Songwriting, as with all art forms, is a two-way process. The act of writing and constructing a song, then letting it out into the wider world invites listeners to absorb and find resonance and meaning in its lyrics. While some songs might wear their primary narrative and thematic concerns clearly on their sleeve, other artists tend towards writing in more obscure ways, shrouding their true meaning under layers of ambiguity.
The question is, are any listeners who might have interpreted the song differently to what the artists originally intended actually wrong to do so?
To be clear, we’re not just pondering those more esoteric and not immediately obvious compositions here - even songs with hammered-home, seemingly clear meanings can be (and have been, as we'll see) read with a subtext the writer didn’t actually mean, or perhaps the whole thrust of the song’s message could be interpreted differently.
While it’s natural to think of the songwriter’s intention as the canonical interpretation, many artists relish in the myriad meanings their songs unlock in their audiences' imaginations.
An artist who has long wallowed in a universe of thematic ambiguity, Kate Bush, had this to say about people misinterpreting her work; “I'm really very happy if people can connect at all to anything I do,” Bush told The Fader. “I don't really mind if people mishear lyrics or misunderstand what the story is. I think that's what you have to let go of when you send it out in the world. I'm sure with a lot of paintings, people don't understand what the painter originally meant, and I don't really think that matters. I just think if you feel something, that's really the ideal goal. If that happens, then I'm really happy.”
Though the more mysterious work of Bush and her ilk delights in triggering wildly different analyses, there are also examples of what, on the surface, appear to be songs quite pointedly about something, but in actual fact, are burying their true meaning under a purposefully-erected facade.
Rihanna’s 2010 smash S&M might have felt like a fairly typical, radio-angled kinky-pop banger, but in actual fact lyrically dealt with Rihanna’s relationship with the media. "The song can be taken very literally,” Rihanna conceded, “but it's actually a very metaphorical song. It's about the love-hate relationship with the media and how sometimes the pain is pleasurable,” she told Vogue in 2011 (quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald).
Similarly Don McLean’s American Pie has long been regarded as a nostalgia-baiting, good-times anthem, but really, according to the writer himself, was a sugar-coated evocation of the decline of the American dream.
“Basically, in American Pie things are heading in the wrong direction. It is becoming less ideal, less idyllic. I don't know whether you consider that wrong or right, but it is a morality song in a sense.” McLean told Christie's Auction House, when the original lyrics were put up for sale in 2015 (as quoted at People.com).
So really, can we trust any song’s apparent meaning?
Artists may appear to be making overt statements, but can bury deeper connotations and truths under a veneer designed to appeal to a larger number of people.
Other songs, such as those by artists like Kate Bush, David Bowie, Bjork and Radiohead might tend to operate within the domain of mystery and abstract imagery, we - as listeners - are often still compelled to find a concrete truth within.
But, as any visit to Song Meanings.com will reveal, there can be as many interpretations as there are listeners.
But are those wildly different readings wrong because their reading isn’t precisely what the writer intended?
Our view is absolutely not. Though we might make a piece of music, or a set of lyrics, with a fixed narrative in our heads, learning to - in Kate Bush’s words - let go of that song, and allowing it find its own connection with your listeners is, in the long-term, good for any music-maker's creative mental health.
That being said, there are times when it’s probably more important for the writers to jump in and correct the record. If, for example, your music is less a work of emotional exploration, and is more a vehicle to put forth a view on a political or urgent issue or topic, then it being co-opted by the other side of the argument is understandably frustrating. Just ask Rage Against The Machine…
Never ceases to amaze me how many folks who’ve heard RATM are in Paul Ryan mode, having literally ZERO understanding of anything that band was about and even less understanding where any of us might stand on contemporary issues. Recently was talking to a couple at a restaurant…November 3, 2024
But, in the main, when it comes the concept of a song's truth or narrative readings, that fine-line between mainstream pop and art is at its most opaque - and interpretations can (and we would argue, should) be many and varied.
John Lennon, the Beatle most prone to bouts of flights of psychedelic songwriting, had this to say about the multitudes of interpretations of his own work; “I do it for me first. Whatever people make of it afterwards is valid, but it doesn’t necessarily have to correspond to my thoughts about it, OK?,” Lennon told a schoolboy who wrote to Lennon asking him for some insight as his school was about to begin a class, analysing his lyrics.
Lennon is a particular example of an artist who both wrote for a mainstream audience, but delighted in mischievously hinting at deeper truths within The Beatles' canon. He would often do this as a playful riposte to what he perceived as the over-analysis of pop lyrics that had started during their career.
This came to an amusing head with the 1968 track, Glass Onion. Just take a read of the lyrics, which collide and subvert previous Beatle songs’ titles, lyrics and themes.
Though its tone is in jest, Lennon impishly taunts the listener to make arbitrary connections between key cuts in The Beatles' songbook, and hints at even deeper onion-like layers under their exterior. "Here's another clue for you all," Lennon sings, "The walrus was Paul".
What elevates music over arguably all other forms of expression is its ability to tunnel deep within the listener's subconscious, and tickle emotions that they never knew they had.
Music can tease out the memory of personal events long forgotten and bring suppressed feelings to the fore. It’s no surprise, then, that the real ‘meaning’ behind so many songs has been read quite so differently.
Those myriad meanings are all true, and can be as individual as the very listeners who experience them.
Songs can be felt and processed beyond any superficial narrative. Truths can be absorbed via that combination of lyrics, music and sound - a stew of elements that can break through to us at a deeper level.
This can even endure cross-generationally, as the explosion in popularity of Kate Bush’s Running Up That Hill following its appearance on Stranger Things in 2022 proved.
It does seem that many songwriting courses and practitioners tend to prioritise storytelling as an important skill - conflating the quantifiable structure of narrative with the more fluid art of making music.
We're here to tell you to pay little mind to that approach. The instruction here, for any songwriters (or music-makers in general) reading, is not to get too hung up on whether your lyrics are delivering a clear story. Nor should you be too worried about having a ready response to the question ‘but what is it about?’
While songwriting is communication, and fundamentally an empathetic pursuit, our view is that you should resist the urge to be too exact in precise meaning.
Let your audience find themselves - and their truths - in your music.
“I loved that he showed up with a $200 guitar… It’s humble”: Timothée Chalamet learned to play guitar for his Oscar-nominated role in Bob Dylan biopic on a beginner Yamaha acoustic
“Can you imagine sharing the stage with your 14-year-old self?”: Donny Osmond uses “mind-blowing AI and CGI technology” to duet with… himself
