Blurred lines, forensic musicology, and music

[updated 3/17/15] Musicologists, and more specifically forensic musicology, are receiving some attention in the mainstream press lately over the lawsuit regarding whether Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams violated copyright law by essentially creating music substantially similar to Marvin Gaye’s music without permission or providing royalties to Gaye’s estate. (To make a long story short, jurors found Thicke and Williams guilty.) You might be interested in musicologist Joe Bennett’s analysis and commentary on the issue. I’m more interested here in the public attention to forensic musicology than the specifics of this case in particular. For instance, here are some news people engaging in some forensic musicology and analysis and here is quote by music lawyer Jonathan Altschul:

As many practicing music attorneys have experienced, issues regarding the lines between inspiration, accidental influence and infringement arise from time to time and are usually settled based upon the opinions of a handful of well-respected musicologists.

The attention of the lawsuit and popularity of Blurred Lines might spark a similar interest among students who are paying attention to the news. For instance, forensic musicologist Sandy Wilbur received press for telling jurors that the songs have little in common, whereas musicologist Judith Finell received press for demonstrating similarities between the two songs.

For several years I’ve suggested that music education ought to consider forensic musicology as a process and topic worth including in music programs. I recently wrote about an interesting similarity between a flute recording and a hip hop track and my article From musical detectives to DJs: Expanding aural skills and analysis through engaging popular music and culture discusses how students might engage as forensic musicologists (or musical detectives) as a form of developing and applying aural skills and analysis (as well as performing a musical role that exists in the world). While it may be difficult discussing this specific case in school, given how in many contexts Blurred Lines would be inappropriate in classroom or ensemble contexts, the larger issues surrounding the case offer an interesting entry point into the world of forensic musicology for music educators and young people. I personally think the case and surrounding discourse would be even more compelling had the judge allowed the “sound” of the music and recordings to be addressed as part of the lawsuit and decision!

The following online articles might generate some ideas for addressing aspects of the case and issues of copyright, creativity, musical engagement, and forensic musicology. For more specific ideas of how to address forensic musicology and related aural skills or analysis, consider taking a look at my article (if you don’t have access to General Music Today, feel free to contact me for a copy via email or in the comment section).

Articles of Interest in Relation to Blurred Lines and Forensic Musicology (Many might be used to inform and catalyze students’ engagement with these issues):

•  Robin Thicke, Pharrell Lose Multi-Million Dollar ‘Blurred Lines’ Lawsuit – by Kory Grow (Rolling Stone)
• Musicologist: Robin Thicke, Marvin Gaye Hits ‘Different‘ – by Mirna Alfonso (Highland Park-Mount Watshington Patch)
• Expert: ‘Blurred Lines’ hook, bass line similar to Marvin Gaye hit – by Victoria Kim (Los Angeles Times)
• Pharrell Williams Acknowledges Similarity to Gaye Song in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case – by Ben Sisario & Noah Smith (The New York Times)
• How the ‘Blurred Lines’ case could have chilling effect on creativity – by Randall Roberts (Los Angeles Times) (this article includes analysis of chord placement as a visualization)
• Here’s What Makes A Song A Ripoff, According To The Law: How you think about music ≠ how the courts think about music. – by Reggie Ugwu (Buzzfeed)
• Robin Thicke and the Art of Jacking for Beats – by Joycelyn A. Wilson (The Root) Note that this was published in 2013!
• Marvin Gaye’s Children Use Audio Mashup to Prove ‘Blurred Lines’ Is Infringing – by Eriq Gardner (Hollywood Reporter)
• Listen to the mash-up that proves Robin Thicke and Pharrell copied a Marvin Gaye song to make ‘Blurred Lines’ – by Aly Weisman (Business Insider)
• It’s okay if you hate Robin Thicke. But the ‘Blurred Lines’ verdict is bad for pop music. – by Chris Richards (Washington Post)
• ‘Blurred Lines’ Verdict: Music Lawyers Weigh In – by Harley Brown – (Billboard)
• This Is How Pharrell And Robin Thicke Lost That ‘Blurred Lines’ Lawsuit  – by Brenna Ehrlich (MTV)
• What’s Wrong With the ‘Blurred Lines’ Copyright Ruling – by Jon Carmanica (The New York Times) – great discussion of the role of standard notation and contemporary music creation in relation to copyright law and the case
• Blurred (Legal) Lines – Future of Music Coalition
• Gayes’ Expert Faces Absent Notes At ‘Blurred Lines’ Trial – by Daniel Siegal (Law 360) – includes some discussion of analysis
• Why Robin Thicke and Pharrell Should Appeal the “Blurred Lines” Ruling – by Corey Seymour (Vogue)
• The Blurred Lines of What Constitutes Copyright Infringement of Music: Robin Thicke v. Marvin Gaye’s Estate – McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
• Copyright Flaw: What “Blurred Lines,” Aloe Blacc, and Taylor Swift Tell Us About the Complexities and Problems Inherent in Music Copyrights and Royalties – by Mike Mauger (EarNuggets)
• Robin Thicke Judgment: The Day Copyright Law Died, Again [Opinion] – by Peter Kirn (Create Digital Music)
• ‘Blurred Lines’ verdict would rock Amadeus and other great composers – by Mark Swed (Los Angeles Times)
• Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and a Blurry Copyright Law? [Room for Debate] by Jonathan Horn, Ben Arthur, Dom Flemons, Sandra Aistars, M.K. Asante (The New York Times)

And of course a couple of obligatory YouTube Video Analyses & Mashups:

https://youtu.be/1mDvH2hwdbU

It is also worth reading Sandra Haurant’s article How do I become a forensic musicologist? featuring the perspectives of Joe Bennett. Here’s a key quote of Bennett’s that links back to the idea that having students engage as forensic musicologists offers opportunities to develop and apply aural skills and analytical skills:

You develop research and analytical skills and, perhaps most importantly, the objectivity you need to listen to music without having an opinion on whether it’s good or bad, but simply whether it’s the same or different.

Also consider taking a look at Bennett’s piece, The Impact of a good tune: Forensic Musicology as research.

Of course students can also share their opinions on what they think about music they are analyzing (see Randall Allsup’s and Marsha Baxter’s MEJ article, Talking about music: Better questions? Better discussions!  on questioning techniques related to listening). Consider having students engage as forensic musicologists in your programs and using this recent event as an impetus to explore a vast world of forensic musicology in relation to students’ musical lives.