Humanities desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 14[edit]

Can't interpret song lyrics[edit]

External link: Lyrics

I'm having a tough time understanding the lyrics of the song That's the Way Love Goes (Johnny Rodriguez song), also recorded by Lefty Frizzell and Merle Haggard. Lines like "you ran with me" and "I love you too" makes me think they are staying together, but, on the other hand it sounds like they are splitting. Are they splitting? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No (or not yet, but see split the lark and split the lark). Obvious only is that the song could be considered inspired by the 1927 song I'm Looking Over a Four Leaf Clover (- leaf clover song lyrics). The second stanza with the rainbow can be assimilated to the second clover leave in "I'm Looking over ...". --Askedonty (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :I couldn't find a reference explaining the songwriter's ~~(Merle Haggard)~~ intended meaning. Often songs have some ambiguity, allowing personal interpretation based on listeners' perspective. Instead of stating my interpretation (which would be an opinion <cough> which is not allowed), I'll point out that there are allusions to luck, chance and serendipity. "What is love?" is a common theme in many forms of art; often as a frame and not answered. Is love an destination or a journey? In this song there is a reference to love as music that God made, and that It's never old, it grows. Does the song have a happy or sad ending, or does it imply something like "let's just see where this journey goes"? --136.56.52.157 (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While Haggard made a very successful cover of the song, it was written by Lefty Frizzell and Sanger D. Shafer. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; thanks. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that they are splitting, because he says "Losing makes me sorry", but I'm still not sure. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But after the line about losing, she says "don't worry". So maybe it is meant to be ambiguous. Since this isn't an article, I'd appreciate opinions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "losing" is in reference to all his dreams of luck and success ("searching for that four-leaf clover" & "chasing rainbows") failing. She is telling him that he is enough for her as he is. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got to thinking that maybe he is worried about losing her, but she says "don't worry" in response to his "losing makes me sorry". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to change my mind a bit. I heard the line "Yet you run with me" as ""Yet you ran with me", as it is past tense. The song is going on my playlist. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The line is "Yet you ran with me", but it says nothing about whether she still runs with him, only that she always had. The rest of the song indicates that she is still with him. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did not have always ran. They ran caught under the rain, and before, the sun was shining but he was throwing horseshoes - a lucky charm - the wrong way for any chance of winning. It's salt in superstition it is advised throwing over one's left shoulder, and the shoes were his own, which he didn't deem classy enough - as they intended going to dance, later in the evening. In fact he might very well have risked to ruin them wet by walking where the clovers were. --Askedonty (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources have "ran" and some have "run". "Ran" sounds better in the song. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just listened to the Frizzell original. He sang "run". So, the songwriter/original singer definitely is saying that the woman is still with the man. Also, his pause between "you say 'Honey, don't worry'" and "I love you, too" shows that the latter is his response to what the woman said. Her injunction to him not to worry is her way of saying "I love you", and he responds to that. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no mention of dancing in the song and everyone is free to making any supposition they want. But the duration of their run is the indetermination in the song, whereas an enigma lies in the object of the loss. I'm using a very quick shortcut because I do not have the proper documentation at hand, but the difference between an undetermined context and a determined context leads to the difference between interpreting the tale as the debate between two enamoured people, or one and an exposure of the nature of love, and the sharing of such love. Which is what Merle Haggard and others like Connie Smith prove they are able to do with an enormous talent. --Askedonty (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a version by Connie Smith that was the same as the Haggard version, but I found what sounds like an older version with different versus that is not ambiguous. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... to me,^{[original research?]} this is not a relationship song; it is about the nature of love. Two people fall in love and "make beautiful music together" (for better or worse). Is this serendipity or does God^{[1 John 4:8]} have something to do with it? —136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think I agree.Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Breakfast Club considered a propaganda movie?[edit]

Is breakfast club considered a propaganda movie?179.134.96.166 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? And for what? One could make the argument that every movie is propaganda for something, even if that was not the film maker’s original intent. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not entirely clear, but I think the OP is referring to the 2006 kerfluffle that journalist Michael Weiss started with this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find one person in the entire history of the world who has thought so, but it has not generally been thought of as a propaganda film. Instead, it fits in to the category of Coming-of-age story or Teen film. --Jayron 32 13:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has definitely been taken to task for various things such as Ally Sheedy 'prettying up' to get a guy and physical/verbal sexual abuse. But is it propaganda? Like almost every mainstream movie ever made, it's part of the general hetero-normative male point of view hegemony, but I'm not aware of criticism that it's any more invested in that than most other movies of the time. You're going to have to clarify what you think it might be propaganda for. Matt Deres (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly propaganda for smoking pot. And it worked; after its re-release one State after another began to relax its anti-cannabis laws, softening the moral backbome of a once Great Nation. Sad. — the only real Donald ✓ 19:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need an emoji that indicates sarcasm drippage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment is funny due to its ahistorical and anachronistic nature. Just Say No and Drug Abuse Resistance Education were at their zenith in 1985, and real cannabis legal reform didn’t occur in the US until a decade later, not because of films in popular culture, but because of medical use. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OP. I grew up with this film. I don’t think it’s a propaganda film per se, but it does very much represent not only the zeitgeist of the 1980s, but also the views, values and perspectives of John Hughes. If you’re interested, look into the interviews with him and the cast for more BTS background on the story. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hope this helps! --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1970s, there was a series of ads called "McDonald's breakfast club with Don McNeill". Now THAT was some propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]