About Mayhem

[Ladle Ghoulash 54,190]

3 hours ago, imogen2133 said:

especially when intention is disregarded

Who is disregarding intention here? I cited Gaga’s own interpretation and recontextualization of the song, which is a reflection, in part, of her intention. I think authorial intent matters, but it’s not the be all end all for analyzing music/books/films etc. A lot of deeper reads require the audience to extrapolate more from context, cues/clues, and intertextual reading than just an artist’s stated aim, as artists don’t always (and some never) tell you what their work is about.

IMO, the “meaning” of any text is what can be reasonably extrapolated, interpreted, or inferred based on the work itself, the author’s framing, the author’s commentary, the context in which the author has created it, references they may or may not be making, or any other inferences that can be reasonably supported by the text or the framework the author has created. 

Edited 20 minutes ago by Ladle Ghoulash

[SleepingSun 1,438]

You figured it out! Yay! Better late than never...

Edited 3 hours ago by SleepingSun

[imogen2133 589]

58 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Who is disregarding intention here? I cited Gaga’s own interpretation and recontextualization of the song, which is a reflection, in part of, her intention. I think authorial intent matters, but it’s not the be all end all for analyzing music/books/films etc. A lot of deeper reads require the audience to extraapolate more from context, cues/clues, and intertextual reading than just an artist’s stated aim, as artists don’t always (and some never) tell you what their work is about.

IMO, the “meaning” of any text is what can be reasonably extrapolated, interpreted, or inferred based on the work itself, the author’s framing, the author’s commentary, the context in which the author has created it, references they may or may not be making, or any other inferences that can be reasonably supported by the text or the framework the author has created. 

But you said it was all up for interpretation before? Which means that everyone has their own interpretation of the work and that authorial intent and stated meaning from the lyrics themselves are irrelevant or should be disregarded since everyone has their own way of seeing the work and none are invalid or inaccurate. Unless what you meant is that everyone can have their own interpretations and see the work differently or apply it to their own situation in various ways but a core authorial intent/meaning is the core meaning of the work (which is what I said). As for HBDUWM it is fine for you to interpret the lyrics as being about Gaga's duality between her 2 selves and asking the audience if they can accept both parts of her since the lyrics (especially in the chorus) are vague enough to support a reading like that and yes it can be read that way since Gaga came out at the end of the Mayhem Ball in a beanie and sunglasses and no makeup which can be read as her asking the audience "will you love me without the glitz and monstrous persona of Lady Gaga and love me as Stefani too?" but in the lyrics themselves it points much more to a relationship where she asks the guy if he will accept both good and bad sides of her and if he really wants to be with her as her full self. Another example of what I am talking about is Do What U Want the main stated meaning of the song by Gaga was about how she was criticized for her weight by the media in 2012 and her fighting back against them by saying they can say what they want about her body because her mind and heart are hers and she only shares them with her fans, this stated meaning is present for the majority of the song and can be read as the core meaning from reading the lyrics but the secondary meaning she gave of it was that it was about how she felt sexually as a woman at the time and felt that she wanted to give herself to her lover, this reading is only really in the phrase itself "do what u want with my body" and the bridge arguably so this reading overall is less supported by the lyrics. Meaning that even though I think Gaga's words on what her songs mean is important for understanding them yes it is not the end all be all and that the lyrical meaning can be different from what she states as well. An example of a song that Gaga has only vaguely described that I interpret a bit differently is SHICD, of course the main meaning is about fear of alcohol and addiction and this is best represented through the chorus mostly and not the rest of the song. She has never really explained the verses in interviews before and I don't see how the fear of alcohol theme is represented in those so looking at the lyrics in the verses about the lavender blonde who she watches in the song she is essentially talking about fear of self obsession and "touching herself" as in putting herself back together and using the "Gaga persona" to help her during depressing or difficult times and so that manifests as a fear of self obsession/vanity or using that instead of actually finding a way to get through her problems properly.

