Themes

I think these themes may have been dictated in part by the music that these bands were playing. Older band was more experimental/atonal, so lyrics were a little more distant/intellectual, while newer band is more of a rock band, so the lyrics are more personal or at least more about people.

I intend to make the next song about a stalker so I might be developing a theme as we go along ("HI DERE I AM CRAZY").

You know Android Cat, I was just thinking the other day about writing a concept album about a man's descent into paranoia and insanity. I think it'd be sweet.

That album I wrote and recorded in three hours for NaSoAlMo turned out to have a lot of songs about murderers, more explicitly than usual.

I SMELL BILLBOARD SUCCESS

This describes every song I've ever written.

"Conclusions"? What, are you writing theorems or songs?

Not necessarily gibberish, but it does insist on a gradual increase in intensity/weirdness/loudness/whatever.

The appeal I see is the theme of insanity allows for sonic weirdness and also a nice archetype with which to make a compelling narrator.

themes, huh? i don't really know. lately i've been going for stories. like i kept doing personal songs, you know, which got really old. and then i was like, okay, let's write about someone ELSE!

so that has proved great fuel for songwriting - looking through someone else's eyes.

Whatever, Colin Meloy.

But really, I agree.

Hence, I write songs about technology, food, zombies, and decorating.

In The Lollies, there was an overarching theme to most of our music. Despite all the songs about boys and relationships, the main theme was mostly about Fame and Fandom. We wrote a lot of songs about the desire for fame and the mechanics of attaining it - but also a lot of songs about the quality of fandom, the other side of the fame coin. Even the lovesongs weren't straightforward, they were more about putting the love object on a pedastal, making a quasi-religious quest out of both love and fan style adoration.

Shimura Curves, I'd like to say that the Themes were about maths and technology, but to be more precise, they were about the intersection of technology and the personal. Thoughtworm - conflict between science and religion, I'm Not Afraid - conflict between science and gut-reaction fear of the unknown. Noyfriend - taking the taxonomic scientific approach too far WRT relationships. Out Of Your Blog - how modern networking technology is both help and hindrance to personal relationships.

The more abstract I try to be in songwriting, the more it ends up expressing something I cannot help but address. I find no point in trying not to write songs about love and relationships - because it will find a way to seep through. I recently wrote a song that I thought was totally abstract, about a character in a novel, and realised that I had projected mine own recent experiences of personal betrayal onto it, even though I had never intended the song be about that particular situation.

I personally think that anyone who actually says that they don't write about themselves at all is either lying or delusional. Subconscious self expression always slips through.

you can't be writin a country themed love song over and over again.

for instance, bjork's Hyperballad

sooo much about love, but in SUCH an AMAZING way. she has to go up to the top of a mountain and throw little things off it to feel safe in her love again? that's pretty astounding.

Well, agreed about getting to it in a different way.

But I had this argument with another songwriter last year where he was trying to tell me that "art that just sees is the purest art of all" which I called out as total bullshit because 1) that's just one way of looking at art (Apollonian vs. Dionysian and all that) and 2) I come from a science background and have that whole idea of uncertainty, Heisenberg and Shroedinger and all that, that you can NEVER "just see" without somehow affecting the events you are "seeing".

Anyway...

Instrumental music can still have themes! In fact, I find it is almost more likely to have themes, since there are no lyrics to distract from the emotion.

just seeing is pretty boring. it's a balance between objectivity and subjectivity, i think is all we're saying.

Sure, but that's not the same thing as "writing about yourself".

Or it's like Plato's Republic - when we read that, are we getting the viewpoint of Socrates, who's the one doing the talking in the story, or Plato, whose pen reports it?

What I'm trying to get at is whatever themes you put into it unavoidably it will be interepereted/misinterpereted and you're left with either being exceedingly specific or incredibly vague to avoid MISinterperetation.
However, I still say that the author/writer/composer determines the true meaning. It just won't ever be understood at the same level, in the same way.

Or you could allow for more than one possible "correct" interpretation.

Or did you mean like X possible number of correct(not sure why you put that in quotes) interperetations?
Because that still leaves you with the problem that someone's going to think Helter Skelter is about a race war.

Has this ever actually been said to you?

How is it a problem if someone thinks Helter Skelter is about a race war?

Kate, apparently I have a different concept of "about" than you. "Pasta is yummy" is "about" pasta no matter what it says about me; "I like pasta" is "about" me. You can find out about me through things that are not about me, for sure. But there is still a difference between writing a song that's "about" me and writing one that happens to say something about me.

GZ, it's rare to see someone so proud that they don't like to think.

