Lost song

[bertietaylor]

Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.

Is that plagiarism?

Arindam would like to know.

[bertietaylor]

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

Too difficult this matter, what.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by bertietaylor

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).

If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.
If it's under copyright and he performs it in public
or records it for public distribution without appropriate
credit and payment, that's a copyright violation. (In
the U.S., anyway, but I think most countries' copyright
laws are about the same until you get to more detail.)

Post by bertietaylor
Too difficult this matter, what.

I hope I've explained it clearly enough for canine
minds to pass on to their owner.

You might mention that, as I just learned again, a
song like that is called a contrafactum. See also
"sirventes" and "filk".

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Peter Moylan]

Post by jerryfriedman
If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).

I once did a parody of Hallelujah for a choir party. No plagiarism
worries because I only performed it in front of the party attendees. And
this post only contains words, not the music.

It goes like this, a fourth, a fourth,
A fourth, a fourth, a fourth, a fourth,
And Gabrielle's about to have a fit.

(Gabrielle is our conductor.)

After several verses, we get to

The basses find it hard to choose
Between the notes they used to use
And the ones the way the music's wrote.
It doesn't matter what you heard
They bring their passion to each word,
What a pity that they only know one note.

(Last line sung in a monotone.)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by jerryfriedman
If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).

I once did a parody of Hallelujah for a choir party. No plagiarism
worries because I only performed it in front of the party attendees.

In Denmark parodies and satire have a long leash in relation to
copyright.

[Bebercito]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by jerryfriedman
If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).

I once did a parody of Hallelujah for a choir party. No plagiarism
worries because I only performed it in front of the party attendees.

In Denmark parodies and satire have a long leash in relation to
copyright.

Speaking of doggerels, a Great Dane sure needs a long leash.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Bebercito

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by jerryfriedman
If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).

I once did a parody of Hallelujah for a choir party. No plagiarism
worries because I only performed it in front of the party attendees.

In Denmark parodies and satire have a long leash in relation to
copyright.

Speaking of doggerels, a Great Dane sure needs a long leash.

All Danes do.
They don't do Medium Danes and Small Danes over there,

Jan

[Bertietaylor]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Bebercito

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by jerryfriedman
If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).

I once did a parody of Hallelujah for a choir party. No plagiarism
worries because I only performed it in front of the party attendees.

In Denmark parodies and satire have a long leash in relation to
copyright.

Speaking of doggerels, a Great Dane sure needs a long leash.

No, no. Daphne our lovely mortal niece, a 60kg medium Dane, has no leash
at all so her lashes with the whip like tail must be endured.

Post by J. J. Lodder
All Danes do.
They don't do Medium Danes and Small Danes over there,
Jan

[jerryfriedman]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 3:30:49 +0000, jerryfriedman wrote:
..

Post by jerryfriedman
If it's under copyright and he performs it in public
or records it for public distribution

or publishes it

Post by jerryfriedman
without appropriate
credit and payment, that's a copyright violation.

..

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Bertietaylor]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by bertietaylor

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.

Let us say the tune effectively from a distant galaxy was heard by a
child aged 7 and remembered.

Not talking of legal matters but moral matters.

That was the issue long ago with our master Arindam and his Khalistani
malefactor Arindam called my dear dear dear Mr Singh.

Arindam wrote lyrics which had popular Hindi and Bengali tunes obviously
embedded in them so Mr Singh accused Arindam of plagiarism.

Arindam may have accepted the charge. So he gave up being a lyricist and
translated into Bengali the best English poetry he could find including
the sonnets of Shakespeare. Now that led to other charges laid by one
fractious Peter Daniels here, of dubious memory.

Post by jerryfriedman
If it's under copyright and he performs it in public
or records it for public distribution without appropriate
credit and payment, that's a copyright violation. (In
the U.S., anyway, but I think most countries' copyright
laws are about the same until you get to more detail.)

Post by bertietaylor
Too difficult this matter, what.

I hope I've explained it clearly enough for canine
minds to pass on to their owner.
You might mention that, as I just learned again, a
song like that is called a contrafactum. See also
"sirventes" and "filk".
--
Jerry Friedman
--

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.

