| The Motels – Only the Lonely Lyrics | 2 years ago |
| For people who grew up around the 80s, this song was very much played, on the radio and elsewhere. And it's still played on satellite radio programming in shops or stores or restaurants. And it's too bad that the song really is cryptic, to some extent or another, like so much of pop music, where pop songs (in general) are probably becoming more cryptic, on the whole. Now, some people out there enjoy coming up with as many different interpretations of a song as possible, but knowing that a song is so cryptic. Ah, well some people out there will say, "It's a breakup song" or "It's about breaking up with someone, and that's all you need to know". Not necessarily true. You don't know all of the details behind the breakup. But some out there might answer, "You don't need to know all the details." Yes, we do -- as many details as possible. Knowledge is power, and being able to identify what's really behind the lyrics -- now that's important. | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[dexter79:48463] It's interesting you say that. I haven't heard anyone come up with that interpretation before. But let's take a look at the official video. The official video doesn't seem to say, "This is only an allegory". I think your interpretation is very questionable. Yes, there have been extensive literary works in English literature that have involved some big allegorical figures. But I don't think that this is one of them. But again, here's one of the biggest problematic things: Why didn't the mother run away along with her daughter? Were they in such a remote location that it would have been impossible to run away? Perhaps so, but the song doesn't explicitly say that. All it says, is that "Word gets around in a small, small town". If we assume it would have been very improbable that the woman would have been able, along with her daughter, to run away because the distance to a neighboring town would have been so great and therefore futile, then I suppose we can allow the argument, "Maybe running away just wasn't an option." Or, maybe a person could take the lyrics, "They said he was a dangerous man" to mean that "maybe he had a cache of pistols or rifles that he carried in his closet, or that he was so dangerously controlling, in a physical way, that she felt that the best option was to burn him to smithereens, because he was so dangerous." And I'll ask everyone, once again: "Do you agree that women have been found guilty of manslaughter -- or murder -- in cases in real life where they killed their husbands? Do you admit it? Do you want them to be held blameless and be allowed off, scot-free? Do you?" |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[ivyleaguer:48462] You claimed that it was (or is) a real-life situation. Are you trying to say that the song was (or is) autobiographical in the case of Gretchen Peters (she wrote the song)? If not, are you saying that the song simply refers to something that, in general, could happen in America? If so, should we be emptying the prisons of all the people who have ever acted out what has been referred to as "street justice"? Is it ever *ethical* to kill in the situation of street justice? In these United States, there's something called Manslaughter. Women have been put away for serious time for killing their husbands. Are you suggesting that such laws, in America are unjust, and therefore evil? And Martina McBride has claimed that she's received letters (supposedly of thanks) from women who were abused by their husbands? Why have they supposedly thanked McBride? What good did she do for anyone? |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[ivyleaguer:48461] Let's take a look at things. As I've written before, Martina McBride (perhaps to her credit, perhaps not) has claimed, in public, in an interview, that the mother didn't die in the fire. How does she know that? She didn't write the song. Maybe she felt that she had spent enough time with the songwriter (Gretchen Peters, in this case) in an attempt to speak for Peters. Interestingly enough, it was McBride who uploaded a video of her interviewing Peters about the song, and when she asked Peters about the background (how the song originated), Peters answered: "Out of the blue". So, part of it could have been an autobiographical account, but I have never read where Gretchen Peters ever said it was autobiographical. Interesting: "Let the right be wrong, if just for today"? So, what are we talking about? Situational ethics? Some sort of ethics that justify what arguably was a murder? After all, women in actual, real-life situations in American history, have served serious time for killing their husbands, apparently out of street justice. What, then? Should we argue for street justice? After all, it wasn't the Revolutionary War with this wife and her husband. -- But maybe some listeners might say, "Yes, it was indeed a Revolutionary War!" I see. How so? In 2023, that kind of activity is often