LAST EDITED ON 07-16-14 AT 03:04 AM (EST)

"some cunning linguist"

Heh. That comes closest to the spirit of the original. Along with Weird Al's Big Dictionary.

So have a Cheese Sandwich

Love it! I'm glad all the words were printed out.

I think he wrote it for me.

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

So I just saw a preview for Tea Leoni's upcoming new show "Madame Secretary", in which she plays the Secretary Of State. She responds to another character's query (I think the Chief of Staff) that she accomplished something by "circumnavigating your authority".

Now I know "circumnavigate" means "to go around" but I always thought it was used strictly in a geographic sense, i.e. to physically travel around a location -- "circumnavigate the globe"; "circumnavigate a war zone". It seems to me that the correct word here would be "circumvent", which also means to "go around", but in the sense of bypassing/ignoring regulations, red tape, other abstract obstacles etc., possibly through trickery, and has no geographic connotation.

So is Tea correct to use "circumnavigate"? It really sounded odd to me. Grammarians of OT, weigh in...

LAST EDITED ON 08-06-14 AT 10:53 AM (EST)

Disclaimer: I am a Grammarian in my mind only.

I am an advocate of word coinage and the inventive uses of words and phrases. I hate stodginess in language usage. It's an interpretive and creative skill.

But I agree, the use of circumnavigate seems unnecessarily clumsy and slightly inappropriate. Circumvent does seem to be closer to what she was reaching for.

Is she correct? Technically, probably so. Would circumvent have been more correct? I think so.

I like Tea Leoni though; the dialog (word usage notwithstanding) was sharp in the trailer, so I will give it a chance.

Odd as it sounds, Tea was correct. It was in the script! Unless she went off script, in which case it was an odd way to try to say the same thing. And it really makes no sense because if you circumnavigate you end up in the same place from which you began.

I didn't mean to blame Tea; I'm sure it was in the script.

I also agree with Kingfish: the show looks like it might be good.

LAST EDITED ON 03-11-15 AT 01:23 AM (EST)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robin-thicke-and-pharrell-lose-blurred-lines-lawsuit-20150310

No way should Marvin Gaye's estate have been awarded anything. "Blurred Lines" does not "steal" anything copyrightable from "Got To Give It Up". The Thicke/Williams team is right, this sets a horrible precedent for music and creativity.

Bieber Bash:

Justin Bieber has already set the musical and creative "horrible precedent" bar.

"The decision, which hinged on the fact that Gaye's family owned only elements of the sheet music to 'Got to Give It Up'".

Elements of the sheet music? How do they divide up sheet music into elements? Do they just own a few of the notes, or words? Or just page one and not page two? Chord progressions GCD, and not ADE?

They kept some elements and sold off others?

This had to have been a tough technical trial for a jury to deal with. And with Marvin Gaye estate on one side, it was emotionally weighted in their favor, I guess.

LAST EDITED ON 03-13-15 AT 01:35 PM (EST)

"The decision, which hinged on the fact that Gaye's family owned only elements of the sheet music to 'Got to Give It Up'"

That's a clumsy way for them to have worded it, but it refers to what aspects of a musical work are actually included in the work's copyright protection.

When you apply for a copyright registration on a musical work, you have to submit a "deposit" that represents a tangible version of it (since actual music is intangible). In 1977 when the Marvin Gaye song came out, the Library of Congress only accepted a notated version of a musical work (a lead sheet, published sheet music, musical score, etc.) as a deposit, so the sheet music is likely what the Library of Congress has on file for that work. I'm guessing that was a factor in the judge instructing the jury to consider the elements of the sheet music only. Much later on, the L of C started accepting audio recordings as deposits, which is probably what the "Blurred Lines" creators submitted.

Either way, the issue is what exactly the copyright protection covers. For a pop song, it's generally agreed that at a minimum the melody is covered as well as the lyrics, if there are lyrics. Beyond that, things can be subject to interpretation.

The harmonic progression - which may include, for example, the bass line - is usually considered as within the coverage when used in conjunction with the melody and lyrics, since a melody generally has to be supported by some harmonic underpinnngs -- but it is not generally considered covered as a separate entity of its own. (Otherwise three-chord rock songs like "Louie Louie", "Get Off My Cloud", "Hang On Sloopy", even "Summer Nights" from Grease would all be infringing each other since they have the same basic harmonic pattern.)

Nothing is cut and dried though, and that is why these situations get litigated (or, more often, settlements are finessed outside of court). I'm surprised this one went this far. I think you're probably right that sentiment toward the Gaye estate influenced the verdict. But I just don't feel there's any infringement of the actual material that would be covered by the Marvin Gaye copyright. The newer song is suggestive of the older one in its way, but that's as far as it goes.

Thanks BR, that does clear up my muddlement. I learned something here, no sarcasm intended.

So the comparison was between a notated version of the song and an audio recording.

A very tough comparison to make, I would think, seeing as how few jury members could probably sight read the music expertly enough to make that kind of comparison. It seems to me to be pretty impossible, in fact, to do that and come to the decision that they did since both sides would inevitably present different interpretations of the melodic side of Gaye's song.

This precedent is going to make a lot of music industry lawyer rich. Richer.

Aside: I had a friend who when inebriated would always bring out his guitar and bang out "G.L.O.R.I.A Gloria". It was another three chord progression, but I swear, I think he only used one. We, also being inebriated, would sing it at the top of our lungs.

Dam fine music back then.

LAST EDITED ON 03-12-15 AT 11:13 PM (EST)

So the comparison was between a notated version of the song and an audio recording.

As I understand it they were looking strictly at the sheet music for both songs -- "Blurred Lines" was eventually published in sheet music form even if the LOC deposit was the recording (you can buy sheet music for both songs online).

The Sam Smith camp had to include others with his hit "Stay With Me" recently. I don't even remember the details but do remember thinking "huh, I would never have come up with that similarity."

Our university encourages the use of a plagarism tool online for papers. Then you have to talk some good students off the ledge when their scores come back and the problem areas are commonly used phrases, etc!

And what is with artists wanting to copyright certain phrases that I have heard repeatedly way before their time!

LAST EDITED ON 03-12-15 AT 00:32 AM (EST)

The Sam Smith/Tom Petty agreement seems fair to me. The melodic phrase is exactly the same, with the same rhythm and the same chords underneath, and in both songs it's used for the title lyric, so it's the hook that you remember. And the Tom Petty song was a Top 12 hit, so it's not exactly obscure, it did get radio play (though I personally didn't remember it).

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/know-your-7-4-million-beef-robin-thicke-pharrell-and-blurred-lines-vs-the-estate-of-marvin-gaye/

So if I'm interpreting this correctly, Thicke basically lost because the jury took one look at him and collectively thought Someone has to hurt this jerk.

*poke*

You've been missed around here.

Very much so.

The Thicke/Pharrell team apparently did handle the whole affair jawdroppingly badly. I thought that by reviewing the sheet music alone, it would be so clear that the copyrightable elements of the songs are not the same, whereas using the recordings would have been more likely to push the jury in Gaye's direction. But, they blew it anyway.