I suggest you ...

How to name demo/early versions of songs named differently than the final versions?

Well, for example, Pink Floyd's "Atom Heart Mother". It was performed numerous times before the album's release, it was then named "The Amazing Pudding". Should we put "The Amazing Pudding" in the setlist or should it be "Atom Heart Mother"?

8 votes
Sign in
Sign in with: facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
gracz54 shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
Adminsetlist.fm (asdf, setlist.fm) responded  · 

if it’s the same song, it should be the same songname – with generally is how it’s named on the album. please read the comments in this thread for clarification


Sign in
Sign in with: facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I want to weigh in on early versions of songs that feature different lyrics. If the early lyrics significantly change the song, I think the early song name should be used with an @Info note that it eventually became another song. The example that made me look into this issue is Weezer's "Love Explosion" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cICeZGuxYJI), which was played at a show I attended as "Do You Want Me to Stay" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwJgfdgsVIA). In addition to minor lyrical variations, the fact that the refrain is "do you want me to stay" instead of "give me a kiss" makes these 2 different songs in my opinion. Would love to hear the admins' thoughts on this.

  • toofarnorth commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Adding another thought re: song name changes. The band/artist's wishes should be the final word if they or their management have preferences.

    Example: I post setlists for Grace Potter & the Nocturnals. One of their songs had a long live performance history before the final version appeared on their last album. A manager took the time to register and go through the setlists to make sure the right name (i.e. If I Was From Paris > Paris > Paris (Ooh La La) ) was used in the right time periods. Seems pretty obvious to me those should not be arbitrarily changed by anyone.

  • Philippe commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    If it was called "Amazing Pudding" before the album was released then that is what should appear on the setlist in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to give the title from the album if that title didn't even exist yet. Accuracy people. This is a setlist wiki after all.

  • Adminmsparer (Admin, setlist.fm) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    For me, leglessmoof's approach is the way to go. The only thing I'd like to add is that an @Info describing that the song's name was different back then would be appropriate.

    As for the lyrics or different arrangement: write it into an @Info or @With. Or what do the others think?

  • gracz54 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Actually, it's the other way around - "Atom Heart Mother" is the album name, but nevermind, thanks for your comment.
    What about a situation, where the early version is different in some ways (lyrics, arrangement, etc.) than the album version?

  • leglessmoof commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    My personal preference would be to call it the name as it appears on the album -- in this case "The Amazing Pudding".

    The one exception is if the early version continues to be played after the album version is released. For example, Metallica had an early song called "The Mechanix" which was co-written by Dave Mustaine. After Dave Mustaine was kicked out of the band, Metallica changed the lyrics and called the song "The Four Horsemen" which was released on their first album. However, Dave Mustaine went on to form the band Megadeth and they still perform the original version of "The Mechanix" to this day. So in this case, when I added all of the early Metallica setlists I left the song as "The Mechanix" instead of changing it to "The Four Horsemen".

Feedback and Knowledge Base