I am a professional musician and I think the similarities you listed (which focus rightfully on the lyrics and theme) don't go far enough---the chords in the verse do the same I-IV motion, which is a common progression, but I'm this case the rhythm is basically identical, they both repeat over and over with the same exact guitar voicing and tone, etc.
Put it this way: You could sing Albuquerque to a karaoke track of dicks automotive and no one would know which you had put on (until the chorus).
I'm also a former lawyer and I think your legal analysis looks good---obviously this kind of thing is notoriously difficult, since writing about music is like dancing about architecture, but honestly this feels like one of the most clear and frankly egregious uncredited song parodies that I'm aware of. The guy that wrote it is exactly right ---i think any reasonable experts or jurors who A/B'd it would agree that this isn't some multi-source genre or style parody, this is "I copied Dicks automotive faithfully and then changed a couple of answers so the teacher wouldn't know." I'm a huge weird al fan (and once knew every word of Albuquerque) so I'm extremely disappointed by this, and I would be furious if I were the guy that actually wrote it.
If you A/B it with Mojo & Skid’s “Burn Down the Malls”, and Thorogood’s Bourbon Scotch Beer, I suspect the style parody explanation would be further justified.
listened to both of these---I agree that the style of the lyrics and “melody” are similar but they feel like a completely different song from either Albuquerque or dicks automotive. You could not put on a minus track of these songs and sing the other to them. You absolutely could for ABQ/automotive
I have not compared them that closely - but to your point, his closeness to the Dick’s song and band (meeting and knowing them, as you discuss) together with the song similarities, suggests a tighter connection. I did think of the Mojo song, though, when I heard Dick’s.
Another interesting comparison in the area of style vs song copying, which you may know, is Led Zeppelin’s Whole Lotta Love (1969) compared to Small Faces’ You Need Loving (1966) which is based on Willie Dixon’s You Need Love. Robert Plant’s vocal is very close to Steve Marriott’s, and it’s the style that’s really iconic, though not necessarily copyrightable. The use of Willie Dixon’s song by both bands, another story, that seems to be more about what are protected elements in the blues genre.
It would be interesting to see it argued in court. Nothing listed in the article is original to Dick’s Automotive. It is not the only long song, it is not the only one to use those chord professions, they hardly invented “knocking” in the drum rim, etc. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only expressions of ideas.
None of the things you mention are legally copyrightable, so clearly you weren’t a copyright lawyer. “The rhythm is basically identical”, “they repeat”, “guitar voicing”. Congrats, you’ve described every punk song. Juries often do whatever they want in these cases, but appeals courts have overturned decisions that were clearly just “eh, sounds close enough to us non-experts”.
Look, my guy, I'm not going to write a whole brief or musicology analysis of it on here, I'm just telling you as a musician and a lawyer that it's my judgment that any jury or judge is gonna absolutely clock this as being a direct rip-off for both lyrical and musical reasons. I think "the karaoke versions of these tracks is functionally identical" is a pretty succinct and persuasive summary, and it's also facially obvious as even a non-expert listener.
And no, I wasn't specifically a copyright lawyer, but I came across it enough to be familiar with the shape of the case law. Stuff has been nailed for far less. 🤷
> It’s hard to prove “damages” when a 19-year-old makes a song parody that gets 100,000 views on YouTube, so there’s not much point in legal action and the accompanying financial and PR cost of suing a fan over a silly song.
You're right in everything you wrote, but it might give the false impression that you need actual damages to sue for copyright infringement. Even if you aren't actually damaged at all, as long as your work is registered with the library of congress you're still eligible for "statutory damages"
It’s a cult shibboleth. Nerds enjoy memorizing it like the Dead Parrot Sketch and think it’s funny to shout the title during live shows. This is like, I dunno, saying the most successful episode of the Simpsons is “22 Short Films About Springfield” because it contains the steamed hams skit, or something like that
I don't have an informed opinion on whether this is more a direct or style parody, but I have a theory on why he might not be more explicit about the connection between the two songs.
Many of Weird Al's fans are young teens (in fact, I first heard Albuquerque when my brother got the CD as a 13- or 14-year-old). The random violence in the song is very much PG-13.
The same can not be said for Dave's Automotive. As an adult I was horrified by the very much R level violence in the song. Perhaps, Weird Al, recognizing that that song is not appropriate for a significant portion of his audience, intentionally does not share this inspiration. He is trying to protect them.
Should he still maybe share it in interviews (that young teens are unlikely to hear), perhaps. On the other hand, Weird Al has always seemed like the kind of artist that cares about his fans deeply and very well might want to protect them.
