The seventies called and wants its music back
Robin Thicke and Pharrell can stop whinging about how the Marvin Gaye ruling will stifle creativity.
In order to stifle creativity you have to create something. Sampling music from the seventies doesn't count.
Why don't the record companies find some people with talent and create another decade and stop stealing music from forty years ago as if we would forget.
In the sixties and seventies we looked at what came before and built upon it to create something new. I'll even give the eighties a pass, it was crappy but at least it was new. The nineties and the naughts simply stole hubcaps and acted like it was a new Mercedes.
In conclusion, adding a new hook to an old song is not creation it is theft and that needs to be stifled. Maybe stifling theft will force artists to create something new and in turn perhaps force record companies to support artists who have a vision that doesn't include theft.
That's just my opinion, what is yours?
In order to stifle creativity you have to create something. Sampling music from the seventies doesn't count.
Why don't the record companies find some people with talent and create another decade and stop stealing music from forty years ago as if we would forget.
In the sixties and seventies we looked at what came before and built upon it to create something new. I'll even give the eighties a pass, it was crappy but at least it was new. The nineties and the naughts simply stole hubcaps and acted like it was a new Mercedes.
In conclusion, adding a new hook to an old song is not creation it is theft and that needs to be stifled. Maybe stifling theft will force artists to create something new and in turn perhaps force record companies to support artists who have a vision that doesn't include theft.
That's just my opinion, what is yours?
Comments
1) Using samples in creative ways is absolutely creativity.
2) Copyright law (not getting into how utterly ludicrously restrictive copyright law is...seriously it's more restrictive than patent law and inventing life saving items is a bit more important to society than writing a song, no matter how great) only protects lyrics and topline melody. There is no testimony in this case that either of those items were used in "Blurred Lines". The testimony boiled down to the structure and rhythm of the songs being similar. If you can sue someone for having a structurally/rhythmically similar song, music is dead.
"Blurred Lines" is a travesty, but that's just because the lyrics are all sorts of rapey. The decision in the "Blurred Lines" case is a travesty for countless other reasons.
Craig
As for "Blurred Lines," the first time I ever heard it was yesterday. So I guess it's fine with me if the record companies don't want to bother finding people with talent, since I apparently can't even find the record companies themselves anymore, or anyone associated with them.
Yeah, the '70s were awesome.
If we're talking actual '70s memories, this about sums it up for me...
Hell, George even stole the idea of stealing gospel because this wasn't the first time that gospel had been appropriated for popular music. Ray Charles had done it two decades before.
But the point is this, when he did it there was something new at the end of the day, not simply a new copy of the old thing which is what I think Blurred Lines is. Why not just play the old record if you are not adding anything new.
My point above wasn't really to pick on the '70s: I love the '70s! (I actually like some Bee Gees stuff a bit too)
But, the point is that every decade has it's great music; and every decade has it's fair share of crap. It's nonsense to say an entire decade did music wrong; some decades just might require looking a little harder. Which is the fun part anyway.
Craig
The 70s were allllllllright.
Craig
@amclark2
Naw, I'm pretty sure there is no legitimate excuse for the nineties
So yeah the Offspring is almost bad enough to write off a decade. But not quite. Electronic music of all sorts really came into it's own in the 90s. Hip-hop really developed in the 90s. And neither of those great development areas would have happened without sampling, appropriation, and sometimes outright stealing, but they did something wonderful new stuff with it. If that sort of thing doesn't happen in new decades, you end up with just years and years of retreads. Like the stupid 80s.
Also, reading rostasi's comment was the first time I ever made the mental connection between musicians losing their jobs to digitalization just the way so many in manufacturing lost jobs to automation. Puts Detroit techno in a whole new light!
That's the kind of thing I love about this place.
Music in the 70's for me
The Who
Led Zeppelin
Todd Rundgren
Sandy Denny
Kate Bush
The Clash
P Funk
Uk Reggae
David Bowie
Sunday Nights at the Roundhouse
Queuing up for standing tickets at the Rainbow
Seeing The Police at a local pub for nought
Waiting for the Old Grey Whistle test to come on hoping my parents were in bed
Its was much a melange of good music, away from the dross there was so much superb music which I still find out there and enjoy.
Lastly trashing my flared jeans in 1977, never to be worn again
so-called ‘larger’ ramifications of this case," though. They're not in charge of setting the record, straight or otherwise. It's history, it's not their record to set. And the idea that they're "misconceptions" is entirely their opinion. Most importantly of all though, even if their letter did comment on the "so-called larger ramifications," which it really doesn't, nobody will know what those are until the next time someone sues a songwriter or record producer over a new song having a "similar groove" or using an existing song as a "blueprint."
I'm not saying they're wrong in the particulars, nor am I accusing them of lying. I am saying they just don't know the future, and the fact that they would use that wording (as if nobody will actually even read the letter for comprehension) doesn't reflect well on them at all.
Let's be honest about what people are afraid of. A good example would be one of my favorite genres, shoegaze music. Would a jury of 12 typical people whose musical tastes are "conventional" even be able to tell any difference whatsoever between half the stuff in that genre? I not only don't think so, I know with absolute certainty they wouldn't. But if your response is that "shoegaze sucks anyways" or "musicians shouldn't make all those records that sound the same as all the other records in the genre," well, I hope you can guess what my reaction to that would be without my having to write it down.
While it may or may not be up to them to set the record straight, they do have a duty, at least to themselves, to clarify what they did or did not intend to accomplish with their law suit.
Marvin Gaye was and is a beloved artist by any measure of that word. And as the heirs and beneficiaries of his legacy they have a responsibility to Marvin Gaye's constituency to administer his legacy in a manner that is in keeping with the artist's vision and artistic statements.
It was a good move on their part to publish the letter for PR reasons. There is a lot of discussion floating around about stifling artistry and the public may have been confused by the marketing effort by the ones who don't create shit to portray this decision as anti-artist when in fact this decision protects real artist not the ones who simply profit from the artistry.
They actually do set a few things straight for the record to my way of thinking.
1. They are not anti artist, they are pro artist. This lawsuit does way more to protect artists than it takes away.
2. If you want to be a musical artist, write a fucking song. Just because you feel strongly about it doesn't make you an artist.
3. This is not tin pan alley, and with time comes progress. But just because we are living in the digital age does not mean the rules have changed. Don't steal other peoples shit.
4. The Gaye family is not intending to give Pharrell a fresh one by laying claim to the song Happy.
5. Robin Thicke is spoiled douche bag who needs to spend less time being a rock star and more time writing music.
OK maybe that last one wasn't in the letter and might be personal opinion but still...
Listen there is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from another artist, but when offered an hors d'oeuvre you take one not the whole plate. Puff puff pass.
This is how a real artist takes something old and makes something new