Whoa.

http://thr.cm/xcTq7R

it shouldn't have even made it to a jury trial - as most similar suits don't.

but oh well.

>it shouldn't have even made it to a jury trial - as most
>similar suits don't.
>
>but oh well.

Yep...

A terrible precedent for the music biz.....

A sample is ONE thing, but reistrumentation is out of bounds now?

FUCK

Good luck writing a song, now.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

okay.

but damn...i hope this doesn't have wider implications in the music biz.

I, for one, will be watching my step when I'm working on hip hop shits.

---------------------------

forcing myself to actually respond to you is like bathing in ebola virus. - Binlahab

Like there is stupid, and then there is you, and then there is dead. - VAsBestBBW

R.I.P. Disco D

a groove? a feel?

clearance is needed when one uses some copyright protected elements of a sound recording or a composition. as a general matter production elements aren't copyright protected.

as soon as i heard robins i knew exactly what "inspired" it

i've tried singing 'Blurred Lines' on top of 'GTGIU' and couldn't b/c the songs are so different. i agree that when i first heard 'Blurred Lines' i knew the song was inspired by 'GTGIU'. but since the actual songs are different (songs = the notes) i figured the Gayes would and should lose this suit.

stop.

disagree... the court didn't. take it up with them

FunNy enough..

Sony/atv/emi published both songs.. Pharell would've had to clear it with his own publishing company.. Clearly his song did not rise to the level of needing a clearance.. From his/gaye's publisher..

They also figured out how to weasel out the suit before it went to trial

>Clearly his song did not rise to the level of needing a clearance..

So he thought? I mean so sony thought.. You think they dont want MORE of 'rells publishing..

But like i said.. It'll be appealed and they probably pay nothing..

So he thought? I mean so sony thought.. You think they dont want MORE of 'rells publishing..

But like i said.. It'll be appealed and they probably pay nothing..

this:

http://cloud.freehandmusic.netdna-cdn.com/preview/530x4/hal_leonard/hl_dds_0000000000208640.png

not have a choice?

in a criminal case the defendant gets to choose. in a civil case the parties have to agree.

as the defendants here i think i would've preferred a bench trial. but maybe i would've wanted a jury b/c the defendants are celebrities who could use their charm to sway a jury. i dunno.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

-->

are NOT protected by copyright.

so it's kinda baffling that the judge didn't dismiss the suit outright.

and i wonder if the verdict will w/stand an appeal.

the notes and such. and then the actual recording itself.

the defendants had musicologists who'd shown that none of the actual sheet music (the notes) were similar enough to support the position that Williams and Thicke had used the music from GTGIU. of course, the Gaye family had musicologists who'd reached an opposing conclusion. and the Gaye family didn't claim that the defendants had sampled the sound recording itself. at trial the questions for the jury related to the sheet music, i think. the jury found that BL did have enough similarities to the GTGIU sheet music that they found for the plaintiffs. i assume the case came down to a 'battle of the experts' and the jury sided w/the Gaye family expert musicologists. i dunno why b/c i wasn't present for the trial.

is replaying parts..."this song contains interpolations of xxxx..." maybe that verbiage and a small fee woulda cleared it up

but the resulting sound recording isn't a cover of the original source material that's an interpolation which must be credited (unless some agreement has been reached).

that's not what happened here to my untrained ears. and some musicologists agree.

They lifted "groove" and feel.. none of the music is the same.. that actually chord progression is different as are the words and melody..

This shouldn't have won..

I wouldnt be surprised if everyone was just overly technical and went over the jurors heads..

The jury was more like "it kinda sounds like it.. so" yea

like i said earlier, i've tried singing Blurred Lines over GTGIU and couldn't do it b/c the songs are too different. GTGIU goes up when BL goes down and vice versa. it just didn't work. however, it's clear that BL was inspired by GTGIU b/c i immediately thought of GTGIU when i heard BL. to me that's one of BL's charms.

Agreed..

What I wonder is.. how with ONLY the sheet music did they convince the jury it was stolen?

i was just wishing that the defense could've had Thicke sit in the witness stand and sing 'Blurred Lines' on top of 'GTGIU' as i did to show the jury that the songs themselves aren't similar. but the judge barred both parties from playing the original sound recording of 'GTGIU' during the trial since the original sound recording wasn't part of the case.

I have a feeling it'll get overturned in appeals..

That is precisely the problem...

The whole case was "above their paygrade" so to speak.. They would have zero clue that the songs though both major arent in the same key or chords..

This ruling is very slippery since it is a copyright suit.. it's basically saying if you admit that a previous copyrighted work has influence and that you heard it.. you have to somehow clear the copyright for yours...

But then who clears copyright for these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9bOsdHckhg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaC5ZKRjLUM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUEPhE12I9s

Thank you for the most sensible reply in this post.

The lawsuit flood gates have been opened!!!

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

The same way sample litigation and exorbitant sampling fees limited creativity in hip-hop. Pop and rock music will feel the repercussions of this verdict in years to come.

2. you have no idea what you're cheering for.

<================================
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/4837778/william-moore-wwe-tackle-o.gif

still others b/c they hate Pharrell.

they don't understand or care about the potential broad implications here.

>they don't understand or care about the potential broad
>implications here.
or they're not really music lovers so they don't care.

won't hit em til next month.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and got to give it up has carries that kind of weight

http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/

most folks of a certain age and time gonna say that the White boy jacked marvin gaye straight up sorry but its true. heard on seen.

they would have been better off either having horns or given a sampling credit to do anything so close to the source IMO.

dude made points and yet its too close for alot of peoples comfort. and it sounds real close on sound.

Since 1976

-->

>2. you have no idea what you're cheering for.




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

which has been abundantly clear over the years.

i've actually kinda appreciated that about you, to be honest. proving that the okaygay contingent is not an erudite, urbane monolith.

The outage is emotionally driven

The racial aspect just can not be dismissed .

Had Pharrell done the song by himself......or gave it to an artist like D'Angelo

People's reaction to him having to pony up damn near 8 mil to Gayes kids would be quite different

Some of us are looking beyond the resentment for "blue eyed soul" and are concerned about what this means to hip-hop and R&B music in general....particularly artists we do like and support

it doesn't matter who makes the song.. if it's an obvious rip, people will speak on it.

Hell, half the people in here arguing for Thicke are the same ones taking pride in listing all the rips Bruno Mars had in Uptown Funk.

You can't be all "I know where they got if from" and then cry when the original artist pops up and asked for his cut.

Hide that shit a little better or be prepared to CTC.

but that's not illegal

>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
instagram:
http://instagram.com/0kayndc

"There is much temptation to use what has worked before,
even when it may exceed its effective scope."

"Roll me further bitch"

from Dilla, to DJ Quik

trace of sample evidence'... he didn't flip it enuff and he lost. either he was too lazy and he didn't care, or he thought his "inspired by" argument would cover him, which as we can see is a slippery slope which has just become even more slippery. he will certainly try harder next time tho.

I mean, all you have to do is chart the songs out to see they are literally different compositions. Nothing good will come from this. OK lawyers, can they appeal this?

and they should.

I'm sure all the lawyers involved would love more and more appeals, but I dunno how many hours Robin Thicke is willing to be billed.

His album after the one with Blurred Lines flopped, right? I don't follow pop music too much, but I remember his getting clowned for an album he recently released.

If not I'm sure some lawyers would take the case pro bono bc of the potential to set binding precedent. Or some musicians might get together and fund it.

>If not I'm sure some lawyers would take the case pro bono bc
>of the potential to set binding precedent. Or some musicians
>might get together and fund it.


With the $7.3 or whatever the exact dollar amount involved in the ruling, I doubt a lawyer is going to want to take this case pro bono, at least I know I wouldn't if I were a lawyer. The second scenario you posed is fairly interesting though and makes sense if the ruling is as precedent making as this thread is inferring.

only appellate decisions are binding precedent - they bind judges in the appellate court's circuit or district.

i think this case's impact may be seen where more lawyers are willing to take on cases like the Gaye estate's case - where some record sounds like some other record but doesn't sample or interpolate but sounds enough like it. w/this jury verdict lawyers may take the case and push harder for settlement. the amounts in demands for payment will get higher. and i think more defendants like Williams and Thicke will be more likely to settle. and more record labels who are considering releasing records like 'Blurred Lines' may reconsider b/c they don't want to end up being barred from selling a record like 'Blurred Lines' as the Gayes are now going to try to have Thicke's label barred from selling 'Blurred Lines'.

and appellate lawyers regularly work pro bono on cases that could set precedent b/c they have big egos and they know that high profile cases that set precedent are good promotion for the lawyer. plus some of them actually care about the law and want to see it corrected. but all of that is of no moment b/c Thicke comes from a very wealthy family (see: Alan Thicke) and Williams has earned millions in profit just from 'Blurred Lines' and has made who knows how much on all of his other hits in his past. he can afford to pay for the appellate representation if he wants to appeal this decision.

I had no clue how many gears are potentially spinning because of the ruling. I wish I had time so I could search out for articles written on the ruling that go into detail of what you're referring to.

Means it's pretty obvious to all parties and observers that they went a bit above and beyond


Moreso than say bruno mars funk or gagas madonna remakes

Thicke filed suit first to keep the Gayes from smearing him around town by claiming he'd stolen BL from GTGIU's copyright protected elements.

it wasn't any acknowledgement of guilt. neither was the defendants' settlement offer - they wanted to settle the case to avoid going through the depositions. and that makes sense b/c damaging info came out during the deps that have hurt Thicke's image and had nothing to do w/whether he improperly borrowed from GTGIU (his drug use and the fact that he didn't write much on Blurred Lines among other facts). defendants in civil suits regularly make settlement offers b/c they want to avoid going through the discovery process - especially high profile defendants.

and i dunno what happened between Gagz and Madge and whether Madge made a demand and they reached some agreement. but 'Born This Way' sounds a lot like 'Express Yourself' but then again 'EY' sounds a lot like the Staples Singers' 'Respect Yourself' so maybe Madge didn't make any demand or file any suit b/c she didn't wanna have to deal w/explaining that similarity. i dunno.

as for Mars and Ronson (creators of Uptown Funk) they may be in trouble after this verdict. b/c that song sounds like 'Fantastic Voyage' and some of The Time's songs. i dunno if any demands have been made and/or met between all the potential parties there.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

This isn't really that complicated. Them jokas knew what they were doing.

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575421841478664192
https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575421462208708609

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575423039862628352

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575426529565540352
https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575426840145301504
https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575427177665150976
https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575427424080494592


*stirs the pot*

edited to add:
gonna go with combat jack on this bc he has actual first hand experience with these types of cases and also he's haitian.

which is why so many others in the industry have said the Gayes should've lost here.

this despite any hard feelings about whitey, Thicke or Williams or any affinity for Gaye.

and the defendants did participate in settlement negotiations (judges commonly force it). the negotiation failed and so the case proceeded and got all the way to trial and verdict.

Jay-Z ACTUALLY SANG a little bit of "I Wish". Def Jam did the same thing to Sisqo when he sang the words "Livin' La Vida Loca" in "Thong Song".

"Switching the notes around and playing chicken" is, quite literally, how hundreds of songs have been created in pop music and beyond. If it ain't right for Pharrell to do, it shouldn't be right for anyone else statute-of-limitations forward. Think about how many commercials you hear where they have a song that sort of sounds like a pop hit but isn't that pop hit. What of them?

>


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
instagram:
http://instagram.com/0kayndc

"There is much temptation to use what has worked before,
even when it may exceed its effective scope."

"Roll me further bitch"

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575437697289973762
https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575437883902947328

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575438327698092033

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575438474603532288

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575438745165512704

https://twitter.com/Combat_Jack/status/575440652198088704

the question was did Thicke and Williams interpolate GTGIU by replaying some copyright protected element of the song itself (not the sound recording) w/o permission.

they didn't which is why this jury verdict is puzzling to many.

it's clear Williams was inspired by GTGIU in the creation of BL - but inspiration isn't the same as interpolating. i think he purposely re-created pieces of the sound recording - production elements that aren't protected by any copyright held by the Gaye family. which is why the Gayes should've lost, IMO.

they thought they could be just slick enuff to get by on some technicality shit...Nope. like I said way earlier...they coulda payed a fuckin fraction of what they ended up payin...minus the embarrassment and smack in the face. like jack said...arrogance at its finest. Pharell sittin on 100Ms he coulda paid the fam alil change and wrote it off as a tax write off smh. but he wanted to prove his point and go to court...which he did.

edit: but of course these ppl in here know WAY more than combat jack who is an entertainment lawyer and been in and out of the business for years and years lol

But his arrogance and deep pockets are able to stall out artist until the song makes big money. Then he settles for pennies on the dollar.

How many albums did Thicke sell just because of blurred lines? How much money did the record label make off of this song? I know they want Pharell and Thickes cut but what about the rest?

How much did he make off tours due to this being the song of the summer?

They were arrogant and greedy.

It didn't work - the parties couldn't agree on an amount. So the case went to trial. That's standard practice.

And Jack is an entertainment lawyer - both parties were represented by lawyers. Which means lawyers were able to argue both sides of the case. It means lawyers may disagree about the facts of the case. The fact that he is a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean he is correct. Especially bc he's raising irrelevant issues like sampling - this case ain't about sampling. Or quoting lyrics - the case ain't about that. It's also not about the defendants failing to offer payment for some alleged use bc they did. So yeah, he lost credibility imo by bringing all of that up.

Lmao okps are literally some of the most annoying ppl every. Glad I only "encounter" u ppl here

Keep typing ur foolishness as usual. Don't give that much a fuck to go back and forth with u

and so you have hard feelings. i figure you were out for Thicke b/c you hate whitey.

i see now.

>Keep typing ur foolishness as usual. Don't give that much a
>fuck to go back and forth with u


U don't get it....This shit has the potential for turning music as we know it upside down....

A lot of people are going to come out the woodwork and throw around crazy lawsuits just because a song "feels" like another song...Not the stealing of notes, phrases, or outright samples...A feel....

Whether u think Pharell is annoying or not is moot...This shit is crazy....Basically, Bruno Mars needs to be hitting up his lawyer to get his defense together for "jacking" the "feel" of the Police for his "Locked Out of Heaven"....

feels like Prince's 'Purple Rain'.

she and the songwriters might be nervous today.

I don't understand how she escaped the scrutiny. That one is far closer than this.

i assumed it was cleared.

and maybe 'Purple Rain' was sampled/interpolated and cleared for 'Like You'll Never See Me Again'.

One composer, Alicia Keys.

Not a word about a sample or an interpolation.

If she cleared that shit, it was some sort of a deal that didn't require attribution.

That shit is so blatant I assume it had to be cleared. Maybe without need for crediting.

and AK knew she jacked it as did James Brown and he said so in a interview however who has the rights to the songs?

industry does what industry wants to satisfy its own means believe that.

and possibly the publishing rights to 'It's a Man's Man's Man's World'.

http://it.warnerchappell.com/song-details/WW001047793000 <--BMI

https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx <--ASCAP

Moreover, Sony (which owns the former BMG catalog) owns the master recording of "Fallin;", but Universal Music owns all of James Brown's King and Polydor recordings.

>http://it.warnerchappell.com/song-details/WW001047793000
><--BMI
>
>https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx
><--ASCAP
>
>Moreover, Sony (which owns the former BMG catalog) owns the
>master recording of "Fallin;", but Universal Music owns all of
>James Brown's King and Polydor recordings.

riding off others songs era and turn profits there then with alicia keys that is a days work.

they worked out something behind the scenes best believe however Clive had alicia on oprah and etc... with fallin and nobody aside from JB fans and music geeks dare say a word then.

hall of fame. and he knows and never has come at anyone except when his stuff got sampled and he blocked it. however he knows not to raise a hand there since quite of few of his own tracks sound like jacks, however it ain't just him and lets remember though Prince and Clive davis didn't work together well, there is a connection. so much behind the scenes

if you're a Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings or a Raphael Saadiq that you're not gonna have lawyers representing classic song catalogs going through your output

Or any understanding of the subject whatsoever.

Talk about annoying.

so eager to bicker and play devils advocate and shit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
instagram:
http://instagram.com/0kayndc

"There is much temptation to use what has worked before,
even when it may exceed its effective scope."

"Roll me further bitch"

and actually stand behind them instead of merely agreeing w/whomever posts first and offering nothing but cosigns.

and it's definitely awful that some of us understand things that confound or confuse others who post here. it's god-awful and annoying that ppl are willing to share what they know instead of letting ppl who are less knowledgeable just post and post away w/o being corrected or challenged.

i hate it too.

loudmouth bamas be quick to throw out all the artist a song jacks but then gets mad when the actual artist/estate hears it.

Oh, the muthafukkin irony

when everyone can name the inspiration for a song after the first few bars... and it makes a shit load of money, its a wrap.

this verdict is insane, if you think about it.

If a song is good I will dance to the shit for eternity.

I will still dance to Blurred Lines...

Just because they lost doesnt mea the song sucks.. just means they have to pay up.

how many ppl could bruno mars pay for uptown funk?

prince
trinidad james
one way
lakeside
zapp
the entire p-funk collective


goddamn.


you can't just come up with new shit.
the new shit is all old shit.

the music tradition since forever
is about jacking shit.

so many songs are jacks.
i don't think you ppl realize how common jacks are.

I know a lot of songs are jacked...

I aslo know a lot of artist have been screwed over when a song is blatantly jacked.

I feel no pity when songs make millions today and have to pay a portion when they are found guilty.

I'm furious. This is is awful - and you fucking mouthbreathers are too stupid to understand why.

it will be alright tho..

I'm not sure you get the ramifications of this ruling.

If im as lease ball lawyer like better call Saul I'm going through all kinda of song catalogs and looking for these types of connections- just throwing shit at the wall.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

but when's the last time Saadiq put out a record?

so naw things are cool.

Gaye himself said that he made Got To Give It Up inspired off of Johnnie Taylor's "Disco Lady".

