PDA

View Full Version : The 70s vs Pharrell / Robin Thicke



jackjambie
19-03-2015, 06:09 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/pharrell-talks-blurred-lines-lawsuit-for-first-time-20150319

“The verdict handicaps any creator out there who is making something that might be inspired by something else...this applies to fashion, music, design… anything. If we lose our freedom to be inspired, we’re going to look up one day and the entertainment industry as we know it will be frozen in litigation. This is about protecting the intellectual rights of people who have ideas.”

“Everything that’s around you in a room was inspired by something or someone,” he added. “If you kill that, there’s no creativity.”

is anyone else obsessed with the current Marvin Gaye's fam vs Pharrell trial????

for me this is like the past that ppl thought was no longer around to judge them finally striking out against the tide of retro bullshit that's been flooding out of the creative industries for years and years now. and it's great.

i think that last line about it "killing creativity" is really telling - creation in some respect is always supposed to be about making something out of nothing, surely? thus, hopefully, thrusting us ever further on into a limitless future of infinite creative possibility...?

not fucking "uptown funk"...??!?

p.s. blurred lines was fucking gobshite too. the moment that someone dropped it at Brixton Splash last year was a definite low point for me of my time spent going slowly deaf in front of loud soundsystems.....AND everyone loved it.

CrowleyHead
19-03-2015, 06:23 PM
Blurred Lines is cool, fuck Marvin Gaye and his stupid ass no-talent children, the only good from this is now Little Richard is going to sue everyone out of existence.

Leo
19-03-2015, 08:04 PM
“Everything that’s around you in a room was inspired by something or someone,”...

"inspired by" is different from copied. and it's fine if you want to lift something outright, just give credit.

mistersloane
20-03-2015, 12:19 AM
Blurred Lines is cool, fuck Marvin Gaye

Yay

NOAT
20-03-2015, 05:04 AM
Bullshit. So hip hop wasn't new/shocking/pushing forward? People will and always have taken from the past, it's what you do with it that counts, it shouldn't be restricted and policed. Fuck sake.

datwun
20-03-2015, 06:16 AM
I was thinking about how this relates to retromania, re-creativity etc. My gut instinct was that anything that fucks over /that/ seam of 70s pastiche - and Pharell and Robin Thicke in particular - has to be good, but then thinking about it it can't be helpful for artists involved in sampling, electronic music etc.

Seems absolutely insane that you can claim intellectual copywrite on a 'vibe' lol.

jackjambie
20-03-2015, 10:37 AM
it's not a sample though is it - this is totally different to sampling in hip hop or electronic music.

it's not about whether or not people should be allowed to take from the past, that's whatever, it's about a really safe and backwards looking approach to "creativity" where you constantly cannibalise popular things from the past in order to get massive hits today and people have been getting away with it for years.

also - the gaye family actually used a "mash-up" in court as evidence apparently.

the whole thing's brilliant.

jackjambie
20-03-2015, 10:38 AM
sampling isn't innately good anyway - it's only good if it's used well.

don't get me wrong, i love shit like the below, but it really has to stop...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jlI4uzZGjU

jackjambie
20-03-2015, 10:50 AM
also @datwun - sample clearance has been a thing for years. there are whole departments of lawyers at labels clearing samples and taking tracks down off the back of them all the time.

this has obviously revealed a much bigger crime than just sample clearance imo.

CrowleyHead
20-03-2015, 11:52 AM
Its revealed absolutely fuck all, people have been ripping off and lifting from one another long before fucking sampling, Marvin Gaye's family is rich, they're taking advantage of the fact that Thicke is a publicly reviled figure for antics.

You know what's fucked up? They claim in the lawsuit that he's spent so much of his career trying to emulate Marvin as evidence for their validity. So let Ray Charles kids sue you out of existence for how many times Marvin was fixated on trying to be Ray, these greedy fucks.

I feel really bad that a guy who is treated with ignorance because he had a big commercial hit is being made to be a pariah, dumb as it might have been. For years he's been a decent R&B act that was doing decent numbers and just went under everyone's radar because he made more 'grown folks' R&B and ofc. because he's Alan Thicke's son so how is anyone gonna take him seriously? If you'd have told me that years later he was going to have think pieces about being the figurehead of rape culture, that he was going to have everything in the third verse of this song suddenly implode on him, I'd have thought it unnatural.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ai6i9WKwPlQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jackjambie
20-03-2015, 12:20 PM
isn't pharrell in trouble too though? it's not just robin thicke getting in trouble. i know about his r&b stuff too, heard some fine bits of his b4. what a way to finally explode on to the global pop scene ey...

how about "happy" by Pharrell though? are Curtis Mayfield or whoever's fam now gona sue him for that?

and p-funk / bootsy or some funk ppl sue mark ronson for "uptown funk"?

i guess my issue is that these tracks do nothing really to build on the sounds that they are knicking from. it's not "inspired by" if you literally rip off a sound 100%. I mean, at least Will Smith rapped over disco tracks for his hits...brought SOMETHING new to the table.

baboon2004
20-03-2015, 01:23 PM
i can't stand Blurred Lines, but the legal verdict is bonkers. so many people have made whole careers out of being 'inspired by' (read, copying) one or two other acts.

i find it weird/ironic that pharrell, of all people, is the one who ends up getting sued in this way, given how original much of the neptunes' output was.

