My Funny Valentine

@tarzan05

@tarzan05

What exactly do you mean is one error of several.

What exactly do you mean is one error of several.

He sings precisely: Not if you really care for me.

He sings precisely: Not if you really care for me.

Do you mean the 'for' isn't 'good' english? Then sing it 'good' more yourself, thereafter we can judge the goodness of your lyrics. Is the tarzan of the djungle of the langage brachiateing smart through the words unphotographable because of the ridiculousity as tarzoon, the shame of the djungle?

Do you mean the 'for' isn't 'good' english? Then sing it 'good' more yourself, thereafter we can judge the goodness of your lyrics. Is the tarzan of the djungle of the langage brachiateing smart through the words unphotographable because of the ridiculousity as tarzoon, the shame of the djungle?

It's not the Oxford Dictionary of courtesan conversation of the royal-correct kind here, but the song's lyrics how-are. Isn't it? Just-reading the songtext isn't sufficient, maybe. The listening the song...

It's not the Oxford Dictionary of courtesan conversation of the royal-correct kind here, but the song's lyrics how-are. Isn't it? Just-reading the songtext isn't sufficient, maybe. The listening the song would be helpful probably.

And the 'really' is really skipable, not extending the meaning really.

But anyway, congratulations for your two english-competent really nerd-glassed supporters, what find this meaning of songtext really relevant too. Of course, precocious wisenheimers roam everywhere, letting back thumb-up-tag-marks of schoolmasterly correctness in the dephts of the cyberspace as dogs let back pissing-marks at the trees of the nature's space too, to signalize the own significance.

Sorry for my 'arrogance', but it's really unphotographable comic. It's meant more comic than serious.

@tebdanner

@tebdanner

That's an interesting viewpoint.

That's an interesting viewpoint.

I must confess, that it opened my eyes to understand the meaning at all. But of course, nor Chet Baker, nor the ultra-prominent broadway-songwriter-duo Lorenz Hart / Richard Rodgers were women. So, I doubt anyway, if it is really true, that it is written from the feminine viewpoint really. But the address towards a man is very credible for me too. Or even nonunderstandable really, else.

I must confess, that it opened my eyes to understand the meaning at all. But of course, nor Chet Baker, nor the ultra-prominent broadway-songwriter-duo Lorenz Hart / Richard Rodgers were women. So, I doubt anyway, if it is really true, that it is written from the feminine viewpoint really. But the address towards a man is very credible for me too. Or even nonunderstandable really, else.

The original meaning of the songtext is maybe targetted homo-erotic or simply non-erotic, what works for me perfectly too. It's irrelevant in my eyes, as love isn't erotic exclusive. And...

The original meaning of the songtext is maybe targetted homo-erotic or simply non-erotic, what works for me perfectly too. It's irrelevant in my eyes, as love isn't erotic exclusive. And the erotic side of the love isn't forcely a theme to talk about public, as it is very private.

The song talks maybe even exactly of the incredible fruitful and prominent partnership of the composer Rodgers with the lyricist Hart in base.

The artworks of general validity with a concrete base in the real life are always-better, isn't it? Or, at least often-better, as it is frequently less stilted-artificially and fetched-hereby-from-far-away.