From Rolling Stone: "Williams also shrugged off the notion that the "Blurred Lines" lyrics "Shake around, get up, get down" closely resembled the line "Move it up, turn it round, shake it down" on "Got to Give It Up." "In the average black family of the Seventies, that's what we do when a song comes on," he said, according to THR. "That's what my dad used to say."

Now what's funny is the lyrics they are referring to in GTGIU are ripped off almost word for word from Disco Lady. which is all to say this is a dumb ass decision and Gaye's family needs to have several seats. i hope this goes to appeal and is reversed.

i really wonder if Gaye was alive today if he HIMSELF woulda sued Pharrell/Thicke, but i have to doubt it.

or if he did i think he would've settled w/the defendants to avoid going through the depositions.

i guess the Gaye family won't be suing the Michael Jackson estate b/c i think the Jackson estate has such a clear statute of limitations defense, but MJ's 'Don't Stop Til You Get Enough' and the Jackson's 'Shake Your Body Down To the Ground' are each inspired by 'GTGIU'. the latter even borrows lyrical content from Gaye's song (which is protected by the copyright owned by the Gayes) where the former only borrows production elements (not protected by the Gayes' copyright as any borrowed elements in BL aren't so protected).

anyone thinking this doesn't have the potential to change music is dense.

this is precedent for suing someone because their song "sounds" like yours.

'

Why are yall acting brand new like this isnt done all the time?

When an artist files a lawsuit AGAINST another artist it screams SUE ME because I used your shit.

with hat in hand. thanks for playing, nice try.

this changes that and is a bad bar to set, musically speaking.

To deny that is crazy talk

nigga wants laws to just be *waves hand* close enough

the shit aint a direct rip even if it is a clear inspiration....

95% of musicians can get sued for this shit if that's the case yo

From Divided Soul, I thought somebody went in after the fact and managed to piece together some semblance of what was basically a much longer, free-form jam.

Exhibit A:
"Simon Says" by the 1910 Frutigum Company:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvzHGYSv8kw

Exhibit B:
The second (familiar) theme song for "Scooby-Doo, Where are You!" by Ben Raleigh and David Mook, 1969:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH1q9co-JOY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW8_1oU9pq4 - instrumental for more clarity


Why ain't _they_ sue?

and hip-hop had been made the cash cow

See folks yelping and cheering because they think this just hurts the white boy.....but quiet as kept your favorite producers sweating bullets over this verdict

The only people sweatin are the ones who blatantly ripped off other artist.

Sam Smith cut that check to Tom Petty because it was obvious. Thicke filed a suit because he knew they overstepped.

Pay up or make an original song.

Any song that makes big money in pop music gets hit with a few lawsuits. Its part of the game and usually the record label makes so much money off the track the settlement is minimal.

7.4 mill is chump change... that song prolly generated 50 mill.

anyone wants to catch him up to speed....if possible

bless his heart.

http://www.pennypinching-grandma.com/images/bar-stool.jpg

they are probably nodding their head right now
to songs that are clearly jacks of other records they've never heard of.

this is a horrible, horrible verdict.

Gives no fucks because it doesnt effect my pockets.

means to avoid lawsuits exist

the way to avoid a suit like this is to avoid being inspired by any other song when one creates one's own song. even though songs have been inspired by other songs since songwriting began and is often encouraged among actual artists when it amounts to homage or an honor. and while i myself don't think this will be 'the end of music' i do think it'll stifle creativity so i'm kinda bummed about that.

but mostly i'm not jazzed about this b/c i don't see it as a victory of Blacks over whitey. and even though i'm a huge fan of Gaye and not much a fan of Pharell or Thicke i can put my personal feelings about them aside when i look at this case. i see the bigger picture, i think.

got ethered and edited, smh

and address the meat of your reply and ignore the feigned ignorance ('not sure why...').

so yeah, while there is a way for ppl to avoid this kind of suit i think that'll result in LESS creativity and not more.

go to press.

Is Sam Smiths song no longer good because Petty got a check cut?

I think the problem is you know it all niggas didnt get this one right... so now its Blacks vs whitey instead of just admitting you got it wrong.

all songs all throughout history were jacks.

ppl jack folks you ppl ain't heard of,
but they jacked.

billie jean was a jack.
most stuff influenced by james brown jacked.
james brown himself jacked.


you cannot pay enough money to folks you jack from,
because so many songs are jacks that it would
litteraly cost infinity dollars to clear "uptown funk."


>go to press.
>
>Is Sam Smiths song no longer good because Petty got a check
>cut?
>
>I think the problem is you know it all niggas didnt get this
>one right... so now its Blacks vs whitey instead of just
>admitting you got it wrong.
>
>

When I hear uptown funk I dont say "oh shit, its this song"

Pharell tried to say BL was an ode to 70's funk. Nah.. it was clearly an ode to GTGIU. Anyone who heard it immediately said it was that song.

Uptown funk isnt Computer Love or Oak Tree or some other jam from back in the day.

When its blatant.. and fuck what you heard, that shit was blatant... you have to pay up IF someone sues.

blatantly so.

this is my point.

>When I hear uptown funk I dont say "oh shit, its this song"
>
>Pharell tried to say BL was an ode to 70's funk. Nah.. it was
>clearly an ode to GTGIU. Anyone who heard it immediately said
>it was that song.
>


>Uptown funk isnt Computer Love or Oak Tree or some other jam
>from back in the day.
>
>When its blatant.. and fuck what you heard, that shit was
>blatant... you have to pay up IF someone sues.
>
>

>When I hear uptown funk I dont say "oh shit, its this song"
>
>Pharell tried to say BL was an ode to 70's funk. Nah.. it was
>clearly an ode to GTGIU. Anyone who heard it immediately said
>it was that song.
>
>Uptown funk isnt Computer Love or Oak Tree or some other jam
>from back in the day.
>
>When its blatant.. and fuck what you heard, that shit was
>blatant... you have to pay up IF someone sues.
>
>
>
>

life goes on

If you are creative enough to hide it or mix it up, you are good to go.

These dudes mad because they ran up and down that thread telling us we were wrong.

up in the 80s man half the music I grew up on comes from samples. sample away but if your shit is blatant (read: that recognizable) then pay the lil fee and keep it movin. but we all know this whole issue is a slippery slope and has been since samplings inception and it gets progressively slipperier as we go so niggas took a slide off the roof today. deal with it. if im pharell and im that enamored and "inspired" by the classic song then why not break the fam off alil change and now everybodys happy? jay z shoulda taught him better smh

If you can flip it and hide it... good for you. If you are lazy and dont chop shit up, pay up.

If you cant find a groove so you borrow or flip some old melpdy and no one catches on... good for you. Nit if you get caught out there.. pay up.

Like you said, Pharell was feeling himself and got caught out there. Oh well...

People in here acting like they stripped P naked. The old post people were talking about how it wuld ruin reggae, gtfoh...

who does d'angelo pay?
everybody?

like... how?

down at the table and work things out. if not then go to court and u may win, u may lose. but if nobody says shit then rock out witcha cock out.. but if u get called out then make the shit right and keep it movin... or, take a chance and roll the dice

edit: and the thing is, marv been sampled plenty of times, so its not like he (his estate) is prince and wont play ball. they just didn't wanna pay money but still wanted to "pay homage" lol. nigga please

Cmon... you are reaching. This is only going to be a problem when a song blows up and everyone says it sounds like (insert song)... and if they belong to different publishers.

A lot of deals are made up front when artist know theh have a good chance of being sued.

Its only the arrogant few and the unexpected hot single that get in trouble.

No disrespect to D but no one gives a shit about his album UNLESS one of his songs turns into a banger and that prolly aint happening.

who can sue d'angelo for another life?

prince sues for the background vocals.
thom bell sues for the


forget it.

if nobody fucks with D so be it. if they do, so be it.

what people need to understand is a lot of artist WON'T sue because they sold their rights or they jack as well and charge it to the game.

HOWEVER, some artist/estates don't play that shit.

released.

this is NOT about examples like Smith. this is more about examples like 'Uptown Funk' which sounds vaguely like 'Fantastic Voyage' but not really enough to say it's a str8 copy or even an interpolation. but b/c it reminds ppl of 'Fantastic Voyage' that's enough for Ronson and Mars (and/or the label) to have to pay the writers of 'Fantastic Voyage'.

>I think the problem is you know it all niggas didnt get this
>one right... so now its Blacks vs whitey instead of just
>admitting you got it wrong.

i dunno who or what you're talking about there.

i disagree w/this jury's verdict. i still think i'm right and their verdict is wrong.

and yes, i think many of the ppl who agree w/this verdict agree largely b/c Thicke is white and Gaye was Black and they like that a jury is making that white man pay the dead Black man's family for infringement. several ppl have admitted as much ('white artists have robbed black artists for decades' et al) - i'm not making that up, player.

>released.
>
>this is NOT about examples like Smith. this is more about
>examples like 'Uptown Funk' which sounds vaguely like
>'Fantastic Voyage' but not really enough to say it's a str8
>copy or even an interpolation. but b/c it reminds ppl of
>'Fantastic Voyage' that's enough for Ronson and Mars (and/or
>the label) to have to pay the writers of 'Fantastic Voyage'.
>
>
>>I think the problem is you know it all niggas didnt get this
>>one right... so now its Blacks vs whitey instead of just
>>admitting you got it wrong.
>
>i dunno who or what you're talking about there.
>
>i disagree w/this jury's verdict. i still think i'm right and
>their verdict is wrong.
>
>and yes, i think many of the ppl who agree w/this verdict
>agree largely b/c Thicke is white and Gaye was Black and they
>like that a jury is making that white man pay the dead Black
>man's family for infringement. several ppl have admitted as
>much ('white artists have robbed black artists for decades' et
>al) - i'm not making that up, player.

you don't know what I'm talking about yet you just addressed everything I was talking about.

Like I said... you are mad because you thought you had it right and you were wrong.

some people hate Thicke because he's white.. but others give no fucks about Thicke's color and realize Pharell did 99% of the work and still think it's a rip off. Pharell is the one who did 99% of the work.

Pharell ain't white player..


and it doesn't mean there will be less Stay With Me's and Blurred Lines...

it means they will have to cut a check BEFORE HAND or gamble and cut a bigger check after the song blows up.

>you don't know what I'm talking about yet you just addressed
>everything I was talking about.

I'm fucking great at this OKP shit. I can dismiss your points without even a full understanding. Maybe I got used to doing that bc in the real world I've won jury trials where I hadn't seen the case file until 10 minutes b4 I started jury selection. I'm quick on my feet. I'm good at this.

>Like I said... you are mad because you thought you had it
>right and you were wrong.

I dunno where you are getting that from. But if I said this jury would find for Thicke and Williams I was wrong. But I am not mad about being wrong there. I'm disappointed that the jury made a bad decision bc of the potentially broad implications in the music biz. I'm also kinda glad the jury made the white man pay a Black man but bc it's for a wrong reason and I'm more concerned with the wider implication this decision might have I'm more disappointed than glad. But no, I don't care that I was wrong if I said here or elsewhere that this jury would find for the defendants. I'm wrong about stuff everyday (in the real world, even, where it actually matters) - if that made me mad I'd be homicidal, I think. Bc it's a regular occurrence. But that's life.

>some people hate Thicke because he's white.. but others give
>no fucks about Thicke's color and realize Pharell did 99% of
>the work and still think it's a rip off. Pharell is the one
>who did 99% of the work.
>
>Pharell ain't white player..

Yup. That's true too - at least one person has said he likes the verdict bc he hates Pharrell. But I'm not saying that everyone who agrees with the verdict hates whitey or the defendants.

>and it doesn't mean there will be less Stay With Me's and
>Blurred Lines...

Maybe not. But it could. I dunno.

>it means they will have to cut a check BEFORE HAND or gamble
>and cut a bigger check after the song blows up.

And I dont like that. I also think that's why we may see fewer songs like Blurred Lines and Uptown Funk or that Ed Sheeran song that sounds like Lets Get It On or Oh Sheila or Hangin on a String or Billie Jean or Don't Stop Til You Get Enough or Got To Be Real or even Got To Give It Up itself, among others that vaguely sound like some other song or that borrow unprotected production elements but don't interpolate or sample any copyright protected material.

I don't think it's going to end music as we know it...

yall really sound unhinged over this tho..

>I don't think it's going to end music as we know it...
>


i care about the verdict because i like music.
i understand the potential results, and i dislike them.

but whatever.


>yall really sound unhinged over this tho..
>
>
>
>

I love music...

but them niggas lost because it was a blatant rip off.

and these niggas were snarky as fuck on the stand. Pay homage the correct way and you won't have these problems.

yes, it is an obvious bob marley jack.
but stevie should not have had to clear that.

i am glad stevie wonder could make and release that song
without worying about getting sued.

but if this ruling is correct (and it's not) stevie
could be sued for master blaster.

why do you think that makes sense?


and he'd have to pay an infinite number of ppl for
"don't you worry about a thing."

why is that a good thing in your world?


>
>I love music...
>
>but them niggas lost because it was a blatant rip off.
>
>and these niggas were snarky as fuck on the stand. Pay homage
>the correct way and you won't have these problems.
>

>yes, it is an obvious bob marley jack.
>but stevie should not have had to clear that.
>
>i am glad stevie wonder could make and release that song
>without worying about getting sued.
>
>but if this ruling is correct (and it's not) stevie
>could be sued for master blaster.
>
>why do you think that makes sense?

yes, because like you said, it's a clear Marley jack. First time I heard Master Blaster it was obvious...

I doubt Marley cared tho because reggae was all about jacking songs...

but if his estate sued, they would prolly win.
>
>
>and he'd have to pay an infinite number of ppl for
>"don't you worry about a thing."
>
>why is that a good thing in your world?

because they were blatant rip offs

same with Part Time Lover. Hall & Oates can or should have been broke off for it.

I still love all those songs, but if sued, he has to pay.

But what exact song are you talking about...

because you cant really say it Marley esque kinda like Action Bronson is Ghost face esque....

>But what exact song are you talking about...
>
>because you cant really say it Marley esque kinda like Action
>Bronson is Ghost face esque....

the fact that you don't like Master Blaster is enough reason for me to believe your ears are horrible. LOL

i think it may change music where we may see fewer songs like the ones i listed. but i don't think it'll end music as we know it.

u act like the jury aint just confirming your idiocy is common

you don't have to like the verdict but you damn sure don't need to bring up Trayvon just cause your mad at this verdict.

turkeys can't write no songs and only if they are car jacking.

problem is the music business has allowed known jackers especially from the Rap Perspective to make it look like things are legit when they aren't

Pharell is Overrated and a joke.

and Thicke had one medium hit and this jack and then what else?

that turkey is headed straight to the lounge of the Olive garden

just wanted to know if this logic only applies to bands you like.

>turkeys can't write no songs and only if they are car
>jacking.
>
>problem is the music business has allowed known jackers
>especially from the Rap Perspective to make it look like
>things are legit when they aren't
>
>Pharell is Overrated and a joke.
>
>and Thicke had one medium hit and this jack and then what
>else?
>
>that turkey is headed straight to the lounge of the Olive
>garden

as a songwriter and Artist and RIck could write period big difference.

when did Rick James basically sing over Bop Gun? when did Rick James sing and re work "Holly wants to go to California"?

please don't insult Rick James with a Lame in tbe Butt jive turkey like pharell who is basically a broke Teddy RIley and for as long as RObin Thicke been around he ain't even got a good song in his catelog let alone a memorable one.

RIck was inspired by P Funk as was the Gap Band,Cameo,etc.. however those acts still had there own thing and Clinton only talked about you if you were happening and nobody ever heard of Rick James having to pay no cake for a song jack and RIck was around a long time

George clinton knows a good jack when he hears one.
but it's still a jack.



as a songwriter and Artist and RIck could write period big
>difference.
>
>when did Rick James basically sing over Bop Gun? when did
>Rick James sing and re work "Holly wants to go to
>California"?
>
>please don't insult Rick James with a Lame in tbe Butt jive
>turkey like pharell who is basically a broke Teddy RIley and
>for as long as RObin Thicke been around he ain't even got a
>good song in his catelog let alone a memorable one.
>
>RIck was inspired by P Funk as was the Gap Band,Cameo,etc..
>however those acts still had there own thing and Clinton only
>talked about you if you were happening and nobody ever heard
>of Rick James having to pay no cake for a song jack and RIck
>was around a long time

and the main thing is that RIck James had actual talent.
Pharell is a hack and thicke never has written anything worth talking about

you of all people should not be happy about this.

however he never has a song as blatant as this mess. and plus the man can write songs period

because back when sampling,looping,etc.. was going down James Brown never got a dime off of it. if Brown had have been compensated probably he would as rich as Bill Gates with all the jacking turkeys got off his music IMO.

bottom line this is the industry's fault for allowing no talent jive turkeys push buttons and ride cuts without given credit.

sorry state of affairs and bad for all period

hell, r jacked marvin harder than this on "you got me."

because if he gets sued then so will all other big time artists

but adhered to the same patterns - particularly paying allusion to songs for 'random' bars - would it survive at all?


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

and it wouldn't be jazz as we know it.
jacking is essential to music.



>but adhered to the same patterns - particularly paying
>allusion to songs for 'random' bars - would it survive at
>all?
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~
>"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
>http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
>Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

and in turn no one would give a fuck about what went on in the genre

that it would be somewhat akin to when rock fans, in this case hip-hop fans (of a certain era), became prog fans because they adjusted the sound of the genre. A hypothetical where, say, Gang Starr or A Tribe Called Quest were as huge as they were except their compositions were original, and then along comes Sun Ra as Pink Floyd, or John Coltrane as Rush, and births this whole new fandom.

And all the rest of them are there floating in the middle, making all their same music that influenced hip-hop except it's influenced by hip-hop instead, and being self-referential and jazzed up on merely being cool musicians that love cool music.

