Gordon Peterson, the man (not really all that) better-known as Indio, broke a twenty year silence worthy of Thomas Pynchon last month. Was it to record another album? Perhaps a single? Were we once again going to be lucky enough to hear that desperately honest voice produce music we don’t even hear in our dreams? No – the fucker came out of retirement to sue the one man responsible for awakening the world to the wonder that was the little-known 1989 album Big Harvest, which Peterson wrote and then recorded with a group of some ten other artists (including Joni Mitchell and her then-future husband.).
Recent Photo of Gordon Peterson, AKA Indio That’s right – Peterson broke self-imposed cover to kick a lawsuit into the face and eyes of Eddie Vedder, whose singular crime was to cover Hard Sun from Peterson’s album and sing some different lyrics. Wow, what did Vedder do, call him a “cunt” in the opening line?
Openly mock his family and religion? Perhaps he gave Peterson’scredit card details out in the chorus, as well as his mother’s maiden name in the middle 8. Maybe the bassline was actually morse code for Peterson’s home address. That’s if you CAN have an address for a camouflage netting-covered treehouse in the woods, of course. Surprisingly (or maybe unsurprisingly) it turns out to be none of those things (not EVEN a combination.) Vedder’s only crime was to change a few lines of one verse, and miss out another half-sized verse half-way through the song. For avoidance of doubt, here are the changes Vedder actually made in real life. You can hear and (that is until he sues Youtube for hosting his song FOR FREE presumably.) Hard Sun – Lyrics comparison – Bold indicates change, red is missed out.
Blue shows original lyrics. C’mon, Gordon Peterson made a mistake by filing this lawsuit, but he also must have felt betrayed by Universal Records and Eddie Vedder.
Imagine writing a song and focusing your artistic intent into every lyric only to see it compromised, however slightly, 2 decades later. If anyone remembers Hard Sun now, it will be with Eddie Vedder’s lyrics, NOT Gordon Peterson’s. Universal sold his song out when they gave it away to. I read in an interview from 1989 that Peterson saw Hard Sun as a metaphor for environmental exploitation. In that context, “pillage” is an appropriate description and he meant “her” to mean mother nature. When Eddie sings about “her inner charm” he misses the point of the original song.
Indio Big Harvest Rarity Chart
To conclude, I don’t think the lawsuit was an appropriate (or legally tenable) response, but I can imagine where an artist might feel compromised to see his work simultaneously altered and misinterpreted on a large scale. I’m also not quick to condemn Eddie Vedder, who singlehandedly revived Indio and Gordon Peterson’s career (and performed very well, no less). You dont change someones art without permission. Would you paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa? Would you change the lyrics to John Lennons Imagine or Bod Dylansblowing in the wind? Without asking??? The origninal lyrics are the original lyrics for a reason.
They represent the thoughts and meaning intended by the person who write it. Changing the lyric.changes the meaning of the song.
Lets say the originator of this Blog wrote something profuond and meaningfull. A personal materpiece lets say. Then some guy changes that masterpiece without permission. Get the point. Apparently, like most song writers, he was ticked off that no one asked permission.
Peterson was not asked because he was obscure a one hit wondera relative no-body. He should have contacted Vedders people for an apology Who knows maybe he tried to contact people and the only thing he could do to get their attention was to sue. Before you trash someones motivesand call him an ass you should maybe look deeper. “You dont change someones art without permission. Bottom line.” What garbage.
Ever heard of Disney? Disney borrowed and shamelessly rewrote The Tales of the Brothers Grimm without permission, or even PAYING anything (as it was out of copyright.) Peterson, the “indie-artist” was paid. Perhaps you’d also like to see the end of all unapprovaed parody, political satire, tribute songs, covers by independent artists and many works of drama too? All culture re-mixes other pre-existing work. The fact is, that Peterson got greedy.
Look at the terms of the suit. He wants every penny of the sales, plus “reparations” – this is not how an indie artist behaves, and Vedder should not have simply produced a carbon copy. That isn’t art, it’s song-xeroxing. Even though I despise the unapologetic sexist tone and way overdone sarcasm of your rant, I’m open-minded enough to actually read it, and recognize some validity in your argument (some because but Kim May’s points still stand). All of this really is a rotten dirty shame. Clearly, Indio is right upset for putting his heart and soul into his first ever album; coming out with a real wholesome gem like Hard Sun, getting meager airplay because A&M Records didn’t want to fully back some obscure Canadian (originally from Dundas, Ontario) who had, back then, transplanted himself in corporate showbiz L.A. Even though Big Harvest is, and always will be, an artistic success it was an utter commercial failure.
