not logged in
| re: Original Sin and Captian Hooky Poo | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 01:41 am UTC 06/07/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Original Sin and Captian Hooky Poo - Willis 09:31 pm UTC 06/06/07 |
> I know of a few songwriters that wont even tell you what > their songs are about (Glen Phillips comes to mind) He'll > just ask what you think it's about and then say "that > sounds good" with a smile. I grew up in an audience world where artists publicly held positions that the songs were about what the audience though t of them, and then there were songs that had political messages to them. If a song is written to have a meaning that transcends the "art", then a writer wants to help the audience know what it means. If the message is humanitarian, or political, or about the artists' life lessons, sometimes the art is a form of communication, and in those cases, the artist would share in some ways, the stories of the songs. When an artist does not, it is probably because of one of a myriad of factors. One possibility for those stances would be that the artist does not want to share any particular message or life lesson, or have a larger meaning of artistic expression in mind, and just wanted to write the song. Another reason could be that the artist is hiding the fact that he didn't really write the song himself. Maybe saying what it is about would be denigrating to another's position in life as a critical surveyor (example: "You're So Vein" by Carly Simon). There are numerous reasons why an artist might condition their audience not to expect them to tell the stories or meanings of their songs. The artists choose, whether they want their stories known, their meanings known. One assumption in the music industry across the board to each others' professional stances, is that no song has any meaning, and to that, there is no encroachment of the personal element in the professional transactions about the artist or about the song within that business environment. I once sat in a seminar where a young lady described the inspiration of her song to be played on acoustic as being the death of her grandfather, and when she sang it, she practically cried throughout the song. The members of the audience spoke to her about the song in technical terms and made no mention other than in third party of the story of the song, as if it were fiction. What that did to me, seeing that, was profound, because I could not imagine that people could detach themselves to such an extent like that. I yelled, can't you see what she is feeling, why can't you acknowledge that, but of course she wasn't there to bleed, and they were right, and I was wrong. She told, and she didn't have to tell, she cried, and she didn't have to cry, and the business went on. From a listener's point of view, there are many songs that we know what they are about, and yet, they still have meaning to us. How many weddings play "Annie's Song" even as it is publicly known to have been a personal love song by the writer to his wife? I have yet to see a love song diminished in the eyes of those rededicating it to their own purposes being spoiled by knowing its first dedication by the writer. Carly Simon's songs during her marriage to James Taylor were made clear, that they were written to and for him. "Loving You's The Right Thing To Do" still has meaning to a multitude. It has a meaning that outlasted that marriage. There has not yet been a campaign of listeners afraid to know what their favorite songs are about. I'm kind of torn as to if it's > a good idea to know. It mind ruin the picture you've had > in your head for years. Especially if the writer > considers it a throw away song that means very little > (which has also happened to me). That instance would be sad indeed. Sort of like Chuck Berry's "My Ding a Ling" if one has developed a set of reasons to justify its existence LOL, and there are others who, would stand up in front of the audience and say that they wrote something while drunk and thought they might include it cause they had space on the disk. But you know, for every claim of being a throw-away song, there is sweat that went into its production, and maybe the writer just doesn't want to get that close. A writer to his song is like a lover, and the audience is like the preacher, marrying the pair together. Jim calls his songs children, but to some, their songs are their spouses. And of those, they don't want to explain or let someone else into the proverbial bedroom. In concerns of the music industry in our society as we know it, a writer is not going to come out with a song that does not verb with him or her. But a writer may not say how it does verb. Some writers are shallow, and want to hide that Green Eggs and Ham is their pinnacle of literature, and others are well read, who took care and even fun, to make symbols for their thoughts for one reason, and explanations for them for another. And how do you feel, vulnerable to lose your mind images? That depends on your assumptions, where you had to have known that the song you are thinking of meant something to the writer. If you love the song for your own reason, that is part of the cosmic existence of songs, and if you love what the writer gave of himself to it, that is also part of he cosmic existence of songs. If you love the song and not the writer, the song is all you need. If you love the song and its writer, then how could you cut the writer out of the song? > > I was working on a song about Hook, in the vein of > Steinman obviously. I've been debating posting it here. > No recording yet, just lyrics. Your mind images of a song mean something important to you, because that is your own artistic canvas. You are taking inspiration from what amounts to being your own imagination, and using the template, if you will, of a believed Steinman theme. That is part of your experience. The fact that there is such a concept for you to derive yours from remains even though there is also another concept for the song. When you know what the writer had in mind, it adds the dimension to your thoughts. The writer is not prohibiting your imagination, and is not saying it can't be an inspiration to you the way it is an inspiration to you, unless your inspiration is fully dependent upon what the writer meant. If that is the case, then you may learn from knowing the writer's mind, how to develop songs from your own inspirations. Nothing teaches quite as effectively as example. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Original Sin and Captian Hooky Poo - Willis 09:31 pm UTC 06/06/07 |
| Next: | re: Original Sin and Captian Hooky Poo - LordRahl 09:55 pm UTC 06/06/07 |
| Thread: | |