What's wrong with this white boy? Robin Thicke Sues Marvin Gaye's Family.

[14damoney]

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.

Real shit...

14, dude, where should I begin? First w/ i-moses, I definitely disagree, because it is in fact brilliant to sing a great cover (how many have outdone the original artist when doing this? Not many... see Whitney Houston for the best example probably EVER). Oh and what about Ice Cube and Today Was a Good Day? .

In regards to your statements towards the poster I-Moses: YOU. ARE. TOTALLY. OFF. OF. THE. MARK...

You don't even know the difference of "covering" a song as opposed to raping it...

Let me explain how, using an artist that you mentioned to I-Moses:

Whitney Houston sang, recorded, and published the song "Greatest Love of All" which was originally CREATED AND SUNG BY THE BLACK GUITARIST GEORGE BENSON... (in which she had to acquire a license to sing...).

Listen to Benson (A Guitar Master who sometimes sings) & then listen to Whitney (a short-lived VOCAL MASTER ):


---Give yourself about 2 minutes of each video if you can stand it---







Who won the singing contest??? WHITNEY right??? Yet it's not her song...

... and if they both played the song in guitar I guarantee you that Benson would "blow Whitney's back out"

But Whitney won in this case because it was vocal...

The lyrics were the same, the music may have been in a different key, but it was basically the same progression. THIS IS COVERING A SONG to your own artist's creativity and talent...

On the other hand, you have this bullshit:


30 secs for each...





That is not covering...

They extracted a lot, and added a lot to keep from paying... They're are giving you "blurred lines" so that you won't peep the essence... Maybe you are the fools they think you are to be...


BRB...

 

[BrownTurd]

1) Thicke did not remake "Trouble Man", but he made sure to capture the feel and sound of it.

2) Thicke IS suing the Gaye family. That's what this is all about. He may not be seeking monetary compensation, but he clearly requested that the Gaye family pay for his legal fees should the prosecution be successful.

3) He offered the Gaye estate a measly six figures because the royalties they could claim off of blurred lines is significantly more. I wouldn't have accepted that table-scrap of a settlement either.

And let's not pretend he offered the settlement out of the "goodness of his heart", he knows that he's dead wrong...

4) It doesn't matter who owns the masters. That's irrelevant. I think you might be speaking of the copyright, and I've already posted info that seems to indicate that the Gaye Estate may have the legal standing to seek damages.

It hasn't been addressed in court yet, so it doesn't really matter what experts YOU choose to believe have to say as of right now.

1. He did a remake of trouble man. It was supposed to sound like Marvin Gaye. That is the purpose of doing a remake

2. Again Pharrell wrote and produced the song. Robin offered a fair settlement when he did not have to. That shows he has character. The Gaye family members got salty because Robin and his team are about business. It is nothing personal and just business. And going to court was simply business. It is a smart business decision to get things legally documented. In business paper work is your friend.

3. He did not owe them a dime. No one owns a sound. The song did not use a sample and the family knew it and was salty when the court was about to get involved because they would have got nothing.

4. The gay family does not own the publishing of that song as it was not produced by Gaye. So why would anyone pay the family?

 

[BrownTurd]

Yep they collaborated on it and decided to TRY to extract enough elements to avoid infringement. At the end of the day, Thicke is the front runner of this mess. We will see what happens though...

Also music is not race specific. Classical, country or pop is not a white music just as r&b is not a black music.

Music is a composition of notes and melodies in which anyone can master regardless of race. I hate when people define music by race.

 

[cooliojones]

Robin Thicke did that remake justice. Now that is how a remake should be.

This was not a good example. Robin has always payed for his samples. There has never been an issue with him not paying for samples. Plus he is not suing Gayes family.

He is going to court in order to get a ruling on whether it was a sample. Robin offered to pay the Gaye family $100,000 when he did not have to. That money was directly to the family and not the record label who owns the masters. The family wanted more money and that is the issue.

It has been proven by many musical theorist that it was not a sample.

Robin Thicke is an American singer, producer and song writer who has a net worth of $15 million dollars. Robin Thicke has released five solo studio albums since 2003. Thicke has also written hit songs for many other artists including Guy Sebastian, Angela Via, 50 Cent, Lil' Wayne, Christina Aguilera, and Jennifer Hudson. Robin is the son of actors Alan Thicke and Gloria Loring. He is currently married to actress Paula Patton, whom he has been dating since the age of 16. They welcomed a son named Julian Fuego Thicke in April of 2010.

Translated....
This whole thread equals...

Basically...

When I said: " A creative and "original" GRAND-MASTER of R&B", I didn't mean the FIRST. I meant "original" (as in a unique creator not seen before his era, during his era, and beyond...[unless you include Robin Thicke's thieving ass]).

Yeah I include him, because you fail to see how artists can create their own unique work, even if it is within the inspiration of someone else's work. You fail to see how dude has adequately paid for the things he may have used as required by the industry. Unless a court rules in favor of the Gaye family, any and all of this is pure speculation, and either you and your minions or me as part of a collective of supporters will have egg on our respective faces. So sure, I love to se how it plays out.

 

[DJCandle]

If it wasn't a sample, he's got nothing to pay for.

If he paid the family anyway, why is this even a thread? Where's the character and gratification from the Gaye family?

