Conference thebay::joyoflex

    "Dancing in the Dark"
    
    These lyrics are meaningless, though they go well together with
    the music:
    
    "Dancing in the dark ... 'til the tune ends.  We're dancing in the
    dark ... and it soon ends.  We're waqltzing in the wonder of why
    we're here.  Time hurries by: we're here and gone.  Looking for
    the light of a new love, to brighten up the night, I've got you,
    love.  And we will face the music ... together ... dancing in the
    dark."
    
    As meaningless as "Chickory Chick" (below), but without its charm.
    
    The lyrics of "Chickory Chick" are below.  It makes a [_very little_]
    sense if you recall that chickory is sometimes used in coffee, and
    it's possible it refers to a restaurant waitress or economical
    housewife or professional young woman:
    
    "Chickory chick, cha-la, cha-la.  Checkeraromi in a bananaica. 
    Wallaka wallaka, can't you see?  Chickory chick is me."
    
    Both songs were popular in the 1940s.  So much for the good old
    days.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

I think that's "Chekalaronica in a banannica."  In that case, I don't 
believe the idea was to make any sense.  'Sort of like "Maresy Doats" 
ecept there was an intention to fool people into thinking there were 
serious words there.

Most songs don't hold up well under scrutiny of the written lyrics. Part
of the problem is that you don't get the phrasing, part is that you are
liberated from the requirement of keeping time with the (possibly
syncopated) beat.  Lyrics are only the part of the score for a vocal
instrument.  Analysing them completely out of context is like analysing
the cello part to a symphony.  If you don't know the context in which
it's played, it makes no sense at all. 

						>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .1:
    
    What is wrong with the first set of lyrics?  It seems to make sense
    when you realize the appropriate metaphors:  Music is life, dancing is
    living, dark is lack of something (knowledge?  happiness?), and "here
    and gone" is the shortness of life. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Being from an earlier generation, I have difficulty with some of
    the currently popular "music" which consists of one single phrase
    repeated ad-nauseum with an accompanying primitive percussion
    beat.  To make matters worse, these are frequently presented at
    a decibel level well above that which can cause permanent damage to
    one's hearing.
    
    Unfortunately, little emphasis has been placed on the downstream
    effects of loud rock music.  Perhaps one day it will be treated
    in the same category as loud industrial noise, asbestos, agent orange,
    and chemical addictive agents.
    
    Oh well, each generation must make it's own impact on our society.
    Just think...those people who preached: "Never trust anyone over
    30!"  now fall into their own definition of those not to be trusted!
    
    But alas, I ramble....maybe the next reply will take us back to
    the topic!
    

    I always thought the lyrics to our very own Star Spangled Banner
    were strange...then a couple of weeks ago on a sitcom, one of the
    kids was assigned to translate the anthem into "english". It was
    a running joke through the program, until the end when he burst
    in and announced that the whole thing was one long question.  Never
    thought of it that way.
    
    Sure wish we'd chosen America The Beautiful.

    re .0:
    
    "Live and Let Die"
    
    ...and in this ever changin' world in which we're livin'...
    
    is how I interpreted the sounds so as to be almost grammatically
    correct. (not saying that this is what Paul actually wrote down
    on the sheets, I've never seen them)
            
    re .5:
    
    The Star Spangled Banner is actually several questions, I believe,
    and very good questions at that. 
    
    I think it is a much better anthem than any of the other wimpy songs 
    that have been proposed.
                                        
    What do you mean "translate it into 'english'"? Maybe some words
    are obscure, like 'ramparts', but is all of it? If it is, I'll start
    a Star Spangled Banner note.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    We have 'em all over the place here. :-)

    I think that the gist of the problem is that not only does it contain
    obscure words, it also has strange/antiquated diction.  It does
    sound like a good topic for another note...go ahead!  Maybe the
    base note should contain the correct text so we're all agreed on
    what we're translating.

    Re: .7 
    
    We also have ramparts...along with eweparts and lambparts.
    
    And little lamsie divey!
    

