The great novelist and columnist Tracy Quan (whose website we designed, by the way) recently wrote in her column about atheism for The Guardian , that music is inseparable from religion. She's right. Some of the greatest music ever written was written as a form of (or an adjunct to) worship. Religion and music are both as old as the hills. Bach, Mozart, Leonard Bernstein, and many contemporary, popular recording artists have all written music expressing their love of God as they see Him.
Tracy's own one line summary of her own article on the topic was "If God is not great, why are the tunes so good?". It's an excellent question, and here's my answer.
Both music and religion have stayed alive for millenia because they each have dedicated, passionate followers, practitioners, and believers. A lot of the greatest music ever written is only hundreds of years old. Anything with that kind of staying power has to have something going for it. But "the old guard" eventually falls out of fashion with the younger generations. That's been addressed too–by both religion and music.
Religion and music (respectively) have traditionalists and modernists. The modernists give religion greater numbers, while the traditionalists give modernists something against which to rebel, and something to (in their view) update. "Fundamentalists" are typically at the far "right" end of traditionalist movements in just about every religion (, except perhaps Buddhism). The modernists look way to the "right" and think of the traditionalists as "stuck in the past", cultists, or just plain loony.
When thinking about this dichotomy (in either religion or music), I instinctively remember the stereotype of the old curmudgeon yelling in disgust about "these kids today, with the hair and the music...". These are the same (generally older) traditionalists who often start certain of the rants in their repertoire with "Back in my day..." or "In the old days"...Interestingly enough, these types of rants are common to both music traditionalists and religious traditionalists.
There are also advocates of modernity (in both religion and music). The religious modernists believe that religion must change to suit the times. They believe that along with culture shifts, and advances in technology (among other things) should come adaptation of religion to those shifts. Traditionalists believe that people should adapt their behavior to religious law, and maintain religious tradition.
That doesn't answer why the tunes are "so great". The tunes are so great because it's rarely the religious moderates who write the great religious music–that which stems from passion, rather than from the "gee, isn't our culture nice?" kind of warm, fuzzy feeling. Modernists want to change, things that are already great, don't need to change. If one views one's religion as sacred, changing it seems counter-intuitive. The intuitive action would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The modernists generally compose and/or record music that is the religious equivalent of Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of "If I Had A Hammer". It's a nice tune, but it won't rock your world, or change your life—unless you're the song's publisher. Then you'll make a coupla bucks off it, since the song is still doin' business.
Johann Sebastian Bach was not a religious modernist. He was as old school as they ever got. Back in 1705 (when Bach was 20), the old school was a lot newer. Yet, I'm sure someone thought of Bach as a rebel. He was looking to do something new in music, but he wasn't looking to change that which he felt was quite right—his religion.
Bach was the real deal. The tunes are so great because they were written by people with tremendous talent, a contemporary ear, and old-school values. Can you see changing a note of Bach's music to "suit the times"?
Mozart wrote some great music for the church, he was an amazingly talented musician. There is some debate as to Mozart's religious practice. He was a Catholic, but also a Freemason. His father had been a Jesuit. Maybe he wasn't all that devout. I'm not sure we can know, and I'm not sure it makes a difference. Many of his greatest works were commissions for the church, or for church big-wigs (back in the day when they actually wore big wigs), and it was great work. No reason to change what's already great.
My longtime-friend Jonathan Rimberg (bottom left) is one such "old school" (highly talented) musician with a modern ear. (The song to which that links is more of a Hebrew rock and roll song than of religious praise. It's very Beatles and Billy Joel-influenced.)
Jonathan, as part of Shoresh did a fabulous a capella arrangement of a beautiful Jewish hymn-like prayer, in the style of Take 6 (Check out "Family Of Love") . Great tunes have staying power is partially that they were written out of passion, and were executed by people with the talent to do justice to the music. The melody was taken from an Israeli love song from the 1967 War
Having grown up in the Orthodox community, I wasn't always objective about Jewish music. I recently got to thinking about whether the music with contemporary influences made religious purists (traditonalists) "crosses a line". I asked Jonathan about this. His response is that the line (for music) shifts with the times, even though the religious values don't change.
