Of course he's allowed to change it. Anyone can perform it anyway they want. I'm just saying it's not necessary IMO as it is a piece of art. I can also choose to dislike the change. If they go through plays that have offensive material and take it out for the sake of the current P.C. climate, it can completely change the point of a work.
Admittedly, the song is no where near as deep things found in other art forms. But for example, if the word "fuck" wasn't in the end of Catcher in the Rye on the wall, the end wouldn't have the same impact. I think the word "retarded" in that line completely captured where he was at that point, and most importantly the immaturity of the speaker (who is presumably Mark himself). This was a huge theme of the song. It's fine that older Mark wants to change it, but I can still not like it.
If they go through a play and change the meaning of the entire thing through changing stuff - we can discuss that. But that's not what happened, so comparing the two is irrelevant.
It's not necessarily a problem; moreso that he's in his 40s and can't sing like he did in his 20s. That's why Tom has always sung the chorus of Dammit (and I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it sounded bad when he sang it with +44, unless Craig or Shane sung it, I don't remember) and why, in my opinion, after Dude Ranch, his voice changed very much.
When "Dammit" was written, the chorus happened to be out of his range. I imagine he strained his voice quite a bit to sing it during recording. Even in 1997, Tom sang that part live.
i really dont get why they wont throw in one or two of these oldschool babies on a regular basis... maybe just rotate between 7 or 8 tracks... each night a different one... cheshire cat / dude ranch stuff or non-single stuff. just like apple shampoo, waggy, a new hope, does my breath smell, peggy sue, one good reason, anthem, ANYTHING!!!
Agreed This sounded amazing. I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing something like this. Especially with a crowd reaction like that.