WHY does there HAVE to be a MEANING to a SONG?

Post by **Landwaster** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:39 pm

I hate songs with messages. That's why I'm no real fan of blokes like His Bobness. Nice music, but ...

Midnight Oil are the only band I abhor. They use MUSIC to present an opinion. There's plenty of mediums they could use without insulting the entertainment world with this rubbish.

That's why I love the 80s. Two words. I can't tell you what they are but let's just say they end in 'ubblegum pop'.

"Baby I'm waiting, anticipating, cause you're more than physical." (Bananarama).
"Someone tell me is it true, why my heart belongs to you." (Westworld).

In earlier day,s a bloke like Johnny Horton could take a subject matter that was begging for messages, and still use an uncanny skill to make a song with no moral at all! I love him, and I want to have his baby. "Yeah we ran through the briars and we ran through the brambles, and we ran through the bushes were a rabbit couldn't go."

Don't preach to me, artists, just sing, moll, just sing.

I shall leave you with a reference to one of my rare forays into enjoying a song with a message : "All I want is, radio ga-ga. Radio goo-goo. Radio ga-ga."

Post by **[Syl]** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:38 am

Landwaster, you just managed to almost, but not entirely convey the exact opposite way I feel about music.

All art is intended to communicate a message, even if that message is no message. To me, music without a message is commercial filler. Thought killer. It has the same place in the world as advertising. Sometimes it's amusing, but mostly I'd be happier without it.

Just my opinion, though. To each his own.

Post by **Landwaster** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:30 pm

Fair enough ... we sure don't have to agree!

Sylvanus wrote:Thought killer.

= what i like about music!

Nah I can SOMETIMES enjoy a message, but usually only when its amusingly cynical.

I guess I like music to be entertainment, rather than art.

(I am also one of those people who likes a painting IF IT LOOKS GOOD)

My wife and I are polar opposites on this!

Post by **Infelice** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 9:36 pm

Landwaster wrote: I guess I like music to be entertainment, rather than art.

(I am also one of those people who likes a painting IF IT LOOKS GOOD)

I too like music for entertainment. I can appreciate the message if one is conveyed in a song, but I dont go looking for one.

Probably why I'm one of the few people here that appreciates ABBA's music.

Post by **Gil galad** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 9:43 pm

landwaster do you know the hidden meanings in 'waltzing matilda' ?

Post by **Landwaster** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:51 pm

Umm probably not.

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:00 am

Or the hidden meanings in YMCA.

Post by **Landwaster** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:01 pm

doubt it

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 12:36 pm

There is nothing close to an objective, universally accepted, or correct definition of music, or art in general. My definition of art is something that elicits an emotional response. The music obviously doesn't need meaning for that, or lyrics of any kind. But, of course, the meaning of some lyrics can elicit intense emotional responses.

My first reaction would be that I'm not interested in music with political messages. And, considering my lack of religious belief, I'd say the same about music with religious messages. But then I remember that Bach wrote the greatest music that's ever been written, a huge portion of which was written for church services! So I'll have to keep an open mind on political music, and other stuff.

Post by **The Leper Fairy** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:44 am

I bet the Macerena is loaded to the brim with subliminal advertising.

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:58 pm

Yeah what does Waltzing Matilda mean?

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:47 am

Well it don't mean waltzing!!

(OK, it probably does. But I couldn't think of another answer.)

Post by **Forestal** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:49 pm

i have to agree with landwaster, i usually hate songs that have a meaning... i cant name any, because i dont like them... there may be a few that i do like, but i dont remember any...

mindless and entertaining, thats how i like my music...

and infelice, i like abba too

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:59 pm

It sometimes takes an artistic mind to truly appreciate and understand someone else's art. Most people that observe artworks in art museums or go to concerts or READ BOOKS do it for entertainment--not trying to get a message out of it all or come away a richer person; they just want their buttons pushed. And to me that is very sad. There is much more to art (and life) than getting your buttons pushed.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Do you read the TC books for a message or for entertainment? The TC books are an art, and I'm sure you come away from the books with a message, so why not treat other art forms on that level? Why not dip deep down into music like you do the books? Fact is, there is some music out there that contains nothing but beats on the surface, and there is some music with so much more below that surface--an artistic, elaborately-constructed form. And to listen to that artistic kind of music only for entertainment is like walking away from a TC book and letting the whole message fly over your head. If you do that then you’re missing the point--it's a major loss for you and I’m sorry.

