not logged in
| re: IT'S CALLED A FUCKING INTERPRETATION | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 06:22 am UTC 03/29/07 |
| In reply to: | re: IT'S CALLED A FUCKING INTERPRETATION - fallingtofly 04:17 am UTC 03/29/07 |
> > > > 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) From what I read of the changes in 1995, "Fearless" seems to me, in interpretation, like a metamorphosis song, clearly in the bounds of oncoming change. Whatever he had in his head that moved him, was his reasoning. How the listener, or reader in this case, would interpret it is clearly the interpretation, but in my opinion, the writer still gets to say, like Jim wrote once, "I am more right!" In Jim's case it was an issue of spelling brought about by an interpretation of what Pig or Pigs would be. But more elaborately to the point is that there is a difference between one's separate interpretation of something they hear, and one's motivation for having created the same thing. If someone is taking the context and merely tweaking it, then I am in prone to comment because they are not far from the crux of the writer's purpose, but may be going some small degree aside, where what you say is that you are imagining a different set of imagery entirely from what you believe went into the song's creation. One could understand what I mean by an interpretation by the existence of "Interpretive Dance". One takes for example a classical piece, and choreographs the movements of those feelings which the piece brings about. In Interpretive Dance, the actual purpose of the composer is not considered. But if one is to discuss the composer's work in the composer's vein of experience, then an interpretation simply should logically take into account what the composer had in mind imho. > > 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. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: IT'S CALLED A FUCKING INTERPRETATION - fallingtofly 04:17 am UTC 03/29/07 |
| Next: | re: IT'S CALLED A FUCKING INTERPRETATION - Pudding 07:46 am UTC 03/29/07 |
| Thread: |
|