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.