Motown Legend Reacts To 'Blurred Lines' Verdict | msnbc
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 бер 2015
- Musician Jack Ashford, the percussionist who played on Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give it Up", offers his thoughts on the "Blurred Lines" verdict.
» Subscribe to msnbc: on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
About: msnbc is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives. Reaching more than 95 million households worldwide, msnbc offers a full schedule of live news coverage, political opinions and award-winning documentary programming -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Connect with msnbc Online
Visit msnbc.com: on.msnbc.com/Readmsnbc
Find msnbc on Facebook: on.msnbc.com/Likemsnbc
Follow msnbc on Twitter: on.msnbc.com/Followmsnbc
Follow msnbc on Google+: on.msnbc.com/Plusmsnbc
Follow msnbc on Instagram: on.msnbc.com/Instamsnbc
Follow msnbc on Tumblr: on.msnbc.com/LeanWithmsnbc
Motown Legend Reacts To 'Blurred Lines' Verdict | msnbc
![ЛЕБЕДЕВ у ДУДЯ: муху не обманешь 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E74h5fvVrqs/mqdefault.jpg)
give this man a zillon dollars,, he can make a sound with paper.... wow just wow....
So that's the sound in pt 2 towards the end awesome
Lawyers will be the death of music.
I'll bring it back to life. Don't worry.
Thieves will be the deaf of music
@@christinagraham2915
That’s right.
Make your own sound.
@@christinagraham2915
Good artists borrow. Great artists… you know the rest.
28 song writers on Beyoncé’s last album tells you where it ended up going .
One of the last of the Funk Brothers. Every Motown song where you hear the tambourine comes straight from this gentleman’s skilled hands.
Can't believe this was upheld, it's beyond a joke.
Original creative artist and writers disagree with you.
Encyclopedia Brown Im guessing your not a musician
Bee Jeez “your” ? I’m guessing “you’re” not an English teacher. lol.... got to give it up on that one ua-cam.com/video/LHjABt8r1vI/v-deo.html
@@ripDenmarkVesey When you run out of arguments so you attack their grammar…
@@btat16 or when you so dumb they don’t wanna spend brain cells on you. So grammar is easier to make stupid people more mad🤣 look at you. Mad
So all Trap rappers shud sue each other
Agreed
I did many Many guitar sessions at Motown back in the day, and you'd be shocked at the amount of tracks they borrowed from. This is the lawsuit that should have never been. Saddened for the whole industry...
I guess in rap..you can all sue everyone for the same rythm and sound.
THE STUDIO all about samples, pharrel has been known for hip hop - hes an amazing producer, not fair to sue for 5mil.
No not really
Oooo hot take
Rappers HAVE been sued for using unauthorized music samples soooooo ?
@@ripDenmarkVesey he's talking about how most new rappers sound the same today. There arent many true tastemakers anymore
so at 1st he thought that the 2 songs didn't sound the same, but changed his mind after finding that robin admired gaye, etc. so if robin hadn't said anything, they wouldn't have sounded the same? what does he think we're smoking? lol.
Ikr!
He got a piece of the pie
He’s because of the admiration it’s more likely that it was stolen.
At least he doubted before
Blurred Lines is not a copy of "Got to Give it up". But the drummer interviewed made a brilliant point that Pharrell basically talked himself into losing the case by mentioning Marvin Gaye so much. Probably right. I like Albert Hammond, songwriter of "It Never Rains in California" who had someone use part of one of his songs and he signed off on it and added that he never will bring a lawsuit over songwriting. There are other songwriters who don't care--they don't get caught up in the litigation attitude.
in an interview Robin Thick said he wanted to do a song inspired by got to give it up.....if you know music he you will know its a copy.....imagine you write a song, it becomes a hit and a few years later someone copy's it without out any writers credit you would say something to
@@capcitymediagroup831 inspired =coping. 😂😂 learn more English
It’s that a copy. It’s just a rip off from got to give it up. Simple as that.
But Radiohead knew that they should immediately pay Albert for their take for Creep. They honestly gave in.
The minute I heard the song, I knew immediately where they got it from. The notes aren't exactly the same, but the sound of it is more than similar enough. This was before the case, BTW
You could almost say the line between the two is.... blurred.
This is like someone trying to copyright the note "E" on a guitar - do they sound the same, yes... are they the same, no.
Exactly. Every folk singer with an acoustic guitar is infringing copyright by this logic.
