their record label for releasing a single without their approval, would make any sense to people a couple of decades later (âThey said release âRemote Controlâ â is surely one of the less promising first lines of a song) but it still has something to say about naivety and cynicism and artistic impotence. Even âNelson Mandelaâ doesnât sound daft, despite the great manâs release; it celebrates a life â a great life, an important life, a life well-lived â and therefore easily and joyously transcends the focus of its protest. Nils Lofgrenâs âKeith Donât Goâ, on the other hand, is a song which pleads with The Rolling Stonesâ guitarist not to go to Toronto in 1977, because he would have been arrested on a drugs rap; itâs not a cause that one wanted to devote an awful lot of energy to, even back then (not least because Keith could just, like, not go), and itâs not a song that has revealed hidden depths in the intervening years. The great Australian comedian Norman Gunston used to sing Liza Minnelliâs âIâm Liza with a Zâ and then profess himself mystified that more people didnât cover it â perhaps Nils is just as bemused that âKeith Donât Goâ hasnât earned him the publishing royalties heâd anticipated.
In the end, itâs the songs about love that endure the best. Songs about work are good. Also songs about rivers,or parents, or roads. Good songs about children are surprisingly rare (yes, itâs hard to write about the feelings one has for oneâs child without nauseating people, but somehow songwriters manage to knock out perfectly decent, sometimes even breathtaking, songs about the airhead model they met in the toilet of a club without the same effect); songs about pets are best avoided. Songs about drugs â especially songs that purport to be about girls but are âreallyâ about drugs â donât have the same appeal when you are no longer at school and thereâs no one you can explain the hidden meaning to. And jokes never really stand the test of airtime. (I have always felt slightly ambivalent about Randy Newmanâs work, brilliant though much of it is. How many times do you want to listen to a song satirizing bigotry, or the partiality of American congressional politics? Listening to Randy Newman over and over again is like reading The Grapes of Wrath twice a year: however much you care about the plight of Americaâs migrant workers in the 1930s, there is surely only a certain amount of your soul and mental energy you can devote to them.) But the truly great songs, the ones that age and golden-oldies radio stations cannot wither, are about our romantic feelings. And this is not because songwriters have anything to add to the subject; itâs just that romance,with its dips and turns and glooms and highs, its swoops and swoons and blues, is a natural metaphor for music itself. Songs that are about complicated things â Canadian court orders, say, or the homosexual age of consent â draw attention to the inherent artificiality of the medium: Why is this guy singing? Why doesnât he write a newspaper article, or talk to a phone-in show? And how does a mandolin solo illustrate or clarify the plight of Eskimos anyway? But because it is the convention to write about affairs of the heart, the language seems to lose its awkwardness, to become transparent, and you can see straight through the words to the music. Lyrics about love become, in other words, like another musical instrument, and love songs become, somehow, pure song. Maybe this is what gives âYou Had Timeâ the edge: our break-ups, in the end, have more melody to them than our work does.
12 âBorn for Meâ
â Paul Westerberg
Actually, thatâs a serious question: how does a mandolin solo illustrate or clarify the plight of Eskimos anyway? In fact, how does
Justine Dare Justine Davis