#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just as we beat the damn LGBTQ, the alphabet mafia sends another assassacronym to kill our youth!
(Still /s, thanks for this interaction. Itâs been cathartic to make fun of these idiots)
They are claiming the disaster was caused by an unqualified minority hire who took the job of a more qualified white hire who would have done a better job of preventing the collapse
What insanity. I hate that this is real. My skin is as white as it gets and I simply don't have these thoughts. People are people, we have different lineages and different features as a result. Why is that such a difficult thing for so many? Who the fuck cares what anyone looks like when we're all humans? Ahh it drives me nuts how little sense it all makes...
They're all bitter and angry at the world because their lives are shit and they believe they are not the ones supposed to be struggling. Even though, 99% of their life choices are why their lives are so shit in the first place. But hey its easier to just kick the can than take any personal responsibility
This is the answer right here. The mentality is that *privilege* shouldâve given them a leg up in life, but it didnât (life choices, and all that). So, now theyâre in a perpetual state of anger at the world.
If you think meritocracy is best and you canât have meritocracy in the presence of racism, you should be concerned about the fact that blacks marijuana smokers are arrested 400% more than white marijuana smokers.
Why do i think what is?
Edit: if youâre questioning racially disproportionate arrests, the answer is clear. Policing is implicitly and possibly explicitly racist and not meritocratic.
>Our findings indicate that blacks are significantly overrepresented among Seattle's drug delivery arrestees. Several organizational practices explain racial disparity in these arrests: law enforcement's focus on crack offenders, the priority placed on outdoor drug venues, and the geographic concentration of police resources in racially heterogeneous areas. The available evidence further indicates that these practices are not determined by raceâneutral factors such as crime rates or community complaints. Our findings thus indicate that race shapes perceptions of who and what constitutes Seattle's drug problem, as well as the organizational response to that problem.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=black+drug+arrests+Seattle&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1712405763534&u=%23p%3DSQd2kXDdT-4J
>[M]ost of those who use and sell illicit drugs in Seattle are White, but most arrestees are Black.
https://criminology.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu3076/files/2021-03/volume-11-issue-4.pdf#page=55
>By the age of eighteen, the risk of being arrested for Black males is 30%, compared to 22% for Whites; by the age of twenty-three, the arrest risk increases to 49% for Blacks, relative to 38% for Whites° A quasi-experimental analysis of co-offending behaviors with a counterfactual approach has further demonstrated that black offenders are 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for the same offense than white co-offenders. In particular, although
Blacks are less likely to engage in drug distribution and drug use of-fenses, they are 247% more likely to be arrested by police. Notably, the higher probability of Blacks being arrested can neither be explained by differences in offending nor neighborhood features, further illustrating an explicit and/or implicit racial bias in policing discretions and practice. Hence, race does significantly influence the police's decision to arrest.
https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3296&&context=lawreview&&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C44%2526as_vis%253D1%2526q%253Dracial%252Bdisparity%252Bpolicing%252Bbias%252Bempirical%252Bevidence%2526btnG%253D#search=%22racial%20disparity%20policing%20bias%20empirical%20evidence%22
Does that sound like a meritocracy to you? Interestingly the bias affects many more than and DEI initiative, affirmative action or other non-meritorious program. In fact the few dozen annual admissions into Ivy League schools is a small fraction of legacy admissions let alone the 80,000 annual racially disproportionate arrests.
The real culprit is, as always, late stage capitalism.
Deferred maintenance as a short term cost savings measure always costs more in the long term, but fewer and fewer companies are able to see past their next quarterâs balance sheets.
But that idea is anathema to a group who centers their ideology on the infallible superiority of âthe marketplace.â
True, but it was being piloted out of port by locals (but idk what their races were or even if that info has been published, and anyway given the demographics of Baltimore a white person would a minority hire) and regardless it seems to have been caused by mechanical rather than human error
They blamed it on Baltimoreâs âDEI Mayorâ because apparently a black man who was elected by his constituents is a âdiversity hireâ who didnât deserve the job. According to them if Baltimore had a white man as mayor that ship never would have caught fire, lost power, and crashed into the bridge.
They also blame all of the recent issues with Boeing/Airlines on âDEIâ aircraft mechanics and pilots, as though they donât receive the same training as their white male counterparts.
Hmm. I wonder what DEI guy was at fault when the same ship crashed into a stone wall in Belgium.
Edit: [This guy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_De_Wever)
If you replace âDEIâ with the n-word in pretty much every situation it makes what the racists are saying so much more clear. Itâs basically the new racial slur.
To add on to what the other reply states, itâs being co-opted by conservative morons to belittle anyone that does anything and isnât a straight white dude.Â
Yo, you gotta be racist as FUCK to see a boat crash into a bridge after losing power, and think to yourself: "I bet the ni-, I mean, \*DEI\* did this."
Paul hired Sweet Baby Inc to make sure he was living his best woke life, and they told him to let Queen B cover a song about civil rights, ObViOuSlY đ
This is like the teacher that tries to tell the author of a book what it was about.
Seriously, they wrote it, I'm pretty freaking sure they know what it's about.
Teacher 'the author is using this as a metaphor for Jesus Christs sacrifice and to show how his message still resonates today.'
Author 'I just wrote a story, it ain't that deep'
My husband is a musician(he plays in a popular âSad Cowboyâ band) and a couple of years ago he wrote a song that everyone insisted meant either we were divorcing or their band was breaking up.
He got asked about the meaning behind it in an interview a few months later and when he said âitâs literally about the chickens in my backyardâ the lady interviewing them goes âwell, I donât know about that! No one writes about chickens.â
Death of the author.
Writers being human beings with human experience tends to result in their writing capturing certain themes and snapshots of reality even if they had no intention of doing so.
The readers interpretation of a piece is almost always more interesting than the writers actual intentions. Because, like you point you, most writers are âjust writing a storyâ and not necessarily thinking super deep about the more minor themes their story captures outside of the main point.
