How the song "Blurred Lines" made $16 million?

P

prodeucer

New member
Can someone break it down for me? I've never seen the video nor have I heard the song. Was it the radio rotation that boosted it (which I read radio plays/royalties isn't much in comparison to another outlet). Do video plays get royalties as well? I wasn't familiar with how the single did in the charts, nor if the album did well. I'm only familiar with Robin Thicke from his performance with Miley at the Grammy's. Maybe $16 million is worldwide not just U.S? If someone here could break down how a song could make $16 million enlighten me.

https://www.yahoo.com/music/blurred...bin-112624098686.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
 
Last edited:
Context clues in the article..."was the biggest hit in 2013". That let's me know that the Management teams of all the labels and artist/ Marketing teams/Accounting teams/Distributor's and at least 1 BILLIONAIRE went into the war room and had a full on "Art of War" style marketing campaign planned. Wiki.. Robin Thicke, scroll down and read the "Blurred lines" section...2013 was DELIBERATELY setup and funded to be Thicke's year. They were not pushing a free mixtape or gunning for instagram likes.

Handmade got it right, those are the mundane financial/legal mechanic's of WHERE the income is coming from. As a member here I'm sure you already knew at least some of that, if not all.

The HOW is all explained in the wiki write up. Old school propaganda level marketing, commanding of eye balls, scandal's, controversy, sex, exploiting media real estate, BIG BANK take little bank.:cool:

Oh yes, it is still on and cracking at the top, all the little guy's have taken the nuclear bomb at the bottom.
 
Last edited:
£16m is peanuts, considering that was the biggest song of the year.

The beatles have sold 2000 million albums, consider how much a record costs and imagine how much money that would be nowdays.
 
I've never heard of the song. I can't judge if it was ever a good song. Seems as if a major company can create the new "IT" song or artist by just shoving it up everyone's ass, and also can close their doors on the has-beens. I think this is happening with Lady Gaga, slowly. Her videos are cool, the songs on the radio seems average pop (if there was no video accompaniment it may not be as interesting, etc.). Some artists videos are on rotation 24/7 which makes the masses get hypnotized by it. I notice some smaller indie label artists do not get on the same level of exposure. In other words the playing field is not fair.

I think this happened with "hair metal" bands when their videos stopped getting played on MTV and radio as if the whole music industry coalition wanted to kill what's old so they can breathe new life into what will be new. If anyone here knows how grunge all came about, understand that Pearl Jam and Nirvana was actually a slow sell at first (people weren't used to that sound until they were getting over exposure on MTV and radio). The videos were OK but not to the level of "hair metal" bands. So I think the industry had to shut off "hair metal" so they can shove to the masses what will be the "new thing". The videos of grunge bands then became second nature and became exciting, BECAUSE it was the only thing on rotation.

It's like having 1 channel, you'd have no choice but to watch what's on.

Bloody Glove said:
Context clues in the article..."was the biggest hit in 2013". That let's me know that the Management teams of all the labels and artist/ Marketing teams/Accounting teams/Distributor's and at least 1 BILLIONAIRE went into the war room and had a full on "Art of War" style marketing campaign planned. Wiki.. Robin Thicke, scroll down and read the "Blurred lines" section...2013 was DELIBERATELY setup and funded to be Thicke's year. They were not pushing a free mixtape or gunning for instagram likes.

Handmade got it right, those are the mundane financial/legal mechanic's of WHERE the income is coming from. As a member here I'm sure you already knew at least some of that, if not all.

The HOW is all explained in the wiki write up. Old school propaganda level marketing, commanding of eye balls, scandal's, controversy, sex, exploiting media real estate, BIG BANK take little bank.:cool:

Oh yes, it is still on and cracking at the top, all the little guy's have taken the nuclear bomb at the bottom.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The huge thing that's wrong with this thread:

prodeucer said:
Can someone break it down for me? I've never seen the video nor have I heard the song.
Click to expand...

How can you start talking sh*t about the industry on the back of the "success" of a song you haven't heard? lol

Personally, I like the song. It's basically Marvin Gaye, so who wouldn't?

Plus, the video has that Emily Ratajowski chick with her tits out.

If you don't like it, you're mad. Or you're a feminist - ironically complaining about a feminist......

But listen... ERRYBODY GET UP!



P.S. It's the best pop song that's come out since like 2009 (Bar the Daft Punk/Pharrell track). Only song that got me on the dance floor in the clubs too.
 
Last edited:
finally saw it. I haven't heard the original Marvin Gaye version. If it's too close then yes his estate has the right to sue as the article I posted was about.

You'd only find this song good if you saw the video. if this came on without the video, it's average at best. But it's pop. I give props it sold much junk. As for the tits, it's only cool if you have no access to hardcore porn. The video is basically a bunch of average boys with 1 hot chick. I think it's "racist" they didn't show the black chick as much as the white chick...oh well.
 
prodeucer said:
finally saw it. I haven't heard the original Marvin Gaye version. If it's too close then yes his estate has the right to sue as the article I posted was about.

You'd only find this song good if you saw the video. if this came on without the video, it's average at best. But it's pop. I give props it sold much junk. As for the tits, it's only cool if you have no access to hardcore porn. The video is basically a bunch of average boys with 1 hot chick. I think it's "racist" they didn't show the black chick as much as the white chick...oh well.
Click to expand...

I heard the song before I saw the video... My opinion hasn't changed... Other than the fact that I've discovered Emily Ratajowski through the video, who I'd bang any day.

If you don't like that record... Then you probably don't like Pharrell... And for that matter, you probably don't like Marvin Gaye... So we'll agree to disagree on whether it's a good record or not.

