"Otto" (for that is a cover name if there ever was one!) - I am more guilty that most. You have some points here. So, while I like your song, I'll just comment this time...lol. ;D

Spot on, "Otto", spot on! Automatic fives can be just as scurrilous (sp?) as knee-jerk ones.

The fives for this song are fully deserved. Very well rhymed. There are some writers I don't see very often, but I just figure they are putting more time and effort into there works. Sometimes a song is not intended to be funny, so perhaps a better name or rating could be developed. What I really appreciate, more than numbers, is well-reasoned commentary from other writers I respect.

Interesting topic, and a few thoughts come to mind:
1. I've always wondered about the rating system. Having been one of the many who've written some of the not so funny parodies (some on purpose, others because I was inhabited by an evil spirit), I've often thought the 'funny' column should be replaced with one or two different columns, perhaps 'How Clever' or 'Clarity' or something along those lines.
2. Personally, I find critiquing humor very difficult since many people have different humor POVs, among other reasons. Often times, if I don't know what to say or vote, I just move along to the next parody.
That all being said, it's obvious that people visit the parodies, maybe even read them. Maybe the lurkers who lovingly increase our view numbers should speak up and comment more often. Like Patrick, I appreciate the comments more than the points. Though the points are wonderful for ego boosts ;-) My 2 cents.

Four’tunately, ‘five’ is not the end-all be-all.
BR> ‘Four’ is perfectly respectable--not just five’s ugly step-sister. It’s a ridiculously under-used number her at AIR so there's plenty left to feed all this ‘pent’ up demand! And you’ve gotta admit, quartets are miles more popular than quintets--unless your name’s Quincy... Just don’t let the phrase--”He’s a quart’ low” get you down, or worry too much that it was Four’tinbras who gets knocked off in a cheesy duel by Hamlet’s dad--himself, a solid five)!

Then there’s ‘three’, a number that literally exudes positive connotation--holy frickin Trinity, Batman! And then there’s ‘three’s company’ and even ‘three if by land’--or was that ‘--if by Segway’? Never mind--moving on...

Next, there’s the oft maligned ‘two’--first off, it’s positively *not* “the loneliest number’, and that’s a good thing. Secondly, two’s twice the man one is--think Mark 'Twain'--and ‘one’’ is onederful all by its lonesome--after all, one’s indivisible--how cool is that--and literally reeks of ‘justice for all’!

In sum, I support Otto’s imprecations against fivation without reprose’ntation and, by extension, for liberal application of non-five numerology--after all, variety is the lice of splife! In that spirit, I'm voting 5-3-4---'cause this puppy's just not that funny!

Now, if only I had a nickle for every frickin' five I’ve handed out...

Old, thanks ... Nobody's, yeah, that was the point, thanks .... Patrick, yeah, the missing reasons are what make Nobody's comment true ... Warren, #1 is a very good idea. Policital or social parodies or informative ones or sad events can be not funny, but done good. So "clever" is a great idea for renaming "funny". Bring that up at the forum at www.inthe00s.com. A parody that isnt meant to be funny but is clever shold get rated high, too. ... #2 loses all you're credit for #1. If your ego is getting boosted by otto-5s without reasons, read Nobodys comment. Yeah, clever is easier to judge than funny. ... Skank, you're comment is funnier than the song. So is your name. No problem, but under Warrens suggestion, I get a recount. thanks everybody for reading and commenting and voting, even that jerk who 534 haha.

No, Skank..I'd be the rich one at a nickle a five! May I make a proposal? If we have the option to opt out of receiving comments, can Chucky give us a way of opting out of having our parodies scored? I'd be happy (NOBODY gets more anonymous one-bombs than I do here. Even the most critical people here with the highest standards - you know who you are - have never given me a 1-1-1!) and you'd be happy to get rid of my generous scoring. If this is truly your intent, consider my proposal.

Wait a minute, Otto. I've got excellent credit ;-).

It seems the number of votes is perhaps as important as the actual vote tally--more a metric of 'buzz' than quality, I guess--an 'It factor' if you will. CG also might consider adding a 4th category for 'Ambitiousness' or some other term along those lines which allows credit to be given to authors attempting 'big 7' or similarly daunting OS's more than say an 'Edelweiss' single verse riff. Of course, I live up to my namesake and can't be trusted with 'logic', 'common sense', or, really, tabular data of any ilk...