That could certainly be part of it! Weird Al is definitely "family friendly" most of the time, and as you note, Weird Al's description of cutting off a man's arms and legs with a chainsaw is significantly less detailed (and far more succinct) than Steve Poltz's description of what John does to the proprietor of Dick's Automotive with the same piece of hardware (as well as the blowtorch that he brings along).
That being said, Weird Al is no stranger to covering songs that are significantly more vulgar than his target audience might be used to: I'm not sure what your cutoff is for songs that you consider to be "R-rated," but the official Weird Al materials that come with the music officially acknowledge songs like Candy Shop by 50 Cent and WAP by Megan Thee Stallion. So at least in those cases, it seems that his desire to credit the original artist trumps his desire to "protect" his audience from knowing about the existence of these highly explicit songs.
It is worth noting that while Weird Al *acknowledges* the original artists in official materials, he doesn't go out of his way to announce this information to fans who are not already in the know, and to me, that seems like the least he could do for the Rugburns -- he could just have the digital equivalent of album liner notes on his website to retroactively credit all of the "style parody" targets who he parodied before he adopted the practice of officially crediting them in the 00's. (This would surface this information in an official way so that outlets like Wikipedia could have a verified "reliable source" for the assertion that Albuquerque is based on Dick's Automotive.)
Albuquerque is a way better song, and way more Al, lyrically speaking. It’s almost as though “Dick’s Automotive” is their idea of something Weird Al would do, and then he did it even better. Albuquerque is sonically more interesting, and while it uses the same two chords and similar rhythm, it goes to different places along that similar path. Lastly, I think it’s a safe bet that Weird Al did more for the New Mexico Tourism industry than the other guys ever did for Santa Cruz.
I’m going to see if there is a way to update the Wikipedia article with this information. Because Substack articles are self published and therefore not considered reliable sources (with some exceptions) I won’t be able to credit you and your argument but I might be able to use some of what you reference here.
There's now an addition to the Wikipedia page for Albuquerque (added the day after I posted this), citing the Steve Poltz interview where he says "because of 'Dick's Automotive', Weird Al wrote the song 'Albuquerque.'" Hopefully that artist interview counts as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia's purposes.
I dunno. I assume, at this point, most of Weird Al's money comes from his money, rather than his music. That's the difference between a working person and a rich person.
I’m surprised there was no mention of the South Park case where they got sued for allegedly copying the YouTube video “What what in the butt” (including music, lyrics, and an animated version of the video). South Park claimed Fair Use and won. Considering this case, I wonder if Weird Al actually doesn’t need to get permission. https://www.courthousenews.com/south-park-cleared-on-what-what-in-the-butt/
After Amish paradise, Coolio made a BIG stink about it. How Gangster Paradise was some serious societal statement. Which pretty much copied off the entire melody of Passtime Paradise by Stevie Wonder, an ACTUAL serious song. Coolio's song was just, another gangster rap song that teenager wanna be gangsters looked up to. And coolio, had wayy less staying power then Amish Paradise did, which still makes people laugh.
Coolio also didn’t own the rights to “gangsta’s paradise” because it’s an interpolation of “pastime paradise” by Stevie Wonder, so he could complain, but had no legal recourse if Al licensed the song from Wonder.
I had to research; Coolio expressed regret for making a stink. Al wrote him a letter thqt went unanswered. Coolio got paid royalties by Wierd Al but also paid Stevie Wonder some licensing $ too.
Wierd al could not go directly to Wonder because it's pretty clearly a parody of Coolio's song. Wierd al has gladly paid % and always asked permission because dude got millions of $ for making fun of other's work. Some of the millions gets kicked upstairs
The Campbell definition of parody is not "one guy's opinion." It's referring to the 1994 court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc, where the US Supreme Court established the legal standard for when parody legally counts as "fair use":
It's true that *you* may not have heard of this landmark Supreme Court decision until now, but in a courtroom, the SCOTUS definition of "parody" is the one that matters.
Courts care about the legal definitions of a word, which can be different from the common dictionary definitions of words. For example, if you look up the word "consideration" in a dictionary, you'll probably get a definition like "careful thought." But in contract law, the word "consideration" has a very specific meaning about whether something of value was exchanged between parties. If someone sues you over a bad contract saying "you never gave me consideration," you can't legally defend yourself by saying "yes I did, I thought about it very carefully," even though that statement would be correct according to the common dictionary definition.
That’s genuinely interesting. It irks me somewhat that courts don’t use dictionary definitions of words because I feel that would make it much easier for people to understand. But what you said kind of makes sense.
