[MMM] Microtonality, Cover Songs, and Copyrights

> Any ideas/speculations about this?

Ferget it. If the casual listener could recognize it as the same thing, I
would be surprised if an argument about it not being a rip-off would stand
up in court. And my guess is that the record companies have fairly deep
pockets and a bit of experience with such cases. ;-)

My advice would be to write your own old surf song. It's easy...

Pick a few 22-tET Superpythagorean chords, and some choice lyrics:

I was surfing on a beach in Molokai
when a snazzy wahine done caught my eye...
Woo woo surf's up laddies...
blah blah...

Ramble on for a few verses about tsunamis, wahines, *big* boards and four
on the floor. Add theremin and stir.

Take it away Igs,

Rick

------

> I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I
> recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What would
> stop me from trying to pass it off as my own work? Technically my
> hypothetical version would really have nothing in common with the
> original since it would make use of differently-tuned intervals, even
> though it could still be recognizable to any casual listener. Imagine,
> say, that I did a 22-tone Superpythagorean version of an old surf
> song. Would there be any grounds for lawsuits if I didn't pay any
> royalties to or get permission from the copyright holder of the
> original song?
>
> Any ideas/speculations about this?
>
> -Igs
>

Ha, I figure you're right about the legality, but I was thinkin' a
different kind of "surf" music. I'm talkin' Ventures, not Beach
Boys! Not that I was planning on doing any such thing, anyway. I
just wonder where the line is drawn: at what point does a song start
being your own idea and stop being someone else's? If all the notes
are different, is it really the same song? How close does it have to
be to the original to be considered a copyright violation? I always
thought that the "ownership of a song" was kind of an ephemeral
concept.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
> > Any ideas/speculations about this?
>
> Ferget it. If the casual listener could recognize it as the same
thing, I
> would be surprised if an argument about it not being a rip-off
would stand
> up in court. And my guess is that the record companies have fairly
deep
> pockets and a bit of experience with such cases. ;-)
>
> My advice would be to write your own old surf song. It's easy...
>
> Pick a few 22-tET Superpythagorean chords, and some choice lyrics:
>
> I was surfing on a beach in Molokai
> when a snazzy wahine done caught my eye...
> Woo woo surf's up laddies...
> blah blah...
>
> Ramble on for a few verses about tsunamis, wahines, *big* boards
and four
> on the floor. Add theremin and stir.
>
> Take it away Igs,
>
> Rick
>
>
> ------
>
> > I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I
> > recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What
would
> > stop me from trying to pass it off as my own work? Technically my
> > hypothetical version would really have nothing in common with the
> > original since it would make use of differently-tuned intervals,
even
> > though it could still be recognizable to any casual listener.
Imagine,
> > say, that I did a 22-tone Superpythagorean version of an old surf
> > song. Would there be any grounds for lawsuits if I didn't pay any
> > royalties to or get permission from the copyright holder of the
> > original song?
> >
> > Any ideas/speculations about this?
> >
> > -Igs
> >

Igliashon Jones wrote:
> > Ha, I figure you're right about the legality, but I was thinkin' a > different kind of "surf" music. I'm talkin' Ventures, not Beach > Boys! Not that I was planning on doing any such thing, anyway. I > just wonder where the line is drawn: at what point does a song start > being your own idea and stop being someone else's? If all the notes > are different, is it really the same song? How close does it have to > be to the original to be considered a copyright violation? I always > thought that the "ownership of a song" was kind of an ephemeral > concept.

Stina Nordenstam's "People Are Strange" includes a number of cover versions with completely different tunes to the originals. But that doesn't get her listed as a composer.

In terms of tunes being the same, or similar, I think you have to look at them in terms of 7 notes rather than 12. There are folk songs that have been recorded with the same tune in different modes, for example. That is, independent researchers will discover what is obviously the same song but with a note or two consistently different.

I'm actually quite interested, legality aside, in the idea of cover versions in theoretically alien tunings. I did a Fleetwood Mac cover in miracle and magic, as instructed by the lyrics, to demonstrate this. My hypothesis is: not only can you write good tunes in a wide range of tunings, but the *same* good tune can move intact from one tuning to another.

Graham

>> Any ideas/speculations about this?
>
>Ferget it. If the casual listener could recognize it as the same thing,
>I would be surprised if an argument about it not being a rip-off would
>stand up in court.

Er, let's not forgot that covers are not uncommon, even in 12-tET.

Gene has a page of retuned pop music at xenharmony.org.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@s.
..> wrote:

> Ha, I figure you're right about
> the legality, but I was thinkin'
> a different kind of "surf" music.
> I'm talkin' Ventures, not Beach Boys!

how interesting that this comes up
on this list right now! just two weeks
ago, i played "In My Room" in 19-edo,
and it sounded fantastic.

-monz

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...>
wrote:

> My hypothesis is: not only can
> you write good tunes in a wide range
> of tunings, but the *same* good tune
> can move intact from one tuning to
> another.

i think jazz and blues musicians
proved that a long time ago.