 

[respiration]

But the beat "part" is not a copy either.

You don't know what you're talking about. Again, both beats (as well as the respective keyboard hits) match together perfectly. It's close to a direct copy.

First w/ i-moses, I definitely disagree, because it is in fact brilliant to sing a great cover (how many have outdone the original artist when doing this? Not many... see Whitney Houston for the best example probably EVER). Oh and what about Ice Cube and Today Was a Good Day?

What I said was that what Pharrell did was not brilliant. What he put together and Robin Thicke performed was not a cover - neither is what Ice Cube did. Rappers rapping over sampled grooves are not covering them. In order for it to have been a cover, Cube would have had to have been singing the same words as Ronald Isley over a re-playing of the song, Footsteps In The Dark - not over a sample. Ice Cube wasn't even rapping the words to the Isley's song. Had he been doing that, he would have had to have called his recording, Footsteps In The Dark just like if Robin Thicke sang the same words as Got To Give It Up over that song's groove, he would have had to call it by the same title instead of Blurred Lines. Get it? This was a rip.

You're actually trying to suggest that what RT did surpassed Marvin Gaye's song? Fuck outta here. Next time you smoke those cigars, you need to remember to take the plastic off first.

This is what you and 14 don't understand... these artists are making music for a new generation. It is brilliant because the original artists sees their relevance and inspiration birthed into a new generation that would generally disregard their work.

WTF??? First of all, Marvin sees nothing of the sort in this case, because he's dead. His family disagrees with you too. Why? Because giving (legal/financial) credit is what compliments the original artist. To steal the (virtually unaltered) groove is not flattery. It's stealing.

So if a work inspires an artist to create their own work, why all the hate? You act like the original artists gonna forever be around... which obviously they cannot be.

You're right that 14damoney and I don't understand what you're talking about. Because you're not talking about anything.

There is a difference between being "inspired to create" one's own work and what Robin Thicke did. He didn't create anything. And Pharrell didn't either. HE cannibalized Marvin just like he cannibalized Prince and Peven Everett before him.

So you're trying to say that people like Robin Thicke are doing some kind of favor to original artists by vulturing their material, because the artist will eventually die? Have you lost your mind? Are you trying to say that people no longer listen to music of the past, and use that as an argument? Just stop.

I dont think they hear ya. Same reason why I didnt even attempt to explain it to them.

Cause he didn't say anything.

Robin Thicke is an American singer, producer and song writer who has a net worth of $15 million dollars. Robin Thicke has released five solo studio albums since 2003. Thicke has also written hit songs for many other artists including Guy Sebastian, Angela Via, 50 Cent, Lil' Wayne, Christina Aguilera, and Jennifer Hudson. Robin is the son of actors Alan Thicke and Gloria Loring. He is currently married to actress Paula Patton, whom he has been dating since the age of 16. They welcomed a son named Julian Fuego Thicke in April of 2010.

Translated....
This whole thread equals...

Fuck outta here, man.

1. He did a remake of trouble man. It was supposed to sound like Marvin Gaye. That is the purpose of doing a remake

That's never been in dispute, especially since Marvin's name is listed among the authors of that song, which means Marvin's people got their proper cut.

2. Again Pharrell wrote and produced the song. Robin offered a fair settlement when he did not have to. That shows he has character.

You're crazy. Pharrell did not write that song. He wrote the melody and words, but the groove that propels the song was written by Marvin Gaye. Considering the success of the song, and that the song would not have been successful without Marvin's groove, the relatively small amount of money offered to the Gaye family was an insult. Especially so, since they tried to steal from Marvin's song on the sly. As Nicholas Payton pointed out, Got To Give It Up had it's own unique sound when it came out. No other song sounded like it at the time. So, the RT team's claim that they were innocently "trying to capture an era" is disingenuous. As well, RT said he wanted something that sounded like Got To Give It Up.

The Gaye family members got salty because Robin and his team are about business. It is nothing personal and just business. And going to court was simply business. It is a smart business decision to get things legally documented. In business paper work is your friend.

The Gaye family is rightfully upset because Marvin's work was cannibalized by this CAC with no legal credit nor compensation.

3. He did not owe them a dime. No one owns a sound. The song did not use a sample and the family knew it and was salty when the court was about to get involved because they would have got nothing.

You really need to research and expand your education about musical plagiarism beyond "sampling".

4. The gay family does not own the publishing of that song as it was not produced by Gaye. So why would anyone pay the family?

14damoney already provided documentation refuting that. Read up.

 

[black-n-tan]

You don't know what you're talking about. Again, both beats (as well as the respective keyboard hits) match together perfectly. It's close to a direct copy.



What I said was that what Pharrell did was not brilliant. What he put together and Robin Thicke performed was not a cover - neither is what Ice Cube did. Rappers rapping over sampled grooves are not covering them. In order for it to have been a cover, Cube would have had to have been singing the same words as Ronald Isley over a re-playing of the song, Footsteps In The Dark - not over a sample. Ice Cube wasn't even rapping the words to the Isley's song. Had he been doing that, he would have had to have called his recording, Footsteps In The Dark just like if Robin Thicke sang the same words as Got To Give It Up over that song's groove, he would have had to call it by the same title instead of Blurred Lines. Get it? This was a rip.

