Hi All,
I'm not sure why did this... (Because I'm no authority on anything)but I thought I wouldhead over to YouTube and compile a quick list of well-known and lesser known tunes covered by Ms. Baez and see if I could find any incriminating evidence of shameless, & blatant lyrical re-writes...
I am not 100% on all these, but here is what I found:
Blowin' In the Wind (Dylan).........No lyrics altered from original recording
Forever Young (Dylan)..............No lyrics altered from original recording
Dangling Conversation..............No lyrical alterations from original recording
( Simon & Garfunkel)
Babe I'm Gonna Leave You..........No lyrics altered from original recording
( R. Plant/ Led Zeppelin)
Brother's In Arms.....................No lyrical alterations from original recording
(M. Knopfler/Dire Straits)
House of the Rising Sun..............gender specifics changed only
(traditional)
Eleanor Rigby (Beatles)..............No lyrical alterations from original recording
Rexroth's Daughter (G. Brown).....No lyrical alterations from original recording
Sleeper (G. Brown)...................gender specifics changed only
I have to think if Ms. Baez had intentionally shamelessly altered: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
There would be some sort of incriminating trends...I don't see that here at least.
Changing a songwriters lyrics.
I'm one of those that never used to listen to the lyrics. And since I've changed my way of life from Biker to Christian, I now discover (as I actually listen for the first time) that many of the lyrics of songs I used to love are actually quite offensive in one way or another. But I still want to play the song. So I change them. I on purpose change the meaning and focus of the song to reflect something that I find acceptable.
I play with a Praise Band and we do "covers" of many well known songs. But they have all been completely re-written lyrically. We do this for the reasons I listed above, and also because we consider it a form of a compliment to the original that we like it enough to give it the lyric treatment. If we didn't like it, we'd simply skip over it. And there is one more reason. If we completely re-write the lyrics, and in the process change the meaning of the song, then legally, it becomes a 'Parody' and we can play it all we want with no problems. We don't want or need problems. We are a small band that does this for fun and not profit.
So, yes, I think changing the lyrics is fine. I don't have a problem with it. As long as you change the whole thing to have a different meaning.
I play with a Praise Band and we do "covers" of many well known songs. But they have all been completely re-written lyrically. We do this for the reasons I listed above, and also because we consider it a form of a compliment to the original that we like it enough to give it the lyric treatment. If we didn't like it, we'd simply skip over it. And there is one more reason. If we completely re-write the lyrics, and in the process change the meaning of the song, then legally, it becomes a 'Parody' and we can play it all we want with no problems. We don't want or need problems. We are a small band that does this for fun and not profit.
So, yes, I think changing the lyrics is fine. I don't have a problem with it. As long as you change the whole thing to have a different meaning.
-
neverfoundthetime
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
- Status: Offline
Hi Dan, this tacks on to a point made in a thread this week on the TABs and ownership of songs and intellectual copyright. Jerry Garcia reckoned after the Grateful Dead had performed a song and sent it out into the world that it belonged to the listener. I think he is also accepting that it may be not only repeated but also changed and adapted to. He's letting go. If I were a songwriter, I think this would be how I'd feel about it ( I have written a few songs but i don't think they will ever be covered!I know songwriters themselves will change the words slightly on different occasions and for different reasons. But it is the songwriter themselves making the decision to make the change or changes. Thoughts on the subject?
). I can see Dennis' point on how that would be for a writer: no change without my expressed permission! But I think songs are of a different nature and can have their rhythm, feel, syntax and meaning adjusted or completely changed to produce a completely or partially new song. As to whether that's kosher or not, for me its just a question of whether it "works" or not. On some songs, I want to hear the feel of the song and the lyrics accurately reproduced (don't mess with Nights in White Satin!) on others there has been a new perspective opened up (Eva Cassidy's Fields of Gold or Kathy's song). Horses for courses?I honestly don't think there is any moral or ethical issue involved here at all -- only aesthetic. For most songs and most covers, the change is hardly ever for the better. And changing gender-specific lyrics almost never works, in my opinion. But I don't think there's any moral obligation to preserve the original. If you listen to any of Dylan's live performances, he's changed the lyrics of most of his songs dozens of times himself; I'm not deluded enough to think I could change them for the better, but I don't think it would be wrong to piece together what one thought were the best bits from different performances.
Sometimes (as in Steve Winwood's "Can't find my way home"), some of the lyrics of an otherwise beatiful song are so unbelievably stupid, that it's almost a crime they aren't better. If someone wrote some better lyrics, I'd sing them without reservation. But I wouldn't rewrite them myself.
