This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.24.244.215 (talk) at 20:29, 2 March 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:29, 2 March 2007 by 65.24.244.215 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Songs Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Where did you read the meaning of the song? Elsewhere I couldn't find any two people agreeing on it, however most of them don't think it's about religion.
- I simply gave the surface meaning of the song; that at least deserves some mention. Further interpretation may or may not be needed; I'll leave that open to other editors to decide on. -- LGagnon 19:57, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
The only clue for which this song should be considered about religion is the line "Light my candles in a daze 'cause I've found God". It's not quite obvious. I think this song has no "surface meaning", but it's intentionally hard to interpretate.--Army1987 11:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, what I wrote is the meaning most often attributed to the song. I don't think it should be removed, since many have interpretted it that way, but if you want to add other interpretations then you can. -- LGagnon 15:23, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I am a bi-polar victim, and have taken Lithium in the past, and I just think the unusual line about god may be in fact just the opposite of what is stated in the article in general. In that, it is an allegory to Lithium and other pharmicuetical drugs being a substition for religion in Kurt's usual "mocking" songwriting style. When you take mood stabilizers, you still feel the euphoria of a manic upswings and depressive downswings, so in essence the pills do not really have the effect they are made out to have, and most of the time you feel like a zombie (hence the "candle"), and you feel let down. But, of course, Kurt's lyrics are always over analyzed, but in contrast, hard to decipher. Don't know if Cobain experienced these medicines, but In my experience, the song is basically a description of life with bi-polar disorder, although thickly veiled in some lines. The chorus to me seems to be about a love relationship that the disease may have ended.
Just thought I'd throw my two cents in. Keep up the good work Misplaced Pages. I would register and help out a little more, but I'm afraid my personal problems keep me from doing something that I would enjoy, like sharing my personal knowledge and views with people, since my view of the world is so cracked at times.
Thanks, Eric
O.K., I've decided to register. I have extensive knowledge of some rock music, so maybe I can help out in this area. Sincerely, Eric
- Why does everyone think Nirvana songs have these deep, hidden meanings behind them? They don't. They don't mean jack-shit, which is a fact. Kurt Cobain stated numerous times that he always just threw lyrics in at the last minute, just took bits and pieces from his old poems and stuff, or random words that came into his mind. It's not neccesary to add these far-out theories about what this song MIGHT have meant.
"Interpretation" section is completely subjective and unsourced.
One of two things need to happen to this section; either the assertions within need to be cited, or it needs to be removed. Unsourced, subjective interpretations do not belong in this entry. ---Jackel 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Requested move to Lithium (Nirvana song)
Now that Evanescence have a song called Lithium, should this article be moved to Lithium (Nirvana song)? U-Mos 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the Evanescence song should have an article at this point. As it is, it's unsourced crystal ball stuff, and there's no reason to suppose it will be significant enough to support an article of its own apart from the main album article. Rather than renaming this one, I'm inclined to put the Evanescence one up for AfD. It fails WP:MUSIC/SONG which, although it is a proposed guideline, seems to be backed by consensus and by WP:MUSIC. Kafziel 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
But if the Evanescence article remains...? U-Mos 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- No one really seems to care about this, so I will say that I will move this article on the 10th if there are no further protests. U-Mos 11:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean when you say no one seems to care about it. I care. So far, you have one oppose (me) and no support. There's no consensus for a move yet. Kafziel 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like y'all have this under control and it's not an obstructed move anyway - so I've removed the move tag. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redirecting the Evanescence article is fair enough, but if the article reappears when there is more info on it (which it almost certainly will), should this page be moved? U-Mos 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are a lot of "ifs" involved. If WP:MUSIC is expanded to include the requirements for individual songs, then it remains to be seen whether that song will qualify. If it does qualify, it will need sources to be recreated. But, yes, if that song becomes notable and the article becomes viable then at that point we could revisit the move request and I would probably support it. Kafziel 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the Evanescence song is a future single you know, not just an individual song. U-Mos 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but singles are not necessarily notable just for being singles. If it reaches the top 20 on the charts, or if it's on a movie soundtrack, or if it becomes Evanescence's signature song, then it might be notable. Or it might not. Kafziel 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
why no lyrics?
The other Nirvana, the other Lithium
Is the song by the earlier band actually a cover of this song? I'd heard otherwise, that it was just a strange coincidence. Even if that's the case, it's still worth a mention.
Category: