Talk:Parody music

“usually very well known”

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)

Re-read the sentence again and you will probably see how silly the question is. The object of musical parody is USUALLY a very well known piece of music (in its original form) - if only because it makes a better joke that way. On the other hand this is far from always the case - some parody has become much better known than the "original" - in fact most people may not even know it is a parody. Sometimes the original joke was pretty obscure, or wasn't even really meant to be funny. To put it another way - music that is parodied is "usually well known" - but it is "sometimes not so well known". Soundofmusicals 01:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedants (NOT saying you are one) VERY often lose the ability to make sense of passages of connected prose altogether, because they can't see anything in context - words and phrases have become more important than sentences, and sentences more important than paragraphs. Most importantly, style is more important than meaning, in fact meaning has lost its importance altogether. Might I suggest it is impossible to constructively criticise the the style of a passage one does not understand? Soundofmusicals 01:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about style at all.

An old definition of filk was floating around everywhere until 2006-2007 (and still is, but the Wikipedia article is now closer to the top), which said (in Russian): “Filk is a parody of an existing, and often very well known song, where words are replaced, but the original melody is used.”

A try for an analogy: “most computer programs are running on an operating system (usually very well known)”.

Although, if you think the bit loses its strength (of meaning, not of style; in a short text, I'd rather have it, if I cared about style, but it damages the meaning) in the _long_ context of the article, I agree to drop this question.

Sorry about your last paragraph; good thing I didn't received it at night, or I would… read it as a whole only, without the good meaning in it.

If this is to go on, it would be nice (and necessary) to have other opinions, too.

--AVRS 09:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In musical parody there are two objects. One is the original, the other the derived work. Usually (but NOT always) the original is well known. The derived work is usually (but NOT always) meant to be amusing. This amusement to a large extent relies on the original being familiar to the listener. If that is clear I don't think there is any more to be said. I think the only issue is that you didn't precisely understand what I was saying. In turn, I think I probably misunderstood your original objection. Soundofmusicals 12:13, 25 August 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)

PDQ Bach?

Wouldn't a mention of P. D. Q. Bach be appropriate? Binksternet 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Very funny, but is it parody? Not all musical humour is. Have a look at the definition at the top and see what you think yourself. Soundofmusicals 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think 'yes'. Binksternet 05:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan "operas"?

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)

Just for the record, Gilbert and Sullivan (and their producer Carte) called their joint works "operas" (a "nautical opera", a "piratical opera", a "fairy opera" a "Japanese opera", an "original comic opera", etc.). They wished to distinguish their pieces from Continental operetta, particularly French operetta, which they considered bawdy and too risque for family entertainment, and also, in England, usually badly translated and sloppily produced. The participants of the Gillbert and Sullivan project have consistently agreed to honor the authors' wishes in the terminology used for the Savoy operas, and our WP:Consensus is also supported by virtually all of the writers who have written scholarly books about G&S, including Stedman, Jacobs, Ainger, Bradley, Allen, etc. (see the list of references at the bottom of the Gilbert and Sullivan article and the Arthur Sullivan article). If you read Jacobs' introduction, he lays out his reasoning for using the word "opera" with respect to each of the G&S works. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable emissions

- 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)

Not all humor is parody, not all imitation is parody

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:

"Parody music, or musical parody, involves changing or recycling existing musical ideas or lyrics - or copying the peculiar style of a composer or artist - very often (but not always) for comic effect." (Changes the focus of the article, adding a completely different subject.)

Previously, the sentence read:

Parody music, or musical parodies, are comic or absurd representations of existing musical forms such as songs or videos. " (The original subject of the article.)

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)

The term "musical parody" as it is used in musical circles (including not just "pop" music, but also academic ("classical") ones is reasonably closely covered by the opening sentence. The original sentence you referred to was very limited, if not actually wrong. Sullivan's musical borrowings from Wagner (etc.) ARE described as parody in many sources - in a conservatorium or university music department that is exactly how they would be described. Bob Dylan himself has mentioned that "Blowing in the wind" is set to the melody to the old slave song, so this IS parody, although it is NOT funny, and may not be immediately recognisable, since the original in far less known than the parody! Any folk singer will be able to tell you that many folk songs "share" tunes - although we might with advantage add a reference to support this point it is hardly OR. The topic is simply wider than you think. Musical parody doesn't necessarily have to be funny (although it usually is, at least to someone with a strong musical sense of humour). I agree, however, about music that is "funny" but does not borrow musical (or lyrical) matter from another source. The borrowing is the essential point. What you seem to want is a separate article called Humorous use of parody in modern popular music - this may in fact be a good idea - as we could then rename this article "Musical parody" (the correct term) and hive off the "list" of modern song parodies. Want to start a discussion with other interested parties? I wouldn't say no!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss! The advantage of two articles is that rather different subjects could be addressed without too much over-qualification regarding which dictionary word sense was being discussed. The split might be something along the lines of "Humorous music parody" and "Parody in music composition". This might be simply a matter of convenience -- in my case in point, I know a reasonable amount about humorous music, and I know how to play music from several musical periods, but I'm not privy (as you discerned) to compositional borrowing habits. My perception is that the academic humor and composition fields aren't dependent on one another, it's just that music often appears together with other art forms. (E.g., would one want to call any of Shakespeare's plays "musical parodies", because they include songs that were once derived from other songs?) Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could actually mention that Shakespeare set new words to old tunes (he did, too). Not that this makes the plays "musical parodies", but the songs where he did this ARE parodies, at least in the technical sense. I really don't think you need quote every possible specific example, mind you - I'm fairly happy with what we've got.

