At 10:51 AM -0400 6/24/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: > >It is not true that "only lyrics and melodies are copyrightable," >nor was this true in Berlin's day. A chord in and of itself is >indeed not copyrightable, nor is a chord progression that is not >part of a piece. The same is true of any other aspect of music held >in isolation. A tone row, for example, is not copyrightable (or >rather, any copyright in it does not extend to music created using >that row)--but a melody comprised of those same 12 notes is.
The melody in isolation is copyrightable, as is any recognizable part of it, and the same applies to the lyrics. They are even separately copyrightable. This standard does not apply to other, perhaps even more recognizable, aspeccts of a piece. > >If I write a piece of music, then my copyright in that piece applies >to all aspects of it, and if somebody creates a new melody to use >with my original chords, they must obtain permission before making >use of the combination. Consider a jazz performance of a >tin-pan-alley "standard." The original melody may never be heard at >all, but if (as would normally be the case) I call the thing by its >original title, and use the original chord progression, it counts as >a performance of the original song, and a royalty is collected by >ASCAP or BMI. However, if you change the title of your performance and nothing else, then it is a new work, and YOU get to collect the royalty. The trick is if you identify it as being an Irving Berlin tune, then you are marketing and selling it based on Berlin's name and fame, and he gets the royalty. If I wrote new chords to White Christmas, then improvised over it on record, there would be NO aspect of the tune that was Berlin's, yet he would STILL collect the royalties if I called it White Christmas. But even an astute businessman as Berlin would not be successful in suing me if I composed a new melody over one of his chord progressions and gave it a new title. "Donna Lee" was composed over "Indiana", "Hothouse" was composed over "What is this thing called love" and many other examples. Bo Diddley tried to copyright his distinctive beat and failed. Many have tried to copyright titles and chord progressions and failed. But the act of identifying a tune as an existing one, even if NOTHING is the same, is an infringement. The same standard does not apply to melodies and lyrics, where infringement exists even in the case of accidental similarities. > >Be all which as it may, however, I do not think, based on what I >have read, that Berlin needed anybody to compose chords for him. He >played everything on his famous transposing keyboard, and the >amanuensis simply took down what was played. Doubtless he couldn't >*name* many of the chords, or describe their function, but that's no >reason at all why he couldn't play them. And why would F# major be >an advantage to play in if one were only picking out tunes? If >you're not playing chords, then it would make more sense to stick >to just the white keys, rather than the black ones. Well, he DID play chords, only very elementary ones. I rely on Alec Wilder's reports of him mostly using I, IV and V chords to play some of his most sophisticated tunes. Berlin is not the only one to start piano on black keys. My six year old son started out piano lessons on only black keys, my father played "Derby Town" in F# (the only tune he could play) and taught it to me that way when I was about eight. It reduces the chances of hitting the keys on either side of the correct one if you are not very accomplished. Plus the hand position and fingering is most comfortable in F#. christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