-monz

What I want to know is what really defines a "tune"? What makes one
tune distinct from another? I know this sounds like a rather
pedantic question, but I don't think it's as simple as it seems. The
more I think about it, the more undefinable it becomes.
Historically, changing one note has been enough to get out of a
lawsuit...you'd think then that since a microtonal "translation" of a
12-tET song could be said to have *completely* different notes
entirely. Could it have something to do with the overall pattern as
a whole, the particular arrangement of small and large steps relative
to each other? But then that seems a little too broad, especially in
the context of microtonal music. Analogize it to lyrics: if you sing
a song in japanese that was originally written in english, does the
original author have the right to sue you? I mean, the words are
different, the meaning is different, the rhythm of the words will be
different...and yet somehow, it's the same song. Or is it? If the
Japanese singer denies that his lyrics are just a translation of an
english song, how can he be disproved? Likewise, if I recorded a 12-
tET song in 22-tET and then claimed it as my own original idea, how
could I be disproved? Not that I'd ever do such a thing, I'd much
rather write something that really *is* new, but this question has
really got me vexed.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...>
wrote:
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
> >
> > Ha, I figure you're right about the legality, but I was thinkin'
a
> > different kind of "surf" music. I'm talkin' Ventures, not Beach
> > Boys! Not that I was planning on doing any such thing, anyway.
I
> > just wonder where the line is drawn: at what point does a song
start
> > being your own idea and stop being someone else's? If all the
notes
> > are different, is it really the same song? How close does it
have to
> > be to the original to be considered a copyright violation? I
always
> > thought that the "ownership of a song" was kind of an ephemeral
> > concept.
>
> Stina Nordenstam's "People Are Strange" includes a number of cover
> versions with completely different tunes to the originals. But
that
> doesn't get her listed as a composer.
>
> In terms of tunes being the same, or similar, I think you have to
look
> at them in terms of 7 notes rather than 12. There are folk songs
that
> have been recorded with the same tune in different modes, for
example.
> That is, independent researchers will discover what is obviously
the
> same song but with a note or two consistently different.
>
> I'm actually quite interested, legality aside, in the idea of cover
> versions in theoretically alien tunings. I did a Fleetwood Mac
cover in
> miracle and magic, as instructed by the lyrics, to demonstrate
this. My
> hypothesis is: not only can you write good tunes in a wide range of
> tunings, but the *same* good tune can move intact from one tuning
to
> another.
>
>
> Graham

There's also the simple ethical question. If you know somebody else did it first, however much you alter it, then you stole it. Of course, you know what they say: if it's good borrow it, if it's great steal it.

As I understand it, the Stones were the masters of plagiarism, and even they got caught. But they learned from their mistakes, and so you get Keith Richards claiming originality for riffs that were invented by Ry Cooder and Jesse Ed Davis, for example. In the case of Jesse Ed, I gather they got him in the studio and rolled tape, and then KR just redid his parts, so they wouldn't have to credit him. (I would welcome any corrections on this score, too!)

I guess it comes down to how well you can live with yourself. And if you'd like to get paid for your work, you might want to see to it that your mentors, heroes, and friends get paid, too. But many a showbiz legend has ridden to fame and fortune on the backs of those less wily or shrewd. Best of luck to you.

You might get more publicity if you got sued by someone famous, too. Hee!

Have you ever heard Frech, Frith, Kaiser, Thompson's _Surfin' USA_? Or the Raybeats (80's surf-noir)? One's hilarious, and the other's just plain cool.

I grapple myself with the influences of Disney culture, and all the TV music and jingles and stuff. Sometimes I just wanna bomb it to the stone age, and then in more measured times I think to credit it and mitigate it, somehow. Whether I'll get around to deconstructing Alan Mencken remains to be seen. :-)

Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:

if the song was recognizable its what determines it. just like if you
change the arrangement of the original you could be sued.
Chuck Berry a few years ago sued the Beach boys for copying his guitar
style and even though they thought it was a bit much, they say he
deserves so money for his contributions and gave him 12 million.
Personally i am all for copyrights and intellectual property. It makes
more sense than private land property. at least the later is directly
related to the person whereas land is arbitrary. I say we get rid of all
property holdings. People have a right to what they create and yes
although it is influenced by others, they make it into something new.
better off extending the surf language in that in translating it to 22
ET one would expect it to grow in a different way.

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I
>recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What would
>stop me from trying to pass it off as my own work? Technically my
>hypothetical version would really have nothing in common with the
>original since it would make use of differently-tuned intervals, even
>though it could still be recognizable to any casual listener. Imagine,
>say, that I did a 22-tone Superpythagorean version of an old surf
>song. Would there be any grounds for lawsuits if I didn't pay any
>royalties to or get permission from the copyright holder of the
>original song?
>
>Any ideas/speculations about this?
>
>-Igs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Pete McRae <petesfriedclams@s..
.> wrote:

> There's also the simple ethical
> question. If you know somebody
> else did it first, however much
> you alter it, then you stole it.
> Of course, you know what they say:
> if it's good borrow it, if it's
> great steal it.
>
> As I understand it, the Stones
> were the masters of plagiarism,
> and even they got caught. But
> they learned from their mistakes,
> and so you get Keith Richards
> claiming originality for riffs
> that were invented by Ry Cooder
> and Jesse Ed Davis, for example.
> In the case of Jesse Ed, I gather
> they got him in the studio and
> rolled tape, and then KR just
> redid his parts, so they wouldn't
> have to credit him. (I would welcome
> any corrections on this score, too!)

yes, well ... the Stones also claimed that "Love in Vain"
was copyright "M. Jagger & K. Richards", when those of
us who know about Robert Johnson know that he actually
composed and copyrighted that song 35 years earlier.