See, I do not understand this concept that a writer has no say in the meaning of their work.
If it's an essay or an opinion piece is it still up the the reader to determine the meaning of the words?
and YES it's a problem that someone thinks Helter Skelter is about a race war!! Why? BECAUSE IT ISN'T!!!
Star Wars is the the dream of an ameoba on LSD trying to express his feelings of sameness.
"But you can't make a sound defense for that."
you can make a sound defense for anything if you try hard enough/are good enough at it. Same can be said fro cracking those defenses. Furthermore "it's all a dream" is the simples defedable position. If dreams, drugs, daydreams, etc are involved on any level it's not something you can fight effectively.
Example:
"I think he was really a woman."
"but what about page 200 where Joan sees his penis?"
"I think that was a dream/hallucination/trick of the light."

I don't need to go to a writer's workshop to know how storytelling works.
The fact that interperetation is in existence at all is because language is an ineffectual means of conveying thoughts ideas and feelings, yet that's its intended purpose.
So we need to infer and imply and deliniate and so on.

There are times where disagreements aren't right/wrong. I'm reading Wuthering Heights(waht can I say, I love overly verbose melodrama) but I already know how it ends(doesn't matter. MELODRAMA!!).
One of the main characters is suggested at one point to possibly being some kind of changeling. It's never really proven in either direction, thus either view is valid.
Does Catherine actually come back as a ghost? Does she kill Heathcliff(I typed Garfield first ahhaha)? Do they go off together?
These are unknowns.
If the author explained these things it would rob the story of tension.
I don't see EITHER view as 'correct.' I see them both as 'maybe.'
There's a difference.

"GZ, it's rare to see someone so proud that they don't like to think."
that's fucking rude.
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
My opinions are exceedingly strong because I've send an exceedingly long time considering them. I've done alot of thinking before I speak on subjects like art and thought.
I'd appreaciate it if you didn't suggest otherwise.
Sardonic people annoy me.

Unless you're currently in high school, it seems a little odd for your stance on literary criticism to be a reaction to your junior high English teacher. I'm not trying to be snobby here, I just mean that one shouldn't judge something by the worst example of it.

See, I do not understand this concept that a writer has no say in the meaning of their work.

I don't think anyone has made that claim. You seem to be saying that the writer is the only one who determines what a work means, and I disagree.

you can make a sound defense for anything if you try hard enough/are good enough at it. Same can be said fro cracking those defenses.

No you can't. Again it kind of sounds like you're reacting against whatever English class you took in the past and didn't like. Sure, you can just make up whatever shit you want, but without textual support you've got no ground to stand on and your essay will get an F. Can you provide any textual support for Star Wars being the dream of an ameoba on LSD trying to express his feelings of sameness?

Dude, I could bullshit that whole thing and it would make sense on a certain level, but it would take a week because it's a ludicrous and convoluted lie. Again, exaggeration to make a point. The longer example is better.
The result of requiring a textual support is for someone to understand some of the intent. The result is that this concept that the author is not the one who determines the meaning of a work requires the people making up their own meanings to be intelligent. how intelligent must they be?
I remember watching movie when I was a kid(mostly old B&W movies) and the snooty characters would say "I guess they're just not sophisticated enough to understand this author."
Is the snooty thing now "I guess they're just not sophisticated enough to come up with a meaning that I approve of."
I'm wording this poorly, I know, but the idea that what I write is not for me to define is ludicrous. Is this why I can't say anything to anyone without them inferring 12 things that I didn't say?
"I didn't say that."
"Sure sounded like it to me!"
"...but I didn't say it."
"FUCK YOU!!!"

And yes, you can make ANYTHING sound good when dealing with interperetation. it would not be an F. It would be a B or C because the teacher would know it's not the right answer(BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT!!!!) but it was made to look like it. Treat images as abstracts and you're golden.
I used to to alot of abstract sculpture. One of the reasons I lost interest was I knew people would interperet things I didn't intend, and I didn't want to have a paragraph sitting next to every piece explaining it. So yeah,you can make anything into whatever you want.
"But it's not an abstract piece."
The author's not the only one who can determine the meaning. I want the explosions to symolise amoebas reproducing and the destruction involved to be the degredation of the individual resulting from it. Luke tries to seperate himself from the Empire but ultimately finds that his father is a big part of it. Their reconcilliation symbolises the acceptance of the fact that the individual does not exist.
It's not that hard.

Helter Skelter is not about a race war.
That's the problem I have with it being thought to be so.

That is not the stance I've put forth. I'll repeat: any interpretation is correct (allow me to swap "correct" for "valid") insofar as one could construct a sound defense of it.

Where does anyone else get off telling me what I wrote means?

That's what happens when you release something into the world. If you don't want people to interpret something, don't release it. I don't really get why that's so offensive to you.

Dude, I could bullshit that whole thing and it would make sense on a certain level

What, Star Wars being about an amoeba? No, you couldn't. If you can, then do it. If not, I call BS.

I used to to alot of abstract sculpture. One of the reasons I lost interest was I knew people would interperet things I didn't intend, and I didn't want to have a paragraph sitting next to every piece explaining it.

That tends to happen with abstract art. Maybe you'd be more comfortable making representational art?

Honestly I find your whole take on this pretty strange. What are people supposed to do when you're not around to explain your art? Are they supposed to call you up and ask you what it means? What about after you die?

Here's a simple illustration of my point: I could write an essay about Hamlet where I did a Freudian reading of the text. I could talk about Hamlet's Oedipal tendencies, and of course I would cite both Freud and the text of the play to support my case. Obviously Shakespeare didn't know about psychoanalysis. Maybe he would agree with my reading, maybe not; we can't ask him, and I think most people would agree that it doesn't really matter.

Incidentally, I was going to say something about New Criticism, because I was vaguely thinking that they would agree with your stance, but it turns out I was misrememberin and the opposite is true. They actually coined the term "intentional fallacy" to describe your point of view. You can read about it here. The Barthes essay mentioned is a good one, too.

This Helter Skelter thing is a red herring, so let's just drop it.

Also, in regards to that Wiki entry, blah.
What's the big dea? Some people's opinions.
I really feel that saying a poem takes on a life of its own and the author's intent is meaningless(and that IS what it says) is incredibly pretentious.

The first thing people need to understand is that words cannot convey thoughts feelings and ideas properly.
Second, that words' intended use is to do just that.
Then that any work involving words cannot be understood by the reader fully, as every word will have different personal meaning as well as different knowledge of the actual meanings(in many languages a word will have many very different meanings) and their order of importance. The reasons go on.
Once this is understood, you're free to enjoy works without attempting the impossible.
Understand what you can, unrderstand that you just might be wrong, and just enjoy it.

If it's up to the reader, then there's no point to criticism. If they didn't like it, perhaps their intereperetation is what made it bad? If they liked it perhaps they were wearing rose colored glasses?(this has fleshed out why I find reading criticisms pointless. I can decide myself if something's good. Again, I don't need to understand everything in a piece to enjoy it or not. I find critics tend to try and do that using various means)

Intent being immaterial is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.
That will always be true.

"If you don't want people to interpret something, don't release it."
No, I just want people to understand that what they hear are MY words and what they take from it may or may not be correct.

Again, I didn't say "it's up to the reader" as though anything that someone makes up is just as valid as anything else. I already explicitly disagreed with that.

And I don't see why you're talking about liking or not liking something - that's not the issue at all. No one is trying to write a review of Hamlet, but they're still interpreting it, and continuing to interpret great literature can be illuminating and rewarding.

Let me lay out your position and you can tell me if I've got you right:

a) Words mean different things to everyone so they cannot convey ideas precisely.
b) To understand a work of art it is necessary to understand its intent.
c) Art made up of words cannot fully convey the artist's intent.
d) An audience member can never understand the artist's intent.

So the only person who can correctly understand a work of art is the person who made it. Is that right?

If so, does that same argument apply to art without words? Why? And more importantly, what brings you to premise b?

I said the intent of words is to convey thoughts etc. This is a basic fact. They are a tool for communication.
If the piece of art is made of words then the piece os meant to convey something.
If it's not meant to convey anything it's gibberish or bullshit.
It follows that to undestand a piece of art made up of words is to understand what those words are meant to convey.

Basic logic, that.

"And I'll also sardonically point out that if you thought words were so ineffective for conveying ideas, you wouldn't be arguing with me right now."
Actually, it ptoves my point perfectly.
I'd have expressed my thoughts on this subject in a perfect manner, which you would understand.

You also ignored the underlying point of why I mentioned criticism: that if interperetation is all up to the reader/listener(AND THAT"S WHAT MODERN THEORY SAYS. IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. I don't feel the need to address your personal feelings, but rather the key point here. IE the idea that the end user determines what the meaning of a piece) then their interperetation is what they end up critiquing.
Particularly if they subscribe to that same idea.

This idea also requires the reader to be educated on how to interperet things. The result is that only someone who's graduated with a degree in the language of choice can come up with a truly valid interperetation. They need to know the meanings of each word. ALL the meanings. Then they'll be able to proberly use that knowledge to make an 'accurate' interperetation. They then need to be told how to apply this according to these theories.
THEORIES.

This is already silly, but once to take into account the above list of facts on words, it's also pointless.

amen!

As a practical matter, I think your stance is not useful, because people will interpret your work (possibly contrary to your intentions) whether you like it or not, and you won't always be there to correct them.

