Fefogomez

Song scores

Song scores are copyrighted, just like recordings are. In fact, copyright is often established by archivng a record of a score in a patent office. Any transcription of a score must be within fair use guidelines: that is, it must be a small portion that is relevant to the prose of the article. See Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song) for an example of a proper usage of a song score. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is fair use material. You are making a derivative of copyrighted material. Here's how a score still under copyright should be credited on Wikipedia, and even then it needs to be merited by the article's content. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Music Notation

Cool thanks for finding that. Any ideas what constitutes a "limited number"? Deamon138 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

well I think by "limited number" they mean part-to-whole ratio. That is to say if you are using only 10 measures (music units) out of a 100 measure song, you could still claim fair use. (Of course, subjectivity would have to be overcome if somebody gets in the way)

Hey Jude

Frankly, it looks ugly and messes up the formatting of the page. Discussion of the song's composition should be done in a prose format. See "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Hey Ya!" for examples. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The analysis of the song you posted was done in a list format that was done in the way that it messed up the formatting of the page. Also, the source you are citing is not the best. "Hey Jude" is a featured article, which means that it is one of the best articles on Wikipedia, and so drastic changes to the article should be discussed first. In most instances, drastic changes are unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe

Thanks for uploading this song to a score analyzer, whatever that might be, but I remain unconvinced that Radio Free Europe makes any musical sense if the tonic chord is considered to be A major. My own analysis of it demonstrates that the melody of the song's verses are in E Mixolydian, while elsewhere the tonality shifts between F sharp major (the first two bars of the 'raving station' sections) and E major (the middle 8).

You have to remember that this song, like most rock & roll songs, was not originally written as sheet music by trained musicians, but by relatively unschooled musicians who were not concerned with the number of accidentals on the page. I believe that Peter Buck, the least schooled instrumentalist in the band, was largely responsible for the music to Radio Free Europe, which would easily account for the unorthodox way the song slips from E Mixolydian to E major and F major. In the chorus alone, both the harmonic tension and release as well as the rhythmic emphasis overwhelmingly imply E, rather than A, as the tonic. The fact that the song ends on A, the IV of E, is not proof that that must be the tonic chord; 'Pilgrimage', off the same album, has a verse that is unambiguously in F major but it too ends on the IV chord (which in that song happens to be B flat major). Unless anyone wants to write to REM and ask them what key they reckon it's in, I will go on saying that an analysis of the number of accidentals in the song is no substitute for using one's ear. Thanks for the message, though. Lexo (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. My name is Lexo, btw, not Leo. I would just point out that D sharp/E flat is in fact played in the guitar part to the song, in three places - in the arpeggiated guitar part at the end of each 'raving station' part of the song, which part is repeated twice during the middle eight, and also at the very end of the song. This sets up a strong implication of E major, which is however counteracted by the D natural elsewhere in the song. This gives the song a sense of tonal ambiguity. I admit, though, that this is more of a flavour of E major than a strong implication that the entire song is in that key.

However, I would also point out that E Mixolydian is enharmonic to (i.e. has exactly the same notes as) A major. What leads me to think that the melody is in E Mixolydian is the recurring use of fortissimo E major chords for purposes of harmonic and rhythmic resolution. But we need to draw a distinction between the use of E major chords, which are consistent with the use of the Mixolydian mode, and going on from there to think that the whole song is unambiguously in E major, which it isn't. I am not claiming, and I have never claimed, that the verse of the song is in E major. The recurring D naturals rule that out. But as soon as we start to think of the verse and chorus melodies as being in E Mixolydian, the song makes a lot more harmonic sense than it does if you consider it to be in A major. So far, nobody I have challenged on this - neither WesleyDodds nor J. Niimi, the author of the book that he cited - has presented me with any kind of counter-argument. Lexo (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One final comment; not everyone knows their scales, so I am not surprised that neither WesleyDodds (who I don't think has any musical theory at all) nor J. Niimi (who told me by email that he is 'not a theory whiz') would necessarily be familiar with E Mixolydian as a theoretical object. In fact many, many post 1940s pop songs are written in it, especially those with a folk-rock flavour, including several songs by the Kinks (including 'You Really Got Me' and 'See My Friends'), 'Norwegian Wood' by the Beatles, numerous Richard Thompson songs, and most crucially 'Stumble', 'Gardening at Night', '7 Chinese Bros.', 'Good Advices' and other songs by REM. It's a scale many rock guitarists learn early on without really realising that it's a mode. It is seldom if ever used in classical music, which is why music students often fail to recognise it. Lexo (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beatles Blackbird.jpg

Image:Beatles Blackbird.jpg isn't very accurate. Just to point out a few things: the first bar shows an open-D drone rather an open-G, the open-B notes in the third measure should be open-G notes if at all, and the line should go "take these broken wings...". Besides, I'm not sure that the rhythm in the second measure should have sextuplets. I'd say it's a more straightforward 8th-16th-16th|16th-16th-8th note pattern. Could you look into these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.100.77 (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact there is a plethora of interpretations for the song. From my point of view this is the most accurate you will ever find (including the ones by Hal-Leonard).

But let's discuss this in detail, to characterize a song by a droning G string does not mean that all the bars have to have an open G string, but most of them do. Incidentally, the first bar does not drone on G.

There are no open B notes that I can notice in the third measure (only C, C# and droning G). I will correct the THESE thing ASAP. I am sorry.

sextuplets are an elegant way to portray a base note followed by a triplet of the same duration. Note the starting dotted note before the rest of each sextuplet (which can be replaced by the same note, without the dot and the sextuplet marking + a triplet following). Mccartney does this very intuitively but it turns out that what he's playing is syncopated in the measure at hand (and in most of the measures, as it were). That's a snag to overcome to play it right.

Regards. Fefogomez (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. Oh! I just realized what you meant by open Bs. Believe me, They are :) Fefogomez (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Copyright Violations

I think that the image is a little too accurate, since the melody is exactly as it appears in the Beatles Complete Scores book, however this may not be a problem but it makes me uneasy knowing that it is almost perfect note for note. Bubble anonymous (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hey Jude.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hey Jude.jpg, which you've sourced to Sheet music by the Beatles. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Let It Be.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Let It Be.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)