It's about four minutes to hold your sweetie close and sway back and forth on the dance floor.
That's about all the significance a good slow-dance song really needs.
(In response to this bit of news here. You can find other speculations on the song's meaning here.)
Comments (5)
I think it's just another example of self-important 1960s quasi-existential babble designed to seem like it means something to those groovy enough to get it.
Posted by WF | June 5, 2005 10:30 PM
Posted on June 5, 2005 22:30
Aw, lighten up, WF. I enjoy a highly literate song with well-turned phrases as much as the next music fan. Yet I also enjoy music that's just goofy fun, like "Louie Louie," "Surfin' Bird" and "Wooly Bully." Nonsense doesn't offend me in music as much as willful ignorance and stupidity.
Anyway, I've always thought "A Whiter Shade of Pale" was about a rock singer's exhilaration of performing who lost the magic as soon as he thought too much about it. Then again, the song is wide-open to interpretation. That's OK with me.
Posted by W. | June 6, 2005 2:04 AM
Posted on June 6, 2005 02:04
Johann Sebastian Bach just called, he wants his melody back. ;)
Posted by Matthew | June 6, 2005 1:15 PM
Posted on June 6, 2005 13:15
My husband's face on our wedding day~
Posted by red head | June 6, 2005 3:14 PM
Posted on June 6, 2005 15:14
Whiter Shade of Pale was never designed to be anything.It's not existentialist babble. It's just a set of impressions. It has no meaning other than what you care to imbue it with.
Keith Reid has said that himself. "I ws trying to paint a wpicture with words."
It' makes it as unpretentious as possible. It's just a set of images
and he intended it to have no rational explanation whatsoever. It pays to know the details about a piece of music or a set of words before accusing it of self-importance.
Posted by Cerdes | June 21, 2005 11:47 AM
Posted on June 21, 2005 11:47