MOChassid

Friday, May 18, 2007

Chaim Busts MBD

Not only does his music stink, it's stolen.

Labels: J Music

48 Comments:

At 12:04 PM, Anonymous said…

Actually his shoes are kinda dull.

Iamgine if i blogged that Rosenblum or Karduner's music stinks? Youd be all over that...

(and what would any of your favorite "artists" be if they didnt have Carelbach tunes to supplement their paltry repetoirs?)
At 12:44 PM, Anonymous said…

The song is even older than that clip. Cab Calloway wrote it in the '30s and used to sing it as a duet with his daughter. Anyway, this is not news and this "busting" is no "expose." When MBD did it in the '80s it was well known in the JM world (of which I was a part) that it was adapted. He certainly never claimed otherwise.

You might argue that there should be some active attribution to the source, but to condemn the actual adaptation is foolish, even malicious. By your moral compass, Lubavitchers shouldn't be singing Napoleon's March or La Marsaeille and Hungarians shouldn't be singing Zhol O Kokosh Mahr and other chassidim shouldn't be singing half their niggunim.

MOC, I have been a fan of yours for a long time, but this post is pure Loshon Hora and serves no purpose but to malign another Jew whose work you dislike. Are you warning people not to record songs lest the big, bad, MBD adapt it without attribution?

I think your smugness and snark have gone too far this time.
At 4:10 PM, Chaim said…

I disagree, I don't think its right and at the very least it's a double standard.

When the "oilem" including singers like MBD claim to be singing a more kosher style of music and then time after time you find out it's "adapted" from a goyish song that is a double standard.

When your told that music that only has drums and guitar, anything from Chaim Dovid to Moshav Band is treif because it's "goyishe rock" even though guys like Chaim Dovid and Moshav all use original material and guys like MBD keep getting busted for "adapting" goyish songs, thats a double standard.

Secondly, your use of the word adapted is a very liberal take on what happened here. The music is exactly the same, thats not adaptation. Even the words are identical. "Little one, little one ..."

Thirdly, in which you say "it was well known in the JM world" to me - that doesn't hold any water.

Does it credit the actual original composer in the song book? (and additional reprints too! This new shtus of reprinting covers but leaving out the credits is very disturbing.)

Many years have gone by since that song was released and not everyone was/is as lucky as you to have been a part of the JM world and didn't know it was taken from a non Jewish tune. Why do you think so many people were shocked to hear this other version.

That means most people assume it's just another golden MBD classic.

Perception in many cases is reality, especially when it comes to attribution of art.

Yashrus would be to make sure people knew you didn't come up with the tune. Yashrus would be to make sure people know that not all your material is original.

Yashrus would be to not attack other forms of Jewish music when your own material is taken ("adapted") from outright non Jewish sources.

As far as Lubavitch and Napoleons March, the Rebbe ZT'L had repeatedly spoken about the songs origins and practically every frum person familiar with the niggun knows the story behind it and how it came to be.

once again, perception is everything. Since people know the story and know it was originally that song - it's ok.

But when a chassidic Jewish singer who claims to sing a superior form of Jewish music doesn't go out of his way to let people know the original source is goyish, that bothers me.

I don't think this is unique to "old" MBD songs either. His last "hit" song B'rosh Hshana sounds very similar to a couple goyish dance club party songs.

I don't care if your source is a goyish song, that really doesnt bother me, but just be honest about it and make sure people know it. No one ever accuses Shlock Rock of stealing other peoples music.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that since you say you were "a part of the JM world" you know MBD or had dealings with him and feel the need to defend him.

That's admirable, but this is something that is just wrong, and since MBD will never address something like this publicly, I doubt it's an issue that will ever come to any resolution.
At 4:26 PM, MoChassid said…

Anonymous 12:44

I just have little tolerance for sanctimonious singers who put out DVDs admonishing people for copying CDs when they themselves record other people's music without attribution.