You're actually trying to suggest that what RT did surpassed Marvin Gaye's song? Fuck outta here. Next time you smoke those cigars, you need to remember to take the plastic off first.

WTF??? First of all, Marvin sees nothing of the sort in this case, because he's dead. His family disagrees with you too. Why? Because giving (legal/financial) credit is what compliments the original artist. To steal the (virtually unaltered) groove is not flattery. It's stealing.You're right that 14damoney and I don't understand what you're talking about. Because you're not talking about anything.

There is a difference between being "inspired to create" one's own work and what Robin Thicke did. He didn't create anything. And Pharrell didn't either. HE cannibalized Marvin just like he cannibalized Prince and Peven Everett before him.

So you're trying to say that people like Robin Thicke are doing some kind of favor to original artists by vulturing their material, because the artist will eventually die? Have you lost your mind? Are you trying to say that people no longer listen to music of the past, and use that as an argument? Just stop.

Cause he didn't say anything.

Fuck outta here, man.

That's never been in dispute, especially since Marvin's name is listed among the authors of that song, which means Marvin's people got their proper cut.

You're crazy. Pharrell did not write that song. He wrote the melody and words, but the groove that propels the song was written by Marvin Gaye. Considering the success of the song, and that the song would not have been successful without Marvin's groove, the relatively small amount of money offered to the Gaye family was an insult. Especially so, since they tried to steal from Marvin's song on the sly. As Nicholas Payton pointed out, Got To Give It Up had it's own unique sound when it came out. No other song sounded like it at the time. So, the RT team's claim that they were innocently "trying to capture an era" is disingenuous. As well, RT said he wanted something that sounded like Got To Give It Up. The Gaye family is rightfully upset because Marvin's work was cannibalized by this CAC with no legal credit nor compensation.

You really need to research and expand your education about musical plagiarism beyond "sampling".

14damoney already provided documentation refuting that. Read up.

Looks like we can go around and around arguing over something we have no control over and marginal legal knowledge of. This will all be resolved eventually. Us getting getting mad at each other will have no effect on the outcome.

 

[respiration]

Looks like we can go around and around arguing over something we have no control over and marginal legal knowledge of. This will all be resolved eventually. Us getting getting mad at each other will have no effect on the outcome.

It's a debate for the most part. Are you angry at the other posters on here? LOL I'm not.

 

[black-n-tan]

It's a debate for the most part. Are you angry at the other posters on here? LOL I'm not.

No, but I took a few personal shots here. I can debate all day, nothing personal to me.

 

[cooliojones]

GTFOH with that BS... His whole marketing PLATFORM in the beginning was toward not only black people, but specifically to black women...

His flavor of music? Guess where he got that from??? (a notable portion which he plagiarized...)

His first hit was "Lost Without You" which he made sure to publicize was dedicated to his BLACK WIFE.

So it's not that he made the song for his WIFE, she gotta be a BLACK wife, GTFOHWTBS, this is the race shit I'm talking about, erethang gotta be a race card.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Looks like we can go around and around arguing over something we have no control over and marginal legal knowledge of. This will all be resolved eventually. Us getting getting mad at each other will have no effect on the outcome.

Yep.

So it's not that he made the song for his WIFE, she gotta be a BLACK wife, GTFOHWTBS, this is the race shit I'm talking about, erethang gotta be a race card.

You're just figuring this out? It was obvious from the title.

 

[cooliojones]

You don't know what you're talking about. Again, both beats (as well as the respective keyboard hits) match together perfectly. It's close to a direct copy.

This is some of the biggest bullshit in this thread, so if the beats "match together perfectly," then it WOULD be a direct copy. But it's NOT a direct copy, who grew your ears man?

If it were a direct copy I don't think anyone would challenge you or Mr. 14, but uh... really anyone with half a brain would tell if it were a direct copy.

What I said was that what Pharrell did was not brilliant. What he put together and Robin Thicke performed was not a cover - neither is what Ice Cube did. Rappers rapping over sampled grooves are not covering them. In order for it to have been a cover, Cube would have had to have been singing the same words as Ronald Isley over a re-playing of the song, Footsteps In The Dark - not over a sample. Ice Cube wasn't even rapping the words to the Isley's song. Had he been doing that, he would have had to have called his recording, Footsteps In The Dark just like if Robin Thicke sang the same words as Got To Give It Up over that song's groove, he would have had to call it by the same title instead of Blurred Lines. Get it? This was a rip.

Uh, yeah no shit, I didn't say CUBE did a cover, I said Whitney did. Cube SAMPLED Footsteps in the Dark, made a completely new song, and effectively infused the inspiration of the Isley Brothers into a new generation.

That's the beauty of new artists, they can artistically do this because not everyone thinks on their level. Tell me what 14 year old today is jamming to Caravan of Love? Who's nodding their head to Jimmy Mack? Maybe... MAYBE there are a handful who do it, but it definitely is not par for the course. This is how life works, and how you can pay homage to a generation that came before you, whether you (the consumer) realize it or not.

You're actually trying to suggest that what RT did surpassed Marvin Gaye's song? Fuck outta here. Next time you smoke those cigars, you need to remember to take the plastic off first.