Dictionary definitions change every year. For example, the word "incredible" originally meant "not credible." The sentence "I find your story incredible" originally meant "I don't believe you." But now the word "incredible" just means "extraordinary" or "amazing," and modern dictionaries reflect this contemporary usage.
Legal definitions are defined by statutory text and case law because we don't want them to change unless a legislature or court decides to change them.
Imagine what would happen if the courts interpreted laws based on whatever the dictionary says this year: every update to the dictionary would effectively change the law. That would give the editorial staff at Oxford University Press and Merriam-Webster more power to shape the law than most legislators, despite the fact that nobody voted for them.
But tell me, what is the court’s definition of “peer” because if you did go by dictionary definition it would mean there would be a large amount of court cases that are void, especially if you go based on education, career, and religion. 😊
Mind blown by this article about one of my heroes. Love Albuquerque, and had no idea about this. Something doesn’t add up. I’m open to making up extraordinary explanations. Maybe someone in the Rugburns desperately needed money, to pay off a mob debt or an extortionist or something unpleasant like that. Needed money, but under the table and out of view from the public and the Feds. Here’s Weird Al, coming to their shows. He’s been talking about giving royalties for Dick’s Garage. Maybe he’s a good friend, and a favor gets asked, for the royalty to be paid all up front, in an under the table cash transaction. Nobody on either side may ever speak of this, for legal reasons.
I am a professional musician and I think the similarities you listed (which focus rightfully on the lyrics and theme) don't go far enough---the chords in the verse do the same I-IV motion, which is a common progression, but I'm this case the rhythm is basically identical, they both repeat over and over with the same exact guitar voicing and tone, etc.
Put it this way: You could sing Albuquerque to a karaoke track of dicks automotive and no one would know which you had put on (until the chorus).
I'm also a former lawyer and I think your legal analysis looks good---obviously this kind of thing is notoriously difficult, since writing about music is like dancing about architecture, but honestly this feels like one of the most clear and frankly egregious uncredited song parodies that I'm aware of. The guy that wrote it is exactly right ---i think any reasonable experts or jurors who A/B'd it would agree that this isn't some multi-source genre or style parody, this is "I copied Dicks automotive faithfully and then changed a couple of answers so the teacher wouldn't know." I'm a huge weird al fan (and once knew every word of Albuquerque) so I'm extremely disappointed by this, and I would be furious if I were the guy that actually wrote it.
If you A/B it with Mojo & Skid’s “Burn Down the Malls”, and Thorogood’s Bourbon Scotch Beer, I suspect the style parody explanation would be further justified.
listened to both of these---I agree that the style of the lyrics and “melody” are similar but they feel like a completely different song from either Albuquerque or dicks automotive. You could not put on a minus track of these songs and sing the other to them. You absolutely could for ABQ/automotive
"30,000 Pounds of Bananas" has entered the chat...
I'm confused---are you saying that song resembles the other songs in question?
Albuquerque, specifically.
I don't hear the resemblance! Not musically, at least
I have not compared them that closely - but to your point, his closeness to the Dick’s song and band (meeting and knowing them, as you discuss) together with the song similarities, suggests a tighter connection. I did think of the Mojo song, though, when I heard Dick’s.
Another interesting comparison in the area of style vs song copying, which you may know, is Led Zeppelin’s Whole Lotta Love (1969) compared to Small Faces’ You Need Loving (1966) which is based on Willie Dixon’s You Need Love. Robert Plant’s vocal is very close to Steve Marriott’s, and it’s the style that’s really iconic, though not necessarily copyrightable. The use of Willie Dixon’s song by both bands, another story, that seems to be more about what are protected elements in the blues genre.
It would be interesting to see it argued in court. Nothing listed in the article is original to Dick’s Automotive. It is not the only long song, it is not the only one to use those chord professions, they hardly invented “knocking” in the drum rim, etc. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only expressions of ideas.
Oh my!
Next you’ll tell me “Polka Your Eyes Out” isn’t an original.?!
Where does the gore in my life end?
None of the things you mention are legally copyrightable, so clearly you weren’t a copyright lawyer. “The rhythm is basically identical”, “they repeat”, “guitar voicing”. Congrats, you’ve described every punk song. Juries often do whatever they want in these cases, but appeals courts have overturned decisions that were clearly just “eh, sounds close enough to us non-experts”.
Look, my guy, I'm not going to write a whole brief or musicology analysis of it on here, I'm just telling you as a musician and a lawyer that it's my judgment that any jury or judge is gonna absolutely clock this as being a direct rip-off for both lyrical and musical reasons. I think "the karaoke versions of these tracks is functionally identical" is a pretty succinct and persuasive summary, and it's also facially obvious as even a non-expert listener.
