Why the obsession with MEANING?

[Escuchame]

Why the need to figure out what EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN' SONG means.  It's not evennecessary.  Music wasn't meant to be scrutinized with a microscope or exegeted on.

It was meant to be listened to and enjoy.

Just something I thought of as I read Josh's comment about possibly doing an exegesis on Kid A.

Yeah, it might sound fun, but what if (hypothetically) Radiohead simply intended to make a kickass sounding record with electronic sounds thrown in in the mix.... What, the album's music can't stand on its own without having to be attached to an otherworldt

[Josh]

Because there IS a meaning. And the music is more rewarding when you know what it is.

 

[Emericana]

Is it always? Why? Why can't one just sit back and take in the music as an experience, not a philosophy test?

[bethany]

i don't think you always have to analyze the meaning of music (or other art for that mmatter, but i think music is the one you can make the best case for not analyzing). it's true that in one sense it's there just to be enjoyed and listened to. there's nothing wrong with that. but most art does have meaning. art isn't purely about entertainment - if it's good art, it involves spiritual and intellectual edification, and part of that process is thinking deeply about the art and "what it means."  

[Josh]

[Vlad!]

There are songs (like Evanescence's "Hello", U2's "Until the End of the World," or Jamie O'Neal's "Arizona") that simply don't make much sense if you don't know what they mean. You can still enjoy them, and perhaps even enjoy the lyrics, without knowing what the writer is trying to say or describe. But knowing the whole picture that the artist is trying to paint sometimes gives you new insights into what is going on behind the scenes. So maybe you don't need a critical interpretation to enjoy your tunes (and certainly not all songs even support such effort), but music is something that a lot of people get pretty obsessed with. Why not let them have their fun?

[Josh]

Listening just for fun is entertaining; listening with a critical mindset and then discussing the music is edifying. That's all I'm saying, really.

[murlough23]

While I'm sure that there are the occasional songs that don't mean anything ("Everything in Its Right Place" was comprised of lines randomly drawn from a hat, if my sources are correct), I figure it can't hurt to ask the question of what most songs mean and to take a stab at it. Sometimes the bands themselves even find such interpretations interesting, and some bands like to keep the meaning veiled because they prefer for people to get whatever they get out of it instead of forcing a clear meaning on the listener. But that's one of those "to each his own" type things. I like some straightforward lyrics, too - as long as they're not overly cliche.

If you don't like analyzing the meanings of songs, there's nothing wrong with that. But some of us were born to analyze, and we tend to bget insane amounts of enjoyment from music that makes us scratch our heads and go, "What the heck?"

[Harenil]

There are songs (like Evanescence's "Hello)

Thank you! Thats why i want it to be song of th week sometime in the coming weeks =)  

[bloop]

True, EIIRP was drawn out of a hat, but there's nothing that says that the lyrics to the song aren't interconnected in any way.  I kind of like reading other people's interpretation of lyrics, but I'm not so good at making the connections necessary to do a good job of that myself.  Like Andree, I find myself thinking of lyrics as completely secondary to the music.

[DvChWi]

I myself find music to be more important than lyrics, but lyrics are important to me still.  Why the obsession with meaning?  I don't know.  I always thought it was just a normal human urge to want to know what things meant.  I know I always do.

[Vlad!]

I myself find music to be more important than lyrics, but lyrics are important to me still.  Why the obsession with meaning?  I don't know.  I always thought it was just a normal human urge to want to know what things meant.  I know I always do.

True dat

[Escuchame]

This reminds me of...  I think bloop mentioned this a while back... that most Lips fans were going bezerk trying to decode the meaning behind "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, Pt. 1," where there's actually no secret meaning to it.  It's seriously a song about a young girl trying to overcome her disproportionately large robotic foes.

That works for me.  It's a fun, singalongy pop song.

Peace out,
Andree

[murlough23]

Sure, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I think in that case, the song does what it's supposed to - it sums up the theme of the album. I think for a lot of listeners the fight between Yoshimi and the robots may be allegorical to something... but it doesn't have to be.  

[bloop]

I'm not sure that I said specifically that the song isn't allegorical, but I did say that the Lips focus on making fun songs, lyrically, that are also very ambitious and "out there" in other ways, and I find I enjoy that just as much as deep poetry sometimes.  

I mean, "The Soft Bulletin" is a modern classic, but they still sing of putting the vegetables away after getting home from the market.  The songs are often emotional, but very easy to interpret, and often they are just fun.  It is the music itself that makes the album a classic.

[Escuchame]

I agree categorically.  An album never becomes a classic because of lyrics.  It's always the music that gives it such status.

Peace out,
Andree

[oneafroboy]

And I emphatically disagree.