What an ignorant NON-SEQUITUR.
@@brotherfugue just a bad analogy. Not a non-sequitur
@@btat16 Check the definition, then tell me where the statement is illogical or fallacious.
@@brotherfugue You’re the one that called the comment a non-sequitur, so why should I prove your comment?
Omg I LOVE that guy’s voice!!!
He’s in the documentary ‘Standing In The Shadows of Motown’
If they're worried about the instrumentation, then lets sue all the jazz musicians then, because they use the same exact instrumentation as all other jazz quartets! And lets sue the orchestras too, orchestras use strings and horns and percussion! That is a total rip off of mozart! God, the mob mentality is unreal.
This is exactly what Pharell and Thicke should've said verbatim on TV.
Interviewer: so at first you didn’t think they sounded the same but then over time you did. What made you change your mind?
Jack: the god dam money changed my mind thank you very much
Money
I love this guy, pure genius
"If you had an incorporated some of the things that were used in Marvin's version, you would have seen a closer similarity"
I'm confused. What does he mean? It's not currently plagiarized enough to be a copy, but if it tries really hard, and eats all its spinach, one day it might grow up big enough to be a copy?
You just don’t understand it if it isn’t said in a white way! You just didn’t chose to comprehend. He basically said if they use all the similar instruments it would sound even more alike ..
It was copied just accept it
He got paid clearly
This sets a dangerous precedent for artists and producers like myself. To be sued over influence and 'feeling' when the similarity is based on influence and not copying anything in the song itself. The line that solidified this case was when Robin or Pharrel said 'They were listening to a lot of Gaye in the studio'. That was used against them in conjunction with the song itself.
Honestly, when i heard "blurred lines" i thought it was a remake of "got to give it up"... thought Pharrel and them actually sampled the song.
Even a deaf person would recognize that track by Marvin Gaye
Me too, I instantly thought of Give it Up the first time I heard blurred lines.
@@princessfrancois8225 a daft man would tell you that.
MARVIN GAYE should never be disrespected like that. Some MF making money on Marvin G.
its safe to say that none of you know what you are talking about
@@greeny6462 I would say it's safe to say that about u.
We need more cowbell!
I GOT A FEVER
Lesson learned: careful how u play the cowbel
I think you’d need to listen to the case in its entirety to understand the outcome. This gentleman makes some valid points.
Well I grew up in the Marvin Gaye era, & LOVED his music! Now? I won't be listening to it. EVER. I get so sick of these lawsuits. Gaye's estate should be honored that someone loved his music enough to emulate it, in his own way. I hear songs all the time, that make me think of songs from my past. I then go to UA-cam to LISTEN to that past song & bring back memories. So to me, songs sounding like other songs, is a GOOD thing for BOTH artists.
I feel your frustration but please don't take it out on the beautiful music of Marvin. It's not him, it's the estate making all of these bogus lawsuits.
Ha! You’re as dumb as the gaye family!
This case still amazes me. If a song is technically the melody and lyrics. Why is Pharrell in court. If musicians can sue for songs having the same or similar feel. Then we’re all done with music. Harmony and Rhythm cannot be copyrighted. I mean how many songs have the same rhythm to there C major chords but have different melody + lyrics (songs) on top? A lot. If I were Pharrell. I would’ve back sued for wasting my time in court.
This is so insane. There are plenty of genres of music which have the exact same characteristic in EVERY SONG. Some are defined by a single rhythmic style.
If we're going to copyright simple percussion patterns, we've really lost our minds
reggae is the perfect example!!
It happens more than we realize. Think about it. Listen to Te Amo by Rihanna and not think of The Sweetest Taboo By Sade, then listen to The Guitar Riff of Fun Fun Fun By The Beach Boys and not think of Chuck Berry's Johnny B. Goode, then listen to Church Of The Poison Mind, and not think of Stevie Wonder's "Uptight". Also, "More Than Yesterday" by The Spiral Staircase sounds a little like "Can't Speak French" by Girls Aloud A UK Group, and listen to I'm A Girl Watcher by The O'Kaysons and not think of Jackie Wilson's Higher & Higher.
Agreed. Thicke didn't actually have anything except a similar backing track, but it just means both songs are of the same genre in my mathematical conclusion.
