The "you" in all of the lovesongs is a strange form of reference, because it seems to cover in a way all the "you's" the writers have ever dealt with in their lives. Yes, it's usually targeted at one specific person within the frame of a single artwork (in this case a song), but on the whole there really is no difference to how many individuals the word has been used to refer to throughout the whole body of the artist's work. Pluralistic viewpoints notwithstanding, it still inevitably remains as "you", no matter what. It either could be taken as that there is someone you hold in an idealistic light, i.e. your first love, and expect others to possibly fill up her space, or alternatively, in a way how the other person is simply viewn as an "other".

The over-simplification of the term "other" would say that the "other" is "other" because it simply sets you apart. And by setting you apart as an "other" from itself and from the absolute "other" (the other person as such, that which you can never possibly become or fuse into yourself) there will open an uncrossable distance between the two instances, namely between these two subjects. In this process they have become active subjects because of an all-encompassing want - a genuine want to live and experience as a subject, to continuously want something bordering on the want of want itself, the desire to continue - and which is now just blatantly getting reduced into this new symbolic term, "you".

Perhaps this is something of a crude interpretarion of the whole thematology that emphasizes the dignity found on the singularity of an autonomous subject in front of our eyes, but as an object of desire the desire itself inevitably governs the act of desiring itself. It isn't brought along by the object, as it's been clearly proven i.e. by these very same lovesongs that people apparently possess the potential to fall in love with a different person. And each time with a new person after the previous one. So inside this frame, even if it's indeed a different person, it's still the same process involved where this very special meaning of "you" gets imposed on someone you´ve met and have (preferably) made acquaintance with already. This is something we subconsciously cannot fail to feel intuitively, we feel quilty over the fact that we probably love the "love" itself, moreso than the other person (which is what the idealistic view of romantic love would make us believe). In desire, the singular other is being transformed into an object of utility. The want of making someone that special "you", so that you can also use it as an object for self-expression inside the realm of an artistic composition, such as a lovesong, means the want itself has unfortunately perverted. In perversions, "who wants" wants to become one with his object of desire. To blur the lines.

This is clearly only a wish in denial, as the other one remains separated, at an absolute distance. Now, this same distance prevailing between the two subjects is something that can obviously be narrowed though, yet the path to the other can never obviously be fully completed. Because if it indeed could be reached oneday, you could only find yourself reaching it in death. And in death there is no love, no want, no more any instances of "you" potentially existing for your utilization. You can only attempt to travel towards it, yet never permeat the want itself and step into some kind of eternal bliss - "heaven" as so to speak. Most certainly, once a songwriter dies, his fictional characters or artistic interpretations of people met in real life aren't something he can take with him to death. So the "you" in lovesongs might not always be in the most glorifying form of utilization possible, but every single "you" does however constitute a string of small little stations along the way - those stations are not however meant to be visited for longer than perhaps a couple of minutes each. Maybe you'll get off quickly, buy a bag of peanuts and get back on the train before it takes off again. They are just meant to be passed by, until the next one comes along.

what about the "U" in love songs?

See what happens when you actually put thought into a thread?

But seriously...I'm trying to take this all in.

I know what he means. The thought(s) passed through my mind reading over a lead sheet for a Cole Porter love song.

In the simplest interpretation, I think love songs are to be sung in the present-tense as a seranade to a current love interest.

GangstaFam said:

Yeah, it always dies quickly away at the forums.

CinisterCee said:

Talk about a perverted approach.

If you've never been in love, then "you" would have to mean some ideal when you sing along.

Nova, your post says more about you than it does about love.
It says the you are the hopeless romantic.

The "you" in love songs can be many things. It could be simply a song...no actual person at all. It could be the "you" in the writers life at the time of writing. It could be the "you" the writer dreams of. There's no one type "you" used in songwriting. Perhaps for particular songwriters this is the case...those that draw from personal experiences only. Not all do.

You speak about the songwriter as if the "you"/love is not real...just an ideal. I'm sure a great many love songs are the result of a real love.

About the songwriters demise and about what happens to the fictional characters: He may be the author but those that connect to his song will not envision the things he does. So as long as someone connects to a song, it will continue on and each listener will have his own cast of characters.

About the path only being completed in death: Goodness you're starting to sound like that Morrissey guy.

anon said:

Heh. That's the first time I've ever heard anyone describe psychoanalytical art theory as being hopelessly romantic. "Carnal" rather, but I guess "hopelessly romantic" could equal that by a detour somehow. But I'm not sure if naming people as "utility" is the most romantic view ever stated...



And hence it is reduced to "you" in all cases. That's why there is the symbolic reduction, so it can operate on all of these levels and have the same potential to represent the other that is viewn as worthy for artistic reproduction. It always remains as an other. The attempt to approach it indefinitely is actually what "gets written" into the song, even if the author himself wouldn't realize it.



