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)