I find that interesting. There's a concept in Judaism of making mundane things holy by adapting them into a Jewish context. Hence we have song parodies of classic rock and roll, but with religious-themed lyrics. Oy! That's a whole 'nother discussion we've already had.
Yet despite the efforts of some religious purists with contemporary ears, there are those on the farther-right (if you can believe that), who resist the modern influences. One rabbi in New York sought to ban a concert of Jewish music at Madison Square Garden because one or more of the performers was set to perform parodies of rock and roll songs.
Although Rabbis lead the Jewish community as a whole, there is a subset of Rabbis who are specialists in applying complex parts the "old school" law to contemporary phenomena. There are, for example, rabbis whose primary gig is applying the law to medical advances. One such rabbi is the leading authority on Jewish Law's take on whether or not, and under what circumstances "brain death" constitutes death. There have been decisions in Jewish law about everything from how to make a microwave oven suitable for cooking kosher food, to sex reassignment surgery. These decisions have made for more than a little controversy and divisiveness.
Musicians, on the other hand, can often get along despite their differences in philosophy about "old school" versus "new school". There are thousands of recorded performances featuring great old-school-meets-new-school combinations. Tony Bennett and Bono is but one example. Igor Stravinsky was open to incorporating Jazz influences into his music.
Mozart collaborated with librettists on his operas. That makes him what we today would call a songwriter. Of course, he's also much more than that, but it's one of his many musical talents.
If he were alive today, he might write for both Broadway, and The Met. Broadway would pay the bills, and The Met would be his passion. Or maybe not.
Religious traditionalists often express disgust at the modernists' adaptation of religion to suit their needs, while many modernists think of the old-schoolers as being zealots, cult-members, or just plain "antiquated".
Even within the realm of symphonic music there were modernists who rebelled. Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok. The great thing with all of them, is that they paid great (and due) homage the great forms that preceded them, and built their creations on a solid foundation. Bartok wrote some amazing pieces based on Hungarian folk songs. The great composers who rebelled did so with respect, and with a thorough understanding and appreciation for what came before them.
Most modernist religious practitioners today aren't like that. They want the quick, easy God-fix, or treat their church or synagogue attendance as if it were a social, or business networking opportunity. What does that have to do with the future of the arts? Plenty! More later...
Friday, May 30, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Song Parodies—Repurposed brilliance or unlicensed hackery?
[Despite the title, this post is not about musical tastes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what is funny, what isn't funny, and what is in good taste or bad taste. This is simply about music parody in the context of the music business.]
Parody has a long and interesting tradition. It has been used throughout the centuries, in many cultures, as a way to express protest, as a way to satirize some political or social phenomenon, or just as a means of amusement. Some have made a career out of it.
Allan Sherman is probably the best example of a contemporary song parodist. He was a really funny showbusiness jack-of-many trades. His credits include writing for Jackie Gleason, and producing Bill Cosby's first comedy album—Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow, Right?. He was also a very busy and successful television producer, and performer of song parodies during the 1960s.
Allan Sherman's (Sorry to have given a Wikipedia link, but this entry's pretty good, and pretty accurate.) greatness lay in several facets of his work—his song or composition choices, his comic persona, the subjects of his lyrics, and the production values are just a few reasons why Allan was such a great parodist.
The arrangements on Allan's records deserve their own blog entry. One paragraph will have to do. Lou Busch—Allan's co-conspirator in these musical pursuits—was an astounding and versatile musician. Lou's arrangements for Allan Sherman were part of the reason I wanted to be an arranger. They perfectly complemented Allan's performance, and sense of humor, and were always perfect for the song and the lyric. Busch's arrangements weren't copies of any single recording of a song—although one comes close.
