Ed changing the lyrics, A place to argue Options

[VoodooLady]

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.

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.

you just made the point in your previous post why you think Ed is changing the lyrics. why bother making the point? i am simply curious about the motivation. marketing vs. belief system.

Moreover, if you put your Ed's lens down for one moment you might see that this is more of philosophical discussion that extends beyond Ed- can changing lyrics alter the product such that the original meaning is lost? and if yes, does it compromise the "art"?

if you care not to partake in the discussion fine. but to simply drop in with your condescending posts about people being "silly" for even thinking about this is well.. silly

This post has been edited by VoodooLady: Aug 5 2010, 6:03 am

[Sakhmet2]

This song could easily be turned into a rocker a keep the same lyrics.

That could suck big time! And probably would.

I think it would be nice kick in the teeth as well to Ed on a side note!

How, exactly? You seem to have misunderstood the basic concept of "cover version" as explained by funkyredcaboose.

[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.

[Hoodstock]

hi ed

We really think this guy is Eddie K?

[VoodooLady]

We really think this guy is Eddie K?

- no "LOL's" in the post.. cant be..

[thefunkyredcaboose]

We really think this guy is Eddie K?

Not the more rational of us, no.

[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

[Bremang]

you just made the point in your previous post why you think Ed is changing the lyrics. why bother making the point? i am simply curious about the motivation. marketing vs. belief system.

Moreover, if you put your Ed's lens down for one moment you might see that this is more of philosophical discussion that extends beyond Ed- can changing lyrics alter the product such that the original meaning is lost? and if yes, does it compromise the "art"?

if you care not to partake in the discussion fine. but to simply drop in with your condescending posts about people being "silly" for even thinking about this is well.. silly

I don't really follow...you quoted me asking about marketing vs. belief in your previous post, when you already acknowledge here that I gave my opinion on that already? And then suggest that it was senseless to discuss the point even though you say you are curious about it? And then after questioning why I had to discuss it, you flip again and say that I haven't actually been discussing it, or at least not in terms of the art value and the song meanings when the lyrics are changed? I've think I've discussed the artistic value of changing these lyrics in regards to the meaning, and I think most people are speaking about this concept in regards to Ed, because this seems to be an Ed-lyric and song specific conversation.

But I'd be happy to discuss it some more. Basically I think the new lyrics suck. But Ed has the right and should do it if he wants. Integrity of the meaning lies in ones opinion, and he clearly has an audience that enjoys it and finds it meaningful. And for fans who think the original meaning has now been tarnished or stripped, I find this idea to be more along the lines of general discontent for Ed's direction, and not a complaint about changing the song meanings. I wouldn't be surprised if Ed had changed the lyrics, and the meanings were changed to something cooler than the original, there may not be any complaints. These arguments get lost on me also because I'm yet to see a consensus on the meaning of any Live song except for some that Ed has revealed, like TBD. Ed has claimed the songs don't have concrete meanings in the first place. And if ones own meaning of the song has been altered, its not like the original version doesn't exist. I guess the lack of consistency can be bothersome.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 5 2010, 9:47 pm

[dangum]

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.

Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I'm aware, royalties aren't paid on tracks performed during live performances. Who exactly is supposed to keep track of the thousands of concerts that happen every day and the exact setlist.

I have friends in bands. For most of the show they play their original material, but always throw in a few covers. They have never paid royalties to anybody. Should I contact the RIAA and report them?

[Aitkens]

http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-m...ng-cover-songs/

Performing Cover Songs

For musicians that write and perform original music, cover songs are a chance to add some familiarity to their performances. In fact, one of the best ways out of obscurity is to add a handful of cover songs to your repertoire. While your fans may know the words to all your songs, people that are new to your music will appreciate hearing a familiar song. Furthermore, recording cover songs can help people find your music. This is especially true if you sell music online, as a search query could turn up your version of a popular song. More on this later.

