Phish lyrics and Dadaism
Richard Bartolone
pointless, and/or just plain dumb. I thought I'd throw in my 2 bits here
and see what you all think. Sometime around the 1920's there was an artistic
movement called dadaism. The name "dadaism" was coined for the simple reason
that the word "dada" is completely meaningless. Basically, the underlying
principle of the movement was that life is meaningless, and since art
imitates life, art is meaningless also. Dadaist art can be interpreted but
that is not its point. It tries to get your mind to make connections you
wouldn't usually make -- a famous dadaist phrase is "Elephants are
contagious." Of course, drawing a connection in your mind between elephants
and disease is not something you do every day. While this phrase has no
obvious meaning, it has gotten you to use parts of your mind in combinations
you are not used to using together. Sort of like aerobics for the mind,
in a way. Phish's lyrics, when written down on paper, do not seem to make
sense in many cases. For example, Stash -- "control for smilers can't be
bought / the solar garlic starts to rot / was this for my life I sought /
maybe so and maybe not." Well, close enough on the lyrics anyway, they'll
still get my point across. This chunk of lyrics makes little to no sense,
correct? Well, the first line makes you associate control with material
things -- can you ever buy control? The solar garlic starts to rot --
although we have no idea what solar garlic is, rotting is not a happy action.
The connotations in that line speak more than the meanings of the words.
Was this for my life I sought? Maybe so and maybe not. These last two lines
seem to echo the "life has no meaning" portion of dadaism. Is THIS what life
is about? Solar garlic and smilers? A bunch of nonsense? Ah, who the hell
cares. You'll never really know.
So next time you find yourself bored with seemingly trite lyrics,
look beyond them. Sometimes the lyrics are just another instrumet in the
mix, and words are chosen solely for their sounds (Fluff's Travels!?). At
any rate, regardless of whether the lyrics make any sense or not, they
certainly flow with the music just right. So don't let yourself be held back
from appreciating the music by lyrics you don't like. If you open up your
mind just right, everything flows in and you can hear that the lyrics just
sound right with the music sometimes. After all, that is the most important
aspect of music, is it not? To sound....well, musical.
I'd be really interested to hear what everyone else has to say on
this subject. Please post to the net as I think this could be of interest
to many other people....if you disagree with me completely, I'd like to hear
that too, and why. Thank you for your time and I will return to my normal
lurkage. Actually, I'm thinking of posting some other thoughts up soon also.
Wow, the thought of posting two or <gasp> even three messages up on phishnet
in one week is overwhelming :). Take it easy, all, and remember that above
all, Phish (and music in general) is about having a good time.
-Jake
Sorry about those "^M"s, I wrote this on my home computer....
Jesmond
>pointless, and/or just plain dumb. I thought I'd throw in my 2 bits here
>and see what you all think. Sometime around the 1920's there was an
artistic
>movement called dadaism. The name "dadaism" was coined for the simple
>reason
>that the word "dada" is completely meaningless.
> a famous dadaist phrase is "Elephants are contagious."
[snip]
> next time you find yourself bored with seemingly trite lyrics,
>look beyond them
[snip]
> don't let yourself be held back
>from appreciating the music by lyrics you don't like.
[snip]
>-Jake
*TRANSLATION*
Stay away from disease-ridden elephants, and if you listen really hard to
Phish, you can ignore the meaningless lyrics and still have a really good
time.
Jes
Kysa Nygreen
> So next time you find yourself bored with seemingly trite lyrics,
> look beyond them. Sometimes the lyrics are just another instrumet in the
> mix, and words are chosen solely for their sounds (Fluff's Travels!?). At
> any rate, regardless of whether the lyrics make any sense or not, they
> certainly flow with the music just right.
I couldn't agree with this more. I think lots of Phish lyrics are chosen
for their lyrical sound, rather than meaning. The music is why we listen
to phish, and the lyrics are often incidental, complimenting the music.
Tom Marshall lyrics are really visual and presice,
setting a scene, painting a picture, recreating a feeling, merely by the way
they sound, in much the same way each instrument does. Maze and
Sparkle come to mind right now. They describe a feeling or a scene I can
really relate to, from a different perspective or in a way that I
wouldn't think to describe it.