Allan's biggest hit was a parody called Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah—a funny take on summer camp. Most people who knew the song parody had no idea that the original was from an 1870s opera called La Gionconda by Amilcare Ponchielli . The song (on which Hello Muddah Hello Faddah was based) is called Dance of the Hours. Allan Sherman brought us opera, and we didn't even know it. The first time I heard the original, I thought "Wow, an instrumental version of Hello Muddah Hello Faddah. It's a nice tune even without the lyrics.". His parody When I was a Lad was copped from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore.
Allan also did a very ambitious project called Peter and The Commissar a very interesting take on Peter and The Wolf by Sergei Prokofiev. Sherman showed a depth and breadth of knowledge, not only about how to entertain, but about how to perform. He did not have what most would call a soothing voice. But in his comic persona, he made the performance/execution work perfectly.
Why all this fuss about Allan Sherman? Allan performed the art of parody respectably, respectfully, and very creatively. From a business perspective he did the right thing too. He paid both tribute and money to the composers of the original works (except for those works that were in the public domain). [Sometimes parodying a work that's in the public domain is a great idea, because it's royalty-free, and because it may be either well-known (a "classic"), or may be good enough to warrant /attract a new audience. Most people had (and still have) no idea who Ponchielli was, but they know his work because of Allan Sherman.
But this post really isn't about him—it's about how music parody fits into the music business. To see it in proper context, we should look at the history of music parody, music business of the past, and the music business overall.
Musical parodies go back a long way. Many American school-children are taught a song we knew as My Country, 'tis of Thee". I was shocked to have found out (as a kid) that the song was originally a British song called God Save The King. God Save The King was later adapted to God Save The Queen, after the King died. Isn't it hilarious that young American students sing a British song as tribute to the country from which America declared its independence?
Yankee Doodle—one of America's best known songs—is a song parody!
The Battle Hymn of the Republic started as a melody with a very different lyric .
Franz Josef Haydn wrote the melody for a song called Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser (God Save Franz the Emperor). Less than fifty years later, someone using different lyrics turned into the German National Anthem—Deutschland Uber Alles, which translates to "Germany Above/Before All". Many people still have very negative associations with the song because of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mel Brooks used the anthem very effectively in the original movie of The Producers, to make fun of the Nazis. But the melody by Haydn is beautiful. It's such a shame to see its parody/adaptation be held in such low regard because of its having been "repurposed".
So what does that have to do with the music business today? LOTS.
I'm not a lawyer, but we can even have some legal fun with this one.
Happy Birthday To You is just a different lyric to Good Morning, Dear Teacher (ca. 1890). Because the original composers (Mildred and Patty Hill, in case you like trivia) put different lyrics to it, and published the song again in 1935 as Happy Birthday, they revived it, and kept it out of the public domain. Their estates STILL collect money on it every time it's used in a TV show or a movie.
Put Good Morning, Dear Teacher (sans lyrics) in a movie, during a scene in which someone's bringing out a birthday cake, and you're using a song from 1890 (which is in the public domain). If the end credits of your movie list Good Morning, Dear Teacher rather than Happy Birthday To You, you could probably get away with using it for free.
Love Me Tender—one of Elvis Presley's biggest hits, started life out as a Civil War era song called Aura Lee. Sing Elvis's lyrics on the radio, and you owe someone money. Hum it (or sing the original lyrics), and you owe nothing.
There really ain't nothin' new in the world. Allan Sherman wasn't the first song parodist, and he certainly wasn't the last. Weird Al Yankovic has probably sold many more records than Allan could have. Allan's song parody career lasted perhaps twelve years. Weird Al's been around a lot longer than that, and the numbers of record buyers hit record numbers in the 1980s.
There is a HUGE number of parodists today who record others' musical works, but with lyrics different than the original. Whether or not the song makes fun of the original, or of anything, it is legally defined as a parody. Many parodists record independently, or on small labels, with "shoestring" budgets. Those who do this sidestep/conveniently forget to pay (financial) tribute to the original composers. When parodists/satirists do this, they're violating the law. There is a copyright law in every civilized country in the world, and in many less-than-civilized ones. Almost all countries with a copyright law in place require some variety of compensation/royalties be paid to the owner of a copyright when their work is used.
