This article argues that disguised infringement is oxymoronic and demagogic, and that the nonconventional musical analytical techniques employed to diagnose it are misguided. If an expert cannot tell that two pieces of music are similar by traditional methods, that is probably because they are not similar. Part II of this article chronicles the role of the musical expert as it has been carved out over time. Part III exposes the expert\u27s traditional methods for comparing musical compositions. Part IV explores nonconventional analytical techniques, explains why they are misapplied when employed to detect disguised plagiarism and illustrates why Judge Frank would certainly retract his opinion if he heard of such sophistry. Part V therefore concludes that lending authenticity to nonconventional analytical methods and disguised infringement claims would make professional songwriters more vulnerable than they already are