@@emosteve6816 i think the most telling that pharell copied is him saying that he "reverse engineered" the song
fr Skrillex could sue almost every single dubstep musician on the planet
whoaaaaa!! all these years that sound is confirmed!! Salute!!!
lol. sue all the DJs then for stealing samples. sue all the Blues Players. Chuck Berry must've own a gazillion mansions now.
I guess if anyone makes a parody of any Marvin Gaye song,..you will still be sued.
If you make a parody of any song without permission, you might be sued...
CardinalEgan There's a lot of them here
in UA-cam. But I think they are legit, such as explained here : borgus.com/legal.htm
Kinda the opposite actually. Parody is it's own protected form of expression. A copy makes use of musical elements for their own merit. A parody is a whole other art-form that makes use of a previous work for an entirely different artistic purpose (in legal terms, a "fair use"). iirc, Coolio wanted to sue Weird Al over Amish Paradise, but had no grounds to do so.
@Randolph Carter : moreoever, I don’t listen any similarities on “Blurred Lines” melody (following lyrics) only about bassline and rythme (but they are not really the same, both a pinch of reggae stuff inside)
Verdict was spot on....
What a very smooth man!
The first time I ever heard Blurred lines was when it was freshly released. I was together with a friend and we both said, after listening to 10 seconds , that it was very similiar to a Marvin Gaye Song. After 15 more seconds I remembered the name of the Gaye song. In my opinion *Blurred Lines gains much popularity from sounding very familiar even on first lstening* and that is basis enough to rule some compensation.
Was very lucky to live in this mans home after his ex wife Lorraine Chandler got sick and suddenly passed sucks the person who was renting to me was a squatter and the house is being damaged beyond repair pretty sure the third floor was used for visiting artists that were recording music in the home .
Wow, that’s a helluva story, so sorry to hear Mr. Ashford’s wife, Lorraine Chandler passed, she was an incredible musician in her own right.
So he changed his mind because Pharrell mentioned Marvin Gaye at some point.
The James Brown estate should be worth billions.
It was a straight up, heavily-inspired, rip of Marvin's classic. I use to play Marvin's "Got To Give it Up" acapella over Blurred Lines' instrumental and rock the spot. Blurred Lines was a great song but look where it game from... an even greater song.
The verdict wasn't a blow to creative freedom. It was basically a warning to songwriters that you can only borrow/steal up to a point.
Cowbell expert sets the story straight. News at 11.
This legal failure of understanding the particular originality behind the production of Blurred Lines seems almost as disappointing as the shrewd copyright control of the Happy Birthday song that has been contested through recent history.
Even this legend says it is too similar and too inspired. And he was the creator of this song and sounds.
Yes. This opened a can of worms and a blow to creativity.
Well said.
its crazy !!!!! omg it only shows that marvin gayes music still living in peoples hearts
of course it does.
Wait a sec! That's a wobble board! Rolf Harris, an Australian used it when he was recording 'Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport' back in 1963!
Yeah.. Rolf got into trouble not tying down his diderido .
Now I hear that Ed Sheeran may get in trouble for Sampling "Let's Get It On" for one of his Tracks. Pharell Williams may get in trouble in the future if folks think that Marvin Gaye's "Ain't That Peculiar" was used for "Happy" Written by Smokey Robinson & Fellow Miracles Warren "Pete" Moore & Ronnie White as well as his Longtime Guitarist Marv Tarplin who overall was the "Sixth" Miracle after Smokey's Former First Wife & Group Member Claudette.
Call me stupid, but I didn't know that journalist. He's likeable. He knows how to conduct an interview, and he's a great listener.
We need more cowbell guys!
People only seem to focus on this one song. He also stole the entire instrumental for the song Trouble Man from Marvin Gaye. He made his living copying Marvin Gaye.
Rolf Harris after this Geezer for pinching his wabble board next. Gott-cha Mate-ee
you could also bring the Back To Black album (Amy Winehouse) to court. Some heavy plagiarism going on there as well!
not really because Amy and her people got permission to use the songs first.
What about the name a.c. D.C. used it first
It was unprofessional to not settle this. Once they brought it to court and loss, it established precedence. They could have paid the estate $500K before the lawyers came into this. Once that happened, the cost inflated. Robin had not been on drugs himself, he would have finessed this and moved on. But those drugs gave him an exaggerated sense of self-importance. He knows what he did. Though musicians have made their claims against copyright, you cannot deny that this is more than an inspiration. If musicians can change their opinions based on greased palms then someone who has nothing to gain needs to make those decisions. They lost all appeals, so the precedence is set.
