When can one rename a tune?

[FatBear]

Anyone who knows of my pathetic skills will be surprised at this question...

About a year ago I stumbled across a guy doing a very nice solo rendition of Kentucky Waltz. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYJa_VfgGXY) I get songs stuck in my head; not just simple earworms, there is always one playing. I usually hear the exact recording that I heard the first time. Over and over. So at first when KW got stuck in my head I thought it would get annoying. I also figured it would go away eventually, to be replaced with another. But it did neither. Instead the very nice rendition morphed into something quite different.

After a while I decided to try and learn the song. I downloaded the music from somewhere but it never sounded right. It kept conflicting with the version playing in my head. So I gave up and sat down one day while my wife was gone and struggled to learn to play the version in my head. It turned out quite nice to my ears, but also quite different from the standard. It does have some parts of the standard version in it, some similar to other parts, etc. It's only instrumental - mandolin - I do not sing.

Now my wife is from Kentucky. Her dad used to call her Janie, so I started calling my version Janie's Waltz. And that's why my question. How much can you change it and still have the same song, how much do you have to change it to make it a different song? Etc. Some traditional tunes have many names, some classical composers borrow traditional songs and work them into their own work with their own names.

I'm not a professional performer and am not going to sell it or anything so copyright is not an issue. I'm just curious. I also don't record youtubes, so I probably won't be playing it for you to judge. It's really kind of a philosophical question I'm asking.

[objectsession]

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal to use a new name as long as you'd mention the proper the attribution if you were ever to release it (in any form) or perform it (assuming you even get a chance to say the name). To me, it would only be offensive if you act like you came up with it yourself. And obviously you're not doing that.

[journeybear]

There are a lot of tunes that sound similar to others. There are a lot of tunes with the same name but are different. There are a lot of tunes that have more than one name. (These last two conditions appeared in the recent thread about "Tam Lin." Given these variables, I think you're off the hook. It would be different if you were to intentionally change a note or two or a few and then try to pass it off as your own - but that's not the case here. That is, there is no intention to defraud. I also think the brownie points you're going to get from your wife for naming a tune for her far outweigh any downside that I can see.

I am a little fuzzy on the facts here, but I beleve the gist is correct. I heard Randy Newman tell the story of how his uncle Lionel, a big deal in the music department at 20th Century Fox, wrote the company's theme, the one that plays before all their movies. This is a really big deal in Hollywood. Something happened years later - maybe there was a falling out - and someone at Fox changed the theme just slightly so his authorship was no longer valid. If someone knows how this story actually goes and can tell it better, please do! Anyway, I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in cases like these, proving authorship and plagiarism, but it's smaller than one might think.

[k0k0peli]

Some years ago I wrote a batch of songs based on tarot cards (major arcana mostly) with original lyrics based on tarot concepts and tunes *inspired by* but *differing from* more-or-less traditional English and Celtic songs. I think the best is THE PATH which I drew from THE SALLY GARDENS. They start with the same three notes at the same pace but then diverge in chords and melody. I often play them together. Their commonality is evident but so is their difference.

If you play KENTUCKY WALTZ and JANIE'S WALTZ together and others can distinguish them, then they're different songs IMHO. Renaming variants is an old practice in jazz. I think of 'Bird' Parker's fast bebop take on CHEROKEE that he called KO-KO -- same chords (harmonic structure) but vastly different melodically. Listen to the differences.

There's a saying: Good artists borrow, great artists steal. If you steal something and make it your own artistically, it is yours.

[foldedpath]

My $.02... the only thing that matters is whether you've altered the original tune enough that someone steeped in the tradition of the genre you're playing recognizes the source material, or not. These tunes can drift quite a bit, according to local practice and handed-down-ness, and still be recognizable to people who live with the music.

If a person like that says "Hey, isn't that the Kentucky Waltz?" or they say "Hmmm... that reminds me of the Kentucky Waltz," then I wouldn't rename it.

If they just say "Hey, that's a cool waltz! Never heard that one before," then you're on safer ground. So to a certain extent, it depend on outside validation (IMO).

Speaking for myself, I would only give a tune a new, original name if I was pretty darned sure it was something that wouldn't be confused with something else. All the best tunes out there -- the ones we're able to call by name here -- meet that qualification. Anything else is a variation or different setting of a known tune.

Just my opinion.

[FatBear]

There are a lot of tunes that sound similar to others. There are a lot of tunes with the same name but are different. There are a lot of tunes that have more than one name. (These last two conditions appeared in the recent thread about "Tam Lin." Given these variables, I think you're off the hook.

