nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (10/30/85)
> From: soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Peterson) > I found *Hounds of Love* to be "interesting" and, in fact, quite > listenable, despite the fact that the lyrics ranged, for the most > part, from obscure to pretentious--really, people, if you can't say it > comprehensibly, why say it at all, especially since in KB's case she > is trying to say *something*.... Really? I've always thought if you can't say it cryptically, why say it all? I mean if the concept you are trying to get across is so simple and easy to understand that you can put it in a couple paragraphs of lyrics and anyone could understand it without thinking about it, then it doesn't seem to me like the concept's worth saying. Also, lyrics that are cryptic stand up much better on repeated listening. Everytime you hear the song, you might understand the song in a somewhat different way. Everytime something new might be revealed. In any case, I don't have a whole lot of problems with understanding KB's lyrics, though I certainly can't claim to understand everything about them. I think her lyrics are the definition of perfection. If it really bothers you that you can't figure some of them out, I can send you Kate's official explanations. "Danced with ghosts of Genet" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (11/02/85)
In article <250@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >Really? I've always thought if you can't say it cryptically, why say it >all? I mean if the concept you are trying to get across is so simple ... > >... I don't have a whole lot of problems with understanding >KB's lyrics, though I certainly can't claim to understand everything >about them. I think her lyrics are the definition of perfection. >... I can send you Kate's official explanations. So, what you're saying, Doug, is that Kate's lyrics are so perfect that she has to provide a separate explanation so you can understand just what the fuck she was trying to say? Funny, I always thought that the purpose of trying to get a message across to someone was actually getting the message across ... John (Now Elvis Costello, there's a man who's lyrics are perfect ... :-) :-) :-) )
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/05/85)
> >Really? I've always thought if you can't say it cryptically, why say it > >all? I mean if the concept you are trying to get across is so simple ... > > > >... I don't have a whole lot of problems with understanding > >KB's lyrics, though I certainly can't claim to understand everything > >about them. I think her lyrics are the definition of perfection... > ... > So, what you're saying, Doug, is that Kate's lyrics are so perfect that > she has to provide a separate explanation so you can understand just what > the fuck she was trying to say? > > Funny, I always thought that the purpose of trying to get a message across > to someone was actually getting the message across ... Cf. opera--even if you happen to know the language (usually Italian or German) the words may be sufficiently hard to understand and/or the presentation sufficiently sketchy that you MUST have an explanation beforehand to make any sense of it. With the libretto, opera has institutionalized the incomprehensibility of the performance per se. The art (if any) in different sorts of music is formed in different ways. You may get a piece of music in which the lyrics are trivial and the melody is the "artistic statement" (sorry about that term). Or there might be very intricate, subtle lyrics (possibly having multiple meanings, allegorical, or whatever to make them worth hearing many times) combined intentionally with a simple melody which won't detract from the "message". Beware of getting carried away with interpretations; some seemingly subtle songs with complex lyrics are nothing but the equivalent of an abstract painting--phrases tossed together for their effects as pieces but not of a whole. Sometimes artists manage to marry significant lyrical content and substantial music and it actually works. Other times these attempts end up with words and music fighting for your attention or otherwise being a pain in the ass to hear. Sometime the songs end up simplistic on both counts but they still have some redeeming value as dance music. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (11/05/85)
> From: jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) >>[Me:] ... I can send you Kate's official explanations. > So, what you're saying, Doug, is that Kate's lyrics are so perfect that > she has to provide a separate explanation so you can understand just what > the fuck she was trying to say? > Funny, I always thought that the purpose of trying to get a message across > to someone was actually getting the message across ... No, I'm not saying that at all. Since I came to my conclusions about what her lyrics mean long before she explained them, and they usually agree quite closely (often pefectly), this is proof (is it not?) that her lyrics, while cryptic, are certainly not indecipherable. With lyrics that are crytpic, one can say much more, and say that much more powerfully, than lyrics that are completely straight-forward. This is largely due to the phenomenon that ambiguity allows one with few words to conjure up many images at the same time. It just takes some thought on the listener's end too, but that's the point of saying something in a song, right? It's not to impart information, but to make the listener think about something. "In my dome of ivory, a home of activity" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)