![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's the point of mentioning that? Unless it is “usually little known”, isn't everything about “usually very well known”? - AVRS 10:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
AVRS's identification with the phrase being problematic is correct. The requirement for a parody is that the reader (or viewer or listener) know a work, and also recognize that a second work is making fun of it. Parodies happen in families or on the schoolyard a million times a day -- when one person is aping another. Obviously, those mannerisms are not "well known", in fact only a few people know them. It might be more accurate to say that for a parody to be popular (or financially successful) it needs to be based on a widely known work. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard ( talk) 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't a mention of P. D. Q. Bach be appropriate? Binksternet 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Not in an encyclopedia, where terms have to have some kind of meaning!! Most French and German 19th century operetta is in fact MUCH more "operatic" than G&S - the works they wrote together are really intermediate between true operetta and the later form of musical comedy - and were were only dignified with the name "Comic Opera" at the time:
1. As a joke!! (Quite a good one too, of course).
2. In order to studiously avoid the "operetta" label and thus avoid the "saucy" implication (German and French operetta was often rather naughty) and so (hopefully) to attract a larger audience. They certainly got a big audience - but lots of staid Victorian critics STILL found them a bit questionable, and the really fastidious continued to stay away. They were considered "unworthy" of a composer of Sullivan's standing exactly because they were classed as "popular" rather than "classical" music.
By any rational definition, they are either English language operettas - or perhaps proto-musicals!
Only Yoemen, (and perhaps Ruddigore) is even close to being a "comic opera" (much less an "opera", since the term on its own implies a serious opera).
None the less - having noted your tenacity over questions like this - I have reworded the offending sentence in an attempt at compromise. Soundofmusicals 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Capitol Steps.
- Mark Twain's "Battle Hymn Of The Republic", Brought Down To Date". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.74.1 ( talk) 10:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-I take it you mean "omissions." As it stands the subhead accuses the Capitol Steps and Mark Twain of air pollution. :D Dougie monty ( talk) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As Soundofmusicals says above, not all musical humor is parody. This points out a basic problem with this article which started to creep in around September 8, 2006, when an anonymous editor altered the opening sentence to read:
Previously, the sentence read:
Webster's 3rd unabridged has an entry on parody with three word senses. The original article was directed to the first two, which specifically include humor as a condition. The anonymous editor was working off the third definition, which reads "3a: an imitation of a musical composition in which the original text has been altered usually in a comical manner." (Note the word "usually"!) At that point, confusingly, material started entering the article which has nothing to do with humor at all, but which should be in another article, about music composition or music history.
One of the issues is that this article is now replete with Original Research, so now there are sentences that are confusingly both off-topic and Original Research: E.g., "Folk song is as often as not written to existing tunes, or slight modifications of them." Whereas the material on Weird Al is definitely parody, would be easy for most readers to identify with, but now has become submerged far down the article.
When the article simply concentrates on humorous parody, it's easier to answer questions such as Binksternet's above about PDQ Bach. The answer is "Yes", and here's why: Tests should be applied for a work to be included in this article: 1) Is it related to music? 2) Was it intended by the composer or author to be funny? 3) Does it bring to mind another work to which it relates humorously? For PDQ Bach, the answer is yes, yes, and yes. So PDQ Bach is on-topic, it's a music parody.
The article currently mentions "Blowing in the Wind". Is it funny? No. Did the composer intend it to be funny? No. Does it bring to mind another work? I've played it for years, and I had no idea it was related to another song. It's off-topic, and doesn't belong in the article.
Now Gilbert and Sullivan. Was it intended to be funny? Yes. Does it bring to mind other works? Maybe, but not to me. Does the comparison seem funny to the listener? Now that I know that somebody's impression is that Sullivan ripped from Mendelssohn and Wagner, I still don't find Sullivan's music funny (I know Mendelssohn and Wagner reasonably well). What Gilbert was parodying was social mannerisms and customs. So it is appropriate for this article, because the lyrics to Gilbert and Sullivan operas are parody. (However, solely Sullivan's musical borrowings from Wagner would leave it in the off-topic category.)
Since this article is about music parody, text that is only about "funny music" or "borrowing musical ideas" should be taken out, and other articles created or cited for those other topics.
Alpha Ralpha Boulevard ( talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This article last got attacked by some musical illiterate for whom "parody music" means setting new words to pop tumes for comic effect (see preceding section). I pointed out he could always write a new article on the subject as he saw it - in the end (mercifully perhaps) we got no takers...
The latest attack seems to be someone whose only contact with music (classical, folk or popular) seems to be from his conservatory textbooks. (Forgive me if I am being unkind, but that's how it looks from here). The trouble is that your theory textbook is talking about a subset of what this article is about.
