> That's a little bit like saying that it doesn't matter why
> "Abraham Martin and John" was written, or why "Woodstock"
> was written. When a writer writes, there is a reason. How
> could one actually remove the reason from the work in a
> surgical way and call it a valid interpretation? Nobody is
> turning "Abraham Martin and John", as far as I know, into
> a two-step.
Personally, I honestly believe that every story has a song- and it may not be the one the composer had in his head while writing. I'm pretty sure that Matthew Good didn't have an interracial Romeo and Juliet love affair, gymnasts, musicians and alcoholic despair-driven encounters with ghosts that prevent you from suicide when he wrote "Fearless"- but that's what came out of it for me, and that's what I wrote. (I could give a couple more examples, but trust me, no one really wants me to)
One song may put a fantasy into a person's head, yet remind another of a great day with family, and another person of the agony of that first love lost. There are a million different stories to every song- and none of them are the same. They all depend on the person hearing that song at that moment and what it gives them.
That's what a personal interpretation is.
|