I'm sure you are right that my dislike for his music (and the central role he's played in bringing popular Jewish music to its extraordinarily shallow level) has colored my view.

snark, snark.
At 5:24 PM, and so it shall be... said…

"When MBD did it in the '80s it was well known in the JM world (of which I was a part) that it was adapted. He certainly never claimed otherwise."

Are you saying that MBD's "adaptation" was well-known at the same time yeshiva hypocrites were banning Lenny Solomon's Shlock Rock because he "adapted" (and credits his sources)"goyish" music?

I'm trying to remember if MBD was included in that ban ....
At 6:16 PM, shmuel said…

I recall that Chaim once linked to a video on google in which MBD tells of Shlomo Carlebach admonishing him for stealing his songs.
At 1:12 AM, Anonymous said…

I still think that you should have shouted more when the issue with his relative came out. By not shouting about it he managed to make a sorta comeback. He even played at hasc bc the people who arranged the concerts didnt hear about until it was too late and they didnt feel they could cancel it--but they felt very bad about it. Its too bad about that song, I actually really enjoyed the rendition on the hasc time for music cd with yitzy spinner. It was great to see u on shabbos.Shavuah tov and Mazel Tov, Brad
At 9:51 AM, Anonymous said…

Didnt chaim dovid sarachick use the famous "dueling banjos" routine as the intro to a song called "laeyudim hayta orah" ?
At 2:08 PM, NekudaTova said…

MoC,
This is beneath you!
At 5:21 PM, MoChassid said…

Why is this beneath me?

Don't people think that putting out music that is intended to deceive is a bad thing? (The Chaim Dovid analogy, as with Lenny Solomon, breaks down)?

Don't people think that using someone's songs and not paying royalties is a bad thing?
At 11:48 PM, Anonymous said…

Sure it's a bad thing, but your characterization that his music "stinks" is subjective and, hence, beneath you. If you want to stick to the facts, fine. But who made you a critic? I have news for you: not everyone liked all the songs on your album.
At 12:06 AM, Anonymous said…

We are so used to freely posting our opinions and comments, it's easy to forget that we're subject to the laws of speech.

Maybe you should ask your Rebbe if this post is k'halacha? I mean this seriously. There are guidelines as to what constitutes lashon hara. Is there a tachlis in publicizing this information? Does it protect anyone? If you can publicize it, must you limit it to the facts or can you add your personal opinion to deride the quality of the subject? In general, are we allowed to be critics after the fact?

I, for one, would like to know what RMW would say to all this.
At 8:21 AM, Chaim said…

this is ridiculous - MBD kipshutei STEALS, over and over and over and over and over again and some anonymous rat without the guts to put a name to his posts attacks MOChassid for his opinion that MBD's music stinks? Stop trying to make a halachic case out of his post, dragging rebbeim into it.

Why don't you ask your rebbeim if you should be leaving anonymous posts attacking people for having musical taste is right or wrong. How about asking your own rav if knocking MoC's CD is within the laws of Loshon Hora or public embarrassment? Oh it's ok for YOU to do it since your prooving a point?

Please, why dont you move along and keep pretending that someone who STEALS while telling other people not to STEAL is an angel and an inspiration to you.

You sir are the one with the chutzpah and you sir are the one I think owes Moc an apology for ignoring the REAL issues and trying to attack him and his opinions in order to hide the real discussion, which is indefensible.

G'naivah is Gnaivah.
At 2:10 PM, Anonymous said…

its the frum double standard. hypocrisy is an inborn trait, especially in brooklyn and the five towns.
At 4:18 PM, MoChassid said…

Chaim

Thanks for sticking up for me.

To the last two annons: My holy wife agrees that I shouldn't put up posts like these so I will try to avoid them in the future.

And, I can't emphasize enough how little I care that someone may not like all the songs on my CD. My own brother and sister don't like Aron Razel's last song and I think it's perhaps the best song on the CD.

That's what makes this a great country.