Sounding similar is not a case for infringement. Song copyrights cover melody and lyrics, nothing else. This was an ill informed judgment.
SLICK JACK!! still got it brother!! #LegendsONLYknow!! Dont' get it twisted!!
They should only allow musicians to sit on these juries
Rolf Harris played a wobble board
Marvin Gaye Own all musics in the world LOL
No. Just what he sung, wrote or produced.
...should be sued in return for driving a car with round wheels
Rolf Harris was doing the wobble board long before that.
The problem is with copyright law. What right do descendants have to the creativity and work of their ancestor? Copyright term should be life of the original creator or spouse + some reasonable time, like 5 years. (It's 70 years now.) Descendants should be responsible members of society and go make their own money.
Did you watch the deposition where Pharell couldn't identify notes and said he could read music but couldn't write it? So how does someone with no training in theory, composition, notation, composition, arrangements come up with this song? By listening to a similar song, having a Rhodes Piano in the same room and using three fingers to move two chords. That said, similar isn't the same and these two songs are different enough to not be the same.
"I need more" you know.....
Watch this UA-cam vid foe comparison
ua-cam.com/video/VK623Wb-cl4/v-deo.html
We wouldn't have any music genres or traditions if this rule against "copying another song's feel & style" was applied throughout history.
"I need more cowbell"!
To me, the cowbell groove from this sounds incredibly like the intro to the Stones's "Honky Tonk Women", just sped up.
@@AC-pv6ij Ask Marvin if Blurred Lines meets his approval. Oh wait! He's deceased.
The way he said (fantastic) LMBO 😂
The moral of the story is? Don't be the first to sue, be the first to be sued.
Jealousy.
I don’t hear it...I tried hard to see the similarities but this was a BAD decision.
This is ridiculous. All music is based on what has come before. It's how we learn, it is how culture is made. If we illegalize everything, we will have no music to draw from, there will be nothing left. New music will be all atonal noise, through fear of sounding like someone else. Leave the creative process alone, no one is really harmed by this - it has brought publicity to both and neither is left without a song. When we let the creative process happen regardless of rules, we all win. If Thicke (or his team of writers) straight up copied the track and tried to claim it as his own, then yes, that is stealing. This is not, it's a new song - not one I like, but still.
similar is not does not mean its the same..
$5 Million owed to Marvin Gaye Estate!!!!!
I think if Pharrell was honest and said that he was influenced and didn't read or write music...they would have won. Robin talking about being drunk all the time didn't help.
So basically this decision means : don't use cowbell. Apparently, now it's a propriety of Marvin Gaye's family
Apparently. Hands off the cowbells...God help us.
People are made that Pharrell tried to steal a legends music it’s crazy to me ..
The judges decision was based off of empathy not facts
Chris Hayes did nothing more than blur the lines between SMUG and PANDERING
All the comments here....everybody is now a lawyer and producer. Never made a song but start off with "I feel that......" When it comes to the law...the law is neither practical nor makes sense. It's neither right nor wrong. It's the law. Working at a radio station....as soon as I first heard Blurred Lines I immediately thought "Got to Give it Up". Didn't think much about it. Trust me if it wasn't a big hit you would not have heard nothing from the family
Cow Bells..Country music should be sued????
The verdict is a devastating attack on creative freedom. They literally didn't take _anything_ from "Got to Give it Up." The songs have entirely different melodies, different rhythms, different lyrics.
LastBref myb they should be creative and not rip ppl off , he did it with another song except it was exactly the same
Chief LSAH he didn't rip anyone off, if using the same style is ripping off then music will die very soon
monks9098 The definition of SONG has changed from "melody and timing and lyric" to incorporate other aspects.
True, the melodies between the 2 songs are different. But "Got To Give It Up" and "Blurred Lines" are defined differently, by their instrumental components.
Definitions shuft and change constantly. This is NOT the end of creative freedom. Just don't let your music sound so close to another person's and you'll be in the clear.
LastBref If they didn't take ANYTHING from Got To Give It Up, why do they sound so similar? I like Blurred Lines, but..... it does have similarities, glaring similarities to Mr Gaye's song.
Robin is the obe that made it a problem. He is the one that filed a "Preumptive Law Suit". He burst open the can of worms but lost. He was counting on the courts to allow him to "borrow " music influences, trademarks, from another artist and get away from it (as so many artists have done to African American creative artists in the past).
