(Over)analyze This

Post by **mewrio** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:27 am

Orthography Enthusiast @ Dec 16 2004, 03:24 PM wrote: I don't see a problem at all. The fact that the Amish who who lived before the invention of the telephone didn't OWE a telephone bill doesn't change the fact that they weren't PAYING a phone bill. Just like Shakespeare wasn't writing his plays on a computer.

But that still means that 300 years ago, they DID pay a phone bill, even if it was just one. How did they pay that one bill when, as Ryan said, it hadn't been invented (the telephone, that is)?

Post by **algonacchick** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:32 am

The song does not say they paid a phone bill. It says that haven't even paid the phone bill in 300 years. I take that to mean that in the 300 years the Amish have been around, they haven't paid a phone bill.

Post by **scottidog** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:28 am

iisryan27 @ Dec 15 2004, 05:11 PM wrote: Don't just tell me that I have way too much free time on my hands

Ok, I won't tell you that. But I will tell you that we already have a topic for this.

Mmmmmmerging....

Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:05 am

algonacchick @ Dec 16 2004, 06:32 AM wrote: The song does not say they paid a phone bill. It says that haven't even paid the phone bill in 300 years. I take that to mean that in the 300 years the Amish have been around, they haven't paid a phone bill.

There is also a line that says :

There's no phone, no lights, no motorcar .

So why should they get a phonebill if they don't have a phone !!

Post by **algonacchick** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:09 am

Good point!

Post by **scottidog** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:13 am

I think we're all missing the deeper underlying meaning of a Phone Bill. Why does it show up repeatedly in Al songs?

Perhaps we'll never know.

Oh, and for the newbs... if you haven't read this whole topic, I recommend it. It's a hoot.

Post by **mewrio** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:13 am

running with Dutch windmills @ Dec 16 2004, 05:05 PM wrote: There is also a line that says :

There's no phone, no lights, no motorcar .

So why should they get a phonebill if they don't have a phone !!

Exactly!

Post by **Akrovak** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:15 am

I haven't read thru this thread, but I like the idea of analyzing songs ... anyway, forgive me if this has been discussed here.

While One More Minute is one of my favorite songs, it can be somewhat confusing and seems to contradict itself.

In one line he sings ... "That's right (that's right) you ain't gonna see me cryin'. I'm glad (I'm glad) that you found somebody new".

And a verse or so later, he follows it up with ... "I'd rather rip out my intestines with a fork Than watch you going out with other men."

So ... is he happy that he doesn't have to spend One More Minute with her because she found someone new, and he's happy about her being able to move on? Or is he bent on self destruction because she did?

Edit: Since posting that, I quickly read thru this topic ... and ... ummm ... well, I suck as far as analyzing goes, so you can just ignore it. Thanks!

Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:55 am

I think it can be explained by the truism that people who have been dumped often say that they don't mind, they're better off without the faithless lover, they're really kind of happy about the way it all turned out... and they're lying through their teeth.

Post by **Akrovak** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:03 am

I can see that (been there, done that). Yeah, it kinda makes sense. But he sounds SOOO sincere when he's singing the line about being glad she's found somebody new.

I think I'm more stuck on the lack of transition than anything else .... but, it's no biggie. Just one of those things that make me (personally) go, "Hmm ... seems outta context".

Has this been discussed ... how "Albuquerque" is really not an original song, but a style parody of "Dick's Automotive", by Rugburn?

(By the way, they ALSO did a song called "Me And Eddie Vedder" ... both of their songs came out a good five years before Al's Running With Scissors)