referred to as "street justice". Why the heck didn't the mother run away from her daughter, huh? Why? The song does say, "Everybody looked the other way", and that would seem to include the local authorities -- but why in the world didn't the wife just run away to a nearby town, instead of killing one and maybe killing herself? Here's another piece of info sort of related to the song. Martina McBride has claimed that she has received letters from abused women. Really? So let's assume she's telling the truth. How in the heck did that song help all of those mothers? Would they be willing to kill their husbands? Aha! Are you suggesting that somehow, some of those mothers should get together and plan on going out and murdering their husbands? So let's say you think it was not murder. Would you accept that it was manslaughter? Think about it: If you were a woman, and you were abused, would it be righteous to commit street justice? But again, I'm assuming some women would answer, "It's not street justice" or "Sometimes, street justice is ethical". Why haven't we seen Martina McBride paying the full defense/healthcare fees of women who have been prosecuted and found guilty of manslaughter and/or murder of their husbands or boyfriends? Has Martina McBride come to the aid of women who have killed their husbands or their boyfriends out of some sort of belief that it was for the greater good? And if so, isn't "for the greater good" a utilitarian argument? And guess who is one of the most famous Utilitarians in history: John Stuart Mill. And John Stuart Mill was an atheist. Can you be Utilitarian, and still be a Christian? Shouldn't we at least have that discussion? And, as another listener pointed out, I know of no direct clear Biblical references in the song. Perhaps the songwriter (Gretchen Peters) was "thinking about" her supposed knowledge of the Bible, but I know of no direct reference. In fact, it could be argued that she's actually going *against* the Bible when she says, "Let the right be wrong". Isaiah, Chapter 5, in the Bible, says: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil!" But this song arguably says the opposite: "Let the right (good) be wrong (evil)." But listeners will shout at me and say that the song is holy, that the lyrics are righteous." What is their proof? Where's the proof? |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
| @[wicked_angel:48460] One possible argument is that Gretchen Peters (the woman who wrote the song) tried to usurp (or unwittingly usurped) the day (date) of the Declaration of Independence, which was July 4th, 1776. That's when the Second Continental Congress decided to adopt the Declaration Of Independence, a special day (date) in the history of the United States Of America, a day enshrined in American history, and which is not a current repudiation of any English person -- and is only a recognition and remembrance of the war that was won by the Colonies across the Atlantic Ocean from England and a reverence toward the Colonial leaders, soldiers, etc). | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[mariahlovesmusic:48459] Interesting. And when we look back at Martina McBride's statements in public, she has claimed that the woman doesn't die in the fire; the woman survives, according to McBride. Could this be a direct echoing of any statement by Gretchen Peters (the one who wrote the song)? Or, could it be a convenient way out for McBride, to try to justify the killing? The sixth Commandment in the Bible (the sixth Commandment within the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus) says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." What did the mother do to the father? Apparently, she killed him. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[ninakazama:48458] One interpretation is that that lyric goes against the Bible. And thus, we can argue that the song is unbiblical. How do we know that? It says, in the 5th chapter of Isaiah, in the Bible, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil!!" Is it evil to kill another human being in the same household? Consider this. Tell me, what's the sixth Commandment inside the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus in the Bible? "Thou Shalt Not Kill." What did the woman do to the husband in the song? Here's one more thing that Martina McBride fans might consider: Did Martina McBride team up with a Christian on this song? Well, let us ask ourselves: Is Gretchen Peters a Christian? Well, consider this: Gretchen Peters is Pro-Abortion. Peters has even donated money to Planned Parenthood. Ah, but Planned Parenthood performs mammograms for women, you say? Wrong. They never do mammograms for women themselves. On the contrary: They have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and hundreds of thousands more of innocent babies in the womb. We already know this. We know that the babies are innocent. So, let us ask ourselves: Is Gretchen Peters Pro-Life? Or is she Pro-Abortion? And Martina McBride, what