If You Love Somebody Set Them Free

This song trually captures what love means in a very catchy way. If you love someone you do what ever it takes to make them happy even if it isn't what you want. " If you love someone set them free" isn't about letting someone leave your life, but allowing them to make the choices in life they want, to trually allow them to achieve a personal best

Certainly, this is a song about allowing the people you love to make choices, even if those decisions don't always benefit you.

Personally, though, it always reminds me of the liberation I felt upon breaking up with a guy who was irrationally jealous of me--of my having other friends, talking to any other guy, or making career decisions that might cause me to move away.

[Sting]: (1985) If You Love Somebody Set Them Free was the first single I did on my own away from the Police. I'm not sure if the phrase is mine. I probably read it somewhere. But it's the first time it's been used in a song, I think. And it's true, you can't imprison someone in a relationship. It's an antidote song to 'Every Breath You Take'. One song is about constricting, possessive love, and one is about being free. I suppose the truth is somewhere in the middle. This has a Motown sort of vibe, and my attempt at soulful singing. I had a great band at the time: Kenny Kirkland (keyboards), Branford Marsalis (saxophone), Darryl Jones (bass). Yes, Darryl's in the Rolling Stones now. He's one of my alumni I'm most proud of.

I used to think that it was about a person who loved someone who didn't love them back.

After listening to the song in full, I reckon it's about loving someone but giving them the freedom to make their own choices. Love a person and let them love you but don't be obsessive or possessive.

This an awesome, catchy ass song!!! Wooo, Gordon!!!

In 1985 he released his debut solo album, the jazz-influenced Dream of the Blue Turtles. The title came from an actual dream of Sting’s, worthy of the Beatles’ “Yellow Submarine” or “Octopus’s Garden.” In it, he saw an immaculate and sheltered English garden being destroyed by a marauding group of large blue turtles. In a Jungian analysis of the dream the dramatic, shocking turtles were taken as symbolic of Sting’s new (solo) band and its chaotic but needed effect on his staid and comfortable life in the Police. This confirmed for Sting the value of striking out on his own.

[From Rock & Holy Rollers: The Spiritual Beliefs of Chart-Topping Rock Stars in Their Lives and Lyrics by Geoffrey D. Falk.]

My sisters loved the Police. I was never into them, but when I was introduced to Sting's jazz music, I nearly fell off my chair. He's a brilliant artist!

Ridiculous logic in these lyrics....too sad

I think this song speaks to more than others have touched on. The first verse makes the message plain: love should not be possessive. But the next verses take it deeper. "If it's a mirror you want..." This verse is evocative of the many different roles we can both play and project in relationships. Eg. You can see your reflection or you can see your shadow...we can both captivate and be captivated, imprison others and/or imprison ourselves. But there is also another sub-theme of material affluence vs poverty. "prisoner in the dark" vs "gilded cage" As Sting was in analysis at the time he wrote this it was probably kickng up a lot of material. "Forever conditioned to believe that we can't live/We can't live here and be happy with less /So many riches, so many souls/Everything we see that we want to possess" This stanza speaks to the confusion between love and materiality. And I don't think Sting is the only one who is confused. This is a very western, late capitalist ("conditioned to believe" = a lifetime of consuming marketing) problem. "Free" is a word we use to refer to personal liberty, but it also is a way we describe the condition of something we don't have to pay (money) for. I think sometimes we don't know if love is something we have to pay for on some level, or if we have to earn it, or If we're worth it, or if we can afford it. We might think we will only get it if we earn more first. Or we don't have it because we're too poor (shameful). But in an ideal world love is free, everyone gets it, everyone deserves it, love is given freely, effortlessly, and without end. A gift economy. Now we confuse poverty with personal worth, and lovelessness. We disparage the poor. We equate poverty with uselessness/worthlessness. Whereas in a perfect world, all are equal.

[Edit: edits]