If this ruling, along with the others before it, existed regardless (and I get at this point I'm building a scenario that's nearly impossible considering I'm asking to reverse the timeline that brought most of these lawsuits in the first place) could jazz exist if Speak No Evil were in the place of Confessions?

...I've had too much to drink tonight, lol.

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

sorry to be lazy and just lift from my review but I also on't want to come off like I'd have listened to this album otherwise or remember off hand which songs I'm referring to in the header...


“What It Feels Like” and “Faster” are an odd opening sequence if for no other reason than they both very openly ape Kanye West’s My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy; the former is clearly an amateur-professional’s take on “All of the Lights”, while “Faster” wants so badly to be “Hell of a Life” by borrowing that track’s echoplexed chorus. Kid Ink also borrows Yeezy’s Yeezus shrieks and his flow, and if it weren’t for a pretty dope, haunting use of something that sounds a lot like Amnesiac-era Radiohead for the beat’s backbone (courtesy of rising genius DJ Dahi), it’d be fairly easy to convince someone it was a reference track that Kanye used to create his pornographic fantasy.

Truthfully, that’s both Full Speed‘s biggest flaw and greatest asset throughout the album. “Dolo” probably would have been a reasonably recognizable single except its choral melody and overall composition borrows too ferociously from “Touchin’, Lovin’” by Trey Songz.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

You don't think McDonalds would sue??

This isn't Bridgeport vs Dimension -that's the scary one.

This was someone made a sound-alike song then sued the people who owned publishing on the original to stop them from "slandering" the sound alike producers.

At least in this case it's just taking cash from the wealthy and giving it to other wealthy folks.

I agree with all of that. Except that bc I am with the defendants, in the hypo McDougall's should sell chicken or veggie burgers. Meaning, no one who actually ate McDougall's would mistake it for McDonald's and ppl who want McDonald's won't be satisfied with McDougalls.

Like there was no danger here that ppl would think Blurred Lines is a Marvin Gaye song or that GTGIU is by Thicke. Plus though BL reminds one of GTGIU when one tries to sing one on top of the other it's clear they aren't the same bc they go off in different directions.

But if I were on the plaintiff side talking to ppl who know CTA I'd make that analogy. I like it.

there's only so many notes on the scale. there's only so many chords. you've got millions of people around the world making copyrighted music, and they've been doing it now for a hundred years. as technology makes it easier to record music, the problem is gonna get worse. eventually everything is gonna sound like something.

expire music copyrights after 20 years. that gives the original artist ample time to milk their work for all it's worth, then release it to the public. if someone can make a better version of "sexual healing," go for it. people are still gonna buy marvin gaye's version, and he and his will still get that money. and more people are gonna buy marvin gaye's version after a bunch of popular current artists do their take (which they'll make their own money off of, if they can).

this way, everyone making music isn't looking over their shoulder, trying to stay clear of stuff that happened half a century ago. it also breathes fresh life into music that otherwise wouldn't get heard. "sexual healing" is a bad example of this, but there's more obscure marvin gaye songs that would kill today if someone current did it. i'm thinking of the roots/john legend "wake up" album of '60s and '70s soul music. anyone should be able to do that for free.

or maybe instead of copyrighting music-- notes, chords, lyrics-- we copyright recordings. the audio instead of the paper. so you can't play marvin gaye's version of "sexual healing" in a movie without paying for it, but you can get another artist to do a version of it. you can't sample the actual audio of marvin gaye's recording for your beat, but you can play those notes on your own instrument to make the beat. paper copyright expires after 20 years, audio copyright after the current 100 years. i don't know. all i know is the situation is gonna get more and more ridiculous as people around the world lay claim to every single combination of music notes possible.

point blank though, here's the bottom line: there's no reason why marvin gaye's kids should be getting $7 million off a song their dad didn't make.

and there is way too much regurgitation as it is

i feel what you are saying but i dont think the solution is so simple. establishing a stronger, more uniform standard of what constitutes infringement seems more reasonable.

if you've got a hundred artists making their own version of "sexual healing," they're all mostly gonna go ignored. unless someone does something special enough with it that it breaks through the noise, in which case they deserve to profit. this isn't about getting 20 new knock-offs of "happy" every year. this is about, "hey, remember that music we grew up on that influenced us as artists? here's my take on it." a 20-year copyright would allow for that.

people are always gonna continue to make original music, and that's always what's gonna dominate sales. i'm just saying, let's not tie everyone's hands behind their back by taking away the last hundred years of music-- including all the music that inspired them to become artists in the first place-- as part of their palette.

of Buzzed, Upworthy, Gawker and so on, someone will point out that your song sucks compared to the song you're covering.

And I agree Wake Up! is a great example for what you're talking about. The bar I worked at the past three years had a regular that often came in during the past hour or so requesting Roberta Flack's "Compared to What?" and if the bar wasn't busy enough I'd play it. But one day I played the Legend/Roots version instead, and from then on there was a pretty even split among people there, me and that dude upon which version should be played when he marched in. That can't happen too often with covers, but when it does, I think it's worth celebrating, and reducing the amount of years a song is under lock and key goes a good way towards encouraging that kind of competition. It also allows fantastic songs to remain contemporary in a way they can't otherwise.


Obviously Skrillex shouldn't do a cover, but I'd have to assume it'd get laughed out of the building if he did (I have nothing against the guy other than his personal style, he's just an easy straw man). Artists should be allowed to try and fail, or try and just do something that honors the music they love, without fear after a certain point. And not 100 years or whatever it is certain point.



~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

I'll make it easier..

Treat all songs like covers.. samples, interpolations.. inspired by etc...

set fixed amounts of publishing based on usage.. easy to understand tiers...

simple form you fill out and submit and clearance is done and previous writers get paid.. simple

Diplo gotta pay every non-white person everywhere.

Ariana gotta pay Christina & Mariah.

Who else??

and terrifying.

They were dumb, lost, & MIGHT have to pay up. Emphasis on 'might' b/c they can appeal it & win/stall the shit outta paying the Gaye estate or w/e.

Like, suing pre-emptively was some weird shit & then the subsequent lies from Robin did not help. Could've been a lot less messy (e.g. Sam Smith, Mac Miller, etc.) & instead, we're here lol.

how are you people this dense?

it's easy to understand how 8 ppl got this wrong.

I blame the goddamn lawyers.

And both sides had equally credible experts so they canceled each other in the minds of enough jurors. So then maybe the jury found for the plaintiffs bc Thicke and Williams weren't credible witnesses (Thicke may have admitted he lied to the public about the nature of his involvement in writing the song, plus he's kinda smarmy and Pharrell claimed he wasnt directly inspired by GTGIU but wanted to evoke a late 70s vibe with this record). Or maybe the jury found for the plaintiffs just bc the 2 records sound alike. Then again they only heard a stripped down version of GTGIU during the trial and I haven't heard that version.

Note: this is based on my experience at trial as a juror - I've served on 2 civil juries and both trials had expert testimony.

about music production, the creative process or the history of music in this country.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

Not any real knowledge or understanding.

what are you guys using to be correct on this? Knowledge and power? GTFOH.. you guys are so smart you didn't think you could get this case wrong. Yall are all in your feelings over this loss.

"music will never be the same" ole lames...

Sorry it's hurt your feelings but fuck it, actually, nah.. I'm not sorry at all.

work harder at making good music that doesn't blatantly borrow from an obvious hit.

we don't think stevie wonder should have been sued for "don't you
worry bout a thing."

we don't think usher should be sued for "twerk it out" or "she came to give it to you."

we don't think aerosmith should be sued for "dude looks like a lady."

and even though these songs sucks,
nobody should be sued for "bad to the bone," "old time rock and roll,"


should wynton marsellis get sued for jacking miles davis' tone on the trumpet?

should james brown's estate sue miles davis' estate for
the "on the corner" album?



no.


we think you and the jurrors are wrong
and that's not an unreasonable conclusion.



>work harder at making good music that doesn't blatantly borrow
>from an obvious hit.
>
>
>
>

but note i didn't call you that.

.

>Diplo gotta pay every non-white person everywhere.

Got paid a grip from royalties and doesn't have to bear any brunt of this lawsuit.

http://erkekakli.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tumblr_moeb2psuf41svxy91_500.gif

I wonder how many residual checks Drake can cash now from #hastag rap.

for another life.
he jacked at least 10 tunes for that one.

same goes for aint that easy and 1000 deaths.
he jacked p funk, sly, hendrix, and others.

why do you think d should pay up?

how could d pay up?

that album has dozens of references to other songs
on every single song.

If one of his songs blows up he will prolly get sued but right now?

AINT NOOOO one spending all that money suing to get a few pennies.

royalties is like the smallest % of money spent...

and that's me pretending like how much money it makes is a remotely good point bc it's not

if Blurred Lines went triple wood I doubt they sue and I doubt ANY of us would be this invested.

for another life.
he jacked at least 10 tunes for that one.

same goes for aint that easy and 1000 deaths.
he jacked p funk, sly, hendrix, and others.

why do you think d should pay up?

how could d pay up?

that album has dozens of references to other songs
on every single song.

to in his sound recordings.

we already know labels put the kibosh on certain records b/c they contain samples that the label isn't willing to pay to clear. that may happen going forward even when there's no sample or interpolation as is the case w/'Blurred Lines'.

>to in his sound recordings.
>
>we already know labels put the kibosh on certain records b/c
>they contain samples that the label isn't willing to pay to
>clear. that may happen going forward even when there's no
>sample or interpolation as is the case w/'Blurred Lines'.

if all the acts D references are able to line up to get paid it could definitely eat up whatever profits D and the various credited songwriters on Black Messiah have earned. and D's touring money too (b/c this Blurred Lines case also went after Thicke's touring profit for shows where he played the song).

however, i think this BL suit went as far as it did largely b/c the record was such a hit. that could be what protects acts like D - the fact that their records don't make much money.

i think Mark Ronson could be in more trouble b/c 'Uptown Funk' is a hit and Ronson's album is loaded w/songs that reference other songs and mimic production sounds from the 70s and 80s. it's intended as something of a tribute album to 70s/80s Funk and if it makes money best believe that any of those 70s/80s Funk bands whose sounds are 'tributed' on the album even if Ronson didn't sample or interpolate may be contacting their lawyers inquiring about potential suits after this decision. b/c before this decision they'd have had a more difficult time finding lawyers who'd even try to demand or threaten to sue an act like Ronson for infringement where there was no sampling or interpolation. but now lawyers might think there's a better chance and may be willing to take on their case(s).

plus, Ronson is white. and seems wealthy.

...screams James Brown. Mark better hope no thirsty lawyers, estates, or publishers will get any ideas.


Since 1976

>to in his sound recordings.
>
>we already know labels put the kibosh on certain records b/c
>they contain samples that the label isn't willing to pay to
>clear. that may happen going forward even when there's no
>sample or interpolation as is the case w/'Blurred Lines'.


Given the dwindling money in the music business these days in recent years, I'm sure recording companies are going to pinch pennies in that regard now moreso than in the heydays of multi-platinum albums being sold.

>I wonder how many residual checks Drake can cash now from
>#hastag rap.

_____________________________________________________
"You can win with certainty with the spirit of "one cut". "Musashi Miyamoto

Justin & Bey gotta pay Prince for "Until the End of Time"

Troy Ave gotta pay Curtis/50.

Kanye gotta pay NO ID...more lol.

fathom that some of the ppl applauding the decision might be doing so because they have empathy for the family (nona gaye was in tears yesterday)

its not surprising tho because many of u have shitty relationships with ur family and are anti-social weirdos with very little human relations in general

but instead of considering that

u say " ur happy because its a blow to whitey" what a low opinion of Blk ppl u have if u think everything is about sticking it to whitey!

u say ppl hate robin thicke...LMAO like who really hates robin thicke!!! he was beloved by Blk ppl and then otherwise forgotten about as many artists are, but hate....robin thicke...LOL ok....


get a grip weirdos, sowhat as usual spews 500 different replies of his mess but then u folks get surprised when ppl are looking at yall crazy when ur pissed and calling ppl idiots over this

relax...be normal

ill be sure to up this post again in a year after music has collapsed completely

but them crying about the shit is odd, weird, and almost seems disingenuous to me...

also a weird reason to applaud it but i'm not mad...

an emotional reason is ok...some of the other shit you hear people saying about it though is mad disturbing/frustrating

>fathom that some of the ppl applauding the decision might be
>doing so because they have empathy for the family (nona gaye
>was in tears yesterday)

no, i'm not worried about Gaye's kids b/c as far as i know his estate ain't suffering. it looks like the estate owns publishing rights on several f his hits. that should be enough to keep it funded well enough.

plus, in this case since i don't believe Thicke and Williams interpolated or sampled any of Gaye's copyright protected material i don't think the estate deserves the money the jury awarded.

so, no. my empathy for the Gaye grown-ass children doesn't override my concern about the broader impact the case could have w/in the music biz.

>>fathom that some of the ppl applauding the decision might
>be
>>doing so because they have empathy for the family (nona gaye
>>was in tears yesterday)
>
>no, i'm not worried about Gaye's kids b/c as far as i know his
>estate ain't suffering. it looks like the estate owns
>publishing rights on several f his hits. that should be
>enough to keep it funded well enough.
>
>plus, in this case since i don't believe Thicke and Williams
>interpolated or sampled any of Gaye's copyright protected
>material i don't think the estate deserves the money the jury
>awarded.
>
>so, no. my empathy for the Gaye grown-ass children doesn't
>override my concern about the broader impact the case could
>have w/in the music biz.
>

And they're right.

wow

b/c Marvin Gaye is not some unheralded act who toiled in obscurity and died penniless after having never been recognized by the music biz and then along comes Thicke and Williams using one of his songs to make a hit where they got all the praise and Marvin was still unrecognized though his material was the basis for one of the biggest hits in recent yrs.

this was a pure cash grab. the suit wouldn't have been filed if BL hadn't made lots of money. hell, the suit wouldn't have been filed if Marvin were alive, i think. i think he would've looked at this the way many other musicians from his generation looked at songs that'd been inspired by other songs (to wit, he didn't get at the Jacksons for using lyrics from 'Got To Give It Up' in 'Shake Your Body Down to the Ground' like Johnnie Taylor didn't get at him for borrowing lyrics from 'Disco Lady' for GTGIU).

so yeah, i think this was all about money for the Gayes - money the defendants shouldn't be ordered to pay b/c there was no infringement of any copyrighted material owned by the Gaye estate, IMO.

Just cause Nona Gaye, who's ain't exactly poor off her fathers fortune, is giving a 'WE WON THE LOTTERY' tears doesn't mean that it's a much bigger problem if the bar is set so low.

The fact is if it was D'Angelo who had to fork over millions we would less enthusastic; it's just serial cheater Thicke and 'New Black' Skateboard P are easier villians to root against.

Everyone who's like, 'WTF?' in this post ain't Robin Thicke fans, and I bet you half of them aren't big Pharrel fans either. If we could sacrifice their souls to to get Marvin resurrected, pretty sure most peopl in the post would, LOL.

It's just if that barrier to prove royalties are so low, and stay the way they are, it's a literal gamechanger for art across the board. This isn't about sampling or an annoying hit song, some of the GREATEST pieces of art were made by artists who were influencd by one thing and tried to flip it.

To give of give the, *Shrug* Well fuck it then, Nona Gaye is happy! Music industry sucks!" is pretty short sighted, don't you think? Its not a case of sticking it to the man, how many checks does your boo Minaj owe to Lil Kim? lol.

it's the principle and the precedent.

it's massively upsetting.

the loterry tears, its funny how u folks are making this all about money when yall are supposed to be these artsy creatives

*goes back to listening to tame impala preparing for the impending doom of music*

I challenge you to a duel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YryDK9feqps

lol

see approach to the downfall of all sound in the known universe

and you've made it rain @ Magic City i suggest a last meal @ some real expensive joint down there. and pay w/CASH. make it rain on your server too.

b/c fuck it. the WORLD WILL END TOMORROW b/c of this jury verdict.

none of my songs sample or interpolate any of Marvin's songs but i use a cowbell in 3 of them and Marvin used a cowbell in GTGIU so that means i infringed on their copyright so i have to pay them before i can release my music.

how much does practically every bass player owe james jameson?
how much does every pop artist post thriller owe michael jackson?

how many blues artists does michael jackson owe for "the way you make me feel"?

because that song a blues lick repeated over and over again.
can every Chicago blues artist ever sue his estate?

why not, based on this verdict?

>Just cause Nona Gaye, who's ain't exactly poor off her
>fathers fortune, is giving a 'WE WON THE LOTTERY' tears
>doesn't mean that it's a much bigger problem if the bar is set
>so low.
>
>The fact is if it was D'Angelo who had to fork over millions
>we would less enthusastic; it's just serial cheater Thicke and
>'New Black' Skateboard P are easier villians to root against.
>
>Everyone who's like, 'WTF?' in this post ain't Robin Thicke
>fans, and I bet you half of them aren't big Pharrel fans
>either. If we could sacrifice their souls to to get Marvin
>resurrected, pretty sure most peopl in the post would, LOL.
>
>It's just if that barrier to prove royalties are so low, and
>stay the way they are, it's a literal gamechanger for art
>across the board. This isn't about sampling or an annoying
>hit song, some of the GREATEST pieces of art were made by
>artists who were influencd by one thing and tried to flip it.
>
>
>To give of give the, *Shrug* Well fuck it then, Nona Gaye is
>happy! Music industry sucks!" is pretty short sighted, don't
>you think? Its not a case of sticking it to the man, how many
>checks does your boo Minaj owe to Lil Kim? lol.
>
>

you're just fucking clueless.

but he should wait until late tomorrow just before the world ends.

shit is really amzg to see...like anybody in here is gainin or losin a red cent over this verdict. mofos inner internet thug is really comin out loud and clear smh

so we'll be driving SLOW and feeling on each other the whole way. but we mad so we won't turn back.