-monz

Well, I was sort of putting ethics aside for this question...the idea
of actually claiming originality is sort of an exaggerated example
made for the sake of argument. So just assume I'm an evil bastard
with no conscience who wants to ride to the top on other peoples'
ideas! ;->

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Pete McRae
<petesfriedclams@s...> wrote:
> There's also the simple ethical question. If you know somebody
else did it first, however much you alter it, then you stole it. Of
course, you know what they say: if it's good borrow it, if it's great
steal it.
>
> As I understand it, the Stones were the masters of plagiarism, and
even they got caught. But they learned from their mistakes, and so
you get Keith Richards claiming originality for riffs that were
invented by Ry Cooder and Jesse Ed Davis, for example. In the case
of Jesse Ed, I gather they got him in the studio and rolled tape, and
then KR just redid his parts, so they wouldn't have to credit him.
(I would welcome any corrections on this score, too!)
>
> I guess it comes down to how well you can live with yourself. And
if you'd like to get paid for your work, you might want to see to it
that your mentors, heroes, and friends get paid, too. But many a
showbiz legend has ridden to fame and fortune on the backs of those
less wily or shrewd. Best of luck to you.
>
> You might get more publicity if you got sued by someone famous,
too. Hee!
>
> Have you ever heard Frech, Frith, Kaiser, Thompson's _Surfin'
USA_? Or the Raybeats (80's surf-noir)? One's hilarious, and the
other's just plain cool.
>
> I grapple myself with the influences of Disney culture, and all the
TV music and jingles and stuff. Sometimes I just wanna bomb it to
the stone age, and then in more measured times I think to credit it
and mitigate it, somehow. Whether I'll get around to deconstructing
Alan Mencken remains to be seen. :-)
>
> Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> if the song was recognizable its what determines it. just like if
you
> change the arrangement of the original you could be sued.
> Chuck Berry a few years ago sued the Beach boys for copying his
guitar
> style and even though they thought it was a bit much, they say he
> deserves so money for his contributions and gave him 12 million.
> Personally i am all for copyrights and intellectual property. It
makes
> more sense than private land property. at least the later is
directly
> related to the person whereas land is arbitrary. I say we get rid
of all
> property holdings. People have a right to what they create and yes
> although it is influenced by others, they make it into something
new.
> better off extending the surf language in that in translating it to
22
> ET one would expect it to grow in a different way.
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I
> >recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What would
> >stop me from trying to pass it off as my own work? Technically my
> >hypothetical version would really have nothing in common with the
> >original since it would make use of differently-tuned intervals,
even
> >though it could still be recognizable to any casual listener.
Imagine,
> >say, that I did a 22-tone Superpythagorean version of an old surf
> >song. Would there be any grounds for lawsuits if I didn't pay any
> >royalties to or get permission from the copyright holder of the
> >original song?
> >
> >Any ideas/speculations about this?
> >
> >-Igs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Jon!

One of the coolest things I ever did -that I've never been able to recreate!- was misreading the key signature on a Bach chorale I was playing through, and getting this sort of Debussy/Ravel/Messiaen-like modal progression with all of the insanely good voice-leading of JSB himself! Dang!

"Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@...> wrote:

Pete,

{you wrote...}
>In the case of my piece, I knew it probably wasn't strikingly original in
>any way, but it IS a sincere expression of my musical interests.

"The merit of originality is not novelty; it is sincerity."
- Thomas Carlyle, Scottish historian and essayist, leading figure in the
Victorian era. 1795-1881

Gene posted a Vaughn-Williams quote about originality on ATL, and I've been
collecting other quotes on the very subject. I thought the above was apt in
your case...

Cheers,
Jon (and I liked your piece, too!)

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

this showa how much ceation can be by accident!

Pete McRae wrote:

>Thanks, Jon!
> >One of the coolest things I ever did -that I've never been able to recreate!- was misreading the key signature on a Bach chorale I was playing through, and getting this sort of Debussy/Ravel/Messiaen-like modal progression with all of the insanely good voice-leading of JSB himself! Dang!
> >
>"Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@...> wrote:
>
>Pete,
>
>{you wrote...}
> >
>>In the case of my piece, I knew it probably wasn't strikingly original in >>any way, but it IS a sincere expression of my musical interests.
>> >>
>
>"The merit of originality is not novelty; it is sincerity."
>- Thomas Carlyle, Scottish historian and essayist, leading figure in the >Victorian era. 1795-1881
>
>Gene posted a Vaughn-Williams quote about originality on ATL, and I've been >collecting other quotes on the very subject. I thought the above was apt in >your case...
>
>Cheers,
>Jon (and I liked your piece, too!) >
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles