Talk:Aqualung (song)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

SWLABR

Parts of this song are very very similar to Cream's "SWLABR." 24.34.189.194 20:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The line eyeing little girls with bad intent doenst mean he was thinking badly, its refering to him noticing girls plotting a nasty trick on him. they froze things into his beard while he was sleeping on the cold ground — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.159.50 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Curious

i've always been curious about the title. what does a piece of diving equipment have to do with a homeless bum? was the bum a diver, or perhaps the man who invented the device, during an earlier part of his life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.206.70 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's to do with the heavy, laboured breathing of homeless people due to bad lungs, which sounds like the cliched sound of divers using this equipment in films and so on. Gusssss (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider the lyric "...you snatch your rattling last breath with deep-sea-diver sounds...." Ningauble (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, nobody knows what this song's about, if anything, it's very ambiguous, the beauty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollybzoso (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics during the time had a tendency to be cryptic and poetic in nature, only alluding to the message of the song rather than stating it bluntly. I assure you that it's about a homeless man (I'm actually pretty sure Ian confirmed this at one point) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.39.239 (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Any plans to include the reference in Anchorman, as Ron Burgundy finishes his jazz-flute opus? The sarcastic 'Eh, Aqualung!' surely deserves a mention. -86.147.247.210 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lyrical interpretation

Another editor and I have gotten into a disagreement over the lyrical interpretation of the song. I feel that a closer analysis of the lyrics will reveal that the song isn't to be taken at face-value as being about a pedophile, though there are those who disagree. I, likewise, feel that the quote within the Guitar World interview with Ian Anderson about the origins of the song (see: "Recording" subsection for the mentioned quote), as well as discussions on songmeanings.net and the information noted on songfacts.com (are there any more reliable sources, really, about the song's meaning?) are all indicative of a more subtle interpretation of the lyrics.

Suggested actions are:

- Leave the interpretation I authored as is

- Find a source for the 'pedophile' interpretation

- Remove the lyrical explanation from Wikipedia altogether, if the song's meaning is found to be dubious in nature.

Let's get a discussion going if possible over what is the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.39.239 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You said yourself that the website was a collection of music trivia - in other words, not a reliable source nor appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.. If you can cite the issue of Guitar World in which the interview appeared, that would be much better.

BTW, the term "plumfuck retarded" in your edit summary could be taken as a personal attack on another editor. Radiopathy •talk• 23:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in my judgement that the disagreement concerning the content is due to songfacts.com's nature as a "Self-published or questionable source?" The "Identifying reliable sources page" has a paragraph on the acceptability of such sources: "... with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users."

The citation is of the first two editorial entries (it's not possible to link to those specifically, I believe) rather than the user-generated content further down. The website's staff likewise do not seem to be promoting some extremist view or other, or anything else that I would think would render their content as questionable in nature.

As for the 'personal attack,' I feel that the inclusion of "with all due respect" as well as "that statement" being the subject of the message make it quite apparent that the sentence in question was not an attack on your person. Crass language perhaps, a personal attack not quite. I do apologize for any indiscretions, however, regardless of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.39.239 (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole lyrical interpretation section strikes me as questionable and inappropriate for Wikipedia. The association of the narrator of the song with Ian Anderson himself is taken for granted, though it is hardly a given. Writers do make up characters and have them narrate their own stories in the first person, after all. The pedophilia connection is also debatable, since men in those days often referred to grown women as "little girls" and in the very next song, Aqualung gazes at Cross-Eyed Mary, who, though still in school, is apparently old enough to be running around with older men. Rather than argue about these or other specifics, however, I think the whole section should simply be removed. It would be better to use the space for a discussion of the writing of the song, particularly the contribution of Ian Anderson's first wife, Jennie Franks, who inspired the song and contributed to the lyrics. Craig418 (talk)