DAMN PHARRELL it's ALL COWS EAT GRASS!!
LOL!
I didn't know about this so I just listened to the two songs. They both have similar percussion (I don't know what the instrument is, it's like someone tapping on a soup can) and both use a falsetto, that's about it. I don't think they should have bothered to sue first, no one would have noticed.
I noticed it on my first listen. So no, this would still be talked about even without the lawsuits.
I'm a huge, huge fan of Marvin Gaye, and 'Got To Give It Up' is one of my all time favorite songs. I love it.
I consider myself a music nerd, but I gotta say I don't think that 'Blurred Lines' sounds like a direct rip-off of Marvin's song. It's obviously inspired by it, and I can definitely hear the similarities in the bassline, but it's no more similar than countless soundalike rock songs that use the same riffs or 3-chord structure.
All the hate for Robin Thicke aside, does anyone actually think the songs are so similar that it constitutes plagiarism? Like worthy of a lawsuit? I guess that Marvin's estate is probably suing mostly as a reaction to the fact that they were sued in the first place.
What do you guys honestly think?
I'm honestly not sure about the legality of it. But even though Pharrell didn't literally go note for note and steal Got to Give it Up, it is too much trying to ape its groove and feel. I still remember listening to it the first time, and it was so obvious of a rip-off that I was a little disgusted, honestly. I have performed it in a few bands that I'm in, but mostly because of its popularity, not because I think it's a good song.
I equate this to a TV show or commercial which has a song that is so obviously trying to sound like the Mission Impossible theme (just as one example), but it isn't. Like the producers wanted to use the Mission Impossible theme, but couldn't because the royalties would be too high. So they hired some guy to write a song that sounds close enough to make you think of the song and its applications, but hopefully not get sued (because the melody and harmonic structure is changed
just enough to not be exactly the same).
Differences:
Different key - Blurred Lines is in G Major; Got to Give it Up is in A Major (one whole step up; not that this fact matters at all, as you can still rip something off but just change the key and it would still be obvious that you ripped something off)
Different chords - Blurred Lines is much simpler: It only changes from the I chord (G Major) to the V chord (D Major); Got to Give it Up is more complicated: I (A Major) - IV (D Major) - V (E Major) - I - II (B Major)
Different melody - Though, the overall delivery is similar, as they use falsetto all throughout the song
Different lyrical content - I don't think this was ever in contention; this lawsuit is more about the music.
Similarities:
The "Groove" - It's hard to describe, but it's the overall "feel", as well as the underlying rhythm. While the drum pattern probably isn't exact between the two, if you were to play the drum pattern for either song over the other, it would sound just right. Even down to the use of the cowbell in both tracks. The basslines, again while not being exact, are very similar in the attack and overall feel. Same for the keyboard.
I'm in a band that does a medley with these two songs, and the only thing we change is the key to Got to Give it Up (bring it down to G like Blurred Lines) and we obviously play the correct chord changes for each song. But otherwise we keep everything else the same. The drummer does the exact same pattern, we don't change the groove at all. It's almost interchangeable from that perspective.
Again, I'm not sure about the legality of it all. That's above my pay grade. But this song is obviously a rip-off. Just like Modern Combat mobile game is such a rip-off of COD: Modern Warfare.