Very glad we more or less agree about the main point! I'd prefer the more academic article (including most of current article - with a brief summary of the "pop" stuff) to be renamed (moved to) "Musical parody" - with a branch article concentrating on "Modern humorous parody music" (or whatever you want to call it - perhaps just "Parody music", with a disambiguation to make the distinction clear)- that aims to be comprehensive about the modern "pop" parody scene. I suspect there is there a procedure to follow here - like asking for input from others - not sure we two ought to agree between us and rush off to do it off our own bat. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A good many parodies will fall into both articles. It seems to me that the article about musical borrowing will have many of the funny and all of the unfunny songs, while the pop parodies article will have the funny ones with twisted lyrics. I see the pop parody article not limited to recent or modern songs; there were significant twistings of lyrics a few centuries ago. I suggest leaving the name "Parody music" for tunes incorporating humorously twisted lyrics of popular songs and "Musical parody" for convolutions and borrowings of musical themes. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So we're saying two articles would be good. And that there is certain overlap in content, but it wouldn't be difficult to loosely sort the existing article information. Would one of you two like to write the introductory paragraph for the new (non-humorous article)? Maybe post it here, to give other editors some time to "weigh in" with their opinions about this topic? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost none of the new "lead" actually belongs in the lead!

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)

Hi there! When you speak of "some musical illiterate" and "someone whose only contact with music (classical, folk or popular) seems to be from his conservatory textbooks" it gets hard to tell if I'm confusing myself with some other 'attacker'. How about a few deep breaths?

My problem with this edit is that the lead no longer offers any music-specific definitions that need to be covered outside of the parody article. If there is any source for "Parody music" as a specific term for the rather general topic covered by the body of the article, I'd be happy to include it with the rest of my lead in another article named Parody (music), but the current lead is unacceptably vague for what is at present the main article. Sparafucil (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The "other attacker" was the person who I was reacting with in the subsection of the talk page immediately above - perhaps calling them a "musical illiterate" was unkind, but the remark was of course not directed at you at all. The other remark, also a bit uncalled for, was basically directed at the highly academic tone and content of your original revised lead to this article. I am still firmly of the opinion that it is good encyclopedic information that is very simply misplaced - its relevance to this article is pretty marginal (we may well need an academic, conservatory type article on Musical parody technique - but this is not that article). And even if it WERE rather more relevant than it is - then most if not all of it belongs later in the article - under the particular topics concerned. The lead of an article (see WP:LEAD) is meant to serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". Further - "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". For the first sentence to strike straight into what is at the very best a pretty specific aspect of the subject is far from the given function of the first sentence of the lead to offer a very general definition.

The bit about New Grove and your other reference was just me trying to paraphrase what I read as your meaning - I have simply excised that paragraph altogether - feel free to tell us what New Grove does in fact say (I was only pasting your quotation) if this is at all relevant.

This is a general, popular encyclopedia rather than a collection of very highly technical disertations written for specialists in the subjects of its articles. Many articles are essentially for lay-people rather than mini-Ph.D theses that could only be meaningfully edited by people who have also written theses on similar topics. On the other hand I agree that some articles will necessarily be (and need to be) much more technical than others. Your "Parody (music)" article would indeed be very much more specific, and would make this whole article look very "vague" indeed. On the other hand, might I suggest that we cannot move from the existing very general article to the specific article you want by a series of successive wiki-edits. The two articles (this existing one, and your project) are quite different articles. This one is patently NOT written for a specialist in the technicalities of western classical music theory, nor (say) a conservatory composition student - but for someone to whom "music" may well be constrained to stuff neither you or I would class as "art" at all.

One article may well eliminate the need for the other, although I feel they could both be valuable. Which is the "main" article, and what either of them is called is something else again. On these subjects I remain totally open.

Are you up to drafting an article on "Parody (music)" or "Parody technique (musical composition)" or something like that? Just accept that this is not that article, and is not intended to be.

