Like a lot of people, I love music. Most of my family was born and raised near Detroit, Michigan, so I heard a lot of Motown and soul music growing up. My father was always into classic rock, my mother loved the oldies, and my younger brother was typically into what was new and popular, not to mention some friends of mine whom were into rap and country. So I was exposed to a very diverse array of music throughout my childhood, young adult, and adult years, and have been able to garner a liking to at least one artist or a handful of songs in each and every genre. I've never been too big into rap or country, but still like a few songs from Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Warren G, Johnny Cash, and a few other artists from those two genres. I've also never gotten into boy bands and the like, but would be lying if I said I didn't find a couple such songs to be regrettably catchy. My two favorite genres, though, have to be rock and soul. From classic to southern to hard to alternative to even '80s, I've always loved rock. The same goes for soul. I'm amazed at all the odd looks I get from "middle-aged" people (to be nice) when I play '60s Motown songs on the jukebox at a bar. Yes, I'm often times referred to as an "old soul." Regardless of the fact that I enjoy Marvin Gaye's music, the Isley Brothers, the Temptations, Frank Sinatra, Franki Valli & the Four Seasons, Three Dog Night, the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, Stevie Wonder, and a host of other musicians whom were around well before my time, like most people (I think), my favorite artists are ones that were around (started) as I was growing up and I've enjoyed listening to for about as long as I can remember. So while I hold great respect and admiration for the artists that came before and influenced my favorite bands and musicians, that still doesn't detract from the fact that these very artists and musicians are still my favorites.
Having said all that and while I much prefer Marvin Gaye's music to Robin Thicke's, I don't think Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams should have been punished at the tune of $7.3 million for the similarities between their song "Blurred Lines" and Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up." Without question, the similarities are there, yet I still don't believe it was a direct rip-off and worry that due to the result of this case, it could prove problematic for new artists and the music industry in general somewhere down the line (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY).
While no artist nor song should be completely ripped-off by another, influences and similarities will always be present. Every musician was influenced by another, and the more music that gets released, the more likely it is that we'll hear a song and say, "That part sounds like the song, X by Y." Nirvana is often times labeled as the most influential band of the '90s, but guess what? They had their influences. The band even faced some reports that their song "Come As You Are" was a rip-off of the song "Eighties" by the band Killing Joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8saQ3PtCrro). Led Zeppelin, regarded as one of the greatest rock bands in the genre's history, also faced accusations of ripping off other bands. This includes even the iconic opening riff from the song "Stairway to Heaven" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czfI66yQUkk).
I guess the big question is, "Where do we draw the line?" At what point does a song go from being influenced by another to being a rip-off of it? It's inevitable, given all of the different sounds we've heard musicians project through our speakers over the years, we're going to hear similarities and influences among them. So at what point can we say, "That part of the song was a complete rip-off of another one"? Given the differences I heard between "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up," I guess I just worry that the before-mentioned line in the sand either isn't very stable or is moving toward the point where new artists, fearful of such inevitable sound similarities and potential lawsuits, decide to forego such risks and find work in other professions.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/03/_free_from_their_chains_come_on_nona_gaye.html
Having said all that and while I much prefer Marvin Gaye's music to Robin Thicke's, I don't think Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams should have been punished at the tune of $7.3 million for the similarities between their song "Blurred Lines" and Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up." Without question, the similarities are there, yet I still don't believe it was a direct rip-off and worry that due to the result of this case, it could prove problematic for new artists and the music industry in general somewhere down the line (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY).
While no artist nor song should be completely ripped-off by another, influences and similarities will always be present. Every musician was influenced by another, and the more music that gets released, the more likely it is that we'll hear a song and say, "That part sounds like the song, X by Y." Nirvana is often times labeled as the most influential band of the '90s, but guess what? They had their influences. The band even faced some reports that their song "Come As You Are" was a rip-off of the song "Eighties" by the band Killing Joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8saQ3PtCrro). Led Zeppelin, regarded as one of the greatest rock bands in the genre's history, also faced accusations of ripping off other bands. This includes even the iconic opening riff from the song "Stairway to Heaven" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czfI66yQUkk).
I guess the big question is, "Where do we draw the line?" At what point does a song go from being influenced by another to being a rip-off of it? It's inevitable, given all of the different sounds we've heard musicians project through our speakers over the years, we're going to hear similarities and influences among them. So at what point can we say, "That part of the song was a complete rip-off of another one"? Given the differences I heard between "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up," I guess I just worry that the before-mentioned line in the sand either isn't very stable or is moving toward the point where new artists, fearful of such inevitable sound similarities and potential lawsuits, decide to forego such risks and find work in other professions.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/03/_free_from_their_chains_come_on_nona_gaye.html
Comments
Post a Comment