Yes, that is what I'm saying...but get this... I feel it is this way for the PEOPLE OF TODAY. You old people probably don't feel that way. Marvin's song was good, but I prefer Robin, T.I. and Pharrel's song. It's a measure of preference, which we can't really debate. Some people like Soulja Boy, some people like Master P. It's all in what you like.

WTF??? First of all, Marvin sees nothing of the sort in this case, because he's dead. His family disagrees with you too. Why? Because giving (legal/financial) credit is what compliments the original artist. To steal the (virtually unaltered) groove is not flattery.

Ain't nobody steal shit cause there was nothing stolen. You can't "steal" inspiration. Why do you think in certain movies they have these distinctions:

"Based on a true story" vs
"Based on true events" vs
"Inspired by true events"

All three of these are different, and you are claiming, CLAIMING that Robin and his crew did #1 of the above examples, and they claim they did #3. So you and anyone else would need to sufficiently prove that he did #1 but said it was #3 as a smokescreen. I will await the court's decision, because you and your crew have no dog in the contest.

There is a difference between being "inspired to create" one's own work and what Robin Thicke did. He didn't create anything. And Pharrell didn't either.

Au contraire, they did in fact CREATE something. WHO WROTE THE WORDS MAN? Did Marvin write them? Did his daughter? His family? No? Aight then...

AT BEST, a court could say he sampled a song without full credit (either monetary or legally or both), but that is severly in doubt, because if this were the case, why wait til a song gets hot until you do this?

You and your patnas lose credibility each and every time you try to take EVERYTHING from the Rob-TI-Pharrell group, and not give credit to their creative abilities. Shit, Pharrell by himself should be all the credibility anyone needs, as he has been around producing hit after hit for a while now. You saying that his career is nothing but him stealing? Then so is R. Kelly, P. Diddy/Daddy, Will Smith, and anyone else my friend.

So you're trying to say that people like Robin Thicke are doing some kind of favor to original artists by vulturing their material, because the artist will eventually die?

In a word, yes. Wouldn't no one be talking about Marvin Gaye AS MUCH right now if it weren't for this lawsuit, due to the greed from the family. Artists and their families do this tactic to stay relevant. It's very common.

Have you lost your mind? Are you trying to say that people no longer listen to music of the past, and use that as an argument? Just stop.

Oh yeah, PEOPLE do, but how old are these people? It's a known fact that young people of today are lazy, so why do they listen to old music and then claim that The Isley Brothers ripped off Ice Cube? Duh, they are lazy and uninformed. ARTISTS know the truth, and they disclose it. But who actually reads the CD inserts...

You're crazy. Pharrell did not write that song. He wrote the melody and words, but the groove that propels the song was written by Marvin Gaye.

Same shit that gets your argument invalided by the masses everytime. You give NO CREDIT to these young men, and that's not cool. Pharrell did write the song. Sure, a good beat will propel a song, but I do not believe that they stole a beat, they were inspired by a beat, and like they say in the Jeffersons theme song, "Ain't nothin' wrong wit that!"

 

[ShortyCumStain]

So it's not that he made the song for his WIFE, she gotta be a BLACK wife, GTFOHWTBS, this is the race shit I'm talking about, erethang gotta be a race card.

What da fuck is a "race card"???

 

[respiration]

This is some of the biggest bullshit in this thread, so if the beats "match together perfectly," then it WOULD be a direct copy. But it's NOT a direct copy, who grew your ears man?

If it were a direct copy I don't think anyone would challenge you or Mr. 14, but uh... really anyone with half a brain would tell if it were a direct copy.

Listen, did you click PLAY on that video at all? That beat is not a simple boom-bap boom-bap kick on the 1 and 3 and snare on the 2 and 4. There's a good deal of other percussion that make up the complexity of that beat combined with the rest of the instruments in the rhythm section.

IF it was not a copy, the drums percussion and electric piano would not smoothly match like what you heard in that video. You would hear clash...extra beats - not that smooth uniformity that anyone with 1/3 of a musical ear can hear listening to the mashup I posted.

Who grew YOUR ears? Better yet, what instrument do you play? What's your musical experience?

Uh, yeah no shit, I didn't say CUBE did a cover, I said Whitney did. Cube SAMPLED Footsteps in the Dark, made a completely new song, and effectively infused the inspiration of the Isley Brothers into a new generation.

Oh really?

First w/ i-moses, I definitely disagree, because it is in fact brilliant to sing a great cover (how many have outdone the original artist when doing this? Not many... see Whitney Houston for the best example probably EVER.) Oh and what about Ice Cube and Today Was a Good Day?

That's the beauty of new artists, they can artistically do this because not everyone thinks on their level.

Do what? And on WHAT level? A REAL songwriter is able to "evoke the spirit of an era" by utilizing specific instrumentation, song structure and vocal arrangements of a genre in a given era without directly copying a particular song. In other words, it is entirely possible to create something that has that old sound, but that would not be ripping off anyone's specific song. Can you wrap your head around that?

If you are referring to what Pharrell does as being special. Dude. What Pharrell is doing here isn't. Taking someone else's groove consisting of several dozen notes across a number of different instruments and altering one or two of those notes - is not new thinking, and if you happen to be speaking about the manipulation of samples - which is relatively new - that doesn't take 1 ounce of the talent that it takes to write a new song from scratch. Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, for ex. could easily do the same thing that Kanye does (the difficulty level is low, in musician/songwriters' terms). Kanye, however cannot do what SONGWRITERS like Jam and Lewis, Leon Ware, Babyface or Dwele can.