He should have quietly handled it out of court like Len Barry (1,2,3), Aerosmith (for a song that was similar to Standing in the Shadows of Love), and Dee Dee Sharp did with Mash Potato Time (similarities to Please Mr Postman) did... Add Marvin to the credirs, pay some money, split some royalities, and keep his dignity.
He's blown his career with this thing, and he's an extremely talented guy. He just needs to be more individually creative without getting his music so close to that of his heroes!
as soon as i heard Blurred Lines i knew it was a total rip. sorry fella, maybe you're just young and finally heard a worth while song. too bad it's stealing.
it s about time. i think it s good thing to understand that we can just copy anyone song.
ok just my opinion, i listened to "blurred lines" and i didn't think it was a copyright infringement. a little bit of something going on if you listen to both songs but not enough to take it to court
Its a flip. It sounds, in the end, not quite like the original. They clearly sampled the drums and vocal elements but that’s literally sampling.
THIS IS AMERICA. FRIVIOLOUS LAWSUITS! GREED IS THE ONLY REASON!
It's jealousy.
@@BruceBanner its not jealousy. You had real musicians who played musical instruments vs today sampling and digital noise. The human voice which for good singers is relative pitch vs auto tune which is perfect pitch an usually not possible for today's singers live.
it's called copy right/ protection for your creativity
That's the problem with *youngsters*, always want the _victory_..Handed to them!
cool cat
My great granny tapped her counter at 80bpm in 4/4 time, I OWN that ....PAY UP!!
Good verdict.
Teach 'em a lesson. Stop stealing other people's material and to claiming all the credit.
There are still new bands that sing new songs in the style of 50's, 60's, are they infringing too?
If someone copied anything from me, I would welcome it as long as there is no negative effect on me, my family, or anyone in this world. If you have the time to put out the effort (copied or not) and people like your product, go make as much as you can. People need to stop being so greedy with all these unnecessary lawsuits!
Like Tom Petty did. So what he’d say
They’re acting like it’s rocket science.
Marvin>Robin
So it’s illegal to be musically inspired by those before us. Got it. That trial was a joke btw. Lemme suggest that the musicologist in that case should retire ASAP. You had one job.
We neeeed... more.... cowbells
Respect to Marvin
Guess Marvin Gaye's estate should be sued for copying the drums and cowboy sound from literally everyone else who did it before. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim copyright over use of musical instruments, especially when those instruments have been used in that manner long before you did. America's copyright law is a joke for actually letting Marvin Gaye's greedy family members win.
I don't hear any similarities in the two sounds
I can’t stand the song blurred lines, but I love Marvin gays hoots give it up!
Who thinks this track coulda used a little more cowbell....?
I can sell millions of copies by making a noise with a paper.....said no on ever.... until he did
I think the song is a simplification of the Gaye track. It's an insult to suggest it's a rip off as the original is far more progressive with it's bass.This is sampling. No fuss, however... when you look at the other rip offs this guy has done (Trouble Man), you can understand why the Gaye family has had enough.
You cannot be a musician and never have heard Marvin Gaye. His music is part of the collective unconscious. All music after him, one way or another, has incorporated his heritage. In this case, maybe a little too much.
Being an old head, I recognized Mr. Gaye's song RIGHT off. They needed to pay for the use. End of story.
No they don't, just because a certain part of the song sounds similar doesn't mean it's an exact copy
@@chuydabeenah exactly, you cannot copyright the feeling of a song.
Dude just said he thinks the songs weren't the same and didn't have enough to denote plagiarism, but because Farrell is a fan and wanted to envoke some of Gaye's style that he supports the verdict? That is stupid. Musically the songs are very different. Only the tempo and groove are similar, because many of the same instruments were used, but that is poor precedent. Basically ruled out any other artist using bass, organ and cowbell at a 4:4 tempo. The Marvin Gaye Estate got away with copyrighting style over substance. If rulings keep coming in like this, the future of music is doomed.
I'm so glad for the verdict. It encourages producers to actually be creative and not rip off the actual creative people.
uh, that thicke dude admitted he ripped off marvin gaye. he was higher than a kite but he ripped him off!
You nailed it!!!
Or to at least give some respect with a little bit of, soulfully earned, gravy on top
THE NINJACAT Pharrell actually wrote it, Thicke just slapped his name on it.
Are you trying to say Pharrell Williams isn’t creative enough?