
Jack Russell
I smell home cookin!
You know, I keep nodding my head and saying, yes, yes, you are all correct: the lyrics have to be explicit in meaning, and poetry can be ambiguous. But, geeze, we are in the year 2004 folks, and pop, rock, rock and roll, prog rock, jazz, country, all of it has been around for more than half a century. There is such a deep and varied warehouse of musical history to refer to. We aren't just automatons with no brains and no memory, plugged into iPODs. [Although, that might apply to certain cretins who live out in the hills and listen to Country with a capital "C". hahahaha...]
And there are so many exceptions to this rule as to make me hesitant to completely buy into it. If there was no huge backgound of history of music and tradition in society's psyche and if any of the forms above had just begun this year, then I'd agree with the premise. But clearly, you can't just discount all the exceptions.
Would Jimmy Web have ever succeded with "MacArthur Park"?
Would Page/Plant have had the huge success with "Stairway to Heaven"?
Would Jon Anderson's oddball and impossible to interpret poetry have resulted in the huge success of Yes over several decades, beginning with the obtuse "Roundabout"?
Would an album inexplicably about the dark side of the moon become perhaps the most brilliant and commercially successful concept album/CD of the last 30 years?
And how about the success of the whole rapper genre (and all their massive cribs!)--a new form of music based, geuss what, on poetry first!
I could go on and on. No, I really do question the premise. Although, in country I'd say it does seem to apply.
One could also say that a poem is read once or twice then it is ignored. You interpret it, reach an understanding, and then put in on the shelf. You might talk about it, or say you've read it, but you'll probably never read it again. A song will be replayed a 1000 times, if you like it. So, the endless repetition lends itself to deeper possible meanings and interpretations. Lots of great songs mean different things to different listeners.
And there are so many exceptions to this rule as to make me hesitant to completely buy into it. If there was no huge backgound of history of music and tradition in society's psyche and if any of the forms above had just begun this year, then I'd agree with the premise. But clearly, you can't just discount all the exceptions.
Would Jimmy Web have ever succeded with "MacArthur Park"?
Would Page/Plant have had the huge success with "Stairway to Heaven"?
Would Jon Anderson's oddball and impossible to interpret poetry have resulted in the huge success of Yes over several decades, beginning with the obtuse "Roundabout"?
Would an album inexplicably about the dark side of the moon become perhaps the most brilliant and commercially successful concept album/CD of the last 30 years?
And how about the success of the whole rapper genre (and all their massive cribs!)--a new form of music based, geuss what, on poetry first!
I could go on and on. No, I really do question the premise. Although, in country I'd say it does seem to apply.
One could also say that a poem is read once or twice then it is ignored. You interpret it, reach an understanding, and then put in on the shelf. You might talk about it, or say you've read it, but you'll probably never read it again. A song will be replayed a 1000 times, if you like it. So, the endless repetition lends itself to deeper possible meanings and interpretations. Lots of great songs mean different things to different listeners.