GET READY!

dont associate urself with crazy

Empathy for someone who won a case that had zero merit from jump?

Empathy for someone who is already getting paid off the legacy of her father?

Empathy for somehow winning a case that completely falls apart when you actually pay attention to the music of both songs?

Oh, she cried when she won a meritless case decided by people who CLEARLY, INARGUABLY didn’t understand the facts? THAT’S why you’re happy for the verdict?

They didn’t have a leg to stand on to begin with and the facts inarguably support that position if you have any actual understanding of the significant differences between the two songs.

at this point ppl are overly committed to their original arguments and doubling down on being extra

people are in here just regurgitating thicke/pharrell's lawyer main argument basically
he had 7 million reasons to be hyperbolic though
i think the impact this case will have on the industry is being way overblown in here mostly as a consolation

also ppl are being disingenuous in here pretending like this case is unprecedented or that the jury didn't understand the case
they brought in experts and everything it is.
if they deemed the chord progressions were close enough....then so be it

the entire song is a blues progression.
do all the chigago blues artists get to sue?

why not?

it's literally the samw chords.
he jacked.


>at this point ppl are overly committed to their original
>arguments and doubling down on being extra
>
>people are in here just regurgitating thicke/pharrell's lawyer
>main argument basically
>he had 7 million reasons to be hyperbolic though
>i think the impact this case will have on the industry is
>being way overblown in here mostly as a consolation
>
>also ppl are being disingenuous in here pretending like this
>case is unprecedented or that the jury didn't understand the
>case
>they brought in experts and everything it is.
>if they deemed the chord progressions were close
>enough....then so be it
>

something...like i never much noticed him but hes gone full on crazy in this post and i doubt he has friends or anything to calm him down in the real world

nah, you're just witless.

fuck you and die in a fire are not exactly elevated dialogue

ur crazy tho so i dont hold that against u

is that what you're saying?

if so, does that mean the Zimmerman jury verdict was correct?

does this extend to grand juries too?

if so, what about the Darren Wilson grand jury?

how far down this rabbit hole do you want to go?

in this case the cord progressions were deemed close enough to award settlement

http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/

as i said below, i'm not convinced this decision was about the music theory. i think much of that evidence may have gone over the jurors' heads. i think it was about the defendants' testimony - the jurors possibly found them to be less than truthful and/or disliked them and so they found for the plaintiffs.

but i dunno b/c i didn't see the trial or talk to the jurors.

u can't rely on your ears for this shit

and considering that based on the sheet music

the key is different, the chord progressions are different...

if you can't reasonably point to what exactly is too similar besides the cowbell and the vibe...

u are making the wrong decision...

i get what you are saying and no this isn't the end of modern music or music in general but it's clearly still the wrong fucking decision...

close enough is not copy infingement...period

u can sit there and look at it the sheet music and see clearly how different it is even if u can't read music...and it's not close enough...it just happens to sound close enough...

if feelings and sensations were hard enough evidence...then yes...a very bad precedent is set and shouldn't be upheld...that's why people are getting hyperbolic bc some people too busy relying on their ears when that sets the bar so fucking low

sure, the song is creatively reliant upon the original...but it took all the needed steps to avoid infringement...

look at the fucking sheet music look at the written differences:

Blurred Lines is 120 beats per minute.
Got To Give It Up is 122 beats per minute.
Both songs feature a syncopated cowbell part and an electric piano (Gaye’s bassline is actually played on a 1976 RMI harmonic synthesiser).
The vocal melodies and lyrics of the songs are very obviously different from one another.
The songs have different chord patterns from each other.
The recordings are in different keys; ‘Blurred Lines’ is in G; ‘Got To Give It Up’ is in A.

it's pretty fucking see0through that the spirit of the song is ripoffish...but that's not the spirit of copyright infringement especially in this industry

Yep...

And on the real, I get how people backing up this flawed verdict can get caught up in their feelings about this case...

In this post alone there are 4 different kind of folks in support:

1. The people who are confusing the "feel" of the song for copyright infringement....

2.The folks who are happy that whitey is finally paying up for stealing from the black man (even though said white man didn't even write the song...)

3. Folks who have no use for Thicke and and more so Skateboard P trying to be slick....The fact that Pharrell tried to say "B.L." was inspired by country music and not "GTGIU" was worthy of a middle finger in itself....

4. People just playing the role of the smart-dumb individual (I cleaned the term I wanted to use up...)

SoWhat has been on the money. The Gaye family didn't win on the evidence. They won because Pharrell got up on the stand and said some bullshit....lol...From there it was easy for the jury to say, "Well, it's obvious they are lying about the influence of the song...It it does "feel" the same...So let's give the Gaye family what they deserve!"

But the question of song influence was never part of the trial. It was the sheet music and blatant copying of notes....More than anything I blame Thicke and P for having lackluster legal presentation.....But more than that I blame Thicke and P for coming off like shady assholes when none of that shit was needed....

like.. why would he say some bullshit instead of ALL the technical terms that could have won the case?

Maybe, just maybe... it's because he jack the shit out of that song

do those bass lines sound the same to you?
I don't have perfect pitch but...

those are not the same notes.

it's not the samw rhythm, either.


I feel like you are trolling at this point.


>like.. why would he say some bullshit instead of ALL the
>technical terms that could have won the case?
>
>Maybe, just maybe... it's because he jack the shit out of that
>song

stop trying to convince him. he doesn't and won't get it. and if he did he wouldn't admit it.

troll w/it.

don't be this mad

i can't today! it's too much. i'm too mad.

so in the mean time when i get home i'm burning all of my Marvin Gaye records and CDs. b/c i so mad.

.

so i'm gonna do that bonfire of Gaye records as soon as i can. i want to be sure i get my vengeance before the world ends.

BlackStar, Heiro, GLove... you get the picture.

but nope, never played bass...

My sheet music skills are wack now but back in the day I could read music. I didn't enjoy reading it tho...

I played a little piano and played drums in the band in HS.

Everyone in my fam on my moms side can play an instrument or 3...

and you can read the sheet music and see it ain't the same.
and you can walk over to a piano and play both bass lines and hear they ain't the same.

so you are trolling.

they are obviously different songs.

but the vibe, feel, inspiration is blatant...

and maybe if they admitted this in the trial they would have won...

however, Pharrell felt the need to say it was yodeling and country music so here we are...

this wont change music, just make a few lazy jackers think twice before recording that next jacked hit.

Go to the influence and give them a few stacks instead of lying about it.

Bc he and his label didn't have the bread to pay off the songwriters of those Gospel songs he rewrote. But who needs Soul? It's overrated anyway. Plus getting money is more important than art - so I as a fan of music should be happy when artists who have no connection to me get paid. Bc money is what matters. He with more money is the better person.

But fuck all that bc After the Dance just came on this iPod and I'm gonna burn it bc I SO MAD.

but pharell should have known better.
he tried to be slick and got caught out there.

that will teach him to either flip the diatonic scale
in a way that is completely unrecognizable
or pay everybody that has ever used those notes.

lol


>Bc he and his label didn't have the bread to pay off the
>songwriters of those Gospel songs he rewrote. But who needs
>Soul? It's overrated anyway. Plus getting money is more
>important than art - so I as a fan of music should be happy
>when artists who have no connection to me get paid. Bc money
>is what matters. He with more money is the better person.
>
>But fuck all that bc After the Dance just came on this iPod
>and I'm gonna burn it bc I SO MAD.

hendrix's use of feedback get jacked all the time.
every guitar player owes him. pay up.

james brown hitting on the one.
george clinton and prince and earth wind and fire
and any band that has funk roots or influence gets paid.

either make something new or pay up.

anybody that uses the I iv V chord progression needs to pay...
I dunno who.

phil spector?


that means greenday and the ramomes and nirvana
need to pay up.


just make entirely new notes and scales.
new chords.

new rhythms.


pay up or make something completely new.

word.






>but the vibe, feel, inspiration is blatant...
>
>and maybe if they admitted this in the trial they would have
>won...
>
>however, Pharrell felt the need to say it was yodeling and
>country music so here we are...
>
>this wont change music, just make a few lazy jackers think
>twice before recording that next jacked hit.
>
>Go to the influence and give them a few stacks instead of
>lying about it.

>like.. why would he say some bullshit instead of ALL the
>technical terms that could have won the case?
>
>Maybe, just maybe... it's because he jack the shit out of that
>song


It was bullshit because P and everyone knows that Blurred Lines was inspired by "GTGIU"....lol

But as a myriad of people have said a million times in this very thread the suit was NEVER about influence....


That's where P and Thicke made themselves look like assholes....This case was about the straight up copying of sheet music and grooves, note for note....All P had to say was "sure, we were inspired by Marvin much in the same way that Michael Jackson was inspired by the Knack for "Beat It."

But nah...they tried to be slick, which played a large role in the jury's decision.....

>at this point ppl are overly committed to their original
>arguments and doubling down on being extra
>
>people are in here just regurgitating thicke/pharrell's lawyer
>main argument basically
>he had 7 million reasons to be hyperbolic though
>i think the impact this case will have on the industry is
>being way overblown in here mostly as a consolation
>
>also ppl are being disingenuous in here pretending like this
>case is unprecedented or that the jury didn't understand the
>case
>they brought in experts and everything it is.
>if they deemed the chord progressions were close
>enough....then so be it
>

.

The Gayes were rich yesterday and they'll be rich tomorrow. Just rich-*er*.

Worry less about them and more about those smaller and indie artists unlucky enough to have made records "inspired by" *insert oldie here* within the last three years that someone with lawyer power feels is too close for comfort.

I mean really is that what u all are foreseeing when the great music apocalypse occurs in 3 months ?

and it will mean they're gonna come confiscate my laptop b/c i have songs on there that infringe on other songs.

I'M HELLA WORRIED!!!! THAT'S WHY I'M POSTING IN HERE SO MUCH.

but i am a piano player.
my entire style as a piano player is jacked wholesale from
three piano performances.

marvin gaye's motown 25 performance.
stevie wonder's Motown 25 performance.
prince's dad playing computer blue on piano in purple rain.

I hear licks from those performances in my playing all the time.
that may make me a hack, but it shouldn't make me a theif.

because marvin and stevie and prince didn't invent the cliche's they played, either.


this isn't the end,
but it might make labels more skiddish about releasing songs
that referemce the feel of other songs.

sorta like "nation of millions" would be too expensive to release today.



it's not the end, but it is bad precedent.

just more than before, which is still bad.

Essentially, it'll be on entertainment layers to thoroughly review their clients' works wit ha fine-toothed comb before release to avoid getting vultured. They're already supposed to be doing it now, but it'll be of multiplied importance.

....I heard it once and for the life of me cannot fucking find it again


anybody else know what Im talking about?

it was a

>....I heard it once and for the life of me cannot fucking
>find it again
>
>
>anybody else know what Im talking about?
>
>it was a

same EXACT melody

>....I heard it once and for the life of me cannot fucking
>find it again
>
>
>anybody else know what Im talking about?
>
>it was a

to go through your song and be like that 2 bar transition in your 1:30 minute skit feels like some obscure performance from some one hit wonder in 1960

>to go through your song and be like that 2 bar transition in
>your 1:30 minute skit feels like some obscure performance from
>some one hit wonder in 1960

http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/

IT FEELS LIKE THE OTHER SONG!

TEARS!GAYES DAUGHTER CRIED!!

foh with facts

but you KNOW thats exactly what the jury said... lol

Them fools was like.. I dont read no notes.. I heard it on the radio it sounds like it and I dont like that Canadian robin thicke so..

were turned off by the defendants' testimony. specifically, Pharrell claimed that he wasn't thinking about GTGIU when he made BL (which on its face sounds ridiculous that he just happened to make a song that feels so much like GTGIU w/o trying). Pharrell said he had been working on a Miley song and some other song and one of those had a Country feel and so he was doing a yodeling thing and that's what he was thinking when he wrote BL. i don't buy that myself. and Thicke admitted that he'd lied about his part in writing the song where he'd previously said in an interview outside court that he and Pharrell wrote the song together and had tried to create something that sounded like GTGIU. during the deps it was revealed that Pharrell wrote the song w/o Thicke and Thicke made some suggestions but they weren't used b/c Pharrell's ideas were better. but the jury also heard how much $ Thicke made b/c he has a writing credit on the song though he wrote basically none of it. plus i dunno how much the jurors may have known about Thicke's shenanigans over the last 2 yrs (surely the defense counsel fought to keep that stuff out) but if they heard or knew much of that it couldn't have helped the defense case, i think.

i didn't see the trial and i've only read summaries that included a summary of the plaintiff experts but not the defense and i imagine the defense and plaintiff experts canceled each other out (as typically happens when both sides have experts) and the jury didn't like the defendants or found them to be less than credible so they found for the plaintiffs.

>were turned off by the defendants' testimony. specifically,
>Pharrell claimed that he wasn't thinking about GTGIU when he
>made BL (which on its face sounds ridiculous that he just
>happened to make a song that feels so much like GTGIU w/o
>trying). Pharrell said he had been working on a Miley song
>and some other song and one of those had a Country feel and so
>he was doing a yodeling thing and that's what he was thinking
>when he wrote BL. i don't buy that myself. and Thicke
>admitted that he'd lied about his part in writing the song
>where he'd previously said in an interview outside court that
>he and Pharrell wrote the song together and had tried to
>create something that sounded like GTGIU. during the deps it
>was revealed that Pharrell wrote the song w/o Thicke and
>Thicke made some suggestions but they weren't used b/c
>Pharrell's ideas were better. but the jury also heard how
>much $ Thicke made b/c he has a writing credit on the song
>though he wrote basically none of it. plus i dunno how much
>the jurors may have known about Thicke's shenanigans over the
>last 2 yrs (surely the defense counsel fought to keep that
>stuff out) but if they heard or knew much of that it couldn't
>have helped the defense case, i think.


Yep to all of this^^^^^

or at least a part of why I ain't mad at the verdict.

They lied their asses of, and immediately became untrustworthy, lol


They lost the case more than the other side won it.

ceremonial publishing credits on songs.

Put Queen Bey on that stand and watch the sparks fly.

Since 1976

didn't take more than 5 minutes to sort out.
my fingers do different things and play different notes at different times.

you know, because they aren't the same record.

and couldn't b/c the songs go in such different directions. it was immediately clear they're not the same.

that contradicts the very judgment he's supporting

Glad all of u are so disturbed too. Don't worry you'll all be vindicated I'm sure when music collapses in 2 weeks

TOMORROW.

the sky will FALL. the world will END.

and so you'd better cash your part of the Gaye estate's check tonight. i suggest making it rain on some hoes @ Magic City. it's a great way to blow money b4 the END OF THE WORLD.

against him are going....o wait

>


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
instagram:
http://instagram.com/0kayndc

"There is much temptation to use what has worked before,
even when it may exceed its effective scope."

"Roll me further bitch"

the entire song is a blues progression.
make some original shit or pay up.

and Shake Your Body b/c both were inspired by GTGIU. hell, the latter even has lyrics from GTGIU which are protected by the copyright the Gayes own on the sheet music, i believe.

see: 'Let's dance let's shout/Gettin funky's what it's all about' in GTGIU vs. 'Let's dance let's shout/Shake your body down to the ground' in SYBDTTG.

so i doubt the Gaye estate will file that suit. but Gaye could've demanded payment from Jackson back when those songs were released but he didn't. as most artists don't in cases like those. but now? i dunno.

i also think it's worth noting that the surviving Gaye kids aren't musicians. that could be part of why they pushed this so far b/c they don't understand or care about the potential ramifications. well, they clearly don't...LOL. they want that $$.

and yeah, they caking now!

The Gayes vs The Jacksons


that will definitely be an epic legal battle


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Co9mW_9hH2g


who gets sued?

are we gonna sue all these ppl?
how do folks expect songs to get written?

folks gonna invent new chords?

work with me, ppl.

so it's better to just troll w/them at this point.

if they don't see it now they won't. so fuck it.

http://www.etonline.com/news/160962_after_blurred_lines_victory_gaye_family_takes_another_listen_to_happy_similarities/

It seems Pharrell can't win.

On a related note, didn't the Gayes' lawsuit also include charges of theft for Thicke's "Love After War" with respect to Marvin's "After The Dance"? Maybe as a separate charge? I read that in several places, but see no mention of it with the award announcement, just the "Blurred Lines" victory.

Yep, it's cited in this article: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6480641/blurred-lines-trial-robin-thicke-piano-medley-court

Which mentions that Paula Patton had to testify in the proceedings as she was a co-writer of "Love After War." Not sure what happened with that.

so the Gaye estate has NO claim on any copyright infringement. LOL.

still:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t_That_Peculiar

The single was produced by Smokey Robinson, and written by Robinson, and fellow Miracles members Bobby Rogers, Pete Moore, and Marv Tarplin.

Also, I agree with every post you've made in this thread.

i was like...WTF? and when i read the article the Gayes downplayed the Peculiar/Happy thing. hopefully b/c they know they have no standing to sue Williams there. and if a suit did go forward they'd not reap any $.

Pete Moore, Bobby Rogers, and guitarist Marvin Taplin

The Gayes have ABSOLUTELY no authority to sue anyone on Smokey's behalf.

the sheer ridiculousness of it all.

How He Won..

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6495237/marvin-gaye-lawyer-richard-busch-blurred-lines-trial-column?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=biz_breakingnews&utm_campaign=Breaking%20News

saying in court that he did try to evoke the FEELING of GTGIU but didn't use any of the song itself so he's not liable for infringement. but even i don't buy his story about BL being an uptempo Country thing. the finished sound recording just feels too much like GTGIU for that to have been happenstance. at some point he must have actually tried to make BL feel like GTGIU. i think he could've admitted that w/o admitting liability for infringement. but i dunno.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/blurred-lines-trial-pharrell-says-779355

He said that while Gaye's music didn't influence the songwriting, his other producing work in the studio that day did. "I had Earl Sweatshirt in one room and Miley Cyrus in the other. I was doing a bunch of country-sounding music with Miley," he said, so when he went to work on Thicke's track, bluegrass and "yodeling" were on his mind. "It was like blending this country sound with this up-tempo groove," he said of "Blurred Lines."