The only thing I can assure you about the CD is that it was done with yashrus. Musicians and studios got paid on time and royalties are being paid the the Carlebach estate for Melech Rachaman.
At 6:04 PM, NekudaTova said…

MO,
Understand that I am not attacking you; you are my #1 favorite blogger! I just wanted to tell you that this post didn't seem up to par with your regular excellent, amazing and totally terrific blog. Not to mention your kickin' CD-it plays in our kitchen all day. We love you! (Did I kiss up enough yet?) Have a good shabbos!
At 7:06 PM, CJ Srullowitz said…

This is a good and important question: Whether this sort of behavior should be, lulei demistafina, "outed."

Hey, did you know that Frank Sinatra's song "My Way" was adapted (is that a fancy way of saying "stolen"?) from a French song with completely different lyrics. Paul Anka heard the song one night and spent five hours in a Vegas hotel room writing the new lyrics for Ol Blue Eyes.

How does that work? Is attribution enough or must there be remuneration too? Does Weird Al pay for his parodies or is it considered "fair use"?

MOC, here's, lulei demistafina, my advice: Next time, simply post the you tube video. You don't need to throw in the "stinks/stolen" comment. People will draw their own conclusions.
At 11:46 PM, joshwaxman said…

1930 + 28 = 1958 for expiration of copyright. Can you "steal" something in the public domain?

(Note: IANAL)

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

"Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years."
At 8:26 AM, Chaim said…

Josh, your missing the point. I'm so saddened by all the excuser's attempts to grasp at anything to just defend MBD. For what? Even if this turns out to be technically not illegal, it's the PERCEPTION that bothers me the most. Proper Yashrus would have been NOT to allow the public to assume this was your own work. Whether it violates copyrights or is technically stealing is NOT THE POINT.

The Point is that MOST Jewish music fans believed this was an original yiddishe composition sung by MBD. We were led to believe this was "true" Jewish music because a bunch of hemishe mentchen sat around the tish and thought up a brilliant Jewish niggun to go with inspiring English lyrics.

we've been told that if it doesn't have a horn section it's not quality kosher music by the likes of MBD but then we keep finding out, over and over again then he himself is the biggest offender of ..... borrowing? Stealing? Ripping off? Legally Ripping off? whatever you wanna call it non Jewish music sources and not doing anything to make sure people understand its not original and its source isn't Jewish.

Not only that, but with the conviction and darkness surrounding MBD himself being the one to be the face of telling people not to copy Jewish music, it makes it even more laughable.

I mean, come on ... did you read his interview in mishpacha about copying jewish music???
At 10:26 AM, joshwaxman said…

no, I didn't read his interview in mishpacha. I did see the clip in which he asks people not to copy his music.

let me summarize my take on this:

1) it is quite possible that MBD does not think, and did not think, that he was doing anything wrong to the musicians whose tunes he borrowed. If it was out of copyright, and he had an entirely different demographic (in terms of the Ghengis Khan song) such that we was not harming them financially.

2) Many times, secular music borrows from other secular music, and many times, Jewish music borrows from Jewish music or secular music. This is the case for many classic niggunim, and in many cases, people are not aware of the origins. (Some are but many, many are not.) Many (most? all?) Country Yossi songs are reinterpretations of classics. Did Country Yossi explicitly say that "A boy named Zlata" was based on "A boy named Sue?"

3) If it is a good song, a good tune that conveys a good message, then he is presenting this good, kosher message to a receptive audience. That he does not mention it -- OK, perhaps he should have, though perhaps it would have made some silly people less receptive to it. (I don't know that it is word for word - I don't think the clip has all the words of the song.)

4) There is a difference between copying Jewish music rather than purchasing it on the one hand, and borrowing from non-Jewish sources on the other. I could argue that both may be halachically acceptable in certain circumstances, but they are not identical. And it is not hypocrisy.

