Marvin Gaye Lawsuit Creating Blurred Lines With Copyright Laws

I am Not totally upset that they lost the suit over that Marvin Gaye song, but let's be for real here.  Would they have lost that lawsuit if it were any other song and any other artist besides Marvin Gaye.

Every so often, when I really need to clean my eyes out with some of those really good tears that come only from the pit of emotion,  I stop and think to myself these words:

There'll- come a time...
...when the world won't be singing....

There are musical icons in our world...and then there's Marvin.

    Flowers won't grow, no, no no...
...and the bells won't be ringing.

     Who really cares.
Who is willing to try....to save a world.

 That is destined to die.
  - Save The Children (Marvin Gaye, What's Going On -1971)

Because of these words, I will never stop giving my time and energy to as many kids as God allows. Because of this man, Pharrell and Robin Thicke needed to hold up and recognize who and not what, they were being sued about.  Because of the song they chose to be inspired by "Gotta Give It Up", they needed to write a song that sucked a little bit more then "Blurred Lines" happened to suck.

In comparison, "Blurred Lines" does suck because "Gotta Give It Up" is a legendary tune that makes everybody want to get up an dance while "Blurred Lines" might be forgotten in a decade if this lawsuit doesn't keep it alive.  Already, it annoys the crap out of most of us who've heard it played way too much.  Thanks Top 40 radio.

Marvin Gaye is a worldwide  icon, not just an American one, and his music transcends race, generations and culture.  I can imagine playing this song on a boom box in the backwoods of Africa and having some bush people mis-pronounce the name "Maubin Geh" and join me in a dance to "Gotta Give It Up".  The moment the family expressed some concern with all of the millions made over the song, it would have been smart to cut a check in the honor of  Maubin Geh, the worldwide legend.

Copying The Groove

That being said, even Stevie Wonder, another person who has songs that we won't mind his family suing over once he's no longer alive, says that this lawsuit is baseless.  The song might have a similar groove to Marvin Gaye's legendary tune, but it hardly went the same direction once the lyrics begin, and you literally have to listen to the songs together to capture the fact that they copied the groove.

So how much should it cost to copy someone's groove?   Stevie is the most admired and copied artist that modern music knows of, and he has been through a lawsuit or two as a result of the widespread admiration of his groove.  Can Ariana Grande avoid how much she sounds like Cristina Aguilera or Mariah Carey in her voicing?   Haven't musicians always stuffed themselves into music studios and listened to the kind of music that inspired them to become singers and songwriters in the first place? Sam Smith apparently gave credit to Tom Petty for his epic song "Won't Back Down" that takes the same rhythm of Smith's recent song "All I Need".  Hopefully that song credit included some cash considerations that won't have Sam and Tom following a similar course with Smith's famous song.

Is there anything new under the sun?

I wrote all of that just to say that I am not excited by the idea that every two-bit artist might now be able to sue and win a case for simple songs that inspires other simple, but different songs.  This lawsuit sits well with me for one reason and one reason only.  I love Marvin Gaye enough to side with his misguided family even when it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so.

From the looks of this case's outcome,....... I know I'm not the only one (sung with a falsetto voice, a la Sam Smith).