Experiences are subjective. The man had intention when he wrote the song, therefore, the meaning isn't subjective. You may not know it, so you deem it as subjective. It doesn't mean it's subjective.

All opinions are not subjective. Some are right. Did Einstein have any ideas that were ever proven to be true?

It doesn't even have to be complex.

Well, when an opinion is 'right' then it is no longer an opinion. It becomes a fact.

And maybe we're just not on the same page as to what exactly 'subjective' means.

sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

Moodily introspective.

Existing only in the mind; illusory.

Psychology: Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

Medicine: Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.

Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.



Now let's look at 'opinion'

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing:

Now, my subjective opinion of the above two definitions leads me to believe that *all* opinions are subjective. Whether they are 'right' or 'wrong'. Otherwise, as said above, they would be "objective fact".

you mosh?

Not since Pantera about ten years ago. That would be the only time and it was for one song. Not really my way of getting into the music...

Yes, I know... your way is DMT.

Are some students smarter than others? Sure, even taking into account different intelligence types, there are always superior students in a class. Of course, there are students with intelligences better suited to the subjects I happen to teach, and then there are the socially maladroit, physically clumsy specimens who don't do well in any subject--those folks whom I label "sharp as a doorknob" if they're lazy and indifferent and "underprepared" if they're willing to bust ass after realizing they're just not getting it. There are also extremely bright students who are lazy and indifferent (or whose parents and former teachers have apparently praised them into solipsism) and never manage to get it: I call them "Mensa morons."

Are all their opinions equally valid? Of course they're not. But I will note that the invalid opinions come from the Mensa morons just as frequently (if not more often) as from the underprepared students. (The sharp as a doorknob folks rarely form opinions beyond "Uh-own-oh.") Opinions are rendered invalid if they're purely personal, emotional reactions with no connection to stimuli; for instance, if someone were to say, "This song is about my brother, who's dying from cancer," a red flag should go up. If you ask this person what in the song tells him it is about his brother and he replies, "I think about my brother when I hear it," then you've got an opinion that's (yeah, nice enough for him) essentially invalid. (It's like saying, "French food is bad cooking because I'm allergic to milk.")

In the case of this particular song, I'd say the drug-trip and alien interpretations are certainly valid; there's definitely material in the song itself to draw the conclusion that such subjects are what the song is about.

Now, to go through the looking glass into chapter 8 and the "is about/means" topic. No, this song isn't an abstract painting, but it could be just the equivalent of a representational painting. It could just be Tool, for example, working to depict a bad trip (which they do damn well in Rosetta) and nothing more. "The bear is just a bear"; "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Stopping here is perfectly valid, and as a formalist interpretation, this works well; even attaching cautionary or moral purposes to the representation can be valid, if the people doing the interpreting are pointing to something specific in the song. Such attachments only become invalid if they're based on inadequate or incorrect information about the rationale or on blatant anachronism. (So it's valid to say the song depicts a bad trip in a cautionary manner, but not to say it's warning you about ending up like asshole A, who overdosed May 18th, 2006.)

Do I think Maynard would write a song vaguely and scrabbled enough that it means everything? (I think the above already answers the "nothing" part of the question.) Warning: Here, we're starting to get into a fuzzy place between what I'm getting from the song and other possibilities, so some cognitive dissonance is likely to occur. No, I don't: in fact, I don't think Maynard writes vaguely at all; I do think he often writes ambiguously. (By ambiguously, I mean with words/phrases allowing of two or more takes, as with the word intension: meaning "intense" or
meaning "connotation" or referring specifically to logic-referents or possibly "in tension," as suggested by blanket.)

This could be an attempt to be cryptic (hidden codes and meanings), but I don't think this is necessarily the case for two reasons: 1) the social attitudes that used to force folks to do this are largely absent; 2) I don't think he's enough of an ignoramus to unnecessarily and intentionally speak in nearly indecipherable codes and then feel frustrated that almost no one gets what he's saying.

