If you think I'm turning into a grinch and complaining about the idea of having fun, you'll be disappointed. I'm talking about the band, Fun. And no, I don't really hate them; if you read my previous posts on One Direction and Train, you'll see I'm being very overstated in that regard. I don't hate Fun, I have one particular gripe with them. No it's not the use of auto-tune, or how bad they sounded when I heard them live on TV. It's one particular sentence in their hit single, 'We are young'. The line goes:
So if by the time the bar closes
And you feel like falling down
I’ll carry you home
You may not realise it, but that sentence is an abomination. The problem comes from that 'and' masquerading at the beginning of the second line; it wrecks the sentence. I'll explain in more detail. In English, we have simple sentences, and then we have clauses inside those sentences. You can break them up into units of thought to make it clearer. So when this is broken up we get 'by the time the bar closes' as a separate phrase; that leaves the 'if' hanging- what completes that 'if' clause?
It should be completed as 'so if... you feel like falling down'. But it's not, because there's a ridiculous 'and' in the middle of the line which makes it read 'so if and you feel...", which is utter nonsense. It's not like the 'and' is particularly important to the line- it could have been a syllable left out. But no, they had to go and break the English language. And the fact that no one notices this annoys me even more. Talk about reinforcing bad habits! And that is why I hate Fun!
Q.E.D.
Surely it was meant to be read as: "So, if by the time the bar closes and you feel like falling down, I'll carry you home tonight." Simply put that if you can't walk when the bar closes I will carry you.
ReplyDeleteNot everything needs to be perfect and to hate on something just because it doesn't live up to a traditional grammatical standard is ridiculous. If you were to apply your standards to the great poets' works, not the I am saying fun. are in the same category, then surely Shakespeare, Frost, Wordsworth, Poe, et al. should be equally hated. I can hardly say that any of the aforementioned poets have broken the English language.
Food for thought.
I respect your right to express your opinion, and hope you respect my right to disagree with you completely. First, you'll notice this a satirical piece. Second your affirmation of the incorrect sentence shows either you don't understand the point or your don't care, and I dislike that either way. Your mention of poets misses the point; Shakespeare and others lived in a time where language was developing on a far greater scale and literacy was not commonplace. Furthermore, poets would take liberties to suit say a meter or to express a line better, but they knew what they were doing and sometimes would do this for effect. For them, their words were their only medium. Modern pop songs are completemy different; they comprise several media, of which text is only one and a seemingly lowly one at that. Few songs these days focus on text over other elements, and often it is irrelevant. Sure, there is a lot worse language out there than this, but that's not an argument is it? All I'm saying is that this line is blatantly wrong- you could hardly pass it off as deliberate anacoluthon- and that it is bad because it is wrong. You can't defend it. Saying it shouldn't have to live up to a 'traditional grammatical standard' is a crap argument, because you're basically saying you can do whatever you want with our language and no one should attack you for it. If you would like to come up with a coherent, rational argument that doesn't use wild exaggerations to prove a fallacious notion, then maybe I might consider your point some more. If that's what you consider food for thought, then my brain would starve.
DeleteI pity you. Your instant jump to an ad hominen attack has meant that you have not engaged with the points I raised but instead have focused on attacking me ie. "shows either you don't understand the point or your don't care, and I dislike that either way." Yes, the piece may be intended an item of satire, a point I immediately picked up on re the title, but that does not foreclose any rational discussion on the piece. Perhaps the reason your brain would starve is that you are unwilling to accept that concepts and institutions such as language and art are in a constant state of development and thus can not be viewed as fixed. For you sake I have restated my argument with some response to the issues you raised above. If you can bare to read them without finding it necessary to attack me I would enjoy you thoughts on the arguments below.
ReplyDeleteSo, assuming you first premise to be correct, you are arguing that as language and literature are more common place in modern time then there can be no scope for modern artists to "take liberties to suit say a meter or to express a line better". Additionally this premise presupposes that the English language has reached a finite point of development, presupposition that cannot be allowed to stand.
I can not accept the premise that historical artists (if you may permit me to call people such as Shakespeare this)were limited to a single medium, in the example you presented as text. May I remind you that your first premise states that literacy was not wide spread and that it is only in recent times that the focus has gone away from the actual performance of the text. Shakespeare and many historical artists intended there works to be performed and not read, in much the same way the modern pop artists intent there work to be viewed.
The primary consumption of pop music is auditory, exactly the same way that historical artists' work was intended to be consumed. Therefore surly it is plausible to assume that modern artists should be granted similar liberties as historical artists.
