EDDIES BEING SUED!

PA JammerPA Jammer Tamaqua, Pa.Posts: 296
edited January 2010 in The Porch
Article from today's New York Post

Ed doesn't seem too worried about it!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/v ... yWRxgVhzVO
Tom- Tamaqua PA

"What could be better than a beer with Eddie Vedder"
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • youngsteryoungster BostonPosts: 6,574
    he says it degraded the integrity of the song. Be honest, did anyone hear this Gordon Peterson version before Into the Wild came out? My guess is no. I didn't. Eddie's version was played on radio stations and if anything brought royalties to Gordon Peterson. He should be happy. I don't think this lawsuit will go very far. I bet Eddie can afford better lawyers.
    He who forgets will be destined to remember.

    9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
    5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
    8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
    EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
  • RiotAct10RiotAct10 OhioPosts: 1,374
    interesting. yeah, i wouldn't worry about it. it looks like the record company is really the one who would have to worry, and it looks like they are providing the lawyer. First off, Ed's version rocks. 2nd, as was pointed out, this actually gave the original writer more attention and profits. And finally, it's not like Ed claimed the song to be his own, he gave credit where credit was due. Back in the old days, things were a lot different, for instance, when the Rolling Stones recorded Love In Vain by Robert Johnson, they were able to claim it as their own by calling it arranged by Jagger & Richards.

    Perhaps Sean Penn, Vedder, the movie company or the record company could have done more to make sure this version was okay, but from everything I have read, the original writer is someone who sort of shunned society and is hard to find, let alone get ahold of, so it was sort of his choice to go in hiding, don't compain when you are the reason people can't reach you.
    words seem so out of place.

    8.21.00, 6.24.03, 5.6.10 Columbus
    5.20.06, 5.9.10 Cleveland | 8.5.07, 7.19.13 Chicago
    7.9.03 NYC | 10.2.04 Toledo | 9.11.05 Kitchener
    5.7.10 Noblesville | 9.3.11, 9.4.11 East Troy
    10.11.13 Pittsburgh | 10.1.14 Cincinnati
    4.8.16 Ft. Lauderdale | 4.9.16 Miami
    8.8.18, 8.10.18 Seattle
    6.26.11 Detroit (EdVed) | 9.23.17 Louisville (EdVed)
  • Be honest, did anyone hear this Gordon Peterson version before Into the Wild came out? My guess is no./quote]
    Exactly :roll:
  • Does anyone know where I can hear a sample of the original (Peterson's) version? I'm curious to see how Eddie made it his own.

    I remember trying to find anything about it when ITW originally came out, but had no luck.
    9/22/96, 8/17/98, 8/18/00, 6/22/03, 9/1/05, 9/2/05, 7/16/06, 7/18/06
  • Ample Jar wrote:
    Does anyone know where I can hear a sample of the original (Peterson's) version? I'm curious to see how Eddie made it his own.

    I remember trying to find anything about it when ITW originally came out, but had no luck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5KXozi_HM

    Here it be.
  • Ample Jar wrote:
    Does anyone know where I can hear a sample of the original (Peterson's) version? I'm curious to see how Eddie made it his own.

    I remember trying to find anything about it when ITW originally came out, but had no luck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5KXozi_HM

    Here it be.

    God I'm old. I always forget about youtube :) Thanks SuchACharmer

    I'm surprised how much Ed's version sounds like the original. That's such a cool song, can't believe it wasn't more well known before Ed did it.
    9/22/96, 8/17/98, 8/18/00, 6/22/03, 9/1/05, 9/2/05, 7/16/06, 7/18/06
  • youngsteryoungster BostonPosts: 6,574
    OK. After hearing the original, I fail to hear where Eddie "eroded" the original version. He totally nailed this song. This is a baseless claim by whoever is bringing this lawsuit. I still like Eddie's version better, but that is a damn good song anyway.
    He who forgets will be destined to remember.

    9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
    5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
    8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
    EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
  • normnorm I'm always home. I'm uncool.Posts: 31,139
    "Vedder altered certain key lyrics of 'Hard Sun' . . . eroding the integrity of the composition."