Rather, I think he uses ambiguous language for two reasons: 1) sometimes he has only a vague sense of what he wants to say; 2) sometimes he's sending a message about ambiguity and intensionality themselves, so what other sort of language do you choose? So I think it's possible to come up with a (finite yet uncountable) number of perfectly valid interpretations without missing Maynard's message. I wouldn't say there were millions, but I don't think there has to be one even in terms of Maynard's intent.

Sorry for the thesis, but you did give me a lot to respond to. (And I can't stand the people who only respond to the weakest sentence in a post.)

i decided to not comment in this thread a while ago *erhem* but i HAD to to say that the above is delicious. You make me feel dumb.

The same could be said of Stinkfist

Whatever gets you where you're going.

Dear Three Deviations,
Please stop endulging yourself into art if you are going to be anal about it.

On behalf of everyone at this forum,
Aunt Acid

Dear Aunt Acid
Please stop indulging yourself in drugs.


On behalf of your mind and body..
ThreeDeviations

You don't even know if I do drugs.

I know.

No... you don't. Because my forum name here is Aunt Acid and I have a psychadelic looking avatar does not mean I do drugs.

Just stop... it's kinda like beating your head against a brick wall... the wall doesn't care and your head hurts. (if I haven't read that somewhere before I just coined it, yay maybe!)

Brilliant.

I know.

What part of Michigan are you from? I live in Taylor, about 20 miles from Detroit.

Novi

enough intellectual posturing and posting definitions from dictionary.com...hellooooo... chosen people? message for those who wish to hear it and a warning for those who don't? isn't anyone familiar with the modern ufo phenomenon?

Has it ever accurred to anyone that tool as a whole are deeply involved in magik. A mind thus trained to THE WORK. Perhaps what you are hearing is not what you hear. blessings.

i will add that maynard also stated this is their "Blues Album" a manifestation of how they the band and he himself are extremely frustrated trying to preach enlightenment and people just not giveing a fuck. maby this song is that emotion personified as you said. as well tho tool songs are multi layered so it could be both that as well as the problem alot of hallucinogenic users have upon return with communication. you take a trip, your bombarded with info, and upon return you have to try and sort it out. its probly both to be honest

This is clear proof that people are totally useless. It goes to show how sad and lonely peole are that need to dedicate thier lives to deseminating and disecting every word that Maynard says. I'm a huge fan of the band but I don't let it control my every waking moment. Maynard is just a bisexual ex-junky from L.A. , he's not the fucking messiah. "he sniffled at the 8:23 mark of Third Eye, he's telling us that society is making us sick" ....... are you people for real ?? I'm not trying to insult everyone because I'm a fan also, but this is fucking rediculous........... I hope you guys enjoy the Kool-Aid and make sure you all have a few rolls of quarters with you before you get into bed with your Nikes on.

my writing-english is very bad, so i leave it to ThreeDeviations to react to stuff like the above...
after reading a lot of ThreeDeviations' comments i think i can safely say that he can speak for me aswell !!
&
ThreeDeviations bigtime thumbs up for you!!
i share your thoughts all the way
( it is just that englisch is not my first language, and that makes it very difficult for me to write down my thoughts here...)

grtz,
Myrdin

lol, would not be surprised if you were right

I dig what youre sayn, MJK quote "for those who understand, no explaination is necessary, for those who dont no explaination will suffice" (or something close), no matter what the song means it will never be good enough for some people, they just keep digging. This is not always a bad thing but isnt that what lateralus is all about, you cant always analyse life, sometimes you just have to live it.

p.s does this remind anyone else of the bible, people arguing over what it really means, in which case I would have to say MJK is the fucking messiah.

MJK is just a messenger. A tool, aptly enough. Maybe not as many people 'get it' as could. So what? If he brings a handful into the light or even just opens their eyes to the possibility then he's done an immeasureable amount of good with the life he was given.

Kudos to Maynard!

Agreed. You cant completely comprehend another persons mind unless you are them. Like MJK, who has been inspired by others, we should take the ideals of others that inspire us and draw from them our own conclusions.

