For Konie and the rest of the doubters, Van Morrison has a message....
http://youtu.be/cnVsUpjjOeo
You may want to listen to Astral Weeks afterwards.
http://youtu.be/cnVsUpjjOeo
You may want to listen to Astral Weeks afterwards.
Hotel California, The Eagles
2 of 2
Originally Posted by mgvsmith:
“For Konie and the rest of the doubters, Van Morrison has a message....
http://youtu.be/cnVsUpjjOeo
You may want to listen to Astral Weeks afterwards.”
“For Konie and the rest of the doubters, Van Morrison has a message....
http://youtu.be/cnVsUpjjOeo
You may want to listen to Astral Weeks afterwards.”
See also. "It ain't why, it just is" 😉
Originally Posted by Midnight Moggy:
“The varying answers in this thread seem to suggest that no one is quite sure what the song is actually about!
”
“The varying answers in this thread seem to suggest that no one is quite sure what the song is actually about!
”
Don Henley was pretty sure what it was all about, Henley said that the song was about "a journey from innocence to experience
Originally Posted by jackol:
“Don Henley was pretty sure what it was all about, Henley said that the song was about "a journey from innocence to experience”
“Don Henley was pretty sure what it was all about, Henley said that the song was about "a journey from innocence to experience”
Shades of William Blake, U2 have also referenced 'Songs of Innocence and of Experience.
Originally Posted by mgvsmith:
“Shades of William Blake, U2 have also referenced 'Songs of Innocence and of Experience.”
“Shades of William Blake, U2 have also referenced 'Songs of Innocence and of Experience.”
As did Jah Wobble...
The Tyger
Originally Posted by mgvsmith:
“Laugh away. It sure doesn't bother me.
The original inspiration for a song doesn't mean it has a fixed meaning. The listener is perfectly entitled to interpret the song as they hear it.
Paul Simon wrote 'Homeward Bound' at Widnes Railway Station when he was missing his girlfriend. That was the inspiration but the song serves as a touchstone for any one missing home. What is pretentious about that?
The very song you mention may well be inspired by Glenn Frey's impression of west coast culture. He actually did choose to write the song as a metaphor and in interviews has suggested the song has a sociopolitical theme. Which is pretty close to saying he thought the song would be open to interpretation.
Wanting to know the background to why a song was written or the original inspiration is fine but it isn't always necessary or helpful.”
“Laugh away. It sure doesn't bother me.
The original inspiration for a song doesn't mean it has a fixed meaning. The listener is perfectly entitled to interpret the song as they hear it.
Paul Simon wrote 'Homeward Bound' at Widnes Railway Station when he was missing his girlfriend. That was the inspiration but the song serves as a touchstone for any one missing home. What is pretentious about that?
The very song you mention may well be inspired by Glenn Frey's impression of west coast culture. He actually did choose to write the song as a metaphor and in interviews has suggested the song has a sociopolitical theme. Which is pretty close to saying he thought the song would be open to interpretation.
Wanting to know the background to why a song was written or the original inspiration is fine but it isn't always necessary or helpful.”
My point was that if a song is "open to interpretation", it's because the listeners have decided that it is, because it's difficult to work out, not because that was the purpose of the song. It's just an excuse for when the lyrics are hard to understand or confusing.
If Glenn Frey said he wrote the song as a metaphor, then it has a very definite meaning. You are contradicting your own argument! You do know what a metaphor is?
Originally Posted by konebyvax:
“Err, no. They say stuff like this when they have written a song with just random words, usually when under the influence. Absolute nonsense to suggest a songwriter of any standing and perfectly sober/not under the influence would purposefully write a song that was meant to be 'open to interpretation'. Even when not under the influence it's basically an excuse for substandard songwriting, favoured by bands like Radiohead.”
“Err, no. They say stuff like this when they have written a song with just random words, usually when under the influence. Absolute nonsense to suggest a songwriter of any standing and perfectly sober/not under the influence would purposefully write a song that was meant to be 'open to interpretation'. Even when not under the influence it's basically an excuse for substandard songwriting, favoured by bands like Radiohead.”
This sums it up perfectly!
Originally Posted by Midnight Moggy:
“My point was that if a song is "open to interpretation", it's because the listeners have decided that it is, because it's difficult to work out, not because that was the purpose of the song. It's just an excuse for when the lyrics are hard to understand or confusing.
If Glenn Frey said he wrote the song as a metaphor, then it has a very definite meaning. You are contradicting your own argument! You do know what a metaphor is?
This sums it up perfectly!”