Weird Al, and Nutty Allan (Sherman) had something in common, though. They were both very high-profile writers and performers. They can't afford to try cheating the system. They couldn't afford to just use a composition with a then-enforceable copyright, without paying the monies mandated by the Copyright Act.
Mark Russell and The Capitol Steps are well-known political satirists and parodists. On The Capitol Steps' official website they acknowledge the original compositions they parody. One of the founding members of The Capitol Steps wrote a terrific article on the parody phenomenon. Read on, and you'll find a link.
Now we come to my big bugaboo, or bee in my bonnet. (Truth be told, I don't look very good in bonnets, but that's another story). Religious (music) groups are using popular songs that still have enforceable copyright, and are illegally using those songs to "spread the word" of their religion. This practice isn't specific to one religion. Whoever's doing it, I think it's pretty icky (that's a technical word), and horribly hypocritical to steal in the name of God.
Religious music groups who illegally sell (for profit, even if they don't make a profit) others' music with lyrics and themes very different from the original, seem to me to be quite hypocritical. In the spirit of proper disclosure, I participated in one such record in 1986. I asked the producers to obtain the necessary permissions. The copyright owners refused to grant permission, but the producers released the recording anyway.
You may wonder if music parody of copyrighted work is even legal. Well, it has always been legal, but until 1994, parodists who wanted to release a parody recording of an existing work required the permission of the copyright owner (in order to release it commercially). In 1994, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that affected music parodists in a very positive way. In Campbell v. Acuff Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision about whether or not a parodist must obtain the permission of the copyright holder before recording and releasing a parody of a copyrighted work. Before this case was decided, Elaina Newport and Bill Strauss of The Capitol Steps wrote a wonderful article about the case, and its potential ramifications.
Luther Campbell (of the rap group 2 Live Crew) wrote a parody of the classic Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman. Campbell's lyrics, and his take on the song were/was very different from the original. The publisher (Acuff Rose Music) believed that 2 Live Crew version would cast the original song in a bad light, and thus make the original song less marketable.
The plaintiff contended that his parody of the Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman, while wildly different in lyrical content from the original, did not detract from the marketability of the original recording and/or composition. Campbell asserted that he should therefore be permitted to use the work without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The Sixth Circuit Court sided with Acuff Rose Music, but the US Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's finding, and agreed with Luther Campbell.
No matter how that decision would have come down, any user of copyrighted musical work is obligated to pay royalties based on a mandated statutory rate of 9.1 cents per song per record/unit manufactured. That's for compositions of less than 5 minutes in length. Many parodists who have recorded works subsequent to 1994 believe mistakenly that because of Campbell v. Acuff Rose, they're allowed to use the music scott-free. Nope, 't'ain't so. The royalties mentioned above are known as "mechanical royalties"—so named because they are calculated based on "mechanical" (now also digital) reproductions of the original works/recordings. We could get into performance royalties, but that's a whole other post.
U.S. Copyright Law takes into account the phenomenon of a "derivative work". An example of a derivative work would be an orchestral arrangement of a song by The Beatles. Sex and The City—a wildly successful HBO series, now in syndication, was turned into a movie. That's another type of derivative work.
Most parodists, however, knowingly violate the law. They create intellectual property, put a copyright statementon it, and then don't respect the original copyright holders' work. Even more nervy than that, many parodists put a copyright warning on their commercial recordings. In essence they're saying "Don't you dare steal our product. Leave the stealing to us."
They are creating derivatives from which the copyright holder of the original has a right to benefit. With small-label independent recordings the original composers do not see dime one.
Here's the saddest part of the whole independent/underground music parody theft business. When one asks the parodists why they don't pay for the music they're using, they state pretty openly that they're probably too small to get caught. If they do get caught, the publishers/copyright holders/record companies which may own the original works would have to spend too much money for too little return to bother going after them.
