For those who are befuddled as to how anyone could possibly interpret this song differently from you or from what Andy intended, I would respectfully recommend you get out of English class and go take a psychology or NLP class. It's not any more complicated than the fact that everyone's mental map of the world is different, and no matter how "obvious" you try to make the message, there will always be others who process it differently from what you intended. This is not a bad thing at all, or even a good thing necessarily, it just is what it is.
The decision to address the song to God is a fantastic choice because it creates drama and tension. And, (unfortunately for the hardliners here) it leaves the song open to some interpretation. It's not a stretch for someone to look at the line "if you're up there you'll perceive, that my heart's here upon my sleeve", and read a sort of hopefulness in it that someone is hearing his message, even the doubt is strong. I always thought this song leaned strongly toward atheism, but at its core was more about doubt and frustration than it was about rigid disbelief. The fact that you could see a sliver of hope in the middle of all this unleashed anger was one of the more interesting things about this song.
Bottom line is, this song doesn't belong to Andy or any of us, it belongs to whoever is listening to it at the time. They will make it whatever they want it to be, and that's what art is all about.
I am not sure how far I would go with the kind of reasoning posted by Elevation. Isn’t curiosity about why other ppl reach other conclusions a fairly valid activity? Doesn’t any interpretation of art also include considerations about the intended message of the artists? Of course this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) prevent us from a certain personal freedom of interpretation. However, if somebody thinks Mozart was trying to tell us about why bacon is good, I would be pretty curios about his or hers reasons. If this ‘somebody’ couldn’t provide any good reasons I would criticize him or her…
Also:
“or those...
I am not sure how far I would go with the kind of reasoning posted by Elevation. Isn’t curiosity about why other ppl reach other conclusions a fairly valid activity? Doesn’t any interpretation of art also include considerations about the intended message of the artists? Of course this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) prevent us from a certain personal freedom of interpretation. However, if somebody thinks Mozart was trying to tell us about why bacon is good, I would be pretty curios about his or hers reasons. If this ‘somebody’ couldn’t provide any good reasons I would criticize him or her…
Also:
“or those who are befuddled as to how anyone could possibly interpret this song differently from you or from what Andy intended”
I don’t think anyone really is surprised that some ppl reach different conclusions (so unless i am wrong, dont pretend that it is so!). I do think on the other hand ppl want to point out things they think are obvious errors (apparently something many ppl consider an outdated concept nowadays). If I assume that everyone but me is insane I wouldn’t be surprised every time I read something I disagree with. But if I make the assumption that a majority of ppl capable of operating a computer is neither insane or in totally disagreement with me on how to interpret words (I usually go with something I call “the literal meaning apporach”, before I attempt other kinds of interpretations), then I do think I should be “befuddled” when a certain number of ppl disagree with me.
Peace
For those who are befuddled as to how anyone could possibly interpret this song differently from you or from what Andy intended, I would respectfully recommend you get out of English class and go take a psychology or NLP class. It's not any more complicated than the fact that everyone's mental map of the world is different, and no matter how "obvious" you try to make the message, there will always be others who process it differently from what you intended. This is not a bad thing at all, or even a good thing necessarily, it just is what it is.
The decision to address the song to God is a fantastic choice because it creates drama and tension. And, (unfortunately for the hardliners here) it leaves the song open to some interpretation. It's not a stretch for someone to look at the line "if you're up there you'll perceive, that my heart's here upon my sleeve", and read a sort of hopefulness in it that someone is hearing his message, even the doubt is strong. I always thought this song leaned strongly toward atheism, but at its core was more about doubt and frustration than it was about rigid disbelief. The fact that you could see a sliver of hope in the middle of all this unleashed anger was one of the more interesting things about this song.
Bottom line is, this song doesn't belong to Andy or any of us, it belongs to whoever is listening to it at the time. They will make it whatever they want it to be, and that's what art is all about.
I am not sure how far I would go with the kind of reasoning posted by Elevation. Isn’t curiosity about why other ppl reach other conclusions a fairly valid activity? Doesn’t any interpretation of art also include considerations about the intended message of the artists? Of course this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) prevent us from a certain personal freedom of interpretation. However, if somebody thinks Mozart was trying to tell us about why bacon is good, I would be pretty curios about his or hers reasons. If this ‘somebody’ couldn’t provide any good reasons I would criticize him or her… Also: “or those...
I am not sure how far I would go with the kind of reasoning posted by Elevation. Isn’t curiosity about why other ppl reach other conclusions a fairly valid activity? Doesn’t any interpretation of art also include considerations about the intended message of the artists? Of course this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) prevent us from a certain personal freedom of interpretation. However, if somebody thinks Mozart was trying to tell us about why bacon is good, I would be pretty curios about his or hers reasons. If this ‘somebody’ couldn’t provide any good reasons I would criticize him or her…
Also:
“or those who are befuddled as to how anyone could possibly interpret this song differently from you or from what Andy intended” I don’t think anyone really is surprised that some ppl reach different conclusions (so unless i am wrong, dont pretend that it is so!). I do think on the other hand ppl want to point out things they think are obvious errors (apparently something many ppl consider an outdated concept nowadays). If I assume that everyone but me is insane I wouldn’t be surprised every time I read something I disagree with. But if I make the assumption that a majority of ppl capable of operating a computer is neither insane or in totally disagreement with me on how to interpret words (I usually go with something I call “the literal meaning apporach”, before I attempt other kinds of interpretations), then I do think I should be “befuddled” when a certain number of ppl disagree with me. Peace