Re .4

>    Being from an earlier generation, I have difficulty with some of
>    the currently popular "music" which consists of one single phrase
>    repeated ad-nauseum with an accompanying primitive percussion
>    beat.  To make matters worse, these are frequently presented at
>    a decibel level well above that which can cause permanent damage to
>    one's hearing.

I love it! I don't know how old RSTONE is (I'm 36), but these are damn near
the exact sentiments my father expressed in 1964/65 when I started listening
to the Beatles and the Stones, and my father claims HIS father said the same 
thing in the early Forties...

I wonder what J. S. Bach's father said when he (Johann) cranked the old organ
into overdrive?

Stephen

P. S. Don't ask *ME* what *I* think when my daughter starts up her Kool and
the Gang. "She's Fresh, So Fresh" Yuk!

    Re: .10
    
>   I love it! I don't know how old RSTONE is (I'm 36), but these are damn
>   near the exact sentiments my father expressed in 1964/65 when I started
>   listening to the Beatles and the Stones, and my father claims HIS
>   father said the same thing in the early Forties...

    Just for a frame of reference, I had finished college and a tour
    of duty with the U.S. Army before Chubby Checkers promoted the Twist.
    My wife and I were invited to be "chaperones" (remember that antiquated
    concept) at my old fraternity house for the spring formal weekend,
    and all they did was dance the twist.  (From recent reports I get
    the impression that they still do something along that line.)

    As the DJ for our High School dances (they weren't even "hops" then),
    I recall some of the popular favorites:  Tennessee Waltz, Sparrow
    in the Treetop, Blue Tango, In the Mood.  The music was certainly
    loud enough to dance to, but you could also hold a conversation
    (without shouting) while you sat on the sidelines.
    
    Incidently, in those days we had never heard of things like "pot",
    "horse", "coke", etc. and were reasonably content to be ourselves.
    Our role models were people like John Wayne, Doris Day, Mickey Rooney,
    Bing Crosby, The Andrew Sisters, The Ink Spots, Cary Grant, Humphrey
    Bogart, et al.

    But enough nostalgia....I think you get the picture.
    

    "If you love somebody, set them free."
                              -Sting

    Re .4:
    
    > Being from an earlier generation, I have difficulty with some of
    > the currently popular "music" which consists of one single phrase
    > repeated ad-nauseum with an accompanying primitive percussion
    > beat.
    
    This may belong in the math conference, but in an April issue of a
    journal of the ACM, Donald E. Knuth had an article on the complexity of
    various songs.  There was some accompanying material on something like
    the length of the grammar that describes a song when it is a given
    length.
    
    For example, a normal complexity would be O(n).  That is, if the song
    is n units (words, lines, whatever you wish) in length, there is an
    amount of material roughly proportional to n to memorize.  In something
    like Old MacDonald's Farm, you would have to memorize the basic
    phrases, which are constant in length ("Old MacDonald had a farm", "on
    that farm he had a/an *", "a/an * here, a/an * there", and so on), and
    then some material which would increase as the song got longer.  At
    first, you might add "cow" and "moo" to your list of things to
    memorize.  Then you could add "pig" and "oink".  To make the song n
    units longer, you must memorize kn new words, where k is a fraction
    because you get to reuse "on that farm he had a/an *" when you add
    "cow" or "pig".
    
    Knuth noted that there was an improvement on this complexity.  There
    are songs with complexity O(sqrt(n)).  Adding a little bit of
    memorization can make such songs longer.  Knuth gave an example of a
    Hebrew song, but "The Twelve Days of Christmas" may be more familiar.
    Again, there is some basic material, such as "On the *th day of
    Christmas, my true love gave to me".  And again, to make the song
    longer, you add material, such as "a partridge in a pear tree" or "two
    turtle doves".  But this song is better because when you add "two
    turtle doves", you sing a phrase involving it AND the previous phrase
    as well.  Adding a bit of material makes the song longer by more than
    just one phrase -- it makes the song longer in proportion to the total
    amount of material you have ALREADY memorized.  To make the song n
    units long, you only need to add k sqrt(n) things to memorize. 
    
