Similar bass line, but completely different melody and lyrics. IMO a very unjust decision, but judge for yourself:
ETA: I'm a huge fan of Gaye; a big fan of Williams; meh on Thicke.I can’t imagine he even has $7 million.
It wasn’t just Thicke; Pharrell Williams has writing credit on the song and was a named party in the suit as well. I think between them they can come up with the cash:[
ETA: I’m very pleased with this verdict. As I’ve said many times, including several on this forum, there is a fine line between evoking something and outright copying it, and IMO many people go way over that line, too often with no repercussions.
I wonder who Weird Al will send the songwriter royalties to now?
Weird Al already pays all royalties for songs he parodies. That’s why he doesn’t get sued. (He also has the courtesy to ask permission beforehand, though he’s not actually required to do so as long as he pays.)
ETA: I just realized you’re probably referring specifically to Al’s Blurred Lines parody. I guess ASCAP or whoever will have to figure it out.
I’m pretty sure he’s not actually required to pay at all, due to the same parody rules.
G C Coleman’s family are going to be really, really rich.
I agree with you. To me, this is WAY on the side of evoking the feel, but not direct copying. Obviously, many folks mileage varies.
What’s interesting to me is how Thicke and Williams have both stated that Williams essentially wrote the song on his own while Thicke was drunk and high, yet they’re credited as co-writers.
Thicke and his douchebaggery aside, this song to me clearly has the feel of Marvin Gaye. First time I heard it I was thinking it was the tune they used in Boogey Nights (Marvin’ Gaye’s Got to Give it Up) because it gave off the vibe (not to mention the cowbell) of the earlier hit.
Besides, if George Harrison can be successfully sued by the Chiffons for My Sweet Lord, a far superior song to that silly He’s So Fine, two songs that no way resemble each other except for melody line, then surely Thicke and Williams can be sued for producing a far inferior tune to Got To Give It Up that was admittedly the “inspiration” for their tripe. It’s about time so called “artists” today stop the damn sampling and do their own work.
I can hear it. But it’s always a matter of interpretation.
As an aside…I’m a 48-year-old out of touch dude. Most of my new music ends up being folky or bluesy stuff.
But I’ve seen Pharrell Williams in two things now. Is it just me or does he communicate likeability and having fun with what he’s doing better than just about anyone?
This is one example where copy write will have a chilling effect on creativity. Pharrell testified about his love and respect for 60’s R&B. He was a big fan of Marvin Gaye and wanted to invoke the feeling of that era,
That’s creativity at its best. A lot of songs share common chord progressions and melodies. It’s how music works. There’s fundamental principles that music shares. The root, 5th, 3rd intervals. You can’t write Western music without using them. I’m currently taking voice lessons and learning those intervals is a critical part of my ear training.
I guess in the future artists will shy away from any 60’s R&B sound. Who wants to get sued? That’s going to be a loss for everyone. That’s potentially a lot of great music that will never get made.
Copy write was enacted to encourage creativity. Not stifle it. This court decision ultimately will hurt music in the future.
Totally disagree. Pharell is aping Marvin Gaye, he’s not inspired by it, this song lacked creativity.
Music is a lot like screen writing. Think about all the tropes that get used over and over again.
The young hard driving guy that ruthlessly fights his way to the top. Only to discover his life is empty and miserable. He meets a woman that shows him how to enjoy and embrace life.
How many movies and tv shows use that trope? If everybody had to pay some dead guy’s estate for reusing that idea it would make screen writing almost impossible. At this point no one even knows for sure who wrote that story first. Maybe Shakespeare. Could be any famous playwright. Thats one of the most common themes for romantic plays and movies.
Great ideas get reused. It doesn’t matter if its music or a movie.
Wow. That happened? I missed that. I really disagree with that one, too. I admit, I hear the similarity between those two a bit more than the ones in the OP, but neither, IMHO, fall anywhere near the category of what I would consider plagiarism.
Writing credits are negotiable. There are plenty of pop stars who negotiate co-writes on songs that are brought to them completed. There are also bands that have 1 or 2 writers and split everything evenly (either with the band or writing partnerships). Others don’t.
Yeah, that happened, in the Harrison case I heard the same melody but it was an entirely different vibe, his lyrics were more interesting because it was like a mantra or prayer rather than the usual girl sees boy scenario. However he had to pay roughly half a million to them, and he proceeded to buy the rights to He’s So Fine as well.
I don’t know. Are judgments tax-deductible?
Yes, I have read that they each made $5 million off the song. It certainly can’t be off the single alone. 7.3 million single sales equals about $5 million to the label. I guess it’s all royalties including syncs, mechanicals, and proportional royalties from Thicke’s album advance and performance.
Does Interscope have to pay anything? Wouldn’t they make the majority of the loot from this? Or is that irrelevant. As far as I can tell, Thicke is signed to Interscope through Pharrell’s label.
All the economics aside, I don’t agree with the verdict. Well, I agree that T.I. got to keep his 700 grand or whatever it was.
I totally agree with the verdict. There was no unconscious accident that Blurred Lines sounds so much like Got to Give it Up. They freely admitted this was their inspiration, but it went too far, to the point where many many observers thought it was a Marvin tune, right down to the mixing of the music and the production values. In the Harrison case, George said it was unconscious that the melody line was the same in his song as it was in the Chiffon’s version. And that I can buy, since the intention of the song and certainly the production is far different than the Chiffons. And yet Harrison paid up.
So the precedent has already been set, years ago.
Absolute bullshit. This is yet another money grab by people who had nothing to do with the original song’s composition. (Marvin Gaye’s been dead for 30 years.)
I don’t hear any resemblance between the two songs at all. The bass line does sound slightly similar, but that’s all.