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

[trimph1]

Well?

Why would Thicke & Co...RETROACTIVELY SUE to protect Blurred Lines if it was just a case of similar beat and nothing else then?

There must have been some intent involved to draw the estate into this...n'est pas?

[metamorphosis]

This is a rubbish decision.

[jancivil]

They plain ripped off too much, and preemptive suing is a total sign they knew it.

[trimph1]

They plain ripped off too much, and preemptive suing is a total sign they knew it.

Precisely.

There was intent...like it or not.

[pc2000]

The funny thing about Marvin's song-is that it sounds like the same people in the background-was used for the crowd sound that was in Curtis Mayfield's We're a winner. The woman particularly stands out! I wonder if unused parts from that session was used in Marvin's song? What do you guys think?

[ThoughtExperiment]

They plain ripped off too much, and preemptive suing is a total sign they knew it.

Precisely.

There was intent...like it or not.

Intent to do what? Make a song that sounds like it was written/recorded in the 70s? Who owns the copyright on that? Don't be daft...this is what happens when ambulance-chasing lawyers and greedy families sniff the money and waste time that the courts could be putting to better use - like putting criminals behind bars. Perhaps certain members of the Gaye family should stop milking their father's fame and talent and get jobs?

[trimph1]

They plain ripped off too much, and preemptive suing is a total sign they knew it.

Precisely.

There was intent...like it or not.

Intent to do what? Make a song that sounds like it was written/recorded in the 70s? Who owns the copyright on that? Don't be daft...this is what happens when ambulance-chasing lawyers and greedy families sniff the money and waste time that the courts could be putting to better use - like putting criminals behind bars. Perhaps certain members of the Gaye family should stop milking their father's fame and talent and get jobs?

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....

[GaryG]

You can do that '70's groove thing without suing someone pre-emptively....

They didn't just sue pre-emptively out of nowhere though, the article you linked to itself says they did it after the allegations from Gayes family had started flying.

It's a dangerous precedent though if it is upheld, could decimate the Tarnce industry.

[trimph1]

You can do that '70's groove thing without suing someone pre-emptively....

They didn't just sue pre-emptively out of nowhere though, the article you linked to itself says they did it after the allegations from Gayes family had started flying.

It's a dangerous precedent though if it is upheld, could decimate the Tarnce industry.

Well, if'n the allegations were there I think that Thicke & Co. might have been a little less aggressive and just modified the song a little more. As it was I do think that they could seek an appeal here.

That Thicke admittedly was high on whatever it was when they recorded it was funny though.

[skipscada]

It's a dangerous precedent though if it is upheld, could decimate the Tarnce industry.

There's no question that the songs have a lot in common and it's fair to assume that one is copying the other to a great extent. However, within more narrowly defined genres it's completely normal for tracks to be as similar as this. If Gaye's track had become the basis for a whole new genre (I suggest "chugging funk" --> "chunk"), the Pharrell/Thicke track would be interpreted as just another chunk (or neo-chunk?) track. So what's on the line here isn't just the similarity, but the distinctness of these two similar tracks with regards to the rest of all the other tracks in the universe.

[skipscada]

A more civilised way of dealing with these things:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... t-20150126

I happened to hear the Sam Smith song for the first time last night (I live in a cave), and I immediately thought it sounded almost identical. It's hard to believe that noone around Sam Smith heard the similarity before release. Does all his entourage consist of accountants or teenagers?

[trimph1]

A more civilised way of dealing with these things:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... t-20150126

I happened to hear the Sam Smith song for the first time last night (I live in a cave), and I immediately thought it sounded almost identical. It's hard to believe that noone around Sam Smith heard the similarity before release, though. Does all his entourage consist of accountants or teenagers?

That would have been a much better approach to this, I would agree.

As to why no one picked up on the similarities...that could happen if'n one has heard "it all"

[ThoughtExperiment]

A more civilised way of dealing with these things:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... t-20150126

I happened to hear the Sam Smith song for the first time last night (I live in a cave), and I immediately thought it sounded almost identical. It's hard to believe that no one around Sam Smith heard the similarity before release. Does all his entourage consist of accountants or teenagers?

Very civilised, I agree - probably something to do with the fact that, although the Tom Petty song was very popular, we're not talking about millions of dollars in sales And it's not that hard to believe that nobody around Sam Smith knew of the 25-year old song, by an artist who's never been as big in the UK as he is over the pond.

Interesting, though, that it's only a relatively short phrase that shares the same melody. With only twelve notes available in the first place, and only certain combinations of those twelve notes which sound acceptable/pleasing/whatever - it's a wonder this kind of thing doesn't happen several times every day...

[whyterabbyt]

Interesting, though, that it's only a relatively short phrase that shares the same melody. With only twelve notes available in the first place, and only certain combinations of those twelve notes which sound acceptable/pleasing/whatever - it's a wonder this kind of thing doesn't happen several times every day...

so in a scale of 8 notes per octave, maximum one octave either way in a monophonic melody, ie 24 notes. Of course there are actually more possibilities than that, but we're simplifying. Lets say 5 different lengths of note that are 'different enough' in length to be differentiated easily. Also simplifying.

For any note instance, lets say you have 24*5 possibilities = approx 120 possible note/length options for your starting key, based on your simplified options. Lets just make it easier and call that 100, ie simplify it further.

Your second note has the same options, so staying in the same key, thats 100*100 first note/second note combinations.

Now lets imagine there are (simplified) anywhere between 1 and 16 sequential notes of any length in a bar, and (simplified) 4 bars to make up a 'melody'. even taking a minimal melody as being (simplified) only 10 sequential notes made of whatever length/note combinations, that gives you 100^10 possible combinations.

100,000,000,000,000,000,000 variations. Including multiple tiers of simplification.

And dont forget that there are shorter and longer melody lengths, and you'd be adding two zeroes for every extra note in the melody...

Surely one should wonder how melodies manage to sound the same. 'Accidently' doesnt seem likely.

[Tricky-Loops]

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!

If I made a song and told in interviews it were inspired by "Dangerous" from Michael Jackson - to sell my song -, and then his heirs read it and asked me for a fee, and to stop them I'd sue them preemptively, they should take me to the mental hospital...