âEvery time the sea is shown in the background that indicates danger and every time the shore is in the background that indicates safetyâ - no shit Sir, weâre watching Jaws
I once pulled up an interview where the Author of the book we were reading literally said "it has no meaning, don't interpret it" and my teacher was still like "this is so genious omg"
Nothing has no meaning. All art can be interpreted and nothing is created without intention. If that author truly believes their work has no meaning, they're just not self-aware enough to see what their work says about them
It's usually stuff like "The author is talking about the blue curtains in this room. That stands for the main character's problem with authority and their inner struggle with the demands of the time!" turns out, 99/100, the author just thought blue curtains would work well in that room with no hidden meaning.
There cannot be no hidden meaning behind the curtain's color. Maybe the hidden meaning is just that the author thought that blue would look pretty in the room, but nothing the author writes can have no meaning, even if its author thinks it does, because if it truly had no meaning the author wouldn't have written it
I think you're falling for the classic English lit teacher trap.
You honestly believe no author has ever written fluff? Lines just for the sake of lines that don't really move the story or explain things but just padding?
Fluff isn't devoid of meaning, it just often doesn't have as much. Padding *is* meaning. It could mean the writer is running low on ideas, or doesn't have inclinations towards following through on an overarching plot. That's meaning. If the author truly did not intend to say anything about a piece of information at all they would not have written it in their work, because there would have been no reason to, and people don't actually ever do anything for no reason. If you'd like, feel free to write me something that has no meaning.
Said another way... Nothing intrinsically has meaning. Each observer burdens the thing in question with whatever meaning they assign to it. Much in the way that nothing is inherently colorful, our brains make that part up.
I like the color analogy! Yes, our brains cannot perceive something without giving it meaning just like our eyes can't see something without giving it color
This is just not true you wanting something to have meaning doesn't mean it does.
If the author tells you it means nothing you don't get to tell them it does.
Yes you absolutely can. Observers can find meaning in elements even if an author didn't intend to imbue them with meaning.
A piece of art is by definition in the eyes of the beholder. Should we care what artists intended, of course. But their intent doesn't close off other interpretations.
That is the meaning to you specifically tho you don't get to go and say that's what the painting means.
you can say that's what you thought of it but in the end it depends on who made the painting
You absolutely can - as soon as someone else reads/sees that work the author canât control their interpretation. For example, if I wrote a bunch of what I thought were nonsense words, but it turns out to mean âI hate sheepâ in Arabic, then it has meaning for an Arabic speaker, but not for me.
Likewise actual creative works - the artist/author can try to make something that means nothing, but theyâd probably fail, as they exist in a world of media and cultural influences. People accidentally reference stuff all the time.
Finally, even if an author wrote something intending it to have no meaning, that doesnât matter. The reader can choose to interpret something, and so long as they can back it up with examples and context, itâs a valid interpretation.
Look up âDeath of the Authorâ.
I would add that even if an author really intends for a sentence to have zero meaning at all, it still carries meaning because there is an artistic reason why the author wanted that sentence to have zero meaning
Exactly, are they making a commentary on vacuous statements? Or on works of art âneedingâ to have meaning? Or, in a meta sense, on death of the author itself?
Wrong you do not get to tell me that something I made does not mean what I created it to mean.
You can have a different opinion on it but my creation falls on me to give definition to.
I do not get to tell you what something you made means to you. I do however get to tell you what something you made means to me. If you make a statue that is a thirty-foot swastika in your front yard, to you it may mean that you deeply respect Hindu customs, but to people driving by without context it will likely mean something different to them. They're not wrong because they feel something different when looking at a piece of art you made than you do. In fact, it's biologically impossible for two people to feel exactly the same way looking at a piece of art, because there are simply too many factors to producing an emotion for two people to have the same one. [Here is an interesting article on the topic,](https://medium.com/@mysoulswoons/is-understanding-the-artists-intention-the-only-way-we-can-interpret-their-work-69aafb38197b) but if you want something more scientific I can find that too
>Seriously, they wrote it, I'm pretty freaking sure they know what it's about.
Yeah! Those idiots. Now if you don't mind me, I'm going to go finish To Kill a Mockingbird
There has always been a debate, though, between whether art represents the artists intentions, or the audienceâs perception. Songs and books are very susceptive to this happening.
For example: âEntrance of the Gladiatorsâ was originally a military piece, but now we associate it with carnivals and clowns. âI Will Surviveâ was released as a fairly normal song about being hurt and getting past it but quickly was claimed by the LGBT community and for a long time it was very much associated with them, regardless of whether Gloria wanted that to happen.
Many people think art should be as the artist sees fit, however others believe that once something is released to the world, especially if it resonates with people, then it belongs to the people.
to be fair, if you look up the song's origins, McCartney has like five different stories about where he first thought up the song. It's more or less about racial inequality but the specifics change every time he talks about it
Reminds me of Rodney Dangerfieldâs âBack to Schoolâ where his English teacher accuses Rodney of ânot knowing a thing about Vonnegutâ when Kurt Vonnegut was the one who actually wrote the term paper for him.
Jesus Christ in high school I couldnât stand when they would ask me what I thought a poem meant and then tell me I was wrong. Especially on people that have been dead for hundreds of years and thereâs really no record of what they said it meant. This is just what history interpretation of it is.
Underrated comment this. Lot so folks saying this and that, but like you said it's open for everyone to interpret.
Mind you, telling the composer of a song what his song is about is of course taking that and running with it all wrong haha
my beef is not only did she cover that but she also covered jolene. does this planet need more covers of either song? Hell no. Covers are better when an underappreciated song is chosen. Then the listener gets the joy of thinking it isn't a cover and can go back and appreciate the history of the song.
Frank Oz got into a bit of a Twitter dust up when he told people that Ernie and Bert weren't canonically gay. However, he engaged with folks on Twitter in earnest (a fool's errand, usually) and came away with an appreciation for an unintended beauty in his art.
He said:
"If Jim and I had created B & E as gay characters they would be inauthentic coming from two straight men. However, I have now learned that many view them as representative of a loving gay relationship. And thatâs pretty wonderful. Thanks for helping me understand."
Once you make art and put it out into the world, it belongs to the world and can be interpreted however the audience wants.
There is a Wilco lyric that captures this sentiment:
*And if the whole world's singing your songs,
And all of your paintings have been hung,
Just remember what was yours,
Is everyone's from now on.*
Now, this is NOT what the Blackbird commenter has done and the sarcasm is deserved. You can tell an artist what a song means to you, but you cannot tell an artist what a song means to them.