“My point was that if a song is "open to interpretation", it's because the listeners have decided that it is, because it's difficult to work out, not because that was the purpose of the song. It's just an excuse for when the lyrics are hard to understand or confusing.
If Glenn Frey said he wrote the song as a metaphor, then it has a very definite meaning. You are contradicting your own argument! You do know what a metaphor is?
This sums it up perfectly!”
No contradiction at all. What is the metaphor represent?
Look through the thread and you'll see that there are different interpretations of the words and images. Is it a metaphor for hell, for a mental institute, for a decadent lifestyle, for the Californian counter culture etc?
A metaphor is just a literary device. You need to try harder.....
Originally Posted by Midnight Moggy:
“My point was that if a song is "open to interpretation", it's because the listeners have decided that it is, because it's difficult to work out, not because that was the purpose of the song. It's just an excuse for when the lyrics are hard to understand or confusing.
If Glenn Frey said he wrote the song as a metaphor, then it has a very definite meaning. You are contradicting your own argument! You do know what a metaphor is?
This sums it up perfectly!”
“My point was that if a song is "open to interpretation", it's because the listeners have decided that it is, because it's difficult to work out, not because that was the purpose of the song. It's just an excuse for when the lyrics are hard to understand or confusing.
If Glenn Frey said he wrote the song as a metaphor, then it has a very definite meaning. You are contradicting your own argument! You do know what a metaphor is?
This sums it up perfectly!”
Why are you so uncomfortable with listeners coming to their own conclusions?
Or that texts have more than one meaning?
I also notice you ignored the Van Morrison reference.
I've walked Cyprus Avenue and been to Orangefield and Coney Island. Van just uses those as starting points for his songs but that's not what they are about or mean.
When I listen to New Order's 'Ceremony' it prompts all sorts of connections for me - the Ravenhill Road in Belfast, the closing sequence of "The Third Man', late nights in Norwich watching with a certain female......I'm sure Ian Curtis did not have those things in mind when he wrote the words but who cares?
Maybe you only connect if you know what a song means or its background?
With Hotel California, it' s not a song I even like. But it has perplexed people for years, perhaps because the writing is not as good or as clear as Frey intended, don't know.
But if you expect to understand 'Ballerina' or 'Summertime in England', have fun.
Also send me your denial of Van the Man or Ian Curtis as great songwriters.
Originally Posted by Andy Birkenhead:
“I absolutely love Hotel California by The Eagles, but I have a simple question :
What the heck is it about ??
I have heard various theories, including a haunted hotel, a prison, a hospital, a drugs rehab centre etc.
So then - what is it ACTUALLY about ?
Thanks”
“I absolutely love Hotel California by The Eagles, but I have a simple question :
What the heck is it about ??
I have heard various theories, including a haunted hotel, a prison, a hospital, a drugs rehab centre etc.
So then - what is it ACTUALLY about ?
Thanks
”
It's the emblem of the EU. You can check out but you can never leave.
#Brexit
Originally Posted by mgvsmith:
“No contradiction at all. What is the metaphor represent?
Look through the thread and you'll see that there are different interpretations of the words and images. Is it a metaphor for hell, for a mental institute, for a decadent lifestyle, for the Californian counter culture etc?
A metaphor is just a literary device. You need to try harder.....”
“No contradiction at all. What is the metaphor represent?
Look through the thread and you'll see that there are different interpretations of the words and images. Is it a metaphor for hell, for a mental institute, for a decadent lifestyle, for the Californian counter culture etc?
A metaphor is just a literary device. You need to try harder.....”
No, I mean that if he wrote it as a metaphor then he himself knew what the song was about, regardless of whether he actually bothered to explain what that metaphor was to anyone else.
Originally Posted by mgvsmith:
“Why are you so uncomfortable with listeners coming to their own conclusions?
Or that texts have more than one meaning?
I also notice you ignored the Van Morrison reference.
I've walked Cyprus Avenue and been to Orangefield and Coney Island. Van just uses those as starting points for his songs but that's not what they are about or mean.
When I listen to New Order's 'Ceremony' it prompts all sorts of connections for me - the Ravenhill Road in Belfast, the closing sequence of "The Third Man', late nights in Norwich watching with a certain female......I'm sure Ian Curtis did not have those things in mind when he wrote the words but who cares?
Maybe you only connect if you know what a song means or its background?
With Hotel California, it' s not a song I even like. But it has perplexed people for years, perhaps because the writing is not as good or as clear as Frey intended, don't know.
But if you expect to understand 'Ballerina' or 'Summertime in England', have fun.
Also send me your denial of Van the Man or Ian Curtis as great songwriters.”
