# copying composers



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

I cannot seem to get logged in. I shall try the back door and see if that works. I have a question.

What are the rules about a composer taking a phrase (or phrases) from another composer's work and incorporating it into his own composition? Sometimes, when listening to music I hear parts that are quite familiar because they came from an older piece.

More narrowly, what are the rules about taking a composer's composition, putting words to it and selling it as one's own? We see a lot of this in films but an older example is "Greensleeves" which has other titles and different songs sung to that same tune. Someone told me that "Sweet Molly Malone" has also been used with different songs. 

Then, I have a very old song book with many compositions where words and music were written by someone in Britain to which we in America sing different words. "God Save the King" is one. "Men of Harlech is another. 

Is there any control over one composer (or poet) using another composer's works like this?

Hazel


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The only rule is _don't do it_ if the quoted work is still under copyright, but this will only come into play if your work is commercially successful and the original composer or their estate feel they are entitled to some of the profit. For example, the Rachmaninoff estate threatened to sue Eric Carmen for his song "All By Myself" because he failed to give Rachmaninoff credit for quoting his Second Piano Concerto (he didn't know it was still under copyright). Works are generally under copyright until 70 years after the composer's death (although this varies country to country). If the work is no longer under copyright (ie. anything by Beethoven), feel free to do whatever you wish with it.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

They didn't have the legal system back then, that we do now. Borrowing within reason is accepted. Poulenc had fun with this topic, and composed with compliments to composers...his Concerto for Two Pianos. A suggested recording...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

In the Baroque period, and very likely before, 'borrowing' was common. Looks like it was mostly considered a compliment by both borrower and originator (if the latter were still around). After the guvmint got involved, things got complicated. No surprise there, eh?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, in centuries past, it was kind of an honour to have your work copied by another composer, particularly if the composer copying had some sort of reputation. Eg. Beethoven did this often, eg. the finale of his _Piano Trio No. 4_ is a set of variations on a comic opera tune by contemporary composer Weigl. I'm sure Weigl didn't mind, after all Beethoven was the titan of the age, and (as they say) any publicity is good publicity. Today, things are very different, at least in the Western world. There was a well publicised case a few years ago in front of the US Federal Court concerning a riff from the song "Down Under" by the UK band Men at Work. It was alleged that that that part of the song directly copied a substantial part of the "Kookaburra" song by an Australian composer, who wrote it in 1935 and died in 1988. Larrakin Music, who owned the original copyright to the old song, sued Men at Work, and won. Men at Work had to pay part of the royalties they earned from the song back to Larrakin. The wikipedia article is below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Under_(song)

However, I'm pretty sure that in non-Western cultures, what we call to be plagiarism is still thought of as a kind of homage to the original creator of a work. The reason I think this is because for example many overseas students who come here to study in Australia at tertiary level, think that plagiarising from an original source is okay (& almost encouraged) as it is in their own cultures. But now they are told, as they have been for a number of years, that in our university system plagiarising of any sort is a big no-no...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Fair Use laws allow for a broad range of artistic copying. As long as it isnt obvious plagiarism. 

For example, Berio's Sinfonia is basically the Scherzo of Mahler's 2nd interspersed with other musical quotations. This sort of collaging is allowed.
Talking about things like Greensleeves, these are folk tunes with no real author. Composers often took folk tunes as the basis for a set of variations. Composers often take melodies from other composers as a basis for variations too. This should be fine.
Other composer simply quote fragments from another's work in order to reference, draw attention to, or tribute the composer.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Thanks to all of you for your answers. Some I understand - folk tunes with no known author. I've read that composers took it as a compliment when another composer copied their work. I suppose, if credit was given, but I can see that turning a composition into a folk tune. "Everybody does it" sort of thing. And what you hear is "written by so-and-so" when it should say "words by; music by". I had wondered if the "70 years after death" law applied to music. That sounds good. Composing is hard work. One should have some protection.

So, evidently what it boils down to is that, before copyright laws, it was considered a compliment to copy from other composers (which I do not understand) but now copyright laws recognize that composing music is hard work and deserves its recompense. Plagiarism is wrong, wherever and whatever.

"Kooka Burra" - one of my favourites. I never knew its history. So it is not a folk tune? I did hear about the law suit. It brought back memories of singing Kooka Burra sitting in the old oak tree. We had a lot of fun with that song. 


