Haha I love how someone throws in an - according to himself - "obvious" Christian meaning, when the artists themselves have a total different idea about the song. I know music can have different effects and can evoke several feelings and interpretations, but DON'T put something like that down as a fact. Just say that to YOU it reminds you of the bible. Fine with that, but don't think for the artists or other fans.
Congratulations, Rudez88. Your post is the straw to break the camel's back. In this case, the straw is the highly unoriginal sentiment you've regurgitated, while the camel's back is my patience with that sentiment.
Congratulations, Rudez88. Your post is the straw to break the camel's back. In this case, the straw is the highly unoriginal sentiment you've regurgitated, while the camel's back is my patience with that sentiment.
Intention does not equal meaning. An artist can say what they intended (partially or fully) with their art, but that does not exhaust what the art means. If I write the word "ORANGE" on a billboard, and intended the color, while some other dude comes along and reads it as meaning the fruit, the word "ORANGE" on the billboard has at least two meanings, both the...
Intention does not equal meaning. An artist can say what they intended (partially or fully) with their art, but that does not exhaust what the art means. If I write the word "ORANGE" on a billboard, and intended the color, while some other dude comes along and reads it as meaning the fruit, the word "ORANGE" on the billboard has at least two meanings, both the color and the fruit. In other words, the subjective experience of the other dude is not merely subjective. It touches on an objective facet of the symbol. Yes, I didn't intend for the word to be read as meaning the fruit, but I should have been aware that the English word "orange" just does have these common meanings. That's what it means to share language. (This is all Semiotics 101, by the way.)
I hate this about popular music criticism and interpretation: any attempt to forward an objective interpretation of music and/or lyrics--especially when the interpretation posits religious aspects--is shot down as "intolerant," "close-minded," etc. 'We all got our opinions, man, and no one has any right to forward his opinion over anyone else's.' Anyone see the irony of this last sentence? This sentence, parroted in how many different ways in press and on the Internet, forwards AS OBJECTIVE FACT the OPINION that it is wrong to forward one's opinion as fact. You might rejoin that it is not an opinion that it is wrong to forward one opinion as fact, but rather a fact, to which I pose the following question: How do you know?
Answer: You don't. There are no practical means of determining which domains of discussion are open to fact and which open merely to opinion. (Also, in classical thought, "opinion" didn't mean something that was true for its believer and not necessarily true for anyone else; it meant something of which its believer wasn't 100% sure.) If anyone actually cares about value theory and types of knowledge, realize that this whole "Fact vs. Opinion" garbage is based on the long-refuted philosophical system of logical positivism. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism )
With respects to "Clones," come on: read "I'd simply ascend / To see what the soul looks like in the end," consider Pete's admitted Catholicism, and try to read it in a non-religious way. (The "they're not a Christian band" bullshit is a cop-out. And again, what Pete consciously intends is only one part of the picture.) Whether "Clones" syncs up specifically with "Envy" is a matter of debate, but jackwhiteWannaBe is right that this album's symbolism is laced with religious significance.
Haha I love how someone throws in an - according to himself - "obvious" Christian meaning, when the artists themselves have a total different idea about the song. I know music can have different effects and can evoke several feelings and interpretations, but DON'T put something like that down as a fact. Just say that to YOU it reminds you of the bible. Fine with that, but don't think for the artists or other fans.
Congratulations, Rudez88. Your post is the straw to break the camel's back. In this case, the straw is the highly unoriginal sentiment you've regurgitated, while the camel's back is my patience with that sentiment.
Congratulations, Rudez88. Your post is the straw to break the camel's back. In this case, the straw is the highly unoriginal sentiment you've regurgitated, while the camel's back is my patience with that sentiment.
Intention does not equal meaning. An artist can say what they intended (partially or fully) with their art, but that does not exhaust what the art means. If I write the word "ORANGE" on a billboard, and intended the color, while some other dude comes along and reads it as meaning the fruit, the word "ORANGE" on the billboard has at least two meanings, both the...
Intention does not equal meaning. An artist can say what they intended (partially or fully) with their art, but that does not exhaust what the art means. If I write the word "ORANGE" on a billboard, and intended the color, while some other dude comes along and reads it as meaning the fruit, the word "ORANGE" on the billboard has at least two meanings, both the color and the fruit. In other words, the subjective experience of the other dude is not merely subjective. It touches on an objective facet of the symbol. Yes, I didn't intend for the word to be read as meaning the fruit, but I should have been aware that the English word "orange" just does have these common meanings. That's what it means to share language. (This is all Semiotics 101, by the way.)
I hate this about popular music criticism and interpretation: any attempt to forward an objective interpretation of music and/or lyrics--especially when the interpretation posits religious aspects--is shot down as "intolerant," "close-minded," etc. 'We all got our opinions, man, and no one has any right to forward his opinion over anyone else's.' Anyone see the irony of this last sentence? This sentence, parroted in how many different ways in press and on the Internet, forwards AS OBJECTIVE FACT the OPINION that it is wrong to forward one's opinion as fact. You might rejoin that it is not an opinion that it is wrong to forward one opinion as fact, but rather a fact, to which I pose the following question: How do you know?
Answer: You don't. There are no practical means of determining which domains of discussion are open to fact and which open merely to opinion. (Also, in classical thought, "opinion" didn't mean something that was true for its believer and not necessarily true for anyone else; it meant something of which its believer wasn't 100% sure.) If anyone actually cares about value theory and types of knowledge, realize that this whole "Fact vs. Opinion" garbage is based on the long-refuted philosophical system of logical positivism. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism )
With respects to "Clones," come on: read "I'd simply ascend / To see what the soul looks like in the end," consider Pete's admitted Catholicism, and try to read it in a non-religious way. (The "they're not a Christian band" bullshit is a cop-out. And again, what Pete consciously intends is only one part of the picture.) Whether "Clones" syncs up specifically with "Envy" is a matter of debate, but jackwhiteWannaBe is right that this album's symbolism is laced with religious significance.