Mighty Red Pen

December 31, 2008

Godforsaken lyrics

Filed under: Pop culture,Word wars — mighty red pen @ 2:31 pm

Sometimes, a thing just gets under MRP’s skin. In this case, it’s Jason Mraz’s song, “I’m Yours”:

Well open up your mind and see like me
open up your plans and damn you’re free
look into your heart and you’ll find love love love
Listen to the music of the moment people dance and sing
We’re just one big family
It’s your godforsaken right to be loved loved loved loved loved

It’s our godforsaken right to be loved? This is a word that means, according to Merriam Webster, “remote, desolate; neglected and miserable in appearance or circumstances.” Why not God-given, which means, according to Webster’s, “natural, ordained, possessed without question”? One normally speaks of “God-given rights.”

I don’t really know what Mraz intends here, maybe he really means godforsaken. It is, after all, his God-given right to put what ever he wants in his song, but for God’s sake, I would have put a little more thought into that.

About these ads

48 Comments »

  1. This is especially odd if one takes the theological view that God is love!

    Comment by Eric P. — December 31, 2008 @ 3:14 pm | Reply

  2. Maybe he intends it more as neglected, forlorn, etc., meaning the person he is singing to hasn’t used that right? I know, not the best word choice but neither is “bestest.” In general, it’s a good idea not to think too much about popular song lyrics.

    Comment by Ian Clifton — December 31, 2008 @ 3:41 pm | Reply

  3. I wholeheartedly agree with you, MRP! In fact, I was scolding my car radio about this very topic about three or four days ago. It’s sometimes understandable when song writers bend grammar to make a word rhyme or a line fit in the beat, but “God-given” would fit just fine and make way more sense.

    k-bro

    Comment by k-bro — December 31, 2008 @ 7:56 pm | Reply

  4. I think this may just be a case of an honest mistake. I’m a writing major in my first year of college and I consider myself fairly well read and yet, up until now, I held the belief that godforsaken and god-given meant generally the same thing – that’s just the way that word has been used in my presence up until now.

    Its still one of my favorite new songs although, I am slightly bothered by the mistake now that I’m aware of it…

    Comment by J — December 31, 2008 @ 9:12 pm | Reply

  5. Not knowing anything about the song, I could certainly see an artistic use for the phrase to imply a cynical tone…

    But from that little snippet it doesn’t seem like that’s the case here.

    Comment by Asmor — January 1, 2009 @ 3:42 am | Reply

  6. I think he may have meant something along the lines of ‘goddamn’ – after all, being foresaken by God and damned by God are similar (I would imagine).

    Comment by JD — January 1, 2009 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  7. I am very inclined to think that he used exactly the word that he meant to use because he’s very picky/specific with his words. So then what this says is really up to interpretation.

    Comment by Sarah — January 4, 2009 @ 4:21 am | Reply

  8. Sarah, doesn’t godforsaken rather undercut the remainder of the message of the lyrics? I mean, presumably, something that would cause God to abandon you is bad and not at all desirable. I could understand the use of the word if, say, this were your typical country and western song in which love has lead to the loss of your woman, your truck, and the best hunting dog you ever had. But in this case, it appears that love is intended to be presented as a positive force and a thing to which we all have a natural (or god-given) right. No?

    Think of it this way… Would you turn to the person you must love and tell them that having them in your life was a “god-forsaken” opportunity?

    Comment by David — January 5, 2009 @ 11:18 am | Reply

  9. I think Mraz used godforsaken for a reason. I agree with Sarah,he is picky about which words he uses in his songs (if you look at the rest of the album you will see other “oddities” in his wording).

    I’ve always been curious about his ise of that particular word so I googled the meaning of the song, but found nothing enlightening regarding that particular verse. The meaning behind the song appears to be that he is head-over-heels for a girl and going with that tone “it’s our godforsaken right to be loved loved loved loved.” could refer to the fact that he loves her, but she doesn’t love him therefore it’s a miserable situation for him ie. godforsaken.

    Comment by lulu — January 11, 2009 @ 3:22 am | Reply

  10. use not ise

    Comment by lulu — January 11, 2009 @ 3:23 am | Reply

  11. Thanks for writing about this; I’m glad to know I’m not the only one bugged by it. It may very well be that Mr. Mraz knew exactly what the word means and chose it deliberately. On the other hand, anyone can have a misunderstood word. After all, the late, great Dan Fogelberg wrote, “I am a living legacy to the leader of the band.”