Tell me what 14 year old today is jamming to Caravan of Love? Who's nodding their head to Jimmy Mack? Maybe... MAYBE there are a handful who do it, but it definitely is not par for the course. This is how life works, and how you can pay homage to a generation that came before you, whether you (the consumer) realize it or not.

In the music business, if you are going to use someone else's stuff for your own project, the way you "pay homage" and show respect is by officially crediting the original author and making sure that they are monetarily compensated.

If an artist feels the honest social responsibility (untouched by monetary compensation) to want to pass down music from a prior era to a younger generation, it is as simple as publically referencing specific artists and their songs. This HAS been done before by others.

Yes, that is what I'm saying...but get this... I feel it is this way for the PEOPLE OF TODAY.

I don't know about that. A lot of now generation people are frowning on this mess, as well.

You old people probably don't feel that way. Marvin's song was good, but I prefer Robin, T.I. and Pharrel's song. It's a measure of preference, which we can't really debate. Some people like Soulja Boy, some people like Master P. It's all in what you like.

To each his own...

Ain't nobody steal shit cause there was nothing stolen. You can't "steal" inspiration.

Inspiration is completely different from copying. Again, I can be inspired by someone's work and create an original song that doesn't copy my inspiration's song (see Raheem DeVaughn's Marvin Gaye What's Going On era inspired song, Bulletproof).

Why do you think in certain movies they have these distinctions:

"Based on a true story" vs
"Based on true events" vs
"Inspired by true events"

All three of these are different, and you are claiming, CLAIMING that Robin and his crew did #1 of the above examples, and they claim they did #3. So you and anyone else would need to sufficiently prove that he did #1 but said it was #3 as a smokescreen.

Apples and oranges.

I will await the court's decision, because you and your crew have no dog in the contest.

If that's true, the same applies to you. You're sitting up here in this thread typing essays with the rest of us.

Au contraire, they did in fact CREATE something. WHO WROTE THE WORDS MAN? Did Marvin write them? Did his daughter? His family? No? Aight then...

OK. Did you not see me say that they wrote the words and singing melody? If not, scroll up and re-read what I said in my last post.

AT BEST, a court could say he sampled a song without full credit (either monetary or legally or both), but that is severly in doubt, because if this were the case, why wait til a song gets hot until you do this?

Learn your terms. This was never an issue of sampling. It is an issue of copying. Sampling is using portions of a sound recording in a piece. How long the Gaye family did or didn't wait isn't at issue and wouldn't be considered in court. Whether or not they are owed for Thicke and co's "inspiration" IS what is at issue.

You and your patnas lose credibility each and every time you try to take EVERYTHING from the Rob-TI-Pharrell group, and not give credit to their creative abilities.

Au Contraire, YOU lose credibility trying to defend these cats. It sounds like you are employing the same lazy thinking (minus the calculated greed) that Pharrell and RT did when they decided to jack Marvin's shit instead of come up with an original song between them.

Shit, Pharrell by himself should be all the credibility anyone needs, as he has been around producing hit after hit for a while now.

That alone doesn't spell credibility - especially across a diluted, dumbed-down current musical landscape. That's like saying that Soulja Boy has more cred as a rapper than Mos Def because he has a Gold album AND a Platinum album while Mos Def only has one Gold album under his belt.

Come again.

You saying that his career is nothing but him stealing? Then so is R. Kelly, P. Diddy/Daddy, Will Smith, and anyone else my friend.

No. I did not say Pharrell's career is nothing but stealing. However, since you brought up "credibility", I feel that his cred and his ethics are in question when he'd rather clone others' grooves without giving them any credit, rather than come up with his own fresh ones.

As for the rest of it, you're throwing a whole bunch of different clashing ingredients into one pot.

• Diddy: an executive producer who hires musicians and a production team to make the music for his artists' tracks
• R. Kelly: a singer/songwriter
• Will: an emcee

I would rather have seen you go into specifics about each of their relationships to this topic - how they relate to what I'm saying about Pharrell and Thicke.

In a word, yes. Wouldn't no one be talking about Marvin Gaye AS MUCH right now if it weren't for this lawsuit, due to the greed from the family. Artists and their families do this tactic to stay relevant. It's very common.

Please stop. You're making my brain hurt.
Do you not know that Marvin Gaye is considered by many to be the greatest soul singer of all time? He will always be relevant.

Stop deluding yourself into thinking that Robin Thicke did what he did because he was SO devoted and noble it was his holy mission to "keep Marvin relevant." Fuck outta here.

Oh yeah, PEOPLE do, but how old are these people? It's a known fact that young people of today are lazy, so why do they listen to old music and then claim that The Isley Brothers ripped off Ice Cube? Duh, they are lazy and uninformed.

I'm gonna be nice and not dunk on you with the excellent assist just thrown to me here.

ARTISTS know the truth, and they disclose it. But who actually reads the CD inserts...

I agree with the words in red. And if Marvin isn't listed in that CD insert as an author of that song along with Robin Thicke, Pharrell and TI, then what does that say about the so-called ARTIST?

