“Rap” is an ancient form of rhythmical speech. One who delivers a modern performance of such is known as a “Rapper,” and what the Rapper does is known as “Rapping.”
One practitioner of this art is improbably known as Cee Lo Green. What kind of a name, might one wonder, is Cee Lo? But all names are culturally connected to something or other. What about improbable names like Edwin, Pamela, or Vergilius? To criticize the dude for the name would be an ad hominem logical fallacy and probably racial. What kind of name is Green?
Cee Lo Green what did you mean? What did you mean oh Cee Lo Green? Did you mean to be obscene? Is your religion just plain mean?
John Lennon and I were born in the same year. He is 48 days older than me. Among the many differences between us, perhaps the most important just now is that I am alive and he is dead. And this has been our relationship for the past 31 years.
You have no doubt heard quite a bit recently about “standing” to bring cases in court. Here is a good example. No person, or organization, that I know of has standing to contest Cee Lo’s admitted modification of John Lennon’s masterpiece “Imagine” when he sang this work in a public display at Times Square, on New Year’s Eve that celebrated the arrival of 2012, said by some to be the last year for the life of our planet and for all that thereon dwell.
And note just how the words were changed in the Cee Lo presentation.
John Lennon had written: “nothing to kill or die for / and no religion too.”
The Cee Lo version said: “nothing to kill or die for / and all religion’s true.”
It is a sad fact that Helen Kagin is not alive to confront this outrage. “Imagine” was her favorite song and she adopted it as a theme song for Camp Quest. I warned her that she might get sued for copyright violation, but she didn’t care and did it anyway and no one ever complained. Helen would have been on them faster than a priest on an altar boy.
However, if you do not have some legal right to the song, you have no right, or “standing,” to complain in court. The change in wording from “and no religion too” to “and all religion’s true” is way beyond accidental. It is a deliberate change, and it is, in my view, wrongful, but I also know I cannot really do anything about it
Or, it could perhaps be argued that Cee Lo had not looked carefully at the words of a song he knew he would be singing on television from Times Square on New Year’s Eve.
And, that change of three words changes the entire meaning of the song. We know that, and he knows that. The idea was to do some religious implantations into Americans of the idea that religion, whatever form it may take, is, ipso facto, good. The mere fact that “all religion’s true” is a meaningless statement does not deter the evangelical drive of those who would see us all converted.
In may be that the heir(s) of the rights to the song either approved of the change in words before it was sung, approved after it was sung, or don’t really care. None of these possibilities give you or me any rights whatsoever to enforce who sings the song how. Nor do we want to get an official court opinion saying that, given the facts as they now exist, the words can be changed, in the manner done here, at will.
There is still, of course, the Court of Public Opinion. And it is to there we could go to make our outrage heard. Every atheist in the country could write to NBC protesting the permitted mangling of this great atheist song by John Lennon. We can, in all of our strength, write, and forcefully tell, of our outrage that NBC permitted such a thing as letting some rapper change the atheist meaning in the song “Imagine” to make it appear to be a song stumping for, and affirming, an all inclusive view of religion as universally true. Then, after all of our voices have been heard, maybe NBC or some polling outfit can ask people what they think and report that 87 % or more of Americans think the change in the words of “Imagine” was a good thing. Then it is our turn.
And the Court of Public Opinion might then be treated to a great pouring out of proof that John Lennon had in fact, become a strong Christian, and a supporter of Jesus Christ. And that he got murdered before he had a chance to tell the world. And this could, in theory, be confirmed by his heirs. And the argument that could flow from that assertion could easily encompass the concept that John Lennon would have approved of the changes to his atheistic song to make it into a positive song strongly supporting the side of religion, and dog knows what else.
And thus would we have done our work and our world a great disservice by once again permitting the religious principle to operate that a lie is okay if it helps prove the truth.
Does this mean you should do nothing? Of course not. This is truly an outrage and an affront to the memory of John Lennon and to the very integrity and meaning of his song “Imagine.”
Complaints based on artistic grounds will probably be more effective than arguments grounded on theological biases.
Our argument, and protest, should be grounded in principles of ethical and fair treatment for atheists. As Bobbie Kirkhart observed, how would “they” like it if we should sing, in public forum media, “How Great Thou Aren’t?”
Maybe we should.
So, welcome to another little skirmish in the American Religious Civil War (ARCW).
Edwin
© Edwin Kagin 2012.
The owner of the copyright woul normally be asked to grant permission. She has been asked many times in the past to allow a Shane of this line in this song and has never agreed.
Coo Lo seems to have never asked.
This. Has been my point on FB for today. And after thinking about religious songs for a while, I submit that an atheist version of “Amazing Grace” would be a good place to start in a good ole musical tit for tat. It’s a religious icon, and seems to appeal to a wide sampling of various religions, all those that start with the premise that we are all “wretches” who need to be “saved.” People of all flavors of faiths get all teary-eyed over that song. I may work on that some tonight.
Like it or not, ‘Death of the Author’ is a very real thing, and seeing as how art is subjective by nature, it’s true meaning is invariably whatever the one assessing it says it is. So long as the original is still around, that’s all that matters.
As such, regardless of whatever ‘motivation’ he might’ve had, this was just Cee Lo Green’s interpertation of the song, and this constant bashing of him is just ridiculous.
AFAIK, as long as the performance rights were paid for, you can mangle the song any way you like. There are no “artistic moral rights”, so no one has any legal standing to challenge this moronic performance.
We certainly are entitled to make our opinions of such a performance known.
Let me call a waaaambulance for the offended Cee Lo supporters. Cee Lo’s “interpretation” is crap. That’s like interpreting the bible to mean that, no, there really isn’t a god. You do this meaning change to songs to mock their original intent, which is what Cee Lo did. (Or was it just to perform a popular song, but get rid of the obvious nagging inconsistency for religious types?) Whatever, I can’t see how this is not worthy of a heaping pile of criticism. As if positive reception is any more worthwhile to convey.
Who says that the meaning was changed? If the original purpose of the song was to imagine a world where everyone got along because there are no conflict-causing differences, then I don’t see how Cee Lo’s alteration changes that. Besides, where is it written that changing something in art mocks its original intent? Where is it written that such actions are absoloutley always the case? Is a book ‘mocked’ when it’s made into a movie? Is a piano piece ‘mocked’ if it is played on a clarinet? Jeez man, who really needs the waaambulance? If the bible was interperted to mean there really is no god, then that’d be fine by me. Rest assured that I wouldn’t vomit sand just because someone made in interpertation I didn’t aprove of, of something with no objective meaning.
Who says that the meaning was changed? If the original purpose of the song was to imagine a world where everyone got along because there are no conflict-causing differences, then I don’t see how Cee Lo’s alteration changes that.
Well stated.
Perhaps the real problem here is the original ‘misinterpretation’ by some that the song “Imagine” was intended as an atheist anthem, which it is not.
Here are the full lyrics – what do you notice about them?
In each case Lennon says imagine no source of authority. That is the point to no religion too.
Where he speaks in the affirmative – it is about a society with no heirarchy. He uses the word all to highlight this.
If all religion was true the authority of clerics would be maintained. It is the exact opposite to what Lennon was getting at through the whole song.
Sorry, I’m not seeing authority, specifically. He seems to be talking about things that can cause conflict, because they may foster want, fear, and division–hence his speaking of no posessions, countries, heavens, hells, and religion. However, this needn’t always be the case. Indeed, all of the said iniquities wouldn’t be an issue if disagreement and conflict weren’t issues–a case which would happen if all religions were ‘true’.
See the case of Island Records v. Negativland for what can happen if you change the lyrics of a song.
While Negativland didn’t have permission to even use the song in their case, it wouldn’t have mattered because there is a completely different licensing scheme for changing the lyrics than there is to simply perform a cover. If See-Low didn’t obtain that level of licensing, he could have a lot of problem from the Lennon estate as well as ASCAP.
Just my 666 cents worth.
Cee-Lo Green is a no talent hack. He mangled a great song written by a real artist to suit his own narrow minded worldview. Screw him, screw him with a broomhandle.
John Lennon has been dead for 32 years, not 21.
Thank you for that correction.
Edwin.
31, actually.
I was born the day John Lennon died (December 8,1980), so it is an easy date for me to remember.
December 8 of this year will mark 32 years.
I don’t understand why atheists have glommed onto the song in the first place. It always came off as wooey Buddhist-esque “ohh, if you just don’t want anything anymore, we could just all get along” claptrap.
If I didn’t want anything, I’d never do anything. Which may be a good way of avoiding conflict, but it’s also a great way of avoiding living longer than your current levels of nutrition and hydration can sustain you, too.
re: #2 reeddlh: okay, I’ll try –
Amazing crap,
How deep the woo
That clouds the minds we see.
Some once had ‘faith’
But reason found –
Threw off those shackles, we.
Amazing crock,
Those ancient rules
That others want enforced.
Like burning witches,
Torture and war,
Is how they run their course.
Bravo! Great lyrics.
To turn Amazing Grace into a parody, the lyrics from several other songs can be substituted. Try Gilligan’s Island, or – my favorite – House of the Rising Sun. They’re interchangeable. Big fun. Try it.
Another proof the religion distroys everything, including the mind of this “rapper”
I’m having a small problem. I cannot subscribe to your rss feed for some reason. I’m using google reader by the way.