Besides the fact that I am an aspiring writer (including writing lyrics) myself, and I find lyrics very important, I don't think it's *just* the music that makes pop music, anyway, classic. And when I say classic, I'm talking about U2 and Beatles level here.

The Beatles. In the beginning, there lyrics weren't "deep", nor do lyrics need to be deep to be good. And I would agree that in their earlier years, it was their music that made them so popular. But around 1966 and on, it was their lyrics that really hit home for all of the hippies and young revolutionaries in the 60s. Sgt. Pepper was largely a classic because of the words! "All You Need Is Love" which was  broadcasted to 13 million people worldwide--yes, the music's cool, but it's the words that made it an anthem for a baby boomer generation. "Revolution", the B-side of Hey Jude, which was actually number 2 in the charts while Hey Jude was king at number 1 for 9 weeks (nine weeks!!!), resonated with spirit that 1968. (Think about all the revolutions breaking out in the world in 1968. The French student rebellions, the one in California, the riots, etc.) "Let it Be"--great music, but the words ring as true now as they did in 1970. And these are just a few examples from arguably the greatest band of 20th century. And let's not even talk about all the controversy over the backward voices and the references to drug usage which got them banned from the BBC and spurned many to play their records backwards and stand on their heads. Obviously, if they had poor music, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere. But part of their prowess came from their words which were on the same frequency of the youth of the '60s and which continue to speak timeless truths of what it is to be human today.

PS: You all have no idea how much I enjoyed writing that. Anyone who says the Beatles had nothing to say obviously wasn't listening very closely.  =)

[Vlad!]

I certainly don't think that the lyrics must be understood for the music to be enjoyed, but why do you have a problem with people trying to find out the meanings behind the songs? Certainly not every song bears inspection, but many do. So my question to you is, why object to finding meaning in a song?

[oneafroboy]

I'm with Vlad!.

Who says that at least some music isn't *supposed to be* picked through for meaning?

Art has two purposes. Entertainment. Inspiration.

Obviously, no one is going to listen to "inspirational music" (by this I mean, music that spurns thought or creativity or something intellectual or heart-changing) if they don't find it entertaining.

*BUT* I think that music (and art in general) is more fulfilling if it not only entertains us but also causes us to think and says something that challenges us or says something about the truth of the universe, the truth of life, the truth that is God. I mean, yes, some music is just good for bumpin' and grooving too. But honestly, I like music that speaks to the whole of who I am. I want more than just dessert. I want something cooked by a premier chef--something that's good for me and tastes good too. Great art I think does both.

By looking for meaning in music, those of us who enjoy that (I'm not saying you *have* to do anything), we are fulfilling that part of us that likes to think and be challenged. That's just how we are wired. Most of us were probably just born to analyze everything including music. Thankfully, there are artists out there who are also wired this way, and so they make music that can be analyzed.

If you're asking why we just don't "enjoy" music according to your standards, I only have one answer for you:

Analyzing music entertains us.

 

[Josh]

First off, I would say that art and entertainment are two separate things; art can often be entertaining, but that is never its purpose. It's just a nice bonus.

Second... I think that lyrics can sometimes make an album a classic in the case of folk music and the like. Sensitive singer/songwriter types, you know.

And third... I think the Beatles would be just as popular and influencial if all their lyrics had been utter nonsense. Frankly, they just weren't great lyricists.

[bethany]

And third... I think the Beatles would be just as popular and influencial if all their lyrics had been utter nonsense. Frankly, they just weren't great lyricists.

whatever! c'mon, you're saying there isn't deep and profound meaning behind turns of phrase such as "toe jam football" and "plasticine porters with looking glass eyes"?

[Vlad!]

I am the walrus...goo goo ga choo

The best line, though, is "the girl with colitis goes by"

[DvChWi]

The best line, though, is "the girl with colitis goes by"

Gross!  I think thats actually " A girl with kalidescope eyes", but then, you probably knew that.  

[Vlad!]

Gross!  I think thats actually " A girl with kalidescope eyes"

Really? ;]

[bloop]

I am the walrus...goo goo ga choo

The best line, though, is "the girl with colitis goes by"

Well, when it comes to Beatles lyrics in question, I think many of their lyrics are pretty inscrutible as they were on LSD or whatever else at the time.  The point is, whatever the quality of their lyrics, the music is classic specifically because of the music - because there weren't many, perhaps not any, people producing records the way the Beatles were at the time.