Same shit that gets your argument invalided by the masses everytime. You give NO CREDIT to these young men, and that's not cool. Pharrell did write the song.

Seriously, what are you on? You just typed that in response to my saying

Pharrell did not write that song. He wrote the melody and words, but the groove that propels the song was written by Marvin Gaye.

Please seek help.

 

[respiration]

What da fuck is a "race card"???

I share your confusion, bruh.

 

[cranrab]

that shit is banging and I'm still knocking that shit in my car!

 

[cranrab]

I never like that fuck boy Robin Thicke, from day one. There's nothing impressive IMO about his music.

 

[black-n-tan]

What da fuck is a "race card"???

As I understand it, it is a term used by white people whenever a black person mentions race.

 

[cooliojones]

What da fuck is a "race card"???

I share your confusion, bruh.

As I understand it, it is a term used by white people whenever a black person mentions race.

A race card doesn't have to be used exclusively by a white person. Plenty of black people use it, but it doesn't get publicized as much.

It IS true that it is seen as a mostly "white device" because.... why would a black person use it?

I'm fine to debate the topic at hand, AS IS, but I'm just tired of seeing people constantly throw in race, and totally ignore the fact that there are two other black people (one an acclaimed producer/artist, the other an acclaimed artist/actor/businessman?) on the record as well.

Debate the merits of the case, not the racial overtones, as it's not relevant in the least bit.

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, oh hell yeah. Race all day long. But this? And the title of this thread? You lose me with it everytime. Save the race card for when it's truly needed, not in a civil/monetary matter.

 

[cooliojones]

Listen, did you click PLAY on that video at all?

Oh yeah, I did. Sounds like something a DJ would do in the club. An old-school mix that RARELY is done these days, and that I wish was done more, like back in the day during the Friday night Fresh Parties.

Doesn't mean AT ALL that it is a copy of the song. COPY is exactly that, COPY, word for word, melody for melody, the same shit you acknowledge that is exclusively Thicke/T.I./Pharrell's.

Who grew YOUR ears? Better yet, what instrument do you play? What's your musical experience?

Not negating my experience at all (which is not in question here, IMO), but doesn't take experience to respect the words of one of the very people that your arguments (not YOU in particular) claims was also ripped off in the making of this song.

Awkward wording of that sentence, I know, but in layman's terms, if George Clinton can tweet that he loves the song and doesn't feel like it rips off elements of Funkadelic, then why wouldn't that be good enough for you sir?

Furthermore, IF Marvin Gaye were alive, of course so many things would be different, i.e. perhaps he would have a cameo in the song, but if he didn't touch the project with a ten foot pole, what do you think he would say?

Another thing that is very common these days is that in the name of "protection," greedy families seek to prosper and share in the wealth of something that is not rightfully theirs. So until a judge or judgement claims that this is the case, I maintain that there is nothing for them (the family) to get from all of this.

I don't know about that. A lot of now generation people are frowning on this mess, as well. To each his own...

Agreed

If that's true, the same applies to you. You're sitting up here in this thread typing essays with the rest of us.

Learn your terms. This was never an issue of sampling. It is an issue of copying. Sampling is using portions of a sound recording in a piece.

Originally Posted by cooliojones
Uh, yeah no shit, I didn't say CUBE did a cover, I said Whitney did. Cube SAMPLED Footsteps in the Dark, made a completely new song, and effectively infused the inspiration of the Isley Brothers into a new generation.

Originally Posted by cooliojones
First w/ i-moses, I definitely disagree, because it is in fact brilliant to sing a great cover (how many have outdone the original artist when doing this? Not many... see Whitney Houston for the best example probably EVER.) Oh and what about Ice Cube and Today Was a Good Day?

Nice try, but my Whitney Houston example was referring to a cover. Then there was a period. Ice Cube was referring to a sample, and how great THAT song was. All this in relation to how an artist makes music for their generation.

80's teenagers ain't rocking to Dolly Parton's rendition of the song, just like 90's teens ain't rocking to the Isley Brothers rendition. Both of those songs did the original artists complete justice. But I thought you would pick up on my comparisons, and not think I meant that both songs were covers. My bad, I'll spell it out for you next time old man

Au Contraire, YOU lose credibility trying to defend these cats. It sounds like you are employing the same lazy thinking (minus the calculated greed) that Pharrell and RT did when they decided to jack Marvin's shit instead of come up with an original song between them.

We'll never agree until the courts settle it

That alone doesn't spell credibility - especially across a diluted, dumbed-down current musical landscape. That's like saying that Soulja Boy has more cred as a rapper than Mos Def because he has a Gold album AND a Platinum album while Mos Def only has one Gold album under his belt.

Are we talking real music or sales here? I'm not debating sales at all, and I think even you can agree that just because Soulja bitch had more sales does NOT mean he should even be mentioned in the same sentence as Mos Def. C'mon man

As for the rest of it, you're throwing a whole bunch of different clashing ingredients into one pot.

• Diddy: an executive producer who hires musicians and a production team to make the music for his artists' tracks but who's biggest hits were samples of other artists
• R. Kelly: a singer/songwriter Sade ring a bell? Sampled... but I don't think he employed the used of sampling as much as Diddy
• Will: an emcee You're right, compared to the other two he's a bigger actor that a rapper, almost not worth mentioning, were it not for his extensive use of sampling as well

I would rather have seen you go into specifics about each of their relationships to this topic - how they relate to what I'm saying about Pharrell and Thicke.

