Soft Porn Lyrics, No climax from this writing Options

[andthelettuce]

Why? Because Live always has to be an angry band? Live has moved on, and I think the fans that resent them for it should also. Yeah, the lyrics aren't as good as before and neither is the music, but at least they enjoy making it, Chad included. I think anyone who looks to rock stars for deep thought is looking in the wrong place.

[DesertWater]

That's a shame. Least I know why they have gone downhill in their last two albums and pretty soon third. Somebody should slap Ed to wake him up.

[Pokey]

Why? Because Live always has to be an angry band? Live has moved on, and I think the fans that resent them for it should also. Yeah, the lyrics aren't as good as before and neither is the music, but at least they enjoy making it, Chad included. I think anyone who looks to rock stars for deep thought is looking in the wrong place.

Which brings me back to my original point .. even you say there that the lyrics and music are not as good as before, I can't imagine a band enjoying making music well below what they are capable of.

I likend it to a video game before. The game is obviously overall something they enjoy playing (music) and each album could be looked at as a level, them growing as a band. However it seems like they've got to a point and have yet to finish the game, but go back and continue to play one level over and over again simpley because it's easy yet there is so much left there to explore and discover.

Also, why is looking to rockstars for a deep thought looking in the wrong place? It seems just as likely to find some deeply intelligent and thought provoking ideas from a rock star as it would from anyone in any walk of life. Like everything there will be the ones that are deep thinkers and the ones that are not.

[LiveattheOasis]

I agree with the discussion of Live's decline in this topic, Live is still my favorite band, I will still by their albums, and probably still enjoy them, even though I know there were better times.

What I think andthelettuce was saying, was more along the lines of "don't wait for Live to give you spiritual insight" and this is not directed at anyone. I think the point is that Ed is drawing upon certain things from different religions, and those religions are pretty obvious. Yes different interpretations are interesting, but I think YOU should read the Bible, Vedas, Qur'an, Gita ...etc and see what you think, not wait for an artist, singer, guru, preacher to tell you what they mean. And I think this is an idea inherent at least in Live's early work. Seek God (implied YOU)

[Pokey]

Ah true, if what he meant was to not seek spiritual insight from Live is probably right. But then again I did get a lot of stuff from some of their earlier work. But there isn't much to get out of the new stuff, other than how awesome females can be .. which is true and all, but .. I already know that.

[onecrowdedhour]

Ah true, if what he meant was to not seek spiritual insight from Live is probably right. But then again I did get a lot of stuff from some of their earlier work. But there isn't much to get out of the new stuff, other than how awesome females can be .. which is true and all, but .. I already know that.

It's all about the love, love, love...

PS. It's about how great children are too, and you don't even like them

[sherocker]

I think anyone who looks to rock stars for deep thought is looking in the wrong place.

oh bummer...

[andthelettuce]

Which brings me back to my original point .. even you say there that the lyrics and music are not as good as before, I can't imagine a band enjoying making music well below what they are capable of.

I likend it to a video game before. The game is obviously overall something they enjoy playing (music) and each album could be looked at as a level, them growing as a band. However it seems like they've got to a point and have yet to finish the game, but go back and continue to play one level over and over again simpley because it's easy yet there is so much left there to explore and discover.

Also, why is looking to rockstars for a deep thought looking in the wrong place? It seems just as likely to find some deeply intelligent and thought provoking ideas from a rock star as it would from anyone in any walk of life. Like everything there will be the ones that are deep thinkers and the ones that are not.

Wow, I'm really sorry that you believe that deep thought has ever been provoked by a rock star. Read some real philosophy or get into upper level science and you'll want to listen to music only for fun because you'll realize that's all it can be.

[Pokey]

Wow, I'm really sorry that you believe that deep thought has ever been provoked by a rock star. Read some real philosophy or get into upper level science and you'll want to listen to music only for fun because you'll realize that's all it can be.

My point was that yeah I'm sure there are many more rockstars out there that will not provoke deep thinking, but I'm sure there are some .. just like there would be in all walks of life .. you could probably meet some guy who has been a plumber all his life, but he's also gone and traveled around the world for 5 years and seen and experienced things you never have and could probably enlighten you with a thing or two, much the same I'm sure you could with him .. maybe.