---

"We were bobbing and dancing to it. It was a cool night," he said. But he confirmed several times in the day's proceedings that "Got To Give It Up" and Gaye's other work never consciously influenced his songwriting on "Blurred Lines." They didn't intend to insert a rap verse from T.I. a.k.a. Clifford Harris Jr., who is a claimant with Thicke and Williams, and it was only added later (T.I. earned $704,774.)

"Why wouldn't you want to copy Marvin Gaye?" King asked Williams at one point.

"He's one of the ones we look up to so much. This is the last place I want to be right now," he responded. "The last thing you want to do as a creator is take something of someone else's when you love him."

his arrogance got him in trouble.

how can anyone hear his testimony and rule in his favor?

but i'm smrtr than the avg bear.

>his arrogance got him in trouble.
>
>how can anyone hear his testimony and rule in his favor?


That's what we have been saying, dog....lol..

you cant jack a song, lie about it and win. WTF

he tried to recreate a song/feel and then flipped it JUST to skirt the law...

and then when he was pressed he lied and said he was yodeling and doing country. He got caught out there because honestly.... CHAD is the real talent behind Neptunes. Pharrell is the face but CHAD is that dude.

this is why they lost.

Ask Pharrell to play something... watch him squirm. Dont get me wrong, I love Pharrell as an artist but I know that nigga is more of a Puffy than a full on producer.

Because even if u THINK P was on some shady shit that shouldn't matter in this case....Because it all centered around sheet music, not "feelings"....

That's why I said I don't blame the jurors. Because this is not the type of case that should have gone before a jury....

When this goes up for appeal and if a judge is the lone voice on this P and Thicke will most likely win....

but its been 2 rounds that yall predicted it would lose or get thrown out and yall been wrong twice...

this has never been about sheet music tho...

stay with me and wont back down.... is the sheet music the same?

I'm asking, have no idea..

>but its been 2 rounds that yall predicted it would lose or
>get thrown out and yall been wrong twice...

I'm going for the hat trick - Obama will win a 3rd term in 2016. Since your primary concern in this post eems to be showing 'us' up for some odd reason (aka 'trolling') I'll give you something to save in your personal archive to use against me in 2016. Be sure to pull it out when you need it.

>this has never been about sheet music tho...

The judge said it was.

>stay with me and wont back down.... is the sheet music the
>same?

Yes. That case didn't go to trial. Smith paid and he was right to do so after Petty made his demand.

>I'm asking, have no idea..

That's clear.

the sheet music for both songs was posted in this thread at least twice.
as you already know, they are nothing alike.


>this has never been about sheet music tho...
>
>stay with me and wont back down.... is the sheet music the
>same?
>
>I'm asking, have no idea..

Cause that is what I was asking about...

Stay with me fam

and why is it trolling to say it wasnt about sheet music?

because the theme song to Instant Mom is loosely based off of Blurred Lines though it didn't sample it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vdgJHQpT_Q

if we're suing for anything then might as well

just as a real-world science experiment.

(sorry if it was already posted)

http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/

Or even genres, themselves?

I'm genuinely curious, no snark implied.

It would seem the creation of sub-genres would follow the exact path that Pharrell/Thicke took.

And, no, I'm not saying "Got To Give It Up" or "Blurred Lines" will spawn an R&B sub-genre, but the underlying premise is the same.

Artist A creates a song. Artist B (C, D, etc.) chooses to create or reproduce elements of Artist A's song's production style – not wholly lift chords or melodies or instrumental arrangement – to evoke a similar rhythm arrangement or syncopation or musical intent or "mood" or "feel" or "groove."

For example, there'd never be funk without other subsequent R&B artists consistently aping (proto-?)funk concepts (e.g., emphasis on rhythmic arrangement over vocals; particular emphasis on bass, rhythm guitar, and drums). Funk, as we now know it, would have died if the concepts weren't freely allowed to be perpetually recreated by multiple artists to recreate the feel or mood or sound.

In a similar fashion, there'd never be disco, bebop, G-funk, etc. if certain elements of those musics aren't freely allowed to be shared, copied, aped, etc. to evoke a similar musical intent.

And to be clear, I'm against any artist outright using another's music, in whole or in part, melodically or instrumentally, without attributing credit. But that's not what Pharrell or Robin did.

he is considered a genius for that 'innovation' - which was based entirely on him tweaking the work of other songwriters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Got_a_Woman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Little_Girl_of_Mine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallelujah_I_Love_Her_So

it appears from a vacuum...
brand new chords, rhythms, and style elements.

make something completely orignal or pay up!


>Or even genres, themselves?
>
>I'm genuinely curious, no snark implied.
>
>It would seem the creation of sub-genres would follow the
>exact path that Pharrell/Thicke took.
>
>And, no, I'm not saying "Got To Give It Up" or "Blurred Lines"
>will spawn an R&B sub-genre, but the underlying premise is the
>same.
>
>Artist A creates a song. Artist B (C, D, etc.) chooses to
>create or reproduce elements of Artist A's song's production
>style – not wholly lift chords or melodies or instrumental
>arrangement – to evoke a similar rhythm arrangement or
>syncopation or musical intent or "mood" or "feel" or
>"groove."
>
>For example, there'd never be funk without other subsequent
>R&B artists consistently aping (proto-?)funk concepts (e.g.,
>emphasis on rhythmic arrangement over vocals; particular
>emphasis on bass, rhythm guitar, and drums). Funk, as we now
>know it, would have died if the concepts weren't freely
>allowed to be perpetually recreated by multiple artists to
>recreate the feel or mood or sound.
>
>In a similar fashion, there'd never be disco, bebop, G-funk,
>etc. if certain elements of those musics aren't freely allowed
>to be shared, copied, aped, etc. to evoke a similar musical
>intent.
>
>And to be clear, I'm against any artist outright using
>another's music, in whole or in part, melodically or
>instrumentally, without attributing credit. But that's not
>what Pharrell or Robin did.

you may have to pay up. There was a time when artist gave no fucks, however, with publishing, royalties, lawyers, etc... you have to be prepared to pay up when a song blows up and you know you borrowed from a song.

I wont say the producers name but he was sued for using a tone from a group no one ever heard of... it wasnt even that important to the overall song but he loved the vibe it brought. When we pressed him he said "yeah, I used it, shit was hot"

well, that song blee the fuck up and he had to pay up. But to him it was worth it because the song and album went plat a couple times.

back before MJ and Lionel Ritchie there werent too many artist up on masters, publishing, royalties, etc.

but now that estates and artist know.. gotta be prepared to pay up when you blatantly rip a groove or a vibe that sounds exactly like another song.

I am working on a song in the key of H sharp minor.
don't wanna jack other ppl's shit.

coming up with all new chords, too.

it's gonna be hot.




>you may have to pay up. There was a time when artist gave no
>fucks, however, with publishing, royalties, lawyers, etc...
>you have to be prepared to pay up when a song blows up and you
>know you borrowed from a song.
>
>I wont say the producers name but he was sued for using a tone
>from a group no one ever heard of... it wasnt even that
>important to the overall song but he loved the vibe it
>brought. When we pressed him he said "yeah, I used it, shit
>was hot"
>
>well, that song blee the fuck up and he had to pay up. But to
>him it was worth it because the song and album went plat a
>couple times.
>
>back before MJ and Lionel Ritchie there werent too many artist
>up on masters, publishing, royalties, etc.
>
>but now that estates and artist know.. gotta be prepared to
>pay up when you blatantly rip a groove or a vibe that sounds
>exactly like another song.

i have faith in you joe.

my new song will not be in any key,
because key signature are copyrighted.

pharell should have been creative with it like me.

2 up

2 down

That is the current state of the business of music

The business of images has been like this for awhile.
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

where each song is clearly a pastiche of an existing work?

Yes, there are laws protecting parodies, but most of the songs in musicals like this aren't os much parodies as, well, appropriations. For example, in "hairspray", the opening number "Good Morning Baltimore" is based on the familiar rhythm from the Ronettes' "Be My Baby". "Without Love" is a rewrite of Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell's "You're All I Need to Get By", and "You Can't Stop the Beat" revisits the structure of "River Deep-Mountain High".

Hell, with this new talk of suing over 'Ain't That Peculiar", that song was very much reworked into "Run and Tell That" in this show.

"Hairspray" is protected by the statute of limitations by this point, but what about a similar musical now or in the future that isn't? Or will show & movie producers just stop making these sorts of things from now on?

just be happy that ol' nasty Thicke got what's coming to him and that Marvin Gaye will now get his due respect b/c before this he was an unknown. plus now Frankie and Nona can pay off Janis' cable bills and get they lights on in THEIR names.

That's where I'm at with it. I'm a lover of folk tradition and feel very strongly about the essential role copying and remixing has played in ALL mankinds great creative cultural movements and achievements

You don't get anything of any worth... No jazz, no classical, no salsa, no architecture, no nothing, with the originality purist attitudes many people today have.

We NEED culture to be free, we NEED to be able to swipe eaah others creative ideas and try new things with them etc

But I still find Blurred Lines an obnoxious example of it. Shit wasnt done in a true culture context, it was a deliberate commercial marketing maneuver for money and chart positioning.

The track didn't feel genuine, it just felt like a cynical business move. Like the way Puffy used to swipe tracks. Its not the degree of theft, its the context and lack of anything real besides cheap capitalism.

I understand how this family felt like their genitals got stolen by a prostitute in need of a vulva.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpdQhK86Jek

by Marvin Gaye. and he admired and acknowledged him. however he never was sued despite channeling and surfing in. now El Debarge is a better songwriter than Pharrell and THicke combined period.

anyway El Debarge proves you can channel an artist without jacking them. what El did with Marvin felt real and authentic without doing what those two turkeys did.

I agree with the jury

Music may have been getting away with a bit too much for too long. The difference is doing this for profit. I think it's past time people fully admit and understand the full ramifications of music turning into a for profit commercial industry.

I work in the commercial industry w regards to images. If my creative had admitted on record that they used someone elses work for one of our clients that artist would have a case. No matter how little resemblance of the final product. In editorial a credit must be given, for commercial use an attribution cost is paid.

Pharrell admitted several times he used Gaye's work as a base and he and a Robin then profited off of it. No one is saying they can't continue to creator make music. What us being said is proper credit or a cost for attribution must be done esp since clearly this work was about profit not making art for arts sake.


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

how dare u not recognize this as the end of music as we know it

racist! thicke hater! pharrell hater!


im going to blanketly call everyone who has a different opinion on this matter an idiot, this shows that i am an elevated thinker and a more aware person

if your cheering this ur an idiot!

lol smh

*shrugs*

the songs sound alike.

white ppl have robbed black ppl.

there was no infringement of any copyright owned by the Gaye estate.

pretty simple.

You may have your opinion, but the court ruled in the Gaye's favor. No matter how you slice it, justice deemed it a copyright infringement.

I disagree with jury decisions all the time.

but pharrell admitted it where he based the song on

the jury of, yes uneducated musically, people found it
for me admitting that the feel of a song is enough

i caution our creatives to not even do that
yes crazy
but here i am looking at pharrell like dude
you can't do that in the business of music
he wants to think
and people in here want to think
I'M AN ARTIST
but frankly he still has his art
he just lost the money

if you are selling it films now have to go

Based on actual events.

or

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.


Music might have to do the same now.
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I actually agree with Stevie on this one, but you're making a caricature of the opinion
with all this "hate whitey" stuff you keep spraying when ppl aren't even coming from that perspective.

>but you're making a
>caricature of the opinion
>with all this "hate whitey" stuff you keep spraying when ppl
>aren't even coming from that perspective.

he aint the only one doing it, as far as i can see no one is saying that at all

but a lot of Black okps have low opinions of other Black ppl, still sad but nothing knew

many of the White Okps have a persecution complex so they will rally behind that basic shit

that i dunno if i can live w/this!

i mean, never mind that plenty ppl have brought up the fact that black musicians have been robbed by white ones and by the industry for decades in celebrating this victory. my conflating that and saying that these folks hate whitey is just outrageous. nevermind that several of the ppl celebrating this victory have actually expressed some anti-whitey sentiment in the past. (*clears throat*). never mind that. it doesn't matter. what matters is that you think i have a low opinion of black ppl. i really give a fuck what you think. i do.

so...damn.

oh well. i'll have to find the strength to go on.

>but a lot of Black okps have low opinions of other Black ppl,
>still sad but nothing new
>
>many of the White Okps have a persecution complex so they will
>rally behind that basic shit



Basically serving to validate the thoughts of certain non-Black posters in racially charged situations.

I be selling out my ppl for that sweet, sweet pink hole. It works too. I fucked a white man last night.

There's evidence that the chords, tempos, etc. are different. Nor did they go on record saying that they used elements of Marvin's song. They didn't play it note for note nor did they sample the song. I'm not sure how folks aren't seeing this. Even in the world of images, being influenced is normal. No different from being influenced in music. Using someone's style is not the same as using their material.


Since 1976

yes "feel" is enough for this jury

for me i would smack one of my creatives and tell out legal dept we were in trouble

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Teach you a Lesson ...it's damn near the same song.

the evil empress nona gaye has now gone as far as to ban cowbells and seashells

woe woe woe woe!

had to check my spotify to make sure all the music was still there.

I thought my wax would melt and my CD's would be blank

the world of music NO LONGER EXISTS

Once we all get past the snark on both sides in this thread and some good ol' fashion trolling, we come to some semblance of common sense....Washington Post weighs in on the verdict....


----


Washington Post

It’s okay if you hate Robin Thicke. But the ‘Blurred Lines’ verdict is bad for pop music.

Will Madonna sue Lady Gaga? Will George Clinton sue OutKast? Will Prince sue Bruno Mars, Beyonce, Justin Timberlake and umpteen-hundred others? And then will Little Richard sue Prince?

These idiotic questions became frighteningly legitimate after a federal jury in Los Angeles ruled that singer Robin Thicke and producer Pharrell Williams had committed copyright infringement. The jurors decided that yes, Thicke’s 2013 chart-topping single “Blurred Lines” had copied elements of Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up,” and awarded Gaye’s family a walloping $7.4 million. The titles of the two songs in question could not have been more fitting.

But it was the lack of detail on exactly which elements were copied that prompted a hard-swallow across all of popland on Tuesday night.

The jury was instructed to make its ruling based on written melodies, chords and lyrics, not the sounds of the respective recordings. If that’s the case, how these eight jurors arrived at their verdict is incomprehensible. Yes, “Blurred Lines” approximates the rhythm and timbre of “Got to Give It Up,” but is that theft?

Listen. Both songs have cowbell-ish percussion that plunkity-plunks at a similar tempo, but the patterns are different. Both songs have rich, teasing basslines, but the notes and rhythms of each are dissimilar.

“Blurred Lines” contains the phrase “Shake your rump, get down, get up-a,” while Gaye’s song includes the line, “Move it up, turn it ’round, shake it down” — but that’s about it, in terms of lyric parallels.

Sure, both recordings are filled with background chatter, as if they were cut at a party. And in direct homage, “Blurred Lines” is littered with steam-whistle WOO!s — one of Gaye’s vocal trademarks.

But while “Blurred Lines” might lack imagination, Thick and Williams ultimately only seem guilty of stealing a vibe.

And if vibes are now considered intellectual property, let us swiftly prepare for every idiom of popular music to go crashing into juridical oblivion. Because music is a continuum of ungovernable hybridity, a dialogue between generations where the aesthetic inheritance gets handed down and passed around in every direction. To try and adjudicate influence seems as impossible as it does insane. Is that the precedent being set here?


Obviously, that doesn’t mean that countless musicians haven’t been done dirty over the past century. An entire generation of American bluesmen died before sniffing the monthly private helicopter fuel budget of the rock-and-rollers who ran off with their sound. Others have settled out of court.

And that’s one reason why a cheer went up on social media after Tuesday’s verdict was announced. This time, the young cads didn’t get away with it. Another reason for those cheers: Many people have a severe distaste for “Blurred Lines.”

But releasing a middling mega-hit is not a crime, and to applaud Tuesday’s decision — which many assume will be appealed — is to applaud the idea of regulated art.

For context, let’s revisit perhaps the most consequential court decision on pop music before this one: the 1991 case of Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Brothers Records Inc., in which the rapper Biz Markie was sued for sampling a Gilbert O’Sullivan song without permission. The Biz lost the case, and in many ways, so did hip-hop.

Before the ruling, Public Enemy’s “It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back,” the Beastie Boys’ “Paul’s Boutique” and De La Soul’s “3 Feet High and Rising” had each used heaps of samples to create magnificent, meticulous sonic collages. But after the Biz Markie case, those kinds of albums stopped getting made. The law had essentially removed a tool from the artists’ hands.

Sampling didn’t vanish completely — but it was cost prohibitive, and artists willing to pony up for clearance would often try to get the biggest bang for their buck by cutting-and-pasting recognizable hooks into their refrains. These weren’t magnificent collages so much as solitary cut-outs slapped onto some construction paper.

But pop music has a survivalist knack for self-correction, and in the early aughts, it brought us a new class of hip-hop super-producers — rookies eager to create their own futuristic rhythms from scratch. One of the most promising talents in this emerging bunch was a baby-faced Virginian from a production group called the Neptunes.

His name was Pharrell Williams, and in pop music’s potentially hyper-litigious future, there will be plenty of people for him to sue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/03/11/the-blurred-lines-of-the-blurred-lines-verdict/?tid=sm_fb

Nah...just the actual facts of the case....When you look at that it's clear the verdict is deeply flawed.

It's also clear that Pharrell didn't do himself any favors by trotting out some bullshit on that stand....

