there’s a long folk tradition of switching up stuff and then–voila!!–your name appears on it. look at bob dylan’s two acoustic albums from the early ’90’s. somehow he got writer credit on those. weird, huh? :) also, ‘blowin’ in the wind’ is actually based on (almost verbatim) another folk tune (the name is escaping me at the moment). the only differences betwen then and now are the instruments they use(d). one had a fountain pen and a guitar and the other just happens to have a laptop computer and a turntable. it’s tradition.

and i don’t think i’ve ever said what cash would like. i only said it’s POSSIBLE he could like such a thing. nobody knows. i doubt he would say to a musician ‘that’s shit, boy.’ he didn’t strike me as a crass kind of guy.

and don’t jab ice picks in your ear drums. we’re all friends here, i hope. just differences.

i’m not calling taylor swift ’shit’ or ‘disgusting’. i don’t like her music, but it’s disrespectful of the musicians and the hard work to use terms like that. so yeah, i guess there is a difference between saying i think it’s creative and saying it’s ’shit’. one is trying to be positive and charitable to a valiant effort and the other is…an epithet.

Cash may have altered his lyrics and chords over time, but were they not his lyrics and chords to alter?

I’ve seen no argument stating what makes the album so great, just laughable assumptions and speculation as to what Cash would think (which is pretty laughable itself in light of John Rich’s comments and Rosanne Cash’s response).

Proclaiming the CD “creative” and “pretty damn good” has no more reason or supporting facts behind it than calling the album “disgusting,” “offensive,” and “shit.”

Personally, the whole thing makes me want to repeatedly jab rusty ice picks through my ear drums.

By the way, mikeky, it’d be appreciated if you stuck to one name.

cash ‘reinvents’ quite a few songs in his career. changes a few chords. a lyric here and there. yes, folks, ‘folsom prison blues’ among them. and he WAS a genius, no doubt. no disrespect to cash intended. he remains one of the top five musicians in popular music EVER. but a techno musician with a copy of acidpro and a sampler does the same thing (changes a few lyrics, loops a few chords, raps some) and it’s clearly unacceptable.

It’s probably more along those lines. The “stones to remix” Cash’s stuff. For what it is, I don’t mind it. It’s actually creative. That doesn’t mean it’s culturally relevant.

i can only assume it’s either they a)hated the RENDITIONS contained on the cd OR b)hate the very idea that someone had the stones to remix such a revered figure’s body of work IN GENERAL. i have no idea which, because it was just declared ’shit’ and ‘disgusting’ and ‘offensive’ and left at that.

who knows?

of course, this cd has gotten more reaction that most nowadays. most music (especially country radio) elicits no response whatsoever. it’s not supposed to. talk to a radio programmer and see what they tell you. “might offend the advertisers, blah blah blah.” fill in the corporate blank. i guess i’d rather feel gut hatred or mental anguish over complete and utter ambivalence. in that sense, it’s a success. :)