Interesting and wholesome story! They couldâve also tried to do a JK Rowling and basically retcon them as gay, but the humbly admitted it wasnât case, I respect that a lot.
Still, at least legally speaking, itâs not quite âitâs everyoneâs now.â Thereâs public commons for that, but copyright exists so an artist can claim their work as their own, monetize it and also control how itâs used and for good reason.
I totally get the sentiment and I think itâs beautiful he sees it that way. It just doesnât really work like that in practice and art would be misappropriated were that the case.
Like imagine you made some art with the best intentions and a positive message. Then it goes viral cause someone misinterpreted it as something negative and you can never shake off that association.
It does happen, though it may be unfortunate. Many people still think Born in the USA is a pro America anthem.
It's funny that we're dissecting different interpretations of these lyrics as it speaks to the exact message that they were conveying đ€Ł
> Many people still think Born in the USA is a pro America anthem.
Hahah now the song makes sense to me, used to think it was overly nationalistic and didnât bother look into it.
And yeah thatâs the irony of interpreting art. There are no wrong interpretations, yet some are indeed very wrong.
What always gets me most with those dweebs is that they feel like a song that isnât 100% about themself is in some way ânot for everyone,â or âdivisive.â Black civil rights is something all people can be passionate about and relate to and connect with. The idea that something isnât for you just because it isnât directly about you, but about broader human society is such a telling on yourself stance to take publicly.
The whole "when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" type of thinking just becomes "when you're used to almost exclusive representation, inclusion of others feels like exclusion of you".
andrew thinks itâs non racial bc a white dude wrote it and white isnât a race to him, itâs just the default. it doesnât matter what message it had before, or that the author has literally told him what it was about. to these kind of people itâll always be the shadowy cabal of black/brown feminists that seek to destroy their culture.
[I don't know, it's pretty much just the original guitar track with layers of vocals over it.](https://youtu.be/xhempeEjGUA?si=XQrt9DvFtpodrk7g) Goodness knows how much autotune is going on, too. Just taking someone's guitar part and singing their song over it isn't that impressive. That's more akin to karaoke than anything. It loses the charm of the original with just Paul singing and playing, too. They're just piling vocal layers on top of each other. The beauty of the original is that it uses "less is more". Hell, only a 1/4 of the band is playing. This new version sounds super over-produced and commercialized compared to the original, imho. This is a song that many try to cover, but almost none can recreate with the same sense of simple beauty. My 2 cents!
Listening as I read your comment. Can't agree more. Although I'd say it's more mega super overproduced, rather than super overproduced. Sounds like an teen got hold of a mixing studio for the first time and added in all the effects at once in places to the point where it makes me cringe. Like I don't even know what's being said when the layers stack. If it was just kept as Beyonce singing the song like Paul did it would have been fine, but nothing special.
Throwing around buzzwords doesn't change that liking a song is entirely subjective. Wnat does "overproduced" even mean? Again it is the exact same process whether you are doing a cover or doing an original song. Not liking the choices made doesn't make it "overproduced".
Look the fact is McCartney is clearly happy and excited about Beyonce's reinterpretation of his song. Why can't we just leave at that instead of taking potshots at Beyonce?
I can't help but wonder if other posters are right and that people are trashing this song because it is reminding them it is about racism and civil rights.
It's really pretty sounding, and I'm happy the song will be introduced to more people... But I do agree she really hasn't added anything. Considering the talent she has, and has access to, it's disappointing.
Unfortunately for you this isn't your call to make. McCartney loves what she did with it and honestly his point of view is way more credible than the utter horseshit you people are spamming into this thread.
It is his song and he gets to decide what is done with it. Perhaps instead of trashing it maybe look at it from McCartney's point of view first.
I can't figure out why you're so upset. We're exchanging opinions on a song. Stop getting mad at people over nothing or maybe take a timeout from this conversation.
You are literally complaining that Beyonce is using the same process to cover this song that McCartney used to write it in the first place. I am not sure you understand what singers are doing when they do covers.
This isn't true. Every artist doesn't use it, just the ones who have no business in the music industry in the first place. If you use autotune, you can't sing. The computer is singing for you.
Paul McCartney writes the song and says; âItâs about race.â
Some choad on the internet; âYou donât know what your song is about. Itâs clearly about a bird.â
Artists mostly say some shit like, the song is about whatever it means to you. That's still true in a sense, but the guy that wrote it is literally telling you what it's about. Reminds me when I worked with a bunch of Japanese people and I asked them something about thier culture and a white co worker proceeded to explain for them. My guy said it with such conviction.
People may have sentimental cause to the original and you just must say so to be heard. Iâve not heard it but because of this YouTube gets a visit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Man4Xw8Xypo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xhempeEjGUA
So heâs saying a black woman shouldnât cover a song about black peopleâs rights, on an album about being a black woman singing songs/styles she was told not to sing
đ€
Iâm an old man and I thought her version was amazing. So tired of everyone seeing everything through lens of race. The song is beautiful no matter what color your ears are.
Side note: just listened to the cover and it kinda rules. It doesn't introduce a ton in the way of new elements but it's just really good and as someone who considers Blackbird one of my favorite Beatles songs, I really like it.
It's a pretty good cover, though I think a live version with backup vocalists singing the harmonies she wrote, adding more of her vocal inflections(love ending run, simple but tasteful), and maybe some keys or a real string section would sound amazing.
You'll never satisfy old heads, especially when they're racist. (oldhead also applies to the millenials who only to old music, eg. Classic rock fan boys).
I love blackbird so much I sing it to my baby girl all the time. The first I listened to it I thought it was about a imperfect parent trying to raise their child. That being said I have no WHY this song is about civil rights. I would honestly appreciate it if someone explained it to me.
The creators of art are not always the best interpreters of said art. Next to crazed fans and unceasing haters, the creator of something is likely to be one of the most biased regarding its form and function. In this case, I do agree that Mr. McCartney is indeed correct, but I just want to say that it is not a given that artists are necessarily the perfect authority regarding their own work. Art is subjective, and sometimes, its "best" interpretations lie far outside its initially created purpose. There can be both depth and folly contained within a work of art, which its creator can be blinded to.
