[tommygunn]

The song is about what you want it to be about.
There is no right or wrong answer people...

:rambo:

[Tthip]

Stephen, you're just funny. The only guy around here insisting something is carved in stone is ... you. You're also credited as the original author of that Bismarck thing, which explains a lot....

Actually the quote that Stephen put up there was an outtake from The Tragically Hip section of the book "Have Not Been the Same"
Direct Hip interviews and quotes throughout.
Great reading.

[skippy the wonder dog]

My mistake. I've seen it on the web with his name appended to it.

[The Horrible Esthete]

The song is about what you want it to be about.
There is no right or wrong answer people...

:rambo:

Sweet. Then I guess my theory of it being written about two fat, sweaty mexicans wrestling a rabid coyote over a slightly overcooked slab of half-rotten bacon somewhere in the Revillagigedo Islands still holds water.....

[tommygunn]

The song is about what you want it to be about.
There is no right or wrong answer people...

:rambo:

Sweet. Then I guess my theory of it being written about two fat, sweaty mexicans wrestling a rabid coyote over a slightly overcooked slab of half-rotten bacon somewhere in the Revillagigedo Islands still holds water.....

Yep!
Make your own interpretations and enjoy the music.
Most artists will tell you that.

:thumb:

[grooveless touque]

Of course, Michael Stipe of R.E.M. stopped discussing his lyrics for years after a fan asked him "that line in Sitting Still, is it 'we could gather, throw up beer?'"

So you never know when people take TOO much liberty with meaning! :thumbup:

[skippy the wonder dog]

Well, this is why I don't put any stock in what artists say their songs are about. After a while, they get sick of people asking, and they start playing with people, making stuff up, or just agreeing with what other people say.

The song is the song.

Nautical has a mysterious lyric, and that's why it's good.

[still]

Maybe you guys should look at the message, instead of likening it to a historical occurrence because I don't think it's meant as one. It's the bleakness, the emptiness, stark reality of having your heart broken and trying to recover. Then one day, picking up the phone hearing her voice saying 'I want to see you' to which he responds 'I think you should just get on with your life'. Then the caller says 'ow. Easy for you to do, to which he responds 'WHAT? Easy?' Whatever pain and anguish the caller caused the person, the caller is now left in a pile of dust, wanting to die.

Fast forward = the guy getting the phone call thinks it over, needs to put it down on paper...he likens his emptiness to this disaster, a nautical disaster paints a picture of his inner turmoil. Then adds at the end of the song 'anyway, Susan, if you like, our conversation is as faint as the fingernails, scratching on my hull'. Saying look, he's still in pain.

Maybe the song should be looked at that way, respected for the powerful love story it is.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Maybe you guys should look at the message, instead of likening it to a historical occurrence because I don't think it's meant as one. It's the bleakness, the emptiness, stark reality of having your heart broken and trying to recover. Then one day, picking up the phone hearing her voice saying 'I want to see you' to which he responds 'I think you should just get on with your life'. Then the caller says 'ow. Easy for you to do, to which he responds 'WHAT? Easy?' Whatever pain and anguish the caller caused the person, the caller is now left in a pile of dust, wanting to die.

Fast forward = the guy getting the phone call thinks it over, needs to put it down on paper...he likens his emptiness to this disaster, a nautical disaster paints a picture of his inner turmoil. Then adds at the end of the song 'anyway, Susan, if you like, our conversation is as faint as the fingernails, scratching on my hull'. Saying look, he's still in pain.

Maybe the song should be looked at that way, respected for the powerful love story it is.

Beautiful. :thumb:

It matters not whether the nautical disaster is based on an historical event or whether it is completely fictional. What does matter is that the account of the story functions wonderfully as a device which allows the audience to assimilate the extent of the emotional disturbance suffered at, and beyond, the terminal point of the relationship.