Taking the notion of familiarity a step further, musicians can re-work a cover song to the point it’s hardly recognizable save the lyrics or melody. There are a handful of artists known for their cover versions of songs, usually because their versions are a stark contrast to the original. In this case, the song is often used as a grounds to measure creativity. For example, jazz artists usually know a great deal of standards, which are simply tunes many other jazz musicians have recorded or performed. Because a large part of jazz is improvisation, these standards are the familiar ground on which the creativity takes place.

When you perform cover songs, the writers and publishers are paid through performing right societies such as ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN, or PRS. One way these performing rights organizations (often referred to as PROs) collect royalties is by charging a fee to bars and live music venues. Next time you walk into a club, look for a PRO sticker on the door or front window. That means they are paying their dues so they can have a jukebox, DJ, or live bands that might play cover songs. There are two important things to keep in mind about PROs:

1. They collect royalties for public performances, not for the sale of recorded music. That is considered private use.
2. As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article.

[jaybb]

He can cover whatever song he wants in a performance setting and not pay a dime.

Also, I was really offended by his change in Operation Spirit. It was the song that really made me start paying attention to his lyrics and it's such a change from one to the other "means nothing at all to me today," to "means everything to me today." I almost left the show right there. This was not the song I wanted to hear. If he doesn't agree with the lyrics anymore, then don't play the song. It would be like John Lennon showing up to sing Imagine but changing the lyrics so he was asking us to imagine that all the world was Christian or something... ridiculous.

This post has been edited by jaybb: Aug 6 2010, 2:56 am

[+Ed+]

We will soon see Alive cover added here:

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/photos/15-a...an-album-covers

[thefunkyredcaboose]

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.

About the royalties, you are incorrect.

About the lyric change in STD, you are right you can twist the lyrics to mean anything and that is exactly what Ed is doing. However, knowing Ed's spiritual state when he wrote the song (and in the context of other songs) makes the meaning more concrete.

What does worshiping Jesus have to do with not being raped? You aren't going to go to hell if you do that so you won't get raped there by Satan? Even if it makes sense its just fucking stupid.

The case of changing the lyrics to Operation: Spirit was even worse.

Glad we can agree that the lyrical changes are flat out awful though, even if we disagree on what they mean. I also don't think he is doing it for his new audience, for what its worth. Given that Grace is only at #27 on the Christian rock chart there isn't really much of a "new audience" to speak of.

[Bremang]

Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I'm aware, royalties aren't paid on tracks performed during live performances. Who exactly is supposed to keep track of the thousands of concerts that happen every day and the exact setlist.

I have friends in bands. For most of the show they play their original material, but always throw in a few covers. They have never paid royalties to anybody. Should I contact the RIAA and report them?

Yes... like some are mentioning, venues pay performance royalties for the most part. For major performers, I believe the setlists are usually followed by some agency, and the artists who are being covered get paid. For smaller bands, they're likely to not get followed as much by these agencies.
I can't remember where I found that royalty issue regarding the performance of Creep. I read it back in 2003 after they played Creep in Mansfield MA, a show that kicked off their US Hail to the Theif tour.

But still, to say that royalties play no role in the setlist...even if we're talking about royalties over CD sales, setlists will certainly be tailored to make the most of it.

[Bremang]

About the royalties, you are incorrect.

About the lyric change in STD, you are right you can twist the lyrics to mean anything and that is exactly what Ed is doing. However, knowing Ed's spiritual state when he wrote the song (and in the context of other songs) makes the meaning more concrete.

What does worshiping Jesus have to do with not being raped? You aren't going to go to hell if you do that so you won't get raped there by Satan? Even if it makes sense its just fucking stupid.

The case of changing the lyrics to Operation: Spirit was even worse.

Glad we can agree that the lyrical changes are flat out awful though, even if we disagree on what they mean. I also don't think he is doing it for his new audience, for what its worth. Given that Grace is only at #27 on the Christian rock chart there isn't really much of a "new audience" to speak of.

haha...

well so then what do you think Selling the Drama is about?
what is Operation Spirit about?