Love songs and basic astronomy.
Last weekend I was at the wedding of a family friend during which they played a slide show of the couple's lives set to pop love songs.
I like love songs. I think love is worth writing music about. I've even been known to get a little misty eyed at shamelessly melodramatic lyrics. But there was one song that they played which really drove me up a wall. It had a nice premise about how God creates individuals for specific relationships, but the musical bridge presented a hurdle that I just could not jump. It went like this:
I like love songs. I think love is worth writing music about. I've even been known to get a little misty eyed at shamelessly melodramatic lyrics. But there was one song that they played which really drove me up a wall. It had a nice premise about how God creates individuals for specific relationships, but the musical bridge presented a hurdle that I just could not jump. It went like this:
He made the sun and made the moon
to harmonize in perfect tune.
One can't move without the other;
they just have to be together.
And this is how I know it's true
that you're for me and I'm for you...
Okay- bad, bad science. Perhaps I am overreacting in light of the intended romantic idea, but come on! Every eighth grader knows that the sun is not affected by the moon's movement. And the moon, although it's orbit is slightly bent by the sun, is primarily bound to the gravity of the earth. The analogy doesn't work in any way. And a lover who does consider the sun and moon to be in some sort of mutual-celestial bond is unfortunately stuck in the Ptolemaic, geocentric age of science. That is definitely not sexy.
But am I expecting too much? Am I just overreacting to a sentimental metaphor that everyone else takes in stride? I don't know. I can only hope that I never hear a song about how "you balance me like a leech for the humours." We have to draw the line somewhere.
posted by Erin 12:40 PM
11 Comments:
Newtonian physics dictate that the Moon is indeed affected by the Sun and, indeed, the Sun is affected by the Moon because both have mass.
Regarding the lyrics, arguably "one" cannot move without "the other", where one is the Moon and the other is the Sun. The entire Solar System, if we are to accept the theoretical synopsis of its inception, came from the Sun.
However, in the grand scheme of things the movement of the Sun and Moon are insignificant when you consider they must be following roughly the same vector through space-time with only minor variation. I suppose it all depends on where the observer is.
Just a counterpoint...
You are right. And please notice that I do nod to the idea of the moon's orbit being somewhat altered by the sun. The reverse is too little to have any measurable astronomic effect as I understand it.
But then that creates a scenario of human relationships where one's existence is entirely dependent on the other- in fact "birthed" from the other in your stipulations.
Still not very romantic...
"Bad science! Bad! Down from the sofa. Get down! Look at what you...oh...I didn't mean it, Science. Come here, boy. Good Science."
If anyone were to write the song about humours that you suggest, I would daresay it would be the Magnetic Fields. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have, in fact.
Oh, and nice to see you have a drunk check on your reply postings, now.
But then that creates a scenario of human relationships where one's existence is entirely dependent on the other- in fact "birthed" from the other in your stipulations.
Keeping it in the family? But then again, I'm fairly certain without this birthed facet that in many cases one's existence is dependent on the other.
There are at least some acceptable metaphors in there. One can be eclipsed by the other, one is warm and illuminating the other cold but reflective, when viewed from the Earth one is big and bold the other small and unassuming, one flares up occasionally and the other disappears (even though you know it's there).
Sounds just like a relationship/marriage to me. Mind you, I'm not one for all that sloppy stuff; and like yourself I think romantic allusions to astronomical entities are often unjustified and unsupportable.
Tried it with the missus once, just to be romantic - "What do you mean I'm like the Moon? A great barren rock floating in space? Perhaps you were referring to the size of my behind?" Not a good move.
I think that I just have a problem with being romantic sometimes. I'm not even sure what ME being romantic would even look like? Is that wrong to think of myself so poorly in that context? That being said, is it wrong to think of movies like "The Notebook" and "Titanic" to be sappy, overly-cliched, sentimental, tacky crap?
All THAT being said, I can't seem to eject "X & Y" from Coldplay out of my CD player. Does that even make sense?
Don't know much about history, don't know much trigonometry, don't know much about a science book, don't remember all the French I took. . . But I do know that I love you, and I know that if you love me, too, what a wonderful world it would be.
At least that one makes no pretentions. :-)
Well, N...I mean, have you looked for the button? Usually, there's a little button that you can push or otherwise manipulate, and it will inspire your electronic device to spit forth the offending disc. If you can't locate the button, maybe call the company?
:)
Fell- I can see why that might get you in trouble. Next time try "You are the beam of light for me in this dark, cruel world." It might help the simile.
N- Of course it's tacky crap. That's why it sells! Who wants to see a film about loving someone while they have food poisoning and a bad case of athlete's foot? On second thought, maybe there is a niche market for that out there somewhere...
Nancy- Now there's a love song that I can sing along with. At least he sells it straight. It is a welcome contrast.
Dot- My clever, clever friend.
You are too funny! Great Blog!
I like the idea of being dependent on my husband for meny things... but I don't like to think that I would not be able to exist without him. In fact, I know that I could keep going without him - the ride would just be rough for awhile. I don't think he would want me to depend my entire life's existence on him either.
We print wedding invitations where I work that say "I laugh with you, dream with you, live for you, love you". It's amazing how many times we have people requesting to have the "live for you" part out of it.
Funny, I can see both sides of the argument about "living for someone". Taking that saying literally isn't good. I mean, I wouldn't die just because my husband died. However, there is something to be said for "dying to your own selfish desires and choosing to serve your spouse with your life". If a person doesn't include that into their vows somehow, I would advise that they not get married. Of course, being a Christian, adds another component to the relationship. For you have already died to yourself and given your life to Christ, this makes this relationship easier as serving your spouse is encompassed by living for Christ. By doing one, you are automatically succeeding in the other.
Post a Comment
<< Home