    Finally, Knuth noted that Kool and the Gang had achieved the ultimate
    by writing songs with complexity O(1).
    
    I thought that was hilarious.  It probably helps if you have worked
    with the O notation before.  Complexity O(1) means the song can get as
    long as you wish without any increase in memorization -- you just
    repeat the words.
    
    On the matter of the generation gap, can anybody provide a pointer to
    the person who said a few thousand years ago that students were unruly,
    disobedient, disrespectful of their teachers, and dressing in strange
    ways? 
         
                                                                   
    				-- edp

    #2 made me chuckle because I always called the song "Maresy Doats",
    too!  The actual words though, are:
    
    Mares eat oats and does eat oats,
    And little lambs eat ivy.
    A kid'll eat ivy too, wouldn't you?
                         
    Still kinda dumb, though!
    

     It's called "Mairzy Doats" on the label of the original record
    and on the original sheet music.
     The quote about the younger generation is due to Plato or someone
    of that era. A good collection of familiar quotations ought to turn
    it up; forgive me for not doing the requisite grunt work, but I'm
    just back from a(n) horrific plane ride and have a bad headache.
    
     My favorite dumb lyric?
     "Underneath our feet the subway is a-rumblin',
      Underground,
      Underground."
    
       -Tom Paxton
    
    -John

    Re .i5:
    
    Yes.  As originally sung, it should be:
    
    	Mairsey-doats and dosey-dotes
    	And liddle lamsey-divey;
    	A kiddly-divey-do, wouldn't you?
    
    	[whole thing repeated, then:]
    
    	If the words sound queer and jumbled to your ear,
    	A little bit jazzy and jivey, say:
    
    	Mares ... eat ... oats
    	And does ... eat ... oats 
    	And little ... lambs eat ivy.
    	[they let you figure out the last line]
    
    The quote re: the younger generation has been attributed to ancient
    Greeks and Romans, and I've even seen an attribution back to ancient
    Egypt, but haven't found verification of it.
    
    ...Blame it on Sokrates ... Plato did. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    One of the "classic" heavy metal dirges of the late '60s was like
    that too.
    
    "Ina Gadda da Vida", by the Iron Butterfly, began life as "In the
    Garden of Eden", but the singer was drunk when he showed up to record
    it and they changed the song to fit the way came out.
    
    The song, overall, was somewhere close to Knuth's ultimate simplicity.
    Even the 10-minute-ish drum solo brought new meaning to the term
    "redundant". 

"I'm so glad I'm stuck with you"

- Huey Lewis and the News

    
    Re: "I'm so happy to be stuck with you"
    	(Maybe this should be in the misunderstood lyrics note :-)
    
    The song is dumb, yes.  But I think that maybe you misunderstand
    the sentiment.
    
    

    	The woman in the video is a fox, however, and makes up for the
    song.  :^)
    
    	Larry
    

	"We don't need no education."  (Oh, I think they could stand a little.)
		--Pink Floyd

Grammatically OK, but dumb:

	"Put on your wig, woman; we're gonna shake and finger pop.
	 We're gonna pick tomatos.  We're gonna smash potatos."
		--Jr. Walker & the All Stars

	"Swan, swan, hummingbird.  Hurrah, we're all free now.
	 What noisy cats are we."
		--R.E.M.

	"Wrap your heel in bones of steel; turn the blade, a twist of color."
		--R.E.M.

	"I said na, na na na na, na na na na, na na na, na na na, 
	 na na na na."
		--the song "Land of a Thousand Dances"

    "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye"
    
    
    
    John M.

The new song from the TV show, _Family Ties_, includes
the line, "...you don't love me no more."

    Dumb lyrics:
    
    Scandal's "The Warrior": "You're eyes touch me physically..."
    
    (Sounds kinky to me!)
    
    
    Redundancy:
    
    A lost song from the early 70's, "Neanderthal Man" by Hotlegs:
    
    	"I'm a Neanderthal man,
    	 You're a Neanderthal girl.
    	 We're all Neanderthal men
    	 In our Neanderthal world."
    