What we have here of course is a GENERAL musical subject. Musical parody is not a recent fad - nor is it a sterile academic exercise. It can indeed be a very sophisticated technique - it can be as simple as setting new words to an old song.
It is found in ALL the so called "genres" of music - it is as prevalent in Renaissance music, Bach, and Gilbert and Sullivan as it is in traditional folk music and jazz - not to mention so called "pop culture". This article is currently about the general fact that music (of all kinds, including the kind of "music" some of us would put into scare quotes) often re-uses musical techniques and ideas, often (but by no means always) for humourous effect.
I earnestly suggest that it does NOT need to be hijacked from either the overly ignorant and illiterate side, nor the overly academic side.
Separate articles perhaps called "Classical musical parody techniques", and "Humour in modern popular music" might well be valuable additions - but please leave this one alone! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is, that we need to be clear if we're talking about one, talking about the other, or considering both as basically aspects of the one thing - and we probably need a general article (rather like this one?) to which both "specialist" articles link?? I had agreed to another "popular" (if that's the word) article, but no one was interested enough to draft even a stub - I suspect that no one will write an academic article either. In the meantime this general article is what we have and I'd like it to be improved (like citations!!) rather than getting gradually edited into a different article with no end to the mess in between. Perhaps I'm not making sense - I'm awfully tired - off to sleepy-byes! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that my old Wiki-colleague Ssilvers has got here before me. We don't always agree, but on this occasion we do. The recent changes to the lead were quite unsuitable and contrary to the Manual of Style, inasmuch as they introduced information (or at least assertions) that were not backed and referenced in the main body of the article. But I fear I must also agree with Ssilvers that the referencing in the main article is sorely lacking. Be that as it may, in the recent debate on the lead I align myself firmly with Soundofmusicals rather than SoundofMantua (if I may so call Sparafucil). As a supplementary comment, I add that the use of the term "parody" to mean simply re-using music, as opposed to sending it up, is new to me, and I imagine to most visitors to the article. The point is made in the lead and also in the main text, but I suggest it could be made more of, if only to stop readers wondering what's parodic about, e.g., the Christmas Oratorio. If it's any use, here are the OED and Grove on the subject:
I think perhaps the article needs to distinguish more explicitly between parody in the old sense and the send-ups from more recent times. Thus, after perhaps the second para of "Pre-1918", you might mention the change in the use of the word from "recycling" to "spoofing". Sorry to ramble on, but that's my best offer. Tim riley ( talk) 22:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
In music the term "parody" is used in two technical senses as well as the more general one of borrowing with a satiric intent.
As a genre, musical parody is an acknowledged reworking of pre-existent material, but with no ridiculing intent
There is an argument for having separate articles on the two distinct classes of parody, though if you look at, e.g. Burlesque you will see how with a bit of effort all works, however diverse, that fit the label can be comfortably accommodated and distinguished between. But whatever route you take, you really mustn't clog up the lead with material that ought to be in the main text. Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Tim riley ( talk) 22:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It's much more than retexting. His short masses and the Mass in B minor consist largely of parodies. Text and often also music were changed. Part of the first movement of Weinen, Klagen became the Crucifixus of the Mass in B minor. For one cantata snfonia he took a movement from a Brandenburg concerto and reworked it. For the Christmas Oratorio he used movements from several cantatas, not complete cantatas. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd been thinking on similar lines - ditch the "history" outline altogether. Three basic sets of uses of the word "parody" in a musical sense. One the "classical sense" (as New Grove), lead THIS SECTION (roughly at least) according to Sparafucil - expanded according to Jerome Kohl, but also to include G&S and other essentially humorous (even satirical) musical recycling earlier than 1900, or considered "classical". Section two "folk" - starting with brief rehash (from first section) of use of folk tunes in parody mass - use of church and secular music of each other's melodies down to hymn tunes turned into soldier's songs (and vice versa). Folk songs sharing each other's melodies. Section three "modern" - jazz reworkings of both classical and "white" popular works - "pop" comic "parody music" and its brushes with copyright law etc. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the earlier discussions I have been playing about with the text of the article in my sandbox. I've done what I can with the classical part, with the aid of Grove, and I thought perhaps to spin off the complete text of the "popular music" section into a separate article, leaving a shorter version of it on this page, concentrating on the most notable examples, and referencing them properly. Before I go much further down this route, may I invite comments from interested editors? I don't want to tread on any toes. Tim riley ( talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Good! I've added the new material. The next step, I think, is to précis the Popular music section, which I'll start on today. Meanwhile, please dive in and edit my sections on Origins and Concert hall etc. I know practically nothing of church music of the 14th–16th centuries, and an expert eye will be particularly welcome there. – Tim riley ( talk) 10:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we add material about the likes of StSanders or Bad Lip Reading? Though not parody in the strict sense, it can be explained here as well. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's the point of mentioning that? Unless it is “usually little known”, isn't everything about “usually very well known”? - AVRS 10:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
AVRS's identification with the phrase being problematic is correct. The requirement for a parody is that the reader (or viewer or listener) know a work, and also recognize that a second work is making fun of it. Parodies happen in families or on the schoolyard a million times a day -- when one person is aping another. Obviously, those mannerisms are not "well known", in fact only a few people know them. It might be more accurate to say that for a parody to be popular (or financially successful) it needs to be based on a widely known work. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard ( talk) 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't a mention of P. D. Q. Bach be appropriate? Binksternet 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Not in an encyclopedia, where terms have to have some kind of meaning!! Most French and German 19th century operetta is in fact MUCH more "operatic" than G&S - the works they wrote together are really intermediate between true operetta and the later form of musical comedy - and were were only dignified with the name "Comic Opera" at the time:
