Cee Lo Green changes John Lennon's "Imagine"

if you want to hear the same thing in the same way every time you should stick to listening to recordings because even live musicians committed to absolute repetition--god knows why---vary in the details. recordings are way more perfectly the same than are people.

 

Who would regard the idea of imagining a world without religion to be blasphemy except the religious? Was this song ever for them? Those who try to imagine a world without religion are not and have never been offended by the message. There's more than enough songs written by the religious for the religious, why take one written by a humanist with a humanist message and alter it so it's not offensive to the religious? It makes no sense to me.

Yes, there is that. Praise the Lord.

 

I just looked it up and listened to his rendition on Youtube.

Mostly, I'm offended because he sounds crap.

I'm not wild about changing a song's message (I write songs, too, and I wouldn't like it at all) but I really hate when someone crucifies a good song.

Fortunately, I was never that keen on "Imagine". It's a bit "meh".

EDIT: On reflection, I hate stuff being bowdlerised, and I suspect that's what happened here. That's offensive, imho. Artistic neutering.

 

No, I meant maybe he felt would be blasphemous for him to do (from a personal religious stand point), not how it wuld be recieved. And Alistair it was crap, usually he can sing, or maybe he has a really good studio.
don't know which.
Still, it's only music.

 

I think if he found the song blasphemous, it would be better to choose another song. Or is that too simple?

Why neuter someone else's work?

Bleh, I don't care that much - but I don't see the point. Of course, if it was just to avoid upsetting a God-bothering audience, my take would be "screw him and screw his audience". It is exactly what Bowdler was doing with Shakespeare (well, in essence - I'm not comparing this particular lyric to Shakespeare! ) .. and that type of thing is just crass, in my book.

 

So why didn't he pick a different song to cover if it didn't fit in with his religious ideas? (rhetorical question)

No comment.

 

sometimes this "bowlderizing" thing can be great:



wanted to remind before the thread wanders too far into moral Outrage.

 

Funny! (But not bowdlerism .. )

 

Cee lo has a distinctive voice. Not necessarily a good one.
i'm going to assert that perhaps that was the second reason he should never have agreed to sing this song.

Still, I can't manage to get worked up about it. And it's not because I really don't care much about the song. It's because in the grand scheme of things, I don't the sanctity of any song is that important. Like rb said, don't like it, don't listen.

 

Numerous notes but no lyrics were destroyed in the making of this video.

Not exactly bowlderizing but very reminiscent of 4 years of watching and listening to my daughter's high school marching band.

 

i like it for a lot of reasons, one of which is that it makes the piece a little scary again because the trumpets in particular wander so far from where they were "supposed to be" that you get the sense almost anything can happen. that strips away the bland predictability of the piece. that bland predictibility is, arguably, the offensive bit thats been removed. just in case you suspected i didn't know what bowlderizing meant.

 

Sanctity is way too strong a word and I agree that it isn't worth much fuss.

It just seems dumb too me to make that kind of change. I have no problem with changing words, but I'd prefer a pastiche in which the changes are funny or smaller changes that don't change the meaning of the basic message. It's just a preference. I won't lose any sleep - though I may have been pissed off if those had been my words that he changed.

 

I love hearing artists do covers in a unique way - changing the tempo, choosing to place the stress on certain words and lines differently than the original artist had done, singing the melody in a slightly different way. Lovely when done with originality. Rarely do you hear these cover artists intentionally changing the lyrics, though unless it's in the rap, hip-hop, and pop genres where portions of the original are incorporated into an entirely new and original song.

I'm going to have to break down and give Cee Lo's version a listen to see if he might have crossed the threshold into originality in any positive way.

 

I thought it added offensive parts (at least my ears were offended!)

Taste - a strange and wonderful thing!

 

One example of this that I love is the mash-up of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" and "What a Wonderful World" as done by Israel "Iz" Kamakawiwo'ole.

 

I haven't listened to the Cee Lo Green version, however, I have a feeling that Lennon's version may sell or be downloaded more.

I can say the Beatles and Lennon himself did covers. They may not have changed the words but they added their own sound to songs like "Roll Over Beethoven" "Rock and Roll Music", Lennon's cover of "Stand By Me", etc.

Doing covers and adding their own sound helped bands like Van Halen (Pretty Woman, You Really Got Me) make them famous and revived interest in Roy Orbison and the KINKS, Guns and Roses version of Live and Let Die helped revive interest in McCartney's version.

Joan Jett did a huge amount of covers. Even the Stones, their first hit was a Beatles' cover "I Wanna Be Your Man" and from there most of their very early work was to be covers with their own sound included.

Run DMC covering "Walk This Way" revived Aerosmith's career.

What I'm trying to say is covers don't necessarily hurt the original content, I would argue it actually helps the original artist by bringing that music or those lyrics to a new generation, in essence keeping the original alive. It also gets interest in that people want to listen and compare the 2 versions.

The old school Lennonite in me says "how dare someone, think they can change what is arguably Lennon's signature song." The realist in me says, "It was bound to happen sooner or later, hopefully people still get the original message and what the song stood for."

 

Just my opinion, but I think the people who're get worked up the most about about Cee Lo Greeen's "Imagine" are probalby folks who've made John Lennon their deity, or put him in the category of demi-god, like so many other pop idols and icons (the pun's intended, too...). Already been said, but lyrics to songs are fluid. Some artists do whole reworks of their songs, word for word, or improvise while performing. It's no big deal, artistically, to cover a track and switch around a few words--regardless of who wrote the song or the lyrics. Musicians come up with new tunes by taking standards and changing a round a few notes or a few chords, etc. Happens every day.

 

Imagine gets covered all the tme (to the point of boredom, as noted). Or combined with "Redemption Song" by Bob Marley (check youtube). In that case, not sure which artist is getting the greater disservice. Probably Marley.