“Why are you so uncomfortable with listeners coming to their own conclusions?
Or that texts have more than one meaning?
I also notice you ignored the Van Morrison reference.
I've walked Cyprus Avenue and been to Orangefield and Coney Island. Van just uses those as starting points for his songs but that's not what they are about or mean.
When I listen to New Order's 'Ceremony' it prompts all sorts of connections for me - the Ravenhill Road in Belfast, the closing sequence of "The Third Man', late nights in Norwich watching with a certain female......I'm sure Ian Curtis did not have those things in mind when he wrote the words but who cares?
Maybe you only connect if you know what a song means or its background?
With Hotel California, it' s not a song I even like. But it has perplexed people for years, perhaps because the writing is not as good or as clear as Frey intended, don't know.
But if you expect to understand 'Ballerina' or 'Summertime in England', have fun.
Also send me your denial of Van the Man or Ian Curtis as great songwriters.”
Unfortunately you are STILL missing the point. I'm not uncomfortable with listeners coming to their own conclusions, why on earth would I be? Personally, I quite like to know the writer's actual intended meaning, but what other people choose to do is obviously up to them. And of course, it's not essential to enjoy the song, because people sometimes ignore the lyrics and focus on the music anyway.
The point is that the song had an original meaning, even if listeners have reinterpreted it. To say that the song was supposed to be a song where you make up your own meaning, i.e. "open to interpretation", that is what I am suggesting is inaccurate.
Yes, I listened to the Van Morrison clip, but I don't see what difference that makes to anything.
The lyrics could actually be a theme song for your argument and opinion, but what exactly does that prove? Here's a singer who shares your opinion?The songs of both Van Morrison and Ian Curtis have never appealed much to me. I have to say I find them quite boring, but I am aware that they are considered great songwriters by some, or are icons or whatever. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at there.
Did both of these artists insist that their songs have no definite meaning? Are they well known for that or something? I've never read any interviews with either of them, so I really wouldn't know. I suppose Van Morrison might be saying that in Why Must I Always Explain, but of course as you keep saying yourself lyrics can be "open to interpretation"!
Originally Posted by Midnight Moggy:
“....
The point is that the song had an original meaning, even if listeners have reinterpreted it. To say that the song was supposed to be a song where you make up your own meaning, i.e. "open to interpretation", that is what I am suggesting is inaccurate.
Yes, I listened to the Van Morrison clip, but I don't see what difference that makes to anything. The lyrics could actually be a theme song for your argument and opinion, but what exactly does that prove? Here's a singer who shares your opinion?
The songs of both Van Morrison and Ian Curtis have never appealed much to me. I have to say I find them quite boring, but I am aware that they are considered great songwriters by some, or are icons or whatever. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at there.
Did both of these artists insist that their songs have no definite meaning? Are they well known for that or something? I've never read any interviews with either of them, so I really wouldn't know. I suppose Van Morrison might be saying that in Why Must I Always Explain, but of course as you keep saying yourself lyrics can be "open to interpretation"!”
“....
The point is that the song had an original meaning, even if listeners have reinterpreted it. To say that the song was supposed to be a song where you make up your own meaning, i.e. "open to interpretation", that is what I am suggesting is inaccurate.
Yes, I listened to the Van Morrison clip, but I don't see what difference that makes to anything.
The lyrics could actually be a theme song for your argument and opinion, but what exactly does that prove? Here's a singer who shares your opinion?The songs of both Van Morrison and Ian Curtis have never appealed much to me. I have to say I find them quite boring, but I am aware that they are considered great songwriters by some, or are icons or whatever. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at there.
Did both of these artists insist that their songs have no definite meaning? Are they well known for that or something? I've never read any interviews with either of them, so I really wouldn't know. I suppose Van Morrison might be saying that in Why Must I Always Explain, but of course as you keep saying yourself lyrics can be "open to interpretation"!”
I don't think we are as far away as you think. I see songs having a starting point rather than an original meaning. I actually wouldn't dispute that most often song writers have an original intention, theme whatever. I love Mary Chapin Carpenter, she writes quite wordy, quite pointed songs and it's pretty clear what she's on about. It's actually great to know the back story and the original intention but I don't feel limited by that. I don't think Hotel California is a great song but some do. I preferred the Eagles of "Lying Eyes' and 'Take it to the limit'.
The suggestion was made that if a songwriter wasn't clear about their intention then they were somehow substandard. All i'm really saying is that when you consider Van, Joy Division, Joni Mitchell, Radiohead etc....that just isn't true.
2 of 2
