Recently, while driving and listening to the radio, I encountered a what might be considered a broadcast phenomenon (although, it is rapidly becoming less surprising) where I switched from one radio station to another and heard the same song. It was "I Write Sins Not Tragedies" by a popular group from Las Vegas called Panic! At The Disco. I don't listen to the radio regularly, and had switched stations because I really didn't want to listen to the song. But, confronted by the recalcitrant track, I decided to stay with it. I don't believe in a chaotic universe and take this sort of event to imply some sort of hidden significance; so, I am compelled to investigate...
What was most striking about the track was the absurd, inarticulate and naïve lyric. So I Googled the song and found the lyric hosted by a popular lyric-hosting website called Sing365 (which seems to be, in reality, an advert-hosting site drawing hits by posting lyrics, probably in violation of copyright laws*). Nevertheless, here are the words from that site (sic):
Is the appeal of the song simply in its gist and sound - specifics be damned - in the same way that "you're" has become "your" and "their", "there" and "they're" are seemingly equivocal these days?
If so, then what exactly is its gist? And, if there is no clear gist, does sound dominate?
Perhaps, the lyric actually is "...poison..."?! This is entirely possible; I can't find an official published lyric and I suppose I might be wrong.
What does breakdown between the intention of the artist (I use that word with hesitation and regret) and the understanding in the listener really mean? Of course this single example cannot serve as a serious critique or inquiry of popularist tendencies, the creators of pop music, the audience and reception or, indeed, the music itself. But, I am fairly confident that it is not unique and that a similar string of questions would crop up when looking at other work. Should I come across one, maybe I should look at it, too?
If anything, the song is a weak story with some weak advice regarding church etiquette. That is, church etiquette which includes blasphemy. Admittedly, that is a simplification on my part, but even considering the piece as an allegory leaves me thinking it is weak. Yet, the song has had major chart success, the band's popularity is increasing, and the album is a million-seller. I find it worrying but interesting that among their songs listed on Sing365 are cover versions of songs by some songwriters for whom I have a great deal of respect, namely: Thom Yorke (Radiohead); Steven Morrissey (The Smiths); Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins); and Freddie Mercury (Queen).
As a matter of fact, I think a 'poisoned rationality' would be far more interesting...
What was most striking about the track was the absurd, inarticulate and naïve lyric. So I Googled the song and found the lyric hosted by a popular lyric-hosting website called Sing365 (which seems to be, in reality, an advert-hosting site drawing hits by posting lyrics, probably in violation of copyright laws*). Nevertheless, here are the words from that site (sic):
Oh, well imagine: as I'm pacing the pews in a church corridor,
and I can't help but to hear, no I can't help but to hear an exchanging of words:
"What a beautiful wedding, what a beautiful wedding!" says the bride's maid to a waiter.
Yes, but what a shame, what a shame, the poor groom's bride is a whore."
I'd chime in with a "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of oh
Well in fact well I'll look at it this way, I mean technically our marriage is saved!
Well this calls for a toast, so pour the champagne!
Oh! Well in fact well I'll look at it this way, I mean technically our marriage is saved!
Well this calls for a toast, so pour the champagne, pour the champagne!
I'd chime in with a "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.......
Againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!no"
It's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poisonnnnnnnn.....
rationalityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......
Agaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain...
Is the transcriber concerned with whether or not what they hear makes sense?and I can't help but to hear, no I can't help but to hear an exchanging of words:
"What a beautiful wedding, what a beautiful wedding!" says the bride's maid to a waiter.
Yes, but what a shame, what a shame, the poor groom's bride is a whore."
I'd chime in with a "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of oh
Well in fact well I'll look at it this way, I mean technically our marriage is saved!
Well this calls for a toast, so pour the champagne!
Oh! Well in fact well I'll look at it this way, I mean technically our marriage is saved!
Well this calls for a toast, so pour the champagne, pour the champagne!
I'd chime in with a "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.......
Againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!no"
It's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poison rationality.
I'd chime in "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?!"
No, it's much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poisonnnnnnnn.....
rationalityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......
Agaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain...
Bear in mind that this single was a top ten hit on several US charts: Hot 100 (#7), Top 100 (#4), US Digital (#8) and #12 on the US Modern Rock chart. The accompanying video won Video of the Year at the MTV Video Music Awards in 2006, and this song was reported as the most requested song on a station called Z100 in NYC. The track is from an album called A Fever You Can't Sweat Out, released in 2005, which has sold over a million copies. Now, there are several thoughts provoked.
