Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johnny C]

Yes, yes I did.

[Titan]

Yeah, you did!

[KharBevNor]

hm, i donīt really talk about politics in music, to me theres lyricly only two kinds of songs. love songs and political songs. And a really blurry line between the two. for example even a songs about drugs or something is political a some level.

What about the hate songs, the descriptive songs and the abstract songs? And I'm sure there's more.

[a pack of wolves]

I am not saying it is absurd that it can be read in different ways, I'm saying that any way you read it other than as it was intented will be absurd; but I will call it wrong if you prefer.

Let's use the misunderstanding above as another example. I meant one thing, you decided I meant something else - to me it is clear that only one person is right. Would you consider us both to be right? Obviously it was possible for what I said to be read in different ways, else there would be no misunderstanding.

Well, I actually think I did understand you. But anyway. As Johnny C pointed out, this isn't about reading in meaning for the sake of it. There is a vast amount of writing presenting various ways of reading texts which are far from absurd, but also unrelated to the author's intentions. The whole concept of teir being a 'right' reading I would argue is wrong in itself. It's too limiting. It's not that other readings of a text negate each other, what's interesting is that you end up with a multiplicity of meanings. For example, a Marxist reading of a text would pull out different things than a feminist or postcolonial reading, but they don't cancel each other out.

[Titan]

Yes, a text can have multiple meanings, but all are intended by the writer. I think what may be happening here is you are looking at it in a "What does this text say to you?" sort of way, while I am trying to take a different view on it (ie "What is this text trying to say?") - certainly something is wrong if we both consider Johnny C's post to be correct.

Anyway, I think we've both made our cases and clearly we won't be progressing any further - peace out!

And yes, I do think both the viewpoints are different - but I don't feel like debating that.

[blindsuperhero]

Meaning is contextual. Is the only valid meaning the one with which it was originally created? If so, then in order to get meaning from an artwork must you wholly understand the context in which it was created? Is it even possible to do this?

[KharBevNor]

I never said that. I just said you're going to have to keep in mind the author and the authors intentions. Sometimes the authors intentions is just for you to interpret it in any way you want. But more often than not, this is not the case.

I have particular beef with schools of criticism such as marxist, feminist, national socialist etc. As they are merely concerned with proving definitively that their cause celebre as it were is almost the central element of human existence, creating political implication where, quite simply, none exists.

[Borondir]

khar, the lord of the rings was written during the second world war, gandalf was a metaphor for moses and sauron was a metaphor for hitlet. the hobbits represented the working class and the elves represented the upper class, abandoning middle earth (europe) the first chance that they got. while writing the book, j. r. r. tolkien's sons were in the army getting shot at.

so, i can see why it isn't political or anti anything in any way.

I really hope you are joking. Oh well, some other people have already addressed Tolkien's negative feelings towards allegory and the fact that the LotR is a myth.

I try to go for balance in my understanding of meaning. A work of art can mean so much more than the artist, from his limited perspective, intentended it to, but it's also very important to know the author's intentions and experience as an aid to realizing the larger meaning.  

On the politics thing, I think we might have definitions of politics that vary in scope and inclusiveness.

[a pack of wolves]

I never said that. I just said you're going to have to keep in mind the author and the authors intentions. Sometimes the authors intentions is just for you to interpret it in any way you want. But more often than not, this is not the case.

I have particular beef with schools of criticism such as marxist, feminist, national socialist etc. As they are merely concerned with proving definitively that their cause celebre as it were is almost the central element of human existence, creating political implication where, quite simply, none exists.

Not really. Can't say anything about NS criticism since I've never read any, and anyone who follows that path would be undoubtedly too stupid to come up with any interesting criticism. But in the case of feminism for example, many feminist readings are trying to bring an examination of the female into prominence when previously it has been left in the background. Obviously that piece of criticism will have that aspect as central, but the whole point is that you don't just read one perspective, or at least you don't have to.

I can see why you personally might think that the author's conception is the most important, but it's not the only standpoint. I really don't care, which is why I read few interviews and can't even name the members of most of my favourite bands.

[Johnny C]

Okay, I was diggin' around in my room today and I came across the short story book I've been reading, and it actually has some interesting stuff to say on the topic of symbolism. Keep in mind that it's discussing the short story form, but that it could easily apply to lyrics.

The ability to recognize and identify symbols requires perception and tact. The great danger facing the student when he first becomes aware of symbolical values is a tendency to run wild - to find symbols everywhere and to read into the details of a story all sorts of fanciful meanings not legitimately supported by it. The beginning reader needs to remember that most stories operate almost wholly at the literal level, and that even in a story like "Tears, Idle Tears" [contained in the book as an example of both symbolism and character] most details are purely literal. A story should not be made the excuse for an exercise in ingenuity. It is better, indeed, to miss the symbolical meanings of a story than to pervert its meaning by discovering symbols which are nonexistent. Better to miss the boat than to jump wildly for it and drown.

Not really on the original topic, but I thought it was neat.


Also, question: How political are Metric? Songs like "Succexxy" and lines like "Every ten-year-old enemy soldier / thinks falling bombs are shooting stars sometimes" are definitely politically-minded, yet so many of the songs seem more about love and social critique. Or is the latter politics?

POLITICS ARE CONFUSING

[blindsuperhero]

I think stories are perfect excuses for exercises in ingenuity

[boeuf]

I like when bands try to put out a message, subtle or no.

Some of my favorite bands are all about overtly telling you to start thinking, Against Me for example, another being the Delegates a wonderful wonderful band from Montreal.
Then there are bands like Crass whose political rants all lie in the times and experiences they were facing when they were together.

But what I really like are bands who do manage to subtley tell you whats going on, especially in the public eye.
Best example is The Gorillaz.

These guys came out so advertised and over all mainstream yet at the same time, they manage to get out some pretty decent messages and not with just their music but their videos as well.
The best example of this is the video for 19-2000, they put out a great satire involving the environment, its fantastic.

Ha, Im sure this thread has been dead for a while now, but I'm new so deal with my opinion or deal with...lead?
*bang*