Being unable to cope with the latter issue is probably the core of why Gordon Peterson basically went into hiding for all those years. It’s adding insult to injury that Vedder, a monumental talent who I appreciate as much as I do Indio, did in fact generate renewed interest in both Hard Sun and Big Harvest in a way that Indio wasn’t able to do when he recorded the album. I don’t think it’s so much about greed, as it’s probably about the wounded pride of an artist who desperately wanted to be recognized in the way he thought he should have bee Without filing the lawsuit, would Peterson have gained enough of a cult following and support by today’s music producers to give him a new shot? Maybe but probably not. Seeing that Peterson did file the suit, allowing today’s producers to know who the original talent behind Hard Sun actually is, will anybody look past the suit and offer Indio a better deal than the one he received in the 80’s? I suspect the answer is definitely not. Business collided violently with art production; which doesn’t always have to be, and both parties made ethical errors in this but its Indio who will undoubtedly wind up with the worst end of the stick.
It really is too bad. By the way, I do remember the original version of the song and that album. I was kid when it came out. I was tremendously impressed with Hard Sun, and for many years wondered why nothing else came from Indio. No one seemed able to explain why, and as time marched on I did notice more and more people forgetting about Indio and that album. I didn’t learn the back-story until 4-5 years before Vedder did his cover of Hard Sun. At that time, I was looking for Big Harvest and that’s how I found out.
Come on people. People cover songs and change lyrics all the time when you cover a song you have to change it to go with your voice. Whether it be insignificant or a total re-mix. Vocally i could never sing sometihng by eddie vedder but his lyrics inspire me and i would love to pass that on by covering a pearl jam song. Songs written decades ago lose their meaning crossing the generational gap, if i was gordon i’d be glad someone came around and made it mean sometihng to someone again. I like the original, but it doesn’t mean anytihng to memaybe i’m just to young.
But what eddie did to the song made me feel, and isn’t that the goal of any lyricist? If anything gordon should be glad for the publicity and start making plans for a mini-tour cause now he’s got a oppertunity. Plus gordon should be greatful to have someone like eddie covering his song. In music now-a-days he’s one of the top artist, and with staying power through the decades. This is nothing short of just greed. As a lyricist someone offering you a opinion is telling you how the world views it, after-all, we are all part of the world, and everyone counts.
And you have to make sacrifices to be understood, you have to speak to your crowd and you rhave to speak their language. What you want is only a compromise. And gordon is a failure as a lyricist if he can not except why the changes were made. What has never been discussed is that Vedder and Universal Music never obtained a mechanical license to reproduce the song in the first place.
To do a cover version of a song you must apply for a license to do so from either the writer’s publishing company OR the writer himself — including lyric changes (Amy Grant had to get permission from Joni Mitchell to change the cost of putting a tree in a tree museum in her cover version). You cannot cover a Bruce Springsteen tune without negotiating terms and payment rates with his handlers: John Landau Entertainment (I know, cause I’ve tried). Though this isn’t illegal, it’s unethical. Peterson’s only recourse in putting Vedder and Co. In breach of copyrught was the lawsuit. Peterson left the music business because his songs were compromised even on the ‘Big Harvest’ album itself.
‘Hard Sun’ was the only song that made it onto that record without A & M’s interference (and even then, he had to fight them to have the song issued as a single to radio UNEDITED). Peterson’s not after glory or a record deal — he’s been out of the music business more than 20 years because of all the people that screwed him over the first time. This is about controling the art he DID make.
If you’re going to leave a legacy, make sure no one turns it into velvet paintings and cheap knock offs. Okay, you love Vedder. But jeez, man. This guy did something great 20 years before.
I know because I heard it and bought it when it came out. This notion that anyone that you don’t know about should just bend over and be happy when someone people do know about decides to appropriate something for their own benefit is bogus. Not trying to knock Vedder, but why not make sure that the original songwriter is cool with it and taken care of?
No skin off anyone’s back. Just because your limited scope tells you that somebody you’d never heard of before should be happy with any circumstance that makes you hear of them is bullshit. You are not the arbiter.
Actually I prefer Indio to Vedder; and HAD heard of him, as this pre-dating post will demonstrate: – albeit, I’ll hold my hands up – BECAUSE of Vedder. Let me make my position a little clearer. It would have been great to hear Peterson give it a proper come-back on the heels of Vedder introducing Indio’s music to another generation. Maybe some MORE GOOD MUSIC to write or perform. Instead we just have another lawsuit, and the world slides into more stress and debt-fuelled crap with no “product” actually being made in the process. Well that is of course a well thought out and concise opinion there.
Some points of simple disagreement then: 1) Culture evolves. Whether you like it or not. Remember the Chapman brothers drawing all over original Goya etchings? Ironic that you should be so wedded to the word “pillage” when it’s indeed acts of pillage which develop art and culture.
