I actually spent five minutes staring at these lyrics. Must be the iterary background, yeah. (Although I am softening towards Madonna since reading some recent interviews. Got a sense that she Does Her Best, which always impresses me.)
It's...I mean, there are things that trees do, and there are things that trees do not do. Is it so unreasonable to expect her to get metaphorical about a tree whose behavior is comprehensible?
Funny, that. The latter lines don't bother me at all. I have no problem letting nonsense lyrics sail by, without trying to interpret them - come on, I was raised on Duran Duran. I tend to *prefer* it when I don't understand what a pop singer is going on about.
It's clunky, literal, see-the-rhyme-coming-a-mile-away, banality-smacks-you-in-the-face lyrics like the first four lines there, that I cannot deal with. If she'd followed them up instead with, let's say,
'Cause sisters love each other
As anyone can see
We've got to stick together
It's the way that it should be
the CD would be flying across the room before she got to the end of the verse.
Whoa, mercy, I hadn't yet gotten to your "I Love New York" post when I submitted the above. (Yeah, sorry, fell behind on my blogreading this week.) You know, you're not exactly convincing me to run out and acquire this album.
Well, the music is great, especially if you're a New Order fan and can play "guess which bassline is being ripped off here." Seriously, the lyrics look stupid written down, but they don't sound bad, which is the important thing. And the two passages I've been grousing about are unusually bad.
BTW, that's some scary facility with doggerel you've got there. You may want to, you know, watch yourself. Or work it to the max and get a job at Hallmark. : )
I figured it out: the lyric is incomprehensible because the tree she is talking about is actually the Kabbalistic tree of life, which is supposed to be incomprehensible!
Except it also doesn't sway around, would be more not less reliable than your family, and basically doesn't fit into this song at all.
I think the trouble is unconscious free-associative tree-confusion. Lot of it about.
"I think the trouble is unconscious free-associative tree-confusion. Lot of it about."
Yes, that is one of the sad pitfalls of our excessively mechanized modern life. Only, you'd think that if she were talking about the Kabbalistic tree of life, she'd have to say something like "limbs of the Sacred Tree (may its roots never go thirsty)." Maybe it was hard to find a slant rhyme.
Well, she'd have said that if she knew what she was talking about... but also I don't think she wanted to admit in public that the mystical Tree of Life threw her off.
Still staring, still no idea what she's on about.
It's clunky, literal, see-the-rhyme-coming-a-mile-away, banality-smacks-you-in-the-face lyrics like the first four lines there, that I cannot deal with. If she'd followed them up instead with, let's say,
'Cause sisters love each other
As anyone can see
We've got to stick together
It's the way that it should be
the CD would be flying across the room before she got to the end of the verse.
BTW, that's some scary facility with doggerel you've got there. You may want to, you know, watch yourself. Or work it to the max and get a job at Hallmark. : )
Except it also doesn't sway around, would be more not less reliable than your family, and basically doesn't fit into this song at all.
I think the trouble is unconscious free-associative tree-confusion. Lot of it about.
Yes, that is one of the sad pitfalls of our excessively mechanized modern life. Only, you'd think that if she were talking about the Kabbalistic tree of life, she'd have to say something like "limbs of the Sacred Tree (may its roots never go thirsty)." Maybe it was hard to find a slant rhyme.
Or did she mean to say "horse" instead of tree?