That hardly matters, because along with a creative act what is attempted to be introduced to the aesthetic composition from your own personal life is always a mere reduction of the real-world stance of things. So no matter how irrelevant or important the person the author is drawing from is to the artist himself (it could be nonexistent as well, but that's still drawing from experience) there can be no genuine correspondence between the source of inspiration and the resulted image in the artistic composition.



Yep.



Whoah. He's one of pop's great philosophers, altough I am not that familiar with his output.

The path is completed only in death, because as long as we are alive a desire runs through us. It needs to be reflected on other individuals, even if those individuals wouldn't be present anywhere nearby but no matter what remain still as structures. The act of songwriting is just one form of fulfilling those needs of social reflection, even if the pieces would stay in the drawer and nobody would get to hear them. So in other words, we can never cease to make symbolic reductions of our love interests as long as we are alive. A symbolic reduction can be just an utterance that vaguely refers to those people that mattered.

Thank you for your answers!

I'm scared to read this.

Novabreaker said:

Forget the "hopeless romantic" remark...I thought you had the whole sour grapes/broken heart thing going on. You know how the one with the broken heart trys to make sense of it all and they go over over analyzing everything.

Anyway, I see now that you simply think too much.

And I'm not sure if "symbolic reduction" is accurate. Perhaps in the tribal community where symbolism is a way of thinking...but in this western civilization, when a guy writes "I want/love you" to a particular person, I don't think he's thinking "symbol".

Stop thinking so much and just listen to the music.

lilgish said:

me too.

anon said:

Haha, but that sort of does fit me. Well... I guess it'd fit just about anybody.




Ok, this is not what I am referring to with this terminology. Simply put, any language is by definition "symbolic" even in modern civilizations. In common use of everyday language it's become to stand for something a bit more mystic, but in short "symbolic" really means that after witnessing a real-world definition it is given a concept in a so-called shared language. This assumed shared conceptual reduction into a language for the sakes of communication is thought to be residing "in symbolic order". A (written) word is a symbol too, it bears no real relevance to the real world object, its symbol has been only agreed upon. "Love" is basically a socially more acceptable definition of a sentiment for desire, which is why I brought up desire in the first place (for the lack of better alternative wording). There are no other more relevant symbols for love than actually naming the sentiment "love".

momma?

CinisterCee said:

I think it always does even if you had been. That's the case in real life too, unfortunately. Your love interests still are "the objects of my desire", or rather "for the desire", instead of managing to be the the sole instigator of the desire itself. Our love interests rather fit our desire, not really vice versa. We "fall in love" or "fall in love with somebody" - connotating that we really do fall "in love" first and foremost. Not "in somebody" but instead "with somebody". This event of "falling" is supposedly shared with somebody.

In songwriting this makes it actually easier, as "you" is always at vicinity to be utilized. You don't even to ask the "other's" consent (wow, if only things would work like this in real life too!). But a fictional "other" in the end is not much different from a real world "other", because you are writing about them in a symbolic/fictional frame all along. So therefore it can be idealized, and it will be, even if it would be a real world character the songwriter was writing about it's simply just a reduction of the person. There's gotta be afterall something worth your desire to this symbolic/fictional version of a person too.

Novabreaker said:

I get what you're saying but in that sense every word we speak is a symbol of something. And I do agree...we are limited by our language. You say "There are no other more relevant symbols for love than actually naming the sentiment "love".." This is somewhat true in the english language but there are many cultures that have far more than the "love" word/symbol. They see/name the many facets of.

Anyway, if it is all about the "symbol" (I'd rather call them words). Then it is the poet/songwriter that, thru creative use of these words/symbols finds a way to take us closer to the essentialist place that they were derived from. If anything, it is the non-writer poet that is more trapped inside this "symbolic reduction" thing. So why target the song-writer?

These songs are describing emotions attached to the perceptions of a desired person. I thought most of them were fantasies in which one confesses their love with a serenade.

CinisterCee said:

They are. They are real as well as fantasies. Don't let that guy mislead you. He's just going thru some things 'cause his girlfriend left him. Give him time...he'll come around.

anon said:

Exactomundo. "Love" only covers a small part of the overall emotional capacity , this capacity is believed to cover even the will to continue living in the end. They're thought derive from the same form of want. This want cannot be truly fulfilled and therefore we continue living. Romantical "love" can end and it can be projected on new individuals simply because it is not the final say, the ultimate form of this phenomenon.



I originally removed the poet aspect from the first topic-starting post not to make things too complicated.

anon said:

I haven't been left by my girlfriend.

DaCee said:

Yes, the very core of "you" in a lovesong. A "fantasy", and emotions "attached".