Ableton Forum

beats me wrote:What are you talking about? I knew the backing track was Marvin Gaye 10 seconds into hearing it for the first time. You seriously can’t hear it? It’s not like some rare b-side either. It’s been part of my wedding reception staples since I started DJing.

The backing track isn't a sample. That shit is way too polished compared to the Gaye track.

The basslines are in different keys, they play different notes; they are different in timing and rhytm.

The timing of the percussion is totally different.

I just don't understand how this ruling is valid in law.

You can't sue people because tracks sound vaguely similar.

And if you can, the entire IP structure of pop music over the last 40 has just collapsed. Bo Diddley's estate will make billions.

stringtapper wrote:

beats me wrote:What are you talking about? I knew the backing track was Marvin Gaye 10 seconds into hearing it for the first time. You seriously can’t hear it? It’s not like some rare b-side either. It’s been part of my wedding reception staples since I started DJing.

The backing track isn't a sample. That shit is way too polished compared to the Gaye track.

Sampled/covered...whatever.

Ironic the song is called Blurred Lines.

This thread needs to be moved to Music and Audio Production because there’s too much chin stroking going on with the analysis.

By The Lounge (and most of the world’s) standards this is the same fucking song and the law rightly turned it into a teachable moment.

No sorry. The Music and Audio Production is meant for helpful and constructive advice, not for getting pernickety and STAMPING OUT ERROR

Which is what the point of this thread has clearly turned out to be.

beats me wrote:Sampled/covered...whatever.

Uh, they are two different things.

beats me wrote:…there’s too much chin stroking going on with the analysis.

lol

Something you see as some arcane intellectual exercise I simply call "work."

Plus, the second link re:dream posted pretty much lays out the differences…

…but you have to be able to read music to see it.

(Looks like it was done in Sibelius, the flagged eighth notes look like shit )

but you are one of those siency people

But beats me, I think you got it wrong with your appeal to the majority. My reading of comment sections to articles covering this, puts the masses mostly in the opposite camp. The quote I cited above apparently didn't help much in the court of public opinion.

This article has some good explanations for why people with no musical training might think the songs are the same.

http://joebennett.net/2014/10/30/forens ... roadsheet/

I think vocal melodies are considered a separate song entity as well... so 'grape-vine' & 'blurred-lines' is one case of copyright infringement, while the backing track of 'got to get it on' is another case of copyright infringement for 'blurred lines.'

http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/the- ... verywhere?

TL;RD --> there's no real musical similarity between either the melody or the backing track. The songs sound vaguely similar, but that is true of thousands of songs in the history of pop music, particularly because of musicians make use of parody, pastiche or homage.

didn't pharell and thicke both say they were listening to marvin gaye and trying to come up with something like that right before they wrote the song?
I don't have direct quotes but I think I read something like that somewhere or heard it reported.

personally I could care less, I think it's better in the long run for samplist as this will encourage more original sample use and samplist will up their sample game. I love sampling and anything that pushes the skills forward is cool with me, and as far as pharell and thicke no matter the court ruling they are biters, where I come from biters get thrown off stage

starving student wrote:didn't pharell and thicke both say they were listening to marvin gaye and trying to come up with something like that right before they wrote the song?
I don't have direct quotes but I think I read something like that somewhere or heard it reported.

personally I could care less, I think it's better in the long run for samplist as this will encourage more original sample use and samplist will up their sample game. I love sampling and anything that pushes the skills forward is cool with me, and as far as pharell and thicke no matter the court ruling they are biters, where I come from biters get thrown off stage

Thank you. Musicians and composers are reflexively getting outraged out of concern for their own potential sampling and covering self-interests.

I know, it's funny cause thicke owes his whole career to marvin gaye and has never minced words about it until now. I think the moral of the story is that trying to be marvin gaye can cost you upwards of 7 million but being yourself is free.

starving student wrote:I know, it's funny cause thicke owes his whole career to marvin gaye and has never minced words about it until now. I think the moral of the story is that trying to be marvin gaye can cost you upwards of 7 million but being yourself is free.

Justin Timberlake has a successful career as Michael Jackson but at least his music is original and/or he goes through the proper permission channels when needed.