When Interpretation Goes Too Far<\/span><\/p> <\/span><\/span>The band, Tool, are known for having their music be absurdly dissected by obsessed fans who wish to understand the \u201ctrue meaning\u201d of a song. There are often two results to these interpretations: one that is centered around topics or issues present in society and the other that is absolute nonsense or not considered as \u201cdeep\u201d as the former. However, neither of these interpretations matter as much as the feelings that their songs evoke. At fifteen minutes long, Tool\u2019s song \u201cDisgustipated\u201d is quite odd. The song evokes an eerie atmosphere as sounds of distortions, animals, religious preaching, gunshots, and voice recordings play. This atmosphere develops a feeling of anxiety and fear in the listener. One of the most bizarre aspects of this song is the use of seven minutes of chirping cricket sounds. There are many ways in which one can interpret this song; however, at least for me, no matter how many times this song is played, it evokes the same mood and emotions; creepy, eerie, anxiety, and fear. The song \u201cDisgustipated\u201d by the band Tool is an example of the shortcomings of interpretation. In her essay <\/span>Against Interpretation,<\/span> Susan Sontag advocates for an approach to interpretation that is centered around the form or descriptive qualities rather than the content or prescriptive qualities. This approach to interpretation concentrates on the song\u2019s emotion rather than its meaning. The emotion of the song is more direct than interpretation and should thus be valued as a meaning within itself.\u00a0<\/span><\/p> <\/span><\/span>There are a million different ways in which someone could interpret the song \u201cDisgustipated.\u201d Interpretation of the song could even reveal a different layer of someone\u2019s appreciation. However, interpretation must be taken with a grain of salt because there is no \u201cone meaning\u201d to the song; there are many factors that could impact someone\u2019s interpretation. Nietzsche states \u201cThere are no facts, only interpretations\u201d (qtd. in Sontag 3). Everything in the world is based on our perception. Many factors can influence someone\u2019s specific perception or interpretation such as environment, wealth, social status, etc. These factors contribute to someone’s specific and personal interpretation; in that it is unique to them. Other people may agree with a personal interpretation and start to view that \u201cthing\u201d from another person\u2019s perspective. However, it still remains a <\/span>personal<\/span> interpretation; other people may understand someone else\u2019s viewpoint but they will of course have their own. These interpretations are just someone\u2019s way of understanding the world. Interpretation can range from what someone\u2019s personal experience tells them it is about to the simplicity of understanding why something might make someone feel a certain way. Sontag explains that modern interpretation is based on finding a \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201chidden\u201d meaning (4). There is no \u201ctrue meaning\u201d to art and there never will be. Art is just art; meanings are subjective. To find a \u201chidden meaning\u201d is to critique something so thoroughly that it starts to lose meaning rather than gain it. The same is the case for when a word is repeated over and over; it eventually starts to lose its meaning. As with all interpretations, \u201cDisgustipated\u201d is subjective and can be read in many different ways. Perhaps it is a song that warns against radical views on religion. The lyrics \u201cIf God is our Father, you thought, then Satan must be our cousin\u201d (\u201cDisgustipated\u201d) could imply that humans can create atrocities with the justification of religion. The idea of \u201cSatan\u201d being so close to us could indicate the inherent flaws and wickedness in humans; the idea that people could say anything or have any reason to try to justify their heinous acts such as war. Maybe the song is a critique on vegetarianism and veganism. The lyrics \u201cThey have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul\u201d (\u201cDisgustipated\u201d) in reference to carrots could imply that harvesting vegetables is no better than killing animals. In both instances, there is a form of destruction. The former is destruction of earth while the latter is destruction of life. The lyrics \u201cThis is necessary\u201d and \u201cLife feeds on life\u201d could refer to the fact that life and death go together and that humans are destructive by nature, so if someone questions the morality of eating meat, we should also question the morality of eating plants. Or more simply, this song could be a bunch of nonsense; a bunch of random words, phrases, and sounds strung together to create a mood rather than a meaning. No one will ever know; and that is fine because there are too many ways this song could be interpreted. Also, the \u201ctrue meaning\u201d of the song is not all that important; the importance lies in the mood and emotion it evokes. The subjectivity in meanings combined with the desire to find a \u201ctrue meaning\u201d that is impossible to find only results in conflict.<\/span><\/p> <\/span><\/span>The songs by Tool are often subjected to overinterpretation by their fanbase. There is nothing inherently wrong with interpretation. However, this kind of overinterpretation is harmful because fans are quick to critique and devalidate other people\u2019s interpretations due to a mere disagreement of the song\u2019s \u201ctrue meaning.\u201d Overinterpretation often leads to a creation of a \u201cshadow world of meanings\u201d and transforms the art piece beyond its \u201cform\u201d (Sontag 4). Sontag states that commentary to \u201cserve a work of art\u201d should be based on being \u201cdescriptive rather than prescriptive\u201d (8). It is easy to look up online what a song means. There are numerous videos, websites, and forums that are dedicated to critiquing and reviewing music. This prevalence of interpretation-based media encourages others to interpret a media in their same specific way. In assigning a meaning, we lose what our own interpretation could have been. Is it really our own interpretation or is it just because someone said \u201cthis is the correct answer?\u201d Furthermore, there are countless other interpretations claiming to be the \u201ccorrect one.