A great debate is going on in the pop world over Cee-Lo Green’s changing of the words to John Lennon’s “Imagine” during a performance of the song in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. It was a change that seems to contradict the intent of the song. In his performance, Cee-Lo sang the late Beatle’s secular humanist line “Nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too” to the more religion-friendly “And all religion’s true.” Many Lennon fans are outraged. Religious folks — maybe not so much. And then there are those who say, heck, it’s all semantics anyway. If all religion is true, then maybe it’s the same as there being no religion.
Whatever the case, the debate re-raises the question of how far a singer should be able to go in his or her interpretation of another songwriter’s work.
The best debate I’ve seen so far is happening in a thread on the Facebook page of North Carolina singer/songwriter Peter Holsapple, founding member of the great New Wave-era jangle-pop band The dB’s. Holsapple linked the Huffington Post story on the incident along with the words, “Um, no. Not yours to change. Very bad idea.”
Later in the thread Holsapple argued, “I do not think that artists should rewrite a songwriter’s intended lyrics, especially when the rewrite changes the theme of the line. I think parody is one thing (see Weird Al or the Barron Knights), but I don’t think Mr. Green was doing anything of that sort. Any worthwhile parodist has the sense and grace to ask the author or publisher for permission. I don’t get the feeling Mr. Green did that, or that it even occurred to him.” Holsapple’s point is valid, and most of the songwriter’s FB friends agreed with him.
I do not totally agree. While I am not a songwriter and can’t fully empathize with a songwriter’s point of view on this issue, I have written extensively about popular music for many years and spent much time studying folk-music history. (When I use the term “folk,” I am not simply referring to acoustic-guitar-based music, but any musical style made for, and communicating to, the masses rather than the elite.) From a music-history perspective, I don’t see a lot of difference between Cee-Lo’s interpretation of “Imagine” and the interpretations that folk-based singers and songwriters have been doing for centuries. From the Elizabethan-period traveling troubadours of England to American folksingers like Woody Guthrie, and from the reconstituted blues of Led Zeppelin to the sample-heavy tapestries of Public Enemy, songwriters have been rewriting the words, melodies and perspectives of their forebears’ works since the first musician began banging on a rock.
Of course, there is a fuzzy legal line that musicians cross when commerce comes into play. That’s why John Lennon’s fellow Beatle George Harrison was sued when he adopted the melody of the Chiffons’ ’60s hit “He’s So Fine” for his own hit “My Sweet Lord.” Likewise, Led Zeppelin was eventually sued by blues songwriter Willie Dixon for adapting his song “You Need Love” for their popular hard-rock track “Whole Lotta Love.” By contrast, the great songwriter Woody Guthrie was not sued for adopting the melody of the Carter Family’s religious song “When The World’s On Fire” for his own “This Land is Your Land” (you may be familiar with the latter tune). In my opinion, all of these songs are classics — and all benefited from the perspectives each musician brought to them.
My point is that music and art are constantly evolving. Cee-Lo Green clearly hears the concept of “no religion” as being consistent with “all religion,” and that’s how he interpreted John Lennon’s song for himself. As a music historian of sorts and a music fan, I don’t have a problem with that. I also don’t see Cee-Lo’s change as being disrespectful — I see it as continuing a much-needed dialog. To me, that’s what folk and popular music should do.
What do you think?
Here’s a pair of screen shots showing parts of the thread on Holsapple’s Facebook page. Check it out:
This article appears in Dec 27, 2011 – Jan 2, 2012.
I do think he had a right to change it, but it was a significant change to the meaning, and I think it’s fair for people to take him to task for it.
Hmm? I sort of understand where you are coming from regarding traditional folk, or other music where the original writers are obscure or even unknown, but here is that pesky little thing called copyright. That’s where it gets really hairy. I’m pretty sure he could get in to some big trouble if the copyright holders decide to push it. It’s not parody, nor does it fall under the fair use .
With that being said, my personal opinion is that it is semantics. “No religion too”/ “all religion’s true” pretty much equates the same meaning for me. I really don’t think there was any malice behind what he did. Just updated the same thought by a few years. I don’t know? Something to think about for sure! Thanks for the article!
I’ve seen a few people saying it doesn’t matter because “no religion” and “all religion’s true” are essentially the same thing. I don’t agree. Imagining 100 religions that say different things all being true is significantly different from imagining an absence of religion, particularly when you think of the insanity perpetrated in the name of religion.