Let us say the tune effectively from a distant galaxy was heard by a
child aged 7 and remembered.
Not talking of legal matters but moral matters.
That was the issue long ago with our master Arindam and his Khalistani
malefactor Arindam called my dear dear dear Mr Singh.
Arindam wrote lyrics which had popular Hindi and Bengali tunes obviously
embedded in them so Mr Singh accused Arindam of plagiarism.

..

Plagiarism is passing off someone else's creation as
one's own. I doubt very much that you were doing
that. To be completely safe, you could write "To the
tune of [whatever]", and mention the composer if known.

I don't see anything immoral about writing words to an
existing tune, which I've done. Possibly it's against
custom or good taste in some circles in India. As a
parallel, it was against the custom of the troubadours,
with the exception of sirventes.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Bertietaylor]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.

Let us say the tune effectively from a distant galaxy was heard by a
child aged 7 and remembered.
Not talking of legal matters but moral matters.
That was the issue long ago with our master Arindam and his Khalistani
malefactor Arindam called my dear dear dear Mr Singh.
Arindam wrote lyrics which had popular Hindi and Bengali tunes obviously
embedded in them so Mr Singh accused Arindam of plagiarism.

...
Plagiarism is passing off someone else's creation as
one's own. I doubt very much that you were doing
that. To be completely safe, you could write "To the
tune of [whatever]", and mention the composer if known.

Thanks but we were Arindam's pet dogs in our mortal lives. Now we bark
for Arindam from Heaven. What is special about us is that we are the
only ones who heard his songs when on the roads of Australia minus the
missus. What concerts we had. Woof-woof woof woof woof woof woof

Post by jerryfriedman
I don't see anything immoral about writing words to an
existing tune, which I've done. Possibly it's against
custom or good taste in some circles in India. As a
parallel, it was against the custom of the troubadours,
with the exception of sirventes.
--
Jerry Friedman
--

[Bertietaylor]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.

Let us say the tune effectively from a distant galaxy was heard by a
child aged 7 and remembered.
Not talking of legal matters but moral matters.
That was the issue long ago with our master Arindam and his Khalistani
malefactor Arindam called my dear dear dear Mr Singh.
Arindam wrote lyrics which had popular Hindi and Bengali tunes obviously
embedded in them so Mr Singh accused Arindam of plagiarism.

...
Plagiarism is passing off someone else's creation as
one's own. I doubt very much that you were doing
that. To be completely safe, you could write "To the
tune of [whatever]", and mention the composer if known.

Arindam was doing just that but the dear dear dear Mr Singh still
accused him of plagiarism. Evidently the lyrics spoke out the times.
Arindam's acknowledgment of the original did not satisfy Mr Singh.
Rather he took it as an admission of guilt. Anyway he successfully
stopped Arindam in that line.

Post by jerryfriedman
I don't see anything immoral about writing words to an
existing tune, which I've done.

You are right but here the matter becomes political. Indians excel at
pulling down Indians in various ways, so Mr Singh as a Khalistani was
doing the overt suppression thingy. Point was that the world could
follow a different tune. That was a point which another poster made.





Possibly it's against

Post by jerryfriedman
custom or good taste in some circles in India. As a
parallel, it was against the custom of the troubadours,
with the exception of sirventes.

In an illiterate society free from lawyers there is inbuilt protection
in the work itself with the identity of the author woven in it
But the tune stays in the public domain and so charges of plagiarism
can be made.
Arindam's English lyrics to Indian tunes are simply stunning. Without
music band and lights and makeup and costumes and even with his
deplorable singing ability Arindam can drive crowds crazy.
But what if the tune is unknown to anyone, that is the question.

Woof-woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof

Post by jerryfriedman
--
Jerry Friedman
--

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.

Let us say the tune effectively from a distant galaxy was heard by a
child aged 7 and remembered.
Not talking of legal matters but moral matters.
That was the issue long ago with our master Arindam and his Khalistani
malefactor Arindam called my dear dear dear Mr Singh.
Arindam wrote lyrics which had popular Hindi and Bengali tunes obviously
embedded in them so Mr Singh accused Arindam of plagiarism.