Please stop. You're making my brain hurt.
Do you not know that Marvin Gaye is considered by many to be the greatest soul singer of all time? He will always be relevant.

I'm trying to give you credit, but you keep trying to take it away...

Relevance does not dispute greatness. You can me one of the all-time greats, but doesn't mean you are relevant. Is Larry Holmes relevant? Buster Douglas? Lennox Lewis?

What about Bing Crosby? "White Christmas" is the best-selling single of all time, but tell me who is under 30 and talking about Bing Crosby right now? Bing is a search engine to young people.

relevant: closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand

Yes Marvin Gaye is relevant NOW because the discussion is at hand. But all through the summer and before... when the album was released in March (3/26/13), was Marvin being discussed actively in music circles, or in mainstream media? C'mon man...

 

[kefta]

I share your confusion, bruh.

Same here!

Things that white folks say!

 

[respiration]

Oh yeah, I did. Sounds like something a DJ would do in the club. An old-school mix that RARELY is done these days, and that I wish was done more, like back in the day during the Friday night Fresh Parties.

Doesn't mean AT ALL that it is a copy of the song. COPY is exactly that, COPY, word for word, melody for melody, the same shit you acknowledge that is exclusively Thicke/T.I./Pharrell's.

NO, lil dude. That is YOUR definition of "copy". When Bright Music sued George Harrison for using elements of The Chiffons' hit, He's So Fine in Harrison's song, My Sweet Lord, it was not a case of him having copied the words.

The groove is too close to Marvin's, bottom line. We know it's not coincidental or accidental because Robin Thicke said it was intended to sound like Got To Give It Up.

Not negating my experience at all (which is not in question here, IMO), but doesn't take experience to respect the words of one of the very people that your arguments (not YOU in particular) claims was also ripped off in the making of this song.

Awkward wording of that sentence, I know, but in layman's terms, if George Clinton can tweet that he loves the song and doesn't feel like it rips off elements of Funkadelic, then why wouldn't that be good enough for you sir?

I beg to differ. Experience is very much in question here. Since you seem unable to comprehend what I was saying in regards to the two songs being played on top of each other smoothly, I surmised that you must not be a musician or songwriter or instrumentalist or something of the sort. This, since your musical ear doesn't seem to be acute enough to listen and dissect the individual musical elements that make up the whole - and how they interact with each other. Otherwise, you would see it as plainly as the nose on your face, as many others already do - Many of which presumably aren't themselves, musicians.

Is it a surprise to you what George said? Considering that he's being sued and considering that Blurred Lines bears barely any resemblance to Funkadelic's song, Sexy Ways, Clinton was likely trying to cover his ass (and his wallet).

Me? I'm not being sued. So, my comments come untainted - straight, no chaser.

Furthermore, IF Marvin Gaye were alive, of course so many things would be different, i.e. perhaps he would have a cameo in the song, but if he didn't touch the project with a ten foot pole, what do you think he would say?

Another thing that is very common these days is that in the name of "protection," greedy families seek to prosper and share in the wealth of something that is not rightfully theirs. So until a judge or judgement claims that this is the case, I maintain that there is nothing for them (the family) to get from all of this.

Did you forget this?

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

Got to give it up. Pt. 1 & 2. w & m Marvin Gaye.

Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000910939 / 2005-01-03
Renewal registration for: EP0000366530 / 1977-03-10
Title: Got to give it up. Pt. 1 & 2. w & m Marvin Gaye.
Copyright Claimant: Frankie Christian Gaye, Marvin Gaye 3rd, Nona Marvisa Gaye (A)
Variant title: Got to give it up
Names: Gaye, Marvin
Gaye, Frankie Christian
Gaye, Marvin 3rd
Gaye, Nona Marvisa

United States Copyright Office Online Search (Just type the 1st Registration # in and then select "Registration" in the box below it)

This has nothing to do with "greedy families" and everything to do with the Gaye family seeking what's due to them.

Nice try, but my Whitney Houston example was referring to a cover. Then there was a period. Ice Cube was referring to a sample, and how great THAT song was. All this in relation to how an artist makes music for their generation.

Yeah. Your mention of Ice Cube came right after your Whitney Houston comment - in the same paragraph. How else was it supposed to be read? At best, you didn't organize your thoughts well, in that instance. At worst, you just didn't understand what constitutes sampling and what constitutes a cover - until I clarified it for you.

80's teenagers ain't rocking to Dolly Parton's rendition of the song, just like 90's teens ain't rocking to the Isley Brothers rendition. Both of those songs did the original artists complete justice. But I thought you would pick up on my comparisons, and not think I meant that both songs were covers. My bad, I'll spell it out for you next time old man

Whitney Houston's song DID do Dolly Parton's song justice not only because Whitney was the best popular singer of the last 30 years, and an excellent interpreter of songs, but because she broke bread with Dolly and acknowledged her as the author of the song. Ice Cube and included The Isleys in the authorship of his song and as a result, broke bread with them. You wouldn't have to spell anything out for me or anyone else if you'd make yourself clear in the first place, little man.

We'll never agree until the courts settle it

Doubtful.

