First of all: I rarely do what I'm about to do: My usual behavior pattern is as follows: I really dig a song, get a lot of meaning out of it, then come here to see what others have to say, and add my own two bits.
But I have to say something about this song because it seems like someone has to.
Does anyone else notice how phenomenally artless and fey this song is?
First, let's look at the music of the song. I know this is a board for commenting on the meaning of lyrics... but, even for folks who enjoy inspired lyrics, a lot of the energy and power you derive from the impact of that song derives from the music. And the song structure/accompaniment of "Stars" is of the most staid, boring variety; the "melody" sounds like the singer listened to those boring 4/4-time I/IV/V chord changes and came up with a correspondingly boring, noodly string of notes that sort of work OK against those changes. Utterly uninspired, all 'round, musically speaking.
And what about those lyrics? There's a really easy way to describe bad lyrics of that type: They sound like bad high-school poetry.
I'm sure the writer had all those feelings and all that, and bully for him. But there's an amazing tradition in the world of songwriting, and it has to do with the fact that a great lyricist possesses both affect and skill; and the art of lyrics is thus a little like walking a tightwire: You have to have the affect, but you also have to recognize that there's a tradition which places certain demands on the expression of those feelings. In short, a good lyricist is a true artist, and thus a rare bird, indeed.
That said, we can all think of times when a marketing weenie at a music production/distribution company decides to damn the torpedoes and let substandard musical and/or lyrical hackery escape from the studio and find some small market: And this song is a sterling example of that.
Wow. Like I said, I've never done this before; and I don't take it flippantly or lightly, as I hope you will discern from the detail in my analysis. But I can't think of a better forum for just letting one's hair down like this and making a good and proper stand for musical/lyrical artistry. Someone's gotta do it, and I guess it's gotta be me.
I've only heard one other song by "fun", and it also sucks, in pretty much the same way; I strongly suspect the band to be consistent in their dedication to eschewing artistry. Maybe they will evolve into something better. I certainly hope so!
But the key is that we have to evolve into something better. And one thing that comes along for that evolutionary ride is discernment in the matter of art.
First of all: I rarely do what I'm about to do: My usual behavior pattern is as follows: I really dig a song, get a lot of meaning out of it, then come here to see what others have to say, and add my own two bits.
But I have to say something about this song because it seems like someone has to.
Does anyone else notice how phenomenally artless and fey this song is?
First, let's look at the music of the song. I know this is a board for commenting on the meaning of lyrics... but, even for folks who enjoy inspired lyrics, a lot of the energy and power you derive from the impact of that song derives from the music. And the song structure/accompaniment of "Stars" is of the most staid, boring variety; the "melody" sounds like the singer listened to those boring 4/4-time I/IV/V chord changes and came up with a correspondingly boring, noodly string of notes that sort of work OK against those changes. Utterly uninspired, all 'round, musically speaking.
And what about those lyrics? There's a really easy way to describe bad lyrics of that type: They sound like bad high-school poetry.
I'm sure the writer had all those feelings and all that, and bully for him. But there's an amazing tradition in the world of songwriting, and it has to do with the fact that a great lyricist possesses both affect and skill; and the art of lyrics is thus a little like walking a tightwire: You have to have the affect, but you also have to recognize that there's a tradition which places certain demands on the expression of those feelings. In short, a good lyricist is a true artist, and thus a rare bird, indeed.
That said, we can all think of times when a marketing weenie at a music production/distribution company decides to damn the torpedoes and let substandard musical and/or lyrical hackery escape from the studio and find some small market: And this song is a sterling example of that.
Wow. Like I said, I've never done this before; and I don't take it flippantly or lightly, as I hope you will discern from the detail in my analysis. But I can't think of a better forum for just letting one's hair down like this and making a good and proper stand for musical/lyrical artistry. Someone's gotta do it, and I guess it's gotta be me.
I've only heard one other song by "fun", and it also sucks, in pretty much the same way; I strongly suspect the band to be consistent in their dedication to eschewing artistry. Maybe they will evolve into something better. I certainly hope so!
But the key is that we have to evolve into something better. And one thing that comes along for that evolutionary ride is discernment in the matter of art.