Lyrics and meaning (long, only vaguely Tori-related)

[tiverson@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Thor Iverson)]

>> I agree and I don't.  Lyrics clearly have a meaning when the lyricist writes
>> them. What the listener interprets that meaning to be is of course up to
>> him/her; but in the (unlikely) event I become famous I couldn't follow this
>> doctrine.  If Jane Critic stands up and says "'Leather' is a song about the
>> evolution of Pakistan's government" I (as the artist) would have to say, 
>> "No, that's not it.  Try again."

> my problem with this is the verb "to be". if the critic said "i *feel
> that* 'Leather' is about foo blah blah" and you said "well, *i feel* that
> 'Leather' is about bar blah blah" then i think you can both coexist
> without conflict. also *you* are entitled to say "i *meant* 'Leather' to
> mean bar blah blah", since *you* wrote it.

Right.  But...well, I'll finish this thought a few paragraphs down.  You'll
see it...

> > There's a difference in discussing what lyrics
> > "mean" and how they affect a given listener, and I think Toni Halliday is
> > confusing the two.

[...]
> there's no *essential*, unbreakable connection between the meanings
> encoded by the artist and the meanings decoded by the listener. very
> often there *happens* to be an excellent isomorphism between the two
[...]
> to me, when a listener "decodes" a message, that's every bit as much an
> act of creative art as anything else.

I agree that the art of interpretation is an art form unto itself.  But I
can't really agree that such interpretation _in and of itself_ in any way
invalidates the "objective meaning" of the lyrics.  So sue me, I believe in
objective meaning... ;-)

As for "essential connections," while I will reiterate that the act of
saying, dullard-like, "This song is about frogs.  It is not about toads.  It
contains no metaphors for anything outside the realm of froghood," is either
the act of a propagandist masquerading as a lyricist or simply bad writing,
I find that a competent lyricist _can_ "force" a perceptive listener to see
a specific image.  Your points (deleted) about commonalities in culture, etc.
are valid and relevant, but only _part_ of the internal interpratative process
that derives "meaning" from art.  The other part (I believe) comes from a
purer form of "reason" that is able to see through metaphor, though not always
perfectly.  And I think that, in many cases, the failure of this part of
the interpratative process to grasp the "source" meaning is due to the
(dare I say "inappropriate"?) application of personal bias ("bias" meant in
a non-negative way).  Good Lord, there are some hideous compound sentences
in this paragraph...

As a lyricist, I look first for personal satisfaction with the form and
meaning.  But the external pleasure of good lyrics (to me) is that moment
when another person (whether it be stranger or friend, musician or brainless
critic) says, "I loved how your lyrics to 'Beef Jerky' talked about the
grief you felt over the accidental microwaving of your cat without being
obvious and pendantic."  Do you see what I'm saying?  I don't mean to suggest
that all artists should feel this way, merely that _I_ hold out the hope of
being understood--and if I'm _not_ understood it's either the result of poor
writing on my part or poor interpretation on someone else's part.

> thinking that my listener will get the meaning i thought i was sending,
> just because i *knew* what i meant to say, has added to a great deal of
> frustration in life.

Yes, which makes me work even harder on the next lyric.  I have no wish to
be a misunderstood artist--not least because misunderstood artists are often
starving artists! ;-)

> even these paragraphs are like that - there are maybe 2 people reading
> them who have the background to understand the additional "meanings" i've
> tried to put into them. ;)

Uh...what did you mean by that part about "gerbils?"

> you've already made clear the distinction between "what the artist meant"
> and "what the listener got". i think that if everyone (critics and artists
> included) considered the act of interpretation to be an act of creation as
> well, then they'd avoid dogmatic statements like "'Leather' means blah" in
> favor of "to me, 'Leather' suggests blah", which leaves room for *everyone*
> to have their own valid opinions. to me, the only additional privilege the
> artist gets is saying what they wanted the work to mean to people.

Well yes.  We don't disagree here.  Our point of contention (very minor, yet 
apparently deeply-rooted) revolves around the "relative importance" of the 
artist's interpretation.

> it's that fuzzy strangely attractive fractal boundary, where 
> meaninglimmerswim between night and day, light women and dark ladies, that 
> drawgs my attention span. (short as that bridge is)

Good one! ;-)  I am also greatly intrigued by that boundary, which is one of
the reasons I'm on this mailing list in the first place.  It's interesting
to note that one of my _other_ favorite lyricists (Neil Peart) could not
possibly be more different (stylistically) than Tori.  With him, it's the 
sheer clarity and the power of the ideas that I study.  With Tori, it's 
references to cats named "Easter" and the multiple uses of snow as a metaphor
for maturation that intrigue me with their ambiguity by drifting on the edge
of clarity.  However, this makes me even _more_ curious to know if I'm "getting
it right" by the artist's standard.

Perhaps I should attack this from another direction.  I think it's extremely
important for a student of the blues (I'm one) to study as many of the so-
called "masters" as possible.  Why?  Because I feel that there _is_ a correct
way to play the blues, and if you don't understand what it is then you'll never
be able to do it.  This _doesn't_ mean that there is any kind of rigid
structure one must adhere to, nor are there any written "rules" to obey.  But
there is a..."vibe"...that _must_ be attended to, and if you don't then you'll
just sound stupid (or worse yet, "white" ;-) ).  Knowing the right notes to 
play is not enough, for blues doesn't rely simply on notes.  Again, it's a 
whole "ethos" that you either understand or you don't.

Now if you _do_ study the "masters" to immerse yourself in this "feeling,"
you are then free to expand on the genre in whatever way you please.  But
a misunderstanding of the essentials in the blues genre is ultimately
restrictive and limiting.  As goes the derivation of "meaning" from the
styles of the "masters," so goes the interpretation of lyrics.  I feel that,
whatever one's "first impressions," a familiarity with the "correctness" of
the impressions is necessary for any real exposition on their theme.

Hmmm...now I've lost even myself...

> > But I'm a bit suspicious of the tendency 
> > to deny that there's any"source" meaning to lyrics when there clearly _is_.
> 
> well, i don't want to deny that the artist had a "source" meaning,
> although i have no way of knowing it, and what's clear to you is sometimes
> murky to me. but i don't feel that the "source" meaning is any better or
> more true than the listener-created meaning. that's my real point.

I know.  This is also the only point about which (up to now) we disagree.
I _do_ think that the artist's meaning is superior to the uninformed
interpretation.  Perhaps I'm the only lyricist on the planet who thinks so.
But I kinda doubt it... ;-)  But this is a much deeper philosophical point,
so I'll leave it (for private email?)

> if you think i'm stupid for how i (mis)interpret your lyrics, that's 100% 
> ok by me.

And if that works for you, that's fine...for _you_.  But (to extend the
example) if I think you're an idiot because you can't understand my lyrics,
then it _does_ bother me--as a reflection of my _abilities_.  Even if I'm
completely convinced that you have all the reasoning power of a cashew ;-) ,
there's still that nagging doubt about my own skill of conveyance.  And if
there's any doubt in my mind as to your interpretative skills, then this 
self-doubt becomes even more pronounced.  Am I being clear?

> but i don't think my silliness takes away from the virtue of your work, and 
> i hope it doesn't bother you too much.

It might not bother some people.  But if I were (for example) Thomas Edison,
and came back to life to find everyone using light bulbs as pizza toppings
rather than as light sources, I would be extremely annoyed.  And in my mind,
intellectual invention is no different (gee, have I said this enough times
yet?) ;-)

> great job, Thor.

Thanks.  I tried to be a bit more obnoxious and offensive with this post.
Hope I succeeded... ;-)

Thor