Wish it was the case.
You may be right. A lot of Black folks don't like it, that's for sure. But I'd estimate that most of them aren't Robin Thicke's core audience.
What's wrong with this white boy? Robin Thicke Sues Marvin Gaye's Family.
- Thread starter kefta
- Start date
That too.
But really, outside this board, I don't see all this outrage over this. People are interested in how it's going to turn out but no one talking about boycotting Robin Thicke or anything like that.
So he knew he was wrong or he wouldn't have tried to give up shit.
Their lawyer probably told them its tha number 1 song in tha country he gotta reach deeper in his pocket.
Re: Thicke and Co., Got To Give It Up To Marvin
Non reading-ass one star bandit strikes again.
Could have at least left a comment pro or con, you ashy lipped 3 rotten teeth having bastard.
This is puzzling considering the Gaye family doesn't own the rights to the song anyway.
I never like that fuck boy Robin Thicke, from day one. There's nothing impressive IMO about his music. However, I never had disdain for his very being until now. Eat a dick Robin Thicke.
That's not what a settlement offer means, even a preemptive one. You know how much your time is worth to you. Add to that what you estimate a longer drawn out battle will cost you in legal fees and bad publicity. Add to that that you might lose a case. A settlement offer, even a six figure one, might be the cheapest of your options.
Robin Thicke and the Art of Jacking for Beats
"Blurred Lines" took everything that makes "Got to Give It Up" a classic track. But was it theft?
By: Joycelyn A. Wilson | Posted: August 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM
In their 40 years of creating classic beats and rhymes, rap- and hip-hop-influenced R&B producers have always found inspiration from soul, funk and rock-and-roll musicians. Whether it is Ice Cube's sampling of James Brown's "Funky Drummer" on "Jackin' for Beats" or the Beastie Boys' mix of Led Zeppelin's "When the Levee Breaks" with "Sweet Leaf" by Black Sabbath for "Rhymin & Stealin," it remains common practice for producers of the hip-hop generation to sample from music's legends.
So it probably didn't raise too many eyebrows when super-producer Pharrell Williams manipulated just about every element of Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" to create this summer's mega-hit, "Blurred Lines." After all, Williams does what all the modern greats do: He brilliantly reimagines the drums, bass line, cow bells and background party voices that are signature to the 1977 hit. He even re-creates the song's feel, thus landing Robin Thicke and guest rapper Clifford "T.I." Harris Jr. a hit that is currently in its 10th week at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 -- the longest Hot 100 reign of 2013.
Indeed, Thicke, Williams and Harris reinvented everything that makes "Got to Give It Up" the funky sound that it is.
But then something unusual happened. Concerned about a potential suit for the song's apparent usage of the classic soul track, Thicke and the "Blurred Lines" team launched a lawsuit against Nona Gaye, Marvin Gaye III, Christian Gaye and Bridgeport Music Inc. asking the judge to protect "Blurred Lines" from any copyright infringement on Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" or "Funkadelic's "Sexy Ways." And it had me wondering: Was this a case of a guilty conscience on the part of the producers or a brilliant legal move?
"Blurred Lines" is a real groovy tune. I loved it upon hearing it because it was reminiscent of that Marvin Gaye soul funk that's hard to ignore. But it may also be the first time a sampling artist has sued the original artist in the 40 years of hip-hop sampling cases. And this has me feeling some type of way, as Rich Homie Quan raps. Is there a way of lifting actual elements of a song -- the bars, the riffs, the hooks, the drum patterns and the "feeling" of a song -- that might be interpretive but not exact? And if so, what is the difference?
Puzzled and needing to make sense of Thicke's startling move -- a move I initially thought was borderline cray-cray -- I called on three industry professionals for a quick-and-dirty lesson on the ethics of sampling. I spoke to Isaac Hayes III, songwriter, producer and manager of Isaac Hayes Enterprises (see Wu-Tang's "C.R.E.A.M." and Outkast's "Crumblin 'Erb"); Aldrin Davis (aka Toomp), a DJ and producer for Kanye West's "Good Life" and Jay Z's "Say Hello"; and Vincent Phillips, an entertainment attorney based in Atlanta who has helped clear samples for Jonathon "Lil Jon" Smith.
"In copyright infringement [involving music]," Hayes explained, "you have to consider three things: cadence, melody and lyrics, and you have to take two of the three in order for it to be infringement." If neither is used in their identical form, then the producer isn't required to cut a check to the publisher of the original version. "In the case of "Blurred Lines," he continued, "they take none of the three."
But what did they take? Surely, I wasn't the only one scratching her head trying to understand the legal and ethical precedence set when their lawsuit was filed.