I agree that poets and lyricists often leave the 'overall meaning' of a particular work open to a range of interpretation by its audience, however, I think it would be somewhat of of an insult for one to suggest that the possible interpretations are boundless. After all, I think it's safe to assume there must be a rather finite inspiration that prompts an author's expression, right?

[tommygunn]

I agree that poets and lyricists often leave the 'overall meaning' of a particular work open to a range of interpretation by its audience, however, I think it would be somewhat of of an insult for one to suggest that the possible interpretations are boundless. After all, I think it's safe to assume there must be a rather finite inspiration that prompts an author's expression, right?

How is it an 'insult'??
What's with the obsession to find out exactly what a work of art means?
How about just taking what you will from it and enjoying it for that. Make the work of art mean something personal to you. Any artist will tell you that that is more rewarding for them than people continually disecting their work or continually seeking to find out what they were thinking when they conceived their work. That, as has been mentioned earlier, is very, very boring and unrewarding for them and they resort to telling bullshit made-up on the spot stories to people who ask. Besides, if they really wanted you to know, wouldn't they include it in the album's liner notes or publish it in one form or another??

Also, just as we as an audience have an infinite number of interpretations, so too can the artist have an infinite number of inspirations to go to when they make their work. Art is not something you can put a formula to.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I'm just amazed that the possibility that the Lancastria might be the disaster is so universally rejected, although it's such a good fit. I would have expected the trivia heads to be interested.

I don't think it's in the least important to track these things down -- I just ran into this by coincidence in some reading I was doing. The interesting thing is the directions you can be lead by finding new ideas. The aspect that fascinates me is the gag order on the Lancastria sinking, and how it might relate to "Anyway, Susan, if you like, our conversation is as faint etc."

The Lancastria sinking is very obscure and so there's an excellent chance GD never heard of it (although it's exactly the sort of thing he tends to absorb and spit back out in altered form). That's fine; up until I started this thread I'd always preferred the view that the disaster occurs in a dream and is only an abstract metaphor.

That doesn't matter, because if you take an alternative reading of the last line and decide that he's agreeing to Susan's request to bury the past, it fits regardless of whether it's the Lancastria or not. So you go off in new and interesting directions about what the song can mean to you.

The strength of GD's lyrics is that they're enigmatic and they leave you unanswered questions. Too bad that many never read them closely -- for example, although everyone thinks this is between the narrator and Susan, there seem to be three people involved in this nautical disaster: our narrator, in the first person, Susan, in the second, and the guy on the phone, referred to only as a third-person "he." Most people want to read that as "I" or "she" and keep it to two people, but, well, GD could sing either I or she and it would fit. He chose not to. So that gives you a little mystery to think about.

You can end up with an idea of what this song is about, but you'll never know for certain.

[The Horrible Esthete]

How is it an 'insult'??
What's with the obsession to find out exactly what a work of art means?
How about just taking what you will from it and enjoying it for that. Make the work of art mean something personal to you. Any artist will tell you that that is more rewarding for them than people continually disecting their work or continually seeking to find out what they were thinking when they conceived their work. That, as has been mentioned earlier, is very, very boring and unrewarding for them and they resort to telling bullshit made-up on the spot stories to people who ask. Besides, if they really wanted you to know, wouldn't they include it in the album's liner notes or publish it in one form or another??

Also, just as we as an audience have an infinite number of interpretations, so too can the artist have an infinite number of inspirations to go to when they make their work. Art is not something you can put a formula to.

I said 'somewhat' of an insult, but I'll admit that probably wasn't a wise thing to say, because I shouldn't speak for other artists.