    huh? just listened to the original and it seems to me ed was very faithful to the original...maybe you should have brought this up, oh i don't know, 2 years ago, gordon :roll:
  • hedavehedave Posts: 201
    Had Peterson not heard the song until recently? Gordon Peterson's now the world's biggest doucher!
    He who forgets will be destined to remember...
  • usamamasan1usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    This is very old news...been going on for some time now
    Don't worry 'bout it Dudesk!
  • joebotjoebot Posts: 372
    Wow , talk about splitting hairs ! Yeesh.
    "integrity of the composition" isn't that a subjective concept anyways ?
    I have a feeling Eddie will easily prevail on this baseless claim.
  • CROJAM95CROJAM95 Posts: 6,146
    no big deal...if you record long enough you'll get sued.Surprise there aren't more lawsuits
    98: 9-10 msg1...00: 8-23 JB1, 8-25 JB3, 8-27 Saratoga Springs...03: 4-30 Uniondale, 7-8 MSG1, 7-9 MSG2
    06: 6-3 ER2...08: 6-24 MSG1, 6-25 MSG2, 6-27 Hartford, 6-30Mansfield...EV Solo 8-5 NYC2
    09: 8-23 ChicagoI, 8-24 ChicagoII, 10-6 LA3, 10-7 LA4,10-9 SD,10-30,10-31 Philly...EV Solo 6-11 Philly2
    2010:5-15 Hartford, 5-17 Boston, 5-18 Newark, 5-20 MSG1,5-21 MSG2
    -Salsa Caliente-
  • usamamasan1usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    Wonder what Mickey Munoz thinks about Ed stealing his stance...the "Quasimodo"

    :) Eddie+Vedder+eddie_beach.jpg

    quasimodo.jpg

    Never knew the context of that photo until yesterday when I was reading "Legends of Surfing" book. Kind of cool.
    Don't worry 'bout it Dudesk!
  • Wonder what Mickey Munoz thinks about Ed stealing his stance...the "Quasimodo"

    :) Eddie+Vedder+eddie_beach.jpg

    quasimodo.jpg

    Never knew the context of that photo until yesterday when I was reading "Legends of Surfing" book. Kind of cool.
    I smell another lawsuit coming...Eddie totally eroded the integrity of that stance! :lol:

    (Weird side note: was just looking at the mickeymunoz.com site where that photo came from and it says that pic was taken by John Severson... that's not a very common last name 8-) )
    9/22/96, 8/17/98, 8/18/00, 6/22/03, 9/1/05, 9/2/05, 7/16/06, 7/18/06
  • usamamasan1usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    Nice poster too...

    eddie+vedder+hawaii+poster2.jpg
    Don't worry 'bout it Dudesk!
  • Ample Jar wrote:
    Wonder what Mickey Munoz thinks about Ed stealing his stance...the "Quasimodo"

    :) Eddie+Vedder+eddie_beach.jpg

    quasimodo.jpg

    Never knew the context of that photo until yesterday when I was reading "Legends of Surfing" book. Kind of cool.
    I smell another lawsuit coming...Eddie totally eroded the integrity of that stance! :lol:

    (Weird side note: was just looking at the mickeymunoz.com site where that photo came from and it says that pic was taken by John Severson... that's not a very common last name 8-) )

    haha, whenever i wear my ITW shirt, people always make note of the picture and they think he's on a skateboard...i guess they're on the right track since it's really some obscure surfing stance...

    i always thought he was jumping from rock to rock and he landed in that position with his arms out for balance...awesome picture got to say
  • From what I can gather from a quick listen to that youtube, it seems like Eddie changed the following lyrics:

    "When I stay to pillage her/She just throws it back at me" to "When I see her inner charm/She just throws it back at me"

    "She just smiled and laughed at me/And took her blues back again" to "She just smiled and laughed at me/And took her rules back again"

    These are pretty minor changes, although I bet that Gordon Peterson is particularly pissed about the "pillage" line

    Pillage wouldn't have fit within the context for which Eddie was using the song

    The second is even more minor, and ties in to the themes of "rules" of both society and nature that are prevalent throughout the story

    All in all a pretty baseless claim IMO, but anyone can sue anyone about anything here in America

    That's why Eddie, the Band and the record label all have lawyers
  • LloydXmasLloydXmas Posts: 7,539
    Looks like someone is a little jealous of the success of this song. I should sue the original Artist after hearing his version
  • IamMineIamMine Posts: 2,772
    Looks like someone is a little jealous of the success of this song. I should sue the original Artist after hearing his version

    :lol: *high 5's*

    No shit... people are unbelievable. :roll:

    I, too, lost respect for Gordon... I had goggled that song and came across him on YT before...and admired EV for paying respect by singing that song.

    If I were an artist, I would be honored that EV enjoyed my song or art so much that he's singing or displaying it and giving me more exposure.

    WTF...and it's not like EV ever claimed he wrote that song either.... he gave credit when it's due, always.

    Maybe the jealous party is mad that people are telling him they like EV's version better? :lol:

    Gordon.... you.... pfft. *plays the world's smallest violin*
    JA: Why do I get the Ticketmaster question?
    EV: It's your band.
    ~Q Magazine


    "Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
  • 12345AGNST112345AGNST1 Posts: 4,906
    he says it degraded the integrity of the song.