It is somewhat akin to the distinction between OpenOffice offering a Microsoft Office clone (for free) and someone pirating a copy of Microsoft Office.
At 10:32 AM, joshwaxman said…

I understand your point as its being geneivat daat, rather than geneiva. there is something to that, though that was not solely how it was being argued in the comments. (e.g. "Don't people think that using someone's songs and not paying royalties is a bad thing?")

still, I'm not sure that this was necessarily done thinking that this was wrong to do.
At 10:38 AM, joshwaxman said…

"Whether it violates copyrights or is technically stealing is NOT THE POINT."

I also object to this. It is not a matter of "technically stealing" or not, it is a matter that once something enters the public domain, it belongs to them, and no one is doing anything *ethically* wrong in making use of it. Not just as a technicality, but the very idea is that it enters into the domain of the public to make use of.
At 10:49 AM, joshwaxman said…

"Don't people think that using someone's songs and not paying royalties is a bad thing?"

good question. (besides the fact that no royalties seem to be at issue in this case.) have you ever sung "Happy Birthday" at a birthday party, and not paid royalties to the company that bought the rights to that song?

OK, in such small company, and not for profit, the obligation to pay royalties does not kick in. But it is "that using someone's songs and not paying royalties." Is this a bad thing?

There was an incident (I think on the Today show) where someone sang it to the host, and they were then sued for royalties.

http://www.unhappybirthday.com/

"This means that if you sing Happy Birthday to your family at home, you're probably not committing copyright infringment. However, if you do it in an restaurant — and if the restaurant hasn't already worked out a deal with ASCAP — you may be engaging in copyright infringement."
At 12:24 PM, Chaim said…

I just don't see why you feel the need to work so hard to defend someone who does this. I hope he appreciates your comments, but I disagree. We've been hearing for years how Jewish rock is treif and it's wild and wrong and shlock rock is wrong, and Matisyahu is wrong and everything except Mordechai Ben David, Avraham Fried & Shloime Dachs is bad. Only "yidishe" music with horns and the same 4 composers and arrangers is proper kosher music. When a guy like MBD uses goyish songs to sing his song over and over again, that's is wrong. It's just wrong, you can respond as many times as you want, but it's just wrong. You say borrow, I say steal. Daddy Dear is NOTE FOR NOTE the same song.

That's not a cover, or a copy, or borrowing or adapting, or influenced. It's note for note copied. He uses some pretty harsh language in those articles about copying jewish music. Including his refusal to ever be mochel anyone who steals his music. You want to argue about the technicalities or public domain and what the sepcic copyright issues are, great, that's a great debate to have. But in relation to MBD being a hypocrite who has been using Goyishe matieral for who knows how many songs at this point, playing dumb and hush and hopinh people don't ever catch on and assume these are his original songs is soo soo wrong. It's mamash gnavas daas and it speaks to how he perceives his fans and people who listen to his music. He must think no one will know the difference so what do they care.

Everyone was up in arms about AKApella using non jewish music in their songs, mixing Michael Jackson with Eli Gerstner, who cares when MBD has been doing the same thing for 30 years and gets a free pass from you? (and don't tell me MBD stole music from nicer guys then Michael Jackson so it's ok)

We can go tit for tat on this forever, but the bottom line is there are a lot of different issues here and the point is that it wasn't done with Yashrus.

Royalties, copyrights and borrowing aside, it's just not the right way to go and for someone who publicly demands everyone else "do the right thing" ala his video drasha, he has a chutzpah to be the worst offender.
At 12:57 PM, joshwaxman said…

"I just don't see why you feel the need to work so hard to defend someone who does this"

rather than assuming that there must be some reason I am "compelled" to "work so hard" to defend it, consider the possibility that I simply disagree with you about this.
At 1:06 PM, joshwaxman said…

also, his using two songs makes him the "worst offender?" (at least that's all I've heard of.) What about a popular Jewish singer for children (UM) who uses Raffi and Bob the Builder tunes?