I agree, Beth. I think it fundamentally changes the meaning of that line, too. It’s like someone pointed out on Peter’s thread: changing Cee-Lo’s “Fuck You” to “Love You” would significantly alter the meaning of that song, as well, and render the other lyrics confusing. And as I also stated in Peter’s thread, I don’t think Cee-Lo thought through his decision to change those lyrics in “Imagine.”
BUT — I still think Cee-Lo brings a valuable perspective to the table, flawed and contradictory though it may be. And it’s what I like about folk and popular musics — the ongoing dialog in culture.
So many of the critics of Cee-Lo are expressing anger that seems out of proportion with the degree of Cee-Lo’s offense (if it’s an offense at all). I think it might be more useful if we asked questions like, “Why?” and “Where is he coming from?” My feeling is that Cee-Lo was coming from a good place and trying to find his own way in the world, and this lyric change, to me, indicates his spiritual and intellectual journey and speaks for lots of other people who are trying to come to terms with their beliefs, perspectives and worldviews. That, to me, represents pop music at its best.
As far as I know, John Lennon was a real atheist and any attempt to paper that over is a distortion. On the other hand, Imagine doesn’t say “wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was an atheist like me?” It says “wouldn’t it be nice if everyone forgot about rewards and punishments in another world and practiced love in the here and now, for its own sake?” Plenty of religious people, notably the Sufi poet Rabia, would agree with that.
Don’t mean to rabbit trail here, but feel I need to clarify what I meant about the meanings being essentially the same. In my opinion the core tenet of most religions are supposed to lead to the same place. It’s the people that have misinterpreted the heart of it to the point that they are very different. That is where I am coming from that none/all true mean the same the same thing to me.
“God save the Queen. She ain’t a human being.”
To me, the only trouble is context: if Cee-Lo had made the change at one of his own concerts, then it would have been understood that what we were seeing was his personal take, which would have been what we’d all paid money to see. But when you sing a song in a public context, the song and our public relationship to it is at center stage, not the singer: we have a right to expect the song we know, and if you have any disagreements with the song (which Cee-Lo clearly does), it’s THE most disrespectful place to argue it. It’s the public that has ownership of that song then, not Cee-Lo, or even Lennon. It was not a stupid lyric-change at all – however, my biggest concern now is that it will turn into a huge meme in schools across America where they’ve never been comfortable with Lennon: expect to hear every high school choir incorporating the line, effectively disappearing Lennon for millions of kids. Sort of the way the “socialist” verse from This Land Is Your Land is now completely silenced. Does anybody know it?
Once you start telling artists when it is acceptable to take liberties with pop songs. you take away the very thing that makes American art what it is, not to mention turn everything Lennon’s generation stood for on its head. I mean there are some things that I don’t want to see changed, yet, as a participant in a society that aspires toward modernism and democracy, I respect that they can say it, just not in my house. I for one, am glad to see someone resisting the overbearing”customer is always right” aesthetic that has turned a lot of live performances into karaoke. To quote Frank Zappa’s anti censorship speech to Congress in ’85: “The $8.98 purchase price does not entitle you to a kiss on the foot from the composer or performer in exchange.” I can understand how hard it is, after a life lived resisting and questioning authority to realize that you have become the establishment (I’m 50 and teach middle school – tell ME about it). But the hypocrisy I hear from a lot of the people outside this thread is amazing. I mean, I’m running into people who supported Sinead O’Connor through her “fight the real enemy” purgatory that are absolutely incensed about this. which side of the Looking Glass are we on here?
It was kinda sacrilegious. But in your New Years, Imagine an entire world living in peace… John saw the beauty and inherent good in humanity. I tried to do his legacy justice and channel his world-embracing and loving energy this week with a tribute portrait inspired by his music and his passion for changing the world. You can see this new work of art in memoriam on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/12… along with some pictures showing how I created it. See John holding the Universe in his hand and spreading his message. When you stop by, let me know how his words and music have affected your life and creativity!
Useless arguments. What Cee-lo chose to sing has no bearing on my person philosophy at all. I like most of Lennon’s music, but I am amazed at the number of people who hang on every word that Lennon wrote. They must not realize how many words he nonchalantly threw in, threw out, threw around and came up with in a drug induced stupor, and just how much of his lyrics he admitted didn’t really make any sense or had no real serious meaning. These “serious” arguments about “liberty”, “sacrilege”, “rights”, “censorship” are comical.