| re: Rebel without a clue & Lovers Again Interpretation? | |
|
Posted by: |
Vin 05:55 pm UTC 11/02/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Rebel without a clue & Lovers Again Interpretation? - daveake 04:16 pm UTC 11/02/09 |
| He did! Can you imagine Todd Rundgren trying to explain to Desmond that he needed to change the "new name you've taken" line because a woman was singing the song and there was no clear reason why her presumably male ex would need to change his name? "Right, right, that's cool, Des, I get that you're trying to make an artistic point with some room for interpretation on the part of the listener, but, you see, it just doesn't make any fucking sense. Not a lick. Now go sit in the corner and let me make this record, okay?" > Yes, but DC had enough trouble pondering whether God could > talk ... > > > Why? A professional songwriter like Desmond needs to be > > able to put himself into somebody's Jimmy Chu's... > > > > > > Also, along those lines, can anybody explain to me the > > > > line in "Lovers Again" (which I do like, btw) that goes > > > > > > I do like (2) :-), but I suspect the answer is (3). I'm > > > having trouble getting my ahead around a gay man (Desmond) > > > writing a song for a woman about her no-longer-lesbian > > > lover ... :-) > > > > > > Dave | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Rebel without a clue & Lovers Again Interpretation? - daveake 04:16 pm UTC 11/02/09 |
| Next: | re: Rebel without a clue & Lovers Again Interpretation? - daveake 06:47 pm UTC 11/02/09 |
| Thread: |
|