And washa-you-feetzy, drive me to Firenze. These lyrics are merely
another instrument. You are going the wrong way if you search for meaning
where none is intended.
There's also a lot of room for personal
interpretation. I tend to think lots of lyrics are about drugs, but
that's just the way I interpret things. I don't think Tom Marshall or
Mike or Trey or whoever it was writing really intended this, but that's
irrelevant to me. When *I* listen to a song, it means something specific
to me. It's a personal and individual thing. That's how we all form our
own personal relationships with the music. And that's why it means so
much to us.
--Kysa
evan bernstein
> interpretation. I tend to think lots of lyrics are about drugs, but
> that's just the way I interpret things. I don't think Tom Marshall or
> Mike or Trey or whoever it was writing really intended this, but that's
> irrelevant to me. When *I* listen to a song, it means something specific
> to me. It's a personal and individual thing. That's how we all form our
> own personal relationships with the music. And that's why it means so
> much to us.
i thought this was hte best written paragraph on interpretation that i
have hearc and i thing EVERY english teacher should read it!
as we're on the lyrics topic. as i was listening to squirming coil at the
mann (1st night) the lyrics "little jimmy is off to camp" hit me SO
strongly. as it was i was ecstatic to be hearing the song 'cause i wanted
to hear page's solo live in person, but the lyrics realyl touched me. as
it was horse >siletn was right before it and it helped me too to "wake up
from 'her' andstart the day a new w/a stronger confidence in oneself" it
means something if you let it.
then the coil. tonight i was discussing it w/a friend (it seems all i do
is talk about phish-oh wellm right now it means somethng to me where
other things don't). i was explaining this song as it applies to the
whole maturation process. it is so well crafted. the first lyrical
section is just a quick summary of someone having a goal and trying to
escape it, then finding the tempting devil and searching for it only to
find it squirming away from him again. almost a "you can't reach your
goal" feel. then it switches to teh story part. the 1st paragraph jimmy
is born. muscles flexing and mother's ring could literally be the vaginal
muscles at work and the crooked street being the vagina so that the birth
is complete. or more figuratively the mothers ring being her embrace and
hold over the kid as he matures into his own being so that the birth
again is complete as he becomes an individual.
as he is becoming an adult, he sees the tannis root. a root is often
buried in the ground. being buried -> forbidden. forbidden things are not
good. but it is a "tasty nectar shoot" even being from teh "forest" and
natural so how can it be as bad as it is supposed to be? jimmy is beginning
to question what he is told and starting to think for himself. also the
idea of being a leader (of himself) is very tempting, like seeing "the
monarch's suit" shining.
this paragraph can also have a drug conotation if you wish: the root is
some kind of natural growth that being a root, again, is forbidden. so it
is a natural plant: pot comes to mind. it is tasty and is tempting.
sounds like it could be that way if you wish...
then jimmy's statement which shows a lot of understanding: "i'd like to
lick the coil someday" but he does not say i'd liek to only achieve. he
tells of iccarus who has to pay for his accomplishment. generally
iccarus's story is told of a man blinded by his dreams. but here it is
told in another light: he achieves his goal by flying so close to the
sun. he did not fail as everyone else believes. but he also had to take
the fall; accomplishments never come for free, the balance is always
struck. jimmy is accepting that he will have to fail many times in
attempting to like the coil, as well as after he does. nothing is
permenatn or forever.
again this culd be drug relate: you get high flying close to the sun, but
then it wears off and you fall back down after the dose runs out. it
still brings the same meaning after passing through this root. so are
drugs bad? you have to pay the price for the happiness - is it worht it
for you? that is a personal decision. the stronger the drug the more
likely chance for death quickly, others will kill you over years. there
is still the price to pay for the hapiness. everything has its price...
on a tangent for slight bit...
the last verse starts off with imagery w/o any direct meaning that i
find. "stun the puppy" is not a very nice thing to say and most people
don't like being mean to poor defenseless creatures. "burn the whale"
again not a plesent image, yet people do/did it all teh time when the
burned whale fat for light - unpleasant things happen yet we have to
accept them, or we can choose to; or choose not to, and change them.
