Did anyone else catch Cee Lo Green changing the lyrics to John Lennon's "Imagine" from "no religion too" to "all religions true"?
Here's Rolling Stone's story with video:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/cee-lo-green-outrages-john-lennon-fans-by-changing-lyrics-to-imagine-20120102
Aside from changing someone else's lyrics, he completely altered the meaning of the song, IMHO.
Just a total disrespect of the original artist.
(not to mention some of his strained high note attempts)
How say you on this topic?
JoeActor
Well he's shown himself to be a complete and utter C***
I don't know how I feel about taking "artistic license" with a work that wasn't originally yours. I can think of instances where people do it and it's not a big deal. On the other hand, if it flips the meaning of the song on its head, I can see how that is disrespectful. I will have to think some more about that.
But on a side note, the idea of all religions being "true" sounds just awful. Can you imagine the kind of chaos we would be up against if we had all of these despotic gods running around insisting that only *they* were to be worshiped and sending down thunderbolts and cursing fig trees and stuff? *Shudder*
Ugh, that's fucking bs. How is he even allowed to do that?
Well he has the right to sing whatever he likes, if he wants to change the song then that's up to him. He should have had the intelligence though to know that if he changes the lyrics to a much loved song that has some obsessive fans then he will get collared and receive a lot of flak for it.
... Yoko Ono has held firm on not allowing John's lyrics to be altered in the past.
If she owns the rights, there may be a lawsuit in the works.
Either way, just wrong.
I hope he drops all the excuses, owns up to it, and apologizes.
(somehow that seems remote)
Eh, I've never liked Cee Lo Green anyway. He seemed to come off as a douche to me :/
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 02, 2012, 06:24:22 PM
Eh, I've never liked Cee Lo Green anyway. He seemed to come off as a douche to me :/
Shit, I actually DID like him. Very fresh and talented. Ruined for me now though. Knob!
I'm all for songs being mixed up, including the words and the meanings.
Doing a near perfect imitation seems pointless to me.
Never heard of this guy, but you don't fuck with the classics! >:(
I feel the same way about this as any other work of art/music/intellectual property. Wrong to change it. Similar to taking a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, like the Mona Lisa, and changing her eye color, or giving her a bigger smile. Ruins the entire concept and work.
Quote from: McQ on January 08, 2012, 05:10:50 AM
I feel the same way about this as any other work of art/music/intellectual property. Wrong to change it. Similar to taking a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, like the Mona Lisa, and changing her eye color, or giving her a bigger smile. Ruins the entire concept and work.
Totally disagree. What would be the point of an artist in any media doing a direct copy of something that already exists (unless to help understand the processes behind that), if an artist is going to take already existing art to express an idea or their creativity they should reinterpret it in some form or another. in terms of music many keep the lyrics but change the music, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with doing it the other way around. Sometimes I think it works better as in the case with Alva Noto & Ryuichi Sakamoto's cover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1HvmrmZcI) of Brian Enos 'By This River' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEHpO9dnvE).
Quote from: Crow on January 08, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: McQ on January 08, 2012, 05:10:50 AM
I feel the same way about this as any other work of art/music/intellectual property. Wrong to change it. Similar to taking a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, like the Mona Lisa, and changing her eye color, or giving her a bigger smile. Ruins the entire concept and work.
Totally disagree. What would be the point of an artist in any media doing a direct copy of something that already exists (unless to help understand the processes behind that), if an artist is going to take already existing art to express an idea or their creativity they should reinterpret it in some form or another. in terms of music many keep the lyrics but change the music, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with doing it the other way around. Sometimes I think it works better as in the case with Alva Noto & Ryuichi Sakamoto's cover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1HvmrmZcI) of Brian Enos 'By This River' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEHpO9dnvE).
Yep. We disagree on this for sure.
Quote from: Crow on January 08, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: McQ on January 08, 2012, 05:10:50 AM
I feel the same way about this as any other work of art/music/intellectual property. Wrong to change it. Similar to taking a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, like the Mona Lisa, and changing her eye color, or giving her a bigger smile. Ruins the entire concept and work.
Totally disagree. What would be the point of an artist in any media doing a direct copy of something that already exists (unless to help understand the processes behind that), if an artist is going to take already existing art to express an idea or their creativity they should reinterpret it in some form or another. in terms of music many keep the lyrics but change the music, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with doing it the other way around. Sometimes I think it works better as in the case with Alva Noto & Ryuichi Sakamoto's cover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1HvmrmZcI) of Brian Enos 'By This River' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEHpO9dnvE).
I was pissed about Cee Lo changing the words, complained loudly about that. That being said, I agree with Crow about the general concept of reinterpreting something. Plenty of songs have been covered by other bands differently. Symphonies get reinterpreted by different orchestras and conductors. Happens all the time, and it's fine as long as you give due credit to the original artist. I think the main complaint is that we, as atheists, objected to this particular interpretation of that song, and for good reason. It ruined the meaning and had political overtones to it since it was on a national telecast (in my opinion), which Lennon would have hated.
Quote from: Firebird on January 08, 2012, 07:43:10 PM
Quote from: Crow on January 08, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: McQ on January 08, 2012, 05:10:50 AM
I feel the same way about this as any other work of art/music/intellectual property. Wrong to change it. Similar to taking a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, like the Mona Lisa, and changing her eye color, or giving her a bigger smile. Ruins the entire concept and work.
Totally disagree. What would be the point of an artist in any media doing a direct copy of something that already exists (unless to help understand the processes behind that), if an artist is going to take already existing art to express an idea or their creativity they should reinterpret it in some form or another. in terms of music many keep the lyrics but change the music, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with doing it the other way around. Sometimes I think it works better as in the case with Alva Noto & Ryuichi Sakamoto's cover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1HvmrmZcI) of Brian Enos 'By This River' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEHpO9dnvE).
I was pissed about Cee Lo changing the words, complained loudly about that. That being said, I agree with Crow about the general concept of reinterpreting something. Plenty of songs have been covered by other bands differently. Symphonies get reinterpreted by different orchestras and conductors. Happens all the time, and it's fine as long as you give due credit to the original artist. I think the main complaint is that we, as atheists, objected to this particular interpretation of that song, and for good reason. It ruined the meaning and had political overtones to it since it was on a national telecast (in my opinion), which Lennon would have hated.
And that's the point and Lennon would have hated it so Cee Lo Green has abused a privilage and the memory of a great artist.
Quote from: Tank on January 08, 2012, 08:16:44 PM
And that's the point and Lennon would have hated it so Cee Lo Green has abused a privilage and the memory of a great artist.
Meh, If he didn't infringe any copy-write laws, then good on him.
I think it's a sign of lack of creativity if you think it's a good idea to take a famous song and change a couple words in order to get your message through. If he wanted a good song about all religions being true he should have come up with his own original song. Imagine simply isn't set up properly for "all religions true" wording.
Not to mention that I think it's still under some kind of copyright...but that's a legal/financial problem (yet still a moral issue as breaking copyright is akin to theft).
With works not under protection I think there is a place for changing it up; but only if the change is big enough to make the work your own. Like taking an old classical song and putting it into a rock n roll beat. For instance, I can't take an open source image of Einstein and slap a mustache on him then claim rights to the image or pretend like it is clever....but I can use the image as a guide for creating a freehand abstract image of him (and have done it) that is rightfully considered my work.