With all due respect, I understand that each of those elements BY ITSELF is not copyrightable. However, they are the easiest parts for people to listen to in order to follow along with the composition to see how it’s just the same song.

Um. Nope. You’re just wrong. Hilariously so.

The bass, drums, and vocal patterns are all part of the composition – unless you are trying to deny that each can be written music (and for those who don’t think drums can be written, go find the sheet music to Frank Zappa’s The Black Page to understand more).

I didn’t deny that they can be a part of the composition. I’m saying that the vocal patterns and the crowd noises specifically were DEEMED IN THIS CASE TO NOT BE PART OF THE COMPOSITION. The very thing you are insisting is true is simply not true and the case specifically said that.

From the judges ruling in the freaking trial:

The Court continues to adhere to the view that the copyright deposit sheets, rather than the sound
recordings, define the scope of the subject matter protected by the copyrights

And also:

elements that appear in the Gaye sound recordings, but are absent from the
copyright deposit sheets — the only publications submitted by Defendants as evidence of their copyright
ownership — are not protected by the copyrights

So you can go on and on about how "the internet is a great resource if you use it" but it’s pretty clear you did not use it.

Similarly, your argument that the songs are basically the same is… well… wrong. http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines-copyright-decision-is-wrong

In fact, they’re not even similar. They’re set in different keys, with Thicke’s song in G major and Gaye’s in A major — but even if they weren’t, Gaye’s composition still has a different set of chords and Thicke uses a clever twist that Gaye doesn’t.

There are literally only two chords in “Blurred Lines”; a lot of people have inappropriately labeled it G to D, but it’s actually C/G to D. That’s one of the gratifying things about the song: because the C chord doesn’t have a C in the bass, it maintains tension throughout. It would’ve made an interesting, albeit short, feature for Owen Pallett’s Slate series: the genius of Williams and Thicke has the bass doing one thing, and everything else doing another.

This progression is known as IV to V, and it’s one of the most common set of harmonies in all of music; it happens in every single doo-wop song, and in roughly half of all pop songs and classical compositions. A bassline that never hits the root or truly resolves is unusual nowadays, but it’s actually the defining trait that makes the opening moment of “Blurred Lines” funky.

On the other hand, “Got to Give it Up” has twice as many chords as Thicke’s (four versus two), and includes the IV to V chord progression on every repeat. Each repeat resolves, never using the strange tension in the bass the way “Blurred Lines” does.

The strongest point to make here is that even if you put them in the same key, “Got To Give It Up” and “Blurred Lines” would not be mistaken for the same song. If the similarities in chords are enough for the songwriters to owe Gaye, than Smokey Robinson should hire a good lawyer; the chord progression to “Got To Give It Up” is commonplace in soul, and as the leading Motown songwriter, Robinson used IV to V on several hits a decade before “Got to Give it Up” was released.

So, yeah. Wrong, wrong wrong. What else you got?

In modern music, the use of samples and / or repeating sounds is part of the composition of the song. All of those things can be written in mustical notation and thus are part of the composition.

Right, but in this case THESE THINGS WERE NOT IN THE SCORE. NO matter how many times you insist they could be, they weren’t.

Now, playing the finished result (which is copyright in and of itself as a musical performance) and comparing it to another finished product (itself copyright) isn’t anything more than an easy way for people who are perhaps less skilled in the art of composition to hear the finished products and compare them. If it had no meaning, then the two songs would never have been played in court because it would be (in your opinion) a non-relevant comparison.

This is a confused mess of ignorant garbage. 1. Yes, the sound recording has its own copyright — but that copyright is not held by the Gaye family and was not even at issue in this case. 2. The sound recording copyright is not a performance copyright. That’s something entirely different. 3. The only issue in this case was the deposit copy copyright and THAT DID NOT include the elements you cited as similar (which, as noted above, aren’t even as similar as you claim).

Your wrongness continues to be legendary.

So, let’s make it clear: "bass line, beat, vocal style, crowd sounds…" ARE COPYRIGHTABLE as part of the composition. They cannot be copyrighted individually but as part of a composition, they could be. Not the "sounds" but the musical notes, pattern, and pacing as part of the composition.

And yet, they WERE NOT COVERED by the copyright in this case AS STATED BY THE JUDGE.

So, as an example, if there was no specific sheet music for the Marvin Gaye song, then the recording can serve the same purpose for proof of composition.

This was discussed in the case. You seem to be ignorant of that fact, but are mouthing off like an expert. You are wrong.

The internet is a great resource if you use it!

This is more ironic than you can possibly imagine.