...
Plagiarism is passing off someone else's creation as
one's own. I doubt very much that you were doing
that. To be completely safe, you could write "To the
tune of [whatever]", and mention the composer if known.

Arindam was doing just that but the dear dear dear Mr Singh still
accused him of plagiarism. Evidently the lyrics spoke out the times.
Arindam's acknowledgment of the original did not satisfy Mr Singh.
Rather he took it as an admission of guilt. Anyway he successfully
stopped Arindam in that line.

Post by jerryfriedman
I don't see anything immoral about writing words to an
existing tune, which I've done.

You are right but here the matter becomes political. Indians excel at
pulling down Indians in various ways, so Mr Singh as a Khalistani was
doing the overt suppression thingy. Point was that the world

Words instead of world, above

could

Post by Bertietaylor
follow a different tune. That was a point which another poster made.
Possibly it's against

Post by jerryfriedman
custom or good taste in some circles in India. As a
parallel, it was against the custom of the troubadours,
with the exception of sirventes.

In an illiterate society free from lawyers there is inbuilt protection
in the work itself with the identity of the author woven in it
But the tune stays in the public domain and so charges of plagiarism
can be made.
Arindam's English lyrics to Indian tunes are simply stunning. Without
music band and lights and makeup and costumes and even with his
deplorable singing ability Arindam can drive crowds crazy.
But what if the tune is unknown to anyone, that is the question.
Woof-woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof

Post by jerryfriedman
--
Jerry Friedman
--

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by jerryfriedman
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.
If it's under copyright and he performs it in public
or records it for public distribution without appropriate
credit and payment, that's a copyright violation. (In
the U.S., anyway, but I think most countries' copyright
laws are about the same until you get to more detail.)

They are in Denmark.

[Snidely]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by jerryfriedman
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.
If it's under copyright and he performs it in public
or records it for public distribution without appropriate
credit and payment, that's a copyright violation. (In
the U.S., anyway, but I think most countries' copyright
laws are about the same until you get to more detail.)

They are in Denmark.

Aren't most countries copyright laws converged with international
convention? I know the US isn't 100% converged, but very close on most
points.

/dps

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by jerryfriedman
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.
If it's under copyright and he performs it in public
or records it for public distribution without appropriate
credit and payment, that's a copyright violation. (In
the U.S., anyway, but I think most countries' copyright
laws are about the same until you get to more detail.)

They are in Denmark.

Aren't most countries copyright laws converged with international
convention? I know the US isn't 100% converged, but very close on most
points.

I think so, and I think that they are standardised in EU land. I have
looked a bit at the German version and discussed it a bit in the German
language group, and it is pretty much indentical to the Danish one.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by bertietaylor

Post by bertietaylor
Suppose you remember a tune from a song from a different language from
an obsolete culture when you are very young. Then put words to it with
the same tune, creating something surpassingly beautiful.
Is that plagiarism?
Arindam would like to know.

If a dog writes doggerel to an existing tune, that's not
plagiarism (unless of course the words are too similar
to a existing poem etc.).
If he claims the tune is his own, that's plagiarism.
If it's under copyright and he performs it in public
or records it for public distribution without appropriate
credit and payment, that's a copyright violation. (In
the U.S., anyway, but I think most countries' copyright
laws are about the same until you get to more detail.)

Post by bertietaylor
Too difficult this matter, what.

I hope I've explained it clearly enough for canine
minds to pass on to their owner.
You might mention that, as I just learned again, a
song like that is called a contrafactum. See also
"sirventes" and "filk".

All this was quite common, in past history.
Songs were an important means for mobilising people,
and for political campaigning.
(given that most people couldn't read)

Everyone knew many of those.
When changing politics, or pushing a new cause,
or even just for propaganda purposes
it was much easier to use an old song with new words
than to get people to learn an entirely new song.

I read somewhere, long ago, in a book
by someone who had studied all this,
in the context of American politics.
It was an important part of presidential campaigns,

Jan