"go to jail" again- unpleasant, yet again accepting to pay the price for
accepting the risks and deeds you do. "little jimmy's off to camp" a
bunch of things, mostly imagery. in the case of sleep away camp - the
child is on his own, as this whole song is discussing. or the fact that
you play in camp. jimmy is off to play in the world now, on his own.
and then the repeat of the line: "it got away"
even if you find peace and salvation it won't always stay with you.
nothing stays, it sometimes, no, always, goes away in the end. the
process is never complete. there are no destinations, only journeys. "the
point of a journey is not to arrive" (to steal from a rush song for a
moment :)
some would say the song ends sadly, but i think more it is a relazation.
some choose to accept that relizing independance is a sad thing, more it
is a sombering thing. but just because it sounds that way, doesn't mean
you can't relish in the sadness that it might cause you at first.
anway, this song has recently become extra "strong" in my mind. marshall
is a great lyricist. despite that people think it is all sillyness. it is
more than that, while being that all the same. thats why i love phish-
there are SO many levels it can be taken at. it can make you laugh, cry,
dance, spit (?), jump, and run like an antelope.
one person who thinks the dead is more spiratual than phihs, while phihs
is more fun. i disagree. of course, i have to - i'm not him. i think
phish is damn spiritual if you want them to be. but like with things in
life you have to look for it, it won't get you. (i'm not saying anytihng
on the dead, i like them, this is a phish discussion). i love the
different levels that phish can bring me to. it would be possible to live
an entire life around phish for everything they can do. and for awhile i
will, and hten i will find something else to do for a little while, and
then another. and i will continue to chase the coil myself despite that
some people find it sad that i will never catch it (not even in death - i
see no heaven), but i relish the chace while i am given the chance!
(sorry about the typ-os)
na...@cybercom.com
------
"please me have no regrets"
looking for live shows (filling blanks or trade)? then look in my homepage:
http://www.cybercom.com/~nave/
Joe Rioux
|in a way. Phish's lyrics, when written down on paper, do not seem to make
|sense in many cases. For example, Stash -- "control for smilers can't be
|bought / the solar garlic starts to rot / was this for my life I sought /
|maybe so and maybe not." Well, close enough on the lyrics anyway, they'll
|still get my point across. This chunk of lyrics makes little to no sense,
|correct?
I don't think so. They're only senseless if they a) didn't mean anything to
the person who wrote them and/or b) if they mean nothing to you.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with Jake's Dadaist theory...
Has anyone ever thought that many of their lyrics are metaphors for "something"
else? I think many of their lyrics are poetry-like. Where, in some cases, the
individual lines seem to be a disjointed series of statements that rhyme togather
but don't seem to make sense by themselves. BUT, they could possibly have a
collective meaning, like a poem. Or some poems, that is.
j()e
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Joe Rioux __o |
| Softdesk Inc. _ \<,_ "It's an obsession but it's pleasin'." |
| j...@softdesk.com (_)/ (_) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ryan Littlefield
<rbar...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> So next time you find yourself bored with seemingly trite lyrics,
> look beyond them. Sometimes the lyrics are just another instrumet in the
> mix, and words are chosen solely for their sounds (Fluff's Travels!?). At
> any rate, regardless of whether the lyrics make any sense or not, they
> certainly flow with the music just right. So don't let yourself be held back
> from appreciating the music by lyrics you don't like. If you open up your
> mind just right, everything flows in and you can hear that the lyrics just
> sound right with the music sometimes. After all, that is the most important
> aspect of music, is it not? To sound....well, musical.
I think a key thing about Phish's songs, is that the music and lyrics
complement each other - the sound of the lyrics go along with the music,
and just as importantly, the imagry of the music corresponds with the
lyrics. I have often had a lot of my friends ask me after I have played
them a Phish song "You really pay attention a lot to the words. When I
listen to music, I just listen to the sounds." I try to explain that I do
not listen to any one part in particular, but try to listen to
everything. But it has started me thinking that Phish's lyrics does
require more attention, because it actually "explains" or gives substance
to the music. Some good examples is Foam, Maze, and Run Like An Antelope,
and even Simple (with bebop). If you do not listen to the lyrics, then
you miss half of the song (the deeper half). Even Lizards, Divided Sky,
and Harry Hood uses a lot of imagry which in those cases are used to carve
out large, huge expanses of musical landscape. I find it very hard now to
ignore or separate one part of a song from the rest - not listening to the
lyrics would be like forgetting to include an instrument.