    (Repeated over and over and over again.)
    
    --- jerry

    I shouldn't say "dumb" because he's my !!musical!!,not lyrical
    inspiration..
    
    Frank Zappa  "I'm So Cute" from the Shiek yer'bouti album
    
    "A rehn ne na, a rehn ne na, a rehn ne na,a rehn na
     A rehn ne na, a rehn ne na,a renda renda ra"
    
    Jeff 

    Not to play devil's advocate, but some lyrics, on the other hand,
    are shear poetry. The words deliver a message in a fresh way. I
    am thinking particularly of Sting, Queen, Pink Floyd. As was mentioned
    in an earlier note, disentangling the lyrics from the music is like
    unraveling a rope - you get two twisted strands with no useful purpose
    and with less than half the strength (or meaning).
    
    Stel
    

.26>I am thinking particularly of Sting...

Oh yeah, you mean like:

	I have come here seeking knowledge
	Things they would not teach me of in college
	It will turn your face to alabaster
	When you find the servant is the master
	.
	.
	.
	<blah, blah, blah> tuition
	<blah, blah, blah> fruition...	

Sorry, but this song has always grated on my nerves.  I suppose I should
give him credit for transcending the "yeah, yeah, yeah" rut, but this 
sounds much too strained - like he's trying to rhyme at the expense of
meaning.  (Especially the "tuition/fruition" line.)

My favorite, that says it all:

	"And we got no class
	 And we got no principles
	 We can't even think up a word that rhymes...."

-- Sam

    RE: .26
    
    "shear poetry"?  Like "wham, bam, thank you lamb"?
    
    
    					Sheri Lewis

    While these lyrics are not dumb, they do bear repeating in this
    note.
    
    From Tom Lerher's "The Folk Song Army"
    
    	"The tune don't have to be clever,
    	"And it don't matter if you put a couple of extra syllables
    		into a line.
    	"It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English,
    	"And it don't even gotta rhyme.
    	(Excuse me, 'rhyne.')
    
    Steve

      Re .29
      
      >    	"The tune don't have to be clever,
                     ----
      
      It's "The words don't have to be clever."
                -----
      
      Thanks for reminding me about this classic.
      
      Ready.  Aim.  Sing.
      
      Dave C.

    in which he decries the uselessness of the education he and his cohorts
    got in school...
    
    "...and our graduations hang on the wall..."

    One of my current favorites in the dumb lyrics category:
    
    	"You are the wind beneath my wings"
    
    Everybody knows that it's the wind *above* the wings that makes things
    fly.
    
    And another one:
    
    	When I was in college, some fraternity brothers were in a band
    ("The Back Bay Project" - they played in Boston and Cambridge around
    1984-1986) that did a rendition of "Burnin' Down the House."  They
    added a last verse that went something like this:
    
    	Oh sh*t! I think we're out of lyrics.
    	We're f*cked! I guess it's time to end this.
    
    -Tom

    A lot of folks think it's "you are the wings beneath my feet..."
    
    Ouch!!
    

   >> A lot of folks think it's "you are the wings beneath my feet..."

    These people are really out of touch - sometimes referred
    to as Hermes hermits.

    Di
    

    No no Di, those are the people who think it's
    
                                          "you are the wings BEHIND my feet..."
    :-)
    
    (incidentally, I think this entire string should be hermetically
                                                       (hermitically? 
                                                        hermeneutically?) 
                                                        sealed...)

Re: .32

>     Everybody knows that it's the wind *above* the wings that makes things
>     fly.
    
Actually, the faster moving air above the wing results in lower pressure on 
that surface. The higher pressure under the wing then forces the wing up, so, 
indeed, the wind *beneath* the wing is what makes things fly. Unless, I guess, 
you prefer to think of the lower pressure above as sucking the wing upward...

...I think not.

-stephen

P.S. Can you imagine Bette Midler singing "You are my Bernoulli effect..."?