The Smiley Smile Message Board

Basically, the family of Marvin Gaye sued the hell out of Pharell Williams and Robin Thicke, because they say that Blurred Lines rips off Marvin's "got to Give it Up".  They actually WON the court case today (jury trial) and owe Gaye's family 7 million dollars.

Blurred Lines (they may take this down soon, the song's basically contraband right now)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU

got to give it up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM

What's everybody think?  It's clearly meant to be a homage to that song, do you think Pharell went a little too far? 

It's not a blatant rip off but there is a fair amount of similarities to the two songs.

Here's a song doing the rounds at the moment that is a complete ape job.

Kelly Clarkson - Heartbeat Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2K6uxIFO6w

Which is a shitty autotuned rewrite of...

Jimmy Eat World - The Middle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKsxPW6i3pM

Popular music has long been a medium of shared ideas. Lawsuits like these make me anxious because they work to put an end or at least make other artists think twice before they borrow elements from other songs in the construction of their own. And when we think of how many classic works of art are based on others, then we would really be in trouble if all that came to an end. Originality is a myth -- that's something that great artists understand but I'm sure lawyers don't care about that.

Yeah, it's a pity. "Classical" music through the ages is bristling with borrowed stuff, consciously or not, attributed or not, and it's been the richer for it...

Good points all.  I like some of Pharell's tracks but not this one with Thicke.  Pretty obvious to me.

Chocolate Shake Man,  "Originality is a myth" - good way to put it.  I got a chuckle, and will use that later.

John k,  Yes yes yes.  Even our biggest artists have done just that over the years.  McCartney, Simon, Carmen to name but a few, have used that method to produce excellent music.  I really have nothing against it - listen if you want, don't if you don't want to.  Borrowed.  That is a very polite way to say that.  Bach and the others can't sue. :lol

Ron,  thanks for the link to Marvin's clip.  He was the best of the soulsters.

Bach wouldn't have dared! If anyone dipped liberally into the music of others, it was ole JSB. (And at least one son, C.P.E., seems to have inherited his father's light-fingeredness.)

Still, just imagine if he hadn't! ;D

 

There ya' go John, already showing you are much more knowledgeable with Classical music than I am!  Who did Bach nick from?  I do have a favorite tho - Sergei Rachmaninoff.  I must have heard him around the house growing up, my mama loved Classical stuff.  He definitely came to my attention when I bought the soundtrack to Somewhere in Time (1980) - not a very good movie, but the score is fantastic.  John Barry used "Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini" all through the score.  I'm sure Sergei got credit and royalties.  I have about twenty-five or so John Barry records, so maybe I should be saying Barry is my favorite Classical composer.  But he did Jazz and Rock too.  I miss him.  All my favorite movie score cats are gone now.

I later found out that a 70's favorite of mine was also a big fan of Rachmaninoff.  Eric Carmen's "Never Gonna Fall in Love Again" is based on the third movement, Adagio (A major) of his Symphony No. 2 (1906-07).
"All by Myself" is based around a theme from the second movement, Adagio sostenuto, of the Piano Concerto No. 2 (1900-01).  Those were big money makers.  Rachmaninoff's estate wasted no time bringing it to Eric's notice.  He agreed to give up 12% of the royalties from both tracks.  We don't usually hear about these things until someone brings a court case, or when listening to an old composer's music you do a double-take.  Wait a minute, I recognize that melody...

I haven't posted in your Symphony thread yet, but I have been listening to some of it.  I wasn't sure if the more modern composers were what you had in mind for the thread.  I'll get to work coming up with something.  I see so many threads I want to post in, but time gets in the way.

Even Mozart stole (from Michael Hayden). Check out this audio story:

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/blurred-lines-between-theft-and-artistic-inspiraton/

Originality is a myth - I keyed that into google and found many references through time.  Even Mark Twain commented on it.

So Chocolate Shake Man, I guess even the quote is not as original as I first thought.  You did turn the phrase around to make it sound more catchy.  The listings I found all said:  The Myth of Originality.  I like your way better.

