Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ism780c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!geoff
From: geoff@ism780c.UUCP (Geoff Kimbrough)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Jefferson Sellout
Message-ID: <609@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Feb-86 21:00:34 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780c.609
Posted: Tue Feb 11 21:00:34 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Feb-86 21:04:07 EST
References: <592@smeagol.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@ism780c.UUCP (No One in Particular)
Distribution: na
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 45
Keywords: Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll

>> Dianeh writes:
>>        [...]  If the actual
>>author of the song said the intent was an homage to Lewis Carroll, I'd have
>>no reason to not believe it -- *certainly* not because [...]

> Greg Earle writes:
>Funny, I don't remember Lewis Carroll talking about pills ...
>C'mon Diane, get serious - there's songs where the meaning is questionable,
>and there's songs where its all there in Black and White.  This is one of
>those.  Ask Kantner & Slick if you don't believe me...

I think you missed the point.  Diane never tried to claim that White Rabbit
*wasn't* drug inspired (re-read the article).  She said that she wasn't
interested in anyone's *opinion* on the subject except *the author of the
song's*.  Sure, it *seems* obvious to almost anyone that _White Rabbit_ was
"drug inspired", and perhaps Ms. Slick would not deny it, but *if* she
did, and had compelling evidence to backup her statement, I would tend to
believe her, rather than some random person's interpretation.

The interpretation *I* believe is that _White Rabbit_ was Social Commentary,
using AiW/TtLG as a framework for the analogue.  (Jefferson Airplane
generally said what they wanted to say about drugs and sex, no cute
analogues needed.) The "one that Mother gives you" being the "placebo of
modern pop psychology". "Feed your head" means *think* (or get enlightened)
... I don't want to expand on this, no doubt it could be debated endlessly
(seems that 1+1=2 can be debated endlessly on the net.), the point is that
MY interpretation is nothing but line noise if the song's author disagrees
with it.  (most artists wouldn't disagree with someone's *interpretation*
of their work unless it is *diametrically opposed* to what they were
trying to communicate.)  If you derive special meaning in a work of art that
wasn't intended, fine, maybe that's what "art" is all about (but no, I don't
want to discuss it, I'll leave it at "maybe") just don't try to insist that
the author put it there (on purpose or otherwise).

John Lennon says "Lucy" is about a child's painting.  If I had some reason
to think Lennon was lying, then I might argue the point, but I can't think
of any reason that a man who admitted that some of his other songs *were*
drug inspired would lie about this one.  Can you?

I do find it interesting that someone who spends hours dissecting and
analyzing and finding hidden meanings in certain artist's works is unwilling
to accept any but the most obvious and shallow interpretations of other
artist's works.  (not you Greg, unless the shoe fits 8^) )

Enough of this nonsense.