    By the way, is it just me, or does Jason Mraz sound an awful lot like Paul Simon?

    Comment by Darguz Parsilvan — January 14, 2009 @ 6:54 am | Reply

  12. Okay…so here it gets trickier…in his accoustic version of the song on the album, he specifically changes the lyric to “god-intended,” which indeed it is, our god-intended right to be loved. As stated above, God is love. Anyway, this has been irking me terribly as I happen to be a BIG Jason Mraz fan and believe he is meticulously in his writing and choosing his lyrics. I have been consumed by this thought at least once a week for the past six months or so I have owned the new album. Which led me to post my though aloud here to this sight because I have not been able to find very many others that are contemplating the same. Anyway..random here I am sure, just needed to put it out there. godforsaken is terribly contradicting to god-intended.

    Comment by BP — January 15, 2009 @ 12:18 pm | Reply

  13. ps sorry for the typos..

    Comment by BP — January 15, 2009 @ 12:20 pm | Reply

  14. In other words:”God has forsaken your right to be loved”.

    Well I don’t know if we have the right, per se, to be loved. But I think God certainly loves us and wants us to love one another.

    I think it’s a terrible lyric, because it implies that God doesn’t care about whether one is loved.

    He may as well sing: God hates you.

    What rubbish!

    Comment by J — January 18, 2009 @ 1:46 am | Reply

  15. I do not think he is referring to God actually loving us when he says godforsaken. Besides saying ‘Godforsaken right to be loved’ means ‘God hates us’ is a contradiction. Besides when he sings godforsaken there is no capital G,it’s gods, plural. He is basically saying that sometimes our right to love and be loved is a horrible thing because it can make us feel completely wretched if the person we love doesn’t love us back.

    I don’t think Maz meant it in a religious manner because there is no other religious reference in the song and besides,as far as I know Mraz is religious himself so why would he say something against God?

    The song is called ‘I’m Yours’ not “God Hates Us” or some such name. It’s about loving a girl who doesn’t love him,not religion.

    Comment by lulu — January 20, 2009 @ 1:42 pm | Reply

  16. maybe Jason Mraz changed the lyric in his acoustic version due to complaints he got from religious people.
    Maybe he realised he had made a mistake.
    Maybe it’s some inside joke.
    Maybe he’s doing it to screw with our minds.
    Only he knows,we can only speculate…

    Comment by lulu — January 20, 2009 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  17. we’ll i’m glad to have found this site were i am not alone, I was so bothered with that line “god forsaken right to be love, love, love”. what does he mean by that?

    your explanations, comments are indeed very helpful to me.

    I love the song and whenever i listen to it i just change the line to “it’s ur right to be love, love, love…”

    Comment by marie — January 22, 2009 @ 3:27 am | Reply

  18. Another interesting thing is that Mraz changed the lyrics to “God intended” for his performance of the song last night on SNL. Why did he do this? Anyone know what the reason is for the dichotomy between the lyrics?

    Comment by Andrew Holland — February 1, 2009 @ 4:21 pm | Reply

  19. Thank God I’m not the only person this is bugging. It just does not make sense to use the phrase “god-forsaken right”. How can a “right” be “god-forsaken” ? “God-forsaken” means that God has abandoned it; usually used with respect to places (God-forsaken deserts, wastelands, etc). If God had forsaken a “right”, it wouldn’t really be a “right”, would it.

    I think it’s like Alanis Morrisette writing about irony when almost none of the scenarios she uses are actually ironic. Some musicians just need some editing before they release their songs. Just because you’re a good musician, doesn’t mean you’re a good writer.

    Comment by cat — February 6, 2009 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  20. The lyric bugged me too. A “right” can be denied, but it’s pretty bitter sounding to say that God denied it. I think Mraz changed the lyric on SNL because the original wasn’t what he meant. I wish I could have a copy with the update.

    Comment by Mary Cole — February 9, 2009 @ 9:42 am | Reply

  21. First off, I love this song; the rhythm, the tone, everything. It’s awesome.

    That being said, I was also bothered by the “God-forsaken right to be loved” line. Going with the whole “Age of Aquarius” tone of the song’s “all we need is love” mentality, I took this to be a subtle dig at those of us who believe that God has established certain bounds within which we are to experience love (i.e., monogamous marriage). I took it with a grain of salt, considering that 99.3% of pop music takes the same line of reason.