Ryan
--
Ryan Littlefield
rli...@terrapin.scripps.edu
The Scripps Reasearch Institute
Joint Gratuate Program
j.s.
> >I've noticed several posts recently demeaning Phish's lyrics as silly,
> >pointless, and/or just plain dumb. I thought I'd throw in my 2 bits here
> >and see what you all think. Sometime around the 1920's there was an
> artistic
> >movement called dadaism. The name "dadaism" was coined for the simple
> >reason
> >that the word "dada" is completely meaningless.
> [snip]
>
> > a famous dadaist phrase is "Elephants are contagious."
> [snip]
>
> > next time you find yourself bored with seemingly trite lyrics,
> >look beyond them
> [snip]
>
> > don't let yourself be held back
> >from appreciating the music by lyrics you don't like.
> [snip]
>
> >-Jake
>
> *TRANSLATION*
>
> Stay away from disease-ridden elephants, and if you listen really hard to
> Phish, you can ignore the meaningless lyrics and still have a really good
> time.
>
> Jes
Excellent thread...
I firmly believe that all of the interpretations are valid. Only serving
the suuort the notion that meaning is emergent to the individual.
However, the evidence of meaningless meaning does not exist.
Some of the interpretations in the thread involve the context of the
language being reinforced by the music. Others have intepretated meaning
simply from the language. And another claims that it is allows for the
synthesis of two contrasting sides of the brain and acts as a mechanism
for fluidity in thought processes.
Mr. Bernstein's eloquent intepretation of Coil allows for different
interpretations while preserving the context instead lingering in
tangential thought. In addition, we show not be so hasty to judge
tangential thought as meaningless. If individuals are taken along the
path of some particular thought from either the language or the music,
then it is this thought in itself that is the emmergence of of the
realization and the foundation of meaning.
Some of the lyrics are meant to be left for personal interpretations and
literally make no sense at all in our collective linguistic dictionary.
However, this does not classify as senseless and meaningless because
meaning does exist to each and every person who conceptualizes some
particular meaning. Even though those lyrics are not really saying
anything does not me that the band is not gettin a kick out of the folk in
the first couple rows who are singing along in the infamously
undecipherible part of YEM. Genuinely, this is all in good fun.
In the days when before communication of various mediums, there was the
ritual of the Veglia and traditional folk customs. Stories and songs were
passed on to the younger children in the form of fairy tales. The
youngers would be put to bed and the older generation would share stories
with one another reinforcing themes like the evils of the city (a
recurring theme today). And at the end of the eveniing the young unmarried
adults would sing love songs of sorts. All of the rituals involved the
listener of the stories and songs to derive some meaning. The younger
children were not directly told of the evils of the city in direct
language in the tale. But rather would become conscious of the message
over time and the unique meaning to him or her. The values of the culture
would emerge in each individual from the plethora of harmonious message
that exist in the actual text, the setting, the cultural context, and the
world view of the group in question. For example, stay on the farm and
work to support the family or go to the city in pursuit of flightly
dreams.
Nevertheless, we associate meaning from a variety of cues and it is not
solely independent upon the text. I would argue in particualr that the
context of the culture add a certain shade in the picture of individual
meaning. While another might be more inclined to subject meaning in
combination while some paradigm. For example, drawing meaning from a
Freudian paradigm or from the drug sociospheric view. Each and every one
of these methods at arriving at meaning is perfectly valid.
Alot of the problems in the world stem from the fact that there must be
some sort of collective meaning. And we as humans find ourselves fighting
over the connatation of trivial things like being politically
(in)correct. The sooner we are all ready and willing to accept that our
neighbor's interpretation of meaning, however misaligned it may be to us,
is perfectly valid and true; the sooner we as a culture can stop the abuse
preconditioned and prefabricated thought. The type of thought that does
not reinforce us to think for ourselves, but rather perpetuates the cycle
of regergetated action and reaction (eg, racism, child abuse, genderism).
I firmly believe that we as a culture could agree on the vision of what
the ideal community would consist of: kindness, egalitarian,
self-sustaining, humanitarian. The problem comes when we autually
question the logistics of the path to the ideal community. We need not
question the path to the vision, we need only agree to agree that the
vision is a place of beauty and that each of us are on the road to that
vision. Each of us further along the road than others. And if our
meaning is not yet apparant to our neighbor, we need not ridicule his or
her lack of understanding because that person is on the same path to
meaning that we have either treaded upon or still must discover...
