The Steel Guitar Forum

<SMALL> But I get pretty weary when people minimize the level of creativity, inspiration, fanatical dedication, and genius that accompanies great science and engineering.</SMALL>

Relax Dave, I don't think that anyone here can refute the idea that writing a song is a pretty simplistic affair. It doesn't take a lot of brains to string notes and words together. Does anyone here think that Willie Nelson puts the effort into a song that, say, Bill Hankey put into one of his inventions? Of course not! The image that has been related here about some songwriter slaving and suffering for 20 years to get a "perfect" song is a little ludicrous, to say the least. Let's face reality, folks, there's some real turkeys that made <u>big</u> hits, and there's also some wonderful songs that failed to ever make the charts. That is enough to prove that writing a "hit song" is more luck than anything. ("Getting" a hit song today is more a metter of who you know, but I won't go into that, now.)

Indeed, one of the the very essences in the difference between copyright law and inventive law is that an invention (to be patented) must be proved to be useful, it must be good for something. A song or musical work, on the other hand, as a work of art, doesn't have to appeal to anyone. That's right folks...you can write the worst song in the world, one that absolutely no one likes, and the government will enact laws to help you protect it as if it was our "National Anthem".

Wait a minute! "The Star Spangled Banner" <u>isn't</u> copyrighted, is it?

Holy cow!

Quick! Change the laws! Someone might steal it!

Yes friends, Francis Scott Key wrote what may be the most significant, often heard, and meaningful song in our American history, and never once did I hear about him bitchin' and complainin' that someone else might perform it without him gettin' his "percentage".

<font size=5>And...

</font> Guess what his profession was...?

That's right, dear reader.


He was...

in occupation...

known to all as...


a lawyer!

As Paul Harvey might say..."And now you know the rest of the story."

<font size=1>(This little bit of "tongue-in-cheek" was fun! Maybe I should copyright it?)</font><font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 28 August 2005 at 06:13 AM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>The image that has been related here about some songwriter slaving and suffering for 20 years to get a "perfect" song is a little ludicrous</SMALL>

not sure if you're referring to my analogy or not, but if so, think again, because that's not what I said.

<SMALL>Let's face reality, folks, there's some real turkeys that made big hits, and there's also some wonderful songs that failed to ever make the charts. That is enough to prove that writing a "hit song" is more luck than anything. ("Getting" a hit song today is more a metter of who you know, but I won't go into that, now.)</SMALL>

I would generally tend to agree with that statement.

<SMALL>Indeed, one of the the very essences in the difference between copyright law and inventive law is that an invention (to be patented) must be proved to be useful, it must be good for something. A song or musical work, on the other hand, as a work of art, doesn't have to appeal to anyone.</SMALL>

I would agree again.

<SMALL>That's right folks...you can write the worst song in the world, one that absolutely no one likes, and the government will enact laws to help you protect it as if it was our "National Anthem".</SMALL>

I would agree yet again. And also, I would point out that you can build the worst-looking house in the world, one that absolutely no one likes, and the government will stand behind your ownership rights in that house.

<SMALL>Wait a minute! "The Star Spangled Banner" isn't copyrighted, is it?</SMALL>

Well, seeing as how the song was written in 1812 or thereabouts, and seeing as how the author passed away in the 1840's, and seeing how all copyright protection is for a limited term, I would say, "yep, the Star Spangled Banner is no longer covered by copyright protection because the copyright expired long ago, just like all copyrights expire."

Perhaps that's why the song wasn't formally adopted as our national anthem until the 1930's.(?)

<SMALL>Yes friends, Francis Scott Key wrote what may be the most significant, often heard, and meaningful song in our American history, and never once did I hear about him bitchin' and complainin' that someone else might perform it without him gettin' his "percentage".</SMALL>

Well, now -- I can't agree or disagree with you on this one. You see, I never knew Francis Scott Key, nor was I alive when he was alive, so I never heard him say anything about anything.

<SMALL>He was...a lawyer!</SMALL>

Thank goodness for lawyers!!

Now you know the real rest of the story.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 28 August 2005 at 01:13 PM.]</p></FONT>

Actually Francis Scott Key only wrote the Lyrics. The tune was ripped off from a song called "To Anacreon in Heaven". So it couldn't be copywrited, since it wasn't his to copywrite.

And it seems to me it was also commonly used for an old Irish Drinking Song...

Hmmm.

I'll have anoother...



EJL

<SMALL>Actually Francis Scott Key only wrote the Lyrics. The tune was ripped off from a song called "To Anacreon in Heaven". So it couldn't be copywrited, since it wasn't his to copywrite.</SMALL>

There are lots of songs that that are basically old tunes with new lyrics. That doesn't mean the lyrics aren't protected under copyright law.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 28 August 2005 at 05:44 PM.]</p></FONT>

Actually, Key wrote the words to the "Star Spangled Banner" as a poem and I doubt that he ever envisioned that the poem would be set to music. In any case, as I've said, copyright protection is automatic. So, as soon as Key finished writing the poem, it was automatically covered under the copyright laws, just like all works are.

After Key's poem was widely published in various newspapers across the country, people started singing it to a well known tune.

Regardless of how the poem ended up becoming a song, Key's work was protected under copyright law. <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 28 August 2005 at 05:56 PM.]</p></FONT>

Three songs that I can think of off the top of my head that are basically new lyrics written over an old tune are:

Honky Tonk Angels set to the tune of Great Speckled Bird;

Chuck Berry's Promised Land set to the tune of Wabash Canonball; and,

The Beach Boys' Surfin' USA set to the tune of Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen.

Each set of lyrics is covered under copyright law. I'm sure there are many other examples, but I can't think of them right off the top of my head.

PS -- oh, how about George Harrison's My Sweet Lord set to the music of He's So Fine? Yep, the tune was ruled infringement, but I believe the lyrics are still covered under copyright.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 28 August 2005 at 06:29 PM.]</p></FONT>

After finding out what happened to recordlady and reading all the posts. I'm a crimminal. I have copied from radio, juke boxes, tv, live shows and have quite a collection of 78's, 45's, and 33's. Can't play them for anyone, copy any of the songs for anyone, sing them to anyone (even without compensation). I don't know with all the material I bought for Hawaiian music, bluegrass, country and pop, jass and the rest. Don't dare set fire to it because there must be a law against that too. Just my point of view from what I've read