    However, I was also surprised when I went back and watched my recording of Mraz’s SNL performance and heard the lyric changed to “God-intended right.” Now I’m thinking that one of two things is true: a) Mraz truly didn’t intend any subtle slight against religious folks and wanted to remove the controversial line, or b) He DID intend the slight and wanted to irk a bit more by claiming that God was on the side of “free love,” setting His “followers” in opposition to Him.

    Whatever the case, I still like the song; I’ll take from it what I want to and leave the interpretations to others.

    Comment by Jamie — February 13, 2009 @ 11:05 am | Reply

  22. I love the song, but that particular line bugs the heck out of me. I am so glad I’m not alone. I wish he would explain it so that we could all just enjoy the song again without cringing every time I hear that line. I think he is saying that his love has forsaken her God given right to be loved and love. It makes sense sort of in a desperate kind of way. I would prefer to not speculate and actually know that is what he meant.

    Comment by Lindsey — February 15, 2009 @ 10:17 pm | Reply

  23. Interesting points in this discussion. This lyric has bothered me. The song is so positive, with its bouncy optimism and expansive message that seems to be in favor of letting go of all insecurities and loving openly and sincerely. It would really surprise me if Mraz would intentionally contaminate that message with the cynical use of “god-forsaken.”

    I don’t buy the logic that the prase indicates that person he is in love with has forsaken her god-given right to be loved. While this scenario might make sense within the narrative of the story, God has not done the forsaking in that case, so the lyric does not work as written to express that idea.

    The idea that he meant “God-damned” in order to add a frustrated emphasis to the lyric is an interesteing one. It seems the most plausible of the arguments for the lyric being intentional. Still, I see the tone of the whole song as being so sunny, it still doesn’t fit.

    I think that the gentleman who wondered whether the lyric was meant to be a sly jab in favor of love that comes in flavors that are not sanctioned by the Christian God, hense “god-forsaken,” can be reassured. That is a very nuanced read, but also too cyincal to fit the tone of the song. Still, what an interesting interpretation! I have noticed that most people who do not agree with conservative religious views but do have some idea about the existance of a God in their world view will simply use the word God to mean the God that they DO believe in. It seems much less likely someone would co-opt the word God thinking “conservative God,” to use it in a backhanded or critical way without really being clear that they do so on purpose. Plus, I’m not sure that the narrator in this song is headed out to propose marriage, but there is nothing in the song to contradict the possibility that he is looking for a comitted life long relationship before God.

    All this in conjunction with the way that God-intended was later substituted, leads me to believe that it was at least to some extent a mistake that was pointed out to the artist too late to make the original recording. I wish that songwriters would run their work by editors for grammar and correct usage at least. There are so many mistakes. One that always makes me cringe is Joan Osbourne’s “what if god was one of us.” How hard would it have been to just use the subjunctive? I would love for Mr. Parsilvan to explain the mis-usage he noticed in about the living legacy to the leader of the band. I don’t get that one, but it sounds interesting.

    To close on a different thread, I don’t think that Mraz sounds much like Paul Simon. I find Mraz’s songs to be really cloying after a while, but Simon I can listen to almost without limit. He also seems to be impecable in his lyrics, which are in my oppinion some of the best in the world.

    Comment by Kanaka — February 17, 2009 @ 3:13 am | Reply

  24. Perhaps Mr.Mraz simply is not a huge fan of god? he does make the comment in an earlier lyric in the song that nothing will stop him; “but divine intervention” that is (That brings up a bit of uncertainty eh? “lol”) … Draws to my mind a picture of a man in a clock tower swinging his rifle screaming “Only god could stop me now! Bwahahaaahahahahahahaha”…. perhaps matters of the divinity generally hold a more dark or evil connotation in this man’s convoluted mindset than that of your average English speaker? Though i would say it’s easier just to call this a lyrical solecism…. (and probably more accurate at that, he doesn’t really strike me as the blasphemous type, but who knows right?) (Great song by the way…)

    Comment by eh... — February 25, 2009 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

  25. He did indeed change the lyric to “God-intended right” as you can hear in his March 7 2009 concert here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lno_aaZ37dQ&feature=related , so I guess, as Kanaka states above, someone must have pointed out his malapropism to him, or perhaps he realised it himself. He must cringe every time hears his song on the radio. However, he’s done quite well out of it, hasn’t he?