Edited 2 hours ago by imogen2133

[dynamite 66,909]

3 minutes ago, imogen2133 said:

But you said it was all up for interpretation before? Which means that everyone has their own interpretation of the work and that authorial intent, and stated meaning from the lyrics themselves are irrelevant or should be disregarded since everyone has their own way of seeing the work and none are invalid or inaccurate. Unless what you meant is that everyone can have their own interpretations and see the work differently or apply it to their own situation in various ways but a core authorial intent/meaning is the core meaning of the work (which is what I said). As for HBDUWM it is fine for you to interpret the lyrics as being about Gaga's duality between her 2 selves and asking the audience if they can accept both parts of her since the lyrics (especially in the chorus) are vague enough to support a reading like that and yes it can be read that way since Gaga came out at the end of the Mayhem Ball in a beanie and sunglasses and no makeup which can be read as her asking the audience "will you love me without the glitz and monstrous persona of Lady Gaga and love me as Stefani too?" but in the lyrics themselves it points much more to a relationship where she asks the guy if he will accept both good and bad sides of her and if he really wants to be with her as her full self. Another example of what I am talking about is Do What U Want the main stated meaning of the song by Gaga was about how she was criticized for her weight by the media in 2012 and her fighting back against them by saying they can say what they want about her body because her mind and heart are hers and she only shares them with her fans, this stated meaning is preset for the majority of the song and can be read as the core meaning from reading the lyrics but the secondary meaning she gave of it was that it was about how she felt sexually as a woman at the time and felt that she wanted to give herself to her lover, this reading is only really in the phrase itself "do what u want with my body" and the bridge arguably so this reading overall is less supported by the lyrics. Meaning that even though I think Gaga's words on what her songs mean is important for understanding them yes it is not the end all be all and that the lyrical meaning can be different from what she states as well. A example of a song that Gaga has only vaguely described that I interpret a bit differently is SHICD, of course the main meaning is about fear of alcohol and addiction and this is best represented through the chorus mostly and not the rest of the song. She has never really explained the verses in interviews before and I don't see how the fear of alcohol theme is represented in those so looking at the lyrics about the lavender blonde who she watches in the song she is essentially talking about fear of self obsessions and "touching herself" as in putting herself back together and using the "Gaga persona" to help her during depressing or difficult times and so that manifests as a fear of self obsession or using that instead of actually finding a way to get through her problems properly.

I got arthritis scrolling through this great wall of china post fr 

[TheFrenchGuy 5,692]

2 hours ago, imogen2133 said:

I know that I guess I just didn't understand how it applied to all the songs but I have only analyzed the album a few times and was more so trying to look at it through the "gothic dreams" or "long night out party" framing but as I said I get it now.

Well, it's both! I read it as one long night out that drags up all her old demons, and the further it goes, the closer it gets to what she actually craves, which is being loved for who she really is. The gothic dream part is just a lens that shapes the album's aesthetic, the same way the Mayhem Ball does. Tbh the narrative isn't super tight overall, but the general arc is pretty clear. Mayhem Requiem and the Ball did a lot to lay the story out more clearly.

[gagacabana 7,682]

3 hours ago, Ziggy said:

The boyf in the song is Jo Calderone and she's saying it's not gay to have a 3 way w yourself. you hate the crash but you love the rush...rush brand poppers bc she telling us she know's Jo is gay as hell now and wants to come out but he's in his own mayhem journey tormented by Stefani and Lady in Red into silence. He's only spoken one other time when he spoke through Ga and made his self titled album Jo-anne. Save him.

[Ladle Ghoulash 54,190]

2 hours ago, imogen2133 said:

But you said it was all up for interpretation before?

Literally explained this in the post you’re replying to. This is the basis of how I engage with interpretation/analysis:

3 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

the “meaning” of any text is what can be reasonably extrapolated, interpreted, or inferred based on the work itself, the author’s framing, the author’s commentary, the context in which the author has created it, references they may or may not be making, or any other inferences that can be reasonably supported by the text or the framework the author has created. 

Which is wholly consistent with the idea that deriving the meaning of a work of art is essentially an interpretive process within certain constraints (ie relevant information, context, and the content of the text). Please make an effort to read what I’ve written before replying. Thank you.

Edited 13 minutes ago by Ladle Ghoulash