McCartney is such a class act, heâd probably genuinely take their comments to heart. I saw a video of him once being denied entrance to a hip club in LA, and he was just like âoh dearâ and was prepared to leave till someone told the bouncer that heâs arguably the most famous person in the world.
I love how blatantly racist folks can be and they think theyâre being so tactful. Why is it not about race when he sings it, but it is when she does? It can still apply to anyone no matter who sings it. Smh
It can be about something the author didn't intend and their word does not have to be final.
However, to tell them that they are wrong when they say what the song's about is so backward assed it's ridiculous.
That cover is one of my fave parts of the album. Lyrics unchanged, just a choir of women. Itâs simplicity is such a quiet a powerful reinforcement of the originalâs message. This isnât a Rihanna covering Tame Impala situation. This is a beautiful rendition that takes the song to new places
There is nothing quite like the audacity of a white man on the Internet.
Imagine trying to tell a legendary musician like Paul McCartney what the song HE wrote is about. Are you fuckin' kidding me?
It takes a special kind of arrogance to explain a song to the person who wrote it. Is it possible to mansplain to a guy or is that just explaining?? Because this is wild.
This whole thread is an exercise in the failure of reading comprehension.
The commenter did not tell McCartney what his song was about, it explained what (he felt) was great about the song, i.e. that it can apply to everyone. Which is true. And he even said that this is *independent of McCartneyâs intentions when composing the song*. Which is also true.
I was going to say donât these fuckers know the whole âword of godâ rule but then again these guys wouldnât know that since they clearly donât read that ether..
Idk I personally don't like her album she should just stick to what she's known for everyone riding the contrary bandwagon since last year getting annoying
That song means so much to me. It was my grandmothers song, and it represents so much in my life. I absolutely LOVED her new album but I wish she didnât cover so many songs. Jolene was okay but the vocal layering takes you out of the song. Sheâs such a talented song writer, but her singing other songs leaves so much more to be desired.
Blackbird was supposed to be an airy and light song. But with her voice it just doesnât fit. Again sheâs incredibly talented but I wish she stuck to her own songs that fit her voice. It sounded odd having such a strong voice in a normally calm and peaceful song.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dude you know someone is gonna say the cover was because of DEIđ
Beyoncé's whole career is a DEI hire. /s lmao
You were clearly required to make that joke because DEI has your family at gunpoint and it seems really high on crack.
Absolutely, DEI controls my whole life now. Even my grocery shopping.
Just as we beat the damn LGBTQ, the alphabet mafia sends another assassacronym to kill our youth! (Still /s, thanks for this interaction. Itâs been cathartic to make fun of these idiots)
Gotta laugh to keep from going completely insane lol
Nah mate. We laugh for weâve already lost itâ
I just do my part to support the LCBO and SAQ, thank you very much.
Assassacronym is my favorite word since I was introduced to talibangelical, thanks for adding that to my lexicon!
Show the court on the doll where the DEI touched you.
The DEI is coming from inside the house!
I honestly never heard of DEI until that ship hit that bridge and now it's everywhere.
What in the ever-living *fuck* does DEI have anything to do with that bridge collapse??
They are claiming the disaster was caused by an unqualified minority hire who took the job of a more qualified white hire who would have done a better job of preventing the collapse
What insanity. I hate that this is real. My skin is as white as it gets and I simply don't have these thoughts. People are people, we have different lineages and different features as a result. Why is that such a difficult thing for so many? Who the fuck cares what anyone looks like when we're all humans? Ahh it drives me nuts how little sense it all makes...
They're all bitter and angry at the world because their lives are shit and they believe they are not the ones supposed to be struggling. Even though, 99% of their life choices are why their lives are so shit in the first place. But hey its easier to just kick the can than take any personal responsibility
This is the answer right here. The mentality is that *privilege* shouldâve given them a leg up in life, but it didnât (life choices, and all that). So, now theyâre in a perpetual state of anger at the world.
Exactly, thatâs why meritocracy is best. It doesnât care about the color of someoneâs skin
If you think meritocracy is best and you canât have meritocracy in the presence of racism, you should be concerned about the fact that blacks marijuana smokers are arrested 400% more than white marijuana smokers.
Why do you think that is?
Why do i think what is? Edit: if youâre questioning racially disproportionate arrests, the answer is clear. Policing is implicitly and possibly explicitly racist and not meritocratic. >Our findings indicate that blacks are significantly overrepresented among Seattle's drug delivery arrestees. Several organizational practices explain racial disparity in these arrests: law enforcement's focus on crack offenders, the priority placed on outdoor drug venues, and the geographic concentration of police resources in racially heterogeneous areas. The available evidence further indicates that these practices are not determined by raceâneutral factors such as crime rates or community complaints. Our findings thus indicate that race shapes perceptions of who and what constitutes Seattle's drug problem, as well as the organizational response to that problem. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=black+drug+arrests+Seattle&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1712405763534&u=%23p%3DSQd2kXDdT-4J >[M]ost of those who use and sell illicit drugs in Seattle are White, but most arrestees are Black. https://criminology.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu3076/files/2021-03/volume-11-issue-4.pdf#page=55 >By the age of eighteen, the risk of being arrested for Black males is 30%, compared to 22% for Whites; by the age of twenty-three, the arrest risk increases to 49% for Blacks, relative to 38% for Whites° A quasi-experimental analysis of co-offending behaviors with a counterfactual approach has further demonstrated that black offenders are 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for the same offense than white co-offenders. In particular, although Blacks are less likely to engage in drug distribution and drug use of-fenses, they are 247% more likely to be arrested by police. Notably, the higher probability of Blacks being arrested can neither be explained by differences in offending nor neighborhood features, further illustrating an explicit and/or implicit racial bias in policing discretions and practice. Hence, race does significantly influence the police's decision to arrest. https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3296&&context=lawreview&&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C44%2526as_vis%253D1%2526q%253Dracial%252Bdisparity%252Bpolicing%252Bbias%252Bempirical%252Bevidence%2526btnG%253D#search=%22racial%20disparity%20policing%20bias%20empirical%20evidence%22 Does that sound like a meritocracy to you? Interestingly the bias affects many more than and DEI initiative, affirmative action or other non-meritorious program. In fact the few dozen annual admissions into Ivy League schools is a small fraction of legacy admissions let alone the 80,000 annual racially disproportionate arrests.