    Comment by Stevie B — April 6, 2009 @ 1:59 am | Reply

    • Maybe he just doesn’t know English well and used the wrong words.??

      Comment by Brandi — October 9, 2009 @ 9:14 am | Reply

  26. Maybe the song was meant for gays. Christians state that gay love is a god forsaken love, a love without God’s approval. It would fit the context of our current societal heading: “Who cares what God thinks, we are going to do it anyways, even if it is a god forsaken thing to do”. That seems to be the approach of gays an society in general, if they give any credence to God at all.

    Comment by Wayne — April 30, 2009 @ 8:58 am | Reply

  27. I had no idea that the gays had so much pull with Mraz. But, then, we all know the gays run the entertainment business.

    Maybe the song was written for Christians who claim to hate the sin but love the sinner and then denigrate the humanity of others. That, from my reading of the New Testament, would appear to be a “godforsaken” kind of love.

    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:1-5

    I happen to be in a same-sex marriage (as opposed to an opposite marriage, I guess) that I consider to be entirely God blessed. I feel the love of my Creator each and every time the man I married and I touch. So, you know, the gays aren’t so godforsaken after all.

    Comment by David — April 30, 2009 @ 11:01 am | Reply

    • Actually, David, homosexuality is “god-forsaken” in the true sense of the word, meaning it is completely unacceptable to God. Don’t kid yourself.

      Comment by Brandi — October 9, 2009 @ 9:12 am | Reply

      • As I recall, the people for whom Jesus reserved the most scorn were those who thought their ceremonial purity entitled them to treat their neighbors poorly. He tended to call them vipers, hypocrites and serpents; rather harsh language by any standard.

        And with that, I withdraw from this conversation on the grounds that I enjoy Mighty Red Pen too much to have it ruined by an endless argument over something that has nothing to do with the blog’s purpose.

        Comment by David — October 9, 2009 @ 10:07 am

      • David,

        In your reply to Brandi you mention what Jesus said about the religious hypocrites; what in Brandi’s statement is not true or implies that she is stating that she is holier than you? Romans 1:25-27 reads, “[Those] who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”

        I am not judging you as that is reserved for God. But I wonder how do you reconcile your use of scripture with what is in Romans? I am not clear from your statement that you proclaim yourself as redeemed, but that does seem implied. Jesus certainly had strong language for the religious leaders who should have known better, but he also told people to go and sin no more.

        You are created in God’s image like the rest of us and you have worth, but if you are a brother, don’t I have an obligation to say something? And say I did not have my life in order before I tried to help you, does that mean your speck is justified or good to have?

        Comment by James — July 9, 2011 @ 9:31 am

      • @James,

        Thank you for the respectful tone of your reply and the obvious thought you have given to the question of how to love your brother while holding a position that condemns a central fact of their lives.

        You and I will simply have to agree to disagree on the question of the sinfulness of homosexuality. I know that I did not choose to be gay. I was born this way and there was certainly a time when I would have given a great deal to have been given an easier path with fewer bigots as obstacles. Now, however, I know as a matter of moral certainty that God created me in His image and that my sexual orientation is of no moral significance. What matters is how I treat other people and how I love and serve God — on that hangs all the law and the prophets.

        The passage from Romans that you quote is a product of the mind of a man trapped in a particular time. You and I may differ in our understanding of the means by which God inspired scripture and what that means. For me, it means that I have to come to scripture with an open heart and a critical mind, seeking to honestly learn and understand. But nothing says that I must put aside my intellect or cease to think in order to worship God.

        You are, of course, free to disagree. But what you are not free to do is to judge me or to limit or restrict my ability to live my life to the fullest. I am a son of God as surely as you are. And if we are to live a life worthy of our Creator, I would argue that instead of trying to tell me where in my life I have gone wrong, it would be more useful and more Christian to express your support for me, your desire for my happiness and to pray for me.

        I shall certainly pray for you.

        And, again, I’m withdrawing from this conversation. MRP is a grammar blog not a gay rights or Christian exegesis blog. We have abused the hospitality of Mrs. MRP sufficiently and I would ask her forgiveness for the intrusion.