Are we talking real music or sales here? I'm not debating sales at all, and I think even you can agree that just because Soulja bitch had more sales does NOT mean he should even be mentioned in the same sentence as Mos Def. C'mon man

Sales was EXACTLY what you were debating. Don't try to change the narrative after the fact. When you said:

Shit, Pharrell by himself should be all the credibility anyone needs, as he has been around producing hit after hit for a while now.

...what else could you have been talking about, if not sales? That's how hits are determined. You actually need that explained to you? The part I bolded was my point in the first place, that hits (IE sales) don't necessarily determine quality of music nor do they determine the quality of the artist.

I'm trying to give you credit, but you keep trying to take it away...

Relevance does not dispute greatness. You can me one of the all-time greats, but doesn't mean you are relevant. Is Larry Holmes relevant? Buster Douglas? Lennox Lewis?

What about Bing Crosby? "White Christmas" is the best-selling single of all time, but tell me who is under 30 and talking about Bing Crosby right now? Bing is a search engine to young people.

relevant: closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand

Yes Marvin Gaye is relevant NOW because the discussion is at hand. But all through the summer and before... when the album was released in March (3/26/13), was Marvin being discussed actively in music circles, or in mainstream media? C'mon man...

Who said that this generation of young people defines relevance.
A partial breakdown of U.S. Population by age:

• 
  [*]15 to 19 years 20,219,890 7.2%
  [*]20 to 24 years 18,964,001 6.7%
  [*]25 to 34 years 39,891,724 14.2%
  [*]35 to 44 years 45,148,527 16.0%
  [*]45 to 54 years 37,677,952 13.4%

As you can see, the TWO oldest groups (29.4%)on that list outnumber the THREE youngest (28.1).

http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html

Stop overestimating the *relevance* of generation now.

In boxing circles, Larry Holmes name gets much mention amongst the all-time greatest heavyweights. I don't see how you threw Buster Douglas in there though. I could have named you Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and of course Muhammad Ali if I was to name the greatest of heavyweights and all are relevant.

Yours was one of the poorest comparisons I've ever seen.

I named you Marvin Gaye, a singer who is at the very least universally regarded as top 3 of male soul singers of all time, and who is not only one of the most influential singers on singers in his own generation but on the generations of soul singers who followed him, as well. He was and always will have relevance. To this day, that man is the standard against which current potential great R&B singers are held to.

How could you be Black and not know this? This can't even be blamed on youthful naivete. Comments like yours above is why folks are questioning if you're white.

Get it right. Robin Thicke needs Marvin Gaye to be relevant, not the other way around.

 

[respiration]

Same here!

Things that white folks say!

Yes!

 

[kefta]

As I understand it, it is a term used by white people whenever a black person mentions race.

 

[black-n-tan]

Okay, out with it. Why are YOU angry? Did you ever hear anyone but white people use the term "race card"?

 

[kefta]

Okay, out with it. Why are YOU angry? Did you ever hear anyone but white people use the term "race card"?

For the most part its white people's speech. Some black folks use it but they were taught how to use it by white folks. In fact, I am sure that its white folks that coined the term "RACE CARD"…

 

[Amajorfucup]

i-moses vs. a band of idiots led by king of the clueless contrarians, brown turd.

 

[VAiz4hustlaz]

bump

 

[kefta]

bump

 

[Daddy43205]

the greed is real.

 

[ak_rep]

@ B&T. Told your ass. Robby Rob copping pleas now.

Got to give it up.

 

[kefta]

^^^^

 

[Mo-Better]

Interesting.

This song has been hot for a couple months now but I'm only just seeing people say it reminds them of Gaye's song (I don't like either one, for the record).

If the Gaye family can prove his jacked the song, they'll win but they have to prove it. Just having some similar beats isn't going to be enough.

To all you doubters out there listen to it now.

 

[tajshan]

 

[playahaitian]

Robin Thicke & Pharrell Lose First Round Of 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams lost the first round of their "Blurred Lines" lawsuit against Marvin Gaye's estate. Earlier this year, the two musicians filed a lawsuit after receiving threats from Gaye's family, who accused Thicke and Williams of stealing parts of their hit song "Blurred Lines" from Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." Gaye's estate then filed a countersuit, claiming that Thicke had a "Marvin Gaye fixation," in addition to stealing music. Now, a California judge ruled that the songs may be substantially similar.

U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt denied Thicke and Williams' motion for summary judgement on Thursday, citing that there was enough evidence to move forward with the Gaye family's claim. He wrote that the "defendants have made a sufficient showing that elements of 'Blurred Lines' may be substantially similar to protected, original elements of 'Got to Give It Up.'"

Kronstadt's ruling saw similarities in the two songs' bass lines, keyboard parts, vocal lines, melodies and harmonies. The trial is scheduled for Feb. 10, 2015.

The lawsuit made headlines last month when The Hollywood Reporter obtained depositions from April, which contained bizarre revelations about the making "Blurred Lines." Thicke admitted that Williams wrote the song, though he tried to take credit for it, that he was "high on Vicodin and alcohol" during studio time and lied about the process of writing the song in previous interviews.

Billboard reports that the case could be one of the biggest trials over alleged song theft ever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/31/robin-thicke-pharell-blurred-lines-lawsuit_n_6081362.html