Re: kandelikas--and "losing the composer"

[Robert Cohen <rlcm17...>]

>But I AM surprised at the discussion of how much was new material. Clearly, 
>it was BASED on the idea of Flory's song and the title she gave it, and 
>form the line "traditional" on the web site extract, and form Josh's own 
>comment that they didn't know it was by Flory at first (many people don't 
>know this: a tribute to Flory's song-writing and knowledge of her 
>tradition). That means she is entitled to the royalties anyway. If she 
>chooses to waive this right, that's fine, they
>should simply (as I understand things) automatically go to her anyway.


I'm puzzled by Judith's remarks above.

That Flory Jagoda's song is now often regarded as "traditional" is indeed a 
tribute to her connection to and instincts for her people's music.  Her song 
has, to a degree, "lost its composer"--which happens often with folk and 
folk-style music. (Two Jewish examples [in addition to many or *most* Shlomo 
melodies and, now, some Debbie Friedman ones and others]:  Israel Goldfarb's 
"Shalom Aleichem" and Mark Warshawsky's "Oyfn Pripitchek"--which had 
apparently "lost its composer" within weeks or months of  being composed, so 
"traditional" did it sound like, or feel; and there are many American 
examples, including of contemporary American songs--I cherish one in which a 
singer-songwriter sang his own song *to the group of working people from 
which similar songs are generated*; *they* assumed it was 
"traditional"--and, I'm sure, there are many examples in other cultures as 
well.)

And I most certainly agree that everyone who has been a source or 
inspiration of one's work should be credited--parallel to the Talmud's 
dictum that to cite a teaching in the name of the one you learned it from 
helps bring redemption to the world.*

But you can't copyright an idea *or* a title (cf. Judith:  "Clearly, it was 
BASED on the idea of Flory's song and the title she gave it"), so I'm quite 
confused as to what royalties Judith feels Flory is entitled to.

Perhaps she and/or others could clarify?

--Robert Cohen

*There is an intriguing, and perhaps highly relevant, exception to the 
Talmudic dictum, as I understand it:  If a teaching has become so much a 
part of you, so ingrained as it were, that you no longer recall whom you 
learned it from--or even that there *was* a time when you learned it--when 
this teaching wasn't part of your own outlook--then you're (if, obviously, 
in good faith!) exempt.

That might have a fascinating parallel in the case of melodies that have so 
much been accepted by the (relevant) folk that they've become (understood 
as) "folk" or "traditional" (or, of course, frustratingly, "anonymous"!) 
music.  I'm not suggesting that, in such cases, credit (+, obviously, 
appropriate royalties when due) is not due--but just as the Talmudic 
exception speaks to teachings that were so effectively imparted, and in such 
fertile ground as it were, that they "took", so we're again reminded that to 
have one's melody or song accepted as "folk" or "traditional" is ultimately 
the highest possible compliment--even if on the very important level of 
parnassah and even creative ego, it can be quite vexing!

_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+