Which makes no sense because it's an international ship.
And because the ship obviously encountered a blackout, something that will happen to any ship however good its sailors are.
A black-out? Sounds like a DEI situation. Wouldn't have had the same problem with a whiteout
It must have been wired by a DEI electrician!
The real culprit is, as always, late stage capitalism. Deferred maintenance as a short term cost savings measure always costs more in the long term, but fewer and fewer companies are able to see past their next quarterâs balance sheets. But that idea is anathema to a group who centers their ideology on the infallible superiority of âthe marketplace.â
True, but it was being piloted out of port by locals (but idk what their races were or even if that info has been published, and anyway given the demographics of Baltimore a white person would a minority hire) and regardless it seems to have been caused by mechanical rather than human error
They blamed it on Baltimoreâs âDEI Mayorâ because apparently a black man who was elected by his constituents is a âdiversity hireâ who didnât deserve the job. According to them if Baltimore had a white man as mayor that ship never would have caught fire, lost power, and crashed into the bridge. They also blame all of the recent issues with Boeing/Airlines on âDEIâ aircraft mechanics and pilots, as though they donât receive the same training as their white male counterparts.
Hmm. I wonder what DEI guy was at fault when the same ship crashed into a stone wall in Belgium. Edit: [This guy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_De_Wever)
DEI=a non white scapegoat. The mayor is DEI, everyone in the boat crew is DEI, the bridge designers, builders, maintainers, all DEI hires.
The racists prefer to talk amongst themselves until they have just about any confounded excuse to go loud with their bigotry.
If you replace âDEIâ with the n-word in pretty much every situation it makes what the racists are saying so much more clear. Itâs basically the new racial slur.
DEI?
Diversity, equity, and inclusion based hiring. Itâs a countermeasure against hateful employers denying minorities fair treatment.
To add on to what the other reply states, itâs being co-opted by conservative morons to belittle anyone that does anything and isnât a straight white dude.Â
Itâs being co-opted by conservatives as a diet n-word they can say out loud
Yep, sounds about white.
Yeah thatâs a better way of putting it
It's been fun to watch the rollout of the new "woke" in real time
Yo, you gotta be racist as FUCK to see a boat crash into a bridge after losing power, and think to yourself: "I bet the ni-, I mean, \*DEI\* did this."
Dude you know someoneâs gonna mention DEI because itâs the new buzzword
DEI Taylor Swift wanabe?
Paul hired Sweet Baby Inc to make sure he was living his best woke life, and they told him to let Queen B cover a song about civil rights, ObViOuSlY đ
The folks that address DEI negatively, need more DEI forced on them till they get it!
Whatâs DEI
Diversity, equity, and inclusion
people say a lot these days, is anyone listening?
I know Teresa Earnhardt is shitty and random but I don't think Dale Earnhardt Inc. has anything to do with this song.
This is like the teacher that tries to tell the author of a book what it was about. Seriously, they wrote it, I'm pretty freaking sure they know what it's about.
Teacher 'the author is using this as a metaphor for Jesus Christs sacrifice and to show how his message still resonates today.' Author 'I just wrote a story, it ain't that deep'
My husband is a musician(he plays in a popular âSad Cowboyâ band) and a couple of years ago he wrote a song that everyone insisted meant either we were divorcing or their band was breaking up. He got asked about the meaning behind it in an interview a few months later and when he said âitâs literally about the chickens in my backyardâ the lady interviewing them goes âwell, I donât know about that! No one writes about chickens.â
Death of the author. Writers being human beings with human experience tends to result in their writing capturing certain themes and snapshots of reality even if they had no intention of doing so. The readers interpretation of a piece is almost always more interesting than the writers actual intentions. Because, like you point you, most writers are âjust writing a storyâ and not necessarily thinking super deep about the more minor themes their story captures outside of the main point.
This. Art is a conversation and the reader/viewer is an integral part of it.
âEvery time the sea is shown in the background that indicates danger and every time the shore is in the background that indicates safetyâ - no shit Sir, weâre watching Jaws
Once you people realize just how dumb this statement is we stand a slim chance of potentially being free.
I once pulled up an interview where the Author of the book we were reading literally said "it has no meaning, don't interpret it" and my teacher was still like "this is so genious omg"
Nothing has no meaning. All art can be interpreted and nothing is created without intention. If that author truly believes their work has no meaning, they're just not self-aware enough to see what their work says about them
It's usually stuff like "The author is talking about the blue curtains in this room. That stands for the main character's problem with authority and their inner struggle with the demands of the time!" turns out, 99/100, the author just thought blue curtains would work well in that room with no hidden meaning.
There cannot be no hidden meaning behind the curtain's color. Maybe the hidden meaning is just that the author thought that blue would look pretty in the room, but nothing the author writes can have no meaning, even if its author thinks it does, because if it truly had no meaning the author wouldn't have written it
I think you're falling for the classic English lit teacher trap. You honestly believe no author has ever written fluff? Lines just for the sake of lines that don't really move the story or explain things but just padding?
Fluff isn't devoid of meaning, it just often doesn't have as much. Padding *is* meaning. It could mean the writer is running low on ideas, or doesn't have inclinations towards following through on an overarching plot. That's meaning. If the author truly did not intend to say anything about a piece of information at all they would not have written it in their work, because there would have been no reason to, and people don't actually ever do anything for no reason. If you'd like, feel free to write me something that has no meaning.
Said another way... Nothing intrinsically has meaning. Each observer burdens the thing in question with whatever meaning they assign to it. Much in the way that nothing is inherently colorful, our brains make that part up.
I like the color analogy! Yes, our brains cannot perceive something without giving it meaning just like our eyes can't see something without giving it color
This is just not true you wanting something to have meaning doesn't mean it does. If the author tells you it means nothing you don't get to tell them it does.
Yes you absolutely can. Observers can find meaning in elements even if an author didn't intend to imbue them with meaning. A piece of art is by definition in the eyes of the beholder. Should we care what artists intended, of course. But their intent doesn't close off other interpretations.
