you're missing the point / no YOU'RE missing the point / NO YOU · 11:14am Aug 20th, 2017
While driving back from Bronycon I think up stuff I want to write. Why is it always dumb essays instead of beautiful stories? 
Here's something that's probably common sense to a lot of you, but some people overthink it and do it wrong.
Do you know this 80s song? It was kinda (extremely) popular, and has been on the radio ever since, so I bet you've heard it once. It's pretty.
Some people love to point out that the lyrics are not intended as an affectionate love song, but about a creepy possessive stalker. At least according to the songwriter, Sting.
"One couple told me 'Oh we love that song; it was the main song played at our wedding!' I thought, 'Well, good luck.'"
"I think the song is very, very sinister and ugly and people have actually misinterpreted it as being a gentle little love song, when it's quite the opposite."
Okay, yeah, I can see it. Gotta really pay attention to the lyrics and look beneath the surface. I guess that's sorta clever.
But I'm pretty sure this didn't become one of the most popular songs of the 80s because it was clever and creepy in the lyrics. It probably made all that money because of the charming melody. The music and the way it's delivered is important, not the poem attached to it.
I say it's a love song. Sting is being pretentious and egotistical. Well naturally, because he's Sting. 
I don't mean this as some "death of the author" thing, which I don't believe in. Don't throw it all away. Just saying not to blindly trust whatever the artist says about their own work! Especially in music. Artists will retroactively attach all sorts of invisible importance to their silly pop songs.
(I guess it's the opposite effect from a lot of fiction, where it's the audience who sees convoluted hidden messages that the author never intended)
I guess it could be read as a message about how there's a thin line between affection and possessiveness, but Sting condescendingly insists his interpretation is correct, so whatever. I'd rather look at why he failed (artistically, not financially). The music does not correspond to the intended clever meaning.
I would list examples of songs that do it right, but uh.... there's a lot of them. You can probably think of a hundred. Songs where even if you didn't understand the lyrics, you receive the meaning perfectly clear through the music itself. Bonus points if it's already in a foreign language. But what about the cases where they don't match up, for some artistic reason?
One obvious reason is parody. I'm sure you know Cheese Sandwich Weird Al's work. He keeps the original tunes almost exactly the same, replacing the lyrics with silly content and humor. Does that make the parody songs any less catchy? And in his own way, he actually carries over the song's meaning and emotion to its new lyrical subject, like eating food or whatever it is. His parodies show that the lyrics aren't the foundation of enjoying music, it's the frosting on top. This is why (most) musicians are honored to be parodied instead of insulted, because his work shows an sincere appreciation for their songwriting craft.
Luckily, Weird Al also does those wacky polka medleys on his albums. He keeps the original lyrics, and distorts the tunes into a barely recognizable polka. It's less of an appreciation and more of direct mockery, deflating the songs of all their seriousness (but with an appreciation for polka music, I guess). Do the referenced songs in "Angry White Boy Polka" still sound edgy & angsty to you when played that way with accordions? 
If Sting really wanted the masses to notice his song is an ironic subversion of a love ballad and is supposed to be creepy, then it's sloppy work. Many people know the lyrics and sing along, and still won't notice it.
It's like when some authors (cough, me) try to write subtlety that only makes sense when it's explained or over-analyzed afterward. Subtlety doesn't work.... that way! I wrote about this last time enough already, and I think something similar is going on here. The majority of the audience doesn't notice the subtext when it's presented one way and there's some clues hidden in the background. But how do you get someone to notice?
I've always loved how Ween did this, pairing sincere music with ironic lyrics. When paying tribute to so many old genres, they keep them at a distance by staying self-aware of the tropes... but you can tell they really love them. How do they subvert a standard love pop song? They make sure to have the lyrics shock you out of your auto-pilot mode (sometimes offensively, sometimes not).
