Trad. Arr. Arr?

Subject: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: GUEST,spb co-operator
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 01:55 PM

Some food for thought....

With regards to a work being credited as Trad. Arr., should this imply that the point of refernce is a written source? But what about where the araangement is an arrangement of somebody elses arrangement, then should the work be credited as trad arr arr?

There are examples of this in recordings of shanties where a previous arrangment has been taken as gospel and other performaers have recorded the arranged tune as opposed to the written sources.

An example of this id Yaller Gals/Doodle Let Me Go - the three written sources Hugill/Sharp/and I think Terry give more or less the same tune and recorded versions tend to use antoehr tune more or less the same.

So, if a song is recorded by 'c' who learned it from a recording 'b' who in turn got it from a recording by 'a' who got it from source material, and if 'b' and 'c' have not referred back to source, should it be credited as trad. arr a. arr. b. arr. c. - assuming it is traditional....

That also raises another question - to what extent are written sources arranged by the compiler?

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 02:28 PM

If they're simply singing the song unadorned then its not an arrangement. I don't think simply selecting verses (or choosing the order of verses) taken from collected sources is sufficient to be an "arrangement" for copyright purposes. It's only an arrangement if instrumental or vocal parts are added.

If A simply sang the song without instruments or other vocal parts, and then B arranged it for instruments and/or voices, and C then copies B's arrangement, it should be Trad arr B. A doesn't get a mention.

IMHO

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 07:43 PM

Whatever the practice, in principle there can be a selection and collocation copyright.

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 09:53 PM

Everything is an arrangement. It is impossible to perform a song without some sort of arrangement or other--"12 people singing the unadorned melody" is a different arrangement than" 9 people singing the unadorned melody"--especially since, try as one might, it is impossible to get nine people to sing anything exactly the same--and different tempo, different dynamics, and, particularly will unaccompanied singing, different absolute pitch.

As for myself, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to record the same arrangement of a song that someone else did--especially if it was folk music--what's the point in it?

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:12 AM

As far as MCPS is concerned, every version of a traditional piece registered properly with them constitutes an arrangement, whether an unaccompanied vocal or an orchestration using theremin, church organ and marching pipe band. The skills a singer brings to an unaccompanied song (variation, ornaments, phrasing, pitching, etc.) are subtler in effect than a musical accompaniment, but nonetheless distinctive and worthy of recognition.

But that enables the person registering the arrangement to claim royalties only on in respect of their own performances of that song or tune, and doesn't make it their property as far as anyone else learning it is concerned - it's still in the Public Domain. No-one is obliged to credit the arrangement of the performer they learned it from, although if you copied an instrumental accompaniment note-for-note that would be a different matter morally if not legally. Of course, people can and do choose to credit a piece as "Trad. arr. A. N . Other" if they particularly like A. N. Other's arrangement, wish to copy it and also to give credit where it's due. If, for instance, you were going to sing 'Willie's Lady' to that Breton drinking song melody that most people are familiar with, you could argue that there was a case for crediting it Trad, arr. Ray Fisher. But then, Martin Carthy sings his own Anglicized version of the words so, if you learned it from him, perhaps you should credit his arrangement too. It can get confusing. But the people at MCPS (who include knowledgable folkies) are usually happy to offer advice on grey areas.

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:28 PM

A copyright is an unsubstantiated claim---much as claims were in gold rush days. What it means is only really determined by a court if infringement is claimed.

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

No.

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:50 PM

No. How?

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: Nerd
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 02:20 AM

Dick is more or less correct, except techinically it is the registration of the copyright that is an unsubstantiated claim, not the copyright itself. When people speak of "copyrighting" something, they really mean registering it with the copyright office. In theory, however, copyright exists when a work of art is created, and it belongs to the creator unless he or she assigns it elsewhere. This is true whether he or she chooses to register it or not.

If the creator does not register the copyright, someone else may try to do so. But this does not mean the person who registered it owns the copyright, only that he has claimed it. If this registration is tested in court, and the person who created it can prove that he did so, the registration may be declared invalid. In this sense, the registration is just as Dick said, an unsubstantiated claim. Most such registrations are true claims...but in the realm of traditional song, many such registrations do not stand up in court.

This is how it works in the US, in any case. The UK may be different.

Subject: RE: Trad. Arr. Arr?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 08:59 PM

I really like Brian's statement.

Charley Noble