But when it comes to the actual case, most entertainment lawyers were laughing at this suit....And for good reason...

Too bad P's and Thicke's legal reps dropped the ball...It's all on them...

if a song hits and its big time attention then you got folks coming out of the woodworks. believe me there are more cases that are never reported because they do what i call alley way deals and settle on the low.

is that celebrated musician jive turkeys can't write original songs without reference material.

If Robin and Pharrell could actually write original music this wouldn't even be an issue.

>is that celebrated musician jive turkeys can't write original
>songs without reference material.
>
>If Robin and Pharrell could actually write original music this
>wouldn't even be an issue.


Is Ray Charles a jive turkey as well?

You can bring up 10,000 anecdotal examples where A, or B, however, the fact remains Robin and Pharrell could not write a song without another man's work. End of story.

>You can bring up 10,000 anecdotal examples where A, or B,
>however, the fact remains Robin and Pharrell could not write a
>song without another man's work. End of story.


Bro....It's simple. If u want to call out Thicke and Pharrell then we need to call out everyone, right? But that makes things complicated, right? I think what people are responding to is the assholia of Skateboard P and Thicke who tried to be mega slick...

In the end I'm going to side with Stevie Wonder on this...

We are discussing a specific incident, a specific court ruling, to a specific song. You have to take the case based on it's own merits and nothing more. Ray Charles is not on the stand here, neither is Rick James.

People should learn how to stay on topic, focus on the details of the case, and judge it on its merits alone.

At the end of the day, Robin and Pharrell could not write an original song. They went to another man's work and took its essence, rewrote it in their own way, and made hella bank. The Gaye's felt this was a violation and sued, and a jury of your peers ruled in their favor.

You can debate/argue till you are blue in the face, but it will not change the details of this specific incident.

>We are discussing a specific incident,


I stopped u homie...We can go on and and on...

I just want folks weighing in on this hard to read up on the case. Read up on what the jury was REALLY required to dissect for their verdict. Once you do that you will understand this was not a case of someone stealing a song...

Pharrell and Thicke took an L because they were being shady idiots...Not because they copied sheet music.....

>Pharrell and Thicke took an L because they were being shady
>idiots...Not because they copied sheet music.....
>

No, they took an L, because they relied on another man's work.

>
>>Pharrell and Thicke took an L because they were being shady
>>idiots...Not because they copied sheet music.....
>>
>
>No, they took an L, because they relied on another man's work.


Ahhh...so u didn't read the particulars of the case?

Cool.....

No snark homie...But read through this very thread and you will see what the judge instructed the jury to do...

yep yep...

Every artist is influenced by someone else. New genres are created because someone either combined two or more preexisting genres and merged them together or folks liked the style of the originator and wanted to make their own spin of it. Either way, someone is making something off another person's work.



Since 1976

Pharrell and Robin are on the stand.

You are already off topic and sharing anecdotal evidence which has no place in the case.

if you think it is possible to write a completely original song,
you don't get it.

"let's go crazy" is a gospel record.
you heard that grove the last time you went to
church and the band played the music that made folks
catch the holy ghost.

you think that grove should be copyrighted material?

okay.

you do not understand.

i am okay with that.

Forget the evidence that literally PROVES the two songs are different, we will just say the jury is right. Juries are always right. It's crazy how we see dudes who were falsely accused 20 years ago finally get released from prison after all those years once the evidence was revisited which proved their innocence. I don't get it because after all, the juries that convicted them were right.



Since 1976

Shrug. None of what you are saying is relevant at all.

OK...so let's leave the anecdotal stuff out of it...

And talk about what was at the heart of the Gaye estate's suit...

Here is what the jury was instructed to do...Taken from a piece about the actual case that has been used in other articles attempting to explain the verdict: "The jury was instructed to make its ruling based on written melodies, chords and lyrics..." Furthermore the suit was about sheet music (as stated a 1000 times in this very thread) not "feeling"...

These type of cases have been either settled or tossed out. It's rare for them to even go all the way to a jury...

Pharrell, Thicke and their legal team made some serious mistakes during the trial that cost them $7 plus mill. I don't feel sorry for them. AT ALL...

My point was simple.

If Pharrell and Robin could write an original song, this wouldn't be an issue.

Pharrell himself approached the Gaye's and admitted he used Marvin's song to write this one.

Case over.

Yeah....but them not being able to make original music is moot considering that in the pop music/blues/R&B tradition influence has always been a running theme....From Ray Charles reworking gospel classics to Michael Jackson/Quincy giving a heavy nod to the Knack...

That matters in this case....The Gaye estate is now going after "Happy"which is laughable....

I'll say it again. Pharrell's testimony sunk the case....It had nothing to do with them borrowing from a groove or melody...The jury punished P and Thicke for being shady assholes...

and he was told to find his own lane and stride which he did. naw he was no turkey and he is one of the most important music figures however Ray Charles would clown Pharrell and thicke over this and call it out badly.

creativity in general frankly


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

You are speaking about the commercial industry which is all recycled and created for the sole purpose of making sales. Not all music is created for that reason and it's a shame people have accepted that as some sort of non debatable fact.

Beethoven discovered every perceivable harmony that can be detected by the human ear. He invented scales. Music didn't just pop out of someone's ass, it was discovered and explored, and the best musicians, paved the way and offered something new. That is how new genre's are born.

damn man just google at least before typing nonsense


theres questions as to whether he stole Ode to Joy from Mozart

*facepalm*

theft/attribution/credit is not a new concept in the arts period

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Music is a global phenomenon. There are a myriad of styles and approaches to music that are vastly different from one another.

Compare the Chinese concept of harmony to the western concept of harmony and you will not find any commonality.

By your argument, the entire world should be producing music that sounds the same/similar.

Once again, Beethoven invented scales and pushed the boundaries of what people perceived as harmony and melody. Try to really understand what that means.

but it's fairly obvious that kurt jacked the shit out of the beatles.
music can sound very different and still be a jack.





Music is a global phenomenon. There are a myriad of styles
>and approaches to music that are vastly different from one
>another.
>
>Compare the Chinese concept of harmony to the western concept
>of harmony and you will not find any commonality.
>
>By your argument, the entire world should be producing music
>that sounds the same/similar.
>
>Once again, Beethoven invented scales and pushed the
>boundaries of what people perceived as harmony and melody. Try
>to really understand what that means.

Can you please demonstrate some of this obvious similarity?

>Can you please demonstrate some of this obvious similarity?
>


they are not the same song,
but if on a plain didn't have so much distortion
they feeling and vibe would be the same.

the reason it's not copyright infringement
is the melody is different (like blurred lines)
and the rhythm is slightly different (like blurred lines)
and it is insane to say you can't write a song
that jacks shit from other ppl.

that's how songs get written.
now, and always.


I am sorry if ppl never noticed this process
before blurred lines became a massive hit.

but every song is written that way.

They are not even in the same key.

You said the jacking was obvious, but you're reaching, and heavily at that.


>>Can you please demonstrate some of this obvious similarity?
>>
>
>
>they are not the same song,
>but if on a plain didn't have so much distortion
>they feeling and vibe would be the same.
>

No, it wouldn't.


>that's how songs get written.
>now, and always.

Wrong.

>
>
>I am sorry if ppl never noticed this process
>before blurred lines became a massive hit.
>
>but every song is written that way.

LOL. No it's not.

the rhythms of the bassline aren't the same, either.
but whatever.


I am sorry that you just now noticed artists steal from each other.
good luck in your crusade against...

something.

stay mad, playa.


>They are not even in the same key.
>
>You said the jacking was obvious, but you're reaching, and
>heavily at that.
>
>
>>>Can you please demonstrate some of this obvious similarity?
>>>
>>
>>
>>they are not the same song,
>>but if on a plain didn't have so much distortion
>>they feeling and vibe would be the same.
>>
>
>No, it wouldn't.
>
>
>>that's how songs get written.
>>now, and always.
>
>Wrong.
>
>>
>>
>>I am sorry if ppl never noticed this process
>>before blurred lines became a massive hit.
>>
>>but every song is written that way.
>
>LOL. No it's not.
>

Listen to the comparison link in this post, and you can hear that they sound very similar when they switch from one song to the next.

>I am sorry that you just now noticed artists steal from each
>other.
>good luck in your crusade against...
>
>something.
>
>stay mad, playa.


Yawn. Stay jacking. ;)

the question is, do they use the same notes and rhythms.
unless you ppl are tone deaf, which is possible,
i don't see how you can think they use the same notes and rhythms.

even if you transpose both songs to the same key,
they aren't the same.

the notes and rhythms aren't even that close.


who cares if BL sounds like gtgiu?
all songs sound like some other song somehow.

the notes are different.
maybe you are tone deaf or something.

I dunno.

Listen to the comparison link in this post, and you can hear
>that they sound very similar when they switch from one song to
>the next.
>
>>I am sorry that you just now noticed artists steal from each
>>other.
>>good luck in your crusade against...
>>
>>something.
>>
>>stay mad, playa.
>
>
>Yawn. Stay jacking. ;)

>who cares if BL sounds like gtgiu?
>all songs sound like some other song somehow.

LOL. I can't believe you call yourself a musician and in the same vein promote theft. Smh. Let me guess, your music is going to bore me to death.

I don't think you have studied Music Theory at all.

Once again, listen to the comparison link and you will hear a clear striking similarity that is evident, and clear, and not like your piss poor example with Nirvana/Beatles that makes about as much sense as tits on a goldfish.

there is a song I did
and the footnotes that said every item I jacked.

well, the stuff I know I jacked at least.
I am sure there is other stuff I jacked that I am not aware of.

and yes, I have studied theory for as long as I played piano (my main instrument)

and one thing I notice is how similar most pop songs are.
can't avoid jacking.

geniuses are geniuses because
they jack from the best. (and the obscure)

>>who cares if BL sounds like gtgiu?
>>all songs sound like some other song somehow.
>
>LOL. I can't believe you call yourself a musician and in the
>same vein promote theft. Smh. Let me guess, your music is
>going to bore me to death.
>
>I don't think you have studied Music Theory at all.
>
>Once again, listen to the comparison link and you will hear a
>clear striking similarity that is evident, and clear, and not
>like your piss poor example with Nirvana/Beatles that makes
>about as much sense as tits on a goldfish.
>

I would drop the Reverb on your vocals. I find that it clashes with the guitar. At 1:25 or so the track becomes convoluted and I felt it got way too busy and sounded off tempo. I hear a lot of potential though but I think you need to work with a Metronome.

Here is something I'm working on:

https://soundcloud.com/initiationofplato/

the depth, breath and variety of music has little to do as to whether to not styles are imitated and borrowed it still doesn't not mean that there isn't history and a long one with regards to theft and creativity


my god man
you act as though the term international means nothing

solomon linda's estate also won his case
yes this crosses borders

*facepalm*
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Anyways, I'm not interested in pointless back and forth's, and I don't care what you personally believe either. :)

it is my impression that songs come from
an at least partially subconscious process of
approroating songs you've already heard.

some of you ppl disagree, apparently.

maybe it is your impression that song fairies
drop completely original ideas into artists heads.

but every song you've ever liked
came from a process of rearranging a bunch of songs the artist already heard.


my entire style as a piano player was jacked from
marvin gaye's motown 25 performance.

i hear those licks in my playing all the time.

that maybe that makes me a hack, but it doesn't make me a theif.
because it is literally impossible to write a song or play an instrument
without copying cliches from somebody else.

your style could be a complete rip off of someone but if all you do is play in a jam band or in your apartment who will care?

https://youtu.be/zZlYrOb0F_4


who did i jack?
i'll tell you, since you asked.


the main guitar lick is a john mayer jack.
john mayer songs are the first thing I learned on guitar,
so those chords are the first thing i play when i picked up
the guitar to write a song.

the guitar solo is a jack from prince's cover of
"i can't make you love me." he had a guitar line buried in the mix
of the song, and i brought it out front and fiddled around with it
until it was different.


the lyrics are a jack of andre 3000's she lives in my lap.
my song mentioned something about always seeing a girl in the
coolest part of town. dre talked about his girl staying in
thw coolest moods.

i also stole a john mayer lyric when i said
"no one holds her down, I try to find where I stand with her
but i'm always losing ground." john mayer has a song
where he talks about a girl that's a party animal
and he can't make her slow down. "I cant be her angel now,
it's not my place to hold her down, and it's
hard for me to take a stand when I would take her any way I can"



that's just the stuff I KNOW I was jacking.

pretty sure there is other stuff I didn't
know I jacked.

expect a letter in the mail

until then... keep jammin

nobody can write a song that doesn't reference
other people's material.

this is how i know you don't get it.



>expect a letter in the mail
>
>until then... keep jammin

>nobody can write a song that doesn't reference
>other people's material.
>
>this is how i know you don't get it.
>
>

you, sowhat and murph are doing god's work in this thread. don't be put off by these people who simply don't understand what's happening here.

based on the replies of those supporting the verdict, i'd hazard a guess that they've never been inspired to create something after being inspired by another song.

that's why they're saying stuff like, "MAKE SOMETHING COMPLETELY ORIGINAL! IT'S NOT HARD!" "YOU CAN CLEARLY HEAR THE VIBE! STRAIGHT JACK!" etc. etc.

let's just hope that this decision gets repealed. with no bullshit jury to make a verdict based on their uneducated ears responding to a 'feeling'.

>maybe it is your impression that song fairies
>drop completely original ideas into artists heads.


or just those fairies existed before the current state of "commercial" music

*facepalm*

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

nobody can write a song that doesn't incorporate
shit from songs they've already heard.

even innovative songs do this.
hell, innovative songs are MORE likely to do this.




>>maybe it is your impression that song fairies
>>drop completely original ideas into artists heads.
>
>
>or just those fairies existed before the current state of
>"commercial" music
>
>*facepalm*
>
>~~~~
>When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so
>that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
>~~~~
>You cannot hate people for their own good.

this isn't cut and dried
its mainly when it comes to commercial use
don't get caught
dont admit

or attribute appropriately
which they make it their business to do in the commercial world

music might have to tighten up a bit then

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

You can call them fairies if you like, but genius (The ability to look solely within yourself for inspiration) exists, and that genius is responsible for the vast amount of styles and forms music has to offer.

>genius (The
>ability to look solely within yourself for inspiration)
>exists, and that genius is responsible for the vast amount of
>styles and forms music has to offer.


aren't you a jazz head?
jacking ppl's shit is fundamental to jazz.

jazz wouldn't exist if not for jacking.

>aren't you a jazz head?
>jacking ppl's shit is fundamental to jazz.
>
>jazz wouldn't exist if not for jacking.
>

We are discussing two different things. *The invention of Jazz was pure genius in my opinion.*

However, once you choose to create jazz, you are obviously choosing to conform to certain characteristics that defines jazz and allows others to recognize it as jazz.

>However, once you choose to create jazz, you are obviously
>choosing to conform to certain characteristics that defines
>jazz and allows others to recognize it as jazz.
>
>

changing it just enough to be different...
but still capturing a vibe of something
you heard before.

pretty sure "kind of blue" was miles davis' attempt to
jack a chineese ballet he heard.

it sounded different because he couldn't get what
he wanted... but it was an attempt at a jack.

like I said, jacking shit is integral to jazz.
and every other form of artistic expression.

you can not make art without jacking.
if ppl stop jacking, songs can't get made.

>changing it just enough to be different...
>but still capturing a vibe of something
>you heard before.
>

Jazz has specific scales and devices that people use, sigh. Using those scales does not make it jacking.


>you can not make art without jacking.
>if ppl stop jacking, songs can't get made.
>

Maybe in your world, but not in mine. Good luck with all that jacking.

thats pretty clear



~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

:)

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

you're saying 'genius' is defined by someone who can create completely novel concepts just by "looking inside of themselves" and spilling out all the wonderful stuff in their mind, without having had any inspiration from other sources.

it doesn't work like that. at all.

geniuses synthesise what has come before them and create something new. they bring together their amalgam of influences to form something unique.

inspiration and epiphanies don't just happen. they need to be worked towards by learning and building on what has come before.

einstein didn't come up with the theory of relativity just because he was a 'genius'.

i thought you disagreed with the concept of talent anyway? what you're saying here completely contradicts all that bullshit you were spewing in that other thread; when you were saying that anybody can be as good as anyone, they just have to work at it.

not that i expect consistency from you, 'Tek. i just like to poke fun.

From Wiki.

A genius is a person who displays exceptional superior intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge. A scholar in many subjects (e.g. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla), or a scholar in a single subject (e.g. Albert Einstein,Stephen Hawking or Charles Darwin) may all be referred to as a genius. There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate, although psychologists are converging on a definition that emphasizes creativity and eminent achievement.


>i thought you disagreed with the concept of talent anyway?
>what you're saying here completely contradicts all that
>bullshit you were spewing in that other thread; when you were
>saying that anybody can be as good as anyone, they just have
>to work at it.
>

There is a difference between talent and genius. Calling them the same thing is flawed.


>not that i expect consistency from you, 'Tek. i just like to
>poke fun.
>

Whatever floats your boat Bob.

c'mon, 'tek. i know that an enlightened mind like yours can come up with something better to define what makes a genius.

look deeply into the profound realm of creativity and wisdom that is your mind and do better.

geniuses build on what has come before them. did you just happen to be born a genius, 'tek? no, your genius was a gradual process, based on the amassing of knowledge you've picked up from those insightful blog posts and youtube videos you like to reference.

it's cool to admit that you may have plagiarised somewhat, 'tek. all the geniuses that have come before you have done it. as picasso said, "good artists borrow, great artists steal."

You cannot define genius objectively, one way or the other.

I thought the definition I provided demonstrated that quite well. Learn to read between the lines friend.

>geniuses build on what has come before them. did you just
>happen to be born a genius, 'tek? no, your genius was a
>gradual process, based on the amassing of knowledge you've
>picked up from those insightful blog posts and youtube videos
>you like to reference.