But really I guess it depends on what type of thoughts you're thinking of them provoking, the music that makes me think the most is usually the music that makes me think more about myself and my life. If I can find a an artist that can do that and put my feelings into lyrics that are astoundingly beautiful then I'd call that deep.
However if you're looking for a rock star to talk to you about the expansion of the universe and the big bang theory then maybe they're not the best person to listen to.

I guess to me where Live is failing is because to me they were that band that I would connect with deeply, the quality of their music made them so much more enjoyable to listen to. Now it's more disappointing than anything with the way they've gone. Even if I'd never heard of them before and turned the radio on and heard The River I wouldn't think twice about it .. it doesn't even fit into that fun and mindless catergory to me .. it's just ... not good. I can see why some are liking it because it's catchy, but liking it because it's a "good song" doesn't add up.
Of course I agree music should be fun and entertaining .. but it's nice to have a mix as well.

This post has been edited by Pokey: Mar 18 2006, 4:35 pm

[mrmcpheezy]

Of course, Ed's lyrics often reference water and in the Awake liner notes, Ed mentioned that those are references to the transendental consciousness of water.

...the transcendental consciousness of water? Care to explain?

I think that The River is awakening and "The River" (the song) is about awakening. The River will ease your pain. Bring your burning skin to The River. I'll give you life. My interpretation of those lyrics is that maybe they have to do with pure tanscendental consciousness easing the pain or, in the Buddha's words, "suffering" of life. An unawakened life is one of suffering. That is the first noble truth and is inherent in Hindu Vedic teaches, buddhism, taoism and all forms of eastern spirituality. By awakening to pure consciousness, one truly finds "life". My interpretation is that maybe "burning skin" refers to the material, physical world, filled with attachment, grasping, material orientation, separation, judgement, division, suffering - basically samsara. Saraswati offers The River. By finding the The River, or water, Saraswarti brings comfort and eases the pain of the ordinary life centered in the ordinary mind. She cools that burning "skin" in which we live and brings us life, real life, free from suffering.

I don't think that I am reading too much into the lyrics. I give the benefit of the doubt, given his propensity towards Eastern spirituality and the works of Ken Wilber, and more importantly, his body of work to date. Ed has talked about this. Most of his songs are about this. Ed has talked about this specifically with respect to this song and this album. I have said it before, but those who hear The River and read the lyrics and say that it is a simple pop song about some chick lying naked on the floor just don't seem to "get it" and consequently are not bringing the full expression of Ed's meaning into the song. I'm not saying that I am right and others are wrong. I'm just saying that I am bringing all of these ideas with me when I hear this song and it means a lot more to me than what the words say on the surface. I could make the same arguments for all of Live's other songs on SFBM or other albums. Again, I am not trying to come across like an elitist Live fan snob. I'm just explaining that this is how I hear the music.

Add to all of that the fact that I feel that The River is a damn catchy song and the result is that I really enjoy it. And to the extent that the whole album is less searching and angst and more peace and contentment, I can appreciate where Ed is at in his life right now. It's a good vibe.

None of this really matters all that much. Who cares if the song has more personal meaning to Ed that might appear at the start? I guess that might add a little something...but it doesn't change the fact that they lyrics fucking suck. Again, I don't care what he writes about nearly as much as I care about how he writes about it. If he really wanted to write a song about all the shit you're talking about...maybe he should have found some way to fit some of it into the song itself, which he doesn't really do in "the river". I'll admit that it is somewhat relieving to find out that Ed might actually mean something by this song...that it might not just have been written to appease the mild desires of the masses, but none of that changes the quality of the lyrics in anyway. They're still simple and bland.

[mrmcpheezy]

I think anyone who looks to rock stars for deep thought is looking in the wrong place.

Why is it wrong to want to surround yourself with music that exposes you to new ideas? I don't think anyone expects a full philosophy lesson from a song, but it seems silly to think that it's ok to look to an artist for pleasure (which can also be attained from many places other than music; why don't you say that people who listen to music soley for enjoyment are looking in the wrong place?) but not ok to look for an artist for some exposure to ideas we might not have been previously been aware of.

[LiveRoCkS77]

I'd really like a list of bands you know of in the modern era that have progressively made better music. I'd just love to hear that list and the reasoning behind it.