"Dare to dream the dream undreamed.
And Ask:
Why not????"
J.S.
Mike Neal
and what they mean to us on a personal level is good, relevant, healthy
use of the net, IMVHO.
So, in relation to the lyrics as insruments idea, I would refer you to
Esther and the section: "Feeling *quite* *outnumbered*, Esther hid behind a
nearby pile of *lumber*, where she waited for the *dawn*; 'Cause it would
have been a *blunder* to *succumb* to a *hoodlum* on the *prowl*"
I like how the scary, somber mood is enhanced by the use of 'u' and 'ow'
type sounds, all together in an a sentence or verse while the low strings
of the guitar generate additional tension with that ostinato drone before
the piano comes in to greet the morning.
Please continue this thread...
<Mike><
Andrew Hitz
Trey tells a friend "Don't read to much into these lyrics, because it's
called Golgi Apparatus." I thought it was funny that I have had this tape
for a couple of months and never listened to it only to hear for the
first time after reading this post.
Let's hope for a Gumbo on Letterman...
Drew
PS I got 7/1 right off the radio if you've got other 95s.
Greg Fellman
discovering some amazing things. One of the most interesting use of
sounds in their lyrics happens in "Sparkle." The last consonant of each
line often ends a sinister sounding "s" sound, ie. "clasp," "shutter
as," "pass," and later "grasp," "clasp (again)," "trees." On the studio
version they really drag these sounds out which produces this
suffocating effect, exactly what the song is trying to portray.
Interesting stuff.
Ryan Littlefield
dead...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (j.s.) wrote:
> Excellent thread...
I agree, let's keep it going...
>
> I firmly believe that all of the interpretations are valid. Only serving
> the suuort the notion that meaning is emergent to the individual.
> However, the evidence of meaningless meaning does not exist.
>
[snip]
> (in)correct. The sooner we are all ready and willing to accept that our
> neighbor's interpretation of meaning, however misaligned it may be to us,
> is perfectly valid and true; the sooner we as a culture can stop the abuse
> preconditioned and prefabricated thought. The type of thought that does
> not reinforce us to think for ourselves, but rather perpetuates the cycle
> of regergetated action and reaction (eg, racism, child abuse, genderism).
To further go off on this tangent, I have to add my two cents. First, I
have to disagree with one of the above statements: not all opinions or
interpretations are equal. I am a scientist (or at least studying to
become one), and there is a lot of concern around about this thing (or
movement) called "irrationalism". This is basically what is said above -
that all views are legitimate. In fact there are some that are not. For
me, one quality that a legitimate view must have is self-consistantcy.
Another thing which I remember from high school is the quote "no opinion
is wrong or right, but some are better than others" - opinions gain merit
on how well they fit the facts that they are going to describe - if they
imply something that is contradictory to the facts, it loses merit
(althought it may still turn out to be right).
That is why I still agree with the general point of this message: we can
only have limited knowledge, and each one of us (thinking rationally)
still takes a different subset of what is "true" and that becomes our
knowledge. Furthermore, we all see it and think about it differently
because of our past experiences. The outcome, in my opinion, of all of
this is that while we can act (and in some sense _must_ act) that our view
is "correct" we must also give the benefit of the doubt that others (who
have gone through similar processes themselves) are also "correct" at
least though their "eyes" or "shoes". That, however, does not preclude
that those views will be altered when those poeple talk and discuss their
"rational".
Finally, I would like to say, that humans, as a species, come into the
world the least equipped of all animal species. If we did not have babies
until they could hold onto us or follow us around (like other animals),
they would be way to big to actually give birth to. Consequently, we have
built into us to a much higher degree than other animals, the drive to
learn things from others. Thinking for ourselves is almost unnatural, and
I would say this is evident from the actual lack of originality and
inventiveness of humans over history. We make progress though, because we
do not lose those flashes of insight and brilliance.
I argue that it is going to take a long time to outbreed those traits, but
I think that technology can help. I am not going to go into this, but if
you are interested, e-mail me :^)...
