So it’s decided. Marvin Gaye owns a certain type of “feel.” And don’t try to re-create it — otherwise, like Robin Thicke and🐲 Pharrell Williams, you’ll end up owing the Gaye estate something in the region of $7.4 million.
Tuesday’s ruling that the song “Blurred Lines” stole from Gaye’s 1977 smash “Got To Give It Up” sent shockwaves across the music industry — and for good reason. Together, Thicke and🤪 Williams were estimated to have made close to $11 million from the song, so this payment will leave them with roughly just one-third of the profits.
A key factor in the jury’s decisio🧸n was based on the fact that they were given only the basic elements of Gaye’s song from the sheet music (which was protected by the estate) to compare to “Blurred Lines.” The vast majority of pop music is based on the same chords, played much the same way, and at a similar speed.
So of course they were going to find similarities. It’s obvious they share the same DNA, but 🦋the completed songs are clearly different. And if Thicke and Williams wanted to steal something outright, they wouldn’t be stupid enough to take it from a huge No. 1 hit single from one of America’s most beloved performers.
No music is created in a bubble, and whether consciously or unconsciously, it’s influenced by something — which makes the precedent set by the trial absurd and worrying. Does Bo Diddley’s estate get to begin litigation on everyone that copied his stuttering beat?
Does Kurt Cobain’s estate get to sue anyone who pickಌed up a guitar post-1991? And are generations of hip-hop acts that used uncleared samp🦋les even allowed to exist anymore? Somewhere in New York, the Beastie Boys are probably burning the master tapes of their seminal 1989 album “Paul’s Boutique” right now.
With Thicke in particular, there’s๊ a general sense of schadenfreude.
He’s been an easy target ever since the song came out, partl𓂃y for his sleazy image and the fact that the video famously (and quite pointlessly) featured danc🥀ing topless girls. Coupled with the lyrical intent of the song, which one blogger famously termed “rapey,” there will be a sense that Thicke got what he deserved. The jury was, we hope, oblivious to that information, for the sake of impartiality, but even during the trial, Thicke didn’t come across well, admitting that he was dishonest and that, following the song’s release, he did all of his press interviews drunk or high.
Attempting to pre-emptively sue the Gaye estate was also not a smart move. It would have been a far bett🐈er idea to pursue an out-of-court settlement, which is the norm in plagiarism cases.
B♛ut whether or not y꧙ou like the song and its artist, the court ruling on “Blurred Lines” doesn’t seem to take into account that 99 percent of pop music has been done before, in a slightly different form, by someone else. In fact, that familiarity is why we all continue to come back to it.