The problem with the song, which I LIKE, is that it doesn't really have any meaning to its structure. It's like: random cliche meets superior "rhyming" emotion; sentiments I AGREE with but compelling more musically, emotively, than thematically, rigorously. Instead, it would have been stronger if she had maintained the thoroughline of comparing status objects (fast car, high fashion) against emotional phenomenon (beating heart, high passion).
Why don't people like Stevie and Dave know this about writing? Neil Tennant would not have let that pass. Note the song's similarity to modern classic "Love etc" by the Pet ShopBoys:
Quote:
(Don’t have to be) A big bucks Hollywood star
(Don’t have to drive) A super car to get far
(Don’t have to live) A life of power and wealth
(Don’t have to be) Beautiful but it helps
(Don’t have to buy) A house in Beverly Hills
(Don’t have to have) Your daddy paying the bills
(Don’t have to live) A life of power and wealth
(Don’t have to be) Beautiful but it helps
...
I believe that we can achieve
The love that we need
I believe, call me naïve
Love is for free
|
Maybe Lindsey WAS right in the Bob Dylan debate.
