I have a hard time with the ruling. The ending of the double phrase (I don’t know the right words for this) in Pharrell’s version has that catchy base thing at the end that I think is what our brains enjoy. I adore Marvin Gaye but his basic song “line” doesn’t have any of the catchy bit at all.
Without that “dit-dit-dit-Duht- dit (the duht being the dropped low note) it just is not something special like Pharrell wrote.
I think the Gaye family had an attorney who really reached.
I do think whoever wrote “Jamaica Farewell” and their heirs have an excellent case against Disney then (”Kiss the Girl”) - it was too similar to make me terribly uncomfortable. But I was told it was an homage. If this Blurred Lines is not a homage, neither the heck is that one.
Just get the Gaye family’s lawyer.
Yes I think both those songs are really completely different. The only thing that is similar is the falsetto singing. Just what exactly are they saying is similar? The melodies are completely different, the chords are different, Gayes song uses an A-D-E chord structure, “Blurred lines” on the other hand is using two chords G and D with a descending bass riff after the D, this is a completely ridiculous ruling. I mean I can think of a million songs that sound more like “Got to give it up” than this, first and foremost being “Emotional rescue” by the Rolling stones. What gets me is why isn’t Ed Sheerhan being sued for BLATANTLY copying “Let’s get it on”? by Gaye? Sheerhans song “Thinking out loud” is so identical that it fits perfectly with “Let’s get it on” when you play them on top of each other. I looked up his writing credits and he doesn’t credit Gaye at all so where is the lawsuit? This is an open and shut case, it’s like someone taking a Stevie Wonder song and replacing the lyrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gd1I3DmEd4