This thread is about Rosetta Stoned, right? lol. Initially, RS was a secondary thought to me. Then I saw them live while in Germany, and it blew me away. 10,000 Days was what I looked forward to when hearing Vicarious, now it is the one-two punch of LK/RS. Lost Keys is so paranoia-inducing. Rosetta Stoned, as well as the rest of 10,000 Days has equally talented and mind-blowing qualities to it, just as Undertow/AEnema/Lateralus has. Just as Lateralus had it's initial detractors-10,000 Days will be embraced as a masterpiece by almost all Tool fans. In due time...

I agree with you, Toolfan24 - when I first got Lateralus shortly after its release (granted, I wasn't a deep Tool fan at the time) I was kind of disappointed with it on the whole and only really cared for a few songs on it - especially when compared to Ænima.

Now I look at it as being infinitely superior to Ænima (and indeed all other albums). It just takes time. Remember, the weather changes as time goes by. So I'm sure that as much as I enjoy 10,000 Days now my affinity for it will grow with time.

Just checkin back on this thread cause I posted on it before, and I read this again and thought... the fact that the same argument has gone on as much as it has PAST this quote... is down right rediculous...

In my opinion, Three deviations is right that all of tools songs have one meaning. In the past, the band memers have all said that all of their music is open to interpretation. But I think that people on this board are confused about the type of interpretation that they are talking about. The job of a music listener is to listen to the art, and let it affect you. It is not to say what you believe the artists were trying to say. The only evidence that the listener can really use, is how the music affected him/her. That being said, the way that I would go about interpreting rosetta stoned is to voice the feelings I had while listeing to the song. During the song, I have feelings of confusion,fear, understanding the purpose of life, and of a being hero. I would then simply say that these feelings are what the song is about. I would also talk about the climax of the song (overwhelmed). The climax makes me feel as though an experience, in this case an acid trip, has made me feel as though I am the one, the one to explain the meaning of life to everyone. But, the way this song ends leaves me with a feeling as though the understanding I once had is gone, it is a short lived feeling of enlightenment. I do not believe that this song is delivering a message. It is not saying that acid is good or bad. It is not saying that if you take acid you will understand the world. This song is simply expressing the emotions that come from having an experience in which life makes sense for a short while, and does so with great power.

You contradict yourself. You say its all about the way the song makes you feel, not interpreting the lyrics, yet towards the end of your post you're feelings are clearly influenced by the lyrics of the song i.e. what you believe the artists are trying to say. I dont know where you got feelings of enlightenment, and life making sence because I got chaos from this song. But thats my interpretation of how it made me feel. All songs have meanings, and they all mean different things to each person, so to say people are confused about how to interpret them isnt your call.

Good call on the self-contradiction, Magos. johumathiga does, I think, have some legitimate point in claiming that listeners should pay attention to their feelings when considering a song (and when discussing it). The problem with paying attention only to feelings is that it disregards the effect of words on those feelings. Why does this "feel" to so many like an acid trip? Well, it's probably because the words and linguistic imagery suggest a trip. Why do so many "feel" at parts as though they are "the one"? Well, it's probably because the lyrics say, "You are the chosen one."

Take away the lyrics entirely, and most of our feelings during the song would probably be much more similar to yours--"I feel chaos." Or they might be radically different: "I feel scared" (because chaotic arrangement is frightening to me); "I feel thrilled" (because Tool has a new album out, woo-hoo), etc. Ignoring the lyrics' meanings is like ignoring a fifth instrument in the song. I can't say I "feel" a point in the song that's clearly enlightenment without the lyrics. (About the only solid enlightenment-sound I can think of are those like the one at the end of FNM's "Jizzlobber"--the church choir, organ sort of "aaah-aaah-aaah-aaah" sound.)

Still, johumathiga, I have to say ignoring all but the lyrics' meanings is like ignoring four out of five instruments in the song. Am I correct in guessing this was your meaning?

I don't believe that I ever said that the lyrics are not part of the song. The words in this song do affect me, and should affect me because they are part of the music. So, I do not really see how I contradicted myself. And, in my interpretation of the song I
definitely was "influenced by the lyrics of the song", but that is far different then saying "what I believe the artists were trying to say". The difference is
that I was simply saying how the entire piece made me feel, rather then saying what I believe that the musicians were trying to say.