    Yea and lets not forget that "degrading the integrity of a song" is totally something that can be proven in court. Such hard and real evidence....
    5/28/06, 6/27/08, 10/28/09, 5/18/10, 5/21/10
    8/7/08, 6/9/09
  • People need to be kinder to this man...there are two sides to every story... I do believe he may just want a little money for his part in the creation of the song. He may be looking at Ed's success with Into The Wild and may want more than is due. Again we shouldn't beat up the man...we are not privy to all of the details...
  • ShawshankShawshank Posts: 1,018
    People need to be kinder to this man...there are two sides to every story... I do believe he may just want a little money for his part in the creation of the song. He may be looking at Ed's success with Into The Wild and may want more than is due. Again we shouldn't beat up the man...we are not privy to all of the details...

    Maybe he saw how much the ITW vinyls are going for on Ebay and wants his cut. :lol:
  • People need to be kinder to this man...there are two sides to every story... I do believe he may just want a little money for his part in the creation of the song. He may be looking at Ed's success with Into The Wild and may want more than is due. Again we shouldn't beat up the man...we are not privy to all of the details...
    eh fuck him. stupid lawsuit.
  • Shawshank wrote:
    People need to be kinder to this man...there are two sides to every story... I do believe he may just want a little money for his part in the creation of the song. He may be looking at Ed's success with Into The Wild and may want more than is due. Again we shouldn't beat up the man...we are not privy to all of the details...

    Maybe he saw how much the ITW vinyls are going for on Ebay and wants his cut. :lol:
    I have one...I'll send it to him for free.... :)
  • WildsWilds Posts: 4,320
    People need to be kinder to this man...there are two sides to every story... I do believe he may just want a little money for his part in the creation of the song. He may be looking at Ed's success with Into The Wild and may want more than is due. Again we shouldn't beat up the man...we are not privy to all of the details...

    Fuck that guy. I thought filing lawsuits was an American pastime. What a jack off!
  • So his song was re-made without his approval or even his knowledge - this seems like a legit gripe? Or did the record company own the song outright?
    nothing's changed but the surrounding bullsh1t
  • really? that's a shame. i think vedder's version is much better than peterson's by tenfold. i think peterson is just a gold digging piece of shit trying to get money he doesn't deserve. :evil: it's not like ed took credit for the song.. he did give credit where credit was due.. and if it weren't for vedder, no one would really give two shits about the song.

    seriously, this world is out of control!

    vedder- you're amazing. way to make a so-so song fucking rock.
  • justamjustam Posts: 21,306
    Hm... so he's being sued because he changed less than ten words (Oh, "Boo hoo") and because he had a bigger success with the song?

    Didn't the guy who wrote the song get paid for the song in some way? It kind of sounds like he just wants more money. :?
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • tacettacet Posts: 323
    it was a big hit up here when it came out - and I do like the original

    what an ass hat - the guy vanished after Indio - maybe he didn't like the attention?

    personally neither version of the lyrics of that song had foundation enough to be eroded - if anything it was resurrected

    shame

    the whole thing has to be like a flea on a hairy ass
    we're all sentient snowflakes
  • vedderfan10vedderfan10 Posts: 2,497
    he says it degraded the integrity of the song. Be honest, did anyone hear this Gordon Peterson version before Into the Wild came out? My guess is no. I didn't. Eddie's version was played on radio stations and if anything brought royalties to Gordon Peterson. He should be happy. I don't think this lawsuit will go very far. I bet Eddie can afford better lawyers.

    Sorry everyone - this was a number one song in Canada in 1989/early 1990 and it was very very heavily played on pretty much every radio station and the video (credited to Indio, which included Joni Mitchell) was played in very heavy rotation on Muchmusic. Just because Americans didn't hear it before Ed did it does not mean it did not exist.

    And Ed changed the lyrics quite significantly. I love this song to death and it was/is very special to me back in the day, Ed's changes were really obvious.

    Original, "Burned down and threw away the hours..."
    Ed, "Bound down and threw away the hours..."

    Original, "When I stayed to pillage her..."
    Ed, "When I see her bitter/pin her charms..."

    I understood that Gordon Peterson could not be found to ask if the lyrics could be changed. He's quite the recluse apparently.

    I believe the song is about the planet, so the original words make the most sense...

    So, Ed's not perfect. Big deal. But he shouldn't have changed the lyrics without permission. He'd probably freak if someone asked to use Black, and he said sure, and then the lyrics were changed. I would imagine anyone would. Do you mind if you I use the personal song most associated with you and defines you? Would it bug you if I made it better, because I think some things in Black don't make sense? Great! Thanks!
    be philanthropic
Sign In or Register to comment.