Options for making parody/satire songs?

S

Snagglegoof

New member
I couldn't help but write a few satire type songs. They just happened.? I couldn't keep them in.

So, what are my options for actually recording these things? I have a decent beginner setup. Mic, interface, computer, software. I'm a bit partial to Linux and foss so I'm using Audacity. But, I also have Tracktion, if that matters. I play/own: guitar, bass, uke and keybords, if that matters.

But, I'm not asking about gear. I don't expect to record these things professionally with a band or anything. I'd just like to get the songs out of my head and into the world in a way that makes them recognizable as a parody of satire of the original. The idea is what matters, not necessarily the quality of the recording. Though, it obviously I want it to sound good.

Oh, and it would be nice to be able to do it in a way that wouldn't ruffle any feathers or get it banned or taken down for copyright issues.

It would be fantastic if it were as easy as getting the karaoke versions and recording alternate lyrics. But, that seems too easy so I'm guessing that's not how it's done.

That's why I thought I'd ask you fine people. It seems like a complicated issue. Thanks for reading all this if you did.
 
You've got the recording equipment, so that part should be ok.

You might be able to find, purchase and download karaoke versions, import them into audacity, then record vocals on new tracks.

If not, you would have to find a chord chart and create your own backing with the instruments you have.

You may get away uploading a parody and 'fair use'.

Some info here:
Parody: Fair Use Or Copyright Infringement - FindLaw
 
Parody is one of those protected things, but you will get copyright claims, and possibly nasty cease and desist letters. In the UK in the 70s, we had a well known band who specialised in parody songs, all very funny and clever. By the 90s they were playing old rock and roll, as the grief and wariness of record companies made parody tricky. Bands were starting to control music. Some didn't want associating with products, or social themes, and others just didn't want anyone using their stuff. Some didn't want their music disassembled in school and college music courses and now of course YouTube and Spotify rule the world and while you can object to their decisions, they have the power. Promoting parody material is tricky too as distribution systems ask questions, and parody is not one of them, meaning you often have to pay to get distribution. Good idea, but very hard to promote.
 
Last edited:
gecko zzed said:
You've got the recording equipment, so that part should be ok.

You might be able to find, purchase and download karaoke versions, import them into audacity, then record vocals on new tracks.

If not, you would have to find a chord chart and create your own backing with the instruments you have.

You may get away uploading a parody and 'fair use'.

Some info here:
...
Click to expand...

Thanks. I searched for royalty free karaoke music and it seems to be limited to songs that are so obscure or old that they wouldn't be much use.

Then I found this. .... (I'm not allowed to post links yet apparently... Omg, had to remove the link in the quote to post)

Bummer. This guy says the only way is to recreate every part.
 
rob aylestone said:
Parody is one of those protected things, but you will get copyright claims, and possibly nasty cease and desist letters. In the UK in the 70s, we had a well known band who specialised in parody songs, all very funny and clever. By the 90s they were playing old rock and roll, as the grief and wariness of record companies made parody tricky. Bands were starting to control music. Some didn't want associating with products, or social themes, and others just didn't want anyone using their stuff. Some didn't want their music disassembled in school and college music courses and now of course YouTube and Spotify rule the world and while you can object to their decisions, they have the power. Promoting parody material is tricky too as distribution systems ask questions, and parody is not one of them, meaning you often have to pay to get distribution. Good idea, but very hard to promote.
Click to expand...

I read that satire songs went to the supreme court in the 90s and is protected as free speech. I can also see that our corporate overlords don't like it and do everything they can to stop it anyway.

I searched on "royalty free karaoke music" and it's so limited it's basically nonexistent.

For cover songs you definitely can't use karaoke music. The whole piece needs to be recreated. But, what about parody/satire?
I'm guessing it's the same since the companies are looking for any way to take it down.

Bummer. I wanted to get these ideas out and give people a laugh. People need a laugh lately.

But, even if I could hire a band, which I can't, the world's on lockdown.

What if I got the midi files and made cheezy synth versions?
 
Makes no difference, A dreadful MIDI creation by a musical incompetent, or one by a skilled performer/musician both get treated the same. You could use a karaoke track - just as wrong but different copyright reasons.

The way the system works is that the components of the track are not one single copyright. If you record the song in your own studio, then the composer's rights are still there. The lyricist's component has gone. The composer is still entitled to their rights if you use it. The parody exception in copyright law 9certainly here in the uk) has limits. How much can you borrow from the original without it becoming unreasonable. You would probably get away with a chorus from the song being parodied, but the entire thing would have to be determined by a court. The copyright owner may be able to afford to test it in court, but can you?
 
rob aylestone said:
Makes no difference, A dreadful MIDI creation by a musical incompetent, or one by a skilled performer/musician both get treated the same. You could use a karaoke track - just as wrong but different copyright reasons.