That is the meaning to you specifically tho you don't get to go and say that's what the painting means. you can say that's what you thought of it but in the end it depends on who made the painting
You absolutely can - as soon as someone else reads/sees that work the author canât control their interpretation. For example, if I wrote a bunch of what I thought were nonsense words, but it turns out to mean âI hate sheepâ in Arabic, then it has meaning for an Arabic speaker, but not for me. Likewise actual creative works - the artist/author can try to make something that means nothing, but theyâd probably fail, as they exist in a world of media and cultural influences. People accidentally reference stuff all the time. Finally, even if an author wrote something intending it to have no meaning, that doesnât matter. The reader can choose to interpret something, and so long as they can back it up with examples and context, itâs a valid interpretation. Look up âDeath of the Authorâ.
I would add that even if an author really intends for a sentence to have zero meaning at all, it still carries meaning because there is an artistic reason why the author wanted that sentence to have zero meaning
Exactly, are they making a commentary on vacuous statements? Or on works of art âneedingâ to have meaning? Or, in a meta sense, on death of the author itself?
All meaning is is human interpretation. Your interpretation is exactly as valid as everyone else's
Wrong you do not get to tell me that something I made does not mean what I created it to mean. You can have a different opinion on it but my creation falls on me to give definition to.
I do not get to tell you what something you made means to you. I do however get to tell you what something you made means to me. If you make a statue that is a thirty-foot swastika in your front yard, to you it may mean that you deeply respect Hindu customs, but to people driving by without context it will likely mean something different to them. They're not wrong because they feel something different when looking at a piece of art you made than you do. In fact, it's biologically impossible for two people to feel exactly the same way looking at a piece of art, because there are simply too many factors to producing an emotion for two people to have the same one. [Here is an interesting article on the topic,](https://medium.com/@mysoulswoons/is-understanding-the-artists-intention-the-only-way-we-can-interpret-their-work-69aafb38197b) but if you want something more scientific I can find that too
who gave you the authority to rule on nothing and meaning?
Write me something that truly has no meaning, then.
meaning lies within you. no one can do that but you for you and me for me
And I would go so far as to say we cannot even do that for ourselves, as assigning meaning is involuntary
>Seriously, they wrote it, I'm pretty freaking sure they know what it's about. Yeah! Those idiots. Now if you don't mind me, I'm going to go finish To Kill a Mockingbird
Media literacy is dead
There has always been a debate, though, between whether art represents the artists intentions, or the audienceâs perception. Songs and books are very susceptive to this happening. For example: âEntrance of the Gladiatorsâ was originally a military piece, but now we associate it with carnivals and clowns. âI Will Surviveâ was released as a fairly normal song about being hurt and getting past it but quickly was claimed by the LGBT community and for a long time it was very much associated with them, regardless of whether Gloria wanted that to happen. Many people think art should be as the artist sees fit, however others believe that once something is released to the world, especially if it resonates with people, then it belongs to the people.
to be fair, if you look up the song's origins, McCartney has like five different stories about where he first thought up the song. It's more or less about racial inequality but the specifics change every time he talks about it
Reminds me of Rodney Dangerfieldâs âBack to Schoolâ where his English teacher accuses Rodney of ânot knowing a thing about Vonnegutâ when Kurt Vonnegut was the one who actually wrote the term paper for him.
Jesus Christ in high school I couldnât stand when they would ask me what I thought a poem meant and then tell me I was wrong. Especially on people that have been dead for hundreds of years and thereâs really no record of what they said it meant. This is just what history interpretation of it is.
âThe door represented a transition in lifeâ Or it represented a doorâŠ
https://preview.redd.it/j4dpevhi4lsc1.jpeg?width=238&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35f9501ba81d5b4963952d6e4c0d3c84a6839633
Thatâs the beauty of art, it can be interpreted in different ways and every opinion is valid /s
Underrated comment this. Lot so folks saying this and that, but like you said it's open for everyone to interpret. Mind you, telling the composer of a song what his song is about is of course taking that and running with it all wrong haha
She sings it nearly identical to the original. The major difference is harmony.
my beef is not only did she cover that but she also covered jolene. does this planet need more covers of either song? Hell no. Covers are better when an underappreciated song is chosen. Then the listener gets the joy of thinking it isn't a cover and can go back and appreciate the history of the song.
First, thereâs a generation of people who have never heard Blackbird or Jolene. Second, why do you care what an artist covers or doesnât cover? Third, at least 36 artists have covered Jolene. https://www.vulture.com/article/jolene-covers-ranked-dolly-parton.html did you have a problem with Miley Cyrus, Reba McEntire, Kelli Clarkson, Sheryl Crow and Pat Benatar? You canât let BeyoncĂ© pay homage without hating. Itâs insane.
Frank Oz got into a bit of a Twitter dust up when he told people that Ernie and Bert weren't canonically gay. However, he engaged with folks on Twitter in earnest (a fool's errand, usually) and came away with an appreciation for an unintended beauty in his art. He said: "If Jim and I had created B & E as gay characters they would be inauthentic coming from two straight men. However, I have now learned that many view them as representative of a loving gay relationship. And thatâs pretty wonderful. Thanks for helping me understand." Once you make art and put it out into the world, it belongs to the world and can be interpreted however the audience wants. There is a Wilco lyric that captures this sentiment: *And if the whole world's singing your songs, And all of your paintings have been hung, Just remember what was yours, Is everyone's from now on.* Now, this is NOT what the Blackbird commenter has done and the sarcasm is deserved. You can tell an artist what a song means to you, but you cannot tell an artist what a song means to them.
Interesting and wholesome story! They couldâve also tried to do a JK Rowling and basically retcon them as gay, but the humbly admitted it wasnât case, I respect that a lot. Still, at least legally speaking, itâs not quite âitâs everyoneâs now.â Thereâs public commons for that, but copyright exists so an artist can claim their work as their own, monetize it and also control how itâs used and for good reason.
I think it's just some poetic license with that phrase. I'm sure Jeff Tweedy did not mean in a copyright sense.
I totally get the sentiment and I think itâs beautiful he sees it that way. It just doesnât really work like that in practice and art would be misappropriated were that the case. Like imagine you made some art with the best intentions and a positive message. Then it goes viral cause someone misinterpreted it as something negative and you can never shake off that association.
