[QUOTE=xPOGOx]You suggested we take the song at face value, and then go on to assume background information about the band who wrote the song. That's quite the opposite of taking the song at face value. I'm not even nit-picking on some little aspect of the definition. You're doing the exact opposite of what you suggest we do.

Exact opposite my foot. If you really want me to, i will spell out exactly what i mean.

By taking it at face value i meant
TAKE THE MEANING OF THE SONG AS WHAT IT MOST OBVIOUSLY APEARS TO BE, WHAT ANY 8 YEAR OLD COULD HAVE GOTTEN. DONT LOOK FOR DEEPER MEANINGS AND HIDDEN IDEAS, SUCH AS DOCTORS MASQUERADING AS ALIANS, which certainly wouldnt be taking it as face value.

As to including back ground infomation about the band or whateva, when i listen to a song by tool, i listen to a "tool song", not some random song which on later analysis shows to be tool. The fact that the song is by Tool, would apear to me to be part of its face. Lol, yes, i do relise that now im being pedantic also.