Diverging slightly, I love the story about Mozart and Allegri's Miserere----incredible!

http://www.good-music-guide.com/reviews/046_allegri_miserere.htm

 

We've talked about this kind of stuff on here before, my favorite comments about the subject were from Billy Joel's hall of fame inductance speech.

"Where were we gonna find the soul of America?  You know where we got it?  We got it from the radio.  We got it from rock and roll music - that's where we got it from.  And I'm not talking about Pat Boone.  And I'm not talking about Fabian.  And I'm not talking about Frankie Avalon.  I'm talking about Ray Charles, and Little Richard, and Chuck Berry, and Fats Domino, and Wilson Pickett, and James Brown, and Otis Redding, and Little Anthony and the Imperials, and Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers - that's where we got it.  So I wanna thank those people, 'cause they were the real pioneers.  And I know I've been referred to as derivative.  Well, I'm damn guilty.  I'm derivative as hell!  Let me just suggest this.  Anyone who is derivative like I'm derivative, who should be automatically excluded, would mean that there wouldn't be any white people here.  I know we're on TV, but we've gotta get some outrageous sh*t started here, you know what I mean? "


Now Pharell's not white but it applies to all of this stuff. The reason Pharell makes the soul-based music he makes is because he learned it listening to people like Marvin Gaye when he was 3 or 4 years old...

You've got to think about the intent of the copyright laws.  In my opinion, they're to protect against theft, if Pharell was selling a cd with Marvin's music on it and keeping the money, that's theft.  If he was re-recording something Marvin wrote and not paying him, that's theft.  If he was using Marvin's image and not paying him, that's theft.

Making a song in a similar style is not theft, it's an honor.  It probably took him quite awhile to get the groove to sound that much like the song in the first place, since he's using different instrumentation and it's a different key (at least to my ears).  It's not like he just played the same groove, he completely rebuilt something similar with the intent of making it remind you of the other song. 

The ironic thing about all of it is, in modern music Pharell's probably the closest mainstream thing you can get to Marvin's style of production from the 70's... on all of his other stuff.  His peers look at Pharell like Marvin's peers looked at him.

I'm just pretty libertarian on this kind of thing, I don't think the lawsuit had enough merit.

It hearkens back to George Harrison getting screwed for "My Sweet Lord" because it has the same structure as "He's So Fine".  The judgement actually said that George must have subconsciously ripped it off, knowing the other song in the back of his mind.

What kind of crap is that?


Another horrible one that's in the same vein, but was never sued over, is Beechwood 4-5789.  Years later, Booker T & the MG's wrote "634-5789" for Wilson Pickett.  You know that was the same situation, they subconsciously had that set of numbers in the back of their head when they came up with the other phone number... I heard the gentleman that wrote the song talking about it on XM radio once, he swore up and down the only reason he did it was because it sounded good up and down on the beat, but hell any number will sound good on the beat. 

BTW, Beechwood 4-5789 was written by Marin Gaye.  Don't tell his family!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us18AUBM2RI



Wilson Pickett: 634-5789

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2apquxKKQ

Ha! I guess you can say I Pharelled it.

There's a 3000 year old eastern saying "Do unto others as they do unto you" and the bible has Jesus saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Just sayin'.

Good thing Nona Gaye didn't have anything to do with that original quote or we'd have one hell of a lawsuit on our hands

When I first heard it, I thought clearance would've been gained already from the Gaye estate. On hearing the arguments back and forth I can appreciate that Blurred Lines only "paid tribute to" the arrangement of Gayes song and didn't crib the tune. Important difference. George Harrison was sued for My Sweet Lord as the tune was the same. Pharrell was seemingly sued as only the arrangement was the same.
We are through the f*****g mirror here.
For instance: how many songs by many major artists have used similar arrangements to Brian Wilson and should similarly be sued? Eg. At My Most Beautiful by REM?
I'm not one to defend improperly behaving miilionaires, but this has gone too far.
And I hate Blurred Lines, but admire and like most of what Pharrell has done elsewhere.

Brian Wilson regarding "The Blurred Lines" lawsuit:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-brian-wilson-talks-blurred-lines-chuck-berry-and-surfin-usa-20150312-story.html

He was threatened to be sued years later - I think a lot sooner than that!