        Comment by David — July 9, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

  28. This is what I think. Mraz is saying that he met someone special, things went too far between them, and now he’s crazy about her. Originally, his conscious was telling him to stop and maybe both of them come from a Christian circle.

    He chooses to abandon his prior beliefs to pursue her, and in this song he’s trying to persuade her. “I guess what I’d be saying is there is no better reason to rid yourself of vanities and go with the season”. Vanities and Seasons (time) are two big themes in the book of Ecclesiasites. So Mraz is twisting these themes so he can persuade her. He’s telling her to give in and go with the flow. So when he says godforsaken it is intentional; the love he’s trying to purse is “godforsaken” because it violates the religious convictions that he might have been taught growing up.

    Let me know what you think.

    Comment by Nick — July 5, 2009 @ 12:39 am | Reply

    • Wow Nick, I just read your post after I already posted one comment.. I think you’re right! Smart guy!

      Comment by Sara — October 9, 2009 @ 9:11 am | Reply

  29. Lol. It bugged me too. I had no idea other people felt this way about it too. Good to know some people still care about God and what’s right and wrong. Anyway about the lyrics, it didn’t make too much sense to me but in trying to figure it out, I thought he meant that being loved or loving someone is an awful thing, that God doesn’t like when we get hurt by someone that was supposed to love us. I don’t know why, but that’s the conclusion I automatically came to when I heard his song for the first couple times. I did not think that he was opposed to God or that he wanted to speak against God because his song shows he believes in God and has good feelings towards him. He says “nothing’s gonna stop me but Divine intervention”… indicating that he has a wholesome fear of God knowing that the only thing that can really stop something from happening that we have no control over is God.

    Comment by Sara — October 9, 2009 @ 9:10 am | Reply

  30. Wow, lots of not-so-smart people on here. It’s clear he didn’t know the meaning of god-forsaken, thinking it meant god-given. LOL @ all the searches for deeper meaning he may have intended. Listen to the song, people– it’s fluff.

    Comment by Bob — November 20, 2009 @ 4:15 am | Reply

    • yes i think he made a complete mistake this song is too gushy lovey to be anything more then a choice of bad words….. Im a Christian btw and I loveeee this song!

      Comment by Ellie Fernandez MIA — November 15, 2011 @ 9:25 am | Reply

  31. The discussion is inspiring. This line caught my ear, and what bothers me, whether God forsaken or God intended (a complete discussion), was “right”. (I can’t hear lower case or upper case letters, can you? I hear what I hear.) Our rights. Everything we are and have is a gift from God; the pride of man comes up with rights. In relation to each other, yes we have rights. But in the awesomeness of God Almighty, we may stamp our feet and find he loves us anyway. But is that what God wants to see in us? A fine line between rights and humbleness. It is a God intended gift.

    Comment by Beverly — December 30, 2009 @ 11:07 pm | Reply

  32. God damned. let’s clean that up a little hmmm. God forsaken,.. nice, what?, it still bothers you? ok, God intended, there… whew.
    It’s your god damned right to be wrong wrong wrong wrong wroooong.
    More important and irksome is the line, “nibble in your ear” WTF!? I noticed he left this line out altogether on the Regis show.
    Too nasty for the daytime viewers I guess.
    And what the hell was he doing bending over backwards trying to see his tongue in the mirror? I don’t do it that way.
    Or, rid yourself of vanities and just go with the seasons. This line I agree with, seasons don’t belong in a vanity, just leave them out on the counter, or spring for a nice rack, but maybe that’s a little to vain to display them like that. Still, better than a whole damned vanity….geesh.

    Comment by hulagan — January 23, 2010 @ 7:09 am | Reply

  33. This was an answer the songwriter posted in a twitter Q&A —

    A good question from Cocoa3C: Why did you decide to change your lyric “God Forsaken” to “God intended right?” Songs don’t have to be written in one sitting. I allow lyrics to evolve, or rather, reveal themselves naturally. The term “God Forsaken” is simply turning a phrase, but in fact the phrase means to withdraw or remove the right. A “God Intended right” is a more powerful suggestion implying that Love is meant for all by all and it gives us more of a lift when we shout it.