Toomp weighed in, saying that Williams sampled the "vibe" of "Got to Give it Up." While laughing, he insisted, "You can't tell me no one in the studio during the time of production didn't listen and say, 'Y'all flipped that Marvin Gaye'. You can't hide that sound," Toomp claimed. "When we produced 'Good Life,' we time-stretched the melody so that it [the original 'PYT'] fit with the key of the song, and we then put the music on top of it. We sampled all three elements," he admitted. "And we had to pay Michael Jackson for it."
All three agree that "Blurred Lines" is not copyright infringement. It's not a sample, and it isn't an interpolation. Rather, it is a genius re-creation of a vibe that is careful not to infringe upon the song's original master. From the Williams-Thicke perspective, the song evokes an era, and an era isn't copyrightable. So why shoot first?
"Bridgeport is known for being aggressive. Sometimes too aggressive," Phillips surmised. "To the extent of the potential lawsuit coming from Gaye and Bridgeport is based on theme, feeling or vibe, I think it is smart to make a pre-emptive strike against that. Ultimately a musicologist will decide. However," Phillips explained, "if Bridgeport is right, then potentially all the artists who produce thematic records and albums will be vulnerable to lawsuits."
The story of hip-hop is the story of the sample. Yet after 40 years, hip-hop sampling remains a contested area, both celebrated and criticized at the same time. In the case of "Blurred Lines," precedence has been set for protection of the sampler from the owner -- especially when "evoking an era" and regardless of how similar the songs sound. How will the industry change if the judge rules for the Gaye family and Bridgeport? Will Bruno Mars have to pay publishing for his sampling of The Police's "feel" on "Locked Out of Heaven"? And then would that lead to them both having to cut a check to the entire reggae genre that inspired Police songs like "Don't Stand So Close to Me" and "Can't Stand Losing You"? Looks like a judge will decide.
Regardless of how the case ends, "Blurred Lines" raises the question of whether or not there's such a thing as musical originality. If so, how is it measured? It also highlights the level at which original ideas and compositions created by one generation of artists can influence the ideas and compositions of the next, without anyone suing or getting sued.
http://www.theroot.com/views/robin-thicke-and-art-jacking-beats?page=0,1
"Blurred Lines" took everything that makes "Got to Give It Up" a classic track. But was it theft?
By: Joycelyn A. Wilson | Posted: August 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM
In their 40 years of creating classic beats and rhymes, rap- and hip-hop-influenced R&B producers have always found inspiration from soul, funk and rock-and-roll musicians. Whether it is Ice Cube's sampling of James Brown's "Funky Drummer" on "Jackin' for Beats" or the Beastie Boys' mix of Led Zeppelin's "When the Levee Breaks" with "Sweet Leaf" by Black Sabbath for "Rhymin & Stealin," it remains common practice for producers of the hip-hop generation to sample from music's legends.
So it probably didn't raise too many eyebrows when super-producer Pharrell Williams manipulated just about every element of Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" to create this summer's mega-hit, "Blurred Lines." After all, Williams does what all the modern greats do: He brilliantly reimagines the drums, bass line, cow bells and background party voices that are signature to the 1977 hit. He even re-creates the song's feel, thus landing Robin Thicke and guest rapper Clifford "T.I." Harris Jr. a hit that is currently in its 10th week at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 -- the longest Hot 100 reign of 2013.
Indeed, Thicke, Williams and Harris reinvented everything that makes "Got to Give It Up" the funky sound that it is.
But then something unusual happened. Concerned about a potential suit for the song's apparent usage of the classic soul track, Thicke and the "Blurred Lines" team launched a lawsuit against Nona Gaye, Marvin Gaye III, Christian Gaye and Bridgeport Music Inc. asking the judge to protect "Blurred Lines" from any copyright infringement on Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" or "Funkadelic's "Sexy Ways." And it had me wondering: Was this a case of a guilty conscience on the part of the producers or a brilliant legal move?
"Blurred Lines" is a real groovy tune. I loved it upon hearing it because it was reminiscent of that Marvin Gaye soul funk that's hard to ignore. But it may also be the first time a sampling artist has sued the original artist in the 40 years of hip-hop sampling cases. And this has me feeling some type of way, as Rich Homie Quan raps. Is there a way of lifting actual elements of a song -- the bars, the riffs, the hooks, the drum patterns and the "feeling" of a song -- that might be interpretive but not exact? And if so, what is the difference?