Of course someone doesn't need a degree to interpret something. It might help, though. That's why they have classes in literary criticism.

songwriting: food and candy came up more than i was expecting, when i started. (although used in the ones i can think of offhand for very different purposes.) (n.b. i started writing because i had the phrase "old jamaica ginger beer" stuck in my head and wanted to find somewhere to put it.) i find myself writing love songs which i then try and find other nominal narrators for and rewriting, just to be less insufferable. i try and write as little strictly in my own personal first-person as possible. (second-person addressed to myself is okay, so long as no-one's going to notice it.) i did confess to someone once "i wrote you this song but uh i changed or made up .. well, pretty much all of this. line twelve is about you."

there's also stuff for two or three projects where i have particular themes or narratives in mind. the problem with these is that i find it in equal parts a benefit to progress and a hindrance, the space opened up by deciding (e.g.) "this is a crime story about a science fiction writer who starts hallucinating and in his head replays the events of the songs of the first half as a science fiction story" fills up in its broad outlines fairly quickly but then writing, well, the second verse of everything, turns out harder.

also, the violin stuff i will be playing with my atonal improv group is mostly about hegel's dialectic view of history.

THIS HERE IS THE THREAD WHERE YOU CAN ARGUE ABOUT COUNTRY OF ORIGIN ISSUES, OR THE WEATHER, OR WHATEVER DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH MUSIC.

THX.

The means I've used to show that the end user is the only one who can determine the meaning of a piece also show that leaving any of it up to the end user without giving them the additional responsibility of understanding that their interperetation WILL be incorrect on some level.
"Of course someone doesn't need a degree to interpret something. It might help, though. That's why they have classes in literary criticism."
Why don't they need one?
You've demaneded this much out of me(and I honestly doubt you;ve read it all), so I'd like a little explaination as to why you think that. I mean, if they need to interperet it and come up with velid interperetationss, they'll need to understand what is and what isn't a valid intereperetation.
They'll also need all the tools to do that.

I'd say this branch of literary theory amounts to people saying you need to be able to fix your car to drive it.

Here's a simple analogy: eating off of a couch does not make it a table.
It's a couch with a plate on it.
it was made to be a couch. You can use it however you want. It doesn't matter. It's a couch.

Again, I'm not saying everyone should hear the artist's explainations for the piece. I'm saying the end user should understand that their interperetations, should they choose to do that, are never going to be the same as the intended message and are thus incorrect.
You don't need to understand something to enjoy it.
I dislike repeating that.
Please read it.
Please read it.
READ IT. AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORDS MEAN ON A LITERAL LEVEL.

No offense, John, but this IS on topic.
This is directly related the thematic use in musical lyrics.
That's the only work I do with words right now, and that's what I'm talking about.

If you keep it up here after whatever inevitable xpost will happen, I'll yellowcard you, whoever you are. If you do it again, I'll ban you for a day. I'm trying to be polite here, so lets all fight nice.

Seriously, though, for as little sense as GZeus makes, the topic of interpretation is very much salient to IMM, contrary to John Justen's implication. Most anyone who writes lyrics spends at least some time pondering their validity, a key component of which is interpretation. While GZeus isn't going to see the light this century, others might gain insight into the matter from this discussion.

BTW, I don't care one way or the other, but every time one of these shitstorms start, I get emails complaining/telling me why people don't post here.

Because something occurs to me after I hit post, and there's no edit function. Maybe we'd both benefit from proofreading better.

Anyway, don't worry John, I'm bowing out of this particular tangent.

:(

I have mixed feelings about the shift this thread has taken. I think Steve and Gzeus have the right to have this discussion on this thread, but I don't want to read it and I think it might keep other people from posting here.

If you just meant "DNFTT", maybe say that next time.

--

To slide back into topic. Generally my albums are thematically related -- there are some songs which seem like they will never appear on an album, not because people don't like them, but because they don't "fit in" thematically with any other songs. But I never worry about that sort of thematic fit for live shows. And I always wonder whether that's a good thing or not. I've been debating working up thematic live shows organized along different themes than the album themes... Sort of like a mixtape.

WAHT?!??!

Well, that's exactly it. To use your example, "Pasta is a foodstuff made from durum wheat common in Italy" is about pasta. "Pasta is yummy" or "Pasta is disgusting" (my own opinion on the subject) is a value judgement about your tastes, and therefore about *you*.

This is the problem with trying to write art that "just sees" is that you're still "just seeing" through your own perceptions and prejudices. And therefore it's as much or more about what you see and what you don't see than any "abstract" version of pasta.

That also says something about you, though: That you think of pasta in terms of Italian pasta, rather than including, say, rice noodles, suggests a lot about how (& maybe where) you were raised.

But I thin "about" you doesn't mean I can figure something out about you from the sentence, it means the focus of the sentence is on you. Which is why "pasta is yummy" is not "about" the speaker -- the focus is thrown onto something else entirely.

Thanks for utterly proving my point!

None of this is about pasta, it's all about us and our preconceptions.

Whatever, Bishop Berkeley.

No! That's a useless use of the word "about", if it always just means "about the speaker". Do you see?