(sorry, couldn't find a pony version for this)
There's some subtle wordplay here, but plenty of jarring lines like "eating raw bacon." You can't help but pay attention and notice, wait a minute, this isn't a normal love song. They tricked you! But it still is a song about love, isn't it? Just with an unusual and dangerous relationship. 
The unwashed masses don't just misinterpret pop songs, they misinterpret famous fiction too! Or so they say.
Alright, how many times has someone compared their romantic relationship favorably to Romeo & Juliet? And how often have you seen someone that just had to point out to them, "you know that they both die at the end, right?"
(These people are really proud of proving to the world they passed 8th grade english class. 
)
How can people keep getting this wrong? Why do they admire the main characters of a tragic play? Are they ignorant and never read the ending? Or are they just stupid and don't understand that R+J are supposed to die? 
But isn't that the whole friggin point of a well-written tragedy? 
You're supposed to relate to these characters, admire their strengths and root for them, so their downfall at the end can be all the more regretful. Their strengths also become their fatal weaknesses, so a stinging lesson can be taught. If you don't identify with Romeo and Juliet in the first place, maybe you find impulsive teenagers to be annoying, of course you're not going to like the play.
You might see yourself being R&J, or Hamlet or Macbeth. You can share their good qualities, only you'll learn from their mistakes and not end up the same way. No one cares about a tragedy written about an unlikeable villain that you want to see get destroyed. Might as well add in a hero and make it an action thriller instead.
Similarly, I see this same idea repeated in the modern genre of mob movies. You watch the rise and fall of a crimelord, and of course it all ends tragically. Famous example: the movie Scarface. Allegedly, hip-hop/rap artists from the 80s loved it. They identified with Tony Montana. Don't they know that he dies at the end???? The moral is that crime doesn't pay, geez.
But I think these movies don't really criticize organized crime, they glorify it. You're supposed to like Tony Montana's character, at least a little, or the movie just doesn't work for you. You too can be Tony, if you're careful to write your own different ending. The rappers who love the movie get it, while the critics who say it's all subverted by the classic tragic ending are too clever for their own good. It's such a cop-out, a way to pretend not to revel in the violence and danger of the fictional thug life.
Similarly, I've seen people who claim Romeo & Juliet is meant to be an ironic subversion of love stories. Just like "Every Breath You Take", it's not really about love. But it's too subtle and clever for the masses?
Nah. I think the masses instinctively get it.
very late edit addendum:
for the opposite approach of Weird Al, check out what Laibach does with pop music. they directly copy the lyrics from a Queen song (though translating them to German), but change the tone completely. does it still sound like Freddie Mercury's dream to end hatred and violence? or does it sound more like something else...?
I think I disagree with what you're saying. It seems like the assertion is that people can understand the essential meaning of a work by overlooking its details and focusing on the gestalt feeling that it leaves them with, regardless of whether that feeling aligns with the written content being presented (where applicable). I would submit that that's an inevitable aspect of interpersonal interaction, where "success" (broadly defined) often does rely as much on how a message is delivered as what the message is. But I feel that makes a lot less sense when applied to analyzing a given work. Mood and feeling are tools in a creator's toolbox, but they're far from the only tools.
Maybe it's the choice of examples that throws me. I've generally sided with Sting's interpretation of the lyrics to Every Breath once I stopped and listened to them. I think the mood woven by the rest of the song disinclines a casual listener to think critically about what they're hearing, but it's there when one looks deeper. And I don't think that's elitist or whatnot; I think it's an example of juxtaposition in art, which can be a powerful way of driving a point home. Sting's lyrics have a deeper sting (ha, ha) because of the soothing presentation--much like the kind of iron-fist/velvet-glove relationship (or surveillance state) that the lyrics suggest. It's not unreasonable IMO to look at that level of depth and take that into account.
