Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!GAFFA.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request
From: Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8909201644.AA02408@GAFFA.MIT.EDU>
Date: 20 Sep 89 16:43:02 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28
Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu

Really-From: Laura Frank Clifford <lcliffor@ccm.bbn.com>


IED writes:
>>     ... It's
>>obviously about the seductive power of romantic love, but the refrain
>>"Oh to be in love--and never _get_out_ again" is interpreted by IED
>>as a "kicker": not "never fall out of love again" but "never _get_
>>out". Love is great and everything--but it's also a _trap_ to be
>>wary of.

Steve Bloch writes:
>I hadn't thought of that reading.  I'm not convinced; it seems to me
>equally plausible that it means "to be in love happily ever after",
>with no sinister shadows.  The emphasis she gives to "never" in the
>early recording, particularly when she goes up an octave, seems to
>suggest such a fairy-tale atmosphere.

I have always also had the interpretation Steve Bloch describes and
have always found the sentiment of being in love and never getting out
again a wonderful description of an innocent desire to be truly in
love.  I would be most disturbed to find out otherwise.  I've always
found the song almost joyous in tone.  IED's
interpretation is very disturbing indeed - has anyone else ever
considered IED's interpretation?


Laura Clifford