    Comment by Eric — March 16, 2010 @ 2:16 pm | Reply

  34. Yeah this has totally bugged me for a while. He may be saying that even if we’re forsaken by God, its still our right to be loved. But this bugs me because if we’re forsaken by God, we’re forsaken by love and that means that we can’t be loved. So he’s saying “its our ‘love withdrawn’ right to be loved.” If he’s referring to God as “the One of the highest authority,” that makes even less sense because He took it away from us so how in that case is it a right? Its just such a cumbersome usage of English and makes me think that he made a mistake; I guess we’ll never know.

    Comment by John — April 9, 2010 @ 2:03 pm | Reply

  35. It’s clearly a mistake. I have had bosses report that we will “be under the telescope” and demand “exemplerary” performances out of the workers. People misspeak all the time, peppering their spoken language with malapropisms. It’s usually a forgivable offense.

    I think that folks addressing how much care he puts into his lyrics need to look a little closer; Mraz often writes rhyming nonsense and puts it to a catchy tune. That doesn’t make him a bad songwriter, by the way. Just consider “Come Together” by The Beatles (and many others) to see that lyrics don’t necessarily have to make sense for a song to work well.

    What’s unfortunate is that Mraz’s mistake makes him look woefully ignorant. The meaning of “God forsaken” indeed seems to be the exact opposite of the intended meaning. Shame on his editors, publishers, producers, and record label who let this error slide, perhaps due to their own lack of confidence in correct phrasing or utter ignorance.

    Comment by Malford — April 26, 2010 @ 7:29 pm | Reply

  36. It’s no secret that Jason Mraz loves him some weed, so I’d take a lot of his lyrics with a grain of salt. Or a full bowl. Who knows, maybe the lyrics make perfect cosmic sense when you’re baked out of your mind. :)

    Comment by Melissa — December 28, 2010 @ 7:17 pm | Reply

  37. he clearly meant god given. godforsaken makes no sense, even ironically.

    and god, i hate this song. the lyric irritates me to no end.

    Comment by t — July 15, 2011 @ 9:01 am | Reply

  38. What he means is that God can give you the right person for you. He is not saying anything wrong, I am a Christian and a strong one at that and he did not say anything wrong, he just ment that God won’t give us something bad if it is through love, when he says God forsaken right to be loved is that God gives us love in his own way not the way we want it to be. P.S. This song motivates people a lot, don’t try to ruin it.

    Comment by Christian Torres — September 30, 2011 @ 9:26 am | Reply

  39. That part of the song has always bothered me, and it was to my delight when I was listening to a live performance of Jason Mraz that instead of saying “God-forsaken” he said “God-given” or “God intended”. That was a pleasant surprise! :)

    Comment by Karyn — June 25, 2013 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

  40. As some imply, it’s not a mistake at all. That it bothers any of you, well, that is unfortunate. Why take the lyrics of a song so seriously? And why listen to it at all if you don’t like the lyrics, or disagree with the use of a single word?

    In Mraz’s own words “I would also like to mention a lyric change. Shortly after recording I’m Yours, I changed ‘God forsaken right to be loved,’ to ‘God intended right to be loved.’ I’m not religious and nature alone is my guru, but I felt that the Universal Life Force that propels us, which many understand as their God, would not abandon us to give us a right to be loved. Instead, I feel love is what nature intended. At the time the lyric was conceived, I didn’t fully understand it. The song was written in a quick stream of consciousness after all. I was simply turning a phrase. And shortly thereafter I turned it into something else. I mention this amendment because I’d love to hear audiences sing the new lyric, as well as any new covers that may appear in the years to come.”

    It’s worth repeating this line: “The song was written in a quick stream of consciousness after all. I was simply turning a phrase.” That’s the way songwriters work. The songs evolve as they refine the lyrics until they’re satisfied with the results.

    Comment by jqp — January 4, 2014 @ 3:06 pm | Reply

    • Close minded religious people (open up your mind and see like me) would obviously be offended and he probably changed the lyric so he would stop getting hate mail and death threats ironically from christ loving christians. I like godforsaken as a the lyric in which to me meant it’s our right (something proper and good) to be loved even if we feel that right is godforsaken (neglected, wretched, remote, etc). Hence it’s our godforsaken right. (Look into your heart and you’ll find love…) Heart not equal to god.

      Comment by dr — January 8, 2014 @ 9:34 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: