AMAZING GRACE DOESN'T NEED A NEW CHORUS.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Personal Opinion Warning
Posted by Todd Wright at 10:39 AM
Labels: amazing grace, music, passion, songwriting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TODD
Click below to listen/download.
14 comments:
He sure looks good singing it though.
Or a rewritten VERSE for cryin' out loud.
BTW, that's not opinion, it's objective truth.
I have had some people tell me that the new chorus enhances the meaning of the song and more specifically defines "grace" for them. Some may disagree and that's ok. Also, the 4th verse of Tomlin's recording is actually the original last verse as penned by John Newton. Many additional verses including the traditionally sung 4th verse of "When we've been there..." were added later by other writers. I found that tidbit somewhere from Chris and Louie. I personally prefer the traditional, but it is good to delve into the history and see the growth and changing of the song throughout the ages.
It's just too much change, I think. Look, lyrical changes, the time signature change (changing the feel), and it just feels "crowded" lyrically.
And the most gay comment award goes to.....daniel. Sorry bro, I couldn't resist.
I'll admit I thought that last verse was added. It's dumb; the Earth isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I'd hesitate to label the version in question, "growth."
I won't try to speak for Todd, but what I hear him getting at has less to do with this specific song, as it stands on its own merits, and more to do with kind of a "last straw" mentality.
Many of us who write songs for a living are beginning to have a general sense of suspicion and trepidation about this growing trend of "add a chorus to a pre-existing hymn that was just fine before."
As a writer, it just sort of troubles me that we are able to take songs that have been around (most of them) for over 100 years and say, "you know what this thing needs? a new chorus from me." Also as a writer, it troubles me to think that now many people think those new versions of the songs are the "official" versions. I was asked to sing "When I survery the wondrous cross" at a funeral the other day, and the widow asked me to do "the Tomlin version." Unfortunately about two-thirds of the funeral attendees were over 60, and hardly any of them knew it, so I kept losing people in various "different" parts of the song, which made an already awkward experience (worship at a very formal funeral) even more weird.
To some people, I was singing the song "right," and to others, I was singing it "wrong." Obviously I was doing what the family asked, but I could tell that even they were a little uncomfortable with the way the audience responded.
Listen, I've written some "chorus" type stuff for a couple of hymns that I really like, but I'm always careful to say, when I lead them, what we're doing, which is: we're singing two different things. The song isn't different or new now. I just made it into a "medley" of sorts. The old song is still complete and on-its-own.
Maybe that kind of distinction seems over-analytical and hair-splitting, but there just seeems to be a certain kind of arrogance -- and perhaps even artistic laziness -- with "re-writing" songs that people slaved and pored over a century ago. They had no thoughts of making money or "sweeping the nation," and in fact, most of those song writers died having no clue of the impact of their efforts. And here we are, in our high-commerce, super-famous reality, adding three chords and 10words, cluttering up the church and the CCLI database with multiple versions of songs that moved hearts all by themselves for decades.
One more thought: how would you feel about writing a song knowing that after you were dead, rich people with $50 haircuts and expensive clothes were going to go back and make a buck by taking your work and altering it, recording it, and in many ways, now calling it their own?
I figure I probably sound unreasonable to some folks, but about half of my income comes, one way or another, from writing songs. So I think it's fair to say that I understand some of the possible motivators.
$50 haircuts.
Awesome.
I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain I'd get a "cease and desist" order from most of the hymn gravy-trainers were I to do to their latest hit song what they do to the writers of the past.
(Assuming I had an audience for my release)
I'd SO buy a John Simmons record.
Minor Prophets, baby.
If you do a Minor Prophets record, John, I will totally let you do a Todd Wright song. That record would sell, my man. Although it would be way cooler with songs by people who are, you know, like, known.
Oh, the comedy stuff will be free, be very sure of that! I have a glam-rock "Holy is the Lord" already mapped out in my head...it all depends on my falsetto being up to the task. Think "Limozeen."
ok, all jokes aside, no one needs to miss this statement:
"...I'm fairly certain I'd get a "cease and desist" order from most of the hymn gravy-trainers were I to do to their latest hit song what they do to the writers of the past."
Exactly.
Why are we allowed to make money off these old songs? Do you think any of these artists-and-slick-businessmen-who-will-go-unnamed-even-though-we-all-know-who-they-are would allow us to screw with their new versions the way that they are screwing with the old ones? do you think we'd be allowed to make a single dime if we added a "bridge" to the song that they added a chorus to? Seriously.
OK, I think I'm done.
Todd, thanks for getting me all revved up.
I say we do it. Look for my new single, "Incomprehensible" soon.
And Johnny went there...yes!
Post a Comment