Cee Lo Green changes John Lennon's "Imagine"

You're right it's not working and it sounded horrible. And that from some one who likes Cee Lo's music. Maybe you hold the original in a higher reverence than I do, maybe that's why i don't get why it's such a big deal.

I tried to think of my most favoritest song evah and couldn't. My musical taste are such that the only music I don't like is music I can't follow, metal comes to mind. So I landed on Stevie Wonder's As for an example. I find as to be one ofthe most lyrically poetic songs ever written and recorded, I like the sentiment, the tempo(s), the melody, all that. But when I look for it on youtube, there are covers, just like any other song. Some change a lyric or two, some change the tempo, others simply have no singing talent. If I don't like the re-imagined version (sorry, the pun was unintentional) I revert to the original.
--- merged: Jan 12, 2012 5:12 AM ---
BTW epic
5 pages in a day and a half

 

I don't really. I actually consider Imagine to be a less than perfectly written lyric (I've always thought Lennon could have done a better job with it) and, as others have mentioned, the repetition of listening to it over the years has ruined whatever flavor it once had for me. But the message is one that resonates still. I fully understand why Cee Lo would have chosen it. But all he really ended up doing was making a mess out of it. If you're going to change something, change it for the better and make it truly and uniquely your own. It's only a big deal for some people because it is such an iconic song. Whether it deserves to be or not. For me, it's a principled thing, from a songwriter's standpoint rather than that of a listener. Everything else is incidental, really. Cee Lo is merely another example to illustrate how rare real talent is.

I agree. Stevie Wonder is incredible and As is a particularly brilliant song. Thank you for reminding me of it.

Epic yes. It's a good topic. A bit out of the ordinary but interesting to hear people's viewpoints on music.

 

"No argument that "all religion is true" could not be true in a strictly literal sense." I agree it was awkwardly worded ... I had too much going on at once.​

I agree that "all religion is true" could not be true in a strictly literal sense. Better? ​

"​

How do you come up with such an outrageous claim that because atheists don't believe in God they can't possibly believe in anything?"

I don't recall ever having said that. What I was saying is that a non-belief isn't anything ... it isn't a belief, so it doesn't reference anything at all. I have no problem with someone saying, "I don't believe in god."​

How can I be confused about the non-claims atheism makes if I have no knowledge of the claims you're referring to?
I need a new thread to clear away some of the confusion ... I think I see adequate reason to proceed at some point.

I have a guiding principle ... it's to ask, "what is true?"
That's sufficient for me, so I have no need for religion ... or atheism.

Read more: http://www.thetfp.com/threads/cee-lo-green-changes-john-lennons-imagine.2919/page-4#ixzz1jEepD85m​

 

we know what the original lyrics are.....so does Cee lo. Doesnt make the song any less valid for the times and the person that is singing it. I may not care for his wordsmithing, but if it inspires such a lively debate, then its a good thing.

 

Well, he tried. Unless you want to accuse him of being disingenuous, all we are talking about is a single incidence of poor communication via a song sung live on NYE. What's the hubbub?

 

Kind of odd when you think about it. After all those late 60's rumors he turns out to be one of the last surviving Beatles. Or has William Campbell been playing him all these years?

 

Thank you

 

Disingenuous? Not a bit. For reasons I've already stated, I simply think he chose to change the wrong phrase in the wrong song and it's only my opinion. Not worth much to anyone but me.

We disagree on the issue. Is that a hubbub? I'm not going to be jumping out of a high rise or starting a boycotting campaign over it so as far as I'm concerned, it's just another minor disagreement I have with a few people on the internet over a fairly unimportant topic (in the grand scheme of things). Nevertheless, I've found it entertaining.

 

Preconceived notions have a tendency to do that. It's called confirmation bias. Re-quote for emphasis: " I think the strident over emotionalism of some of the responses is answering my original question by way of example."

I have a feeling that semantics and strawmen are to follow. ( Okay, maybe not )

 

Well, granted you seemed to be displaying more hubbub-like behaviors earlier on in this thread. I'm no stranger to hubbubdry. I know it when I see it.

 

Well, I will admit to enjoying a bit of hubbubbing now and then. It keeps the blood flowing through these aging brain cells in sexually dry spells.

Seems I'm done hubbubbing for the time being.

Hope I didn't make too much of a mess.

 

How can anyone complain about a cover when even the artists will change their songs .... case in point:

 

I don't know that anyone is making a big deal of it. I used the word tacky, I might go as far as poor taste.

I'd think the same of a liberal politician that co opted a Ted Nugent song or a conservative one playing Jackson Browne. For me, it's a matter of respecting the author and their intent.

 

^^ Good point. Especially Dylan-- he seems to switch up his own lyrics every tour.

 

Well, it is his song, after all. Who has more right to change it than he? Who better to change it and still have it work so well? And in such a delightful way specifically for the Grouch.

A great version. I've always loved Billy Joel.

 

I didn't read the entire thread, but I just thought I would point out that the song is speaking about a world of peace and freedom from strife that xenophobia and religious tension brings out in people. Saying a world with no religion would bring peace is EXACTLY the same as saying a world where everyone accepts everyone else's beliefs as true would also bring peace. It's not tacky, it's not blasphemous. The meaning of the song is exactly the same. Lennon wasn't preaching atheism. He was talking about the inability of people as a culture accept things foreign to them and that the only way to have peace is to take away those foreign, scary ideas. The outcry from all you Lennon fans (not necessarily those in this thread, but the ones that made this an issue) is ridiculous when you're doing exactly what the song, and Lennon himself, decried.

 

Excellent! *LIKE*