Changing lyrics to remove the bits you find offesnive is one idea I have a really hard time getting my head around, though.
But, I'm pretty much with Chris on this. It's all folk music. And, if folks want to mess with it, that's just part of how music evolves.
-Stuart
Sometimes (as in Steve Winwood's "Can't find my way home"), some of the lyrics of an otherwise beatiful song are so unbelievably stupid, that it's almost a crime they aren't better. If someone wrote some better lyrics, I'd sing them without reservation. But I wouldn't rewrite them myself.
Changing lyrics to remove the bits you find offesnive is one idea I have a really hard time getting my head around, though.
But, I'm pretty much with Chris on this. It's all folk music. And, if folks want to mess with it, that's just part of how music evolves.
-Stuart
Sometimes (as in Steve Winwood's "Can't find my way home"), some of the lyrics of an otherwise beatiful song are so unbelievably stupid, that it's almost a crime they aren't better. If someone wrote some better lyrics, I'd sing them without reservation. But I wouldn't rewrite them myself.
Agreed. I love Townes Van Zandt's "If I Needed You" but I hate the lines "Loop and Lil agree she's a sight to see." It always pulls me out of the song. Who are Loop and Lil and why do I care what they think? If I sang that song, I'd be hugely tempted to change it to something better, though I don't know if I'd actually do it.
Suzi
Agreed. I love Townes Van Zandt's "If I Needed You" but I hate the lines "Loop and Lil agree she's a sight to see." It always pulls me out of the song. Who are Loop and Lil and why do I care what they think? If I sang that song, I'd be hugely tempted to change it to something better, though I don't know if I'd actually do it.
Suzi
dennisg wrote:
dan5619 wrote:I've got to agree with you on this one Dennis, Joan Baez is no way a sleazy person and I think it was an honest mistake. You also need to keep in mind when this was performed by Baez she didn't have the luxury of Internet research available to us nowadays either.Looking forward to reading more on the subject!/quote]
Okay. Here's more on the subject. As a writer, I very much want people to respect the integrity of my work. But I don't get the sense that Joan Baez willfully disregarded a writer's intellectual property. I think she just made an honest mistake. She thought she knew the lyrics, but apparently she didn't. There are a lot of people out there in the world doing sleazy things; I don't think Joan Baez is one of them.
Hi Suzi,
Loop and Lil were Townes Parakeets. He use to hide them in his shirt when he traveled on a airplane. The words Loop and Lil agree were changed during some other covers of the song and also by Townes at the request of his producers. He did not like changing his words at all. In fact, When the Egger brothers had him change the words of Tecumseh Valley to remove the part when Caroline had turned to whorin, he refused to perform the song using the changed words. Kevin and/or Harold Eggers, felt it was too sexual in content to be played on a recording. Nice to hear you are playing TVZ songs! Townes has inspired my music greatly! - Dan
Loop and Lil were Townes Parakeets. He use to hide them in his shirt when he traveled on a airplane. The words Loop and Lil agree were changed during some other covers of the song and also by Townes at the request of his producers. He did not like changing his words at all. In fact, When the Egger brothers had him change the words of Tecumseh Valley to remove the part when Caroline had turned to whorin, he refused to perform the song using the changed words. Kevin and/or Harold Eggers, felt it was too sexual in content to be played on a recording. Nice to hear you are playing TVZ songs! Townes has inspired my music greatly! - Dan
Speaking of Townes...........
"Pancho was a bandit boys.."
Why "boys"? Why plural? I always sang "boy".
"He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel."
"Feel"? I always said fear. They could fear his gun; they couldn't literally "feel" it.
Surely there are hidden meanings here, but they escape me.
Anyone?
Samster
"Pancho was a bandit boys.."
Why "boys"? Why plural? I always sang "boy".
"He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel."
"Feel"? I always said fear. They could fear his gun; they couldn't literally "feel" it.
Surely there are hidden meanings here, but they escape me.
Anyone?
Samster
Hi Samster,
I think the song goes "Pancho was a bandid, boys..." where "boys" refers to the audience, not to Pancho.
The phrase "He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel" is meant to rhyme with the one two lines earlier "His horse as fast as polished steel." But I agree, "feel" has some odd connotations in this context.
-Stuart
I think the song goes "Pancho was a bandid, boys..." where "boys" refers to the audience, not to Pancho.
The phrase "He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel" is meant to rhyme with the one two lines earlier "His horse as fast as polished steel." But I agree, "feel" has some odd connotations in this context.
-Stuart