Read the definition again. There is no objective definition of genius. I shared mine, you shared yours, the world keeps spinning. I am okay with that, are you?

>
>it's cool to admit that you may have plagiarised somewhat,
>'tek. all the geniuses that have come before you have done it.
>as picasso said, "good artists borrow, great artists steal."

Have you studied Picasso? Do you know what truly made him a genius?

You should take a look at his line drawings. Picasso had an uncanny ability to draw fluid lines with a single stroke. It gave his artwork a type of elegance and organic perfection that others dream about. He had a surgeon's hand.

Also, Picasso invented movements. He saw what was around, and created something totally unique.

i'm taking the piss anyway. i know there's no objective definition of genius. somebody's idea of genius may be somebody else's idea of a bag of shit. i'm not even attempting to refute this.

what i AM refuting is the idea that geniuses are spawned in a vacuum. geniuses 'borrow' and 'implement' ideas, synthesising them to create something fresh. or, as picasso said, they 'steal' shit.

not that we should be having this discussion, because neither thicke or pharrell are geniuses. they are, however, artists, and in order to create art you must build on what has come before you.

also, do you have any original compositions you've made that you could share?

Just trying to set up a soundcloud and I will upload and let you hear.

Something I am working on, it's just a snippet.

I don't use any samples. I do however use the FXpansion - BFD3 drum plugin.

https://soundcloud.com/initiationofplato/

....do you also feel that every artist/estate of artists from the 60s (including the Gayes) all the way through to the 2010s that has made or makes music with a heavy emphasis on the downbeat, pay James Brown's estate? After all, he created being on the one aka heavy emphasis on the rhythms, the groove, the modern styled 4/4 beat patterns that gave birth to modern music. I mean, if you're gonna support this bull, you might as well go full retard with it. Don't half ass it.



Since 1976

Whitey lost, though, so... party time!

bullshit.

It happens.

i doubt folks will stop playing it
i won't after a bit of a breather
lol

i think folks are a bit confused is all
and yeah personal feeling for either gaye or pharrell...thicke
are surfacing

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I love a lot of songs that sound extremely similar to older hits...

Not sure why I have to hate someone because I predicted they would lose a case in court.

they don't know a goddamn thing about music

yet they make a lot of noise.

I think Pharrell and his "new Black" shit has rubbed more than a few people the wrong way.

i still like pharell

his music is wrapped up in the business of music
those are the breaks

i'm happy that he is established enough in his career to ride this out
i hope he keeps his mouth shut regarding new black
i look forward to more music from him


jeez people
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Much In The Music Industry

http://www.buzzfeed.com/reggieugwu/why-the-blurred-lines-verdict-might-not-actually-mean-much-f#.purX1qdjX

just like everybody else
that pretends that songs can be written
that don't sound like a bunch of other songs
the artist already heard.

"Recently the publishers for the song 'I Won't Back Down'…contacted the publishers for 'Stay With Me,'…about similarities heard in the melodies of the choruses of the two compositions," Smith's rep said in a statement. "Not previously familiar with the 1989 Petty/Lynne song, the writers of 'Stay With Me' listened to 'I Won’t Back Down' and acknowledged the similarity."

This is why Pharell was lying about yodeling and country music instead of admitting he listened to Marvin Gaye to get a vibe from the 70's...

Everyone can hear similarities between BL and GTGIU and instead of reaching out early or admitting it was used for "inspiration" they lied about it and got caught.

If there were enough similarities to where if you were to put both instrumentals together they would seemlessly play in perfect harmony, then Tom had a case. If whomever that composed Sam's song pretty much played even a bar or two that was exactly like a considerable portion of Tom's song, then I wouldn't argue against the ruling.

However, if the song wasn't played note for note and only has a similar feel, then I would be against that case as well.



Since 1976

>If there were enough similarities to where if you were to put
>both instrumentals together they would seemlessly play in
>perfect harmony, then Tom had a case. If whomever that
>composed Sam's song pretty much played even a bar or two that
>was exactly like a considerable portion of Tom's song, then I
>wouldn't argue against the ruling.
>
>However, if the song wasn't played note for note and only has
>a similar feel, then I would be against that case as well.
>
>
>
>Since 1976

No...because they took care of that beyond the court room....No official jury or verdict....Two totally different instances....

This is why P and Thick fucked up. You settle cases like this....But they were filled with hubris thinking they would skate. And P REALLY fucked up with his own testimony....

how many times will you ask this question?

the cases aren't the same.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PHARRELL WILLIAMS (BLURRED LINES VOL. 3)

Well, it’s about time Pharrell Williams has decided to speak on the issue. He was eerily quiet about it all until just recently. And now that’s he’s opened his mouth, I can throw him some of the shade I was generously giving Robin Thicke.

“I’m a huge fan of Marvin Gaye. He is a genius. He is the patriarch.”

— Pharrell Williams

Really, Pharrell? Since when did it become okay to preemptively sue our patriarchal geniuses of Black music after you knowingly stole their songs?

… Oh, never mind. I remember: Hiphop.

“If you read music, all you have to do is read the sheet music. It’s completely different.”

— Pharrell Williams

I read music, do you? And what sheet music are you talking about? From some wack publishing company that did a transcription of Marvin Gaye’s work? Since when do people learn funk tunes from sheet music? Many funk legends can’t even read music. Marvin Gaye couldn’t read or write music, yet he wrote the tune. So what does that say, really?

Pharrell goes on to say:

“ is the king of all kings, so let’s be clear about that. And we take our hats off to him, but anybody that plays music and reads music, just simply go to the piano and play the two. One’s minor and one’s major. And not even in the same key.”

Okay, Mr. Williams. You are wrong. Both of the tunes are actually in Major. The difference is that your song is just a major triad “G-B-D over G” and Gaye’s tune is in Dominant Major which means he flatted the 7th degree of the scale (G-C#-E over A), which would explain why y’all’s song sounds like Oktoberfest and Marvin’s song sounds like the Blues. And Marvin’s tune doesn’t go into minor until the bridge. If that monotonous piece of trash you call a song had a bridge, you probably would have stolen it, too. And just because you and Thicke lowered the key a whole step from A to G and removed the Blues doesn’t mean you didn’t steal it. Thicke has already admitted you did.

“Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give It Up.’ I was like, ‘Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.’ Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it.”

— Robin Thicke

So, how you have the hubris to pretend you didn’t steal it is jive.

Let me just explain a couple things to you:

1.) Sheet music may be the legal reference for copyright in the court systems of America, but it has never been the be-all end-all for Black music. A lot of our music has never been written down, it’s an oral and aural tradition passed down generation-to-generation from master to student.

2.) Many of our Kings of Kings could not read music themselves, either because they were blind or just never learned to read. Reading music is certainly helpful, but it isn’t necessary to do so to be a great musician. All that is required is that you have ears. And anyone with ears can hear that you clearly stole this song.

And to those of you who say I know nothing about Hiphop, if “Blurred Lines” is Hiphop, I don’t want to know anything about it. So let me officially go on record now and say that I hate Hiphop. There are certain artists who claim Hiphop that I dig, but Hiphop as a whole is wack. It’s a parasitic culture that preys on real musicians for its livelihood. I may not know anything about Hiphop, but I don’t have to. Without real artists and musicians like me, you’d have nothing to steal. I know enough about it all to know that.

One of the world’s most renowned producers can’t tell the difference between a minor chord and a Dominant 7th, something that you learn the first week in music theory class. It’s like a doctor not knowing the difference between your ears and your eyes. A musical illiterate has the nerve to tell people they would understand he didn’t steal Marvin’s song if they read music. And we wonder why today’s music is shit?

#BAM

— Nicholas Payton aka The Savior of Archaic Pop

...to where they are completely different songs without realizing it. His argument stinks.



Since 1976

I think the basis of his argument is:
"1.) Sheet music may be the legal reference for copyright in the court systems of
America, but it has never been the be-all end-all for Black music."

He talks a lot about how Black music is being dissected and defined from a Eurocentric
perspective which looks to notes and doesn't focus heavily enough on groove and the
unexplainable feeling or "thing". (to give his view an unjust summary).

While I get where he's coming from and even love & admire his perspective, I'm still
a bit torn with this verdict.

come on.

because it went against music theory.

WE DON'T CARE, IF ITS HOT, PLAY IT!!!

some weights comments are being "glazed over". i especially like this part:

>Okay, Mr. Williams. You are wrong. Both of the tunes are
>actually in Major. The difference is that your song is just a
>major triad “G-B-D over G” and Gaye’s tune is in
>Dominant Major which means he flatted the 7th degree of the
>scale (G-C#-E over A), which would explain why y’all’s
>song sounds like Oktoberfest and Marvin’s song sounds like
>the Blues. And Marvin’s tune doesn’t go into minor until
>the bridge. If that monotonous piece of trash you call a song
>had a bridge, you probably would have stolen it, too. And just
>because you and Thicke lowered the key a whole step from A to
>G and removed the Blues doesn’t mean you didn’t steal it.
>Thicke has already admitted you did.
>

just because its not the same key, as ppl have wanted to zoom in on all throughout this thread, doesnt mean it isnt a rip. and just because you add in a note or remove a note in the bassline (making a note by note comparison of the 2 compositions appear nonidentical) doesnt mean it isnt a rip. pharrell was lazy...they made the song in 15 mins, and the original idea was marvins song. he thought he changed it up enuff to avoid problems...he didnt. true enough all of this stuff is a slippery slope, but pharrell didnt do enough...bottom line.

this is one of them.

pharell changed it.
if pharell didn't change it enough...
I don't know what the standard is.

doesn't remind you of another song?

I can't see how that can be a standard.
you can't write a song without jacking someone.


>some weights comments are being "glazed over". i especially
>like this part:
>
>>Okay, Mr. Williams. You are wrong. Both of the tunes are
>>actually in Major. The difference is that your song is just
>a
>>major triad “G-B-D over G” and Gaye’s tune is in
>>Dominant Major which means he flatted the 7th degree of the
>>scale (G-C#-E over A), which would explain why y’all’s
>>song sounds like Oktoberfest and Marvin’s song sounds like
>>the Blues. And Marvin’s tune doesn’t go into minor until
>>the bridge. If that monotonous piece of trash you call a
>song
>>had a bridge, you probably would have stolen it, too. And
>just
>>because you and Thicke lowered the key a whole step from A
>to
>>G and removed the Blues doesn’t mean you didn’t steal
>it.
>>Thicke has already admitted you did.
>>
>
>just because its not the same key, as ppl have wanted to zoom
>in on all throughout this thread, doesnt mean it isnt a rip.
>and just because you add in a note or remove a note in the
>bassline (making a note by note comparison of the 2
>compositions appear nonidentical) doesnt mean it isnt a rip.
>pharrell was lazy...they made the song in 15 mins, and the
>original idea was marvins song. he thought he changed it up
>enuff to avoid problems...he didnt. true enough all of this
>stuff is a slippery slope, but pharrell didnt do
>enough...bottom line.

They stole the song cause they couldn't write their own. Just admit it already.

fact, most dont. now, if you dig deep enough, can u find some notes that have been used before by more than one artist? im sure u can...but then, there are a finite number of notes that exist. but most songs that i hear dont IMMEDIATELY remind me of another song. are there a few that do? certainly...but most dont. and for what its worth i listen to all kinds of music and have been reading piano and guitar sheet music for double digit years


>you can't write a song without jacking someone.

>fact, most dont. now, if you dig deep enough, can u find some
>notes that have been used before by more than one artist? im
>sure u can...but then, there are a finite number of notes that
>exist. but most songs that i hear dont IMMEDIATELY remind me
>of another song. are there a few that do? certainly...but most
>dont. and for what its worth i listen to all kinds of music
>and have been reading piano and guitar sheet music for double
>digit years
>
>
>>you can't write a song without jacking someone.
>
>

^ well informed musician whose opinion might actually carry some weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpdQhK86Jek

Stevie Wonder >>>> Nicholas Payton.

I love how you guys skip over this extremely problematic paragraph

" So let me officially go on record now and say that I hate Hiphop. There are certain artists who claim Hiphop that I dig, but Hiphop as a whole is wack. It’s a parasitic culture that preys on real musicians for its livelihood. I may not know anything about Hiphop, but I don’t have to. Without real artists and musicians like me, you’d have nothing to steal. I know enough about it all to know that."

And act like this self hating dude ain't biased as fuck.

Even mine

*falls to my knees Charlton Heston PotA style*
Argh damn you kells and diddy
Damn you both to hell
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

...why I found his argument to be flawed. First, he admits there were changes to the point where he states that said changes are the reason why Gaye's song feels more bluesy while 'Rell's version feels more like Oktoberfest. That alone tells me that the songs aren't 100% the same if they don't even carry the same vibe for him.

He also gripes about how a lot of the Black music heroes of yesteryear didn't have to know how to read music in order to make classics. This despite the fact that the quotes from Pharrell that he's supposedly refuting aren't even implying the opposite. Those quotes are just stating that if you read the music, you can see the differences. So there, ol' boy unnecessarily went on a tangent that had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Then his Hip Hop rant which, in his own words, is a genre he knows nothing about, had nothing to do with the subject at hand since the song isn't a Hip Hop track. His obviously blatent bias was easily clouding his judgment. That piece was just a clueless old man styled rant on the level of 'you damn kids and your hippity be boppity music!' while raising his cane in a fit of rage type nonsense.



Since 1976

When cats will defend their right to steal the music of other artists, you gonna say
his words there don't have merit?

And how on earth is he self-hating?

where people trudged out Puff Daddy as the vile talentless hack and a representative of all sampling; not realizing that with it we pretty much guaranteed that classic albums like Fear of A Black Planet, Entroducing, etc will never exist again.

At least now we've reached an point, probably because of the rise of tech (and how many non-hip-hop artists are flipping samples including the use of live loopers) where it's seen as art.

It's why I give a side eye to people, particularly black artists, who go on tangents like this. It's why I don't fuck with Wynton Marsalis where he went from getting mad at samples to making his argument about it to be 'ghetto ministry'. Somethings off there beyond music taste, particularly when you've got cats like Herbie Hancock (who are generations older) who have embraced the current age

And again, how is he self-hating?
He said "without real musicians like me, you wouldn't have anything to steal."
He sounds like a proud musician to me. Where's the self-hatred?

>He sounds like a proud musician to me. Where's the
>self-hatred?

smh*
That's a stupid statement


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

patooey
Him and rkelly
Ruined eveeeerything w regards to music

I blame them for all this
#biased
#cantstandthemnevercould
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

he was suppose to get blurred lines, however pharrell owed thicke a cut and lucky for timberlake he got passsed over on that mess.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LD3DY7z-I8o

There's a real tension here between an arguable legal principle and the way creative contemporaries treat each other. Especially if you roll in the same circles. This is probably why country music isn't doomed right now, because the folks making those songs have love for each other and don't begrudge friends making money. What happens between their blood descendants and creative descendants is another matter.

My late grandfather wrote songs. Was the first kiwi to have a #1 record on both sides of a 45 here. I know he wouldn't approve of us suing on his behalf, even if doing so would properly acknowledge his legacy. Or his estate could be sued because his music sounds like a lot of music from that era. But they didn't treat each other like that back then so...

>There's a real tension here between an arguable legal
>principle and the way creative contemporaries treat each
>other. Especially if you roll in the same circles. This is
>probably why country music isn't doomed right now, because the
>folks making those songs have love for each other and don't
>begrudge friends making money.

Yup.
YUP.
it's no accident that all the landmark cases in the past 25 years of music have been in Black American music.

or pursued it as hard. a professional courtesy likely would've been extended between the parties.

i think the fact that the plaintiffs aren't working professional musicians is key. yes, i know Nona tried it a few times. she's not a working professional musician.

>or pursued it as hard. a professional courtesy likely
>would've been extended between the parties.
>
>i think the fact that the plaintiffs aren't working
>professional musicians is key. yes, i know Nona tried it a
>few times. she's not a working professional musician.
>
>
>

>or pursued it as hard. a professional courtesy likely
>would've been extended between the parties.
>
>i think the fact that the plaintiffs aren't working
>professional musicians is key. yes, i know Nona tried it a
>few times. she's not a working professional musician.
>
>
>

From the worst to the best
When it comes to cutting a rug
I'll put you to the test

Ain't nobody better
Is what they're telling me
Said Morris, what's that dance your doing?
Well, I'm doing the oak tree, ha, ha

Oak tree, I'll put you to the test
Oak tree, when it comes to dancing, I'm the best
Oak tree ready to debut
Oak tree, spread your branches, you know what to do

I can do the oak tree

Let me shake my leaves
(Hey you guys, look it's Morris Day and his new dance)
(Oh yeah, what's he call it? The oak tree)
Watch the dance

Your working overtime
That's how to feel the best
Taking care of business, girl
And I wont settle for less

Tell me your name
Your looking kinda right
Slip into your red dress, girl
I wanna take you out tonight
Were gonna do the

Ah, okay

The perfect in position, baby
Come dancing like a tree
It doesn't really matter girl
You know, you can't mess with me

Shake your leaves
Shake your leaves
(Oak tree, oak tree)
(Oak tree, oak tree)

(Oak tree, oak tree)
I'll put you to the test
(Oak tree, oak tree)
You know I'm the best

(Oak tree, oak tree)
Everybody's cool
(Oak tree, oak tree)
You know what I'm telling you

Oh, let's organize
I want everybody to sing

(Oak tree, oak tree)
I'll put you to the test
(Oak tree, oak tree)
You know I'm the best

(Oak tree, oak tree)
Everybody's cool
(Oak tree, oak tree)
You know what I'm telling you

Oak tree, oak tree
Oak tree, oak tree

Song Writers:
Morris Day
The Blues
Jazz
Joe Corn Moe
D'Angelo

lol


>
>Song Writers:
>Morris Day
>The Blues
>Jazz
>Joe Corn Moe
>D'Angelo
>

CLEAR CIRCLES: THE SEQUEL TO BLURRED LINES

applepie

The culture of entitlement is as American as apple pie. And like almost everything
of worth in America, apple pie came from somewhere else. Of course before pie
came to America, the English, Dutch, Belgians, and Swedes had a tradition of
baking pies, and likewise, they have a shared history of colonization. But we can’t
even give ultimate credit for modern colonization to the aforementioned European
countries. Portugal and Spain were the mother and father of colonization, and they
had a tradition of pies called “empanadas.”

