The "experience" of this song is muddled by the romantic feelings it emotes as juxtaposed by the pensive "longing for more" type of feeling implied by the lyrics. The reference to color, movement, and spin artfully depict ineffable yet clearly palpable feelings of attraction. However, the next three lines seem to temper this sensation to a temporary and passing experience (i.e., "Never, Could it stay with me, The whole day long"). So, apparently there was attraction but why didn't deeper connection develop? Was the other s/he not the right one? Possibly . . . but not likely. It seems more obvious that this song really is describing a fucked-up attempt--as opposed to a successful connection--with finding the one who sustains "love."
"Failing with consequence" seems to imply a concerted effort to move beyond attraction to something deeper, yet this effort is in vain and things clearly don't work out. . . "Lose with elegance" and "smile" seem to imply that the singer/protagonist is somewhat okay and accustomed to having attraction fade and connection fail to develop, at least to a degree that s/he can put on a superficial smile. These lines scream that this has happened before. . .
Then, the lyrics deviate from a romanticized or commonly socialized view of "love." In other words, the experiences reflected do not parallel traditional notions of love in the U.S. The singer cannot claim Disney-esque romance yet s/he still is enthralled with the notion of being bowled over by love--overtaken to such a degree that s/he is paralyzed and hypnotized by it.
In conclusion, the lyrics of this song produce two viable interpretations:
1) The lyrics describe an individual who pines for a deeper connection yet repeatedly fails to make this happen because of some perceived problem or deficit.
OR
2) The lyrics describe someone who is used to being attracted to and maybe connecting with others on some level (e.g., having sex), yet still wants something deeper out of relationships but does not know how to get it.
The "experience" of this song is muddled by the romantic feelings it emotes as juxtaposed by the pensive "longing for more" type of feeling implied by the lyrics. The reference to color, movement, and spin artfully depict ineffable yet clearly palpable feelings of attraction. However, the next three lines seem to temper this sensation to a temporary and passing experience (i.e., "Never, Could it stay with me, The whole day long"). So, apparently there was attraction but why didn't deeper connection develop? Was the other s/he not the right one? Possibly . . . but not likely. It seems more obvious that this song really is describing a fucked-up attempt--as opposed to a successful connection--with finding the one who sustains "love."
"Failing with consequence" seems to imply a concerted effort to move beyond attraction to something deeper, yet this effort is in vain and things clearly don't work out. . . "Lose with elegance" and "smile" seem to imply that the singer/protagonist is somewhat okay and accustomed to having attraction fade and connection fail to develop, at least to a degree that s/he can put on a superficial smile. These lines scream that this has happened before. . .
Then, the lyrics deviate from a romanticized or commonly socialized view of "love." In other words, the experiences reflected do not parallel traditional notions of love in the U.S. The singer cannot claim Disney-esque romance yet s/he still is enthralled with the notion of being bowled over by love--overtaken to such a degree that s/he is paralyzed and hypnotized by it.
In conclusion, the lyrics of this song produce two viable interpretations:
1) The lyrics describe an individual who pines for a deeper connection yet repeatedly fails to make this happen because of some perceived problem or deficit.
OR
2) The lyrics describe someone who is used to being attracted to and maybe connecting with others on some level (e.g., having sex), yet still wants something deeper out of relationships but does not know how to get it.