Entertainment

Pharrell Tells Jury He Didn’t Copy Gaye Music for Hit Song

Published

11 years ago

March 5, 2015

Pharrell Williams leaves Los Angeles Federal Court after testifying at trial in Los Angeles, Wednesday, March 4, 2015. The Grammy-winning singer Williams says he wasn't trying to copy the late Marvin Gaye's music for the hit song "Blurred Lines," but he was trying to evoke the feeling of late 1970s tunes. Williams is being sued by Gaye's children, who claim "Blurred Lines" improperly copies their father's hit "Got to Give it Up." Singer Robin Thicke and rapper T.I. are also defendants in the case. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

Pharrell Williams leaves Los Angeles Federal Court after testifying at trial in Los Angeles, Wednesday, March 4, 2015. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Pharrell Williams told a jury Wednesday that he was trying to evoke the feel of Marvin Gaye’s music but did not copy the late singer’s work when he crafted the 2013 hit “Blurred Lines.”

Williams said he grew up listening to Gaye’s music and was familiar with his song “Got to Give It Up,” but did not use it as a basis for “Blurred Lines,” which was a hit for him and collaborators Robin Thicke and T.I.

“He’s one of the ones we look up to,” Williams said. “This is the last place I want to be.”

Williams, Thicke and T.I. are being sued by Gaye’s children who claim “Blurred Lines” infringes their father’s copyrights for 1977’s “Got to Give It Up,” but Williams’ testimony is crucial because he wrote the song’s music and most of its lyrics. Although Thicke received a songwriting credit on the song, he acknowledged earlier in the trial that he didn’t do much work on the song.

T.I.’s rap track was added later, and Williams said he wasn’t involved in its inclusion in “Blurred Lines,” which was nominated for a Grammy Award. T.I., whose real name is Clifford Harris, is expected to be among the case’s final witnesses on Thursday.

Williams spent more than an hour describing his musical process and he how he crafted “Blurred Lines” in mid-2012 in between working on tracks with Miley Cyrus and rapper Earl Sweatshirt. Thicke arrived after the music and lyrics had been written, Williams recalled. He quickly brought the singer up to speed and they began recording what would become 2013’s biggest hit song.

“We were bopping and dancing,” Williams recalled. “It was a cool night.”

His answers were sometimes too lengthy for U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt, who cut off Williams several times mid-sentence and didn’t allow him to elaborate on some of his answers.

“Blurred Lines” has earned more than $16 million in profits and more than $5 million apiece for Thicke and Williams, according to testimony offered earlier in the trial.

Williams said after the song was released, he saw similarities between “Blurred Lines” and Gaye’s work but said that wasn’t a conscious part of his creative process.

Richard S. Busch, who represents the Gaye family, asked Williams whether he felt “Blurred Lines” captured the feel of the era in which Gaye recorded.

“Feel,” Williams responded. “Not infringed.”

The case opened last week and featured testimony from Thicke, who told jurors that he took a songwriting credit on “Blurred Lines” despite Pharrell doing most of the work.

Thicke brought a bit of showmanship to a trial that has focused on minute details of chords and sheet music. He performed elements of “Blurred Lines” and hits by U2 and The Beatles to show how different songs can include similar-sounding musical elements.

Williams did not perform any music during his more than hour of testimony, and complained that audio comparisons of “Blurred Lines” and “Got to Give It Up” had been created in a way that made them sound similar.

Despite the lack of vocals on the tracks, Thicke bobbed his head while his hit was played.

The trial has included detailed analysis of snippets of chords and notes from both songs, all created in the same key. Jurors have heard “Blurred Lines” and lawyers for Gaye’s family wanted the panel to hear “Got to Give It Up,” but Kronstadt has limited how the song can be presented in court. Rulings state Gaye’s song can only be played as it appears in a sheet music submitted to get the song copyright protection.

Williams’ career as an artist-producer has been booming in recent years, with the singer performing his hit “Happy” at the 2014 Oscars just weeks after winning three Grammy Awards for his work with Daft Punk.

He also serves as a judge on the NBC competition show “The Voice.”

___

Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Pharrell Tells Jury He Didn’t Copy Gaye Music for Hit Song

Don't Miss

Bay Area African American Women in Music: Jazz Singer Mary Stallings Still Feelin’ Good After All These Years

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OP-ED: AB 1349 Puts Corporate Power Over Community

Since Ticketmaster and Live Nation merged in 2010, ticket prices have jumped more than 150 percent. Activities that once fit a family’s budget now take significant disposable income that most working families simply don’t have. The problem is compounded by a system that has tilted access toward the wealthy and white-collar workers. If you have a fancy credit card, you get “presale access,” and if you work in an office instead of a warehouse, you might be able to wait in an online queue to buy a ticket. Access now means privilege.

Published

2 days ago

January 9, 2026

Oakland Post

Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

By Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

As a pastor, I believe in the power that a sense of community can have on improving people’s lives. Live events are one of the few places where people from different backgrounds and ages can share the same space and experience – where construction workers sit next to lawyers at a concert, and teenagers enjoy a basketball game with their grandparents. Yet, over the past decade, I’ve witnessed these experiences – the concerts, games, and cultural events where we gather – become increasingly unaffordable, and it is a shame.

These moments of connection matter as they form part of the fabric that holds communities together. But that fabric is fraying because of Ticketmaster/Live Nation’s unchecked control over access to live events. Unfortunately, AB 1349 would only further entrench their corporate power over our spaces.

Power over live events is concentrated in a single corporate entity, and this regime operates without transparency or accountability – much like a dictator. Ticketmaster controls 80 percent of first-sale tickets and nearly a third of resale tickets, but they still want more. More power, more control for Ticketmaster means higher prices and less access for consumers. It’s the agenda they are pushing nationally, with the help of former Trump political operatives, who are quietly trying to undo the antitrust lawsuit launched against Ticketmaster/Live Nation under President Biden’s DOJ.

That’s why I’m deeply concerned about AB 1349 in its current form. Rather than reining in Ticketmaster’s power, the bill risks strengthening it, aligning with Trump. AB 1349 gives Ticketmaster the ability to control a consumer’s ticket forever by granting Ticketmaster’s regime new powers in state law to prevent consumers from reselling or giving away their tickets. It also creates new pathways for Ticketmaster to discriminate and retaliate against consumers who choose to shop around for the best service and fees on resale platforms that aren’t yet controlled by Ticketmaster. These provisions are anti-consumer and anti-democratic.

California has an opportunity to stand with consumers, to demand transparency, and to restore genuine competition in this industry. But that requires legislation developed with input from the community and faith leaders, not proposals backed by the very company causing the harm.

Will our laws reflect fairness, inclusion, and accountability? Or will we let corporate interests tighten their grip on spaces that should belong to everyone? I, for one, support the former and encourage the California Legislature to reject AB 1349 outright or amend it to remove any provisions that expand Ticketmaster’s control. I also urge community members to contact their representatives and advocate for accessible, inclusive live events for all Californians. Let’s work together to ensure these gathering spaces remain open and welcoming to everyone, regardless of income or background.