The way the system works is that the components of the track are not one single copyright. If you record the song in your own studio, then the composer's rights are still there. The lyricist's component has gone. The composer is still entitled to their rights if you use it. The parody exception in copyright law 9certainly here in the uk) has limits. How much can you borrow from the original without it becoming unreasonable. You would probably get away with a chorus from the song being parodied, but the entire thing would have to be determined by a court. The copyright owner may be able to afford to test it in court, but can you?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. I don't want to get sued over jokes. Is this website mostly for people in the UK? if so, whoops I'm I'm the wrong place. I'm more concerned with the laws in the US.

What if I don't care about making money from it? Will it still be taken down? They're not offensive, I don't think.

What if I do my own simplified version with an instrument or two and midi drum track and sing in a silly voice?

Is there anyone here that ever released a satire song?

I read that Weird Al gets permission from each artist first. But, he couldn't have for his first one. Maybe he got lucky?

And wait, there are people on youtube doing funny satire songs already. Huh
 
Copyright law in the US is just about as arcane and limiting as anywhere else.

The first thing you might do is look for covers and parodies that already exist on YouTube of the songs you want to parody. If they already exist, you *might* be able to get away with simply posting your own version and all that would likely happen is you get a copyright claim by the holder of the copyright so any and all ad revenue generated from that video would go to them. If there are copyright issues in other countries with redistribution, YouTube would do the blocking to prevent litigation.

Now, if there are no current covers (save perhaps ones done on professional CDs, e.g., Linda Ronstadt covering an Eagles song), then you can probably assume the copyright permissions are being strictly retained/managed/enforced, and you will get a copyright "strike" when you post your version. "3 strikes and you are out" is the rule on YouTube, i.e., if you persist in posting copyrighted material (that the owner has not decided to go the copyright claim route with YT), they will take down your channel permanently. Finding a different song to parody is probably a safer course here.

The existence of non-professional covers, but no parodies, is kind of an unknown area. It may be nobody ever tried to create one, and you might fall into the copyright-claim bucket, or it might be that the copyright owner would decide they did not want that to be done, and you will get a strike.

You can, of course, negotiate with the copyright holder to obtain (try to pay for) the permission to do a parody, but for reasons previously stated, it's pretty unlikely you would succeed (IMO).

P.S. I believe Facebook behaves somewhat similarly, i.e., covers generally get to slip by except for certain original works which simply are deleted pretty quickly. If you go some private distribution, or use SoundCloud or the like, there is probably some similar mechanism, but it's not as robust as YouTube's. You could get a cease & desist letter, though copyright infringement does have actual fines ($10,000 IIRC) if someone would want to make a point. So, I'd stick with stuff that looks like is being generally ignored, and is widely covered already.
 
There are two procedures here. YouTube have pretty rigid rules. Leyland sklaar the famous bass player does a video each day of him playing songs he has played on in his career. He gets really cross when his bass videos get pulled. He complains, but nothing happens. Phil Collins writes a song. Leland plays on it. When his cover is on YouTube Phil Collins doesn't have a problem but YouTube does. How the takedown gets triggered probably is linked to the number of plays. He does not have the record companies rights to use the song. However, for most people on YouTube, all that happens is the original owner claims your work and it is not taken down, and they get the ad revenue. Some works though must be registered as a takedown song. Copyright in the uk and us have very similar rules. Why don't you try one on YouTube and see how it works?
 
How about using well known but long dead composers? The cigar advert with Bach's Air on a G String comes to mind. Mozza's 40. You could put alternative lyrics to Lugwig's 9th.
You will have to play the backing of course or find copyright free material.

Dave.
 
It's very difficult with classical music. Should be easy as many as said, of the composers are dead, but the problem comes in the source material. I've been doing some work on a Vivaldi piece and he died a very long time ago. So the music I was using was ok. No, it wasn't. The sheet music I was using was an arrangement produced in 1953. A reduction of a bigger arrangement of the original. So this version is copyright unsafe. If you find a really awful MIDI arrangement you've no real way of telling who 'owns' it. Even worse, I use distrokids for my music distribution and you cannot get classical music onto iTunes because the ownership of old music is anything but cut and dried. The conductor changes written sheet music, so it gets modified subtly, or big time, and these stylistic changes are covered by the conductors copyright. It's horrible to manage!

Youtubes content system spots covers, karaoke versions and medleys. In most cases, all is well. Why not put up your backing track on YouTube for a couple of weeks and see if it gets taken down, or just claimed? If just claimed, it's safe to use for your parody. Most songs are safe, but you'd kick yourself for using one that has a takedown. Most rights holders opt for the collect money status on YouTube, but some prefer the ban.
 
rob aylestone said:
It's very difficult with classical music. Should be easy as many as said, of the composers are dead, but the problem comes in the source material. I've been doing some work on a Vivaldi piece and he died a very long time ago. So the music I was using was ok. No, it wasn't. The sheet music I was using was an arrangement produced in 1953. A reduction of a bigger arrangement of the original. So this version is copyright unsafe. If you find a really awful MIDI arrangement you've no real way of telling who 'owns' it. Even worse, I use distrokids for my music distribution and you cannot get classical music onto iTunes because the ownership of old music is anything but cut and dried. The conductor changes written sheet music, so it gets modified subtly, or big time, and these stylistic changes are covered by the conductors copyright. It's horrible to manage!