And no, I wasn't specifically a copyright lawyer, but I came across it enough to be familiar with the shape of the case law. Stuff has been nailed for far less. 🤷
> It’s hard to prove “damages” when a 19-year-old makes a song parody that gets 100,000 views on YouTube, so there’s not much point in legal action and the accompanying financial and PR cost of suing a fan over a silly song.
You're right in everything you wrote, but it might give the false impression that you need actual damages to sue for copyright infringement. Even if you aren't actually damaged at all, as long as your work is registered with the library of congress you're still eligible for "statutory damages"
This is an incredible revelation that is very well written. Good job!
> Albuquerque is one of his famous and most beloved songs.
Citation needed. I’ve always thought of it as a deep cut!
Rolling Stone polled their readers in 2012, and Albuquerque was #3, behind Amish Paradise and White & Nerdy: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/readers-poll-favorite-weird-al-yankovic-songs-11549/3-albuquerque-236401/
On this 2022 Reddit thread with 200 comments asking "What's the best Weird Al song," outside the poll options, the most up-voted comment is "Albuquerque" https://www.reddit.com/r/weirdal/comments/z0mwpq/whats_the_best_weird_al_song/
On YouTube music, it's in his "top 20" songs based on listener activity (out of 200+ songs)
It’s a cult shibboleth. Nerds enjoy memorizing it like the Dead Parrot Sketch and think it’s funny to shout the title during live shows. This is like, I dunno, saying the most successful episode of the Simpsons is “22 Short Films About Springfield” because it contains the steamed hams skit, or something like that
I don't have an informed opinion on whether this is more a direct or style parody, but I have a theory on why he might not be more explicit about the connection between the two songs.
Many of Weird Al's fans are young teens (in fact, I first heard Albuquerque when my brother got the CD as a 13- or 14-year-old). The random violence in the song is very much PG-13.
The same can not be said for Dave's Automotive. As an adult I was horrified by the very much R level violence in the song. Perhaps, Weird Al, recognizing that that song is not appropriate for a significant portion of his audience, intentionally does not share this inspiration. He is trying to protect them.
Should he still maybe share it in interviews (that young teens are unlikely to hear), perhaps. On the other hand, Weird Al has always seemed like the kind of artist that cares about his fans deeply and very well might want to protect them.
That could certainly be part of it! Weird Al is definitely "family friendly" most of the time, and as you note, Weird Al's description of cutting off a man's arms and legs with a chainsaw is significantly less detailed (and far more succinct) than Steve Poltz's description of what John does to the proprietor of Dick's Automotive with the same piece of hardware (as well as the blowtorch that he brings along).
That being said, Weird Al is no stranger to covering songs that are significantly more vulgar than his target audience might be used to: I'm not sure what your cutoff is for songs that you consider to be "R-rated," but the official Weird Al materials that come with the music officially acknowledge songs like Candy Shop by 50 Cent and WAP by Megan Thee Stallion. So at least in those cases, it seems that his desire to credit the original artist trumps his desire to "protect" his audience from knowing about the existence of these highly explicit songs.
It is worth noting that while Weird Al *acknowledges* the original artists in official materials, he doesn't go out of his way to announce this information to fans who are not already in the know, and to me, that seems like the least he could do for the Rugburns -- he could just have the digital equivalent of album liner notes on his website to retroactively credit all of the "style parody" targets who he parodied before he adopted the practice of officially crediting them in the 00's. (This would surface this information in an official way so that outlets like Wikipedia could have a verified "reliable source" for the assertion that Albuquerque is based on Dick's Automotive.)
Albuquerque is a way better song, and way more Al, lyrically speaking. It’s almost as though “Dick’s Automotive” is their idea of something Weird Al would do, and then he did it even better. Albuquerque is sonically more interesting, and while it uses the same two chords and similar rhythm, it goes to different places along that similar path. Lastly, I think it’s a safe bet that Weird Al did more for the New Mexico Tourism industry than the other guys ever did for Santa Cruz.
I’m going to see if there is a way to update the Wikipedia article with this information. Because Substack articles are self published and therefore not considered reliable sources (with some exceptions) I won’t be able to credit you and your argument but I might be able to use some of what you reference here.
There's now an addition to the Wikipedia page for Albuquerque (added the day after I posted this), citing the Steve Poltz interview where he says "because of 'Dick's Automotive', Weird Al wrote the song 'Albuquerque.'" Hopefully that artist interview counts as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia's purposes.
