I am not a songwriter, but I am a writer. And I have to disagree with Harvey a little bit when he wrote:

"An editor is an editor a writer is a writer. final say should always be with the writer in my opinion."

Okay, so I can't disagree that it is his opinion *G*, but my opinion differs. ;-) And I acknowledge that the rules are probably different for prose and song lyrics (which have even tighter requirements than poetry).

The editor of a magazine (or audio anthology, as in Ian B's case) is like the captain of a ship, and the writers are like the crew -- able-bodied seamen, all! (Yo-ho-ho, and an inkjet cartridge!). The ship won't go anywhere without their efforts and toil, but the final say is with the editor/captain. The magazine, anthology, concert performance, whatever, is the editor's and/or publisher's responsibility (Often different people in large-ish publications, and the same person in smaller ones). It is the editor/publisher who decides on the "message" of the publication: its goals, audience, and the overall tone or voice. It is the writer's responsibility to meet the editor's needs (which is why it is vitally important for an editor to make those needs clear, including length, tone, clarity, etc.).

I've had some of my work cut for length, and also returned to me because it was unsuitable in tone. In the latter case, I have rewritten parts of it and/or submitted something totally different. Or, sometimes, if I felt really strongly that the work should not be tampered with, I've withdrawn it completely to submit it to another publication for which it was suitable. But I have always tried to be gracious about the editor's right to make those decisions. Anything less would be unprofessional, In My Not So Humble Opinion.

If this unnamed slightly-famous writer gave his permission beforehand (and I'm assuming Ian B acquired this permission, for legal copyright reasons) for his story to be included, he should have realized that he was also giving permission for an editor to edit (after all, I'm assuming he became slightly famous through being published, and working with editors in the past -- unless he is self-published [possible red flag, there]), especially if the piece is being done in a new medium. What is suitable for the page is not always suitable for the ear or voice (though it should be, again, in my not so humble opinion).

Of course, the writer has a right to voice his disagreement with an editor's choices, but to be, as Ian B put it: "sulphurous" is just plain diva-ish. And if you have a diva streak in you, you have to either tame it before putting words to paper, or stop being a writer.