Puzzled and needing to make sense of Thicke's startling move -- a move I initially thought was borderline cray-cray -- I called on three industry professionals for a quick-and-dirty lesson on the ethics of sampling. I spoke to Isaac Hayes III, songwriter, producer and manager of Isaac Hayes Enterprises (see Wu-Tang's "C.R.E.A.M." and Outkast's "Crumblin 'Erb"); Aldrin Davis (aka Toomp), a DJ and producer for Kanye West's "Good Life" and Jay Z's "Say Hello"; and Vincent Phillips, an entertainment attorney based in Atlanta who has helped clear samples for Jonathon "Lil Jon" Smith.
"In copyright infringement [involving music]," Hayes explained, "you have to consider three things: cadence, melody and lyrics, and you have to take two of the three in order for it to be infringement." If neither is used in their identical form, then the producer isn't required to cut a check to the publisher of the original version. "In the case of "Blurred Lines," he continued, "they take none of the three."
But what did they take? Surely, I wasn't the only one scratching her head trying to understand the legal and ethical precedence set when their lawsuit was filed.
Toomp weighed in, saying that Williams sampled the "vibe" of "Got to Give it Up." While laughing, he insisted, "You can't tell me no one in the studio during the time of production didn't listen and say, 'Y'all flipped that Marvin Gaye'. You can't hide that sound," Toomp claimed. "When we produced 'Good Life,' we time-stretched the melody so that it [the original 'PYT'] fit with the key of the song, and we then put the music on top of it. We sampled all three elements," he admitted. "And we had to pay Michael Jackson for it."
All three agree that "Blurred Lines" is not copyright infringement. It's not a sample, and it isn't an interpolation. Rather, it is a genius re-creation of a vibe that is careful not to infringe upon the song's original master. From the Williams-Thicke perspective, the song evokes an era, and an era isn't copyrightable. So why shoot first?
"Bridgeport is known for being aggressive. Sometimes too aggressive," Phillips surmised. "To the extent of the potential lawsuit coming from Gaye and Bridgeport is based on theme, feeling or vibe, I think it is smart to make a pre-emptive strike against that. Ultimately a musicologist will decide. However," Phillips explained, "if Bridgeport is right, then potentially all the artists who produce thematic records and albums will be vulnerable to lawsuits."
The story of hip-hop is the story of the sample. Yet after 40 years, hip-hop sampling remains a contested area, both celebrated and criticized at the same time. In the case of "Blurred Lines," precedence has been set for protection of the sampler from the owner -- especially when "evoking an era" and regardless of how similar the songs sound. How will the industry change if the judge rules for the Gaye family and Bridgeport? Will Bruno Mars have to pay publishing for his sampling of The Police's "feel" on "Locked Out of Heaven"? And then would that lead to them both having to cut a check to the entire reggae genre that inspired Police songs like "Don't Stand So Close to Me" and "Can't Stand Losing You"? Looks like a judge will decide.
Regardless of how the case ends, "Blurred Lines" raises the question of whether or not there's such a thing as musical originality. If so, how is it measured? It also highlights the level at which original ideas and compositions created by one generation of artists can influence the ideas and compositions of the next, without anyone suing or getting sued.
http://www.theroot.com/views/robin-thicke-and-art-jacking-beats?page=0,1
That seems to just be an argument that Thicke and his camp are making. Whether it will hold water remains to be seen. It appears that at the very least, the Gaye Estate does have at least a vested financial interest in preventing infringement as they own 100% of Marvin's share of Royalties (although they rolled future earnings into a bond-backed security for about $100 mill in cash: BOND ISSUE FOR THE ESTATE OF MARVIN GAYE)
So although they still own the royalties, they used it's future income as "collateral" for a big check. The quicker the bonds get paid off, the quicker they can start receiving their royalty payments again. His infringement on the copyright not only dilutes Marvin's distribution of "Got to give it up", but the Estate is not seeing anywhere near the jump in royalties that they should if Thicke had only handled this properly.
Robin Thicke and that #1 on the charts status is looking mighty nice to the Estate right now. I think this CAC knows that he done fucked up. LOL
Are you sure about that?
United States Copyright Office Online Search (Just type the 1st Registration # in and then select "Registration" in the box below it)
Last edited:
Try as you may, but in the end all you haters will not prosper.
I'm a good sport though, here's some complimentary drinks, I know your parched from all that hard work
Haters??? A creative and original GRAND-MASTER of R&B is being so technically and strategically plagiarized, that it creates "blurred lines" within the letter of the law. Yet you condone this behavior from one who is of the ilk of many other white performers who have acted similarly?
If you like the damn song that much, maybe you should consider where it gets 80-90% of it's elements from (not samples, ELEMENTS). Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but you're throwing up some red flags with all of that "hater" crap. Just saying...