1. As a joke!! (Quite a good one too, of course).
2. In order to studiously avoid the "operetta" label and thus avoid the "saucy" implication (German and French operetta was often rather naughty) and so (hopefully) to attract a larger audience. They certainly got a big audience - but lots of staid Victorian critics STILL found them a bit questionable, and the really fastidious continued to stay away. They were considered "unworthy" of a composer of Sullivan's standing exactly because they were classed as "popular" rather than "classical" music.
By any rational definition, they are either English language operettas - or perhaps proto-musicals!
Only Yoemen, (and perhaps Ruddigore) is even close to being a "comic opera" (much less an "opera", since the term on its own implies a serious opera).
None the less - having noted your tenacity over questions like this - I have reworded the offending sentence in an attempt at compromise. Soundofmusicals 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Capitol Steps.
- Mark Twain's "Battle Hymn Of The Republic", Brought Down To Date". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.74.1 ( talk) 10:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-I take it you mean "omissions." As it stands the subhead accuses the Capitol Steps and Mark Twain of air pollution. :D Dougie monty ( talk) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As Soundofmusicals says above, not all musical humor is parody. This points out a basic problem with this article which started to creep in around September 8, 2006, when an anonymous editor altered the opening sentence to read:
Previously, the sentence read:
Webster's 3rd unabridged has an entry on parody with three word senses. The original article was directed to the first two, which specifically include humor as a condition. The anonymous editor was working off the third definition, which reads "3a: an imitation of a musical composition in which the original text has been altered usually in a comical manner." (Note the word "usually"!) At that point, confusingly, material started entering the article which has nothing to do with humor at all, but which should be in another article, about music composition or music history.
One of the issues is that this article is now replete with Original Research, so now there are sentences that are confusingly both off-topic and Original Research: E.g., "Folk song is as often as not written to existing tunes, or slight modifications of them." Whereas the material on Weird Al is definitely parody, would be easy for most readers to identify with, but now has become submerged far down the article.
When the article simply concentrates on humorous parody, it's easier to answer questions such as Binksternet's above about PDQ Bach. The answer is "Yes", and here's why: Tests should be applied for a work to be included in this article: 1) Is it related to music? 2) Was it intended by the composer or author to be funny? 3) Does it bring to mind another work to which it relates humorously? For PDQ Bach, the answer is yes, yes, and yes. So PDQ Bach is on-topic, it's a music parody.
The article currently mentions "Blowing in the Wind". Is it funny? No. Did the composer intend it to be funny? No. Does it bring to mind another work? I've played it for years, and I had no idea it was related to another song. It's off-topic, and doesn't belong in the article.
Now Gilbert and Sullivan. Was it intended to be funny? Yes. Does it bring to mind other works? Maybe, but not to me. Does the comparison seem funny to the listener? Now that I know that somebody's impression is that Sullivan ripped from Mendelssohn and Wagner, I still don't find Sullivan's music funny (I know Mendelssohn and Wagner reasonably well). What Gilbert was parodying was social mannerisms and customs. So it is appropriate for this article, because the lyrics to Gilbert and Sullivan operas are parody. (However, solely Sullivan's musical borrowings from Wagner would leave it in the off-topic category.)
Since this article is about music parody, text that is only about "funny music" or "borrowing musical ideas" should be taken out, and other articles created or cited for those other topics.
Alpha Ralpha Boulevard ( talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This article last got attacked by some musical illiterate for whom "parody music" means setting new words to pop tumes for comic effect (see preceding section). I pointed out he could always write a new article on the subject as he saw it - in the end (mercifully perhaps) we got no takers...
The latest attack seems to be someone whose only contact with music (classical, folk or popular) seems to be from his conservatory textbooks. (Forgive me if I am being unkind, but that's how it looks from here). The trouble is that your theory textbook is talking about a subset of what this article is about.