can we say about her, when she partners up with a person who we know is Pro-Abortion? What do you think of that? |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[chungjik:48457] The sheer use of the words "Independence Day" is arguably iconoclastic and arguably an attempt to usurp the actual day (date) of July 4th, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence from the mother country (England). When we refer to, and look back approvingly upon, the "Independence Day" of 1776, we realize that it has a special place in the history of the United States of America. It is enthroned in American History as one of the significant nomenclatures but now, with the song "Independence Day" which was written by Gretchen Peters and sung by Martina McBride (and also has been performed by Peters herself) is arguably a wicked usurpation of the title of "Independence Day". There is a lot we can say, and there are some things we don't know, about the song "Independence Day". For someone to try to dig up a load of Scriptural support for the song, that's really horrible. The woman killed her husband in the fire. The Bible says, "Do not kill". That is the very sixth Commandment, in the book of Exodus in the Bible. There is no evidence that the father killed anyone, but even Martina McBride seems to admit that the woman killed the husband in the fire. (Martina McBride has claimed that the woman doesn't die in the fire -- but she's not the one who wrote the song.) |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[chungjik:48456] There is no specific mention of abuse of a child in the song, unless you're saying "I always seemed to get in the way" as clear and solid proof of abuse of the 8-year-old kid. And there's no specific mention of the woman "standing by" her husband, Unless you're saying, "Momma was proud and she stood her ground" as clear and solid *proof* of "standing by her husband". That's one aspect of things in the situation, but the main problems with "Independence Day include this: You must accept the argument that, at the very least, the song is iconoclasic. It attempts to usurp the title of "Independence Day" which has long been known as a reference to July 4, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress (of the Colonies that had long been beholden to England) adopted the Declaration Of Independence. This song arguably attempts to usurp July 4th, 1776, even if it wasn't actually July 4th on the day the fire happened. And iconoclasm isn't the least of the problems of this song. Why is that, you ask? As I've already written, the song arguably advocates murder. There is no specific mention that the woman was in the exact situation of trying to defend herself from her abuser. We must ask: Why didn't the woman take her daughter and run away to another town and hide out? Ah, so you're complaining that "Everybody looked the other way". So what? Why couldn't the mother steal a moment from the husband and run away with her daughter? Why? The song never answers that. So, we have the lyrics. We have the celebratory music. And we have the celebratory video. And, even before the video begins, we have a girl and a woman reciting "Amazing Grace". Amazing grace? So are you telling me that if anyone says, "God, please forgive me, but I'm about to...." and then what comes next in the sentence? Something horrible and very deadly? Come to think of it, I actually read a review where the poster/commenter claimed that the song was, or is, Scriptural in many different senses. Really? Seriously? What does Scripture *really* say? OK, let's look at the Ten Commandments, which are first spoken of in Exodus, the 2nd book of the Bible, which was written by Moses and which was one of the first 5 books, known as the Pentateuch (from Greek) and also referred to by Jewish people as the Torah. What does it say in the Ten Commandments? It says, "Do not kill". Oops. Right there. The sixth Commandment of the Ten Commandments. The defenders of this song, what do they want to do? They arguably want to rip that Commandment out of the Bible, or they want to say that there are supposedly "exceptions to the Command", or they want to say, "It's all in the way you interpret the verse". Really? Seriously? What about if they argue, "We have to look at things in a utilitarian way." Really? So, does a utilitarian argument somehow trump other arguments? And guess what: One of the most famous Utilitarians who ever lived on planet Earth, is (was) named John Stuart Mill. And John Stuart Mill was an atheist. