Re: Cloudbusting has great lyrics!! :-)

[ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson)]

In article <kqBP5B1w165w@netrun.cts.com> 
rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill) writes:




           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.

I agree completely. There is an old tale about the missionairies
in Africa teaching the young native children to hold on to each other,
one up front, going round making the sound; schzzz, szhzzz, and
the one in front going; huiii, huiii. They probably had a
splendid time doing this.




   > 
   >   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. 

I do not regard the Success of a song as a witness of good lyrics...


   > 
   >           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.

I beg your pardon for this misunderstanding. I agree completely.


   >           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.


He he, but my interpretation of the Dylan song is right, don't
you know...

   [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"

Well see my opinion on success and lyrics above...

           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.

Thank you for including my 'qualification'!
I'd say that it gives a much more complete experience to know
what the lyrics are about (or to believe, on some evidence, that
one does). Why shouldn't all people want to know more about a
song they like?

best regards Anders

--


If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.