Personally, I don't object to Shlock Rock or Country Yossi either. Do you?

There is a difference, though. By using old tunes, they make use of (often) quiet, gentle melodies to convey a Jewish message. And since the audience does not know the influence, they do not think of that song. With Jewish rock, where what is being imitated is pop culture that everyone knows, it becomes a kosher alternative/outlet towards participating in secular pop culture. So there is indeed a conceptual difference.

(And I didn't mean the notes, I meant the lyrics.)
At 1:07 PM, joshwaxman said…

"That's not a cover, or a copy, or borrowing or adapting, or influenced. It's note for note copied. He uses some pretty harsh language in those articles about copying jewish music."

Copy is a homonym.
At 2:57 PM, Chaim said…

I dont think Uncle Moishy should do that either, BUT it's not the same category as regular 'yiddishe' music.

Shlock Rock is parody and Uncle Moishy is something else, Suki and Ding use popular mainstream Jewish and non Jewish children's songs to educate children.

Most children KNOW it's an Elmo's World song and won't be fooled, they are counting on them knowing songs like Bob the Builder to help them enjoy the songs and in the process learn the words and be educated.

Right or wrong - but they are using KNOWN songs.

Same thing goes with Shlock Rock, they are also doing Kiruv and trying to educate about Jewish things through songs which we ALL KNOW aren't theirs.

MBD doesn't do that, he uses obscure songs that most people dont even know about and then only find out about years later.

In one case people are using VERY POPULAR songs to promote a message to either children or non religious Jews

In MBD's case he passes off this music as regular orignal "yiddishe" music, sung at weddings to be misameach a chosson and kallah, under the guise it's kosher and clean music. He isn't using a U2 song or something from Michael Jackson which everyone knows, he is using obscure songs, which decrease the chance of anyone knowing that they aren't originals.

and .... it's not two songs that he has ripped off - it's much more then that - that we know of!
At 3:21 PM, joshwaxman said…

it's a matter of differing perspectives, i think.

"sung at weddings to be misameach a chosson and kallah, under the guise it's kosher and clean music."

it *is* kosher and clean music.
At 4:07 PM, Anonymous said…

it *is* kosher and clean music.

If the tune of "I wanna sex you up" was sung by the Miami Boys Choir with heimishe lyrics, it's going to become kosher all of a sudden? Sheesh.

I agree with MOChassid.
At 4:22 PM, Anonymous said…

Is it a confirmed fact that frum performers do not get copyright clearance/pay royalties?

If the tune of "I wanna sex you up" was sung by the Miami Boys Choir with heimishe lyrics, it's going to become kosher all of a sudden? Sheesh.

Well, if the song has been off the charts for over a year and has been run through an "ez-filter".

OTOH, if the song was performed by the Torah Temimah chorus, I'd worry.
;)
-Ben Sorer Moreh
At 5:47 PM, joshwaxman said…

"If the tune of "I wanna sex you up" was sung by the Miami Boys Choir with heimishe lyrics, it's going to become kosher all of a sudden? Sheesh."

What Anonymous said in reply. But I mean it seriously.

The notes themselves are not mekabel tuma (just like Torah cannot be makabel tuma).

If enough years have passed such that no one associates it with the original song, or it is from obscure German band, even though the song contains the lyrics "he fathered seven children in one night," it does not matter. Because no one is thinking of those lyrics when they hear the song.

What MBD did with the song is reinterpreted the energy of the song by putting it to different lyrics. And so long as no one knew the original, it only has positive associations in the mind of the listener.

If, on the other hand, someone will hear it and think of the original lyrics, then it is *perhaps* another story.

I've never heard "I wanna sex you up" so I cannot comment on the merit of the energy/emotion drawn up by the tune, independent of the lyrics.
At 6:18 PM, joshwaxman said…

on a related note, do you think the (secular) wedding march is dirty music? do you understand why one would think it was?
At 9:09 AM, Ben Sorer Moreh said…

even though the song contains the lyrics "he fathered seven children in one night,"

How about, "fathered seven kolel yungerleit in one night"?