Yes, I suppose there can be an infinite number of interpretations, but if there are, and if there are also an infinite number of inspirations behind its creation, then doesn't that cheapen the author's choice of word, syntax, and tone? I respect Gord, as a lyricist, for the beauty and genius of his phraseology, and the emotion and imagery it conjures. I never said that there must be a singular meaning assigned to each lyric, nor did I say that a poet specifically wants you to identify a singular meaning; that's why I said that "poets and lyricists often leave the 'overall meaning' of a particular work open to a range of interpretation by its audience". But what if a poet does have a specific concept or emotion or image or truth that he chooses to convey in a less-than-obvious manner, for the sake of meter, rhyme, tone, inflection, or simply because he wants you to contemplate it? You might miss the point altogether if you go no further than personalizing his words or just allowing it to mean whatever you want.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I suppose different poets and lyricists will tell you different things about what inspires them and how they want their art to be received. I've written quite a bit of poetry over the years, and and I must say that most of it has a rather specific meaning or concept buried within its lines. Now, I won't say I'd be insulted if the reader didn't interpret it within the realm of my intention, but I would be if she failed to make an effort to understand it, or worse, if he insisted that it had no particular meaning....

[tommygunn]

I remember reading this on a Soundgarden site once and googled it to find it again. It's along the lines of what I posted above...

What is song 'X' about?

In a musical climate of cookie-cutter pop and flavour-less easy listening Soundgarden were one of the few bands of their time who were adept at writing obscure yet compelling lyrics. And while all four members wrote lyrics for the band's songs none of them are easily decoded.

So what were they singing about? The bands obvious consensus on this topic was that you should make up your own mind, ask yourself what the song means to you and not focus on the original inspiration. The following quote from Ben in Rolling Stone (July 1992) stresses that the listeners own interpretation is ultimately of more value than the authors:

"People want to take so much, analyzing the lyrics and trying to figure out 'Did you mean that?' or 'You said that to me, didn't you?'. That cheapens it. That makes it old. Sometimes it makes you feel like you're living in a land of cows that just don't think."

Chris Cornell adds this, from Request Vol. 4:

"The thought that somebody might get it wrong doesnt bother me at all. I came from a background of being a fan of music, where the idea is more or less escapism and whatever facilitates and wherever you escape to is your business. Thats the only way you can really own the cds you buy. If you spend money on something that encourages you to come up with your own meaning - visually, mentally, emotionally - then its all worth the money. And for us as a band, its well worth the effort of recording it in the first place."

http://web.stargate.net/soundgarden/faq/#2_4

:thumb:

[still]

Maybe you guys should look at the message, instead of likening it to a historical occurrence because I don't think it's meant as one. It's the bleakness, the emptiness, stark reality of having your heart broken and trying to recover. Then one day, picking up the phone hearing her voice saying 'I want to see you' to which he responds 'I think you should just get on with your life'. Then the caller says 'ow. Easy for you to do, to which he responds 'WHAT? Easy?' Whatever pain and anguish the caller caused the person, the caller is now left in a pile of dust, wanting to die.

Fast forward = the guy getting the phone call thinks it over, needs to put it down on paper...he likens his emptiness to this disaster, a nautical disaster paints a picture of his inner turmoil. Then adds at the end of the song 'anyway, Susan, if you like, our conversation is as faint as the fingernails, scratching on my hull'. Saying look, he's still in pain.

Maybe the song should be looked at that way, respected for the powerful love story it is.

Beautiful. :thumb:

It matters not whether the nautical disaster is based on an historical event or whether it is completely fictional. What does matter is that the account of the story functions wonderfully as a device which allows the audience to assimilate the extent of the emotional disturbance suffered at, and beyond, the terminal point of the relationship.

I agree that poets and lyricists often leave the 'overall meaning' of a particular work open to a range of interpretation by its audience, however, I think it would be somewhat of of an insult for one to suggest that the possible interpretations are boundless. After all, I think it's safe to assume there must be a rather finite inspiration that prompts an author's expression, right?

Right, this song is definitely a catharsis. I'm not sure about the 'terminal part of the relationship' you describe. I like to think the author is saying 'if you like...the conversation is faint'. Maybe he feels like a jerk for being so abrupt and hurtful. The hopeless romantic in me continues to believe there is a possibility for salvage.