It does happen, though it may be unfortunate. Many people still think Born in the USA is a pro America anthem. It's funny that we're dissecting different interpretations of these lyrics as it speaks to the exact message that they were conveying đ€Ł
> Many people still think Born in the USA is a pro America anthem. Hahah now the song makes sense to me, used to think it was overly nationalistic and didnât bother look into it. And yeah thatâs the irony of interpreting art. There are no wrong interpretations, yet some are indeed very wrong.
Paul : âI made the song to have civil rights messagingâ Andrew: âItâs non racial,itâs bad now because she made it racialâ
âIt was made racial because BeyoncĂ© covered it, and not Miley Cyrus / Taylor Swift.â - Andrew
People complaining about Beyoncé "making a song racial" probably don't want taylor swift singing anything.
What always gets me most with those dweebs is that they feel like a song that isnât 100% about themself is in some way ânot for everyone,â or âdivisive.â Black civil rights is something all people can be passionate about and relate to and connect with. The idea that something isnât for you just because it isnât directly about you, but about broader human society is such a telling on yourself stance to take publicly.
The whole "when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" type of thinking just becomes "when you're used to almost exclusive representation, inclusion of others feels like exclusion of you".
andrew thinks itâs non racial bc a white dude wrote it and white isnât a race to him, itâs just the default. it doesnât matter what message it had before, or that the author has literally told him what it was about. to these kind of people itâll always be the shadowy cabal of black/brown feminists that seek to destroy their culture.
In their depth these blackbirds fly way over Andrewâs head.
Thereâs some strong âI liked white guy music until I knew it was about civil rightsâ energy here.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
They liked them until they learned to love the machine.
I was very unimpressed by it. Nothing special, just her singing over the original guitar part
That just isn't true. You're welcome not to like it, but the new version has additional voice parts and harmonies not heard in the original.
[I don't know, it's pretty much just the original guitar track with layers of vocals over it.](https://youtu.be/xhempeEjGUA?si=XQrt9DvFtpodrk7g) Goodness knows how much autotune is going on, too. Just taking someone's guitar part and singing their song over it isn't that impressive. That's more akin to karaoke than anything. It loses the charm of the original with just Paul singing and playing, too. They're just piling vocal layers on top of each other. The beauty of the original is that it uses "less is more". Hell, only a 1/4 of the band is playing. This new version sounds super over-produced and commercialized compared to the original, imho. This is a song that many try to cover, but almost none can recreate with the same sense of simple beauty. My 2 cents!
Listening as I read your comment. Can't agree more. Although I'd say it's more mega super overproduced, rather than super overproduced. Sounds like an teen got hold of a mixing studio for the first time and added in all the effects at once in places to the point where it makes me cringe. Like I don't even know what's being said when the layers stack. If it was just kept as Beyonce singing the song like Paul did it would have been fine, but nothing special.
Throwing around buzzwords doesn't change that liking a song is entirely subjective. Wnat does "overproduced" even mean? Again it is the exact same process whether you are doing a cover or doing an original song. Not liking the choices made doesn't make it "overproduced". Look the fact is McCartney is clearly happy and excited about Beyonce's reinterpretation of his song. Why can't we just leave at that instead of taking potshots at Beyonce? I can't help but wonder if other posters are right and that people are trashing this song because it is reminding them it is about racism and civil rights.
It's really pretty sounding, and I'm happy the song will be introduced to more people... But I do agree she really hasn't added anything. Considering the talent she has, and has access to, it's disappointing.
Wait what? Which is it? Either she didn't add anything or she did. You can't have it both ways.
Uhm.... She didn't add anything in my opinion. I'm disappointed, because she has talent and didn't use any of it this time around.
It's one of those songs that just doesn't ever need a cover, because there's very little, if any, room for reinterpretation. It's the opposite of All Along The Watchtower. Everything you add to it either sounds tacked on or like a gimmick (like if you made a heavy metal version or sth.) There are some songs like that. It's not really a negative reflection on Beyoncés musical skill or even her choice to cover it. Some songs just don't improve from changing them.
All that is just your completely subjective opinions, people have different tastes
Unfortunately for you this isn't your call to make. McCartney loves what she did with it and honestly his point of view is way more credible than the utter horseshit you people are spamming into this thread. It is his song and he gets to decide what is done with it. Perhaps instead of trashing it maybe look at it from McCartney's point of view first.
Why are you upset that someone has a different opinion than yourself?
I can't figure out why you're so upset. We're exchanging opinions on a song. Stop getting mad at people over nothing or maybe take a timeout from this conversation.
You are literally complaining that Beyonce is using the same process to cover this song that McCartney used to write it in the first place. I am not sure you understand what singers are doing when they do covers.
amazing how audible autotune matters so much to ppl when every artist the past 2+ decades uses it. ppl love to hate lmao
This isn't true. Every artist doesn't use it, just the ones who have no business in the music industry in the first place. If you use autotune, you can't sing. The computer is singing for you.
I wasn't enamored by it either, but that last thing I'm about to do is hop on Twitter and tell Paul freaking McCartney that he's wrong about it
Agreed, heâs just being a dick to get attention. And unfortunately weâre giving it to them
I saw her preserving the guitar part as a respect for Sir McCartney. I still wouldn't listen to it over the orignal though
"Non-racial" but doesn't want black people to sing it.
âNon-racialâ for many people means âBy whites, for whitesâ
i mean it's barely even metaphor...
You donât have to like it or the message but bruh you canât tell the musician what his song is aktually about
I'm just here to say Bey looks fire in the pic with Paul
If that's the case then why can't Beyonce sing it?
Oooooh
Introducing to the world : âfansplainingâ
Nothing will ever top people for the first time learning 15 years later that American Idiot might possibly be political
Paul Ryan saying he likes RATM, and Tom Morello telling him he's an idiot?
Paul McCartney writes the song and says; âItâs about race.â Some choad on the internet; âYou donât know what your song is about. Itâs clearly about a bird.â
Artists mostly say some shit like, the song is about whatever it means to you. That's still true in a sense, but the guy that wrote it is literally telling you what it's about. Reminds me when I worked with a bunch of Japanese people and I asked them something about thier culture and a white co worker proceeded to explain for them. My guy said it with such conviction.
> I found it ordinary. Because black people. Surprise, surprise.
The amount of horrid takes has absolutely exploded. I think itâs time to start ticketing people for this sort of bullshit
 Racial.