I disagree, AND agree... He does have some joints (that he didn't rip off) that are ok with me. In other words refreshing to the R&B game...
But I'm with you on the "disdain" part starting NOW. Never once was I fooled from seeing what he actually is: A CAC trying to make a name in R&B by displaying his black wife and using time-tested formulas of previous black R&B singers.
I've been flying back and forth from where I live to DC for the last 3 months and I've been hearing that bullshit ass song within an hour of when I touched down no matter what city. The marketers & promoters are the ones blowing this Cac up with the radio play...
In my opinion, this bullshit is PsyOps... They couldn't stand for the Sphinx's nose in Giza to display that of a brother so they demolished it. WHITEWASHING at it's best... Same thing in Thicke's case: Disguise black creations and then put them on display as "white thought" for the 20 yr olds (who will accept anything as new)...
I've lost all respect for Pharoah now (excuse me, I meant PHARRELL. Did you peep the similarity in the phonetics? These fuckers have been playing with us on a sub-conscious level for a lil while now). Pharrell has now shown his true colors as an imposter until I see otherwise. Yeah, I know the music game is a business, and business is about money, but in my mind there's just some shit that you aren't supposed to cosign...
The poster I-Moses has opened the door to show me how UN-ORIGINAL this ninja "Pharoah" is. No, I haven't heard his whole catalog but among other works, if he can openly RAPE Marvin Gaye like that at the whim of a Cac then fuck that coon ass bastard and T.I. (who I never really gave a fuck about) too. Sellout Bastids'...
That is up for debate and will be dealt with in court (see my previous "red" posts in this thread).
...curious, who does??
Not many. Most publishers have in their contract that the song-writer must "assign" the copyrights to the publisher or recording company for ownership in order to receive royalties.
Some artists depending on their clout can escape that clause. Maybe Marvin Gaye was significant enough to be one of those artists...
If you want to know more about the game, there's a decent write up on "How Stuff Works" that is informative for the beginner: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties.htm
Last edited:
Me too, but apparently the promoters have a stronger presence than either you or I... I can't walk or drive 10 blocks without hearing this song...
That article reeks of both a lack of professionalism and a woeful lack of knowledge of the musical creative process. Firstly, the article's tone attempts to balance things by giving sampling hip-hop producers an equal footing with actual songwriters (like Marvin Gaye).
This is problematic and inane considering that the hip-hop producers that the author references chop up and reassemble portions of others' complete original song recordings.
On the other hand, someone like say, Curtis Mayfield actually CREATED the melody, instrumental arrangement, words and music charts for the musicians. He also played guitar and sang lead on many of his songs.
...That's a far cry from this practice that has developed over the last 20 years of using samples of the grooves of old R&B songs and putting a different singing melody and different words over it. To do that, doesn't even take a fraction of the skill it took to create the song whose groove it samples.
I can see using samples of old grooves for rappers to rap over. I can accept that because a rapper isn't a musician - in the traditional sense. He or she occupies a rather unique category of their own, that though it takes skill to be a good rapper, the skill usually doesn't require or involve the talent of playing a musical instrument, putting together chord progressions etc.
However, for a so-called songwriter to use sample (or "interpolation") based techniques as their foundation for making R&B songs - demonstrates either a lack of songwriting/composing talent, laziness or both. It's financially smart on the part of record companies who want to save money by doing away with hiring session musicians and songwriters - and instead using DJ's and the like to make songs. But this practice is detrimental to the beautiful and rich creative process cultivated by our great musical geniuses of the past (and present). Over time, it has begun to turn the dwindling crop of actual composer/songwriters and instrumentalists into an endangered species.
Now, here we have Pharrell whom the article refers to as "brilliant". There is no brilliance in replaying someone else's song and altering just enough notes to avoid a violation of current copyright law. This isn't the first or second time Pharrell did that either. Robin Thicke should be ashamed of himself bragging about how they "wrote the song in 30 minutes". Duh. Yeah it took 30 minutes, because the bulk of the song was already written - by Marvin Gaye!
This is no slam on the person who posted this article. But to the author of it:
Three "experts" were consulted about music plagiarism for this article and NONE is an actual musician or songwriter who plays an instrument???
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
^^^^^
I cosign errythang this man just posted! !
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4
I hear that. knowing about history has made me skeptical of white people doing our styles of music - especially coupled with the fact that we live under a system of white-supremacy that exponentially increases the chances of white artists being canonized as "amazing" while black talent is suppressed.
