Blurred lines ripped off the "feel"

SmoothOperator

Gold Member
That's a completely different argument than "drummers/composers aren't creative because the lack of copyright on drum beats provides no incentive to be so."

And why can't we assume that people like things that sound like other things they've heard? I think the pop music industry and the amount of money people spend to purchase music that sounds very similar to other music they've heard is a pretty big data set in favour of that conclusion.
Well, why aren't people happy with just listening to the original? It's a pretty big data point in my favor that people continue to buy different recordings, especially from different labels and different artists possibly in completely different genres. I think it is an unusual consumer that seeks out the variations on the same music. The derivatives may sell if the consumer is unaware that the variation they are buying is a derivative of another.
 

SmoothOperator

Gold Member
Genres are defined by things sounding alike.

Good luck on your fishing expedition. I'm out.
I don't disagree, I'm just saying. Individual recordings from things like "best of" Genre X "volume III" don't sell all that well. DJ's like them for background music.
 

mikel

Platinum Member
You know, I wouldn't really see myself going to see a gig with just one guy playing the drums, either.

A sampler is more of a sequencer than a live instrument. Of course, it can also be used as a live instrument, and there are people who can make it very interesting. But it's purpose is not really for live playing.

I've seen a million and one bands playing live with "real" acoustic instruments that bored me to death. Just because someone plays an instrument live doesn't make it interesting or of value in any way.

In the end, good music is good music, regardless of the means used to make it


Couldnt agree more. My point was I would go and watch almost any group of musicians making music, I would not go and watch a DJ or a guy with a sampler. If I want to listen to recorded music I can do that at home.

A young band, however limited there talent, giving it everything live, beats the hell out of a sampled, polished over produced recording for entertainment, anyday. Its a unique moment in time, for me at least.
 

larryace

"Uncle Larry"
[/B]

Couldnt agree more. My point was I would go and watch almost any group of musicians making music, I would not go and watch a DJ or a guy with a sampler. If I want to listen to recorded music I can do that at home.

A young band, however limited there talent, giving it everything live, beats the hell out of a sampled, polished over produced recording for entertainment, anyday. Its a unique moment in time, for me at least.
A great live band is entertaining. A sucky live band is almost as entertaining in the opposite way. They are both entertaining.

If what you do finds an audience...that's the goal. The means is irrelevant. A guy with a pure force of personality can listen to his Ipod with headphones all by himself up there and entertain people.

Not me, just saying lol.
 

poika

Silver Member
[/B]

Couldnt agree more. My point was I would go and watch almost any group of musicians making music, I would not go and watch a DJ or a guy with a sampler. If I want to listen to recorded music I can do that at home.

A young band, however limited there talent, giving it everything live, beats the hell out of a sampled, polished over produced recording for entertainment, anyday. Its a unique moment in time, for me at least.
That's cool. I love a good live band, but I don't have that much interest for the not-so-good ones. Unless people I know are playing, obviously :D

But I also enjoys me a good dj set, there's quite nothing like dancing the night away. Actually, you don't really go to see a dj, you go to hear a dj. Never really thought about that before
 

philrudd

Senior Member
Strange...I didn't realize I was in such an decided minority.

First time I heard 'Blurred Lines', I was at work, and a co-worker mentioned how she liked the song. I immediately recognized the tune, and told her it was someone (I'd not heard of Robin Thicke) recording new vocals over the backing tracks to 'Give it Up', and played her the Gaye song. She'd never heard the original song before, but she agreed it was basically the exact same tune.

I always thought 'Lines' was a blatant rip-off. I applaud the jury's decision. It's 'Sweet Little Sixteen/Surfin' U.S.A.' all over again.
 

boomstick

Silver Member
I'm on the fence. This is such a difficult issue. I wonder if a person's opinion is affected by their knowledge (or not) of Gaye's song. I love "Got To Give It Up" and it's been in my collection for many years, so when I first heard "Blurred Lines," I initially thought it was a GTGIU remix. There are certainly differences in BL, but the differences were very off-putting to me. It was like I kept trying to hear GTGIU but there was all this other stuff drowning it out. I couldn't even get through the whole song. That was the first and only time I listened to BL, so I listened to it for a second time just now, and had the same experience. I literally couldn't listen to the whole song because I kept wanting to hear GTGIU instead. Does that mean the song is a rip-off? I don't know. If it were that much of a rip-off, it seems like I should have liked it more.
 
G

Ghostnote

Guest
I admit, the first time I heard the song it didn't occur to me that it was a rip off. Now that I've watched a comparison clip, it seems blatantly obvious that it was an attempt to copy the song. I say attempt because Got To Give It Up is a great song, while Blurred Lines is tacky and annoying, sort of like Robin Thicke. I consider the ruling fair compensation for outraging the public decency and subjecting us all to that noise pollution that seems to pass for music these days.
 
Top