Re: love-hounds-digest Digest V13 #276

[mikael.jakonen@mailbox.swipnet.se (Mikael Jakonen)]

Hi!


Brian Dillard <dillardb@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:

>
>Sam wrote:
>--------
>The basic hermaneutical process is
>to first get to the root of the author's meaning and the message he/she
>consciously intented to relay.  That is *interpretation*, which is the
>part of the process in which our mind's work takes precedence.
>--------
[snip]

> .....That
>model worked a hundred or 200 years ago when most art was "consumed" in
>a mode of passive reflection 

I always thought "most art" was still consumed with passive reflection.
This may offend some people, but I think Love-Hounds belong to a small
group of people that does not, while the majority still does.


> But considering that most people today wouldn't be sitting
>at home quitely poring over A Book of Dreams, reading the lyric sheet
>and attempting Biblical-style exegesis of the song, I don't think you
>can insist that Kate's "intended meaning" should be seen as the starting
>point for interpretation and/or application. 

I think it can, (but not as strictly biblical-style as you imply
that Sam meant), why else did Kate bother to tell us about the 
background of Cloudbusting. As I said: Love-Hounds are a more 
critical bunch of people, and thus we take more care about how
we go about our interpretation.

>When the medium of
>transmission is radio or TV, meaning is determined as much by the other
>images and sounds juxtaposed with the text as by the text itself. 

True, and Kate reinforced the connection to A Book of Dreams by
the images in the video, including the book itself.


>When you hear a snatch of lyrics ... "you're son's coming out" ... while
>flipping through the radio dial, you don't have the rest of the song
>lyrics or Kate's bio or Reich's book to steer your reception.

No, you don't. But then again, everybody knows that you can not
derive the meaning from a single sentence. I think it is wrong to
even try. Unfortunatly some still try. Take the example of: 

Fiona (MCQUARRF@ucfv.bc.ca) wrote:
>With the October issue of Q (excellent British music mag) there is a free
>cassette of "cruisin' classics" - including Ms. Kate's "Running Up the Hill".
>However, in the accompanying notes in the magazine itself, it says:
>"....According to the astonishing lyric, she wished to swap places with no less
>than God. Pushing things a tad, even for Kate."

As you see, "Q" winding up with a not too accurate interpretation.
Jehovas' Whitnesses (in Sweden at least) also have a tendency of
taking biblical quotes and putting them in a different context.

>To say that a
>fleeting interpretation of a snatch of a song is invalid is to ignore
>the fact that people can and will derive meaning from such fragmentary
>texts, and that the meaning they derive will be based on their personal
>experiences and the circumstances of their encounter with that text
>rather than by the author's intent or the historical facts that inspired
>the text.

Yes, that's true, but in this case, a person came with a question
to us in the belief that we did indeed know the full context of the
song. 

> The only realm where interpretation has ever been controllable
>is in the academy, where rigorous intellectual methods are applied to
>"high art" texts and a critical concensus is achieved _because the
>players have to stick to the rules._ 

Though I agree with Sam for the most part, I have to agree somewhat
with you too, in this case. I don't like the idea of a tightly
controlled method of intellectual interpretation of "High art".
Who's to decide what I think, and who decides what is High Art.
I think Kate Bush's songs are high art.

>But with popular art and mass media, circumstance, juxtaposition, 
>personal experience and the like will always render such 
>_rules_ invalid.

It's the MTV-pop-culture that has rendered such rules invalid,
and I think discarding the traditional way lessens our lives.
Perhaps a mixture of both would be preferable.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music is like vintage wine. It keeps getting better over the years, 
if those who made it knew how to make it right...

Mikael Jakonen                              
mikael.jakonen@mailbox.swipnet.se     
=============================================================================