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[Beautifulme77:48454] As far as I know, the singer (McBride) and the writer (Peters) have never said that the song has anything to do with the abuse of children. Obviously, the mother wasn't a child, she was an adult who presumably was old enough to carry the 8-year old daughter herself (there is no mention of adoption in the song). Martina McBride has claimed that she has received letters from women who were abused by men, but perhaps what none of them realize is that the song arguably approves of murder. And so arguably, Gretchen Peters and Martina McBride each have approved of murder. Women in real life (not songs and other fictional works) have been put in prison for life, for 86'ing their husbands. A brief search on the Internet will show you that women have paid, in prison time, for what they did to their husbands. This song arguably advocates for 86'ing one's husband and committing suicide. We have to remember that this wasn't a war between nations (such as the Revolutionary War or the Civil War). It was two people in the same household. When did people start arguably condoning murder? So, you think it never rose to the level of murder? What about manslaughter? There are legal consequences of committing manslaughter. Did the woman commit at least manslaughter of her husband? Arguably, yes -- and again, arguably murder. Martina McBride has claimed, in at least one public interview, that the woman didn't (doesn't) die in the fire. If that's true, then if there were such a woman in real life, then she'd probably hire a defense lawyer. If she could not afford a lawyer, perhaps an attorney would be appointed for her. And if you were the defense lawyer, and the woman was accused of -- let's say manslaughter -- then what would be your opening and/or closing arguments? |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
|
@[Created2022:48453] No, I'm an accomplished human being. All you know how to say is "moron". You sound pretty moronic to me. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
| @[twostorywindow:48452] Martina McBride has been quoted as saying, in public, that the woman didn't (doesn't) die in the fire/flames. But even if she said that, she wasn't the one who wrote the song, although she's sung it numerous times. We'll have to ask Gretchen Peters, who wrote the song and who said the song "came from out of the blue." She said this in an interview done by Martina McBride. | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
| I am looking again at some of the text there from "NoWorries1988", who claimed in 2006 that the Martina McBride/Gretchen Peters song "Independence Day" is a celebration of the Gospel of Christ. And I read the following: "It is about American’s Independence Day from Hell." There is nowhere in the four Gospels, and there is nowhere in the New Testament, where we are encouraged to commit acts of manslaughter. The Gospel of Jesus Christ never condemns war per se (such as the war of the Colonists against Great Britain, or certain other wars), and never celebrates war per se (unless if we're speaking of God's chosen people, the Israelites). More to come... | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 2 years ago |
| @[NoWorries1988:45662] The person who thinks that "Independence Day" is a celebration of the Gospel of Christ, apparently doesn't realize some important things about this song. First off, the Gospel of Jesus Christ never contradicts itself. But when we look at this particular song, we know that the lyrics say, at one point, "I ain't saying it's right or it's wrong..." But when we consider that the song is a rousing anthem, containing a rising of the ringing of bells (a reasonable interpretation might be Christian church bells, perhaps Protestant Christian church bells) and that it would be reasonable to say that the song has elements of enthusiasm and/or vigor and/or energy, that seems to be quite a quite a contradiction of the lyric, "I ain't saying it's right or it's wrong". Now, when the daughter in the song is claiming, "I ain't saying it's right or it's wrong", it's safe to interpret that line as the following claim: "Manslaughter could be right", or "Maybe my mother was acting righteously when she slaughtered my dad". More to come... | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
@[therealtam:42552] LOL no one likes you, a**hole. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
@[therealtam:42551] LOL no one likes you, a**hole. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
| @[therealtam:42550] LOL you're a moron. | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
The song is about a woman who kills her husband. In today's society, when you kill someone, it's either called (A) murder or (B) manslaughter. Whoever commits manslaughter or murder is supposed to go to prison. If you approve of this song, then you approve of manslaughter. That's the truth. Plain and simple. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
@[therealtam:42477] : NEWSFLASH, young kid........ most people know that if you commit manslaughter, that means you GO to PRISON. @[therealtam:42477] : Do you approve of manslaughter? Answer the question. Martina McBride approves of manslaughter, and possibly murder. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