I also never did say that "people are confused about how to interpret" songs. What I said was that people appear to be confused about what the band means when they say that their songs are open to many different interpretations. I believe that the place where people can have different opinions of a song is in a personal experience of listening to the music.

When a band creates a song, it is expressing a specific idea. The band expresses the particular emotions of that idea through their music. But, when someone hears the song, they do not have knowledge of what caused the emotions that are present in the song, they only feel the result of that initial idea. So, the only thing that the listener is certain about is the way that the song made that person feel.

so, in my opinion the only area that people can really have a different view of a song is in the listening experience. People will relate emotions to different life experiences, and will be filled with different thoughts. So, no one can be wrong when they say that Rosetta Stoned made them feel a certain way. It's not even a matter of right or wrong, it is simply a result. But, I believe that people are then taking their personal ideas, and using them to guess what caused the band to feel the way they did in the song, and i don't think that this can be done accurately.

So, take what Three deviations said: this "Song is about how Maynard perceives everyone... fans and society in general.. and he's losing patience". Then take what EmbraceTdOxOmL said "i believe it is a message for all of those people using pychoactive and disassociative drugs to reach some crazy places and open up their third eye, that they are all waisting their time because the affects of the Chemicals are clouding and distorting the experience. And there are much safer cleaner ways to get there". Both of these are using the listeners personal opinion to say what they believe the message of the song is. Both examples show how the song affected the listener, and what the song made the listener think, but these opinions are the result of one meaning. If Three deviations felt an impatient tone, and EmbraceTdOxOmL felt turned away from drugs, then the idea behind this song has created those feelings. So, the main idea of this song, the meaning of this song, would be as simple as: the band is expressing impatience, and feelings from the use of a substance.

So what i'm really trying to say is that the personal experience that comes from listening to a song is different then the meaning of the song. The meaning of a song can be understood from the feelings created by the song, but they are not the same thing. Everyone's opinion about a song is correct, but the meaning of the song must be able to justify all these different experiences. In other words, the song's meaning, what the band is expressing, creates all of these opinions.

Yawn. I want the half hour it took to read your post back.

First off, I would like to remind people of one of the greatest tools in literature, and poetry. Allegory. Remember that from grade 10 english. One story can have many meanings on many levels. Maybe Maynard thinks he is the one trying to give the message to all of us, and at the same time trying to understand his the message himself but it keeps slipping through the cracks the way philosophy tends to. Regardless, the point of this post is to remind everyone that unless Maynard comes out and explicitly says what the song is about, being dogmatic about a opinion is just ignorant. All that serves to do is provoke a knee-jerk reaction from everyone who disagrees, and rightfully so. Anyone who is so close minded about something can't be entirely correct because it is contradictive. The world is not black and white. There are too many ways to view an opinion as correct or incorrect for it to be entirely either.

And don't get cute with me telling about my hypocracy of stating this opinion. :) I'm still trying to work all the ramifications of what I have said through my head, and by tomorrow I might feel completely different about the subject.

Hmmm, just thought of something. I think ThreeDeviations may be making an improper analogy based on the wording of the song. If Maynard is the chosen one, then he has received the message from somewhere, but that doesnt matter. Now it is the time for the chosen one to relay the message for all to hear. But he forgot his pen. I think this less implies our inability to comprehend what he is telling us but rather implies his ineffectiveness in delivering the message. ie. he is not able to covey the message through his lyrical medium. Now whether Maynard would write a song about his inability to convey a message, I will leave up to you to discuss. I just wanted to point out a possible mistake in ThreeDeviations analysis of the song, cause it seems to me that he/she switched gears in the middle in order to come to the desired conclusion. Maynard is screaming that he shit the bed again. In order to come to the conclusion that ThreeDeviations came to, I suspect that Maynard would have to be the alien and all us tool fans be the chosen ones. Lemme know what you think