This is kind of what I was hoping.

I also think the brownie points you're going to get from your wife for naming a tune for her far outweigh any downside that I can see.

Very true! My sainted wife has put up with a lot during the four year illness that I hopefully am just getting over. Things like this put a little joy in her life.[/QUOTE]

My $.02... the only thing that matters is whether you've altered the original tune enough that someone steeped in the tradition of the genre you're playing recognizes the source material, or not.

So this implies that it is impossible to modify it enough. To change it totally is to write a new song. There are phrases of the original in my version, but some of my own stuff and all mixed up differently from the original. I think a bluegrass aficionado would recognize it as such. They certainly could not sing along with it if they new the words.

Part of the reason I asked this is that I am a very honest person and would be utterly and completely mortified if accused of plagiarism. Since I'll never perform this (or anything else) outside of my own family and extremely small circle of friends I probably don't need to worry. Besides, I'd probably give them the whole story just to add a bit of richness to it and to stall for time.

[objectsession]

You could just "officially" call it "Janie's Waltz (Kentucky Waltz)" or whatever. If I were you, when performing it on stage, I would say something along the lines of "This is my version of Kentucky Waltz, which I call Janie's Waltz". No one could accuse you of lying in that case.

[mandognome]

"Janie's Kentucky Waltz" seems like a title that would rightly pay homage to the original as well as express that it's a particular variation.

[Bertram Henze]

In ITM this is going on all the time - the connection between tune and name is loose at best, and everybody is free to invent new names and new turns to the melody. The correct name for this process is "tradition". Many players forget about the names altogether.



The question how much it takes to make a tune a different tune - that corresponds with NLP presupposition #9 and boils down to: truth is not what the player plays but what the listener hears, i.e. it's beyond your control anyway.

[Ivan Kelsall]

JB - The tune that Randy Newman's uncle wrote for 20th Century Fox - is that the fanfare of trumpets that we hear ?. Every time i hear that,i'm taken back to when i was about 6 years old,going to the Saturday movie matinee with my 2 cousins. Hopalong Cassidy /Batman (the original) / Flash Gordon / Tarzan or Jungle Jim (with Johnny Weissmuller)/ The 3 Stooges etc. - totally awesome !!!.
I don't think that renaming a song as per the OP's question is a big deal,as long as you don't claim that it's 'your own' composition. Bill Monroe's tune ''Santa Claus'' is 'his take' on the tune ''I Don't Love Nobody''. Having said that,the original tune is 'maybe' not copyright,but i'd bet that 'Kentucky Waltz' is,
Ivan

[Purdy Bear]

I think it would depend on your copyright laws of the country you live in. It maybe that you could said it was a cover with a link to the original.

[Bertram Henze]

We're adrift in a sea of plagiarisms. When I last played "Hector the Hero" in a session, somebody else heard "Both Sides the Tweed", joined in with the chords and it fit harmonically...

And, of course, there's the many versions of Pachelbel's Canon in D, including mine

[Beanzy]

Little Old Log Cabin In The Lane is a classic example which got mashed into different versions.
"The Little Old Sod Shanty On The Claim" is one slightly later version I learned first, then heard the original and thought that was the copy. Gets confusing sometimes. I like Tim's suggestion. There's a long tradition of writing tunes doing homage to the original and that name is a really tidy solution.

[foldedpath]

In ITM this is going on all the time - the connection between tune and name is loose at best, and everybody is free to invent new names and new turns to the melody. The correct name for this process is "tradition". Many players forget about the names altogether.

I agree about the loose connection, but disagree about "everybody is free to invent new names." The Folk Process of accidental name drift and mis-application is different from intentionally renaming a tune, when you know it already has a name. Or you just can't remember it. I don't think that happens very often.

In an Irish trad session when someone doesn't know or can't remember the name of a tune they started in a set, they'll call it Gan Ainm (no name). They don't call it "My Girlfriend's Reel."

It's a measure of respect for the tune; the fact that it likely does have a name that you can't remember at the moment. Or in some cases, a tune so old that a name was never recorded, which doesn't necessarily mean free license for everyone to throw their own personal name on it.

I've been working on a reel from Nova Scotia (I think) that was copied out of a tune book and handed out at a workshop. The name at the top of the dots is "Traditional." Big help there. I may be able to track down an actual name -- I haven't tried it with TunePal yet -- but I'm not going to rename it just for fun. This repertoire is confusing enough as it is!