I hope you won't mind - but I am going to seek some other opinions among people I know who edit musical articles in Wikipedia. These are NOT "cronies", or people I necessarily expect to agree with me - I just want a few third and fourth opinions here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to comment. My musical contributions range from classical to operetta to G&S to musical comedy to burlesque, but I am unfamiliar with this particular article, and must take time to read it carefully before leaping into the fray. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me straight off is the lack of sorces in the article as it stands. If musical parody as a genreal topic is encyclopaedic it needs a lot more backup. If that can't be found, it's probably better to re-focus the article.

Certainly agree about that one Tim - there are plenty of sources out there - no real reason (apart from laziness) why they're not cited here. What do you think (if anything) of the various versions of the lead in recent versions? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that we need two articles here, one about popular musical parody forms, the other about the classic, even archaic, use of the term "parody" in music. Perhaps the second one could be called Parody music (academic), Parody (music theory), or Parody (music history). Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit like Grove Online, which has two separate articles: [1] [2]. Look forward to hearing Tim's thoughts on the matter. MistyMorn (talk) 15:40, 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)

Soundofmusicals asked me to stop by. I must admit (no, I declare it proudly) that I have not read much of the extensive blah, blah, blah above. This article is almost entirely unreferenced. The new material added was far too detailed for the WP:LEAD of the article. However, it was reasonably useful for the body of the article, so I wove it into the body of the article. Although I agree that the Lead is not currently an adequate overview of the article, the article is so bad that it hardly makes sense to focus on the lead until the entire article has been referenced and rewritten using references instead of something that someone is remembering from a music appreciation class off the top of his head. I do agree that the lead should not contain technical details. Those should be in the body and must be properly referenced. As to splitting the article in two or creating subarticles, I would also be interested in Tim's opinion, but I don't think it would be split into a. folksy and b. academic! Articles should be able to describe important technical terms in understandable language, and footnotes may go into further technical detail. I'd rather not see this mess again unless someone adds a few dozen references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Punk and the parody mass. Discuss." MistyMorn (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

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:

• OED: A literary composition modelled on and imitating another work, esp. a composition in which the characteristic style and themes of a particular author or genre are satirized by being applied to inappropriate or unlikely subjects, or are otherwise exaggerated for comic effect. In later use extended to similar imitations in other artistic fields, as music, painting, film, etc.
• Grove: A term used to denote a technique of composition, primarily associated with the 16th century, involving the use of pre-existing material. Although the technique of parody was important, particularly in mass composition, throughout the 16th century, the term itself was not used until 1587 when it appeared in the form 'parodia' on the title-page of a mass by Jakob Paix. 'Missa … ', 'Missa super … ' or 'Missa ad imitationem … ', followed by the title of the work on which the mass was based, had been the usual way in which borrowed material was acknowledged. … The essential feature of parody technique is that not merely a single part is appropriated … but the whole substance of the source – its themes, rhythms, chords and chord progressions – is absorbed into the new piece and subjected to free variation in such a way that a fusion of old and new elements is achieved.

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)

I appreciate the effort to merge into the body of the article (a garbling or two aside), but a one-size-fits-all lead is not going to serve a reader who has come across the term in a specific technical context. Here again is my proposed (and referenced) lead:

In music the term "parody" is used in two technical senses as well as the more general one of borrowing with a satiric intent.

The parody technique of Renaissance music describes the use of a polyphonic fragment as a model to be expanded or reworked, and is the defining characteristic of the parody mass as opposed to the paraphrase mass or cantus firmus mass which both borrow only a single melodic line. The technique is found in other musical genres, for example in many of Lasso's Magnificats.

In Baroque music "parody" primarily refers to the re-texting of existing music, a famous example being J. S. Bach's reuse of three cantatas in his Christmas Oratorio . The identifying of likely parodies in surviving librettos has made possible reconstructions of lost musical works, such as the St Mark Passion. This type of parody was common in Baroque opera, where only the recitatives needed extensive musical rewriting, and is also seen in the ballad opera where new lyrics were fitted to popular tunes.

More broadly considered, parody music or musical parody involves changing or copying with humourous intent. "Burlesque" may be a less confusing term in this context. These can take the form of Musical quotation, as in the Quodlibet, whose humor derives from the incongruous combining of familiar tunes. or the appearance (followed by a trombone raspberry) of a theme from Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony in Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, or they can satirize general stylistic features, as in Mozart's Ein musikalischer Spaß.

Please note that Hutcheon (who btw is not writing about music as such) is the source of the quote, and does not mention "burlesque" on page 65, though that term is suggested in the New Grove article "parody ii" which covers "parody, in the non-technical sense of the word".

