Thread: The meaning is

yeah, you're sure right, songs do have different meanings for the people who listen, I suppose their is generally a common meaning implied though (a high tempo upbeat song is not likely to be sad, this for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wl6R8u6Zus )

Another thing i've often considered is that people seem to associate the music directly with the lyrics, I don't even know the lyrics for 3/4 of the songs I like. For me, the meaning is in the music, not the lyrics, sometimes the lyrics compliment the music but the music is the main conveyor of meaning/emotion

True, there's that too, less concrete meanings like the general emotions conveyed by the mood of the music. In that sense, the whole personal meanings idea applies more to specific, more lyrical meaning, although the mood and emotion of a song provide an important backdrop.

lyrics do often compliment a songs implied meaning, but for me the lyrids seem quite disconnected from the meaning, tkae this song i'm listening to at the moment, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H5uWRjFsGc and the lyrics http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/chumbaw..._20031113.html

I've never really payed attention to the lyrical meaning until just now, it appears to be about someone having set backs, overcoming them and getting drunk in the process. I associate it more with Post Lucid Dream waking up I suppose. nothing about drinking or set backs anyway.

I don't particularly agree... some songs have very vivid lyrics with plenty of solid meaning and little room for misinterpretation.

Some songs have solid meanings, others have freeform (or in some cases, simply bad or vague) lyrics which will conjure up different images and ideas in different people. I don't think it's really important.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't particularly agree... some songs have very vivid lyrics with plenty of solid meaning and little room for misinterpretation.

How do you differentiate? What qualifies as "solid meaning" vs. open to interpretation exactly?

I can only really explain in examples, so...

Time by Pink Floyd is patently about life being short and that, if you do not realise this, you are liable to waste your limited time, until you are too old and most opportunities have passed you by. The lyrics are basically completely lucid and can't really be interpreted as anything else.

Wish You Were Here by the same band, however, uses disjointed imagery and metaphor. I appreciate it for its euphony, and I think the last verse is extremely beautiful, but the lyrics are clearly open to personal interpretation.

It's no different from poetry or even simple prose. Sometimes you can speak artistically yet vaguely, other times you can talk about very well defined concepts.

Originally Posted by Xei

I can only really explain in examples, so...

Time by Pink Floyd is patently about life being short and that, if you do not realise this, you are liable to waste your limited time, until you are too old and most opportunities have passed you by. The lyrics are basically completely lucid and can't really be interpreted as anything else.

I do get what you're saying...but I also don't think it's that cut and dry. For instance, while to you it may be merely a song about wasting time...but a religious person might interpret it as a song about losing faith or returning to God. Is one interpretation more "correct" than the other?

I think songs have emotional association, some more strongly that others, for example almost noone would say johny cash hurt is a happy song, but then a song like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-D15374kdM could be either happy or sad. Lyrics themselves do often have a direct meaning, but a track is about the music aswell, Often they compliment each other, many times i've listened for a song for years without even realising what the lyrics are about.

I do get what you're saying...but I also don't think it's that cut and dry. For instance, while to you it may be merely a song about wasting time...but a religious person might interpret it as a song about losing faith or returning to God. Is one interpretation more "correct" than the other?

The song doesn't speculate on what you 'should' be doing with your time. Therefore the message of the song has been, as far as I can tell, exactly the same for both people. They might react in different ways but they're reacting to the same message.

Originally Posted by Supernova

...there is no meaning.

I suppose this is as good a spot as any for this thread. A thought came to me while browsing the forums at toolshed.down.net (Toolnavy). I was thinking about Tool's music at the time, but it really applies to any music or art that has any depth to it. Commonly with music, especially with music as deep as Tool's, people concern themselves with the meaning of a song (or artwork, etc.) They think, "now what is this song supposed to mean?" What inherent meaning does this song carry. But stop right there, because there is no such thing. What matters in such an instance is the personal meaning it carries for any given person, the song carries no specific attached meaning, it's just the song. It carries a personal meaning for you, me, anyone else out there...and the person or people who wrote it. Sure, you could be looking for what it meant to the artist(s) when they were creating it, and this is sometimes more obvious than others, but in creating this artwork from their ideas (what it means to them), they create something that trancends their personal meaning. The simplicity of it is the beauty, because in viewing it as just a song with no inherent meaning, you form your interpretation of the meaning based on your perception of the work. And by looking further into your perception of the work you uncover further ideas that change the way you think about the work, and potentially the way you think about other, possibly more broad, topics as well.

Any thoughts on this?

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." -Frank Zappa

If you haven't already, you should look up General Semantics. Its a take on language and meaning very similar to what you've described.

the exception to the rule is concept albums. You know, albums where the whole point is to tell a story. I actually love those kind of albums. So cool to hear a story told in metal songs ^^

Mmm, concept albums.
Even some stuff like that can be partially open, like some of the details.

[offtopic]The Wall or Tommy?[/offtopic]

What I said though I think applies to a certain type of music mostly.

I do not approve of the use of "meaning". In the context given, it is anthropomorphic.

Secondly, if one is perceiving something, which they did not create, meaning is also impossible.

"meaning" is a predictive function of the agent, not the patient.

Anthropomorphic? Like Mickey Mouse and Wall-E?

If you're going to insist on using such an esoteric vocabulary, at least try to do it properly.

Originally Posted by Xei

Anthropomorphic? Like Mickey Mouse and Wall-E?

If you're going to insist on using such an esoteric vocabulary, at least try to do it properly.

If that was your attempt at humor, I really hope you were the only one who didn't get it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Anthropomorphic? Like Mickey Mouse and Wall-E?

If you're going to insist on using such an esoteric vocabulary, at least try to do it properly.

I think he meant: meaning that is personalized or humanized, right Philosopher? I wouldn't take it so literally.