Robin Thicke

hugbot

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/10/blurred-lines-pharrell-robin-thicke-copied-marvin-gaye

Blurred Lines

Got To Give It Up

Discuss.

Drew_TNBD

So is Marvin Gaye also a woman-hater too?

randomhandclaps

Drew_fx said:

So is Marvin Gaye also a woman-hater too?

Makes no difference he's dead so you're gonna have to find a different guest speaker.

Drew_TNBD

randomhandclaps said:

Drew_fx said:

So is Marvin Gaye also a woman-hater too?

Makes no difference he's dead so you're gonna have to find a different guest speaker.

Weekend at Bernies, foo.

capo4th

I heard Marvins sister moaning on the tv like she had been bent over by Pharrell and Robin together

Philly_Q

capo4th said:

I heard Marvins sister moaning on the tv like she had been bent over by Pharrell and Robin together

Although they are obviously the heirs to Marvin Gaye's estate and the law is the law, it bugs me that the Gaye family get to profit from this and be all sanctimonious about it, twatting on about being "freed from chains" and all that bollocks. 

Pharrell may have borrowed from Marvin's work but in terms of creative activity he's still well ahead of the Gaye family members.  They're just lucky who they're related to.

(If Marvin Gaye's family are actually musicians, then I apologise, a bit.... but nobody bothered to steal their stuff anyway)

hugbot

The thing is Thicke went on record saying it was directly inspired by the gaye song (which he later recanted when the lawsuit came up by claiming he was drunk) in terms of direct lifting though its just the cowbell and the "feel" and if you can copyright feel then pop music's in a whole lot of trouble.

paisleysoul

It's an interesting case which may well bring around a new legal standard with interpreting inspiration and 'homages' to musicians of years gone by. 

It is awfully bloody close though. 

PVO_Dave

This is still the best version:

frankus

Until now I only though Robin Thicke's surname was highly appropriate.

lustycourtier

Best part is, the case was actually brought about to block the families claim, not the other way around. PW and thicke tried to block the songs even being played in full in court, just approved snippets. 

 I dont think the shit the family are getting is justified, plus the song is lyrically disgusting in its content.  

Teetonetal

Wow, not heard either song before... but that surely is close enough to get a writing credit....

Always felt bit's of echos and phantom of the opera were rather close too.. da da da da dah.......

RocknRollDave

I had the misfortune of listening to Robin Thicke's latest solo effort (for work, I swear it was for work!)...One of the worst records I have ever heard. Basically one long plea for his wife to give him another chance, as far as I could tell. Just awful.

Drew_TNBD

lustycourtier said:

plus the song is lyrically disgusting in its content.  

Not anymore than most pop songs from the last... I dunno.... SIX DECADES.....

lustycourtier

I dont remember any other No1 songs about rape tbh, but hey, feel free to enlighten me...

 

RocknRollDave

Drew_fx said:

lustycourtier said:

plus the song is lyrically disgusting in its content.  

Not anymore than most pop songs from the last... I dunno.... SIX DECADES.....

There was a song in the charts when I was a kid called "Can I Tickle Your Fancy?" and I thought it was the RUDEST thing I had ever heard.

This was before I had googled the works of An*l C*nt, admittedly.

Drew_TNBD

lustycourtier said:

I dont remember any other No1 songs about rape tbh, but hey, feel free to enlighten me...

 

Feel free to explain how Blurred Lines is in anyway about rape. Because I don't fucking see it at all.

DulcetJones

Thickes lawyer whined about how this ruling will make artists reluctant to honor their heros.  I disagree, they could cover a song by their hero and properly credit them with having written the song.  The Rolling Stones made a habit of this right from the start.

RocknRollDave

DulcetJones said:

Thickes lawyer whined about how this ruling will make artists reluctant to honor their heros.  I disagree, they could cover a song by their hero and properly credit them with having written the song.  The Rolling Stones made a habit of this right from the start.

Right, so instead of writing their own melody, lyric, rhythm and bassline, Thicke and Williams should have just covered the Marvin Gaye original? How is that good for creativity, for music moving forward?
So it sounded a bit like a Marvin Gaye song, so what? Lots of songs sound like other songs. It doesn't matter.
Marvin Gaye's not even here to express an opinion. In my book, some people who didn't write a Marvin Gaye song have been made to pay money to someone else who didn't write a Marvin Gaye song. Who's the winner here, except for Marvin Gaye's daughter?

DulcetJones

RocknRollDave said:

Right, so instead of writing their own melody, lyric, rhythm and bassline, Thicke and Williams should have just covered the Marvin Gaye original? How is that good for creativity, for music moving forward? 

Listen to what Cream did with Robert Johnsons "Crossroads", or Talking Heads version of "Take me to the River", other than the lyrics they are almost indistinguishable.   These feel like forward motion to me, along with respect for both the artist that covered it and the artist that wrote it.  

hugbot

Thicke wasnt ripping off the melody or the lyrics though, he was copying the instrumentation and the "sound". 

Lots of great music (not to say Blurred Lines was great) comes about this way:

"According to Daryl Hall, during the recording of “We Are the World”, Michael Jackson approached him and admitted to lifting the bass line for "Billie Jean" from a Hall and Oates song, apparently referring to "I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)." Hall says that he told Jackson that he had lifted the bass line from another song himself, and that it was "something we all do."

Micheal Jackson could have covered I Can't Go For That instead of writing Billie Jean, but then he wouldnt have writen Billie Jean.