When it comes to writing songs myself, I torture myself over this sort of thing, but the song does leave me with practical questions:
These are some of my nit-pickings, but I have to wonder if the songwriter (ninteen-year-old Brendon Urie) has these same questions. Or, is he on to something that I am completely unaware of? The cynic in me says, "No."
I've also less practical questions:
a) the phrase "a sense of poison rationality" in the chorus makes no sense at all, contextually or grammatically. I'm not going to argue against 'poetic license' or whatever other justification may be offered, but it would make much more sense if the phrase was actually "a sense of poise and rationality", which is better but still trite. I remember struggling with that line in my car.
b) the quasi-phonetic representation of the words "again", "rationality" and "poison" ("poise and") seems, well, amateur. Essentially, the author has written down what he/she has heard and so replaced the inane text with nonsense inanities.
So, this is fascinating if we consider the implications of the way this song is heard by the listeners. I recall hearing "...poise and...", but in review it's better to say that I recall understanding "...poise and...". There's nothing new about the notion that each listener hears what they do and draw their own meanings but is that what is happening here? Or are we simply witnessing some direct illustration of the dominance of the aesthetic in popularist music? I don't think it's an appeal to aestheticism.
When it comes to writing songs myself, I torture myself over this sort of thing, but the song does leave me with practical questions:
Why is the narrator pacing around a church during a wedding?
Does he belong there or is he some sort of voyeur?
Is the narrator perhaps the groom?
Why are the pews in the corridor?
Why is there a waiter in the church?
"Again"?
Does he belong there or is he some sort of voyeur?
Is the narrator perhaps the groom?
Why are the pews in the corridor?
Why is there a waiter in the church?
"Again"?
These are some of my nit-pickings, but I have to wonder if the songwriter (ninteen-year-old Brendon Urie) has these same questions. Or, is he on to something that I am completely unaware of? The cynic in me says, "No."
I've also less practical questions:
What is this song actually about?
Who cares?
Who cares?
and, why do they care?
I imagine that the lyric was probably submitted by a fan and not by the group itself, nor any of it's representatives/managers/publicists/etc. who would likely consider such a distribution an *infringement. I come to this conclusion/assertion because:a) the phrase "a sense of poison rationality" in the chorus makes no sense at all, contextually or grammatically. I'm not going to argue against 'poetic license' or whatever other justification may be offered, but it would make much more sense if the phrase was actually "a sense of poise and rationality", which is better but still trite. I remember struggling with that line in my car.
b) the quasi-phonetic representation of the words "again", "rationality" and "poison" ("poise and") seems, well, amateur. Essentially, the author has written down what he/she has heard and so replaced the inane text with nonsense inanities.
So, this is fascinating if we consider the implications of the way this song is heard by the listeners. I recall hearing "...poise and...", but in review it's better to say that I recall understanding "...poise and...". There's nothing new about the notion that each listener hears what they do and draw their own meanings but is that what is happening here? Or are we simply witnessing some direct illustration of the dominance of the aesthetic in popularist music? I don't think it's an appeal to aestheticism.
Is the appeal of the song simply in its gist and sound - specifics be damned - in the same way that "you're" has become "your" and "their", "there" and "they're" are seemingly equivocal these days?
If so, then what exactly is its gist? And, if there is no clear gist, does sound dominate?
Perhaps, the lyric actually is "...poison..."?! This is entirely possible; I can't find an official published lyric and I suppose I might be wrong.
What does breakdown between the intention of the artist (I use that word with hesitation and regret) and the understanding in the listener really mean? Of course this single example cannot serve as a serious critique or inquiry of popularist tendencies, the creators of pop music, the audience and reception or, indeed, the music itself. But, I am fairly confident that it is not unique and that a similar string of questions would crop up when looking at other work. Should I come across one, maybe I should look at it, too?
If anything, the song is a weak story with some weak advice regarding church etiquette. That is, church etiquette which includes blasphemy. Admittedly, that is a simplification on my part, but even considering the piece as an allegory leaves me thinking it is weak. Yet, the song has had major chart success, the band's popularity is increasing, and the album is a million-seller. I find it worrying but interesting that among their songs listed on Sing365 are cover versions of songs by some songwriters for whom I have a great deal of respect, namely: Thom Yorke (Radiohead); Steven Morrissey (The Smiths); Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins); and Freddie Mercury (Queen).
As a matter of fact, I think a 'poisoned rationality' would be far more interesting...
