My thoughts on myth half-way through the term

I've been giving quite a bit of thought to the actual definition of myth.

Myth (mith) n. 1. A traditional story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a primordial type in the world view of a people. 2. A fiction or half-truth. 3. A fictitious story, person, or thing.

It is from this definition that I have decided that there must be intention in the telling of the story for the myth to stick. My curiosity has led me to three possible examples of non-myth thus far.

1- Social Commentary: This is most often seen in film, as we are far more subject to that medium in this day and age. Movies such as "Clerks" from the early 1990's tell of a day in the life of a pair of lethargic workers in a convenience store. Through the film references are made to works that have been recognized as mythical, yet the underlying story is of how people see the world differently. It the movie "The Jerk" from the late 1970's Steve Martin portrays a man that has a less than acute common sense. The story is told as a humorus look at how people value things differently, and what is of overall importance to us all. At this point in my learning of myth I see social commentary as a definite difference from the stories that are set forth as "traditional" myths.

2- Documentary: In film and in written form documentary is a format that is set up for a specific purpose, to inform. Is it possible to have a documentary about myth that in itself is mythical? The telling of the story of myth is already broaching the idea of the mythical story, thereby recognizing itself. I feel at this time that the admission of myth detracts from the impact of the secodary myth contained there-in.

3- Modern Music: This could easilly fall into the social commentary department, but it has a discernable difference. Music seems to be the medium that is most subject to evolution. In movies we can have a film that is set several years in the past, but is still subject to the constraints of the time-frame (the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark" springs to mind), yet in music we don't get the same impact when a performer plays a selection that was originated by Charlie Parker or Duke Ellington. They are called "Cover songs" for a reason, they are differently interperted. Harry Connick jr. does a wonderful rendition of "If I Only Had A Brain", but it is so different from the original song, which we are all so familiar with, that any mythical context that it held originally is lost in the translation. I suppose the thing that stuck out in my mind about modern music is that fact that we know most of the older myths were told in song form, but I can't see Stevie Wonder's "Living For The City", or Sly & the Family Stone's "Thank You (Falletinmebemiceelfagin)" as anything more than a social commentary set to music. Perhaps this view will change by semesters end.