Posted on 03/10/2015 7:24:46 PM PDT by Perdogg
For the last year and a half, the music industry has been gripped by a lawsuit over whether Robin Thickes 2013 hit Blurred Lines was merely reminiscent of a song by Marvin Gaye, or had crossed the line into plagiarism.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I like Marvin too, and i agree that the Soul Train clip showed a song that was WAY beneath his talents as a songwriter, but the new song sounded so much like it (to me, anyway) that I can understand the Judge’s ruling. I didn’t know either song until I played the clips, so i had no previous opinion about either of them.
“My Sweet Lord” was a better sounding song than “He’s So Fine”, and i doubt if George had ever heard the other song, but the ruling in that case was based upon the “6-note rule” which was in effect many years ago.
There is actually a legal precedent for this. If more than six notes match in rhythm and interval, it’s considered a copy. Just six notes is all it takes.
So...somewhere, those six notes matched up. I know. it doesn’t seem fair at all...especially with the size of the award.
When music is composed THAT way, this type of copying hardly ever happens.
But, when it starts with a Rhythm and a Chord Progression, it is very easy to get caught in the 6-note trap.
And with the advent of beat-=boxes and drum machines, it will happen again and again.
Big money for lawyers.
Just like the recent ruling on Sam Smith’s Stay With Me, which copied a melody from Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.”
Blurred Lines is a 100X better song... This is a travesty.
I’m no lawyer. I don’t claim to know all the legal issues. But, I know music. If THIS is an infringement? Get ready for a WHOLE BUNCH MORE lawsuits..
I simply cannot believe this..
Oh yes...I heard that song and immediately thought of the tom petty Song.
I caught myself singing along with STay with me, using the Tom Petty lyrics...
You know, I’ve read a few other posts about this issue.. and, people delve into the legalities.. and, “if you don’t know the law, you can’t comment”...
Well, I call “bullshit” on that. This is more like the SCOTUS definition of ‘obscenity’... I know it, when I see it.. or, rather, hear it.
IF the law says THIS is plagiarism? Then, the law is effed up. It’s not. It’s not even close. Any musician with an ear for music and the ability to count time can tell it’s not the same.
so have I... THAT, is a copy.
That was settled out of court though, and Tom Petty got a writing credit on the song.
It may indeed be 100X better. But if it fits the legal definition, than the ruling will stand.
It’s not a value judgement...it’s the stupid 6-note rule, which I find very hard to work around in my own composing. After all, there are only 12 notes in the Western Scale!
There may not have been any INTENTIONAL plagiarism at all, but the proliferation of loops, samples, beat-boxes, and canned sequences are going to make this happen more and more.
The Law is based on 20th century technology. We are now in the 21st. Maybe this “travesty”, as you call it, will stimulate change.
Bottom Line: This is MESSED UP.
It is NOT the same song. No one, ever would convince me that it is. Law be damned.
In the article, it said they were comparing FOUR note sequences... WTF?
Boy, I cannot follow that, I get the general idea but it is general.
Fave song by Rogers?
Blossom Dearie does a good Manhattan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlj0hHxmkE
Wow...4 notes now? Sheesh!
Nice! :-)
This is the Modern Music Ping List. Our topic is music from the 20th and 21st century, from Ravel and Shostakovich through to the Synth Pioneers and beyond.
Topic suggestions are always welcome, and pings to music-related threads are appreciated.
FReepmail or reply to this post to be added to or removed from this list.
Jeff Lynne also co-wrote it.
Sorry FRriend. I didn’t mean that towards you. I was talking about some of the comments on a thread about this case a couple of days ago.. that’s when I went and listened to the songs..
I assumed, then.. that this case had NO merit. Now, I’m just shocked.
I’m sure that you, being a song writer, have a better appreciation for the legalities. I’m a fan, and an amateur musician. I just don’t see it.
As I said: If this decision is RIGHT, by the law... then, the LAW is wrong. Nothing against you.
Is it similar? Sure. But I don’t buy the plagiarism ruling. Might as well say anything with a beat and falsetto singing like Prince’s “Kiss” or “Emotional Rescue” by The Rolling Stones are, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.