“…I think they are a bit pretentious… the poet/author probably can’t solve the simplest differential equations or chemical titrations...” Awesome, I love someone with a strong sense of irony.
I really couldn’t disagree with you more, on this song in particular, and what appears to be your view on art in general.
You begin by saying the lyrics are “pretentious,” but I fail to see why. The tone certainly does not seem to be pretentious, so I am assuming you mean his choice of words alone are attempts to make him look smarter. I still don’t see that being the case. Not only are “formaldehyde” and “rheostat” not especially foreign words, but if they were really dropped in there to make Andrew appear more intelligent, they wouldn’t have such distinct and clear meanings in the song. “Swapping your blood with formaldehyde,” to me, has a very obvious idea behind it- formaldehyde is embalming fluid, what they replace people’s bodily fluids with at the morgue. I’d say the girl in the song is experimenting with death or is fascinated by the idea of it, and this seems even more to be the case considering the trephination at the end of the song. Regarding the rheostat, I also think it is mostly for flow, although I will make the case that it means that the singles-ads provoke feelings that vary in intensity as well as in nature.
Other than being pretentious, you also imply that Andrew Bird doesn’t really understand what he is writing, which I find ridiculous partly because we don’t know anything about him personally and are in no place to judge, but mostly because there is no evidence in the song that suggests what you are saying.
Also, I don’t see how a “profound” knowledge (at least your definition of profound) of a rheostat is needed in this case, maybe if the song was about a rheostat or continually drew parallels between rheostats and other things. But as just a passing reference for comparison, all that is needed is a general idea of what it does. What if he mentioned a car? Must all artists know how to build a car or know how the engine works? What about your example, a box? Do you really have a “profound” knowledge of a box? Does anyone? My brother and I used to do origami, and it was pretty hard and complicated to make a box, haha. My point is that you place way too much emphasis on “profound” knowledge of something. I think it is a common myth that artists and writers have more knowledge or understanding than anybody else about something- they just know how to phrase things in a way that makes sense, is easy to understand, and is beautiful.
I would also point out that not only is science a recurring theme in a lot of Andrew Bird’s music, but also that I haven’t noticed this trend towards using science-related terms. I’m not totally sure that’s relevant, though. Music is unique and different from poetry in that a lot of the strength and beauty of the words can come from the sound and feel of saying or singing the words aloud, not just their meanings alone. That’s why even “nonsense” can still be a great song. All I am saying is that in the unlikely chance that everything I said previously turns out to be false, it hardly matters, because “Fake Palindromes” is amazing with or without any true meaning behind all of the words.
“…I think they are a bit pretentious… the poet/author probably can’t solve the simplest differential equations or chemical titrations...” Awesome, I love someone with a strong sense of irony.
I really couldn’t disagree with you more, on this song in particular, and what appears to be your view on art in general.
You begin by saying the lyrics are “pretentious,” but I fail to see why. The tone certainly does not seem to be pretentious, so I am assuming you mean his choice of words alone are attempts to make him look smarter. I still don’t see that being the case. Not only are “formaldehyde” and “rheostat” not especially foreign words, but if they were really dropped in there to make Andrew appear more intelligent, they wouldn’t have such distinct and clear meanings in the song. “Swapping your blood with formaldehyde,” to me, has a very obvious idea behind it- formaldehyde is embalming fluid, what they replace people’s bodily fluids with at the morgue. I’d say the girl in the song is experimenting with death or is fascinated by the idea of it, and this seems even more to be the case considering the trephination at the end of the song. Regarding the rheostat, I also think it is mostly for flow, although I will make the case that it means that the singles-ads provoke feelings that vary in intensity as well as in nature.
Other than being pretentious, you also imply that Andrew Bird doesn’t really understand what he is writing, which I find ridiculous partly because we don’t know anything about him personally and are in no place to judge, but mostly because there is no evidence in the song that suggests what you are saying.
Also, I don’t see how a “profound” knowledge (at least your definition of profound) of a rheostat is needed in this case, maybe if the song was about a rheostat or continually drew parallels between rheostats and other things. But as just a passing reference for comparison, all that is needed is a general idea of what it does. What if he mentioned a car? Must all artists know how to build a car or know how the engine works? What about your example, a box? Do you really have a “profound” knowledge of a box? Does anyone? My brother and I used to do origami, and it was pretty hard and complicated to make a box, haha. My point is that you place way too much emphasis on “profound” knowledge of something. I think it is a common myth that artists and writers have more knowledge or understanding than anybody else about something- they just know how to phrase things in a way that makes sense, is easy to understand, and is beautiful.
I would also point out that not only is science a recurring theme in a lot of Andrew Bird’s music, but also that I haven’t noticed this trend towards using science-related terms. I’m not totally sure that’s relevant, though. Music is unique and different from poetry in that a lot of the strength and beauty of the words can come from the sound and feel of saying or singing the words aloud, not just their meanings alone. That’s why even “nonsense” can still be a great song. All I am saying is that in the unlikely chance that everything I said previously turns out to be false, it hardly matters, because “Fake Palindromes” is amazing with or without any true meaning behind all of the words.