Youtubes content system spots covers, karaoke versions and medleys. In most cases, all is well. Why not put up your backing track on YouTube for a couple of weeks and see if it gets taken down, or just claimed? If just claimed, it's safe to use for your parody. Most songs are safe, but you'd kick yourself for using one that has a takedown. Most rights holders opt for the collect money status on YouTube, but some prefer the ban.
Click to expand...

Oooer! Did not think of that Rob. Thanks, son is working on some Bach transcriptions, learning them on classical guitar. I had better warn him not to post them anywhere?

Can I ask? If you take something as well known as 'The Air' say would it not be very hard for anyone to claim it was THEIR version of the score that was used?

I agree it can get sticky! Anyone here old enough to remember Tomita's synth version of The Planets? He and the record Co thought they were safe but noooo! Imogen Holst did not like it ONE BIT and had it stopped. Must have cost the Co a few bob!
(I should have a bandit cassette somewhere....)

Dave.
 
I quite like Tomita - and have never heard this one. If you look at sheet music, most of it has copyright warnings - EVEN - the scores they sell to choirs. They effectively ban public performances, which is exactly why the choir bought them. I have a sing-along collection, and they supply a CD and the top line for singers, and then slip in the non-public performance or recording clause!

I think frankly it's just a crafty move for most publishers. They know what people buy them for, so if one suddenly goes mad, world-wide and sells millions, they can cough gently and hold their hand out.

One of the classical piece I've worked on recently was causing me some grief, so I collected as many MIDI versions as I could find on the net, and discovered that the good ones were all different, and Oxford University had re-written many of them not that long ago to make them a little more accessible, and they hold the arrangement rights to very old Baroque pieces.

My favourite tale was an educational job, where students had to break down popular recordings and recreate them. Many big names were very happy for this to happen, and a few were absolutely against. One was close to being dropped -a well known Lionel Richie track, and we had some objections from the string arranger in London. by sheer luck, a friend of a friend of a friend whom knew the situation was in his record company's office when Mr Richie was - and he thought it a great idea, but was confused by the copyright issue. It turned out the arranger had been paid a fee, and had no claim whatsoever, so to keep the record company happy they charged $10, and everyone was happy. I remember it so well because of the number of simply dreadful guitar solos I had to listen to.

If you read the sheet music agreements, sometimes even bans on key changes pop up. amateur organisations doing things like les Mis can even get visits from musicians equipped with their own music, and any 'illegal' key changes and even cuts can get them into hot water. The whole rights thing is now getting a bit silly.
 
Why not go to Songfile and get the rights to cover the song? Then the lyricist would be getting paid even if you're not using their words. Post audio only to avoid having to deal with sync rights.
 
So, let me get this straight Rob? Say son found a Bach piece in the original score for say cello that had never been transcribed for guitar fingering and he did that. Is he still in trouble if he posts that music on YT?

And if so, who with?

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
So, let me get this straight Rob? Say son found a Bach piece in the original score for say cello that had never been transcribed for guitar fingering and he did that. Is he still in trouble if he posts that music on YT?

And if so, who with?

Dave.
Click to expand...
Well, you didn't ask me, and I can't speak for the UK or anywhere else, but..

Bach's compositions have certainly passed into the public domain at this point, so if he's working from urtext I doubt there's a copyright in existence that would have legal force. Doesn't mean someone can't make a claim, though.

I had a couple claims from some South American company over a performance by a bunch of high school kids 10 years ago - different movements of some string quartets. I assume they pop up when the performance matches "close enough" in YT's automatic scanning and whoever has already asserted a claim gets notified. They just slap it on and you are stuck with it unless you have time to contest. (Though neither were "strikes" I did contest them just to see what would happen - they got removed.)
 
Another odd thought that occurred to me: It seems that local radio stations get away with doing these satire and parody songs; I even did one or two 'way back in the cassette days and heard them played two or three times on a local 50s/60s/ rock station. In the days of the "congressional rubber check scandal," I wrote words to the song "Red Rubber Ball." But I think the two "secrets" here are: firstly, that those radio stations usually have a BUNDLE of money behind them; and secondly, that the parody song about a current news item is likely to be heard for only a few days - not much past the time the item is no longer in the news. I doubt that I would do much with parody songs based on any copyrighted material because we now live in a "sue-happy age!" When I wrote a lyric recently concerning the Woohon Virus, I made sure to use one of those "old standard country/rock generic chord progressions" rather than set the lyric to a current tune. In short, I'd say that we have to be careful these days; what I might consider "fair use" might be deemed "copyright infringement" by one of the "big boys" in some music company's legal department - and I wouldn't want to go up against them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top