An addendum to the sad story is how cheap it is to use the music legally. Let's say a band makes a record of ten song parodies, and manufactures 10,000 units, for sale at $15 each. That's gross income of $150,000. To legally use the music, they'd have to pay $9100. And they just don't do it. That boggles the mind! If you had to pay $9100 to use a work that could gross $150,000, would you do it? Let's keep in mind one thing. Songs consist of two elements: music and lyrics. So, 50% of the materials used by song parodists belong to someone other than the parodist. $9100 to use 50% of the stuff you're selling, and from which you're grossing $150,000 is a drop in the bucket.
Let's put another thing out there for consideration: Song parodists who aren't registering their works with The Harry Fox Agency , and Performance Rights Organizations are depriving the songs' composers and publishers of additional revenue they might have gotten from airplay and public performances of the song parodies.
There's money to be made from singing song parodies on tour. The performer's almost never liable for performance royalties. That's the liability of the venue (almost always). But that's another discussion for another time.
If you reading this create for a living, or you know anyone who creates for a living, or are related to anyone who creates for a living, I hope you'll feel strongly enough about this issue to investigate if the parody music you might think to buy is legal. If it doesn't support the creator of the original work (without which there would never have been a derivative), don't buy it.
Be an informed consumer of intellectual property. Keep funding the artists' ability to make a living, and to continue giving us great works.
Parody has a long and interesting tradition. It has been used throughout the centuries, in many cultures, as a way to express protest, as a way to satirize some political or social phenomenon, or just as a means of amusement. Some have made a career out of it.
Allan Sherman is probably the best example of a contemporary song parodist. He was a really funny showbusiness jack-of-many trades. His credits include writing for Jackie Gleason, and producing Bill Cosby's first comedy album—Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow, Right?. He was also a very busy and successful television producer, and performer of song parodies during the 1960s.
Allan Sherman's (Sorry to have given a Wikipedia link, but this entry's pretty good, and pretty accurate.) greatness lay in several facets of his work—his song or composition choices, his comic persona, the subjects of his lyrics, and the production values are just a few reasons why Allan was such a great parodist.
The arrangements on Allan's records deserve their own blog entry. One paragraph will have to do. Lou Busch—Allan's co-conspirator in these musical pursuits—was an astounding and versatile musician. Lou's arrangements for Allan Sherman were part of the reason I wanted to be an arranger. They perfectly complemented Allan's performance, and sense of humor, and were always perfect for the song and the lyric. Busch's arrangements weren't copies of any single recording of a song—although one comes close.
Allan's biggest hit was a parody called Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah—a funny take on summer camp. Most people who knew the song parody had no idea that the original was from an 1870s opera called La Gionconda by Amilcare Ponchielli . The song (on which Hello Muddah Hello Faddah was based) is called Dance of the Hours. Allan Sherman brought us opera, and we didn't even know it. The first time I heard the original, I thought "Wow, an instrumental version of Hello Muddah Hello Faddah. It's a nice tune even without the lyrics.". His parody When I was a Lad was copped from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore.
Allan also did a very ambitious project called Peter and The Commissar a very interesting take on Peter and The Wolf by Sergei Prokofiev. Sherman showed a depth and breadth of knowledge, not only about how to entertain, but about how to perform. He did not have what most would call a soothing voice. But in his comic persona, he made the performance/execution work perfectly.
Why all this fuss about Allan Sherman? Allan performed the art of parody respectably, respectfully, and very creatively. From a business perspective he did the right thing too. He paid both tribute and money to the composers of the original works (except for those works that were in the public domain). [Sometimes parodying a work that's in the public domain is a great idea, because it's royalty-free, and because it may be either well-known (a "classic"), or may be good enough to warrant /attract a new audience. Most people had (and still have) no idea who Ponchielli was, but they know his work because of Allan Sherman.
But this post really isn't about him—it's about how music parody fits into the music business. To see it in proper context, we should look at the history of music parody, music business of the past, and the music business overall.