In regards to the actual text in question once again. What we see is a first conditional statement with an if-clause in the present tense and a
main clause with a future simple. The primary if-clause is is made up of a conjunction "by the time the bar closes"+"you feel like falling down" with the intended future action of the main clause being " I will carry you home". Whilst this is not necessarily the most common use of a conditional statement it is grammatically sound and the artist has "take[n] liberties to suit say a meter or to express a line better".
Even if you don't accept the grammatical correctness of the statement there is solid evidence to support that this is a deliberate anacoluthon. Aanacolutha are often used to express a specific mood and in this sense it matches with the music behind the lyrics. If you can recall the song the aforementioned lyrics comes just before the swell associated with the chorus of the song. It expresses as sense of excitement towards the perceived youth and subsequent excitement that comes with being young that the authors feels and thus it can potentially be justified.
First, you misunderstood me. My point about writers in previous times was that the language was not at a point where there were set spellings for words, let along grammatical points. Today there are well-established grammatical rules in English, but people seem to ignore them when they please. If you look outside of English at other major languages (I'll speak only for the ones I know) they certainly don't have such a laissez-faire attitude to grammar- take the Germans for example, they are quite strict on theirs, but then again their language is much older than ours. Obviously slang and vulgar language appears in any language but it surely must not be encouraged or justified?
DeleteI never suggested that poets could take more liberties because of this then; they still can, and probably for more effect now. I just wouldn't class a pop band in this category and certainly don't see this as deliberate. Second, when I meant text was the medium I didn't mean reading- I meant that words were the main focus. Obviously plays were to be performed; poetry was still perhaps more limited but that's not the point. The point is when compared to songs, the words have far more focus- a song has many other layers to it, with music, rhythm, sound etc. Third, you're missing the point on the mistake. The sentence is absolutely fine without the 'and'. It simply shouldn't be there. You can't justify it, it doesn't make sense. It's not the sort of liberty you should really take to fit the meter, and anyway that would require actual understanding of the mistake in the first place, which I doubt is there. For the same reason I cannot possibly believe this is a deliberate anacoluthon. The idea is quite laughable. These guys are a POP BAND for god's sake. They're not bloody Keats or Ovid or something!!
This isn't an ad hominem (note the spelling) attack, I'm attacking your points! Also please note: 'their' is the possessive, 'there' is the demonstrative.
to Anonymous ~ Ahh, sorry to poke at a word usage, but 'bare' (in the sentence 'If you can bare to read them without finding it necessary to attack me') is supposed to be 'bear'.
Delete'Bare' means naked.
Ironically Fun is a new expression for Nate Ruess, who was previously with a band who I really enjoyed, called The Format. Perhaps this (wildly less successful) lyric will come closer to meeting your grammatical standards: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/format/dogproblems.html
ReplyDeleteYES, that was one of the first things I noticed!
ReplyDeleteIt could have been "(beat) so by the time the bar closes, if you feel like falling down" ... BUT NO, as you say they had to go breaking it.
AAAaaauuughhh.
I hate the band Fun because their voices are EXTREMELY obnoxious.
ReplyDeleteLast time I ranted about hating Fun, I ended up at the doctors for depression
ReplyDeletedude, that was bad.....
DeleteJust go and slap yourself...
Now!
WOW Mr. Anonymous. Get off your soap box for a minute and listen. There's a difference between bending grammatical rules to more effectively portray an artistic thought, and just being grammatically incorrect for no reason at all. The cadence of the lyric would not be affected by removing the 'and,' therefore you can't deduct that the lyric was a product of an artistic liberty. It doesn't make sense, "so if by the time the bar closes..." presents the question of what the result of the bar closing would be. You wouldn't begin the second part of that with 'and.' It has no logical artistic, or musical reason to be there. This is of course making the logical assumption that the person feeling like falling down is not predetermined to simultaneously occur with the closing of the bar. For example, if the lyric was "So if by the time the bar closes, and they lock the doors...." it would be a logical assumption that they did occur simultaneously since the two actions are recognizably linked. However, in the actual lyrics, that is not the case. To sum it up, you're reading way too far into a song writer that probably could not pass a high school English class. Plain and simple...
ReplyDeleteI just hate fun because their music is lame. How that tripe was nominated for multiple awards speaks volumes about the music buying public at the moment. They probably even think that it is rock, just like Coldplay!
ReplyDelete