men dances. It was great.
Read More http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2013/05/robin-thicke-interview-blurred-lines-music-video-collaborating-with-2-chainz-and-kendrick-lamar-mercy.html#ixzz2cW2LjEGQ
My bad Meistro and Batmon. I didn't realize they came out and said they were going for that groove. That seems to incriminate the Thicke camp even more, in my opinion. I've always interpreted the idea of "play that groove" to mean 'do what the rhythym section is doing on that track'...for the most part.
Regardless of the legality of stealing a groove or the vibe of a groove, it would be almost total silence without the GTGIU sound to it...with an accapella of Thicke saying "domesticate ya" in the most annoying way possible.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It seems to me that the above interview and the sound of this record together make a smoking gun for the Gaye family to use to their advantage.
I assume thats the case. It seems the machine behind a Robin Thicke would know exactly what they are doing. I feel like sonically they have done just enough to legally separate themselves from owing the Gaye estate anything....although, that interview might complicate things for the Thicke side.
Side note: anyone know if there is any software that compares two songs and determines if one track is too similar to another? Seems like that could totally be possible...(*decides to stop being lazy and google it myself): Apparently there are some things like this in development: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928095458.htm Pretty interesting article on the idea of algorithmically determining music plagiarism etc.
Interscope having a great legal team doesn't mean they're not wrong....it sounds to me like folks are trying to make the entire scenerio seem more complicated than it actually is, in order to defend some type of "Right to Interpolate" bullshit. Thicke and Co were arrogant in their use of the song without consent and this suit sets a fucked up precedent.
These fools went in the studio like "hey let's make a song like "Got to Give it up".
They come out with a #1 song that sounds exactly like "Got to Give it up".
Marvin's people are like "Dudes yall need to break bread".
Interscope tells them "Hey man, yall can take what we give you and fuck off or see us in court, we're ballin!".
..yet folks are like. "uh, yah bruh. i kinda see where Thicke and em are coming from tho. Yall need to stop being on Marvin's nuts its jus some cow bells tho".
Yeah, ok
Cowbell is a different pattern. Bassline is different. Chord progression, and melody are different.
ETA: I don't really have an opinion about the overall worth of the record. I kind of don't give a shit. But I don't automatically believe that Marvin's estate is due money, that is a very slippery slope considering how music has been made for the last 30 years.
As much as the law might be based on an "ordinary listener" test, the reason I think this case will settle is because the judge or jury will be guided by experts on both sides. Also, that GQ interview is not an admission of guilt but it will definitely help the Gayes.