Soundofmusicals is right that there is some incongruity between the outline above and the existing article, but of course I disagree that this must be resolved in favor of the latter, which is (forgive me Ssilvers) a dog's dinner. What specifically happened in 1918, for example, well before Bob Dylan was born? Sparafucil (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Another two penn'orth

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)

At Sparafucil's invitation, I have read this discussion, and examined the article. As several of you have already observed, the content of the article badly needs citations (I have tagged a few in the "before 1918" section, by way of example), and in fact demands thorough rewriting. In this light, I must emphatically agree with Ssilvers that the lead paragraph cannot be dealt with until the article itself is made coherent. That said, I do not see why the lead ought to be a "one size fits all" statement, since the term has more than one sense. There are any number of examples on Wikipedia of topics with multiple senses of a term, where the lead spells out this divergence, while leaving the details to the body of the article. Examples from music-related articles include Experimental music, Atonality, Tetrachord, and Musical mode. I actually prefer Sparafucil's proposed revision to the present lead, but more as a theoretical introduction to the article that ought to be written, than to the article as it presently stands. Perhaps we can set out by trying to make the article conform to this admirable outline and, should it turn out to match, adopt Sparafucil's proposed lead afterward.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Bach cents

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)

My 2c would be that "parody" in this older sense deserves quite extensive treatment, either within a broader article (a tricky one, imo) or as a sub-article (which could help link the conceptual overlaps), or as a completely separate article (as in Grove, which incidentally argues for a rather more restrictive usage mainly confined to the 16th century). MistyMorn (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me where this discussion is going (though how pleasing that the discussion is so courteous and unconfrontational - Wikipedia at its best). I hope it isn't too boring if I repeat that the model of the Burlesque article is, IMO, the way to go, with a main article covering all aspects of the term, with sub-articles expanding on the very different sub-species. As one who hadn't the slightest idea before being invited to join this discussion that "parody" was ever serious rather than satirical, I think it important that casual Googlers or users of WP search are taken to a single starting place from which they can then click to the sub-topic that is what they are looking for. Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my last comment was redundant, a virtual pour parler. I certainly support Tim's rationale for a detailed sub-article on the 'serious' usage linked to a briefer section in the 'main' article (which I guess might also briefly highlight the conceptual overlaps with the 'comic' usage—something the sub-article then might not need to address). I would have thought the sub-article could handily go beyond the 16th century to take in the sort of common usage mentioned by Gerda. But none of my business really... but I found the question intriguing. So what's the plan? MistyMorn (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Sparafucil's proposed lead provides an excellent starting point for re-structuring the article. Starting with "Before 1918" is ludicrous, since quite evidently there are two distinct historical definitions applicable long before that year: the 15th/16th-century parody mass (and related forms using the technique), and the "repurposing" of previously composed music, either by retexting (what I am accustomed to calling "contrafactum" rather than "parody") or compositional reworking ("recomposition", as in the Bach examples Gerda Arendt has described). The third sense (substantially the same as literary parody) appears not to have such historical boundaries. It appears to me therefore that the present chronological structure is seriously flawed. What say ye others?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:48, 14 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)

That certainly catches the spirit of what I had in mind. Trying to divide things into historical periods only works for the parody mass category, which belongs essentially to the late 15th to early 17th centuries, even if there are occasional later examples. (Folk songs, however, do not come into this subject, since parody masses use the whole texture of polyphonic compositions, which were exceeding rare in the folk-song repertory of that time—if indeed there was even such a thing as folk song before the 19th century, but lets not go off on a tangent about that here.) Retexting is much older, as well as later, and so is quoting or mimicking well-known pieces for humorous effect. Perhaps the real issue in these two categories, however, is where to draw the line between parody and other conceptions. For example, is parody a word properly applied to Bach's reworking of his own cantata movements for use in the B minor Mass?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible redraft

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)

Support. Yes, and a great start, signalling the way ahead, imo. Suggest perhaps highlighting a wee bit more the fact that the older usage of the word survives as a technical term commonly used by musicologists and historians. MistyMorn (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, I think, but see what you think. Add more, by all means, if you think it's still lacking. Tim riley (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. Considerable improvement there over the current article. I do still wonder why 1918 is being treated as a watershed, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. (Very strongly). You knew that already but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:15, 21 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)

Later: I think I've about done. I hope someone who knows about popular music will look carefully at my summary of the spun-off article. I have absolutely no proprietorial feelings about any of this article or the spin-off one, and shall not be in the least put out if other editors edit vigorously. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, so much better than the previous article... Very impressive indeed - although there is still very possibly room for improvement I think we have the basic framework right at last. Well done! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha! I need only go on vacation for a few days, and I return to see that Tim riley has rescued another article! Well done, indeed! -- The "Brisk Angel" ( Ssilvers (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC) )

Other types of parody

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)

As discussed above, I plan to spin off the large Popular Music section to its own article, leaving only a general overview on this page. I think your additions would be more appropriate to the new page, which I hope to have up within a few days. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is now up: Parody in popular music. If adding your suggested info, please be sure to add citations to a reliable source. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)