What we have here of course is a GENERAL musical subject. Musical parody is not a recent fad - nor is it a sterile academic exercise. It can indeed be a very sophisticated technique - it can be as simple as setting new words to an old song.
It is found in ALL the so called "genres" of music - it is as prevalent in Renaissance music, Bach, and Gilbert and Sullivan as it is in traditional folk music and jazz - not to mention so called "pop culture". This article is currently about the general fact that music (of all kinds, including the kind of "music" some of us would put into scare quotes) often re-uses musical techniques and ideas, often (but by no means always) for humourous effect.
I earnestly suggest that it does NOT need to be hijacked from either the overly ignorant and illiterate side, nor the overly academic side.
Separate articles perhaps called "Classical musical parody techniques", and "Humour in modern popular music" might well be valuable additions - but please leave this one alone! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is, that we need to be clear if we're talking about one, talking about the other, or considering both as basically aspects of the one thing - and we probably need a general article (rather like this one?) to which both "specialist" articles link?? I had agreed to another "popular" (if that's the word) article, but no one was interested enough to draft even a stub - I suspect that no one will write an academic article either. In the meantime this general article is what we have and I'd like it to be improved (like citations!!) rather than getting gradually edited into a different article with no end to the mess in between. Perhaps I'm not making sense - I'm awfully tired - off to sleepy-byes! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that my old Wiki-colleague Ssilvers has got here before me. We don't always agree, but on this occasion we do. The recent changes to the lead were quite unsuitable and contrary to the Manual of Style, inasmuch as they introduced information (or at least assertions) that were not backed and referenced in the main body of the article. But I fear I must also agree with Ssilvers that the referencing in the main article is sorely lacking. Be that as it may, in the recent debate on the lead I align myself firmly with Soundofmusicals rather than SoundofMantua (if I may so call Sparafucil). As a supplementary comment, I add that the use of the term "parody" to mean simply re-using music, as opposed to sending it up, is new to me, and I imagine to most visitors to the article. The point is made in the lead and also in the main text, but I suggest it could be made more of, if only to stop readers wondering what's parodic about, e.g., the Christmas Oratorio. If it's any use, here are the OED and Grove on the subject:
I think perhaps the article needs to distinguish more explicitly between parody in the old sense and the send-ups from more recent times. Thus, after perhaps the second para of "Pre-1918", you might mention the change in the use of the word from "recycling" to "spoofing". Sorry to ramble on, but that's my best offer. Tim riley ( talk) 22:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
In music the term "parody" is used in two technical senses as well as the more general one of borrowing with a satiric intent.
As a genre, musical parody is an acknowledged reworking of pre-existent material, but with no ridiculing intent
There is an argument for having separate articles on the two distinct classes of parody, though if you look at, e.g. Burlesque you will see how with a bit of effort all works, however diverse, that fit the label can be comfortably accommodated and distinguished between. But whatever route you take, you really mustn't clog up the lead with material that ought to be in the main text. Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Tim riley ( talk) 22:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It's much more than retexting. His short masses and the Mass in B minor consist largely of parodies. Text and often also music were changed. Part of the first movement of Weinen, Klagen became the Crucifixus of the Mass in B minor. For one cantata snfonia he took a movement from a Brandenburg concerto and reworked it. For the Christmas Oratorio he used movements from several cantatas, not complete cantatas. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd been thinking on similar lines - ditch the "history" outline altogether. Three basic sets of uses of the word "parody" in a musical sense. One the "classical sense" (as New Grove), lead THIS SECTION (roughly at least) according to Sparafucil - expanded according to Jerome Kohl, but also to include G&S and other essentially humorous (even satirical) musical recycling earlier than 1900, or considered "classical". Section two "folk" - starting with brief rehash (from first section) of use of folk tunes in parody mass - use of church and secular music of each other's melodies down to hymn tunes turned into soldier's songs (and vice versa). Folk songs sharing each other's melodies. Section three "modern" - jazz reworkings of both classical and "white" popular works - "pop" comic "parody music" and its brushes with copyright law etc. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the earlier discussions I have been playing about with the text of the article in my sandbox. I've done what I can with the classical part, with the aid of Grove, and I thought perhaps to spin off the complete text of the "popular music" section into a separate article, leaving a shorter version of it on this page, concentrating on the most notable examples, and referencing them properly. Before I go much further down this route, may I invite comments from interested editors? I don't want to tread on any toes. Tim riley ( talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Good! I've added the new material. The next step, I think, is to précis the Popular music section, which I'll start on today. Meanwhile, please dive in and edit my sections on Origins and Concert hall etc. I know practically nothing of church music of the 14th–16th centuries, and an expert eye will be particularly welcome there. – Tim riley ( talk) 10:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we add material about the likes of StSanders or Bad Lip Reading? Though not parody in the strict sense, it can be explained here as well. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)