I’ve heard that Paul Simon has always been pretty open about many of his songs not having any deep or hidden meaning, they were written to sound good. He has no idea what their mama saw that was against the law, a “mother and child reunion” is a chicken and egg dish he saw listed on a Chinese menu, etc.
Think of it as one of those SAT type questions:
mulatto::albino, mosquito:: ?
(that’s my answer and I’m sticking to it!)
This. Thank you.
Another thing with people asking about song lyrics (I am a performing songwriter, BTW) is that it can feel like they are prying into the craft of what you do. The nuts and bolts of building songs is not necessarily interesting or enlightening. IMHO the absolutely most boring thing a songwriter can talk about, on stage or in an interview, is his songs.
Oh, man. Part of me wants to say “That asshole!” just because I have spent years trying to figure out WTH he’s talking about in his music. Thing is, I love his music–from his S&G days to his current album (my birthday gift, in fact). And of course, part of me respects him all the more as an artist for that.
Hubby and I split over one particular line: “The sun gets weary and the sun goes down ever since the watermelon.” My thoughts: “The watermelon?! WTF?!” Hubby: “That’s awesome and whimsical! After all, watermelons have been around for a long time!”
:dubious:
Absolutley no disrespect intended, but this attitude perplexes me. You put forth a product(for lack of a better word) for people and then find it prying when they’re interested in learning more about it? Why not just keep a diary, or why perform them at all?
Perhaps the nuts and bolts of building a song is of no interest to you, but I don’t understand how someone’s interest can be seen as anything but complimentary.
Enough people have responded that many times songs really have no meaning and
while I find it surprising, I’ll take you all at your word. But a response akin to “it’s none of your beeswax and why are you even asking?” seems a bit odd to me.
Again, no disrespect meant. I’m honestly trying to understand your point of view.
A lot of lyrics do have intentional meanings, but not always.
I also have to disagree that it’s boring to talk about the songwriting process. Sonwriting is the most interesting aspect of music to me, is my favorite thing to do as a musician, and is the thing that most interests me about the artists I like. I’m far more interested in reading about something like how “Strawberry Fields” was conceived and developed than I am about who John Lennon was banging or what drugs he did or what the band was fighting about at the time.
The funny thing about that story was that Mantle was still playing baseball when “Mrs. Robinson” came out (he retired in the spring of 1969). Did Mantle expect the song to be “where have you gone Mickey Mantle” when he hadn’t gone at all?
For me, songwriting is interesting to talk about with other songwriters - people who understand the craft and the work that goes into a song. But too often when people (non musicians) are asking what a song means, it can reduce a complex melange of images, evocations, bits and pieces of life experience, fantasy, desire, unrequited love, and a girl I saw drive by on a scooter into a boring one sentence summation of a single idea. This is just my opinion, my take on it. I find performing songwriters who (during a performance) talk about nothing between songs but their songs - the inspiration thereof or “what it means” - to be boring. I say: play your song, don’t tell me what it means. I can decide for myself if the lyrics are interesting and well-crafted and if the song works. I am just not very interested in what the details of the lyrics mean. Does the song move me and speak to me emotionally? Are the lyrics clever and thoughtful and poetic? If so, then I don’t care if you wrote it about your cat but I am imagining it’s about your girlfriend. Just my opinion; YMMV. When I perform I almost never say anything about my songs; never even mention the titles. But I always have amusing anecdotes and commentary to throw in between songs to make the show fun and engaging.
I’m not a songwriter and I frequently read about the backgrounds of songs I like, so I don’t have some kind of opposition to this. But the measure of a song (or any piece of art) is how well it stands up on its own merits, not how well the artist explains it. So I think songwriters are sometimes reluctant to explain their songs for that reason.
And it’s also worth pointing out that explaining the origin of a song is always a lose-lose proposition for the author. Nobody ever hates a song and then decides they love it after they find out what it was written about. On the other hand, people sometimes decide they don’t like a song anymore if they find the explanation disappointing, or it turns out the song isn’t about what they thought it was about. There was a song on the last Derek Trucks Band album that my mother really liked- and then she heard the story behind it: while they were on the road, the keyboard player went down to breakfast one morning and found the hotel was out of eggs. He was furious, and he sat down and wrote a song about it. Later they wrote new lyrics and you’d never know the song had anything to do with a buffet, but my mom says she can’t listen to the song anymore because she thinks about the egg story. Or take a look at several posts in this thread.
Put it another way: because that is how the music is supposed to work. Leaving things ambiguous enables you to fill in the gaps - enhancing the possibility of a connection.
A good song is meant to be like getting worked by a cold reader- before you realize it, you find yourself manipulated by it, filling in its ambiguities with your emotions and experiences.
That’s why.