Pharrell Williams was given a lawsuit worth $7.3 million for the verdict in a trial disputing his famous song "Blurred Lines" credential's. The song is said to have a beat that is stolen from Marvin Gaye's song "Got To Give It Up". Williams, along with Robin Thicke are said to be "firm, rock solid in, the conclusion that they wrote this song independently from the heart and soul" (Kreps, 4). This lawsuit arguing "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up"similarities not only affects these two songs, but could cause conflict with music creativity for all musicians.
The main beats of both songs are very similar, which is what is resulting in the Gaye family filing a lawsuit. However, listening to both songs it is apparent that rhythm is used in very different ways. "Got To Give It Up" is a smooth, upbeat song from 1977 whereas "Blurred Lines" is a modern, pop song from 2013. When comparing both of these songs it is possible to tell they sound a bit similar but "Blurred Lines" had obviously taken the sounds and made it into something completely different with additions to other beats and instruments. Both songs were created from successful musicians who probably share the same understanding that their creativity to create music is important, so why is it such a big deal? Being that the songs have very different vibes it can easily be argued that the shared sound was used as inspiration and not meant to copy a song from Gaye.
Musicians all are creative artists, and much like artists they get inspiration from many things. If two painters were to both draw a bowl of fruit, each painting may have its own unique elements to it. However both artists used the same source for their inspiration. I think that in many cases, if a musician is inspired by another musician's music it should be flattering. Using similar sounds in music is interesting because musicians personal interpretations of it can have completely different meanings, thus creating completely different songs. It seems it would be unfair to limit the creativity in making diverse music if every beat was owned by someone. Yes, maybe credit should be given to the original musician, however, if the sound is turned into something completely new maybe we should respect their imagination.
Similar cases of shared tracks in music have happened with other songs such as "Under Pressure" by Queen in 1891, and "Ice Ice Baby" by Vanilla ice in 1989. In addition, "Call Me" by Blondie released in 1980, and "Uprising" by Muse released in 2009 also share similar sounds. All songs are successful, but are very different. What all of these songs have in common as well, is that the original songs were released years before the ones that were created from their sound's inspiration. I think this is important to point out that each new song had a completely different kind of music genre than the original, which goes to show how inspiration can come from any sort of music.
Musicians arguing over certain rhythm's that they claim to be their own seems to put a disability on creating new music. I think that maybe to ease any tension between artists there should be permission or credit given between the two for the shared sound. Williams fighting a lawsuit worth $7.3 million seems to be an extreme example of how the music industry has changed the way we hear songs. However, I believe all musician's should have the right to find inspiration from any source they want.
Good argument!
ReplyDelete