Rich Beato recently discussed how recent popular songs display such
obvious debts to songs from the last century that the question he asks is “Isn’t
this just stealing?” I'm not going to address that question. Instead I'm going to ask a new question, "Has this kind of overt musical borrowing of existing musical materials and super-imposing a new text on old music happened before?" The answer to that is yes and that this has happened for centuries in Christian church music traditions. But first ...
Rick Beato discusses a concept called interpolation, which
in this case means to take a melody from an existing popular song, giving it
new lyrics, and recording it from scratch without actually sampling the song
from which the melody has been borrowed.
Beato describes interpolation as a bit of a puzzle, how it’s
possible for you to take an existing melody that maybe someone else wrote, adding
new lyrics and then “it’s yours?” This practice was so commonplace in sixteenth
century German-speaking lands music historians refer to the practice as contrafacta,
where German Lutherans might take a melody such as the chant Veni Sancte
Spiritus and rework it into a German vernacular tune that preserves the
core of the chant but makes it accessible to non-Latin speakers. Now there is the old saw that Luther and
Lutherans just transformed old bar melodies into hymns but that view has
largely been dismantled.
Chiara Bertoglio published a door-stopper of a book around 2017, summarizing research into how Lutherans in the sixteenth century did not
necessarily just add Christian texts on secular tunes but what they did
frequently do was adapt existing Catholic music into German vernacular. Contrafacta was the practice of
imposing a new text on an established musical work, which could even be a
polyphonic work. A simple potential case study for an English-language contrafacta
would be if someone took a slow Latin chorale setting of Verbum Caro Factum Est
and rendered it into English with a vernacular text “And the Word Became Flesh”;
the music itself would not be changed at all, only the text, but this could and
would be treated as a “new” work and there were composers in the sixteenth
century who specialized in this kind of re-composition or, if you will, “sampling”. Not only was it not frowned up in nascent
Lutheranism this kind of practice could be regarded as an act of musical
heroism and public service, seeing to it that Lutherans would not deprive
themselves of the best music the Catholic tradition had to offer in the process
of differentiating themselves from Catholicism on doctrinal issues such as the
nature of justification by faith and rethinking aspects of how liturgy “worked”.
If you have an extravagant amount of time (or are a lightning
fast reader) I suggest Bertoglio’s book.
I’m only a few chapters into it but it’s a formidable survey of the
practices of Christians in Europe in the sixteenth century and all the debates
and practices and theories they had about music.
https://www.chiarabertoglio.com/reforming-music
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110520811/html?lang=en
Reforming Music : Music and the Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century
eBook
Published: March 6, 2017
ISBN: 9783110520811
Hardcover
Published: February 20, 2017
ISBN: 9783110518054
Paperback
Published: November 19, 2018
ISBN: 9783110636819
So when
Rick Beato asks “Isn’t this just stealing?” an answer to that can be:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110520811/html?lang=en
Reforming Music : Music and the Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century
Published: March 6, 2017
ISBN: 9783110520811
Published: February 20, 2017
ISBN: 9783110518054
Published: November 19, 2018
ISBN: 9783110636819
1. In the sense of overt recycling, maybe but2. Modal mutation and reharmonization of known musical phrases isn’t that literal (I did listen to the songs Beato references)3. Per the Dua Lupa reference, contrafacta obviously still exists in the 21st century, it just involves lawyers
Back in the sixteenth century lawyers were not arguing over musical borrowings. Lawyers (if they were named John Calvin!) were arguing about literally more religious doctrinal issues in the sixteenth century. What people call “interpolation” in 21st century popular music has a precedent in early modern European Christian liturgical music. The differences, among many, between “then” and “now” is that in the long 19th century (let’s say between 1780 and 1920) a doctrine emerged in northern trans-Atlantic philosophy and aesthetics that touted the power and value of originality among Artists who were supposed to be genius enough to come up with their own ideas and not just recontextualize, revise, or even literally recycle existing pieces of music with new texts and call it new music. That was not how Lutherans rolled between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Johann Sebastian Bach was not really the kind of person to feel bad about super-imposing a new cantata text on a previously written piece of music and calling the result a new musical work.
If you want a short and fairly readable primer on Bach’s late career self-borrowing Daniel Melamed’s
Listening to Bach: The Mass in B Minor and the Christmas Oratorio is a good start. And for a review …
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/12/20/bach-master-recycler/
So if we ask "Isn't this stealing?" Well, if it is `now' it most certainly wasn't `then'. A whole web of philosophical and economic and social customs emerged in the last few centuries to change how people might have construed the question "Isn't this stealing", more to the point, of even starting to conceive of music in such a way as to even allow Rick Beato's question to be conceived of before even being asked. In the sixteenth century the answer might have been "No, and if it `is' stealing it's the kind of shameless musical `stealing' that needs to happen if vernacular church music is going to move forward". I won't attempt to flood your attention span with a list of Lutheran music historians and scholars on that topic because I'm more in the Anglican/Swiss/Dutch/Scottish Calvinist traditions and I'm not going to pretend Lutheran musicology is even remotely my wheelhouse. But I've dipped my toes into it here and there.
It looks like today's pop music `interpolation' maps with yesterday's German Lutheran `contrafacta', at least a little bit.
POSTSCRIPT 7:24pm
In U.S. contemporary Christian music it may be more common to create new music for old texts than to create new texts for old music because when so many beloved texts are already vernacular and in the public domain the cultural rewards of adding a contemporary musical sound to an established text are substantial.
But I can't help mentioning that as contrafacta practice goes in church music in the United States there may be few examples more famous than Thomas Andrew Dorsey setting the next text of "Take My Hand Precious Lord" to the well-known tune Maitland. Dorsey made a few substantial bluesy changes but here in 2024 I don't think anyone could mistake what he did "with" Maitland for earlier forms of the tune. I have an older post discussing a book about Dorsey's development you can read, if you like.
So contrafacta, interpolation, the tradition of taking a known, even a legendary tune, and superimposing a new text on it is one of the more venerable practices in Christian music of the last, oh, four centuries. It's in contemporary secular trans-Atlantic popular music that it comes across as possibly (or, sure, actually) stealing.
2 comments:
On the one hand, yes I can see that to one steeped in copyright law circa C20 it might seem strange.
OTOH Beato started off as a jazz musician, has at least a passing familiarity with classical music and it's rather surprising that he couldn't or chose not to draw an analogue.
This is your brain on copyright, as the kids say.
I'm guessing Beato has/had his Producer hat on for this video based on what I recall about the breadth of his experience in the music industry.
Post a Comment