I read a recent interview with Dirty Projectors frontman Dave Longstreth, hoping he would illuminate an album which I enjoy but have a hard time understanding. But maybe understanding isn't really the point. When asked about the meaning behind the album's title, Longstreth said:
"There's not really a literal meaning to draw out of the phrase. But I like the way the words sound together. I feel like there's some kind of sense just in the relation between the two. Sort of like, "please please me" or something. There's a part that's sort of gentle, and supple, and then there's a part that's barbed, and demanding. "Bitte" is a polite word, but it's sharp."And later on, with reagrds to the same phrase used in the song "Useful Chamber":
"Lyrically, it's just the sense of the words become aural rather than literal. I guess I don't think of it as dodging and weaving in terms of coherence, or you know, like as you were saying, emotional forthrightness.In other words, it's not really about the words in the context of linguistics or grammar; it's about the meaning behind those words, an almost subconscious association we make between sound and expression."But yeah, one of the beautiful things about music is how simple and direct a line of communication it is. And I guess what I want to do, and what we want to do, is try to make music that feels good, and feels expressive-- even as it does so in a new vocabulary."
An emphasis on lyricism over syntax is nothing new in the world of art, of course; you could look at James Joyce's Ulysses or Finnegans Wake or even half the nursery rhymes your mother sang to you at bedtime. Even in indie rock: reading an interview with The National frontman Matt Berninger, I was kind of disappointed to hear that they'd actively avoided specific interpretation while putting together one of my favorite albums, Alligator. (At the time I guess I wanted a back-pat for "cracking the code" or whatever. I'd like to think my listening habits have since changed.)
Even Edgar Allan Poe, a poet obsessed with details and structural minutae, has also long championed the meaning behind the words above all else. But Poe also admitted that discovering meaning was no easy task. Near the beginning of "Eleonora", he writes:
"the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence -- whether much that is glorious - whether all that is profound -- does not spring from disease of thought -- from moods of mind exalted at the expense of the general intellect. They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night. In their gray visions they obtain glimpses of eternity, and thrill, in awakening, to find that they have been upon the verge of the great secret."Now, I've always been pretty awful at poetry. Legendarily awful. And maybe it's because, as Poe speculates, I'm not all that mad. (Though I do daydream a lot.) Though now I'm thinking it's because I may just be too literal. And really, the media I'm writing for at the moment are too consumer-oriented to dip into the pool of subconscious; can you imagine if an episode of Lost was a stream-of-consciousness Paean To Summer, where all the actors shirked their lines and instead gesticulated, hummed and bellowed nonsense to each other for forty minutes?
Actually, I would totally watch that.
But I can't be totally jaded about this, right? Surely there's some example of modern filmmaking or television that expertly splits the difference between syntax and feeling; something less stilted than broad comedies but more accessible than The Tim & Eric Awesome Show. I mean, right? Maybe?