Musical parodies go back a long way. Many American school-children are taught a song we knew as My Country, 'tis of Thee". I was shocked to have found out (as a kid) that the song was originally a British song called God Save The King. God Save The King was later adapted to God Save The Queen, after the King died. Isn't it hilarious that young American students sing a British song as tribute to the country from which America declared its independence?
Yankee Doodle—one of America's best known songs—is a song parody!
The Battle Hymn of the Republic started as a melody with a very different lyric .
Franz Josef Haydn wrote the melody for a song called Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser (God Save Franz the Emperor). Less than fifty years later, someone using different lyrics turned into the German National Anthem—Deutschland Uber Alles, which translates to "Germany Above/Before All". Many people still have very negative associations with the song because of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mel Brooks used the anthem very effectively in the original movie of The Producers, to make fun of the Nazis. But the melody by Haydn is beautiful. It's such a shame to see its parody/adaptation be held in such low regard because of its having been "repurposed".
So what does that have to do with the music business today? LOTS.
I'm not a lawyer, but we can even have some legal fun with this one.
Happy Birthday To You is just a different lyric to Good Morning, Dear Teacher (ca. 1890). Because the original composers (Mildred and Patty Hill, in case you like trivia) put different lyrics to it, and published the song again in 1935 as Happy Birthday, they revived it, and kept it out of the public domain. Their estates STILL collect money on it every time it's used in a TV show or a movie.
Put Good Morning, Dear Teacher (sans lyrics) in a movie, during a scene in which someone's bringing out a birthday cake, and you're using a song from 1890 (which is in the public domain). If the end credits of your movie list Good Morning, Dear Teacher rather than Happy Birthday To You, you could probably get away with using it for free.
Love Me Tender—one of Elvis Presley's biggest hits, started life out as a Civil War era song called Aura Lee. Sing Elvis's lyrics on the radio, and you owe someone money. Hum it (or sing the original lyrics), and you owe nothing.
There really ain't nothin' new in the world. Allan Sherman wasn't the first song parodist, and he certainly wasn't the last. Weird Al Yankovic has probably sold many more records than Allan could have. Allan's song parody career lasted perhaps twelve years. Weird Al's been around a lot longer than that, and the numbers of record buyers hit record numbers in the 1980s.
There is a HUGE number of parodists today who record others' musical works, but with lyrics different than the original. Whether or not the song makes fun of the original, or of anything, it is legally defined as a parody. Many parodists record independently, or on small labels, with "shoestring" budgets. Those who do this sidestep/conveniently forget to pay (financial) tribute to the original composers. When parodists/satirists do this, they're violating the law. There is a copyright law in every civilized country in the world, and in many less-than-civilized ones. Almost all countries with a copyright law in place require some variety of compensation/royalties be paid to the owner of a copyright when their work is used.
Weird Al, and Nutty Allan (Sherman) had something in common, though. They were both very high-profile writers and performers. They can't afford to try cheating the system. They couldn't afford to just use a composition with a then-enforceable copyright, without paying the monies mandated by the Copyright Act.
Mark Russell and The Capitol Steps are well-known political satirists and parodists. On The Capitol Steps' official website they acknowledge the original compositions they parody. One of the founding members of The Capitol Steps wrote a terrific article on the parody phenomenon. Read on, and you'll find a link.
Now we come to my big bugaboo, or bee in my bonnet. (Truth be told, I don't look very good in bonnets, but that's another story). Religious (music) groups are using popular songs that still have enforceable copyright, and are illegally using those songs to "spread the word" of their religion. This practice isn't specific to one religion. Whoever's doing it, I think it's pretty icky (that's a technical word), and horribly hypocritical to steal in the name of God.
Religious music groups who illegally sell (for profit, even if they don't make a profit) others' music with lyrics and themes very different from the original, seem to me to be quite hypocritical. In the spirit of proper disclosure, I participated in one such record in 1986. I asked the producers to obtain the necessary permissions. The copyright owners refused to grant permission, but the producers released the recording anyway.
