KVR Audio

BERFAB · Post by **BERFAB** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:02 pm

The first time I heard the song, I actually thought it WAS the Marvin Gaye tune. Then, when I heard the rest of the song, I assumed they sampled large parts of the Gaye tune. I don't think you can deny the similarities.

What I find interesting though, is that the jury in this case did not hear the Marvin Gaye recording for comparison. What they heard was the copywritten sheet music performance (i.e. chords and melody). No "whoops" or shouts. Probably no cowbell either.

So Pharell's lawyer was definitely doing his job. He stripped away the "feel" and required the jury to concentrate on the music.

What I don't know, and I haven't seen reported is the age of the jurors. Twenty-somethings would be much less likely to know who Marvin Gaye was than forty and fifty-somethings who have that song indelibly imprinted in their DNA.

-B

[Edit: And frankly, if Tom Petty has a case against Sam Smith for using the same 3 chords EVERYONE uses, than the Gaye family decision is really a no-brainer.]

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:30 pm

Now if he tries the same with a Barry White song, Mr. Thicke might be bankrupt forever...

lotus2035 · Post by **lotus2035** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:50 pm

Gold-digging c**ts FTW

Ben H · Post by **Ben H** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:10 pm

Tricky-Loops wrote:
trimph1 wrote:Well, if it was the '70's feel/groove then why go and use a PRE-EMPTIVE lawsuit if that was all they wanted to do? That was what Thicke & Co did....they brought it on themselves.

You can do that '70's groove thing without suing someone pre-emptively....
And that's the important flaw: Robin Thicke told in several interviews that "Blurred Lines" were inspired by "Got to Give It Up" from Marvin Gaye, just to sell the song! If he had told instead "was inspired by the 70's groove", nobody would have mentioned Marvin Gaye!

Well he is called Thicke.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:53 pm

Ben H wrote:
Tricky-Loops wrote:
trimph1 wrote:Well, if it was the '70's feel/groove then why go and use a PRE-EMPTIVE lawsuit if that was all they wanted to do? That was what Thicke & Co did....they brought it on themselves.

You can do that '70's groove thing without suing someone pre-emptively....
And that's the important flaw: Robin Thicke told in several interviews that "Blurred Lines" were inspired by "Got to Give It Up" from Marvin Gaye, just to sell the song! If he had told instead "was inspired by the 70's groove", nobody would have mentioned Marvin Gaye!
Well he is called Thicke.

This is what he should cover next:

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:58 pm

Next should be this:

Robin Thicke - Million Bollar Baby and Marvin Gaye's Trouble Man.

It may be a legit cover, I don't know. But this thick dude has a thing for Gaye.

Taoist · Post by **Taoist** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:08 pm

After listening to the two songs I feel totally lost as to what copyright could have possibly been violated in this song. I'm not even a big "top40" "pop" music person at all, but I am not sure if I can hear any definitive sampling of the Marvin Gaye song. Very similar feel overall both instrumentally, in tempo and vocal style, but you can't sue over that crap can you?

I hope some clarity is shed on what the hell is supposed to be the problem here or that a crappy jury decision is overturned.

breakmixer · Post by **breakmixer** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:09 pm

This sort of stuff has been going on for years I.e...

and then later on...

I also thought the law couldn't use copyright infringment with regards to bassline and drums...I listened to the Marvin Gaye song a minute ago, it has a similar feel/groove - that is all, surely that cannot be a copyright infringement?

jsp1979 · Post by **jsp1979** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:12 pm

BERFAB wrote:
[Edit: And frankly, if Tom Petty has a case against Sam Smith for using the same 3 chords EVERYONE uses, than the Gaye family decision is really a no-brainer.]

Tom Petty didn't sue anyone. He and Sam Smith worked out an agreement.

Sing the chorus of "I Won't Back Down" and then sing the chorus for "Stay With Me" (by Sam Smith). Probably 75% is identical in relative pitch and rhythm. The part that isn't identical has some of the same lyrics.

If Sam Smith had licensed the melody to an adult diaper company, then everyone would think Tom Petty licensed his song. I get why Petty (or his agent) pressed on this one.

Here's a vid with the two playing at the same time:

elxsound · Post by **elxsound** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:21 pm

jsp1979 wrote:
BERFAB wrote:
[Edit: And frankly, if Tom Petty has a case against Sam Smith for using the same 3 chords EVERYONE uses, than the Gaye family decision is really a no-brainer.]
Tom Petty didn't sue anyone. He and Sam Smith worked out an agreement.

Sing the chorus of "I Won't Back Down" and then sing the chorus for "Stay With Me" (by Sam Smith). Probably 75% is identical in relative pitch and rhythm. The part that isn't identical has some of the same lyrics.

If Sam Smith had licensed the melody to an adult diaper company, then everyone would think Tom Petty licensed his song. I get why Petty (or his agent) pressed on this one.

Here's a vid with the two playing at the same time:

Actually he didn't say Tom Petty sued Sam Smith... Having a case was probably meant figuratively here. But I could be wrong.

I think this was the right decision. There was no 70s feel to capture... This was capturing Marvin Gaye's Got to Give it Up. A very specific song that happens to be from the 70s. I'm glad it worked out this way, because if there was never a Got to Give it Up track, then there would never have been a Blurred Lines.

Saukar30 · Post by **Saukar30** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:46 pm

Coming from a guy who grew up on Marvin Gaye and stays current with all the r&b music in the top 40, the first thing I thought of when I heard Blurred lines was the Marvin Gaye song that was sampled. They are not exact A/B copies... But are definitely similar. I'm surprised at the amount of the lawsuit, but not surprised that there is one. If I would've reinterpolated the beat for them, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:56 pm

Thicke made $5.6 million and Pharrell made $5.1 million from that song.
So pay up, copycats.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:16 pm

jsp1979 wrote:
BERFAB wrote:
[Edit: And frankly, if Tom Petty has a case against Sam Smith for using the same 3 chords EVERYONE uses, than the Gaye family decision is really a no-brainer.]
Tom Petty didn't sue anyone. He and Sam Smith worked out an agreement.

Sing the chorus of "I Won't Back Down" and then sing the chorus for "Stay With Me" (by Sam Smith). Probably 75% is identical in relative pitch and rhythm. The part that isn't identical has some of the same lyrics.

If Sam Smith had licensed the melody to an adult diaper company, then everyone would think Tom Petty licensed his song. I get why Petty (or his agent) pressed on this one.

Here's a vid with the two playing at the same time:

I can think of lots of examples of songs that sound much more similar - Roxette's "Listen to your heart" and Heart's "What about love?" for example. Heart never took Roxette to court either, the crappy Thicky song is much less similar than that or the Petty/Smith one.

MIDI4Radio · Post by **MIDI4Radio** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:37 pm

My question is: when is Tommy James going to truck Adam Sandler's ass into court?

Play Sandler's "Hanukah Song", immediately followed by the tail end of "Crimson and Clover". Then get back to me.

GaryG · Post by **GaryG** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:40 pm

Taoist wrote:Very similar feel overall both instrumentally, in tempo and vocal style, but you can't sue over that crap can you?

I think that's what a lot of us feel/are asking. How many people copied Bob Marleys sound or John Lee Hookers or Nirvanas or Chics 'good times' vibe...?

Pharrell, Robin Thicke to Pay $7.3 Million to Marvin Gaye Family