OMR e-mailed and asked me to view this and comment, despite my telling him that I was trying to do my income taxes. He pays no heed -- maybe that's why he gets 1'd so much? (KIDDING!!!)
          As Skank FiveNotYa says, this parody is what this writer has often labeled TTTBF (yes, that's original, © Tommy Turtle; royalties owed each time used ;) = To True To Be Funny. TT has probably wriTTen as many or more of those as anyone else on site. Consider the four parodies of the events in Egypt posted Monday, 14 Feb. (No plug-links. You know how to find them.) There was nothing at all "haha" funny about those events or their retelling. They were thrilling, for the possibility of freedom vs. dictatorship; sad, for the casualties, and uncertain as to the ultimate outcome.

So, "funny"? Those would be a One, strictly speaking. Yet on those and many others, some kind readers have substituted their own criteria, such as "meaningful", "relevant", "informative", "witty", etc., just as this reader has done on similar works by others, and voted 555.
          "Ambition" -- trying a Big 7 parody (as all four of those were) could be included along with the other criteria above, into one category called, as Warren's first point suggested, "How Clever".

Cleverness includes: wit; originality; successfully tackling the difficult vs. Vile Tripes (play on "Edelweiss" there, lol); pertinence/relevance (to current events, etc.); informative value; technique beyond mere pacing, such as, say, syllable-matching (a parody can be perfectly-paced, with zero syl-matches, and justly deserve 5 on pacing; there is presently no way to reward the extra, uh, "cleverness" required for partial or total syl-matches - such as that in some of the aforementioned Egypt parodies, upon which no one commented), or, say, smooshing (Don't try it. TT's 7-song and 8-song smooshes remain among his lowest page views ever. Too complex? The 2-song smooshes of Big 7 songs aren't doing much better. The classic smooshers and appreciators like alvin rhodes and Paul Robinson seem not to be with us any more.); wordsmithery, word-mangling and neologisms, ... etc.. .. (fill in your own) .....

.....Would all fit very nicely under "Cleverness". Ergo, replacing "How Funny" with "How Clever" is an excellent idea. In geek terms, the Venn set of "Clever" includes "Funny" and many other subsets of cleverness, whereas the Venn set of Funny excludes all of the others, to the detriment of such parodies. ... Now, isn't OMR sorry he asked, and isn't everyone else mad at him for bringing the didacTTic here? ;-)

This is a good topic to be discussed at the forum, but given that this is a long holiday weekend in the US, many will be gone for the weekend or for all of next week. I can suggest it there afterward, if OMR lets me finish my income taxes by then. :-D

Oh, and as for opting out of receiving votes altogether -- it seems that zero voting is about as meaningless as unabombs or auto-fives. See TT's "100 Thousand Hits" parody: Every unabomb is another page view, and that helps support the site. Consider_the_source of all votes *and* comments - as Patrick said, it's what's said that really counts more. (Of course, that doesn't explain why Patrick never replied to this writer's "suggestions" at two of his recent parodies, but ... maybe he just doesn't check his Latest Comments. ;)

As for this parody, strictly, it's a 515, but by this writer's criteria of relevance, execution, occasional matching, and above all, a message long overdue, 555, unquestionably.

(Sigh) There you go again. (KIDDING!!!!)

Old, the bathwater is dirty. Don't throw out the baby. ...Warren, 555 is not a very good credit score ... Abbey thanks, another funny nick. We should have the ability to rate comments and "how funny" the nick is ... seriosly, yeah, a way like the Olympics with degree of difficulty counting along with how well done .... Tommy, thanks, nice acronim and "how clever" is a clever idea ... intersting post. ... Old, guess that last one wasn't for me. .. again, thanks everybody for the discussion.