You may wonder if music parody of copyrighted work is even legal. Well, it has always been legal, but until 1994, parodists who wanted to release a parody recording of an existing work required the permission of the copyright owner (in order to release it commercially). In 1994, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that affected music parodists in a very positive way. In Campbell v. Acuff Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision about whether or not a parodist must obtain the permission of the copyright holder before recording and releasing a parody of a copyrighted work. Before this case was decided, Elaina Newport and Bill Strauss of The Capitol Steps wrote a wonderful article about the case, and its potential ramifications.
Luther Campbell (of the rap group 2 Live Crew) wrote a parody of the classic Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman. Campbell's lyrics, and his take on the song were/was very different from the original. The publisher (Acuff Rose Music) believed that 2 Live Crew version would cast the original song in a bad light, and thus make the original song less marketable.
The plaintiff contended that his parody of the Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman, while wildly different in lyrical content from the original, did not detract from the marketability of the original recording and/or composition. Campbell asserted that he should therefore be permitted to use the work without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The Sixth Circuit Court sided with Acuff Rose Music, but the US Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's finding, and agreed with Luther Campbell.
No matter how that decision would have come down, any user of copyrighted musical work is obligated to pay royalties based on a mandated statutory rate of 9.1 cents per song per record/unit manufactured. That's for compositions of less than 5 minutes in length. Many parodists who have recorded works subsequent to 1994 believe mistakenly that because of Campbell v. Acuff Rose, they're allowed to use the music scott-free. Nope, 't'ain't so. The royalties mentioned above are known as "mechanical royalties"—so named because they are calculated based on "mechanical" (now also digital) reproductions of the original works/recordings. We could get into performance royalties, but that's a whole other post.
U.S. Copyright Law takes into account the phenomenon of a "derivative work". An example of a derivative work would be an orchestral arrangement of a song by The Beatles. Sex and The City—a wildly successful HBO series, now in syndication, was turned into a movie. That's another type of derivative work.
Most parodists, however, knowingly violate the law. They create intellectual property, put a copyright statementon it, and then don't respect the original copyright holders' work. Even more nervy than that, many parodists put a copyright warning on their commercial recordings. In essence they're saying "Don't you dare steal our product. Leave the stealing to us."
They are creating derivatives from which the copyright holder of the original has a right to benefit. With small-label independent recordings the original composers do not see dime one.
Here's the saddest part of the whole independent/underground music parody theft business. When one asks the parodists why they don't pay for the music they're using, they state pretty openly that they're probably too small to get caught. If they do get caught, the publishers/copyright holders/record companies which may own the original works would have to spend too much money for too little return to bother going after them.
An addendum to the sad story is how cheap it is to use the music legally. Let's say a band makes a record of ten song parodies, and manufactures 10,000 units, for sale at $15 each. That's gross income of $150,000. To legally use the music, they'd have to pay $9100. And they just don't do it. That boggles the mind! If you had to pay $9100 to use a work that could gross $150,000, would you do it? Let's keep in mind one thing. Songs consist of two elements: music and lyrics. So, 50% of the materials used by song parodists belong to someone other than the parodist. $9100 to use 50% of the stuff you're selling, and from which you're grossing $150,000 is a drop in the bucket.
Let's put another thing out there for consideration: Song parodists who aren't registering their works with The Harry Fox Agency , and Performance Rights Organizations are depriving the songs' composers and publishers of additional revenue they might have gotten from airplay and public performances of the song parodies.
There's money to be made from singing song parodies on tour. The performer's almost never liable for performance royalties. That's the liability of the venue (almost always). But that's another discussion for another time.
If you reading this create for a living, or you know anyone who creates for a living, or are related to anyone who creates for a living, I hope you'll feel strongly enough about this issue to investigate if the parody music you might think to buy is legal. If it doesn't support the creator of the original work (without which there would never have been a derivative), don't buy it.
Be an informed consumer of intellectual property. Keep funding the artists' ability to make a living, and to continue giving us great works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