>
> I firmly believe that we as a culture could agree on the vision of what
> the ideal community would consist of: kindness, egalitarian,
> self-sustaining, humanitarian. The problem comes when we autually
I believe that the ideal community would be self-sustaining, and that
anything else would be an aspect of that quality. In other words, if a
self-sustaining community does not feature "humanitarianism", I would
rather have the former rather than the latter (although I would like to
think that both would be possible)
> question the logistics of the path to the ideal community. We need not
> question the path to the vision, we need only agree to agree that the
> vision is a place of beauty and that each of us are on the road to that
Beauty = Truth
> vision. Each of us further along the road than others. And if our
> meaning is not yet apparant to our neighbor, we need not ridicule his or
> her lack of understanding because that person is on the same path to
> meaning that we have either treaded upon or still must discover...
>
> "Dare to dream the dream undreamed.
> And Ask:
> Why not????"
>
> J.S.
Thanks for reading, I would like to hear your comments (but make sure
thier not as long as mine :^)
Matt Dallman
> In article <deadhead-120...@slip-25-16.ots.utexas.edu>,
> dead...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (j.s.) wrote:
>
> > (in)correct. The sooner we are all ready and willing to accept that our
> > neighbor's interpretation of meaning, however misaligned it may be to us,
> > is perfectly valid and true; the sooner we as a culture can stop the abuse
> > preconditioned and prefabricated thought. The type of thought that does
> > not reinforce us to think for ourselves, but rather perpetuates the cycle
> > of regergetated action and reaction (eg, racism, child abuse, genderism).
>
> To further go off on this tangent, I have to add my two cents. First, I
> have to disagree with one of the above statements: not all opinions or
> interpretations are equal. I am a scientist (or at least studying to
^^^^^
The question here it seems is "equal" in what way? Equal in "truth" or
equal in legitimacy. Clearly, not all statements are equal in what some
call "truth", but it must be reiterated that all ARE equal in
legitimacy...that is, a different view from one I might have is just as
"legitimate" as mine, in terms of its existance and capability to be
expressed. Whether mine or another's view has more "truth" to it can
really only be seen over time, as each view has an oppurtunity to grow
and exist...over time, one naturally wins out over the other - it has
more "Quality", as author Robert Pirsig wrote in "Zen and the Art..." and
it's followup "Lila"...my two favorite books, btw.
My basic point is that we as humans shouldn't JUDGE others views and
attitudes and discount them based on knee-jerk reactions to them. New
views and attitutes, if indeed legitimate in "truth", will stick around
and evolve over time. We shouldn't interefere with this evolution
process by judging and ridiculing new attitudes, views, and opinions. By
killing these new ideas through ridiculing, we indeed hinder our quest
for "truth", because we don't let our own views, attitudes, etc. stand up
on their supposed merits against conficting views.
Live and let live...natural death is as beautiful and important as
natiral life.
And remember there are no "facts", just accepted CONVENTIONS...:)
courteously abstaining,
Matty D
NP: Root just ended, I haven't picked anything new yet...wait for the
next post to find out. ;)
Ryan Littlefield
<mc...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> My basic point is that we as humans shouldn't JUDGE others views and
> attitudes and discount them based on knee-jerk reactions to them. New
> views and attitutes, if indeed legitimate in "truth", will stick around
> and evolve over time. We shouldn't interefere with this evolution
> process by judging and ridiculing new attitudes, views, and opinions. By
> killing these new ideas through ridiculing, we indeed hinder our quest
> for "truth", because we don't let our own views, attitudes, etc. stand up
> on their supposed merits against conficting views.
>
I do think it could be said any better than this. Bravo! The last part
also reminds me of what a lot of businesses do to keep a strangle hold on
any other alternative market: i.e. tobacco and oil. How much money will
the oil companies pay to discourage the government in funding other power
sources like solar and air. As the price of using oil increases, someday
they won't have enough to keep bribing, and they will realize that you can
only forstall the inevitable for so long. If only we could all accept all
ideas as legitimate. Oh, BTW, I think replacing "judge" with "prejudge"
would be more accurate. Judging something usually is not based on
"knee-jerk reactions", but prejudging generally is.
Michael Zimmer jr
the songs are actually deep. You have to look past the literal meaning
and there is a lesson in most of the songs.