| Dire Straits – Brothers In Arms Lyrics | 15 years ago |
|
First of all, even if this song may have been written in response to the Falklands War, it's definitely not about that war specifically. Songs like this are usually meant to be timeless - which is what makes them so effective. I've always interpreted "Brothers in Arms" as being anti-war, but nonetheless empathetic with soldiers in battle. On the one hand, the song recognizes that comradely bonds formed in battle are very strong, and that brothers in arms will fight to the death to protect each other (the military maxim that you "fight for the man beside you"). At the same time, the narrator steps back and realizes that for every band of brothers who believe in the sanctity of their comradeship, there's another group of armed men who feel exactly the same way - and will also fight to the death for their own brothers. So what this song points out is that while hatred is usually what leads to war, friendship between brothers in arms is the fuel that feeds the flames. |
|
| Līve – White, Discussion Lyrics | 15 years ago |
| I remember an interview with Ed Kowalczyk (can't remember where) in which he talked about this song. My recollection is that he said the lyrics were inspired by the 1992 L.A. Riots, but also that the song isn't specifically about race - it's about the futility of discussion by mutually hostile groups of people (white people and black people, liberals and conservatives, rival countries, etc.) who ultimately wind up destroying each another with their bickering. The end-of-the-world imagery in the second verse is both metaphorical and literal. | |
| KMFDM – Anarchy Lyrics | 15 years ago |
|
"The "second coming" of Jesus. The end of the world so they say." Considering how many of KMFDM's songs have an atheist (or at least anti-religious) message, I would doubt that this is what they meant. The image of crucifixion is about the only thing remotely religious, and it's an image that's been used by lots of bands who express disdain for Christianity. Also, if you are a Christian, you might as well just admit your bias. I have no problem admitting mine (I'm atheist). |
|
| KMFDM – Anarchy Lyrics | 15 years ago |
|
This song isn't that tough to understand, especially if you know KMFDM's or Tim Skold's politics. They are of the anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist persuasion (with a little bit of a Trotskyist streak), and that is the sort of "anarchy" that they are referring to here. The song itself, however, is a condemnation of all statist governments and movements (whether monarchical, theocratic, nationalist, fascist, or communist). It's also a warning to all would-be revolutionaries that they must be vigilant, because they might be following leaders who will be just as bad as (or worse than) the same oppressors that they overthrew. In other words, an "Animal Farm"-type situation. Most people here have correctly interpreted the first part of the song, which is easy enough to understand: It describes the mindset of an individual who feels disaffected and angry, and they blame the society around them (and the government) for their suffering. Regardless of whether this perception is right or wrong, the important thing is that this individual's mentality is shared by many others in the same society. They all feel oppressed, they all have grievances, and they all have reached the point where they feel as though they have nothing to lose by taking up arms and overthrowing the established order. So they join revolutionary movements that promise to end their oppression (real or imaginary) and create a bright new future. The second verse of the song is mostly about what happens during and AFTER the revolution has been carried out by the people described in the first part of the song. First they fight to overthrow the existing order ("sacrifice to the cause"). Then they implement a new government based on the ideology of their movement ("turn your code into law"). However, the new system fails to produce the glorious utopian future promised by the leaders of the movement; instead it leads to continued poverty and hardship, so the leaders use propaganda to blame foreigners or counter-revolutionaries for their failures ("compensate, to validate the loss"). Pretty soon, the government starts to kill dissidents who point out that the revolution isn't living up to its promises, or anyone else blamed for the failures of the new system ("take a thief, nail him to a cross.") By this point, the new order looks just like the old order, or worse. There are lots of historical examples that come to mind: The Nazis (obviously), the Bolsheviks in Russia (Orwell's example), the Pan-Arab movement in the Arab Middle East, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, etc. I imagine that KMFDM would argue that this also applies to the American government in a number of ways. Sometimes, the result of the latest form of tyranny (under a new name and with a new face) is that another group of people get angry enough that they're pushed to take up arms. Except that this time, they've suffered far more than the last group of revolutionaries, so they are likely to be far more angry, far more radical, and far more violent (hence the lyrics about "gospel of rage, faction of hate" and "born of revenge, raised off cement"). For historical examples of this, think of how the failure of the Pan-Arab movement in the Middle East led to the rise of the suicide-bombing Islamic fundamentalists, or how many African leaders who overthrew the European colonial regimes became so oppressive that they were themselves eventually overthrown in coups (by ultra-violent guerrillas who had a penchant for cutting off their opponents' hands). The"king of deceit" that KMFDM is referring to in the chorus, therefore, is a revolutionary leader who claims to be fighting against oppression, but takes power and then oppresses the same people he/she fought to "liberate". Their point is that government in any form represents a "God" of "superiority" based on a hierarchy of leaders and followers. So any revolution based on the replacement of one government with another will eventually lead to more disaffection and violence, and the cycle continues. The only way to break this cycle is to abandon the concept of a "state" and "government" altogether. So KMFDM promotes Anarchy (a "God" of "blood, not superiority") as the solution because it's the only form of government which does away with leaders and followers, and therefore, has no risk of producing more oppressors and violence. It's a very Hegelian argument, and consistent with most forms of Anarchist theory. |
|
* This information can be up to 15 minutes delayed.