I love how Brian is constantly going to record a Rock & Roll album... and since the interviewer brought it up, by god it's going to have "Johnny B. Goode" on it. 

Love this guy

Thanks for the link Mikie.  Brian is using the interview to advertise the new album.  Of course they would call up Brian's office to see if he would comment on when it happened to him.  Why not use a current storyline to get some press.

Of all the cases we've talked about today, I thought the George Harrison case was the weakest.  I didn't think the songs sounded similar.  What ever happened to the California/Page dispute?

Ron beat me to the best part.  Brian - still plugging the Rock'n'Roll album.  Next!  He's saying it's Next! Go Brian!

Van Dyke Parks spoke about the case:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-blurred-lines-verdict-van-dyke-parks-20150312-story.html

“Every great songwriter I know has hit a zone of possible infringement,” Parks said. “It’s the finest acrobatic act of all: finding an unsuable offense in music.

“The fact is, people do it all the time,” he said. “Every songwriter wants to have a tool of familiarity to gain entry into the casual observer’s ear. You end up with something that sounds like something you’ve heard before. That’s OK. I really do think it’s an art. Creating an unsuable offense is the art of music that is at once creative and familiar.

“But some people are ill equipped creatively themselves to avoid the appearance of plagiarism, and to avoid the appearance of plagiarism is a necessary part of a real artist’s objective. So on principle, I feel that the Gaye estate had every right to act as the aggrieved party.”

I like Van Dyke Parks. He's a nice guy. And I get where he's coming from here. But it seems to be that where you draw the line between a suable offense and an unsuable offence comes down more to whether a party feels aggrieved and wants to sue you, rather than how successful you were at being able to creatively use another song (or another genre) for your own work.

I really enjoyed David Letterman's 'take' on it.  Basically it went something like...'Thank goodness for this decision by the judge.  We certainly wouldn't want today's music to all sound the same.'  The audience just went NUTS...laughing, guffawing, yelling, cheering...an explosion of applause.    WAY more noise than is normally the case.  Dave NAILED it.  RAdio programmers REALLY should take note that the HUGE majority of people are just damn good and sick if this 'muzac'.  [but 'they' don't care.]

I didn't think the two songs were close enough to warrant THAT kind of a result by the way.  The background crowd noise on Gaye's track has been used before.  [by Marvin]  Was everyone in the jury named Gaye? :lol 

Personally, when I first heard the tune I thought that it was a complete rip of the Gaye track.  I know there is gray area, "blurred lines", with this stuff.  To me the Harrison ruling was wrong and this one isn't necessarily (though the $ figure is a bit harsh).  But in a ancient musical tradition of influences and "nicking", where is the line?

I think the ruling was a mistake. The songs don't even share chords, melodies, or structure. They both have a similar groove, cowbell, and the male falsetto. That's terrible grounds for a lawsuit and it sets a scary precedent for future lawsuits. Reportedly, the Gaye family is currently riding a lawsuit high and are looking into Pharrell's "Happy" to find another thing to sue him for. If they had stopped with the first song, it would have been forgivable, but now they're just coming off as greedy.

"Ain't That Peculiar", if my spies got it right. One good thing about all this is that young folks are getting to hear great songs they would probably never hear otherwise...

Going way back, Lou Reed ripped off "Hitchhike" for "There She Goes Again."

The gods seem to have it in for poor Marvin!  ;D

I think these guys were really sued for coming off as douches. Mainly Robin Thicke but dragging Pharrell down with him.

Many many other people could have gotten away with it, and they lost the case as much for the video as the track itself ..... Sleazy, oozing Thicke having sex with the wall as naked models prance around for no reason. The Gaye family probably took this as an offense to Marvin's memory assuming that soon enough Got To Get It Up and this abomination would be annointed as basically one and the same in the millenial pop culture venacular. So, they did what they had to in order to win the case and now there's at least the footnote of a lawsuit to wedge some distance between Marvin and Robin freaking Thicke!

Like button needed for posts like this. The backing track is exactly the same, however. But I do find Blurred Lines catchy, so I listen to Weird Al's parody of it instead.