The best lyricists and poets are not the articulative and succinct: they are not trying to put across any particular point. They're the ones who best translate their seamless flow of thoughts, sustaining the 'gibberish' of irrationality throughout; weaving a seamless and linguistically catchy rhyme. Prudence is not the key, nor perspective-what appeals to you as best is something that keeps returning, something which ....lingers.
((I have GOT to find a word that describes the style of writing that practices itself through itself - e.g. Well, apart from the fact that this doesn't need an example to prove my point, :P "....lingers" is what I had in mind)
This kind of enigmatic writing, with all 'concious reasoning' filters removed, makes the work essentially human - lending it the spark of irrationality. At the same time however, since only human brings find irrationality 'rational' to some exent, only we will be able to 'truly' comprehend the meaning. This analysis-is performed sub-conciously: it has to be for conventional intellect - the scientific approach will prevent you from 'artistically' appreciating the content. The clash between the 2 groups has been going on for a reason. Even Feynman must concede that the final leap he takes to admire the way in which nature has so intricately, and so successfully put together a flower is conceding to a form of irrationality. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo)There is no NEED for him to appreciate the fact. Artistic expression and appreciation is Irrational, but by god do we love it :D, and BY GOD, do we need it..... :P (I am not contradicting myself: biologically - we don't need it.)
Anyway, back to the point. Since the ambiguous song/ poem isn't seriously analysed by the concious mind-i.e. the 'Taught' mind, it lingers on and is marinated upon by the sub-concious mind. I call this the true human mind. The unique mind. The sub-concious is nothing but a judgemental code (not unlike the IPC), a collection of very personal experiences and the lifelong lessons learned from them. This moral & emotional yardstick is different in all individuals. And since it is this rule that everyone uses to measure the length of the impression that a certain piece of literary work leaves on you, each person evolves a different understanding of the poem, a very personal one. It is then a fact that binds co- readers in sheer amazement, that there are so many like themselves who feel that the author is communicating directly, differently & only with them. It seems a super-human effort - meaning so much, by saying so little. And succumbing to another human tendency to gawk at things which shouldn't be, purely because they're not easy leaves us in awe of the writer.
Conceded, I might have an ulterior motive in getting others to appreciate that I'm a better poet-lyricist than most band lyricists and modern day poets, but what I really want to get across is the fact that these guys don't write profoundly and in an all encompassing genius manner.. They make the rhymes that each reader subsequently turns into beautiful lines. The credit for making the experience of reading/listening lies more with you than all the witty, nobly sly craftsmen.
Poem in point.
"They linger"
Don't want to hear my own thoughts...
Can't vanquish them, can't brood over them.
P
Few fantasies at first, now there's too many of them.
Exiled from conciousness,
Loathed by acceptance,
In my sub-concious they clot.
I'm happy.....or am I?
I dread that they may be lost forever, that they may rot.
P
ENOUGH!! I've had enough of a workout;
My sharpened reason scythes through me,
Slices through ideas of identity.
Answers I do not want, I don't want the need,
For only more questions will they breed.
P
Do I want to believe this?
Does a loss of conclusion imply infirmity?
All I want to do is gather them, enshrine them in scripts,
Entomb them in notebooks, both treasuring and banishing them for eternity.
--------------------------------------------------------
Update - while publishing: I am beginning to dislike blogspot formatting.