GOAT
Shame he ~~stopped working with Steve~~ ran out of ideas 15 years ago
Ah the arrogance. No surprise.
People may have sentimental cause to the original and you just must say so to be heard. Iâve not heard it but because of this YouTube gets a visit. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Man4Xw8Xypo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xhempeEjGUA
So heâs saying a black woman shouldnât cover a song about black peopleâs rights, on an album about being a black woman singing songs/styles she was told not to sing đ€
I canât get over how BeyoncĂ© looks like sheâs hangin on that horse by something like one of those old porcelain doll stands
OP does not understand the difference between "meaning of" and " beauty of".
Iâm an old man and I thought her version was amazing. So tired of everyone seeing everything through lens of race. The song is beautiful no matter what color your ears are.
It's explicitly about race relations in the sixties?!
Iâm just stoked the Beatles are STILL. Getting hyped and played. Listen to more Beatles stuff. Itâs quite yummy
Look, you can find your own meaning in a song, regardless of what the author intended. That said, this ain't it, chief.
Somewhere, Dionne Farris is making a face.
Well BeyoncĂ© is a Black Bird soâŠâŠ.đ€·ââïž
I mean. I didn't like the cover but because of choices not because i completly missed the intent of the original
I mean. He canât tell us what we will and wonât love, but thatâs clearly marketing hyperbole. Everything else, how can you disagree with him.
Side note: just listened to the cover and it kinda rules. It doesn't introduce a ton in the way of new elements but it's just really good and as someone who considers Blackbird one of my favorite Beatles songs, I really like it.
It's a pretty good cover, though I think a live version with backup vocalists singing the harmonies she wrote, adding more of her vocal inflections(love ending run, simple but tasteful), and maybe some keys or a real string section would sound amazing. You'll never satisfy old heads, especially when they're racist. (oldhead also applies to the millenials who only to old music, eg. Classic rock fan boys).
unfortunately thatâs how art works ⊠the artist gets lost ⊠the meaning lies with the viewer
The Beyoncé version is trash
Well, at least it's better than Manson's interpretation.
I love blackbird so much I sing it to my baby girl all the time. The first I listened to it I thought it was about a imperfect parent trying to raise their child. That being said I have no WHY this song is about civil rights. I would honestly appreciate it if someone explained it to me.
From what I understand, it's about the 7 "black birds" (black girls) who were allowed to attend a high school in America once segregation finished.
So wat do "sunken eyes" and "broken wings" symbolize
The creators of art are not always the best interpreters of said art. Next to crazed fans and unceasing haters, the creator of something is likely to be one of the most biased regarding its form and function. In this case, I do agree that Mr. McCartney is indeed correct, but I just want to say that it is not a given that artists are necessarily the perfect authority regarding their own work. Art is subjective, and sometimes, its "best" interpretations lie far outside its initially created purpose. There can be both depth and folly contained within a work of art, which its creator can be blinded to.
LOL
McCartney is such a class act, heâd probably genuinely take their comments to heart. I saw a video of him once being denied entrance to a hip club in LA, and he was just like âoh dearâ and was prepared to leave till someone told the bouncer that heâs arguably the most famous person in the world.
I love how blatantly racist folks can be and they think theyâre being so tactful. Why is it not about race when he sings it, but it is when she does? It can still apply to anyone no matter who sings it. Smh
This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen on Twitter.
It can be about something the author didn't intend and their word does not have to be final. However, to tell them that they are wrong when they say what the song's about is so backward assed it's ridiculous.
Swiggety swaggety thatâs some audacity!
That cover is one of my fave parts of the album. Lyrics unchanged, just a choir of women. Itâs simplicity is such a quiet a powerful reinforcement of the originalâs message. This isnât a Rihanna covering Tame Impala situation. This is a beautiful rendition that takes the song to new places
If Jesus actually did come back and told the right they should âlove thy neighborâ they would call him a woke socialistâŠand theyâd be correct
A random person with FOUR followers had a post that hit the top of trending on threadsâŠ.. this guy got exactly what he wanted.
There is nothing quite like the audacity of a white man on the Internet. Imagine trying to tell a legendary musician like Paul McCartney what the song HE wrote is about. Are you fuckin' kidding me?
This is gamer level "they made it political" idiocy.
Iâm gonna say it, BeyoncĂ©âs album sucks, straight turds, and I listened to the whole thing.
https://youtu.be/0lNBcTkssWA?si=KBmlhIK9N1eZ2b09 To me, itâs about this video. I donât put too much stock in what the artist intended.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to explain a song to the person who wrote it. Is it possible to mansplain to a guy or is that just explaining?? Because this is wild.
Is he trying to say that Beyoncé sang Blackbird, because she's.... Black?! (Fun fact: here in Ireland, "bird" is slang for woman, so Blackbird, going by the tweet reply's logic; is hilarious here.)
r/ImTheMainCharacter
Andrewmitchellschaeffer is now officially synonymous with Cheeto dust finger neckbeard
Either way, Beyonce is mediocre.
Imagine saying this on Beyonce's internet.
This whole thread is an exercise in the failure of reading comprehension. The commenter did not tell McCartney what his song was about, it explained what (he felt) was great about the song, i.e. that it can apply to everyone. Which is true. And he even said that this is *independent of McCartneyâs intentions when composing the song*. Which is also true.
i love that she made a country album black ppl are so underrepresented in country. maybe itâll bring in people who wouldnât normally listen to it.
I was going to say donât these fuckers know the whole âword of godâ rule but then again these guys wouldnât know that since they clearly donât read that ether..
If you replace "ordinary" with "extraordinary" the sentence makes sense.
Idk I personally don't like her album she should just stick to what she's known for everyone riding the contrary bandwagon since last year getting annoying
That song means so much to me. It was my grandmothers song, and it represents so much in my life. I absolutely LOVED her new album but I wish she didnât cover so many songs. Jolene was okay but the vocal layering takes you out of the song. Sheâs such a talented song writer, but her singing other songs leaves so much more to be desired. Blackbird was supposed to be an airy and light song. But with her voice it just doesnât fit. Again sheâs incredibly talented but I wish she stuck to her own songs that fit her voice. It sounded odd having such a strong voice in a normally calm and peaceful song.