Ed changing the lyrics, A place to argue Options

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Recently Ed has been changing the lyrics to more and more old Live songs:

1. "To Christ, a cross, to me, a chair, I will sit and I've got to worship from down here!"

2. Adding Amazing Grace into I Alone.

This began with Operation: Spirit in the Live days. I don't think we all cared as much because we were just glad to hear the song again. But, what now?

I think the STD lyric change makes very little sense within the rest of the song, as does placing Amazing Grace into I Alone. If the song is now meaningless, what is the point of continuing to perform it when there is a large back catalog of tunes?

And before anyone says it, if Ed is truly a Christian then great for him, but this discussion really isn't about that. I am rather fond of many of the Christians I know and I am very familiar with their practice. This is more about what the lyric changes do to the song.

Have at it.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Ed's new band is altering the music too, by the way. In my opinion they should give it more of their own spin.

I do think changing the words is quite different. If it were just Ed editing curse words (a la Charlie Daniels) then you wouldn't hear anything from me. But, changing lyrics alters what the song means and unless the lyric changes fit the song then it steals the meaning from the song.

I also don't think this has anything to do with Ed's Christian audience.

He has a huge back catalog at his disposal and he should use it.

[Bremang]

Ed's new band is altering the music too, by the way. In my opinion they should give it more of their own spin.

I do think changing the words is quite different. If it were just Ed editing curse words (a la Charlie Daniels) then you wouldn't hear anything from me. But, changing lyrics alters what the song means and unless the lyric changes fit the song then it steals the meaning from the song.

I also don't think this has anything to do with Ed's Christian audience.

He has a huge back catalog at his disposal and he should use it.

Yes, the song meanings are changed when the lyrics are changed. Ed should probably do that, and it probably has to do with his Christian audience. He probably loses much of that audience if there are darker tracks or lyrics being played at his shows. Back catalog? Fat chance, we have been asking for Lives back catalog for years now. For a long time Live were only playing a select amount of songs, mostly hits. Lives back catalog might not be played for many reasons. It could have something to do with royalty issues. There might be difficulty in some cases with the new band playing certain Live songs, or perhaps certain songs have not been practiced yet.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 5 2010, 12:09 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Yes, the song meanings are changed when the lyrics are changed. Ed should probably do that, and it probably has to do with his Christian audience. He probably loses much of that audience if there are darker tracks or lyrics being played at his shows. Back catalog? Fat chance, we have been asking for Lives back catalog for years now. For a long time Live were only playing a select amount of songs, mostly hits. Lives back catalog might not be played for many reasons. It could have something to do with royalty issues. There might be difficulty in some cases with the new band playing certain Live songs, or perhaps certain songs have not been practiced yet.

The song meanings aren't just changed, the songs are stripped of meaning. The lyrics he is adding in don't make sense within the context of the song. THAT is the problem, not that he is changing them.

Further, there are songs that he isn't performing with his new band that he wouldn't have to change lyrics for. Songs that Live has played often in recent years. Why not do those instead?

No concert setlist has ever been effected by royalty issues.

[Bremang]

The song meanings aren't just changed, the songs are stripped of meaning. The lyrics he is adding in don't make sense within the context of the song. THAT is the problem, not that he is changing them.

Further, there are songs that he isn't performing with his new band that he wouldn't have to change lyrics for. Songs that Live has played often in recent years. Why not do those instead?

No concert setlist has ever been effected by royalty issues.

I gave an example with selling the drama about how the lyrical change can fit within the context of that song. Depends on what you think the songs mean.

When you put it that way, I think it seems as though Ed has been purposely tailoring his setlist for his new audience to include more religious lyrics, and chooses songs where he can change lyrics. Some songs might not be as easy to change lyrically and so he might decide that they should not be played.

Anyone can find meaning in anything really...I don't see how the lyric changes could suddenly be devoid of all meaning.

Royalties always play a role for each individual song that gets played at a concert. When they cover a song, they pay whomever owns the rights. This includes when artists don't own their own songs. For example, Radiohead has to pay out the ass if they play Creep in concert, because they don't own that track.

But in any case, the new lyrics blow.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 5 2010, 8:50 pm