\u201d This leads to an overly complex idea of meaning when the reality is, the meaning is up to the audience. Focusing instead on a media\u2019s form allows everyone to come to an agreement. No matter what someone thinks a song means, we can all agree on the specifics of the sound; the instruments being used, the tone of voice, etc. We have become overexposed to interpretation in modern society; this leads us to feeling the need to \u201cdefend art\u201d (Sontag 2). Look on any music interpretation-based forum, and one can easily spot \u201csuperfans\u201d engaged in angry discourse explaining to others whose interpretation of a song’s meaning is right and whose is wrong. People become overly defensive over their personal interpretation because their personal interpretation is often what \u201cjustifies\u201d their obsession with a particular song. Tool\u2019s \u201cDisgustipated,\u201d is no different. In all sorts of forums, Tool fans promote their own interpretation of the song. However, when someone states that they do not have a particular interpretation of the song but just enjoy it for the reason of enjoying it because they do not need a reason to enjoy something, some people get angry. In response, these people who get angry often state that \u201cit is the meaning behind the song\u201d that allows people to enjoy it. This is exactly what Sontag calls \u201cdefending art\u201d (2). Assigning a meaning to a song should not be the only reason to enjoy it. Of course, a meaning can help someone enjoy and appreciate a song more; however, the \u201cform\u201d or general appeal of the song should come first. The lyrics mean nothing without the beat; the beat gives the lyrics context.<\/span><\/p> <\/span><\/span>The form of the song \u201cDisgustipated\u201d plays the most significant role when it comes to emotion. The content can most definitely add another layer of emotion, but the emotion is rooted in the form. Sontag\u2019s approach to interpretation allows someone to find the \u201ctrue meaning\u201d in the song; this \u201ctrue meaning\u201d is the emotion it evokes as it is truer and more direct than its interpretation. Sontag states that good art evokes an uncomfortable feeling, so people depend on interpretation of the art\u2019s content to cope with this uncomfortable feeling; to make the art \u201cmanageable\u201d (5). Sontag suggests focusing less on a media\u2019s content so that we can truly see and appreciate the form instead (10). Art is rooted in emotion and thus makes the audience feel that emotion. When listening to Tool\u2019s \u201cDisgustipated,\u201d feelings of fear and anxiety arise. These are not pleasant emotions; everyone finds them uncomfortable. Tool\u2019s use of distortions, gunshots, animal sounds, and voice recordings are what creates these uncomfortable feelings. If there were no lyrics but just distorted sounds, gunshots, and animal sounds, the uncomfortable feeling would still definitely be there; maybe even more so. The timing of the song also contributes to this feeling. Crickets chirping is not spooky in the slightest. However, the purposeful intention of using seven minutes of chirping crickets in a song is quite strange. It is the strangeness in the purposeful use of all of these sounds that creates uncomfortable feelings; feelings of fear and anxiety. These feelings are what incites people to interpret meaning. Meaning gives a feeling of comfort because it gives a way for people to deal with uncomfortableness, which they could not deal with before. The form directly relates to the emotion a song produces. Song interpretation generally only applies to the lyrics of a song. Focusing on the lyrics rather than the rhythm is about people trying to explain what they understand in a song. Being able to express what is understood results in feeling more comfortable with an uncomfortable feeling. \u201cThe function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means\u201d (Sontag 10). The emotion a song evokes should not be ignored; it could in fact be the \u201ctrue meaning\u201d behind the song. Interpretations and meanings are subjective, so are emotions. However, it is common knowledge that emotions vary from person to person. On the other hand, in terms of meanings, some people argue one meaning over another because there has to be \u201cone answer.\u201d In focusing on form over content, we get rid of unknown subjectivity. Emotion may remain due to the fact that it is common knowledge that emotion is personal. Tool\u2019s song \u201cDisgustipated\u201d focuses on mood over meaning. Meaning is implied as well, but an emphasis on mood is undeniable. Only when we start to appreciate a song for its form; for its purposeful use of both sound and lyric writing, can we begin to understand why a song might make us feel a certain way and start to interpret why these emotions are significant.<\/span><\/p> <\/span><\/span>Content and meaning can influence the feelings and emotions a song evokes. However, it is ultimately the form that creates the initial mood which sets the stage for emotions and feelings to be recognised. Interpretation-based media like forums will continue to exist and there will always be people criticizing others for not interpreting a work \u201ccorrectly\u201d or for having no interpretation. However, these criticisms are based on a projected value of art; and must be ignored for there may never be an end to our needless emphasis on content over form. Society has become overly influenced by the need to \u201cfind a meaning\u201d so that the soul of a media is often ignored; the form and emotions that come along with it allow us to live in the present and appreciate art for what it is to each of us. It is quite bizarre for someone to meticulously pick apart a song for the sake of \u201cknowing the true meaning;\u201d to argue with other people about who is right and who is wrong. In the end, it’s just a song; it does not matter as much as the extreme extent some fans take it to. Music is something fun and creative and should bring people together. So relax and just enjoy the music for being music; for the sounds and emotions it brings along with it.<\/span><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n To familiarize yourself with this case study, here is a link to the song: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=CmJYZ1NIn1Y<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When Interpretation Goes Too Far The band, Tool, are known for having their music be absurdly dissected by obsessed fans who wish to understand the…<\/p>\n