It's like a video game--I don't play games for their graphics--I played them for their gameplay, their content. If I wanted just grooves and beats and such meaningless tripe I wouldn't listen to Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds or The Beatles--or Bach, for that matter. I'd probably listen to some rave music or some manufactured, over-slick pop that's not even written by the singers who sing them. I'd probably even listen to rap if all I cared about was something to entertain me. But I want content, so I go for those Beatles--I go for that ol' Bach.

It's all about quality over quantity. Sad fact is most popular music today is the latter.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:48 am

Sad fact is most examples of ANY genre of human creativity fall into the latter. That's the way it works. Only a small percentage is genius, otherwise it wouldn't be called genius. The rest just muddle through as best we can.

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:58 am

I agree with your point, but it wasn't what I meant. I was saying there were times (the 60s, 70s) when the most popular bands were actually putting really, really good stuff out that has yet to be topped. Bands like Pink Floyd and The Beatles, for example. The Who, Jimi Hendrix, etc. The list could go on and on. Now it seems everything is stale in the music industry, and there are no artists at the top--just "pop stars" that sing songs someone else wrote. All I meant is that there has been an overall creative decline when you compare now with then.

Post by **Forestal** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 5:13 am

i think u misunderstood me foul...

YOU MUST DIE!
joke...

no i what i mean is, messages are all well and good, but its the obvious messages that i dont like...

a subliminal message is fine, i dont mind those... but the ones that are blindingly obvious really hack me off... ya know? i dont want to be preached to when i listen to music... i want to sit back, listen and enjoy, so yes, i want to be entertained, not enlightened.

but if the song is good and it contains a message thats not annoyingly obvious, then good for the artist, hats off to them.

the thing i really like is a good solid song on its own, one that doesn't need a message to make it good, but is good on its own...

if it has a message and already submits to the previous catagory, great, but a song shouldn't be pure message.

perhaps i didn't explain myself very well before... sorry about that...

Post by **birdandbear** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:45 am

Isn't all of music a message in a way? Humans respond to music on a very primitive level. We can't help being emotionally affected in some way by any music we come in contact with. Whether we love it or hate it, or tune it out after a minute, we react to music. We get happy, or sad, or angry, or disdainful or bored - any of a thousand reactions - without even being consciously aware of it. It's a form of universal communication. So even if it doesn't have any particular message for your brain, it's still sending secret messages to your heart and your guts - get it?

Hmmm, didn't think so. What?

God it's late.

Post by **Landwaster** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:19 am

I get it, bird. Yeah I didn't mean it should be just lalala ... but that it shouldn't be dissed just because there's no moral or life lesson.

Post by **Theo** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:54 am

I agree that subtle messages generally make for better - or at least more accessible - art than obvious ones. But there are always exceptions.

Anyway, I find the whole question of whether "messages are good" a little odd. I don't really think we have a choice here. As usual, there are a couple of quotes by the great George Orwell to illustrate my position on this:

All art is propaganda. On the other hand, not all propaganda is art.

Or even better:

The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is in itself a political opinion.

I agree completely with this provided that you take the word "politics" in its widest possible sense.

This, of course, doesn't mean that a work of art has to be primarily motivated by the message it contains. But there's always gonna be one message or another, since otherwise there wouldn't have been anything to say (or sing, or paint, or whatever).

Theo

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

WHY does there HAVE to be a MEANING to a SONG?

WHY does there HAVE to be a MEANING to a SONG?