@[Created2022:42476] Was he an evil man? Yes. But the LAW says that if you commit manslaughter, you go to PRISON. Do you want that? A guy hurt you. So do you really want to kill him? IF SO, then you MUST serve time in PRISON. And yeah, Martina can sing a tune, but she still approves of manslaughter. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
@[Created2022:42474] You are defending manslaughter and possibly even murder. That makes you a horrifically disgusting person. |
|
| The Carpenters – Goodbye To Love Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
The song has heavy fatalistic overtones. A very, very sad-sounding song. Yes, it does have an electric guitar solo near the end of the song, but the song is still partly fatalistic. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
| @[Beautifulme77:42460] The song means either, "murder is OK" or "manslaughter is OK." The child in the song says, "I'm not sayin' it's right or it's wrong, but maybe it's the only way." That's a bunch of BS. Anyone who sings this song is OK with manslaughter or murder. Same with Gretchen Peters, who wrote the song. | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
@[twostorywindow:42459] Well, one would think that the woman dies, ("sent me to the county home") but according to a statement by Martina McBride, the woman doesn't die. But she didn't write the song. Maybe she wants to protect her image. But she didn't write the song. It was written by Gretchen Peters. |
|
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
Here's what this song is about. A woman is mistreated by her husband. And people in her community looked the other way. So she kills him. He is in the house. She sets the house on fire, and he is burned and she killed him. Since the song is so celebratory, it means that the songwriter believes in manslaughter, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or 3rd degree murder. And it also means that Martina McBride (online data shows that the song was originally recorded back in 1990) believes in manslaughter, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or 3rd degree murder. She sang this song at a concert as late as 2012 and there is no indication of her renouncing the song. Does it mean that Martina McBride is a murderer? No. Does it mean that Gretchen Peters is a murderer? No. But means that they are happy with the outcome: the woman killed her husband. |
|
| Queen – Bohemian Rhapsody Lyrics | 3 years ago |
| @[stanley109:41422] Only one sort of question: If they are sworn to secrecy and then cannot talk of it in public, how did you learn of it and then talk of it in public? I think it\'s a fair question. | |
| Queen – Bohemian Rhapsody Lyrics | 3 years ago |
| @[stanley109:41421] Well, whether or not it\'s about Bohemian Grove, the song arguably presents a person\'s last words before he commits suicide.\r\n | |
| Queen – Bohemian Rhapsody Lyrics | 3 years ago |
| The song arguably contains a person\'s last words before he commits suicide. | |
| Martina McBride – Independence Day Lyrics | 3 years ago |
|
This song arguably advocates murder. It\'s really an arguably disgusting song. It arguably advocates for women to murder their husbands. At the very, very least, it\'s iconoclastic to usurp and replace (or at least stand alongside) the American Revolution of the late 1700s against King George III, which was a war between nations (actually, a war between a nation and a group of colonies which had acted against its mother nation). In my view, Martina McBride is really disgusting, because she's belted the song loud as heck on the record and in public, and obviously (as you can see by the video) celebrates what the mother did. And so, we must ask: What did the mother do? We should at least accept the interpretation that the husband died. This is because Martina McBride has been quoted as saying, in public, that the woman didn't die in the fire. Martina McBride celebrates it anyway. And not only does she celebrate it, she claims (in the audio track and the video) that it's a very glorious, special, and wonderful event -- what the mother did (does). Ask yourself: Is it lawful to kill another person, when it is not an act of war between nations or colonies, where we're not just talking about two individuals in a family (nowhere in the song does it mention any abuse of children specifically, unless you interpret the line "I always seemed to get in the way" as abuse of children)? If so, then when is it lawful and when is it not lawful? Secondly, ask yourself: Is it ethical to kill another person? I see, so you're arguing, "Yes"? Again, as with the law: Why (or when) are you arguing that it would be ethical and just to kill another person? It's really a shame that record companies and promoters and marketers have allowed that kind of creepy psycho material. At the very, very, least, you'd have to accept that the song is iconoclastic. Iconoclasm -- or much, much worse. |
|
| The Beatles – Maxwell's Silver Hammer Lyrics | 3 years ago |
| The song laughs about murdering people. It doesn\'t matter who wrote it. It\'s disgusting. | |
* This information can be up to 15 minutes delayed.