by Gary Powell
Copyright law regarding songwriting is written in a way which upsets the balance of musicianship and credentials. You, as a songwriter can be easily compromised by the law lending support for all kinds of pretenders to lay claim to the intellectual property they had little or nothing to do with. For example, a song has three major components: the melody, the lyrics, and the chords under the melody. Chord structure is musically understood as the harmonization of the melody. For every one melody note, there are two handfuls of notes giving the melody its meaning and place. Thus, a melody and lyric can be masterfully harmonized any number of ways to broadly effect their color and tone. In that regard, harmonization plays a compositional role that melody and lyrics cannot alone achieve. Yet, the United States Copyright Office only recognizes melody and lyrics as official parts of a song. Really? That’s right! All those years spent in the study of music theory can be cast off just that easily with one bad law. And whom does this oversight favor? Thanks to the copyright office having been taken hostage, just humming a little ditty with a lyric like “Happy birthday to you” is all it takes to lay legal claim to being a songwriter or even a composer. This favors anyone who has ever hummed a tune, which for the good and the bad of it, is all of us. Professionally, however, composers disaffectionately call these people hummers.
“…one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does creators.” – History of Copyright Law, Wikipedia
In the meantime, answer this question before you start hijacking the credit you don’t deserve: If left alone with only a piano and staff paper, would you be able to deliver a musical composition ready to be played by an orchestra waiting for their parts in the rehearsal hall next door? If not, then you’ll need a team of lost-voices or some very cleverly designed music-making software – of which there is plenty to choose from. But remember, if you can hum or even be in the room when someone else is humming, the the law is on your side. So, what happened to the music itself after the adoption of these copyright laws? Turn on the television or radio and listen, and you’ll immediately know.
Next I’ll be writing about how we are unwittingly supporting a system which progressively lowers the bar for the arts and ultimately in society.
Helpful? Then Copy, Paste and Tweet It:
How Copyright Law Effects Creativity for Songwriters. http://tinyurl.com/7pn5qq
To Learn More, Please Consider These Reference Links:
The Mechanical Elements of a Song
Library of Congress: History’s Wordsmiths
All Content of Gary Powell’s Site is Licensed Under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License
.
by Gary Powell
Copyright law regarding songwriting is written in a way which upsets the balance of musicianship and credentials. You, as a songwriter can be easily compromised by the law lending support for all kinds of pretenders to lay claim to the intellectual property they had little or nothing to do with. For example, a song has three major components: the melody, the lyrics, and the chords under the melody. Chord structure is musically understood as the harmonization of the melody. For every one melody note, there are two handfuls of notes giving the melody its meaning and place. Thus, a melody and lyric can be masterfully harmonized any number of ways to broadly effect their color and tone. In that regard, harmonization plays a compositional role that melody and lyrics cannot alone achieve. Yet, the United States Copyright Office only recognizes melody and lyrics as official parts of a song. Really? That’s right! All those years spent in the study of music theory can be cast off just that easily with one bad law. And whom does this oversight favor? Thanks to the copyright office having been taken hostage, just humming a little ditty with a lyric like “Happy birthday to you” is all it takes to lay legal claim to being a songwriter or even a composer. This favors anyone who has ever hummed a tune, which for the good and the bad of it, is all of us. Professionally, however, composers disaffectionately call these people hummers.
“…one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does creators.” – History of Copyright Law, Wikipedia
In the meantime, answer this question before you start hijacking the credit you don’t deserve: If left alone with only a piano and staff paper, would you be able to deliver a musical composition ready to be played by an orchestra waiting for their parts in the rehearsal hall next door? If not, then you’ll need a team of lost-voices or some very cleverly designed music-making software – of which there is plenty to choose from. But remember, if you can hum or even be in the room when someone else is humming, the the law is on your side. So, what happened to the music itself after the adoption of these copyright laws? Turn on the television or radio and listen, and you’ll immediately know.
Next I’ll be writing about how we are unwittingly supporting a system which progressively lowers the bar for the arts and ultimately in society.
Helpful? Then Copy, Paste and Tweet It:
How Copyright Law Effects Creativity for Songwriters. http://tinyurl.com/7pn5qq
To Learn More, Please Consider These Reference Links:
The Mechanical Elements of a Song
Library of Congress: History’s Wordsmiths
All Content of Gary Powell’s Site is Licensed Under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License
.
So then, if harmonic structure can be copyrighted, who owns La Bamba or Twist and Shout or the 12 gazillion blues albums? I think the law is correct. Same tune and lyrics harmonized with the Mel Bay basics or with the Bill Evans mastery is still the same tune. Sung by itself, the melody does (to a degree) dictate the harmony. If you hummed a tune, someone COULD provide a harmonic backdrop. The tune would be recognizable regardless of the harmonic chassis (even if one doesn’t officially exist). The same probably isn’t true in the reverse. If you played a harmonic progression to 10 listeners, I’ll bet you would get 10 different melodies that corresponded (and it’s possible/probable that NONE of them were the intended.
Hello Professor,
Gosh, I wish I’d read this blog post before I wrote my paper on copyright law. It would have been useful!