You've raised some good points. The 2 most popular votes seem to be 555 (if they really like it) & 111 (if they really don't). I've never thought it matters if a parody is marked down on "funny" or "overall", as they're a matter of personal opinion. You can't please all of the people all of the time. What I don't like to see, is 333 or 444 on a perfectly paced parody. It tells me the voter thought it was reasonably OK, else they would have given a 111 or just not voted, but they didn't take the pacing into consideration. A fairer score for one that's OK but didn't really tickle the funny bone would be 534, 544, etc.

Otto - I don't understand why even you elitists can give me less than a four in pacing! And no, the "KIDDING!!!!" was for a respected, admired, and deeply-liked (but sometimes way-too-sarcastic) friend.

Although I haven't really been around for ages, I just HAD to comment on this. When I was writing regularly, the scores meant nothing to me, other than a way of tallying how many people had read and liked/disliked/had issues with my work. The categories are virtually meaningless nowadays, and I don't think that, if Chucky abandoned the scoring, any true parodists would mourn the loss. The comments have always been more important....but even here, on the occasions I drop in, I've noticed a trend towards "bigging up" poorly written parodies and avoiding critique. We all LOVE praise, but it becomes hollow if not balanced out with constructive criticism. Anyway, that's my lot. Because it's expected, I will give this 555 because of it's thought provoking nature. Well done!

Norman, watch your "Willy", if you know what I mean... thanks, good points. Also if pacing is off but parody is good, should see 455 or 454 or 354, but hardly ever do. Yeah, same #s across the board usually mean not grading seprately.. .... Old, yeah, saw Tommy's swipe at you. So, you're pacing is always pefect, huh? DK why anyone votes how they do. But 1 on pacing is almost never right unless song isnt even close ... Kristof, thanks, thats exactly what I was trying to say. Specially the trend these days, that motivated this parody. Yeah, praise means nothing if no one ever calls misses. I still hope scoring could be fixed. Maybe the "clever" for "funny" idea discussed above, and setting examples by everbody who agrees with this, voting honestly when they see a problem. Hope you were kidding about "because it's expected" - LOL!! Thanks for comment and *I think* sincere vote! ... One more thought. Lots of times, there are more votes than comments. Talking about good votes. Probly some people don't have time to leave a comment. So a 555 without comment is good feedback. No reason to fake it if your name isn't there. 8 555s and 4 comments = good parody. So maybe not get rid of voting for that reason?

I agree with Otto, Warren, TT and Kristoff--common sense and fair play will best suit this site in the long run. Everybody's 'understood' internal conversion of 'how funny' to 'how clever' should be formalized. Great parody Otto--you've certainly stirred the pot!

TJC, I *never* used illegal drugs, Sir! .... oh you were making one of those figure of speech things... Thanks for the comment. Maybe one of you will try to get it formal. Tommy sorta volunteered, but anybody could ... Otto One-r, thanks for proving my point. No name, no comment, no reasons. Did you do that on purpose? Well, thanks anyway!

Otto - Agreed. I fired off an emotional outburst. I retract my harsh words, but since cyber comments have too many carbs, I can't eat them. ;D

Old, thanks, but dont know which words your retracting. No offense taken here. Try the new "lite" comments. Same haste, half the barbs

Yeah, I'm late, but "the song remains the same" (Led Zeppelin). Otto hits the nail on the head perfectly. People! Take pride in your craft! You really have already done the hard part by fitting your subject to a song - the pacing/meter/whatever you want to call it, really does come easy. "If We Try"... (Don McLean)

Cliche time: Kevin Costner's "If you build it, they will come" doesn't really apply to parody writing. "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking" is a better fit. Write it right!

I work all day with statistics and data. A common saying where I work is "Crap in, crap out" (translation: your work is only as good as the effort you put into it). The same applies to parody writing.

Peregrin: I couldn't have said it better myself. And I used a lot more words to say it. :wink:. "Pride in craft" is what has been disappearing from this site for several years now. Along with that go the meaningless auto-Fives. Thanks for reading.

Well stated Otto. And I'm super late, but I agree with the general sentiment. Let's value our craft and appreciate each other for it. Keep that flame burning bright on amiright, even when we feel it's burning out :c)

I hate that cop-out word "s...te"; but beautifully paced. A better rating system on AIR would be nice - creativity, originality, singability, universal-appeal ??.