Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Cryptic lyrics? Message-ID: <317@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 06:39:25 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.317 Posted: Tue Nov 5 06:39:25 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 04:09:03 EST References: <294@mb2c.UUCP> <686@grkermi.UUCP> <2058@reed.UUCP> <250@mit-eddie.UUCP> <17083@watmath.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 28 Keywords: K. Bush - Doug's ravings about > From: jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) >>[Me:] ... I can send you Kate's official explanations. > So, what you're saying, Doug, is that Kate's lyrics are so perfect that > she has to provide a separate explanation so you can understand just what > the fuck she was trying to say? > Funny, I always thought that the purpose of trying to get a message across > to someone was actually getting the message across ... No, I'm not saying that at all. Since I came to my conclusions about what her lyrics mean long before she explained them, and they usually agree quite closely (often pefectly), this is proof (is it not?) that her lyrics, while cryptic, are certainly not indecipherable. With lyrics that are crytpic, one can say much more, and say that much more powerfully, than lyrics that are completely straight-forward. This is largely due to the phenomenon that ambiguity allows one with few words to conjure up many images at the same time. It just takes some thought on the listener's end too, but that's the point of saying something in a song, right? It's not to impart information, but to make the listener think about something. "In my dome of ivory, a home of activity" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)