jaawwnn said:

benni said:

sro100 said:

RodeoSchro said:

Thoughts? OK.

"Lazy" is the absolute last word I would ever use to describe any aspect of this song. It has five - FIVE - different time signatures. It changes keys sublimely. The resolution between keys is absolute musical genius. And the lyrics are incredibly deep.

I know art is subjective but if you think any portion of this song is anything but world-class, I just don't know what to say.

But you didn't answer the question...

Sure I did. But the answer that will most satisfy you might be that you don't know for sure that Prince is singing this to a single person. To me, the "you" is not one person, but us.

BillieBalloon said:

BillieBalloon said:

benni said:

Actually, I like the explanation of it being sung from the perspective of God or Christ. That does not mean he is proclaiming himself to be such, but rather that God is singing through him. Just because people interpret the "love" being sung about as being about romantic love, does not mean it is. There are all kinds of love, the love for your fellow man, the love for your children and family, the love for friends, the love for God. "Love is meant for two" love is an energy that flows between the two people involved, whether they are your children, your spouse, your family members, or friends. It doesn't necessarily mean between lovers.

It would be like Christ to ask, "If I gave you everything you wanted, riches galore, would you be happy? But all I can give you is my love, is that not enough? My love is worth more than all jewels, gold, and money."

In the song he says " Am I the weaker man because I understand," in this line he is referring to himself as a man. I think he's talking about a man in love with a woman. Yes i know there is love besides romantic love, you wouldn't have to be channelling Christ to want someone to love you for you and not your posessions. I'm sure many people in Princes position (wealthy and famous) always question why a person loves them, it's an insecurity the very rich have.

Keep in mind Christ first came to us as a man, Jesus.

I think it fits the rhyme scheme. Simple as that.

sro100 said:

I've asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer.

Is this song just an example of lazy songwriting when he says "would you be a happy boy or a girl?"

If not, why is he asking if the person he's singing to is a "boy or a girl?"

Thoughts?

I take this as a simple gesture. of wanting to Love everyone... Love4oneanother vibe..

Would you be a happy boy or a Girl ... I translate that into ... "A Person" , Whoever you are....

The song has the brilliance of simplicity, and I think this lyric goes along with that.

sro100 said:

I've asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer.

Is this song just an example of lazy songwriting when he says "would you be a happy boy or a girl?"

If not, why is he asking if the person he's singing to is a "boy or a girl?"

Thoughts?

I thought he was just being very inclusive and it fits the rhyme scheme. It's there for gay or bi people or for people who want to see it, but if you don't want to see it it easily slips by, because it's a romantic and not overtly sexual.

You can be insert yourself into the song as a man singing to a woman or a man singing to a man if you are so inclined. People did this with Melissa Etheridge songs all of the time (man singing to a woman, woman singing to a woman), even though she was 100% a lesbian singing to her female lover.

Bunsterdk said:

benni said:

BillieBalloon said:

jaawwnn said:

Am I the only one who's always thought he was singing this to a future child of his, and a little to the child's mother as well? (Hence the scene with the kids in the video.) To me it explained why the chorus was in the conditional tense (because he didn't have a child at that time). The day he'll never run away is the day the child is born, and "love is meant for two" just refers to love going in both directions, regardless of the type of relationship. And then there are the fights that happen during the raising of a child, but knowing (unlike many in society who treat their children and spouses poorly) that even in difficult circumstances love has to come first. Toward the end Rosie ad-libs "would you be happy, little baby," which of course wouldn't necessarily indicate a literal little baby, but in the context of the rest of the song that was always how I took it. That's just always what I've thought, though.

Of course, through the lens of later years it also makes it an incredibly sad song. I do like a lot of the interpretations here of it being a song about universal love, though. Plus it takes that sadness element away which is nice.

[Edited 7/7/16 10:36am]

Arbwyth said:

Am I the only one who's always thought he was singing this to a future child of his, and a little to the child's mother as well? (Hence the scene with the kids in the video.) To me it explained why the chorus was in the conditional tense (because he didn't have a child at that time). The day he'll never run away is the day the child is born, and "love is meant for two" just refers to love going in both directions, regardless of the type of relationship. And then there are the fights that happen during the raising of a child, but knowing (unlike many in society who treat their children and spouses poorly) that even in difficult circumstances love has to come first. Toward the end Rosie ad-libs "would you be happy, little baby," which of course wouldn't necessarily indicate a literal little baby, but in the context of the rest of the song that was always how I took it. That's just always what I've thought, though.

Of course, through the lens of later years it also makes it an incredibly sad song. I do like a lot of the interpretations here of it being a song about universal love, though. Plus it takes that sadness element away which is nice.

[Edited 7/7/16 10:36am]

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Children, the YOU is plural. He's addressing a group of people. It's simple and it's not "lazy"

steakfinger said:

Children, the YOU is plural. He's addressing a group of people. It's simple and it's not "lazy"

Maybe.

But judging by the multitude of different responses on here - as well as my own puzzlement - it's not "simple."

I still the think the songwriting on in it is lazy, e.g. "This will be the day - that you will hear me say - that I will never run away...Love is made for 2..." etc. I've always felt that this song's lyrics were just kind of plopped into an ornate arrangement.

sro100 said:

cb70 said:

It's sung from the perspective of god to all of us.

This is the only one that kind-of makes sense but does the rest of the song really equal that?

This is what i always got from it..he was talking in Gods voice, so to say...no matter who or what, boy or girl..its from Gods perspective. Love it!

