|Stars – Personal Lyrics||13 years ago|
Many good things have been said and I'll try to summarize it somewhat.
I think Rokr got it quite - look at the title. This song is about being "personal" in different ways.
First, it's about the actual nature of those internet dating platforms and I'm quite surprised no one has talked about that yet. While everything seems totally meaningless, spontaneous and not personal, there are actually deep feelings behind all that happened. The music illustrates this, I think: Notice how the melody of the singers is actually very monotonous almost throughout the whole song, while it is the music - the thing that only the listeners hear - that reveals its actual tragic nature. Only when she writes him after he didn't show up her voice changes very slightly, has more melodic peaks. And when she finally sings "I was sure you saw me", when she rests a moment on that high note of "sure", that is actually the only time emotions really show up. But then she leads on - "it wasn't meant to be."
Then, it's about the way the two characters deal with their emotions and with intimacy.
I half agree with clashippy: "therefore, girls over-analyze, boys lead on"
But I'd rather say - they both over-analyze, and they both ultimately lead on. I also think in the end they both blame themselves, but this is not so evident in the case of him, because the fundamental difference between them is that she talks, while he doesn't.
And that's the magic of it - that is, I think, why he didn't show up in the first place, and also why he didn't tell her anything: Being personal is just a weight is not able to bear.
As for all the speculations, I think it's part of this song that we actually don't know what's going on. We only have their private (another hint!) messages, and we have the thoughts of Caroline (notice that we don't know his name at all): so first we get just her perspective, but only at the end does the male character himself question the story, very faintly (again cfr. the musical interpretation), thus adding a wholly different perspective. We are left with a look at both sides, which somehow tells us nothing - and somehow everything.
|Owen Pallett – If I Were A Carp Lyrics||14 years ago|
Parts of this song, e.g. around 1:10, remind me of Shostakovich. I don't think this is a coincidence, given the topic of death which was very central in Shostakovich's work.
Well, Owen holds a degree in composition, after all, he surely knew what he was doing.
|Secret Machines – Marconi's Radio Lyrics||15 years ago|
|Is it possible that there are two tracks named "Marconi's Radio"? 'Cause the one I have here is just instrumental and only 2:46 long.|
|A Perfect Circle – Passive Lyrics||15 years ago|
Ok, lyrics like those CAN actually be interpreted in many different ways. However, I don't see where all this stuff with girlfriends, killing, government, Bush, God (?), etc. comes from.
I admit that this is the only song I know from APC - and perhaps the other songs on this album would help to find an interpretation -, and that I don't exactly know what Maynard himself says about this song. But it doesn't really matter, IMHO. Once a text is written, it's written - the meaning lies in the lyrics themselves and not in what the writer meant to say with them.
The lyrics primarily talk about someone who seems to be dead, something that the speaker doesn't accept. The speaker is disappointed by the other person who doesn't respond to what he says though this person isn't supposed to be dead but wake up and "to become [his] perfect enemy". Thus the speaker gets angry ("you disappoint me" becomes "you fucking disappoint me" later in the song, a climax) and tells the other one that he'll walk away one day.
The first question (and a very important one that shouldn't be neglected) is: Can we trust the speaker? Does the mere fact that he doesn't believe that the other person is dead also mean that he really isn't dead? Seeing the doctor as what he is - not a symbol for some authority and whatnot, but just as a professional who knows more about the functions of the body - I don't see a reason why he should be wrong: He tells the speaker "dead as dead can be". Another hint is the optimism of the speaker ("ever the optimistic one") - would he mention it, if he really were sure that he is right? So to me the speaker is struggling with his non-acceptance of the death of this other person - and though he seems to be speaking to this person he is in fact speaking to himself, trying to convince himself that the other one is not dead.
Now to the part with the "perfect enemy". The speaker wants the other person to face him and to be his enemy. I pretty much agree with the things pikki said on page one, it seems to be about some sort of love/hate relationship or at least about the feelings you have for an enemy. An enemy can be very important for you - you might get used that much to endless arguments with him that in the end he becomes a part of your life and you can't really live without him. I conclude this because of the speaker's non-acceptance of the death, which means that the other person indeed does matter to the speaker (or he would have walked away long ago and not just "someday" in the future), although an enemy.
The only thing that I can't quite grasp is the "passive agressive" line (which is probably rather important, since the title of the song is "passive", too). I've looked up the definition on wikipedia (and it seems to be a rather complex phenomenon), but it doesn't help much, since I can't decide what exectly the speaker is talking about: Is he calling the dead's behaviour "passive agressive"? Or does he talk to himself?
So to me basically this song is a rather unconventional approach to death - it doesn't focus on a whiny person who is really sad, but it shows another aspect of men's psyche: that they are unable to accept such things and that they always try to blame other persons, in this case the dead himself. Although this song certainly doesn't make anyone cry I still think it's somehow more sad than if it were just like "oh, I miss you, I loved you, why did you go?" etc. The other aspect of this song is, as mentioned, the importance of an enemy - this is also rather unconventional because it doesn't show the enemy as the "bad one", but as a person that is really important.
Now, I've talked about what I conclude from the literal meaning of this song (which you can't deny) - the next question would be if this song is supposed to be a parable. If so, I don't see any specific hint if not the "passive agressive" line at the end - meaning that the death could be just a metaphor for this kind of behaviour which would open up a new interpretation that could be entirely different (I just can't find it, now). I certainly do not see where you could interpret Bush, the government, etc., because it's just not in the text, no matter what Maynard might have said.
Just my 2 cents~
* This information can be up to 15 minutes delayed.