3 ms·

Or maybe it's boring because it simply uses the established meaning in the context of music? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_music https://en.wikipedia.org

Or maybe it's boring because it simply uses the established meaning in the context of music? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_music In any case, you seem to be a bit conflicted on the meaning yourself, first demanding it meaningfully interact with the text of the original, and then relaxing the condition to the work only needing to be funny. These are actually two rather orthogonal conditions: being funny or not is largely a matter subjective opinion, while interacting with the original text is something that can be more objectively decided by text analysis. And both conditions of course completely ignoring the musical aspect.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
I'm sorry, where did I demand that "it" (the system?) meaningfully interact with the text? Also, where did I say it only needs to be funny? I can't find that in my comment above. Regarding the meaning of parody, the link you provide continues as follows: Although the intention of a musical parody may be humour (as in burlesque), it is the re-use of music that is the original[vague] defining feature. In music, parody has been used for many different purposes and in various musical contexts: as a serious compositional technique, as an unsophisticated re-use of well-known melody to present new words, and as an intentionally humorous, even mocking, reworking of existing musical material, sometimes for satirical effect. Examples of musical parody with completely serious intent include parody masses in the 16th century, and, in the 20th century, the use of folk tunes in popular song, and neo-classical works written for the concert hall, drawing on earlier styles. "Parody" in this serious sense continues to be a term in musicological use, existing alongside the more common use of the term to refer to parody for humorous effect by composers from Bach to Sondheim and performers from Spike Jones to "Weird Al" Yankovic. So there are other uses of "musical parody" than to satirise (in Greek, "parody" means roughly "changed song") but the name of the system I'd say predisposes one to expect a humorous twist. But of course I'm not surprised that I have to defend my interpretation of parody in the above paper. It is so, so confusing. Edit: no, wait- so we agree that the parodies generated by the system in the article are not humorous? They are nonsensical and they rhyme, but they are not funny? In that case- why are they nonsensical in the first place? What is the point of a nonsensical parody if it is not humour? Am I really the one demanding a very strict definition of "musical parody", or is the author deliberately allowing a too-general definition, in order to make their system look like it's doing something it really, really isn't? I apologise for revealing my deeply unfunny self in this thread.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

I'm sorry, where did I demand that "it" (the system?) meaningfully interact with the text? Also, where did I say it only needs to be funny? I can't find that in my comment above. Regarding the meaning of parody, the link you provide continues as follows: Although the intention of a musical parody may be humour (as in burlesque), it is the re-use of music that is the original[vague] defining feature. In music, parody has been used for many different purposes and in various musical contexts: as a serious compositional technique, as an unsophisticated re-use of well-known melody to present new words, and as an intentionally humorous, even mocking, reworking of existing musical material, sometimes for satirical effect. Examples of musical parody with completely serious intent include parody masses in the 16th century, and, in the 20th century, the use of folk tunes in popular song, and neo-classical works written for the concert hall, drawing on earlier styles. "Parody" in this serious sense continues to be a term in musicological use, existing alongside the more common use of the term to refer to parody for humorous effect by composers from Bach to Sondheim and performers from Spike Jones to "Weird Al" Yankovic. So there are other uses of "musical parody" than to satirise (in Greek, "parody" means roughly "changed song") but the name of the system I'd say predisposes one to expect a humorous twist. But of course I'm not surprised that I have to defend my interpretation of parody in the above paper. It is so, so confusing. Edit: no, wait- so we agree that the parodies generated by the system in the article are not humorous? They are nonsensical and they rhyme, but they are not funny? In that case- why are they nonsensical in the first place? What is the point of a nonsensical parody if it is not humour? Am I really the one demanding a very strict definition of "musical parody", or is the author deliberately allowing a too-general definition, in order to make their system look like it's doing something it really, really isn't? I apologise for revealing my deeply unfunny self in this thread.