Re: Oh by the way

[moonboots@earthling.net (Boots)]

On 24 Oct 1997 10:28:24 -0400, s340090@student.uq.edu.au (K Bacon)
wrote:

<SNIP>
>
>        As I typed last time, people should be given the freedom to
>interpret songs how they wish, EVEN if the song-writer based the song on
>something specific (such as a childhood book).  I am absolutely sure that
>Kate Bush would be horrified to know that every one of her fans interpreted
>a particular song exactly the same way!!  Song writers don't write songs so
>that everyone can feel the same, or interpret it the same!!  The whole point
>of music (including lyrics) is that every person on this planet has a
>personal feeling - or unique interpretation - about a song he/she hears.  

The whole point of music? Doesn't that seem to be presuming a bit
much? Where is our freedom in interpreting our own point of what music
is or isn't. I do understand what you're saying, but the blanket
absolute from someone trying to fight blanket absolutes is a bit
contradictory.

>        It is a worry that homophobia is prompting some people on this list
>to send their self-righteous views on what the "correct" way of interpreting
>the song is. 

Does name-calling really advance your point any?
Homophobe? Self-righteous? I agree that people come off that way, but
in the midst of a "can't we all just agree to disagree?" ramble, these
are fairly incendiary words that naturally call on others to be
defensive. Of course, I'm not the etiquet cops, and you have the right
to use whatever words you chose

> I personally know what the song is about, and I also don't
>believe that Kate is gay, *however*, when I listen to the song I still like
>to interpret the song as though a son is 'coming out' (i.e. as gay) to his
>father.  Kate didn't write the song for this reason, but I don't think
>people should be laughed at, or be denied their own personal view.  

Absolutely! Of course, in your mind, would that extend to people that
don't share your views?  How many times have you caught yourself
making the statement, "I can't tolerate intolerance"? 

>        Perhaps some of you should lighten up and think what music is really
>about.  If you genuinely believe that EVERY SINGLE person MUST have the same
>interpretation as Kate (or yourself) then so be it, but I feel that this is
>an egotistical approach to Kate's work (and even an insult). 

I definitely agree, You express the spirit of what I feel to be the
very essence of Kate...that she does leave much of it up to
interpretation. But who would be actually insulted by it? If it's you,
don't you think it might be you who is causing your own offense, that
you make a decision to feel insulted by the opinions of others?

> The reason why I say this is because - as Kate has actually said - once the song is
>finished, it has a 'life' of it's own, it's not just *Kate's* song anymore.
>If it is no longer just Kate's song, it means that we are all able to enjoy
>it in our own ways.  Take for example, "Why" by Annie Lennox, which is
>supposedly based on her relationship with Dave Stewart.  You don't see
>thousands of people walking around saying "I love this song!!  It really
>represents my relationship with Dave Stewart!!!"  Of course not, many people
>around the world view the song as a statement on their own relationships, or
>other people's inability to understand them etc..
>        Open up your minds guys!!  If someone says "this song means ... to
>me", then why not say "Ok, that's interesting...how about you person B?
>person C?" etc..  Stop trying to restrict music interpretation and the fact
>that songs mean different things to different people, and stop going against
>Kate's view that songs should have a 'life of their own' - meaning the
>original basis is not to be used as strict dogma.  
>
>Catch ya later
>Kim

Ok, that's an interesting opinion. Furthermore, I agree with the
kernel of it. I apologize if my nitpicking has caused you any
distress. I merely wished to point out what I felt were
inconsistencies in your expressed view of things.

Boots