Arbwyth said:

Am I the only one who's always thought he was singing this to a future child of his, and a little to the child's mother as well? (Hence the scene with the kids in the video.) To me it explained why the chorus was in the conditional tense (because he didn't have a child at that time). The day he'll never run away is the day the child is born, and "love is meant for two" just refers to love going in both directions, regardless of the type of relationship. And then there are the fights that happen during the raising of a child, but knowing (unlike many in society who treat their children and spouses poorly) that even in difficult circumstances love has to come first. Toward the end Rosie ad-libs "would you be happy, little baby," which of course wouldn't necessarily indicate a literal little baby, but in the context of the rest of the song that was always how I took it. That's just always what I've thought, though.

Of course, through the lens of later years it also makes it an incredibly sad song. I do like a lot of the interpretations here of it being a song about universal love, though. Plus it takes that sadness element away which is nice.

[Edited 7/7/16 10:36am]

I also think it's being sung to a child/future child. I was 10 or 11 when this song came out and, when I first heard it, my initial reaction was actually, more or less, "Huh? A boy OR a girl? ... that doesn't make sense ... is he not sure what his crush's gender is or something?" Years later, I thought of it as being sung from the parent to child perspective and it finally all seemed to fit to me.

No, that line isn't "lazy songwriting" to me.

That title goes to; "...Like A Brontosaurus" from Dinner With Delores.

LewArcher said:

Arbwyth said:

Am I the only one who's always thought he was singing this to a future child of his, and a little to the child's mother as well? (Hence the scene with the kids in the video.) To me it explained why the chorus was in the conditional tense (because he didn't have a child at that time). The day he'll never run away is the day the child is born, and "love is meant for two" just refers to love going in both directions, regardless of the type of relationship. And then there are the fights that happen during the raising of a child, but knowing (unlike many in society who treat their children and spouses poorly) that even in difficult circumstances love has to come first. Toward the end Rosie ad-libs "would you be happy, little baby," which of course wouldn't necessarily indicate a literal little baby, but in the context of the rest of the song that was always how I took it. That's just always what I've thought, though.

Of course, through the lens of later years it also makes it an incredibly sad song. I do like a lot of the interpretations here of it being a song about universal love, though. Plus it takes that sadness element away which is nice.

[Edited 7/7/16 10:36am]

I also think it's being sung to a child/future child. I was 10 or 11 when this song came out and, when I first heard it, my initial reaction was actually, more or less, "Huh? A boy OR a girl? ... that doesn't make sense ... is he not sure what his crush's gender is or something?" Years later, I thought of it as being sung from the parent to child perspective and it finally all seemed to fit to me.

But is that really consistent with "which one of us is right if we always fight?" Doesn't that imply that they do in fact fight?

Or could it be more of a universal theme? Maybe.

PurpleJedi said:

No, that line isn't "lazy songwriting" to me.

That title goes to; "...Like A Brontosaurus" from Dinner With Delores.

Well that line sure is memorable.

"She was packing it in..."

steakfinger said:

sro100 said:

LewArcher said:

I also think it's being sung to a child/future child. I was 10 or 11 when this song came out and, when I first heard it, my initial reaction was actually, more or less, "Huh? A boy OR a girl? ... that doesn't make sense ... is he not sure what his crush's gender is or something?" Years later, I thought of it as being sung from the parent to child perspective and it finally all seemed to fit to me.

But is that really consistent with "which one of us is right if we always fight?" Doesn't that imply that they do in fact fight?

Or could it be more of a universal theme? Maybe.

Good point... I shouldn't have said it "all" seemed to fit. But it does feel more like it's mostly from parent to child to me. However, that line (which one of us is right if we always fight?) definitely does seem more traditionally romantic. The follow-up line "why can't we just let love decide?" isn't really clear either, as how would one "let love decide" who's right? I suppose it's a way of saying who's right doesn't really matter as love is more important and to just forget about the disagreement and focus on love... but it's hard to tell for sure.

Also, as I'm looking over the full lyrics now, It kinda reads like parts of it are directed at a child and other parts are directed at a love interest... but, of course, that seems unlikely (or at least really unusual). I suppose thinking of it as a "universal theme" works. I also think it's totally possible that P just wrote what sounded right to him, figured it all sounded like it fit at a certain point and went with it, even though it might not have been totally clear in a literal/linear sense. I think that happens sometimes with P lyrics (and lots of other musicians' lyrics, too) where if you really break every line down, it may not seem quite "right" somehow, but perhaps the overall vibe was the best fit for the song anyway, or at least the artist felt it was, and just went with it.

Bunsterdk said:

steakfinger said:

Children, the YOU is plural. He's addressing a group of people. It's simple and it's not "lazy"

Oh, yes, children.. Not simple, I don't think, but children could definitely also be a possibility. I still don't think there's only one answer with this song.

After rewatching the video with that perspective this just might make it all work.

RodeoSchro said:

sro100 said:

I've asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer.

Is this song just an example of lazy songwriting when he says "would you be a happy boy or a girl?"

If not, why is he asking if the person he's singing to is a "boy or a girl?"

Thoughts?

Thoughts? OK.

"Lazy" is the absolute last word I would ever use to describe any aspect of this song. It has five - FIVE - different time signatures. It changes keys sublimely. The resolution between keys is absolute musical genius. And the lyrics are incredibly deep.

I know art is subjective but if you think any portion of this song is anything but world-class, I just don't know what to say.

The Diamonds & Pearls hate must stop this song is about giving someone your love over money. The lyrics are beautiful when you actually listen to them.

It was one of the last songs that Prince sang...so that says alot about it.

I swear I read in one of the many interviews I have read since his passing that he said that D&P is about "God talking to Prince", or words to that effect. But do you think I can find the interview now?

Since his passing I have also sort of come to think of it as a song to us, his fans, even though I doubt that was the intention.

[Edited 7/7/16 22:24pm]

i always thought it was addressed to his fans. His way of saying that I can't really do or give anything of value to you other than my love. Never thought much more about it though.