"All Night Long Like He Used To"

So I was cruising around the Rolling Stone website this morning, and ran across this article. The first half of the article, about Clapton playing a benefit concert for tsunami relief, is great. He's one of the numerous musicians doing what he can to aid those who were hurt by that tragedy.

But it's the second half of the article, the part about the song "Tears in Heaven," that really upsets and annoys me.

For some reason, I hate it when bands or musicians take an existing song and rerecord it for a new purpose. To clarify--remember the Elton John song "Candle in the Wind"? Well, it's originally about Marilyn Monroe, and it's a touching song that humanizes the sex symbol. Well, when Princess Diana died, Elton rerecorded it, changing the words so that they applied to her instead. Sure, that's his right (it's his damn song, after all), but it rather cheapens the original intent of the song. Hell, when I was doing a crossword the other day, and the clue was that the word was the person the song "Candle in the Wind" was about, the answer wasn't Monroe (or even her earthly alter-ego, Norma Jean), it was "Diana." That annoyed me to no end.

Well, this is even worse. I understand that it's for a good cause (where the case with the Elton John song was questionable, I think. Okay, so a member--no, former member of the royal family, and then only by marriage--of the English royal family dies, it is a tragedy. Any death is. But it was a gaudy and crass way to cash in on the death of a well-loved public figure). I know that proceeds will go to disaster relief and whatnot. But "Tears in Heaven" was a song for Clapton's four year old son, for God's sake. It just...doesn't seem right, I guess. Something about this bugs me to the core. Redoing the song in this context seems to devalue the original subject, Clapton's son.

Ugh. Ignore me. I'm annoyed with the inanity of humanity at the moment.

~chuck

Song of the Moment: Eric Clapton, "Tears in Heaven"