I hear that. knowing about history has made me skeptical of white people doing our styles of music - especially coupled with the fact that we live under a system of white-supremacy that exponentially increases the chances of white artists being canonized as "amazing" while black talent is suppressed.
Gwaan wid it !! Lick shot!!
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4
well lets ge one thing straight..rappers aren't "rather unique" theyre lyricists..and lyricists need background music. Many songwriters don't play an instrument and work with musicians who build the music either off their hummed lead or the musician creates the music and the songwriter matches lyrics to it.
no need to put them in a special category..rappers aren't magicians..
"Unique" as in: a rapper is not a singer or instrumentalist in the traditional way of understanding one of those things to be. He is someone who is both of those things - yet not both of those things.
Painting rappers as "magical"? That was your own interpretation not mine.
Yep. That's true, geechiedan (case in point: Michael Jackson).
Even still, the process you described is different than the music for that hummed or sung lead being snatched from a sample of the foundational riff of an existing song (which is what i contrasted in my original statements (sample-based vs "from scratch").
Real shit...
And just for the Robin Thicke cum slurpers who think that this shit is ok, let me give you another example of Thicke's "genius" contribution to R&B:
--All you need is about 20 seconds of the beginning of each video--
This white boy is trying to ride the tail of a true genius, and then he wants to turn around and sue? Really??? Fuck this CAC and all who support him!!!
Fuck him.
WTF was the purpose in changing the lyrics and altering the melody? Why not just cover Trouble Man outright?
Keeping in mind that Marvin's name is listed as an author of this, Robin Thicke wants to have his cake and eat it too - cannibalize Marvin, but yet be able to call it a "new original song".
It's just as you said.
Lord have MERCY!!!
Probably because he only had to "license" a portion (sample) of the copyright of "Trouble Man" for "Million Dollar Baby" as opposed to the "whole song" of "Trouble Man"(which would have cost much much more). People who sample have to give up royalties. At the time, he wanted the Marvin Gaye effect, but only wanted to pay "discount" dollars. So he just sampled...
But after that album, now the CAC is trying to be slick... (it's all coming together for me now)
He doesn't want to pay royalties anymore, so he gets one of the best producers at channeling the most important aspects of a song (Pharrell = Pharoah) without seeming to infringe the Marvin Gaye copyright.
He's piggy-backing on Marvin Gaye, while reaping the rewards for himself. This was an intentional move by him (from the beginning), and he is quite "defensive" about it due to his guilt. That's why he went preemptive and filed the law suit. To counter-attack what he knew might be coming because of his flaw-ass CAC-ass ways..
Fuck him, his decrepit ass daddy Alan Thicke, AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THIS BITCH-ASS CAC... (that means you coolio jones)
Last edited:
{capitalized the "you"}You are living in the land of the idiots if you think it sounds JUST LIKE Got to Give it Up.
And I swear all YOU black folks swear every single thing in America is a race card. Nevermind that two other Black people were also featured in the song...
Watch your back BGOL, there are CACs amongst us... Red Flag #2 for cooliojones...
I said this just a few weeks ago in the Miley Cyrus thread.....
Right,because white people have never stole from our culture....
There is a reason why I quoted Paul Mooney,because its true..
Black people have done so many things in history and yet white people always hijack it and claim it for themselves....Just look how they're hijacking hip hop now and yet want to shit on the people who invented it...
i thought he just ripped off one of marvin's songs. timberlake is trying to be like michael and thicke is trying to be like marvin. they should try to be like tina marie who didn't rip off anyone. and this is coming from a person who hated that woman "music' with a passion!
timberlake is trying to be like michael and thicke is trying to be like marvin. they should try to be like tina marie who didn't rip off anyone. and this is coming from a person who hated that woman "music' with a passion!
Yes Nona Gaye, your dad was a true musical genius. He was more gifted in practice while laying down on a couch than most of these so called stars today:
Screw everything else, we need more pics of Nona Gaye
Right,because white people have never stole from our culture....
There is a reason why I quoted Paul Mooney,because its true..
Black people have done so many things in history and yet white people always hijack it and claim it for themselves....Just look how they're hijacking hip hop now and yet want to shit on the people who invented it...
I feel you my G...
These CACs won't even acknowledge that all these Indian tribes that they make their cowboy movies on stem from us and our original significance in the Americas. Yep, there was a slave transportation from Africa, but most of us were already here. We're the true indigenous people in America as well as China, India, and beyond. But we don't have any "Indian reservations" with Casinos and shit. Why???? White-Washing...
Enough of the details of that though. That's for another thread. I'm still mad about this CAC raping Marvin Gaye...