Besides, who came first, Genghis Khan or Rabbenu Gershom?
;)
At 9:13 AM, Ben Sorer Moreh said…

on a related note, do you think the (secular) wedding march is dirty music? do you understand why one would think it was?

Are you talking about the one by Wagner? Anita Diamant discusses it in her book "The New Jewish Wedding" and encouraged people to play something else.
At 10:07 AM, MoChassid said…

This argument strikes me like the one about "Sefirah" music. You can teich it up all you want but you know in your heart of hearts that it isn't in the spirit of what our sages intended.(How much more do for the three weeks).

Chaim is right. Technical legal arguments are irrelevant here. MBD may not have technically "stolen" this song (although he probably technically stole the German melody). It's about yashrus. That's all. He has knowingly and deliberately positioned himself to be above reproach, he has castigated others for stealing his music, yet he has taken other people's music and cast it as his own.

There is aimply a lack of yashrus. Nothing more, nothing less.
At 12:37 PM, joshwaxman said…

the good and bad thing about a concept like "yashrus" is that it is fuzzy and thus subjective.

ben:
heh. :)
(and rabbenu gershom, by a few centuries)
At 12:39 PM, joshwaxman said…

ben:
and if they didn't? it isn't dirty even though it was consummation music because that is not what people associate it with mentally.
similar to today's post on Hirhurim about non-kosher quotes.
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/05/link-one-should-realize-that-even-if.html
At 7:22 PM, Anonymous said…

Josh, if what your explaining is right, then why wouldnt MBD just come out and admit it from the start. He could say "I took a toomedike niggun, and make it holy by using Heimishe lyrics for a good purpose"

The problem still remains, the he took OBSCURE music, that makes the whole thing suspicious. It seems that his pattern of taking non popular goyishe music which wouldn't be so known to the mainstream velt was done so in an effort to use good quality music, without the public knowing it was not original.

The obscure songs part is what is suspect.
At 6:01 AM, joshwaxman said…

"The problem still remains, the he took OBSCURE music, that makes the whole thing suspicious."

Yet it is the same think that makes it distinct and "better". He took *obscure* music and therefore the public would not make the mental associations with the secular song. Had he spelled it out, or used music that was better known, firstly, certain people would be closed-minded about it and make charges about secular influences, and secondly, people would have had those associations and be thinking "Hey Rider! Ho Rider! Hey Rider! Always Vaiter!" when listening to Yidden, which would then detract from its emotional effect. (the same way it does now.)

Kind of like the mental associations I have with the song Chazak Chazak veNischazek, once realizing that the pasuk "ish et reehu yaazoru" according to mainstream commentators means that each person helps his friend to build an avodah zarah, and encourages him, saying Chazak! Or else that it refers to the building of the Tower of Bavel.
At 8:40 AM, Anonymous said…

The problem still remains, the he took OBSCURE music, that makes the whole thing suspicious. It seems that his pattern of taking non popular goyishe music which wouldn't be so known to the mainstream velt was done so in an effort to use good quality music, without the public knowing it was not original.

Sounds like a metaphor for Jewish life. Prohibit "outside" knowledge, while "special" people get to present "outside" ideas as uniquely Jewish (start with Gilgamesh & Hammurabi...)
At 10:44 AM, Ben Sorer Moreh said…

Josh: When you say that people don't associate a song with its "dirty" roots, who do you mean by "people". If you turn a "dirty" song that's obscure in NYC but might be known in Prague, the NYC audience makes no association, but the Prague audience will (yes, someone in Prague will hear it, eventually).

Of course, if the song is not "pornographic", then, again, no "association". "Fathered 7 children in one night" is not that different from "was with 1000 men in one night" (midrash re Orpah & Goliath).

