Ed changing the lyrics, A place to argue Options

[livefan1999]

In a release on Alernative Addiction, they mention that Gracious Few will be using some of the original Live material in their tour performances. They plan to rework the songs to reflect more their rock style as opposed to the type of show performed during the Live tours and recordings.

Would you have the same objection, then, to the fact that the Live band members are planning to change the songs performed by the band when they worked together as you seem to have with Ed changing the lyrics to reflect his more Christian leanings currently?

Just curious as I truly don't have a problem with either. While I would have preferred that the original group stay together literally forever, it isn't happening. All are going on new paths now and hopefully they all will achieve their goals, be it monetary or just for the satisfaction of sharing their music. Whatever those goals might be. I enjoyed the songs as they were originally performed and the lyrics as they were, but I am willing to keep an open mind to both Ed's direction and The Gracious Few's as well.

http://www.alternativeaddiction.com/musicn...ounce-Fall-Tour

[Pokey]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem, a different take on the music can be interesting, some might work, some might not, it's experimenting. A changing in the lyrics changes the meaning of a song and it's just not the same. I honestly would have a bigger problem with even Ed changing the lyrics than his band changing the songs. My problem with his band is not that they're changing the songs, but that they're trying to emulate Live and just sound amature whilst doing 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.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem, a different take on the music can be interesting, some might work, some might not, it's experimenting. A changing in the lyrics changes the meaning of a song and it's just not the same. I honestly would have a bigger problem with even Ed changing the lyrics than his band changing the songs. My problem with his band is not that they're changing the songs, but that they're trying to emulate Live and just sound amature whilst doing it.

I should have read your post before posting.

MIND MELD

[sh4rpz]

I am not a fan of the fact that Ed and TGF have been performing LIVE material at their shows - but if they must then doing their own version or re-interpreting the material is expected at the very least. I somehow find it disrespectful when I hear that Ed has been changing the lyrics - I know they're 'his' own lyrics to change and stuff, but as far as the LIVE catalog goes, I'd rather he left them out all together rather than changing lyrics.

To each his own but, something about it just doesn't sit well with me.

[sh4rpz]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem, a different take on the music can be interesting, some might work, some might not, it's experimenting. A changing in the lyrics changes the meaning of a song and it's just not the same.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Totally with you on this.

[OutToDry]

Only Live song performed by TGF has been Lakini's Juice, which is a newer arrangement, no lyric change.

[sh4rpz]

Only Live song performed by TGF has been Lakini's Juice, which is a newer arrangement, no lyric change.

Ye, and to their credit. I think that songs which were written to mean something, should stay that way.

I know once, maybe a year or two ago, particularly around Paradiso's release, a few people on here were upset at Ed changing the lyrics on OS. Some posters came to his defense to say that 'hey he wrote the lyrics, so who better to change it but Ed himself?' and granted, I can understand the way they feel.

This is just my opinion - doing your own version/rendition of a song, your own interpretation of the music, that's cool - like what LIVE did with so many covers down the years, and they did that really well might I add, I just don't think changing the lyric sits well with the die-hard fans and leaves an ugly taste in the mouth frankly.

[+Ed+]

BTW when Ed changed the lyrics in Grunspan, noone cared that much yanno. Because he changed them in the RIGHT WAY

[ItchyTriggerFinger]

In a release on Alernative Addiction, they mention that Gracious Few will be using some of the original Live material in their tour performances. They plan to rework the songs to reflect more their rock style as opposed to the type of show performed during the Live tours and recordings.

Would you have the same objection, then, to the fact that the Live band members are planning to change the songs performed by the band when they worked together as you seem to have with Ed changing the lyrics to reflect his more Christian leanings currently?

Just curious as I truly don't have a problem with either. While I would have preferred that the original group stay together literally forever, it isn't happening. All are going on new paths now and hopefully they all will achieve their goals, be it monetary or just for the satisfaction of sharing their music. Whatever those goals might be. I enjoyed the songs as they were originally performed and the lyrics as they were, but I am willing to keep an open mind to both Ed's direction and The Gracious Few's as well.

http://www.alternativeaddiction.com/musicn...ounce-Fall-Tour

Personally, I would rather they not do any Live or Candlebox material at all. I love the new stuff. If the entire performance consisted of just songs from the album, I'll be a happy camper.

Still, it's not unusual for bands, even well established bands, to throw in a cover song or two. Hell, U2 does it all the time. If they want to cover one of the old tunes, I'm not going going to complain.

However, if they decide to change Turn My Head to a hard driving rock tune, I wouldn't be happy. Different arrangements are one thing. Changing the fundamental nature of the song is something else entirely.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

However, if they decide to change Turn My Head to a hard driving rock tune, I wouldn't be happy. Different arrangements are one thing. Changing the fundamental nature of the song is something else entirely.

I disagree entirely! See the recent cover of Mad World by Tears for Fears that was all the rage, or the recent Amanda Palmer Radiohead cover album, or even Live's re-arrangement of They Stood Up for For Love. I think changing the nature of the song in a big way is key to a solid cover, not just re-arranging it. It is very easy to do it wrong though.

[TheBeacon]

I disagree entirely! See the recent cover of Mad World by Tears for Fears that was all the rage, or the recent Amanda Palmer Radiohead cover album, or even Live's re-arrangement of They Stood Up for For Love. I think changing the nature of the song in a big way is key to a solid cover, not just re-arranging it. It is very easy to do it wrong though.

I think TGF could make a kick ass version of Turn My Head! This song could easily be turned into a rocker a keep the same lyrics. I think it would be nice kick in the teeth as well to Ed on a side note!

[Bremang]

No one is asking Ed to put all of his old songs on the shelf, just the ones that clearly don't resonate with him any longer to the point where he has to change his lyrics.

I was referring to the songs being discussed.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 4 2010, 11:55 pm

[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

[Bremang]

is it about the audience or about Ed's new outlook?

Why does that matter? For whichever reason Ed has decided that he should change the lyrics. You're saying he shouldn't take liberties on his own hit songs because you think the songs are suddenly tarnished. At this point these complaints are simply adding to the complaints about any aspect of Ed's direction. Its just too bad and you'll just have to choose not to like it, and unfortunately opposing opinions are not necessarily enough to rationalize that Ed should not do it. Complaining about the meanings being messed with is kind of silly cause its not like the original meanings and recordings just disappear.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 5 2010, 12:37 am