Because the trend nowadays seems to be different then it was way back when. Very, VERY few bands live up to their original billing. Just look at some of the bands out there...... Metallica has lipped tremendously from where they were. U2, although still popular, are nowhere near what they used to be....probably one of the biggest slides of them all if you ask me. I mean, this How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb? I've listened to it several times now and will probably never again.

Pearl Jam.......hmmmmmm, the list is growing. They have dumped since Ten and Vs. Lets go on, how about Radiohead? They make masterpieces like they did and theat turns into Pablo Honey and Hail To The Thief? Major Slide......The same can be said for 95% of music acts over the past 20 years. REM, The Chili Peppers......the list goes on and on

So to me it's no big surprise that Live are following the same path. Which leads to the comments I made in another thread....if they piss you off that much and have regressed that much, get a life and quit whining about it for fuck sakes. I used to adore Metallica and they slid so far it made me sick. But I didn't hang around their board whining about how they sold out and how uncreative they became. I moved on, stopped listening to their new stuff and just simply appreciated the old. Jesus, get a life already...or at least a giant block of fucking cheese to go with your whine.

[andthelettuce]

Why is it wrong to want to surround yourself with music that exposes you to new ideas? I don't think anyone expects a full philosophy lesson from a song, but it seems silly to think that it's ok to look to an artist for pleasure (which can also be attained from many places other than music; why don't you say that people who listen to music soley for enjoyment are looking in the wrong place?) but not ok to look for an artist for some exposure to ideas we might not have been previously been aware of.

I don't think it's wrong to want to listen to music that exposes you to new ideas, but compared to truly remarkable ideas, I have never heard one song that I've found to be significantly insightful. I never said people who listen to music solely for insight are looking in the wrong place because insight can be found in other places; I said it because I believe the insight offered by music is insignificant compared to other sources. However, I believe the enjoyment offered by music is not insignificant compared to other sources.

[lakinis_juice]

I'd really like a list of bands you know of in the modern era that have progressively made better music. I'd just love to hear that list and the reasoning behind it.

Because the trend nowadays seems to be different then it was way back when. Very, VERY few bands live up to their original billing. Just look at some of the bands out there...... Metallica has lipped tremendously from where they were. U2, although still popular, are nowhere near what they used to be....probably one of the biggest slides of them all if you ask me. I mean, this How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb? I've listened to it several times now and will probably never again.

Pearl Jam.......hmmmmmm, the list is growing. They have dumped since Ten and Vs. Lets go on, how about Radiohead? They make masterpieces like they did and theat turns into Pablo Honey and Hail To The Thief? Major Slide......The same can be said for 95% of music acts over the past 20 years. REM, The Chili Peppers......the list goes on and on

So to me it's no big surprise that Live are following the same path. Which leads to the comments I made in another thread....if they piss you off that much and have regressed that much, get a life and quit whining about it for fuck sakes. I used to adore Metallica and they slid so far it made me sick. But I didn't hang around their board whining about how they sold out and how uncreative they became. I moved on, stopped listening to their new stuff and just simply appreciated the old. Jesus, get a life already...or at least a giant block of fucking cheese to go with your whine.

Ok what about Red Hot Chilli Peppers?, The Smashing Pumpkins albums progressed gloriously when they were around, Incubus, Rage against the machine thereis plenty more

[FishOutaWater]

None of this really matters all that much. Who cares if the song has more personal meaning to Ed that might appear at the start?

Hey, I'm just responding to your request. You said "Where the hell do you see any of that in the lyrics to the river? Please, do explain. I'd hate to think your comments here are nothing more than unfounded conjecture." So I explained where I see that in the lyrics. So your response is "who cares". Well, you asked.

Maybe if you understood Ed's lyrics better you wouldn't think they suck as much as you seem to. Maybe they don't suck to someone that gets what they are about. On MJ and TC, Ed had references to "flags" in his lyrics, and that word represented so much. The lyrics and music in songs like Mirror Song are every bit as simple, probably moreso, than what we are hearing from SFBM, but I think that Mirror Song is genius and is one of their best songs. I really don't think that Live's music has gone down hill. Practically every song contains symbolic references to love, peace, spirit, awakening, and/or freeing one's self from the egoic, habitual energy of attachment and clinging. Although I agree that BoP was the low water mark of their creativity. I think that is a disappointing album. I think V is chocked full of gems and I like SFBM so far.