Slothrop
20-03-2015, 01:53 PM
i guess my issue is that these tracks do nothing really to build on the sounds that they are knicking from. it's not "inspired by" if you literally rip off a sound 100%.

The question is whether you trust juries to always make the right call there - or in general - even if they've got a big money record company lawyer or a specialist IP troll trying to convince them otherwise. I'm not that bothered about this decision as regards Blurred Lines, it's more about the potential for the whole music business to end up mired in "your song sounds a bit like my song" lawsuits.

CrowleyHead
20-03-2015, 03:20 PM
@Jackjamble; Your arguments are inane and show you lack any sort of comprehension of the situation. But cheer this shit on, by all means.

droid
20-03-2015, 03:43 PM
Obv its not good for music, but rhythm sections have been screwed for years when it comes to potential IP violations. Apart from the pragmatic concerns, why is its OK to steal a groove but not ok to steal a melody?

jackjambie
20-03-2015, 05:08 PM
not really trying to argue anything here, just pointing out that it's an interesting case + expressing a general dislike for a lot of that 70s pastiche pop stuff that's been making waves for a while now...

it's more the Pharrell quote that I was interested in, the one about inspiration. it's like he can't imagine something coming from nothing at all, like there has to be some sort of reference point for any form of creativity...it's a point about imagination rather than anything else i guess...

i don't really mind if people do start policing ideas in pop music tbh. be interesting to see how that played out. i think riddim culture in jamaica went through a difficult legal patch a while back and it seems to have come through that ok. makes sense that it should have done i guess...

issue articulated here better than I ever could >>>> http://retromaniabysimonreynolds.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/retro-outlawed-blurred-lines-decision.html

parody point is interesting too...hadn't thought of that...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icb_tRTnA4g

NATO
21-03-2015, 04:33 AM
it's not a sample though is it - this is totally different to sampling in hip hop or electronic music.

it's not about whether or not people should be allowed to take from the past, that's whatever, it's about a really safe and backwards looking approach to "creativity" where you constantly cannibalise popular things from the past in order to get massive hits today and people have been getting away with it for years.

also - the gaye family actually used a "mash-up" in court as evidence apparently.

the whole thing's brilliant.

This has to be allowed to exist alongside everything else. Fuck setting up the creativity police.

Seems like you're drawing a thin and indistinct line in the sand just because you don't like something.

baboon2004
21-03-2015, 12:46 PM
Seems like you're drawing a thin and indistinct line in the sand just because you don't like something.

Have you been on Dissensus before? ;)

mistersloane
21-03-2015, 01:52 PM
Have you been on Dissensus before? ;)

Exactalyally.

Happy doesn't fucking sound like any of the other songs, anyone who thinks it does is a cunt.

Blurred Lines is brilliant, and as an interpolation is much, much better than the hugely boring original (see also much of Marvin Gaye's output, and it wasn;t like HE was the arbiter of feminism).

What did we find out from this case? Industry people be shady. The rest is fucking balls and can suck me for eternity and I still won't cum in their mouth.

Corpsey
21-03-2015, 02:40 PM
I only wish Pharrell was on record as saying he'd eat his hat if he was successfully sued for blurred lines.

Would be hilarious if Daft Punk got sued for ripping off some old music after all that "let's bring real music back" shit they were pushing when RAM was coming out.

The Blurred Lines video was cool but musically its pharrell in coasting mode innit, extending to nicking a bit from a song and then pretending he didn't. They should have seen a lawsuit coming, really, and got it cleared.

The happy lawsuit if it does happen is laughable bullshit tho

griftert
21-03-2015, 05:29 PM
Can't believe this verdict tbh. Blurred Lines sounds vaguely inspired by the Gaye track. I'm sure it won't be successful on appeal.

petergunn
21-03-2015, 07:32 PM
the only good from this is now Little Richard is going to sue everyone out of existence.

exactly, a good lawyer could certainly get some cash out of the some of the beatles songs where mccartney does a little richard impression...

if rhythmic pattern and VIBES are enough for a lawsuit, bo diddley's family is about to be filthy stinking rich...

can rick rubin now sue anyone who puts a guitar hit over an 808? or dr. dre sue anyone who uses a minimoog lead (could then the ohio players countersue him?)?

could 3 6 mafia sue lil ugly mane and young lean out of existence?

if this stands, it's basically a wholesale rewriting of the musical copyright laws in the US...

droid
22-03-2015, 12:36 AM
Lets clear up a few things here.

Blurred Lines is an atrocity.

AFAIK, it was Thicke's and Williams' previous admission that they had consciously copied the tune that was their downfall.

Pre-emptive copyright lawsuits are a bad idea.

:)

NATO
22-03-2015, 03:17 AM
Have you been on Dissensus before? ;)

:D:D:D

Leo
22-03-2015, 04:19 PM
if rhythmic pattern and VIBES are enough for a lawsuit, bo diddley's family is about to be filthy stinking rich...


other millionaires in waiting: phuture, for every subsequent acid track with the squiggly 303 squelch; the basic channel guys, for every later dub techno track (looking at you, echospace), and the winstons/c.g. coleman ("amen, brother" indeed!)

Slothrop
23-03-2015, 12:05 AM
the basic channel guys, for every later dub techno track (looking at you, echospace)
Actually, I'm warming to the idea now.

IdleRich
23-03-2015, 04:20 PM
and the winstons/c.g. coleman ("amen, brother" indeed!)
Isn't there a whip-round on kickstarter for them (those who still live anyway) at the moment?