One song in particular, though, "Tomorrow Never Knows", is taken directly from "The Book of the Dead".  I really don't think their lyrics should be judged next to U2 or whatever, though, as that's taking them out of their time and comparing them to someone with years of pop history behind them.  Even Bob Dylan is a difficult comparison being in their time as the focus of their music was very different.  If the Beatles aren't poetic lyricists, such as Dylan, then they are at least memorable lyricists, a skill in itself.

[oneafroboy]

I still disagree with you all.

I'm not saying all of their lyrics were deep. No. But lyrics don't have to be deep to be good. And, furthermore, they had some really good stuff that said a lot. I'll give you a list of songs:

In My Life
Let it Be
I Me Mine
Rain
Eleanor Rigby (poetic and meaningful--none of you cited this one--and it's one of their singles!)
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Happiness is a Warm Gun (what a statement, U2 in fact did a cover of this one, because of its anti-gun sentiments, much in the vein of Bullet the Blue Sky)
Piggies
Revolution
Nowhere Man
Strawberry Fields Forever (some really good lines in here)
All You Need is Love (not the "deepest lyrics", but it wasn't nonsense)
Within You Without You (actually off Sgt. Pepper)
A Day in the Life

There. And I didn't mention a single love song, because I'm sure you guys wouldn't think their lyrics in their love songs are good. But there you go. Yes, they had some nonsensical lyrics, but that's partly because they just wanted to have fun. They did not want ppl to always take them seriously. And I still disagree. The Beatles rang true with so many baby boomers because of their lyrics. "She's Leaving Home" was an anthem in 1967 for runaway teens. (Add that to the list--a good storytelling type song.) As I said before, with the whole "Make love not war" thing, "All You Need is Love" was perfect. To say the Beatles had nothing to say is a fallacy. I'm big on lyrics, and although they aren't U2 lyrics, they're not bad lyrics, and they're not all nonsense. And even on U2 level, I would argue Rich Mullins is a better lyricist (and the best in the 20th century, from what I've heard). That doesn't demean U2's stuff. Neither should U2's stuff demean the Beatles stuff.

Once again. I'm not saying music isn't important. But part of what made the Beatles memorable was their lyrics. Whether they were drug influenced or not (there actually aren't that many songs that were...they soon realized that they wrote crappy songs while on drugs). I think the music was a big factor. They were great songwriters. But lyrics carried the Beatles even further. And honestly, Eleanor Rigby just wouldn't be the same if it was about a walrus named Paul.

[bethany]

oneafroboy, i'm not denying the brilliance of the beatles nor the significance of their lyrics. i think they're fantastic, and i've grown up listening to them. nothing but love for john, paul, george, and ringo (and even pete) from my corner

[Josh]

Yes, Afro, those songs are meaningful... but that doesn't make them well-written.

[Harenil]

I am the walrus...goo goo ga choo

The best line, though, is "the girl with colitis goes by"

Well, when it comes to Beatles lyrics in question, I think many of their lyrics are pretty inscrutible as they were on LSD or whatever else at the time.  The point is, whatever the quality of their lyrics, the music is classic specifically because of the music - because there weren't many, perhaps not any, people producing records the way the Beatles were at the time.

One song in particular, though, "Tomorrow Never Knows", is taken directly from "The Book of the Dead".  I really don't think their lyrics should be judged next to U2 or whatever, though, as that's taking them out of their time and comparing them to someone with years of pop history behind them.  Even Bob Dylan is a difficult comparison being in their time as the focus of their music was very different.  If the Beatles aren't poetic lyricists, such as Dylan, then they are at least memorable lyricists, a skill in itself.

Is that the Egyption book of the dead or am I behind the times?

[murlough23]

I mean, "The Soft Bulletin" is a modern classic, but they still sing of putting the vegetables away after getting home from the market.  The songs are often emotional, but very easy to interpret, and often they are just fun.  It is the music itself that makes the album a classic.

The Lips have a knack for making seemingly insignificant moments matter in the scheme of eternity. Most other bands wouldn't be caught dead singing about scientists researching and folding shirts and getting a spiderbite, etc.

[bloop]

Yes, Afro, those songs are meaningful... but that doesn't make them well-written.

No, that some of them really are well-written makes them so.

Harenil, actually the song is based around the Tibetan "Book of the Dead" - Buddhist philosophy.

[oneafroboy]

I agree with bloop. There are several well-written Beatles song.

And not to continue the debate. I also think that he poignancy of U2 is attributed to their lyrics. Because the lyrics are an integral part of what they do, they definitely elevate the band's status. The reason I did not elaborate on them (even though I mentioned them) was because they are still around and I do not know if they are a "Classic" yet. I'm sure they will be though. Joshua Tree would not be Joshua Tree if the lyrics were nonsensical.

I'll just state it again. Music is probably a more important factor, but words help carry a band farther, I think.