I reckon the reason I liked it so much, is because it sounds so much like the Marvin Gaye record. A song I've loved since I was a kid. I'm not a big fan of new music generally... And anyone with the same attitude as I seemed to like Blurred Lines.

LOL @ the hardcore porn bit... If you can introduce me to a porn star who's as banging as Emily Ratajowski, go ahead.

 
Seems as if the idea for the video came first than the song. The song was already done to begin with (sampled), they just need to adlib some new words and ideas, IMO. So those 3 guys went and gathered up ideas for a video which is simply put 3 girls there with their tits out, rip off some Gaye song and make it their own. I think it's one of those songs where if there was no video, it would just be average IMO. I listened to the song while the video was playing, I wasn't paying much attention to the video. The song title tells me they had the idea for the video first before the song, "blurred lines", my assumption is the video would be based on "blurring" the tits for the censored version so people would then seek out the "uncensored version" to keep interests up. Regardless, great marketing. I'm assuming Emily is the main tramp on the video? Red hair?

I'm not old enough to be a Gaye fan, I know his name. But listening to the thing you posted Gaye clearly had soul than what the "Blurred Lines" singer.
 
Last edited:
prodeucer said:
Seems as if the idea for the video came first than the song. The song was already done to begin with (sampled), they just need to adlib some new words and ideas, IMO. So those 3 guys went and gathered up ideas for a video which is simply put 3 girls there with their tits out, rip off some Gaye song and make it their own. I think it's one of those songs where if there was no video, it would just be average IMO. I listened to the song while the video was playing, I wasn't paying much attention to the video. The song title tells me they had the idea for the video first before the song, "blurred lines", my assumption is the video would be based on "blurring" the tits for the censored version so people would then seek out the "uncensored version" to keep interests up. Regardless, great marketing. I'm assuming Emily is the main tramp on the video? Red hair?
Click to expand...

You are possibly right. Her:

0fcc0b7e7a9ba0fa1448ab3d761a9a4c.jpg

prodeucer said:
I'm not old enough to be a Gaye fan, I know his name. But listening to the thing you posted Gaye clearly had soul than what the "Blurred Lines" singer.
Click to expand...

How old do you have to be a Gaye fan? Music doesn't have age limits. I presume you mean you've just never listened to him cause he hasn't been on the radio?

I think Marvin Gayes track was much better. But Blurred Lines is probably in my top 10 pop songs of the 2000s/10s.
 
prodeucer said:
Can someone break it down for me? I've never seen the video nor have I heard the song. Was it the radio rotation that boosted it (which I read radio plays/royalties isn't much in comparison to another outlet). Do video plays get royalties as well? I wasn't familiar with how the single did in the charts, nor if the album did well. I'm only familiar with Robin Thicke from his performance with Miley at the Grammy's. Maybe $16 million is worldwide not just U.S? If someone here could break down how a song could make $16 million enlighten me.

https://www.yahoo.com/music/blurred...bin-112624098686.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Click to expand...

if you never heard blurred lines.. a) you've heard it but never realized it was blurred lines.. b.) you don't really pay attention to the songs around you with you should start to do...

anyway it was a smash crossover record over summer... doesn't surprise me..
 
True I may have heard it but never realized it because it didn't stick out. It would have "sticked out" had I seen the video. LOL.
 
prodeucer said:
True I may have heard it but never realized it because it didn't stick out. It would have "sticked out" had I seen the video. LOL.
Click to expand...

you should pay attention to every song... and try and understand what makes it hot as a producer... i mean that's what i do though.
 
"Jury finds Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke owe the Gaye family $7.4 million in damages."

'Blurred Lines' Verdict Has Music Industry Singing the Blues | Watch the video - Yahoo News

Not sure how the record company who put out the plagiarized song not have a clue how royalties work? Even Disc Makers has a template/blueprint on how to go through the process of a "cover song". Maybe they knew and just want the song to be in public eye by playing all of us that there is a lawsuit, to keep the song in public eye for years to come. I could be wrong. But anyone who does not know how to program a 4/4 drum machine beat would be easily impressed by "Blurried Lines", or perhaps there was not enough "ass" in the other videos out there (Minaj, J-lo, and that white rapper girl from Australia) that "Blurred Lines" became the better hit. "Anaconda" was lazy sampling.
 
Last edited:
prodeucer said:
"Jury finds Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke owe the Gaye family $7.4 million in damages."

'Blurred Lines' Verdict Has Music Industry Singing the Blues | Watch the video - Yahoo News

Not sure how the record company who put out the plagiarized song not have a clue how royalties work? Even Disc Makers has a template/blueprint on how to go through the process of a "cover song". Maybe they knew and just want the song to be in public eye by playing all of us that there is a lawsuit, to keep the song in public eye for years to come. I could be wrong. But anyone who does not know how to program a 4/4 drum machine beat would be easily impressed by "Blurried Lines", or perhaps there was not enough "ass" in the other videos out there (Minaj, J-lo, and that white rapper girl from Australia) that "Blurred Lines" became the better hit. "Anaconda" was lazy sampling.
Click to expand...

you're clueless. Blurred lines is an original composition. No sampling, no plagiarism. If you think it infringes on the gaye song, you have no ear for music.
 
"Blurred Lines" is in fact an original composition. It's just that when you take into account the vibe of the song, the current laws and the fact that a jury verdict can be completely unpredictable.

If you want more details that the jury probably took into account when they made their decision listen to this podcast Music Popcast - Blurred Legal Lines | Listen via Stitcher Radio On Demand

it goes into great detail!

One of the biggest factors is that Robin Thicke and Pharrell both, in multiple interviews, said that they were inspired by Marvin Gaye's song and were vibing to it, but when they went to court they tried to act like they don't understand why anyone would think the songs were similar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top