I do find it odd and unfair that chord progressions are not protected under copyright law. As a jazz major, I write a lot of very unique and interesting chord progressions when I compose, and I would be devastated if someone else stole them. By passing this law, it seems as though the Copyright Office is throwing up its hands and saying “There’s only so many chord progressions out there – we’re bound to reuse some eventually.” While this may be true, that number is so unbelievably high that composers may never reach it. And that same argument could be used for melodies and lyrics. There’s only so many words and word combinations or notes and note combinations in the world, right?
On the other hand, I assume you are familiar with the “Rhythm Changes” chord progression, based off of Gershwin’s “I Got Rhythm,” and the famous 12-bar blues form? These chord progressions have been constantly reused with new melodies written over them for decades since they were originally written. I would dare say that we would not have jazz without them. It would be a shame if someone suddenly decided that they own those chord progressions and no one else would be allowed to use them any more. Even composers as recent as Pat Metheny are still using these progressions in their music. Furthermore, I just don’t believe that Blue Monk and Straight No Chaser are the same tune.
It’s hard to take a side on this. When I turn on the radio and listen to mainstream music (that one time every 12 years or so..) I hear several songs with the exact same chord progressions. Sometimes, even the same melodies. I often get several similar-sounding songs confused! To me, it just seems like lazy writing; one of the many reasons I do not listen to mainstream music.
On a completely unrelated note – have you heard of the Four Chords Game? We should play it in class some time!
Megan Provost
This is a really tough one… on one hand, I agree with the points you’re making here Gary. On the other, if someone had claimed exclusive rights to the I-IV-V years and years ago, would we have the blues and rock and roll as we know it? The same goes for the ii-V-I and jazz.
Gary,
I agree with the two comments below. Copyrighting harmony, chord progressions, and sequences of notes would restrict creativity and the possibility for new innovations.
Well, i do agreed with you… that melody and lyric alone are not enough, that the harmonization of the melody with the chord structure is certainly what adds the full aspect of the song, however copywriting that is tricky. I think about all the blues bands that use the same chord progression over and over again, that easy blues progression was copywriting we would rid the world of so many great heartfelt songs using that same progression. I think that to a certain extent chords should be included in the law, however where to dray the line (i.e. in blues music) can be very tricky and I think its smart to leave the law more open ended rather than more closed. Not to mention chord progressions have been used over and over again all throughout history and i think the main defining quality of a song compared to another’s is of course the thing that sticks out most and is the leading voice…. the melody. I just don’t see how the law can handle it in any other way just for the sake of fairness.
Sorry typo:
If that blues progression was copywrited*
Though it can make for some very boring music, I think copyright laws should leave chord progressions alone. Typically the people who are stealing everyone else’s progressions, aren’t really on the forefront of harmonic creativity anyway…
I totally understand your sentiment. At least, I understand why one might be angry that harmonization generally tends to get cast aside in terms of intellectual property law, but as a Jazz musician, I play tunes with the same chord progressions literally everyday. Bebop as a genre wouldn’t exist without borrowing the chord progressions from older Broadway standards. In fact, one might make the point that jazz itself wouldn’t exist without said borrowing. In that case, one part of me is reluctant to take claim over the harmonizations I come up with.
Hey Gary,
I agree that chord progressions are a crucial part of a song and that it’s unfortunate that they can be hijacked so easily. However, I am not sure that copywriting them would be the correct course of action. Creativity is a major aspect of music and if someone has a brilliant idea on how to rework a chord progression to completely change the feel of a song, then they should be allowed to. Copywriting chord progressions would limit this possibility of musical creativity and could potentially harm music more than help it. If you create an awesome chord progression all by yourself, how are you supposed to know that it hasn’t already been used before? In regards to mainstream music, they are just extremely lazy like Megan said. They could change it up and be more creative, but they stick to what they know works. They are not in music to be brilliant, they are in music to make money.
Personally, I agree with the copyright law as i stands. Yes, many pop songs use similar chord progressions, but it is the elements such as tone, lyrics, mood, etc, that give songs a different flavor. I feel that copyrighting chord progressions would be like copyrighting themes in stories. No one can use a I IV V progression translates to no one can right another love story. It would severely limit options when writing. I think the most important thing is the nuances and what you do with the chord progression. If you think about it, almost every pop song in the last hundred years is the same story told in slightly different ways, which is how chord progressions also work. It is the slight twists that make songs interesting.
Compare U2’s With or Without You to Lady Gaga’s Poker Face, and you get basically the same chords. However it is obvious within the first 5 seconds that the songs are different in every way possible, from the timbre to the lyrics. To copyright one version of these chords and deny the other the right to use them would be a detriment to the creation of music in general.
I agree. If you Copyright Chord progressions, It would open a Pandora’s box of lawsuits. Lyrics and Melody have an infinite number of permutations therefore, should be copyrighted.
I don’t believe anyone can own any set of frequencies sounding over a specific amount of time, which is essentially what any song is. Laying claim on something like music is like laying claim to the land: your ownership is fictitious and will not stand the tests of time.