(Bigger question; Genghis Khan, good for the Jews? If Yidden were based on a song celebrating Chmelnicki or Hitler...)

OTOH, "boom boom boom let's go back to my room" (which IMHO would make a great hakafah nigun - "oy, yoy, yoy, oyoyoyoyoyoy, oyoyoyoyoyoyoy, oyoyoyoyoyoyoy, yeooooy" - would probably provoke some "associations".

I believe that Gil was referring to quotes that have non-Jewish roots but don't conflict with Jewish hashkafah. A pornographic song would not pass.

Why is an apikores like me having this discussion????

Shabbat shalom.
-BSM
At 12:57 PM, Anonymous said…

OTOH, if the song was performed by the Torah Temimah chorus, I'd worry.
;)
-Ben Sorer Moreh

LOL!!!!
At 5:12 AM, ERAV RAV WATCH said…

While your at it. Chabad has"borrowed" from Reb Shlomo: Mikimi+We Want Moshiach Now
SheyeBaNa Bais Hamikdash=Ad Mosi

and let's not forget ELECHA= Pirchei!
At 10:39 AM, Ben Sorer Moreh said…

JMG.

Funny you should mention "Pirchei" and Carlebach in the same post.

What are you saying about "Elecha"? Has someone else covered it? "Pirchei Sings Volume 2" (the orange cover) is probably one of the most "productive" Jewish albums, in terms of number of songs that people know, sing (and cover). (Ashreinu, Mi HaIsh, Mimkomcha, Ki Hem Hayyenu, Pitchu Li, Ahat Shaalti, Elecha...) I've heard these songs in Yeshiva, in camp, at "BJ" and sung by the chorus at a Reconstructionst GLBT minyan. Did this album just get "lucky" or did Pirchei record songs which people already knew? Who wrote them? I don't have the album. Perhaps there's info in Velvel Pasternak's songbooks.

Ditto Carlebach. He wrote and recorded songs that people actually sing, cover and re-use. I recall the first "JEP" album using some Carlebach tunes.

As long as permission is granted, this is perfectly fine. It's always right to honor both the composer and the listener and give credit, of course.

I've been wondering about "Daddy Dear/Little Girl". The song sounds "Jewish" (sad, minor key). I take notice when pop songs are in minor keys (think No Doubt's "Don't Speak" or "Living La Vida Loca"). Did a quick Googling of "Daddy Dear" and Danny Kaye's name (Jewish) came up. Could this song have come from the Yiddish songbook or theater? It wouldn't be the first time. Think "Bi Mir Bizt Du Shoen" or Secunda and Zeitlin's "Dona Dona" (Joan Baez's cover brings me to tears).

Back to "Yidden/Genghis" Khan. Who wrote it? Is it contemporary or are both based on a 1,000 year old folk tune?

Coda: In Boro Park this weekend. Heimishe guy in front of me at the grocery. His phone rings. His Ringtone: Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring". Wonder if he knew.
-BSM
At 6:48 PM, Anonymous said…

People talk without knowing what the heck they are saying. People spout information as if they have concrete proof they are facts.

Why do bloggers and commenters on blogs think whatever they think they know is somehow fact.

Do you know how many rumors and stories and accusations are not true? Do you know how many stories are not known by the public that would explain a lot of what has been written here? On BOTH SIDES of the argument?

I think people should think before they write and consider that unless they have actual factual on paper from the source proof they don't know jack!
At 2:35 AM, Unknown said…

qzz0622
pandora charms
saucony shoes
coach handbags
longchamp solde
polo ralph lauren
adidas nmd
ugg boots
wellensteyn jackets
nike air max 2015
oakley sunglasses
At 5:20 AM, Unknown said…

www0712

carrera sunglasses
mizuno running shoes
michael kors outlet
rockets jerseys
tory burch outlet
ugg outlet
polo ralph lauren
uggs
polo ralph lauren
canada goose

MOChassid

Friday, May 18, 2007

48 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts

Links