From: adsl537545GEZWAM@tiscali.nl   
      
   In an earlier thread about the meaning of 'Deacon Blues', Diane gave the   
   possibility and desirability of understanding Dan-songs some serious   
   thought. A lot of her views I agree with at least partially. Yet there is   
   more to it then the few me-too reactions she got.   
      
   (Warning: while english is not my native language, the following might sound   
   more polemic then I intend.)   
      
   [.]   
   >Music and writing are closely related. They are both forms of   
   >communication, often delivered on a subliminal level--more a "feeling"   
   >than a "knowing." sometimes.   
      
   Surely lots of forms of communications can be understood on very different   
   levels. Applies to paintings, dance, movies, theater etc.   
      
   Still music is very different from writing and many other   
   artforms/communication, because it cannot be explicit and cannot be taken   
   literally. You cannot let your violin say 'tree', for instance.   
   Maybe because music has no 'literal' meaning of its own, you have to   
   interprete it in a different, abstract way, and it can get to you beyond   
   words - more "feeling" then "knowing", "heart" over "brains", "emotion" over   
   "ratio".   
      
   But as to writing: communication with words brings across the meaning of   
   these words - and wants the words and their meaning to be understood at   
   least partially.   
   Or else one could speak jabbertalk or just sing sounds (like Cathy Berberian   
   when she performed work of her husband, not the Beatlesongs).   
   Even when painting with words without constructing sentences (like the   
   Flamish poet Paul van Ostaijen), the meaning of the words plays part in the   
   experience of reading.   
      
   Where music goes with lyrics in a language that you understand more (Diane)   
   or less (me), you can't restrain to just feel. If you like it or not, you   
   will interprete the meaning of the lyrics to some extent.   
      
   [.]   
      
   >It always surprises me when I find people in China, Czechoslovakia,   
   >Russia,   
   (First level of interpretation: the language.)   
   >and even the UK   
   (Second level: culture)   
   >who completely grok the words of Kerouac   
   >and/or Steely Dan.   
   (or Zappa, or Dylan, or Little Feat, or Van Dyke Parks to name some   
   lyricists)   
      
   >It's one thing to learn or speak English. It's quite   
   >another to know how to use it and FEEL it idiomatically.   
   (Sure, but should that stop non-native speakers from trying to understand?)   
   >To me, trying to explain why the jazzy/American turn of a phrase   
   (Another level: subculture)   
   >is so fantastic and/or clever to a person for whom English   
   >(or at least, American English) is a second language is beyond   
   >my abilities.   
   Don't underestimate yourself. Although I didn't ask for explanation of the   
   quality but of a chosen word . (Let me be the judge of what quality is in it   
   for me - here I might be overestimating myself.)   
   Being unable to explain is something else then implying that I shouldn't try   
   to find out what might be meant by words like 'Deacon Blues'.   
   There is a personal limit to what you or I CAN understand. But within this   
   limit it's a personal choice what you or I WANT to understand.   
      
   >It would be like me trying to understand The Canterbury Tales or just   
   >about any Shakespearean sonnet without living it or somehow   
   >experiencing it on a very primal level.   
   So what? Don't you try to understand it, despite all the differences and   
   distances?   
      
   >And yet, there is some common denominator that draws people to dig   
   >Steely Dan and Jack Kerouac, and to translate the words into their own   
   >languages with a shared understanding of what those words really mean.   
   Indeed I want to understand as far as I can.   
   I care less for sharing this understanding.   
      
   >Still, I think there's always something lost in translation, largely   
   >because someone born and raised in Detroit probably will never fully   
   >understand how it feels to live in a small village in China, and vice   
   >versa. It's culture shock, and it's pretty much always there, no matter   
   >how familiar one becomes with another's culture.   
      
   >That's why we spend so much time here analyzing lyrics and sharing our   
   >impressions. SD lyrics are an endless and delightful puzzle, and for   
   >some of us, we don't want things explained to a scientific certainty. I   
   >know I don't. I like to get the general feel and then let my brain riff   
   >along those lines, image followed by image with no restraint.   
   Fine with me.   
      
   >So, this whole Dutch determination   
   (Sounds almost like Dutch courage. :-)   Why generalize anyway? Is it just   
   the alliteration? Or do you deep down inside acknowledge to share with me   
   the wish to understand and do you blame this dreadful characteristic on a   
   shared national background? ;-) )   
      
   >to understand the meaning of Deacon   
   >Blues and to draw a black-and-white picture of who Deacon Blues is has   
   >been somewhat amusing in its impossibility. Not only can it NOT be   
   >done   
   (you can try how far you can get)   
   >--and I think D&W would probably be the first ones to demur at a   
   >request for clarity   
   Sure. They have admitted to sometimes let prevail sound, colour and melody   
   of the words over fully interlocking logic. Also they enjoy and cultivate   
   intrigueing lyrics.   
      
   >--but it SHOULDN'T be done. The words swirl together   
   >with the music in a suggestive manner, creating an image only   
   >experienced in the jazz mind,   
   Agree.   
   >and everything else is just sturm und   
   >drang, signifying nothing.   
   Disagree. Fagen asked advise for some sporting equivalent for 'winners in   
   the world'. Then the choice of words for the opposite in the same verse, and   
   what's more, for the essence of the song, should mean nothing but sound.   
      
   >Han, have fun with it, but don't kill your own buzz by trying to make   
   >it fit some arbitrary belief system you have.   
   Don't worry, every next level of understanding adds to the previous, not   
   extinguish.   
      
   > No one can tell anyone   
   >the meaning of every drip in a painting by Jackson Pollock,   
   Wrong example, because abstract painting should be compared with   
   instrumental music, while song-lyrics should be compared with figurative   
   painting. In this way a picture of Van Gogh can be seen as just sound,   
   rhythm, melody. But it's hard to overlook what it depicts. And - in   
   general - knowing the backgrounds of painter, subject, location, time etc.   
   ADDS to the appreciation.   
      
   >and no one   
   >can explain every word or expression in a Steely Dan song.   
   Not every word. But trying adds, especially for essential, deliberately   
   chosen words.   
      
   >BTW, the attractiveness of free-flowing thought in SD lyrics   
   >might be   
   >the exact reason why H Gang is so disappointing to some. The lyrics, on   
   >the surface, seem too common and tell a linear--and perhaps   
   >boring--story, with no room for subtext or alternate interpretation.   
      
   >On the other hand, I could be completely out to lunch.   
      
   >love and kisses   
   >diane <-- suddenly hungry for lunch   
   >   
      
   Han [nice lunching with you]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)