\documentstyle{article}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.25in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6in}
\begin{document}
\title{Making Parodies}
\author{Kevin Iga}
\date{Ides of March, 1992}
\maketitle

After watching the Chorallaries Concert in Bad Taste last night, I was
inspired to get around to writing down my ideas of what I consider to
be ``good'' and ``bad'' in a parody.  I don't think people have really
agreed on these points, and their relative importance.  I've listed
them in decreasing order of importance to me.  No one agrees on where to
draw the line between being too similar to and too different from the
original.  I've given a feel for where I stand on that, although it
is impossible to characterize it exactly enough.

I use a number of examples and don't give enough credit, partially because
I don't remember where many of these came from, and I don't want to
play favorites.  It might be noted that I tend to like some parodies
I wrote; this is somewhat tautological.  If I didn't like them, I wouldn't
write them that way.  And when someone else writes one, they're not trying
to cater to my tastes, and therefore run the risk of being mentioned in
a bad light here.

My hope is that people will look at this, send their comments to me,
and share how they feel about parodies.

\begin{description}
\item[Coherence]  It must make sense.  It must have a common theme.
Every verse must in some way relate to that theme.  The theme is even
better if it has a point; but that is not so important.

\item[Mechanics]  It must scan in a way that is appropriate to the
music.  It need not be the way the original song scanned, but there
should be a clear sense of rhythm that corresponds to the rhythm of
the music.  There are three aspects to this rhythm: number of
syllables, which syllables are stressed and unstressed, and consonant
clustering (``orchard'' cannot substitute for ``candy'', in ``The
Candy Man'' since the extra close after the unstressed syllable makes
it rather awkward).  It {\em is} acceptable to sing ``Gilligan's
Island'' to ``Frosty the Snowman'' despite the difference in rhythm,
since a new rhythm is amenable to both:

{\small
\begin{verbatim}
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale a         tale of a fateful trip
  3  1    2     3   4   4.5     1   2  3   4         1    2 2.5 3   4   1
     Fro       sty      the    Snowman      was a    ha ppy    jol  ly soul
     1          2       2.75    1  1.5      2.5 2.75 1   1.5    2   2.5 1 
\end{verbatim}
}

Often, speeding up is fine, but slowing down is not, especially when
it causes the pitch to change too much in one syllable.  Singing Gilligan's
Island to Frosty the Snowman is somewhat better than singing Frosty the Snowman
to Gilligan's Island.  The latter is acceptable, but the glides in
``Fro'' and ``sty'' leave something to be desired.

\item[Humor] It should be funny, either poking fun at the old song,
itself, or something worthy of ridicule.  If not, it should at least
have wordplay, puns, and the like, to make it funny.  Along this line
are ludicrous situations and gags (the 12 days after Christmas, I'm
looking over my dead dog Rover, You get hit on rt. 66, Masochism
Tango).  I don't know if it's a coincidence that the examples I could
think of are all violent.  Also, the fact that the song is written
about a certain topic can be ludicrous in itself: {\em (We are)${}^{26}$
Repetitive, The Elements, (We're here because)${}^8$}  If it is
making fun of something else, your audience must feel the importance
of the object being ridiculed, or it won't be as funny.  In
particular, it should be current and the tradeoff between locality and
importance should be the same as one might find in a newspaper; i.e.
world events should be on the order of large or influential nations
reacting to each other, national events should be nation-wide, local
events are fair play as long as everyone in the audience knows about
it.

\item[Differences]  Every major concept must be different in some way.
Either change the wording and meaning entirely, or, better, make the
wording mean something else.  See below in {\bf similarities}.  The
following is too close (made up at the last minute for our Roll Call at
an APO Section 95 Conclave):

{\small
\begin{tabular}{ll}
At MIT we work too hard & At MIT we work too hard\\
But we don't just work as you can see & But we don't just work as you can see\\
'Cuz we know that drinks and parties are & 'Cuz we know that friends
and service are\\
The Core of life at MIT & APO at MIT\\
\end{tabular}
}

The following, though, is okay:

{\small
\begin{tabular}{ll}
(We are)${}^5$ the Engineers & (We are)${}^5$ the Alpha Chi's\\
(We can)${}^4$ & We can demolish anything\\
Demolish 40 beers & No matter what the size\\
(Drink rum)${}^3$ all day & So if you want to help us out\\
And come along with us & Then come along with us\\
For we don't give a da*n for any old man & For we'll build a dam for
any old man\\
Who don't give a da*n for us & Who wants a dam from us\\
\end{tabular}
}

\item[Similarities] Some things should be kept the same.  Any major
concepts should be modified in some way, to make it unexpected.  Use a
second meaning of a word, or a homonym, or a word that sound very
similar, or rhymes with it.  {\em We are the Alpha Chi's (We are the
Engineers), Pangaea, You're breaking apart (Cecilia, you're breaking
my heart), Harry Kackelegian...Drapes of Roth are stored (Battle Hymn
of the Republic...Grapes of Wrath are stored), Leprosy, I'm not half
the man I used to be (Yesterday, I'm not half the man I used to be)}
are examples.  Here's another:

{\small
\begin{tabular}{ll}
... & ... \\
Get your kicks on Rt. 66 & You get hit on Rt. 66\\
Go through St. Louie & Caught on the scaffold\\
Chocolate MO & Dragged on the asphalt\\
And Oklahoma City is might pretty & 'Cuz Oklahoma City is kinda gritty\\
See Amarillo & See Amarillo\\
Gallup NM & Dragged by your little toe\\
... & ...\\
\end{tabular}
}

Sometimes, a level of unexpectedness can be achieved if the song is
completely different, but sets a certain line in an entirely different
context.  A prime example is:

{\small
\begin{tabular}{ll}
God save our gracious King & King George, he had a date\\
Long live our noble King &He came home very late\\
God save the King! & He was a King.\\
Send him victorious & Queen Mary paced the floor\\
Happy and glorious & King George came home at four\\
Long to reign over us, & She met him at the door\\
God save our King! &  God save our King!\\
\end{tabular}
}

One method commonly used is to modify a commonly-used line, then
repeat it unmodified, this time with the new context:

{\small
\begin{tabular}{ll}
He's an alien & He's an idiot\\
He's a legal alien & He's a f**king idiot\\
He's an Englishman in NY &He's a cabdriver in NY\\
...\\
He's an alien & He's an alien\\
He's a legal alien & An illegal alien\\
He's an Englishman in NY &He's a cabdriver in NY\\
\end{tabular}
}

In some cases, the actual rhyme or consonance should be kept.  With
{\em Do-re-mi}, for example, if the rhyme is not in the same pattern,
it sounds odd.  There are many parodies of this song; the ones that
tend to survive are the ones that, for the most part, keep the rhyme
scheme.  Most even keep the same rhyme ending sounds (fa, the Boston
Marathun).


\item[Uniqueness]  The beauty of a parody is not in the way it follows
these rules, but in the way it breaks them.  If every parody were to
follow these rules above, much of the power of a parody would be
dulled.  A certain kind of parody has the gift of peering into the
depths of human aesthetics, and demonstrating how shallow our model
was in comparison to itself.  A parody should not be restricted by
these rules.  It should have a life of its own, making its own
judgement calls and taking on its own character.

\end{description}

\end{document}
