Thrice - To Be Everywhere Is To Be Nowhere (May 27, 2016) Album • Page 11

A person's personal diary and art meant for public consumption are not at all the same thing.

 

It's an analogy that works nonetheless. Dustin is giving you access to his own thoughts (or diary) for a few minutes, even if you'll never have context for what he's really trying to say.

Those words are a statement he's making for himself. Take it or leave it.

I'm not going to try and latch on to his words and add my own meaning or assume I know what he's saying. No one will ever know what he actually meant.

 

New song sounds like something off Daisy.

 

Man, going to an art museum with you must be super tedious.

"What do you think of this painting?"

"I couldn't possibly begin to answer that. I haven't lived that painters life, nor do I fully know his intentions for painting the picture."

 

But it's not like that--this is art, put out into the world. it doesn't matter what the intent was, and that doesn't speak to what I'm saying anyway, I'm critical of the metaphor as a vehicle for whatever message being delivered. I don't think it works, and the of the speaker swatting at bees with honey all over them or whatever is more funny to me than anything, and clashes with the heaviness of the music and the delivery.

 

Literature and lyrics are vastly different. Dustin typically doesn't tell stories like Bob Dylan. His thoughts are personal (most of the time). Critiquing his thoughts, word choices, themes etc. is impossible to do unless you have some context for what he's trying to say. You're getting a peek inside his head, whether you like what he's saying or not.

Who are we to say what he should be saying? The song is great. The vocals are exceptional from the performance to the melodies/harmonies. That's what matters.

 

I'm not going to get into another conversation with you where you ignore everything I say.

 

I don't have a problem with the metaphor conveying the proper image. My biggest problem is simply that it is pretty poor form to equate a group of human beings with insects. It comes off as a little condescending to me.

But maybe the resurgence of Jungle Book has me a little more on edge about that kind of thing.

 

literature can't do all that? it's generally seen as a fallacy to map the artist's life onto the speaker's, regardless of medium. I wouldn't listen to one of your band's songs and automatically assume it's all about you.

 

Great song!! The grunge vibes are definitely there and I love it.

 

good point

 

As far as the lyrical argument goes... of course lyrics are fair game for criticism. That's... kind of the whole point of art made for public consumption. And as others said, in literature the artist and the speaker shouldn't be assumed to be the same, and the same is true in music.

 

I wouldn't assume I know what the artist is trying to convey, even if I have my own interpretation. Nor would I suggest that they should have used water colors instead.

Splitting hairs over lyrics is a fool's errand.

There are some phenomenal lyrics on Thrice songs that aren't regarded as their best songs. Nobody ever commends a song for its lyrical content unless it has everything else going for it.

This song has it all.

 

What I've been trying to do now is listen to determine if that was intentional. It seems the song is from the viewpoint of the aggressor and perhaps Dustin meant for it to appear dehumanizing.

I still really dig the song, all things considered. I just don't think he landed the metaphor cleanly.

 

Yes, you can criticize whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that critiquing lyrics is an exercise in futility. Dustin is letting you inside his head for a few minutes. If you don't like what he has to say, fine. But how does that weigh down a song? Why should it weigh down a song? If it sounds good and gives you a great feeling, does it really matter what he's saying?

Unless he's being offensive, I don't care what he talks about as long as it's genuine. He could sing about Jolly Ranchers and I'd be all for it as long as he has conviction in the process.

Did people care whether Tom DeLonge sang "epic holiday" or "endless holiday"?

Do people care what the majority of pop acts have to say?

People once criticized "Promises" in this same fashion. Now, everybody sings along. Why? Because it sounds good and it feels even better.

 

Yes to all of your rhetorical questions. Lyrical analysis is a huge part of music criticism. Just like any written art form, lyrics, their meaning, and their execution, can be analyzed and dissected. It certainly is not an exercise in futility.

 

I said this in the Thrice thread, but I'll say it here. New song is cool, and Dustin sounds great on it. However the lyrics are not great imo.

 

Is the metaphor a little cheesy? Maybe. But it works well with the message the song is trying to convey.

 

I'd bet everything that he is not trying to be dehumanizing in any way. It's just the metaphor he thought of when people keep pushing others, taking from them, and expect no consequences.

 

I have no doubt that his intent wasn't to dehumanize. I mean, he literally has songs criticizing the dehumanization of "the other." (see Cold Cash and Colder Hearts). So I have no doubt of his intentions in that regard.

But to me, the comparison just doesn't sit particularly well. And so I am wondering if he just never really made the connection that it could be seen as dehumanizing in some way or if he did make the connection and attempted to include it on purpose as the viewpoint of the entitled individual in the song.

After a few listens my guess (or maybe my hope?) is the latter.

Regardless, I love the politically charged Dustin. Can't wait to hear more.

 

Using humans as different types of animals in a metaphor is literally a three thousand year old tradition in literature and writing. There's no inflammatory meaning behind it. It's how figurative language works.

 

The more I hear this song, the more I like it. I think it's safe to say I will love this album, now to stay away from this song and "Blood on the Sand" for a month.

 

love love love Black Honey. 2/2 so far.

 

Unless you can be absolutely certain as to what Dustin is saying, why let your own interpretation bring down an otherwise great song like this?

What if you're misreading it entirely?

 

Obviously. It has also been used throughout history as a way of dehumanizing certain populations. Most notably in imperialist literature. The Jungle Book is a perfect example. And as I mentioned earlier, the implications of Jungle Book returning to popular culture have been on my mind and caused the metaphor to jump out at me.

Perhaps something is getting lost in translation here on my part, so I'll attempt to clarify. I don't think there is anything sinister at work here on Dustin's part. In the thread, there was a discussion about interpreting art and lyrics and it was mentioned that the metaphor didn't work for someone because they thought it was silly. I don't think it is terribly silly, but the insect / human thing kind of jumped out at me, so I referenced it in passing. And since I am bored as hell I have also been listening to the song over again and trying to work how I am reacting to it and why.

I don't think it is a big deal in any way. I'm more interested to see if Dustin thought about it at all. My hunch is that he did. He has always struck me as pretty thorough and precise in his writing.