This is interesting because one of the people I read has recently prompted discussion on covering a song and the rights to that. My understanding is that legally a band can cover a song but must pay for the right to cover it but the right cannot be denied (subject to certain 'right of first performance/recording issues' I think).
It is considered wrong to reuse an arrangement w/out paying (and for certain areas of music it is assumed that your style evolved from certain well known styles such as Baltimore Consort and Bare Necessities (I think) and thus you are expected to pay them a license fee.
Now if you change the words to a song to make fun of the song, that would be parody pure and simple (though that line can get blurry at times).
If you change the words to modernize a song (e.g. New York Gilbert & Sullivan Players changing the list of people on the list) is that OK?
no subject
It is considered wrong to reuse an arrangement w/out paying (and for certain areas of music it is assumed that your style evolved from certain well known styles such as Baltimore Consort and Bare Necessities (I think) and thus you are expected to pay them a license fee.
Now if you change the words to a song to make fun of the song, that would be parody pure and simple (though that line can get blurry at times).
If you change the words to modernize a song (e.g. New York Gilbert & Sullivan Players changing the list of people on the list) is that OK?
Where is the line?