Bible — Buy Bull

On June 18, 1452, Pope Nicholas V published the bull Dum Diversas to give King
Alfonso V the right to force any non-Christian people to serve in perpetual slavery.
This document was followed three years later by another papal bull called the
Romanus Pontifex, which gave dominion over all of Africa south of Cape Bojador to
Alfonso, thus setting in motion the capture and colonization of Africans and
opening the door for Christopher Columbus, whom some historians think was a
pseudonym for Salvador Fernandes Zarco.

Emancipation Constipation

Fast forward to 1865, the date many believe to be when slavery was abolished in
the United States. Only one thing: Slavery was never formally abolished.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

—13th Amendment to the United States Constitution

This amendment was an extension of the ideas brought forth in the Dum Diversas,
except now we see that “criminals” are substituted for “non-Christians.” But who
determines what is a crime and who are the criminals? Statistically, Blacks and
non-Blacks are incarcerated at a rate disproportionally higher than Whites. The
penitentiaries are the new plantations.

Legaleeze Nuts

They say the pen is mightier than the sword, and from a Western worldview, this is
very true. We live in a world of words, and those words create thoughts and ideas.
Texts such as the Holy Bible or the U.S. Constitution have historically been used as
tools to justify some of the most vicious atrocities ever committed against
humanity. Words are a primary tool of oppression. From changing the name of
God, or renaming the natives’ land “America,” to calling Africans “Niggers,” the
power of words has been one of the most effective means of enslavement known to man.

That said, words can also be used for good in the form of chanting, singing, prayer or praise.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

—John 1:1

Americans place a lot of stock in the legality or illegality of certain acts, but most
laws are written by unrighteous men. Who are they to be the arbiters of justice?
What may or may not be legal is shrouded in legalese, which gives those in
authority loopholes to manipulate the system. Any act can be both legal or illegal
depending on your resources and/or connections.

Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right, and because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong.

Empire

America is an imperialist state and it inherited this trait from its mother, Europe. In
an imperialist empire, the object is to exert control and obtain dominion over
others by force. European Classical music has strong ties to imperialism. During
the height of European world domination, Classical music was the soundtrack.
Many notable Classical works were commissioned either by the church or royalty —
the pillars of colonization. Naturally the music would reflect those societal views. If
we look at how the European Classical orchestra is set up, it is a body of musicians
controlled by one conductor, much like the king of a monarchy. There’s little to no
room for any dialogue amongst the players. They must conform to the concept of
the conductor and/or the composer. Now there’s more room for interpretation for
soloists or solo works, but even then the musician is typically bound by what is on the page.

Hegemony, Mony, Mony, Mony…

Patriarchal hegemony is a key factor in colonialism and imperialism. In order to
control others, one must do so by force or domination, both typically being male-
centric energy. This idea of male dominance is a mindset that has become the
standard in modern society. Most ancient and native societies respected both male
and female energies, as evidenced by the fact that many of them were matriarchies.

The fact that European Classical music is written down suggests male dominance,
as men have a propensity towards stimulation through sight. Because the more
feminine aspects of music — like feel, vibe, and intuition — can’t be written down,
they tend to be undervalued. Things that can’t be seen are often disregarded as
invalid through the Western/European lens. Whereas in African and other ancient
musics, there is often no notation. The music is passed down from master to pupil
by ear in the same way breast milk is fed to a child by its mother.

Because America is still a child of her European mother, she has adopted the same
patriarchal hegemonic rules that govern European Classical music. This is reflected
in U.S. copyright law. In order for a work to be created it must be written down or
on a phonorecord of some sort. The writing down or recording of certain creative
processes is not necessarily an idea embraced by ancient societies. In fact, many
natives have been known to be afraid to have their pictures taken or have their
music recorded because they feared it would steal their soul.

Give It Up

Black music is an oral and aural tradition in that most of its fundamentals cannot
be written down. All Black dance music is groove-based, which means the most
essential components of Black music are not copyrightable by law. All Black
American music is based in the Blues, which again, can’t be written down. It is in
the realm of feel, and feel is a non-visual feminine energy. Blues, feel, vibe, and
groove are not a part of the Western lexicon, which de facto says that according to
American copyright law, Black music isn’t real music. It’s the same as the papal
bull that declared Africans savages and not human.

What’s important about the recent verdict in the “Blurred Lines” case is that it’s a
victory for Black thought. Coming off the heels of the judicial decisions in the cases
of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner, it is a ray of hope that we may be
approaching a return to ancient aesthetic values.

The things stolen from “Got To Give It Up” are not part of a genre or some ’70s
style as the plaintiffs suggest. They are specific compositional elements that are
distinctive to the tune. Anyone with ears can hear it. There are not a bunch of
tunes that sound like it of any era. The masters don’t owe some producer anything
because said producer pilfered their work and “introduced” the master to a
younger audience. You’re not entitled to take an artist’s creation in the spirit of
Hiphop, a papal bull, the Constitution, copyright law or anything else. Respect is
due, props should be given, and if there’s money to be made, give up a piece of the pie.

Sheet music, shmeet music.

A Peace of the Pi

There is being inspired by someone and there is theft, and the line between the
two is often blurry. The law is intentionally ambiguous and biased against creative,
intuitive types. Copyright law does not work in favor of Black music. What many
see as a dangerous precedent in the “Blurred Lines” case, I see as a chance for the
ancestors and their heirs to get credit and compensation. The whole point of
building an empire is to make a better life for those around you and those who
come after you, particularly your children.

Black music is communal music and it’s about everyone contributing to the baking
and sharing a slice of the pie. No one starves. Famine is a manmade construct. It’s
the result of imperialism and robbing resources from a people and their land —
domination through force. When music is used as a tool to promote a parasitic
culture where it’s okay to leech off of another’s contribution without sharing the
profits in return, it’s become an instrument of war, not love.


And though you may think of it as American, pie is a modern form of an ancient
galette which can be found inscribed on the walls in the tomb of Ramses II,
pharaoh of Egypt. The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt is said by some to be based
on the principles of pi. Pi is the value of dividing the circumference of a circle by its
diameter. If you divide the perimeter of the Great Pyramid by its height, you will
get very close to 2π.

The fundamental argument here is one that has been in the air since the
development of the New World: linear versus circular thought. Lines are more
suggestive of male energy, patriarchy and dualism, whereas circles are more
feminine, inclusive, and social.

No matter which way you slice it, the circle always goes back to one.

#BAM

— Nicholas Payton aka The Savior of Archaic Pop

YOUR

HONAAHH

Where is YOUR ID

Get it rght

Since 1976

which is never.

Yall are so special

https://nicholaspayton.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/clear-circles-the-sequel-to-blurred-lines/

NICHOLAS PAYTON
MENU
Skip to content
March 12, 2015 by nicholaspayton
CLEAR CIRCLES: THE SEQUEL TO BLURRED LINES

applepie

The culture of entitlement is as American as apple pie. And like almost everything of worth in America, apple pie came from somewhere else. Of course before pie came to America, the English, Dutch, Belgians, and Swedes had a tradition of baking pies, and likewise, they have a shared history of colonization. But we can’t even give ultimate credit for modern colonization to the aforementioned European countries. Portugal and Spain were the mother and father of colonization, and they had a tradition of pies called “empanadas.”

Bible — Buy Bull

Romanus-pontifex-Pope-Nicolas-V-Portugal-January-1455On June 18, 1452, Pope Nicholas V published the bull Dum Diversas to give King Alfonso V the right to force any non-Christian people to serve in perpetual slavery. This document was followed three years later by another papal bull called the Romanus Pontifex, which gave dominion over all of Africa south of Cape Bojador to Alfonso, thus setting in motion the capture and colonization of Africans and opening the door for Christopher Columbus, whom some historians think was a pseudonym for Salvador Fernandes Zarco.

Emancipation Constipation

Fast forward to 1865, the date many believe to be when slavery was abolished in the United States. Only one thing: Slavery was never formally abolished.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

—13th Amendment to the United States Constitution

This amendment was an extension of the ideas brought forth in the Dum Diversas, except now we see that “criminals” are substituted for “non-Christians.” But who determines what is a crime and who are the criminals? Statistically, Blacks and non-Blacks are incarcerated at a rate disproportionally higher than Whites. The penitentiaries are the new plantations.

Legaleeze Nuts

blackslawdictionary-516b10cf26b5bThey say the pen is mightier than the sword, and from a Western worldview, this is very true. We live in a world of words, and those words create thoughts and ideas. Texts such as the Holy Bible or the U.S. Constitution have historically been used as tools to justify some of the most vicious atrocities ever committed against humanity. Words are a primary tool of oppression. From changing the name of God, or renaming the natives’ land “America,” to calling Africans “Niggers,” the power of words has been one of the most effective means of enslavement known to man.

That said, words can also be used for good in the form of chanting, singing, prayer or praise.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

—John 1:1

Americans place a lot of stock in the legality or illegality of certain acts, but most laws are written by unrighteous men. Who are they to be the arbiters of justice? What may or may not be legal is shrouded in legalese, which gives those in authority loopholes to manipulate the system. Any act can be both legal or illegal depending on your resources and/or connections.

Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right, and because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong.

Empire

empire-fox.jpg-618x400

America is an imperialist state and it inherited this trait from its mother, Europe. In an imperialist empire, the object is to exert control and obtain dominion over others by force. European Classical music has strong ties to imperialism. During the height of European world domination, Classical music was the soundtrack. Many notable Classical works were commissioned either by the church or royalty — the pillars of colonization. Naturally the music would reflect those societal views. If we look at how the European Classical orchestra is set up, it is a body of musicians controlled by one conductor, much like the king of a monarchy. There’s little to no room for any dialogue amongst the players. They must conform to the concept of the conductor and/or the composer. Now there’s more room for interpretation for soloists or solo works, but even then the musician is typically bound by what is on the page.

Hegemony, Mony, Mony, Mony…

51GkbkIYMcLPatriarchal hegemony is a key factor in colonialism and imperialism. In order to control others, one must do so by force or domination, both typically being male-centric energy. This idea of male dominance is a mindset that has become the standard in modern society. Most ancient and native societies respected both male and female energies, as evidenced by the fact that many of them were matriarchies.

The fact that European Classical music is written down suggests male dominance, as men have a propensity towards stimulation through sight. Because the more feminine aspects of music — like feel, vibe, and intuition — can’t be written down, they tend to be undervalued. Things that can’t be seen are often disregarded as invalid through the Western/European lens. Whereas in African and other ancient musics, there is often no notation. The music is passed down from master to pupil by ear in the same way breast milk is fed to a child by its mother.

Because America is still a child of her European mother, she has adopted the same patriarchal hegemonic rules that govern European Classical music. This is reflected in U.S. copyright law. In order for a work to be created it must be written down or on a phonorecord of some sort. The writing down or recording of certain creative processes is not necessarily an idea embraced by ancient societies. In fact, many natives have been known to be afraid to have their pictures taken or have their music recorded because they feared it would steal their soul.

Give It Up

a4067818924_2Black music is an oral and aural tradition in that most of its fundamentals cannot be written down. All Black dance music is groove-based, which means the most essential components of Black music are not copyrightable by law. All Black American music is based in the Blues, which again, can’t be written down. It is in the realm of feel, and feel is a non-visual feminine energy. Blues, feel, vibe, and groove are not a part of the Western lexicon, which de facto says that according to American copyright law, Black music isn’t real music. It’s the same as the papal bull that declared Africans savages and not human.

What’s important about the recent verdict in the “Blurred Lines” case is that it’s a victory for Black thought. Coming off the heels of the judicial decisions in the cases of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner, it is a ray of hope that we may be approaching a return to ancient aesthetic values.

The things stolen from “Got To Give It Up” are not part of a genre or some ’70s style as the plaintiffs suggest. They are specific compositional elements that are distinctive to the tune. Anyone with ears can hear it. There are not a bunch of tunes that sound like it of any era. The masters don’t owe some producer anything because said producer pilfered their work and “introduced” the master to a younger audience. You’re not entitled to take an artist’s creation in the spirit of Hiphop, a papal bull, the Constitution, copyright law or anything else. Respect is due, props should be given, and if there’s money to be made, give up a piece of the pie.

Sheet music, shmeet music.

A Peace of the Pi

There is being inspired by someone and there is theft, and the line between the two is often blurry. The law is intentionally ambiguous and biased against creative, intuitive types. Copyright law does not work in favor of Black music. What many see as a dangerous precedent in the “Blurred Lines” case, I see as a chance for the ancestors and their heirs to get credit and compensation. The whole point of building an empire is to make a better life for those around you and those who come after you, particularly your children.

Black music is communal music and it’s about everyone contributing to the baking and sharing a slice of the pie. No one starves. Famine is a manmade construct. It’s the result of imperialism and robbing resources from a people and their land — domination through force. When music is used as a tool to promote a parasitic culture where it’s okay to leech off of another’s contribution without sharing the profits in return, it’s become an instrument of war, not love.

FBXB8KBGZPZO228.LARGE

And though you may think of it as American, pie is a modern form of an ancient galette which can be found inscribed on the walls in the tomb of Ramses II, pharaoh of Egypt. The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt is said by some to be based on the principles of pi. Pi is the value of dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter. If you divide the perimeter of the Great Pyramid by its height, you will get very close to 2π.

The fundamental argument here is one that has been in the air since the development of the New World: linear versus circular thought. Lines are more suggestive of male energy, patriarchy and dualism, whereas circles are more feminine, inclusive, and social.

No matter which way you slice it, the circle always goes back to one.

#BAM

— Nicholas Payton aka The Savior of Archaic Pop

SHARE THIS:
Twitter19Facebook1K+GoogleRedditStumbleUponLinkedInPrintEmail

RELATED
Black American Music and the Jazz Tradition
The Black Nation of The United States of America
All That Glitters Ain't Sterling Silver
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
POST NAVIGATION
WILL THE REAL BLACK MESSIAH PLEASE STAND UP
NICK ONLINE

Search
NICHOLAS PAYTON – NUMBERS

BUY NOW: CDBaby | iTunes

NICHOLAS PAYTON – SKETCHES OF SPAIN
BUY NOW: CDBaby | iTunes
NICHOLAS PAYTON – #BAM LIVE AT BOHEMIAN CAVERNS
BUY NOW: CDBaby | iTunes
RECENT POSTS
Clear Circles: The Sequel To Blurred Lines
Will The Real Black Messiah Please Stand Up
Cosby, Garner, Allegations, and Assassination
The Savior of Archaic Pop Meets The Human Jukebox
Jive Turkeys and the New Black
#tbt: Nicholas Payton & Karriem Riggins — BoomBap in 1997
Nicholas Payton’s “Numbers” Mixtape (hosted by The Music Snobs)
Why Real Niggas Are Becoming An Endangered Species
The Anaconda Shakes It Off
Part III: Why Are We Still In The Streets?
Part II: An Honest Look at Black America
Part I: The Rise of Capitalism and The Fall of Culture
Message To Black America via Ferguson, Missouri
On The New Yorker “Satirizing” Sonny
The #BAM Babies in Anticipation of “Numbers”
Video: Bill Stewart with The Nicholas Payton Trio — Live at Blues Alley
Press Release for “Numbers,” by Nicholas Payton ft. Butcher Brown
Masters of Funky New Orleans Drumming — Vol. 1
Should I Spotify?
Do You Remember What It Was Like To Be Human?
“Snob of the Year,” Nicholas Payton Meets The Music Snobs
#BAM @ BAM
On Quincy Jones, Ray Brown, Brownie, Fat Girl, Fab, Art and Helen . . .
On The Art of Music Criticism . . .
Black American Music and the Jazz Tradition
All That Glitters Ain’t Sterling Silver
Another Shot in the Arm for Jazz
Album Review: Can Beyoncé’s Eponymous Apolcalyptic Album Bring Melody Back To The Mainstream?
Duking It Out with Teachout and Other Racist Assailants
Negromancing The Stone: A Tale of Mainstream Morbidity
On Art, Community, and the Culture of Commerce
A Nigga Tired: Why Non-Blacks Shouldn’t Say Nigga
Martin/Incognito: An Open Letter to Jason Whitlock
Why Jazz Still Isn’t Cool: The 2nd #BAMiversary in Review
On Truth and Beauty in the Age of Bullshit
On Why There’s Still No Hope For U.S.
Too Loose in Toulouse
500 Years A Slave Is Enough
The Complete Nicholas Payton Interview with Richard Scheinin
Is Kanye West The Number One Rock Star On The Planet?
Why Hiphop Isn’t Cool Anymore
An Open Letter To Pharrell Williams (Blurred Lines Vol. 3)
AmeriKKKa: Are You Syrious?
Western Thought and the African Dilemma
Bill Cosby’s Thoughts On The #BAM Movement
Has Hiphop and Sampling Killed Music?
Thicke’s Got To Give It Up (Pt. 2)
Thicke and Co., Got To Give It Up To Marvin
Thanks for the love, Guadalajara!
The Black Nation of The United States of America
CATEGORIES
Commentaries (10)
General Thoughts (1)
Lyrics (5)
Meditations (31)
Press (3)
ARCHIVES
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
May 2011
April 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
July 2010
May 2010
April 2010
January 2010
December 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
Blog at WordPress.com. The Untitled Theme.

Uptown Funk official remix just dropped last night with Trinidad on it to make nice...after the Blurred Lines case, and Jay going head and paying that cat he sampled on Verses...


Blurred Lines official remix:
https://youtu.be/0m46OPo-AYw