I have made this point ad nauseam in the previous replies to equally insulting comments by other strangers. A cover doesn’t have to be exactly the same. If it were, how would it be a cover? It would be the original. New inflections, new voices, mate some songs even miss WHOLE VERSES from their covers. How’s that for editing? Take Faith No More’s cover of Easy by Lionel Ritchie.
It’s in my opinion a better version. And it’s missing two thirds of the lyrics. Should Ritchie sue FNM? 2) The content of the film is not Vedder’s choice.
Nor should the film necessarily reflect poorly on the song. I don’t really see what your point is. So – you didn’t really add anything new, and it’s the usual ad hominem culture-phobic silliness from you. There are better points to be made against my argument or opinion.
You made none of them. You keep focusing on how few words Vedder changed. Let’s take your editorial and we’re going to change far less words than Vedder did. We’re simply going to take your last word of the piece “Twat” and relplace it with “Bravo!”. Now what’s the harm? To use your logic, it’s just one word right?
99.9% of the words are same. So surely that can’t change the theme, intent, or impact right? You didn’t choose that word for any partiular reason right? Oh wait, it changes everything; Because you purposely chose “twat”, both to sum up your opinion of Pryerson’s suit and to try to be cheeky. Even though I don’t share your opinion, I recignize your right, as the author, to choose words for certain reasons to make certain points.
In the case of the song, my making it more literally about a woman and less about nature, it lessens the underlying point Petetson was making and softens a generally strong term relating to man’s relationship to Earth and nature. Why that’s ironic in a soundtrack for Into the Wild, should be evident. I’m not trying to be a troll, I respect your opinion. I just was trying to point out a likely motivation of Peterson, based on my understanding of the song, the suit, and his choices to abandon music shortly after the disappointing sales and label support of the Big Harvest album.
From what I’ve read, he supposedly a generally sensitive and thoughtful guy, who probably didn’t like the way the changes affected his song. It probabl ly had nothing to do with him resenting Vedder or not appreciating the new exposure. He wouldn’t have disappeared for 20 years if he cared about that. That’s all I was trying to say and I should have approached it better than getting MY own inner “Twat” on.
Also, your Chapman Bros point. That’s a great example of artists taking someone’s original art and making something completely different with it. You can’t honestly think Vedder was creating a new piece of art in this situation?
He chose the words for one of two reason’s; he either completely missed the point of the song (unlikely) or the lable said, “ umm, don’t like the word ‘pillage’ it’s a little rape-y”. I’d respect the choice from ignorance over censorship any day. The more you’ve made me think about it, maybe suing was the wrong reaction, but if we’re talking motivation, I think it may have been more nobly motivated than being a “Twat”. In the case of Goya? What if it’d been a contemporary who altered his work and they wanted to fight about it? I think part of art is the freedom to fight about it.
So maybe not in court or in a way that could have limited free speech. So I disagree with Peterson, but artistically, Vedder wasn’t being as creative or smart as the Chapman chaps. He wasn’t creating something new or saying something different. If he liked the song enough to cover it and make it sound the same, then he should have either kept the lyrics or at least put a new spin in there somewhere. So now I agree that he shouldn’t suffer legally, but he should suffer culturally for making a lesser song.
By the way, forget the lyrics, you really don’t like the drums and overall sound and effect of the Indio version better? Ronin, those two answers were fantastic.
This post is now six years old and I have finally found someone who had several worthwhile and interesting things to say. I flat out love Big Harvest.
Particularly the percussion and drumming is outstanding and stays interesting on repeat listenings. I listen to it most months. Elsewhere on this blog it features in a very small and slight list of One Album Wonders. Vedder actually put me on to it in the first place via his cover and so I owe him a debt on that front. I guess that’s why it seemed so utterly churlish that these gents should get embroiled in a legal battle.
How destructive for both of them. Especially Peterson.
But perhaps he couldn’t avoid it emotionally. I never found out how the suit ended. I sort of wish they high fived and said “brewskis?” It does occur to me now that if Goya had been alive to see the Chapmans draw clown faces on his work he may well have been rather put out. Legal action seems low down on the list of likely behaviours.
He’d have probably burned down their studio. Change is change.
Doesn’t matter if it’s 5 words or a whole new set of verses. If vedder asked permission to cover it, and was granted, then Petersen shouldn’t be too upset. If the deal was to be true and honor the original, then perhaps Vedder shouldn’t have changed anything before at least making the plan known to Petersen. It’s not Vedder’s song, so he’ll have a hard time fighting the lawsuit.
Maybe artists should stop covering others’ music in the first place. Lenny Kravitz absolutely murdered the Guess Who. And Feist probably assumes nobody remembers the Bee Gees. The worst part is, the majority of young music fans probably think these rehashes are all original compositions anyway. The world really is ending.