Cloudbusting has great lyrics!! :-)

[rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill)]

>In article <y77L5B2w165w@netrun.cts.com>  
>rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill) writes: 
> 
>A this spirited defense of Kate Bush's lyrical; 
> 
> 
>           Anders puts forth the dubious notion that the lyrics to  
>   Cloudbusting are "weak" and that the fact that the lyrics don't 
give  
>   all the background to the story makes them less important then the  

>   music!  What a dubious notion!   
> 
>Well, it's not that the lyrics don't give all the facts of the 
>matter the makes it less important than the music. No, my idea 
>was perhaps even more dubious: If the song (music&lyrics) gives 
>an emotional impression this is to be credited to the music 
>since the lyrics are (*as I see this*) so weak. Now, one of the 
>weaknesses of the lyrics is that it is so fragmental as to be 
>more or less meaningless to a listener unaware of the 
>background to the lyrics. (I admit that I'm not a great 
>fan of W. Reich (nor of Freud) and this may have made me 
>prejudiced against the theme of the song.) 
> 
        
        I don't think the song wouldv'e been much of success as an 
instrumental.  I'm also not at all clear that the song wouldv'e been 
"better" if it gave more info.  It's supposed to be from the eyes of a 
child (or an adult remember his child-like feelings).  
        I also  don't agree that the lyrics are "meaningless" to 
someone who doesn't know the background of the song, I think they 
create images and I think that's a large part of what draws people to 
the song.

> 
>  The fact that the story isn't  
>   so easy to figure out hasn't stopped lots of people from loving the 
 
>   song. 
> 
>This might well be untrue! Maybe it has! It stopped me from 
>loving the song. 
> 

        
> 
>   Listen to the parts of the song that go "I just know that  
>   something good is going to happen" or "on top of the world.." or 
many  
>   other places in the song and tell me that the lyrics don't add  
>   anything.   The first quote was the whole bases for the Utah Saints 
 
>   "song", and people responded to it with no further story at 
>   all!!!  
> 
> 
>The pictures used in a Rorschach test are not works of art. 
> 

        No they're not, but, like I said, the song is successful and 
the only "lyrics" it has is one line from one Kate Bush song. 

> 
>           Generally, poetry and music are what can speak directly to 
the  
>   emotions, without having to give us the "background info".  Movies 
and  
>   books almost always do, which is probably why music can have the 
same  
>   impact, compacted into a much shorter time. 
> 
>There are degrees in this matter of "background", why even the 
>single letter "K" might give you an emotional reaction. To say 
>that movies and books almost never gives us "background info" is 
>in my opinion an untrue generalization or a misuse of the phrase. 
> 
> 

        I didn't say that (though my grammer may be unclear). I said 
that movies and books generally _DO_ give lot's of "Background info", 
it's usually fairly clear what is going on in them.  In poetry and 
music it's not always quite so clear, at least not on first exposure.


>           Take the line from Anders' sig "If you see Saint Anne, 
please  
>   tell her - thanks a lot", that comes from a Bob Dylan song, a song 
I've  
>   only heard from Neil Young's version at "BobFest".   

[Interpreation of song deleted)]

>Since you can apply the meaning without getting this ...well 
>you don't really need any lyrics at all...your fierce 
>imagination sparkels off at a sentence, a word, a letter, the 
>image of a letter...the ideal recipient for Kate Bush's lyrics 
>(my polemical instinct have by now got the better of me) 
> 

        Or Bob Dylan's or Neil Young's...  Some critic once said that 
that Bob Dylan's contribution was not that his songs had meaning, but 
that they freed people _from_ meaning, so that they would be free to 
apply there own imagination.  I've heard 5 different interpretions of 
Bob's, Kate's, Neil, or Elvis Costello's songs from different people, 
all of whom were convinced they "knew" what the author was singing 
about.  And I'm sure they all loved the songs.


[Kate quote deleted]
> 
>If Kate could write some lyrics in this fashion, it's sad when 
>the explanation of a poem is so much better than the poem itself. 
> 
>You might say she cuts herself loose in her lyrics and hoovers  
>some ten inches above the ground (befitting a divinity) but we 
>who walks on the earth need some friction to get forward and  
>are not much helped by Kate Bush's lyrics. 


        I've pointed out that the song is a great success, so you 
hardly need to be a Kate Bush maniac to enjoy it, there are millions 
who do, and I bet most of them don't have a clue as to the story is 
"about".
        And Kate's not a divinity, if she were she would have her 
albums out much quicker then she does!  

>As always *in my opinion*, it might be noted that I appear to be 
>alone in this opinion.... 
>

        You may be alone here, but I'm sure there are many people who 
don't like the song because they don't know what it's about, I'm just 
not sure that most people really need to know.


---
rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill)
NetRunner's Paradise BBS, San Diego CA