I dunno. I've tended to be in the creepy camp for "Every Breath You Take," but that might just be due to things on my end, which also lead to stuff like really disliking Pinkie Pie, especially in the early seasons. I found that the intimate delivery of the lyrics added to the creep factor, because this guy's too close and there's no escape. And I guess I also just don't really find the base idea romantic even at first glance; being in love with someone doesn't mean that they become an integral part of absolutely every least facet of you're life--you're still separate people.
Incidentally, the same thing comes up with Twilight, only there I do think it's not a gap between the [Edit]
author's intent and what was delivered/receivedwhat the author wrote and what (parts of the) audience read, but an actual failure to deliver what was intended.Anyway, I think part of the problem with "Romeo and Juliet" is that it's never really seemed to me like they get portrayed as early adolescents. If you see and imagine adults, or even later teenagers, it's easier to lose some of the emotional distance and awareness of experience separating you from them.
Helloooooo Coolio. :p
Except I'm pretty sure he's said that from the beginning so this isn't exactly an example of that.
I agree he's a pretentious twat saying his interpretation is the only right one though. But I also think people who feel their love is exactly like Romeo and Juliet are a bit silly. Not because they die, but because they're idiot teenagers.
4641637
to me it's not true juxtaposition, but ripping off the mask and going "HAH! I TRICKED YOU! YOU ACTUALLY LIKE THIS?" which I find ugly and nasty. (David Fincher comes to mind.)
WriteOff veterans keep saying "don't be subtle" but that's not quite what I'm saying, nor that subtlety is useless or bad. I think it's a failure of communication when people don't get it at all, like the millions who still don't get the Police song here. it's like having to explain a joke.
off the top of my head, a better example of juxtaposition, or maybe an "ironic love song", is "Mother" by Pink Floyd. it starts off very anxious, and then the mother character makes her response. The lines sound affectionate and reassuring on the surface, but it's fairly obvious that it's meant to be smothering and overbearing. and I think the music itself matches that feeling -- the guitar solo may feel loving and soothing, but at the end the song feels just as anxious and miserable as it began.
it's a pretty blatant example, and not too subtle, but I think it works better artistically. I believe that even with pretty complex art, the audience can feel the message, even if they can't consciously explain why they do. Explaining it is a critic's job. The hidden details and subtlety don't create depth all by themselves, but can reinforce that meaning when closely examined. I think that's how I approach art.
4641808
Twilight the pony? the vampire novel? the ELO song?
it's kinda like how a lot of teenagers in sitcoms and movies are still portrayed by pretty actors in their 20s. weird.
I think Coolio was just mad because he didn't come up with the Stevie Wonder tune he sampled.
4641888
yeah, I'm kinda unclear when he started saying it, or at least when people became aware of him saying it.
fair enough on Romeo & Juliet, I think that's one part that does get misinterpreted. the story's not so much that they're sweet and romantic, but about them being rebellious and disregarding society's rules. but I guess a lot of people like to imagine their love as being rebellious and dangerous in a similar way? even when society really couldn't care less, and their families aren't in a bloody feud, they like the concept. I think JediMasterEd had a blog about that, how people are attracted to that feeling of danger within romance.... random musing!
4642211 It's very true. Because danger heightens the endorphin rush you get and releases more oxytocin which deepens the bonds. Relationships that are started by living through a traumatic event (major or minor) are often very deep and intense.
I really like what you're saying. Sometimes the style and tone of a piece of art is more important than it's ending or message, and when the masses focus on the former, it just goes to show what the strongest piece of the work is.
For example, those people having fancy Great Gatsby parties. Of course F Scott Fitzgerald is rolling in his grave over them, he was trying to condemn mindless consumption and excess. But too bad, they sound like lots of fun and I'd love to go to some!
I think I got your points backwards, because my takeaway from this post was that Sting is an awesome writer like Shakespeare, and Romeo and Juliet is great because of the stage directions rather than the tragic plot.
4643956
Sting, I want you to meet your new partner, Billy Shakespeare.
but Chief, I work alone!