{"id":24751,"date":"2014-03-20T07:59:32","date_gmt":"2014-03-20T12:59:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=24751"},"modified":"2014-03-20T07:59:32","modified_gmt":"2014-03-20T12:59:32","slug":"my-mondegreens-make-more-sense-than-your-lyrics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2014\/03\/20\/my-mondegreens-make-more-sense-than-your-lyrics\/","title":{"rendered":"My mondegreens make more sense than your lyrics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kevin Dettmar<\/a> discusses the best form of mondegreen: the kind that makes more sense (to the listener anyway) than the actual lyrics being slurred or mumbled or bellowed by the lead singer:<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been thinking a great deal lately about the important role that misunderstood lyrics play in the way rock music works. The problem is especially pointed in the case of the post-punk Gang of Four because they saw much of their music as a political intervention in the events of their day (the late 70s through the early 80s). But how can rock really “rage against the machine” if no one\u2019s quite sure what it\u2019s saying? What can it mean that a band that put a great deal of emphasis on its songwriting \u2014 pop songs as political theory \u2014 actively resisted making that theory more intelligible? Resisted to the degree that even smart and sympathetic critics have sometimes badly misread the work?<\/p>\n

One answer involves taking the “mondegreen” seriously.<\/p>\n

For better or worse, we seem to be stuck with the term that was coined in 1954 by the writer Sylvia Wright, in a piece in Harper\u2019s Magazine<\/em>. That the word is about the same age as rock and roll itself is a fitting coincidence. In her mother\u2019s recitation of the ballad “The Bonnie Earl of Murray,” Wright as a child misheard the phrase “laid him on the green” as “Lady Mondegreen” and wove a coherent narrative around the mistake, or “mondegreen.”<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

My mistake, trivial in itself, does suggest something important about the capacity of rock music (in which marginal intelligibility is not just an accident but rather a constitutive element) to do significant political work. For my misreading, I\u2019d suggest, wasn\u2019t random free association. In important, if largely subconscious and unconscious ways, what I understood of the lyrics, and the politics of the sound of the song itself, conditioned me to fill in the blanks in my understanding from among a fairly limited range of possibilities.<\/p>\n

In music as powerful as this \u2014 and for a listener as powerfully in its thrall as I was, as I am \u2014 the mumbly bits actually provide moments where I can become co-creator of this aggressive, political music along with the band. And that, I would submit, is powerful political pedagogy. The songs on Entertainment!<\/em> don\u2019t teach me what to think: They teach me how to think. The proof is in my mondegreens.<\/p>\n

My mishearing the line wasn\u2019t simply an error, then \u2014 or if an error, it was a productive one. Sylvia Wright insisted that “the point about what I shall hereafter call mondegreens \u2026 is that they are better than the original.” Dave Marsh maintains that his lyrics to “Smells Like Teen Spirit” are better than Cobain\u2019s. What I heard at the end of “Ether” may not have been what King and Gill meant; but having my interpretation revealed through my misreadings tells me something about where my mind prefers to go. And that is precisely the work of ideological critique. “Ether” taught me not, or not only, about Gang of Four\u2019s politics: More powerfully, it also taught me about my own.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

H\/T to Kathy Shaidle<\/a> for the link. She also included a brilliant little music video to illustrate the point:<\/p>\n