Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY
Oh shoot, someone better tell Rick James err M.C. Hammer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5IxfaDnMaU
Except in the case of M.C. Hammer it is an obvious sample. Nothing more nothing less.
Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#42I think many people know that this ruling is not some test-case that will unleash a wave of lawsuits. People have been successfully sued for less than this, many times before... http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases
Most are settled out of court. This sets a very dangerous jurisprudence precedent.
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sia supposedly wrote Rihanna's Diamonds in 14 minutes.
also Nickelback - How You Remind Me was written in 15
Okay, at some point this counts as improvised. We're talking about lyrics, percussion, bass guitar and other instruments (at least in the case of Blurred Lines, where the writing of the lyrics and instrumental tracks were what was in question). Assuming you have only two hands/ears with which to write/play with the sound of, that's writing at nearly 1/2 the speed it is performed (and could be considered near-live writing if you aren't da Vinci'ing it).
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#44Another good case why inheritance should simply not exist beyond some practical level. You die, your live's work should become public domain, meaning, no one can use it and pervert it or change it or use it for profit, but it should not be controllable or some "estate", i.e., your parasitic children and dependents, start suing to extract even more undeserved, unearned, and unwarranted wealth.
This is an overly extreme opinion. We are not simply born in isolation - totally separate beings from one another. It's in our nature to perpetuate society as we see fit and that is not only through actions as we live but also through your progeny - whether they're students or children. Perhaps you wish to see the world become less dependent on fossil fuels and you've spent your life building a business and cultural…
Agreed. Also, it's important to provide incentive for people to work hard and make good financial decisions even after they are set up for life.
If, once you had your retirement set, you could only pass a small percentage of your income on to your friends and family (IANAL... and charities?), then why keep working? What about the people making valuable contributions to society: inventors, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc? Doesn't society have an interest in encouraging them to work past having $X million in their bank accounts?
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sia supposedly wrote Rihanna's Diamonds in 14 minutes.
also Nickelback - How You Remind Me was written in 15
This and parent form a pretty backhanded compliment to 15 minute songwriting!
Depending on your feelings about the songs, of course.
Diamonds makes me cringe.
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#46Cough Bullshit cough
There is a really big difference between taking "inspiration" from an artist's style or a certain song's sound versus sitting down, listening to a song, and writing one in the same tempo that hits the same cues just by fiddling with the scale a little bit. Pharell is totally trying to argue a different point than what the lawsuit was about, and he's goat roping as many other things in as he can to try and save face. It's absolutely laughable for him to say "This is about protecting the intellectual rights of people who have ideas" when he just lost a lawsuit based on taking something from another artist.
Look, I'm all for revising the copyright laws on the books, cleaning up some of the issues regarding sampling, and eventually modernizing the commercial avenue by which musicians and other artists like cinema professionals make their money. Genuinely, I want to see things change for the better, not constantly be lobbied and pushed the wrong direction by monied interests (Disney) or legacy inheritors of material. The system is messed up, and I get that, which is why I've avoided the "traditional" system and held on to my rights through Copyright or Creative Commons for years and years and years and have no plans to change that.
Pharrell had his chance ON THE STAND to make his case, and the jury didn't buy it. The jury didn't listen to the recordings and render a verdict about the "sound" or "inspiration" of the tune. The jury listened to the notes being played based on the sheet music, and ruled that it was a ripoff. Why? Because it was a ripoff. Pharrell got busted and now he's doing damage control PR.
Besides, the music industry has ALWAYS been tied up with lawsuits...which is why people use caution when clearing samples (ex: Lemon Jelly), negotiating songwriting credits before/after the fact (ex: Sam Smtih), or defending sync rights when somebody is clearly trying to abuse the system (ex: GoldiBlox vs. Beastie Boys).
Oh, and don't forget the most typical lawsuits in the music business: artists suing the big labels for screwing them out of money:
http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal-prepari...
Not that many who sympathise with Pharrell will give this the time of day, but I do think the Gaye family's public statement is a very coherent explanation and should be held up for comparison purposes:
http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter-from-...
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vocals were included in falcolas's analysis.
You have a link to that analysis? I'd be curious over the conclusion since I would imagine comparing vocals to be the weakest part of such a case. Also, I've seen lots of commentary from supposed experts in the field that have concluded the opposite.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9237554 :)
not a formal analysis, just the comment before mine :)
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#48OK, I just listed to both. They are not similar enough. I'd say that sure, there was clearly some inspiration, as with all art. Sometimes there is more sometimes there is less, sometimes the inspiration is obvious. This lawsuit definitely does set a dangerous and unfortunate precedent. Can't say I'm surprised about it. :(
Worked for years in music biz -- saw numerous cases of this level of "copying" -- the groove, a similar bass line etc -- this was never, ever enough to sue much less win. The standard in my mind for actual musical theft is George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" vs Spector's "He's So Fine" -- a clear rip-off, chords, melody, both verse and chorus. But Lines vs Gaye, it's just not enough. The jury must be tone deaf.
People _hate_ the song. Since it came out feminists have attacked it as a "date-rape anthem"[0] and Robin Thicke has become the poster boy for everything wrong with world.
It would be a pretty big coincidence if this copyright case and the level of hate the song has received have nothing to do with each other. The feminists I know are giddy about this.
[0] - I heard that, looked up the lyrics and immediately dismissed it.
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#49I think many people know that this ruling is not some test-case that will unleash a wave of lawsuits. People have been successfully sued for less than this, many times before... http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases
To me, the Sam Smith "Won't Back Down" case was much more straight-forward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw But that's a very simple chord progression with common vocal hits, whereas this case seems to hinge on a very distinctive bass line and percussive style.
Much more straight-forward. Much closer to being the same thing.
Would still have been pretty ridiculous if a verdict had been made that this counted as copyright infringement. (They settled it amicably)
Re: Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's step back a little. The story is clearly written to trigger outrage -- really, meant to trigger your precise response. So, let's spend a google seeing if there are elements of this story that were left out due to not fitting the narrative (note: this isn't to say the decision wasn't stupid, or that you are wrong in any factual sense). Okay, so first that that pops up is that the children of Marvin Gaye were the…
> (just to be clear, for a typical length pop song, writing it in an hour is _remarkably, exceptionally fast_). I think you'd find that the vast majority of pop hits are written fairly quickly. Yes producing, recording, finishing a pop song, adding everything that makes a pop song.. pop... can take a long time. But the actual writing is literally just 1. Get an idea 2. put it into the standard pop song structure Espe…
You may underestimate him, Pharell's probably written well over a thousand songs. He has 59 songs with wikipedia pages!
You're absolutely right about people writing fast though. Even Bob Dylan wrote some of his songs in under 20 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pharrell_Williams_song...