Thanks again.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Oops! Kooka Burra sits in the old .................gum(?) tree?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hazel said:


> Oops! Kooka Burra sits in the old .................gum(?) tree?


Eucalyptus might be be difficult to rhyme?


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Eucalyptus might be be difficult to rhyme?


Right. I think it is "gum tree". Don't know why I said "oak". Maybe because we are so surrounded by oak trees here.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Here are two tunes. One is a remix of a Xenakis piece, the other a reworking of a Michael Jackson song. Guess which one was ordered by the Canadian Recording Industry Association to cease distribution.

WARNING: THIS IS A LOUD VIDEO










This contains an excerpt of Wagner's 'Parsifal':






Led Zeppelin managed to get away with pilfering a few exact tunes, e.g. Dazed and Confused.






Normally, you can 'use' any piece of music in your own work as long as you give credit to the original creator, unless it's a folk tune where the origin is unknown. Hip-hop is mostly based on samples and the producers need to know what constitutes plagiarism and what is acceptable. See Danger Mouse's 'Grey Album' for an example.

I'm not that in with copyright laws, but I think it's something like 10 notes of a melody being exactly the same constitutes plagiarism. There was a recent Joe Satriani vs Coldplay case where aparrantly the boring indie popsters lifted the main hook in their 'Viva La Vida' from the boring shred guitarist.

There's also the famous instance of Richard Ashcroft having to give full songwriting credits, meaning 100% of royalties, to Jagger and Richards after lifting the string part from Andrew Loog Oldham's version of 'The Last Time'.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

I could be wrong here but this is my understanding of how things generally work in the pop recording industry.

You can do a complete cover or use parts of another artists work as long as it is a new performance (not a sample) and the original songwriter is credited and receives royalties. It is generally considered good form to ask permission first, though not always required.

A direct sample of another artists recording requires BOTH permission AND credit/royalties or you WILL be sued. Queen sued Vanilla Ice for this on "Ice Ice Baby."

I remember seeing a great interview with Weird Al about this sort of thing after the minor controversy of his "Amish Paradise." Apparently the original artist claimed that Weird Al did not have permission to do the song. Weird Al stated that he ALWAYS asked permission to do his songs, despite the fact that legally, it was not required. Coolio just went back on his permission for "street cred" and publicity. But then, in the case of Weird Al, this may fall under some sort of satire law or something.


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver (Apr 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> In the Baroque period, and very likely before, 'borrowing' was common. Looks like it was mostly considered a compliment by both borrower and originator (if the latter were still around).


Yeah. I like how Mozart borrowed from Clementi despite considering him a "charlatan." That passage should've imprinted itself in his mind


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Fair Use laws allow for a broad range of artistic copying. As long as it isnt obvious plagiarism.
> 
> For example, Berio's Sinfonia is basically the Scherzo of Mahler's 2nd interspersed with other musical quotations. This sort of collaging is allowed.
> Talking about things like Greensleeves, these are folk tunes with no real author. Composers often took folk tunes as the basis for a set of variations. Composers often take melodies from other composers as a basis for variations too. This should be fine.
> Other composer simply quote fragments from another's work in order to reference, draw attention to, or tribute the composer.


Well, all of the works Berio used in Sinfonia, from what I remember, would still be considered PD - Debussy's _La Mer_, Mahler's 2nd, Berg's _Wozzeck_, and Hindemith (can't remember the piece.) I'm pretty sure they're all under PD.

This is definitely an interesting topic. I'm not sure about what could be considered copyright infringement or not. If you really want to be sly, you can include it and manipulate it beyond a point where it's recognizable - and if someone catches on, you can pull the Geroge Crumb card and say "I was just choosing random notes. There's no meaning behind my notes I write." (Which if any of you know Crumb's music is a bunch of CROCK!)


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

There are composers even today (though they are exceptions) who view other people incorporating their music as a compliment. Steve Reich encourages young electronic music artists to sample his music, and they do.



emiellucifuge said:


> Fair Use laws allow for a broad range of artistic copying. As long as it isnt obvious plagiarism.
> 
> For example, Berio's Sinfonia is basically the Scherzo of Mahler's 2nd interspersed with other musical quotations. This sort of collaging is allowed.


Last spring, a couple friends and I sat down with a score and a recording and went quotation-hunting in the Berio Sinfonia. It was fun.


----------