It should count! That’s what I was going to use
Just found that article from substack randomly recommending it to me. And it was a great read. I'm about to read more of your work
>he became the sort of person who could make actual money from his money
I presume the second "money" should be "music".
I dunno. I assume, at this point, most of Weird Al's money comes from his money, rather than his music. That's the difference between a working person and a rich person.
Incredible work
I’m surprised there was no mention of the South Park case where they got sued for allegedly copying the YouTube video “What what in the butt” (including music, lyrics, and an animated version of the video). South Park claimed Fair Use and won. Considering this case, I wonder if Weird Al actually doesn’t need to get permission. https://www.courthousenews.com/south-park-cleared-on-what-what-in-the-butt/
After Amish paradise, Coolio made a BIG stink about it. How Gangster Paradise was some serious societal statement. Which pretty much copied off the entire melody of Passtime Paradise by Stevie Wonder, an ACTUAL serious song. Coolio's song was just, another gangster rap song that teenager wanna be gangsters looked up to. And coolio, had wayy less staying power then Amish Paradise did, which still makes people laugh.
Coolio also didn’t own the rights to “gangsta’s paradise” because it’s an interpolation of “pastime paradise” by Stevie Wonder, so he could complain, but had no legal recourse if Al licensed the song from Wonder.
I had to research; Coolio expressed regret for making a stink. Al wrote him a letter thqt went unanswered. Coolio got paid royalties by Wierd Al but also paid Stevie Wonder some licensing $ too.
Wierd al could not go directly to Wonder because it's pretty clearly a parody of Coolio's song. Wierd al has gladly paid % and always asked permission because dude got millions of $ for making fun of other's work. Some of the millions gets kicked upstairs
When you started talking about the Evil Al getting rich off of uncredited style pastiches, I thought you might pivot to mentioning the Evil AI.
Why are you only using the Campbell definition? The dictionary definition defines a parody as:
parody | 'paradi | noun an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect
Oxford Dictionary of English
parody | noun
1. satire
2. distortion
Oxford Thesaurus of English
So if the courts use the dictionary definition over some guy no one has ever heard of until this article, then everyone is technically covered.
The Campbell definition of parody is not "one guy's opinion." It's referring to the 1994 court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc, where the US Supreme Court established the legal standard for when parody legally counts as "fair use":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc
It's true that *you* may not have heard of this landmark Supreme Court decision until now, but in a courtroom, the SCOTUS definition of "parody" is the one that matters.
Courts care about the legal definitions of a word, which can be different from the common dictionary definitions of words. For example, if you look up the word "consideration" in a dictionary, you'll probably get a definition like "careful thought." But in contract law, the word "consideration" has a very specific meaning about whether something of value was exchanged between parties. If someone sues you over a bad contract saying "you never gave me consideration," you can't legally defend yourself by saying "yes I did, I thought about it very carefully," even though that statement would be correct according to the common dictionary definition.
That’s genuinely interesting. It irks me somewhat that courts don’t use dictionary definitions of words because I feel that would make it much easier for people to understand. But what you said kind of makes sense.
Dictionary definitions change every year. For example, the word "incredible" originally meant "not credible." The sentence "I find your story incredible" originally meant "I don't believe you." But now the word "incredible" just means "extraordinary" or "amazing," and modern dictionaries reflect this contemporary usage.
Legal definitions are defined by statutory text and case law because we don't want them to change unless a legislature or court decides to change them.
Imagine what would happen if the courts interpreted laws based on whatever the dictionary says this year: every update to the dictionary would effectively change the law. That would give the editorial staff at Oxford University Press and Merriam-Webster more power to shape the law than most legislators, despite the fact that nobody voted for them.
True, and I understand that.
But tell me, what is the court’s definition of “peer” because if you did go by dictionary definition it would mean there would be a large amount of court cases that are void, especially if you go based on education, career, and religion. 😊
Mind blown by this article about one of my heroes. Love Albuquerque, and had no idea about this. Something doesn’t add up. I’m open to making up extraordinary explanations. Maybe someone in the Rugburns desperately needed money, to pay off a mob debt or an extortionist or something unpleasant like that. Needed money, but under the table and out of view from the public and the Feds. Here’s Weird Al, coming to their shows. He’s been talking about giving royalties for Dick’s Garage. Maybe he’s a good friend, and a favor gets asked, for the royalty to be paid all up front, in an under the table cash transaction. Nobody on either side may ever speak of this, for legal reasons.
Your opening example is ironic because most people don't realize Toni Basil's Mickey actually is someone else's song with the lyrics slightly changed.