[Bertram Henze]

I...disagree about "everybody is free to invent new names." The Folk Process of accidental name drift and mis-application is different from intentionally renaming a tune, when you know it already has a name. Or you just can't remember it. I don't think that happens very often.

It still happens often enough, but it is possible that this process may slow down and eventually stop altogether, due to today's technical resources. It will boil down to, say, two tune recognition apps (such as TunePal) guessing two different names for the tune just being played, and these applications may even set a standard for what is a different version vs. a different tune. But even those may run into a classification dilemma with a growing number of versions: either they draw a blank on every other tune, or they call them all "Toss the Feathers". In the olde times of pure interactive learning and even reel-to-reel tape recorders, naming was much more secondary, and misnaming an inadvertent but also unavoidable thing.

I don't know about intentional confusion, but can't rule that out either (ambiguous banter is an essential part of every session, after all) - a classic from Ciaran Carson's "Last Night's Fun":
A: what do you call that tune?
B: ask my father.
A "Ask My Father"?

[FatBear]

And, of course, there's the many versions of Pachelbel's Canon in D

That's funny. I was on hold with the doctor's office when I read this and Canon in D was playing on their hold music.
My wife and I own a gift shop on the Oregon coast and we sell CDs. (People still do buy them.) Our best selling CD every year for over 20 years has been a recording of Canon in D. For a few years during the late 90s and early 2000s that one CD accounted for around 1/4 of our sales. Weird.

including mine

Nice! You make good use of the resonance of your instrument.

[farmerjones]

That's how one fiddle tunes became two. The mishearing or the misplaying or the first tune.

Then there's the case of same melody different lyrics. "There's nothing new under the Sun." That's a direct quote from Keith Richards, so it must be true.

Today there is a mind-set of what is defendable, if called into question, in a court of law.

Yesterday, one didn't want to take the blame: "Oh, that old tune? I heard it somewhere. I can't remember where."
Blame or modesty, take your pick.

I say claim it if you wish. Everything is based on something else. Waltzes, I think, are especially root bound. There's only so much that one can put into a Waltz, before it becomes something else.

[FatBear]

"Janie's Kentucky Waltz" seems like a title that would rightly pay homage to the original as well as express that it's a particular variation.

I like this idea and that's probably what I will do. Someday if I get good enough at it and can figure out how to record it, maybe I'll play it for you and see how the reality fits with the discussion. Then you all can pass final judgement. But that's probably a long way off. I have no way of recording decent sound and I sure don't want a video of myself out there. We'll see.

Thanks for all the replies, advice, and ideas!

[Cobalt]

Then there's the case of same melody different lyrics. "There's nothing new under the Sun." That's a direct quote from Keith Richards, so it must be true.

It's also a direct quote from the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes. I suppose thus demonstrating the point.

[k0k0peli]

"There's nothing new under the Sun."

Actually there's quite a bit new, but mostly unnatural non-biogradeable synthesized organic compounds that wreak environmental havoc. Oh, you mean songs. While we have finite sets of words and notes, they can be combined in infinite ways. Some may even sound okay. Not my stuff in 13/8 time, though.

[jaycat]

. . . Then there's the case of same melody different lyrics. . . .

Some people can get away with anything:

[farmerjones]

This has always been my perennial fav. Who hasn't wrote words to this melody?

[FatBear]

Some people can get away with anything:

Well I don't hear anything original in that except the words. But then, I'm not a word person.

[FatBear]

This (Ripple) has always been my perennial fav. Who hasn't wrote words to this melody?

Me! But I've always loved it and hadn't heard it for a while. I think it just went to the top of my learn-to-play-it-next list.

So if you write all new words but don't change the melody at all can you rename it? That would not be my avenue of expression, but I'm still trying to get my head around this whole thing.

[journeybear]

This has always been my perennial fav. Who hasn't wrote words to this melody?

Me, for one. Why would I want to? Why would anyone? Seems a rather odd question. And anyway, the song is well nigh perfect as is.

I don't see much point in reworking someone else's work. That doesn't seem that creative or imaginative to me, and certainly not original. Dylan did set new words to some established melodies early in his career - "Bob Dylan's Dream" is a well-known example - and while the melodies were old folk songs in the public domain, he caught some flack for this. I had no idea he had done this until later, when he was called to account for it, since I was not steeped in those traditions, but it did seem a bit odd for someone so revered for his songwriting to do this. I recall someone else, might have been Pete Seeger, saying (not necessarily about this) something like, "There are so many great melodies just lying around. Why not use some of them?" I dunno ... how about just making up something new? There are always new ways to put the same old twelve notes of a scale together.