Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonWhy don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?

I'm not sure how this could be misconstrued as good writing, but I'll break it down if I have to.

First of all, the President is commander-in-chief of the military. Were he to fight in the war we'd probably, I'm sorry, definitely, end up with a nation in turmoil. But since they don't mean it literally, let's take a look at how utterly retarded it is figuratively. Why does America take advantage of the plight of the poor by forcing them to join the army and go to fight? Such is the question System of a Down asks. I'm not sure if they've heard the term "volunteer army" but technically the president is sending "the army" not "the poor," and I think the reason why is that it's the army's...what's that word...job. Honestly the first time I heard it, I thought it was supposed to be making fun of generic punk rock. I thought they couldn't seriously write something so trite, generic, and overdone. Turns out I was wrong.

My Sweet revenge is in the making it's for the taking. I don't even understand why you'd choose this line. There's nothing special about it, save the fact that it rhymes. Nothing poetic in these words. Really it's just pretentious garbage that pretends to be high-minded. Clever lyrics are supposed to be clever, not junk. What part of this is clever? My sweet revenge is in the making...it's for the taking? I don't understand how this particular line speaks to you. Yeah, he's gonna make revenge and take revenge and he's worked it into a phrase that has a slightly different meaning. Ok, working puns that moronic and obvious into a line has been done...by Spinal Tap. If System of a Down didn't take themselves seriously, I'd think they were ok. But they do, so they're not. Besides, all the atonal screaming alone is enough to tell you to shy away from their music. Any music that involves that hideous screamo yell can automatically be labeled as "produced by musicians too poor to understand melody and cadence."

You raise some interesting points, ("the President is commander-in-chief of the military. Were he to fight in the war we'd probably, I'm sorry, definitely, end up with a nation in turmoil.") - but I don't think these lyric's apply solely to the recent Iraqi war - there have been many wars across the globe this particular song could be applied to, and "President" could be replaced with "Prime Minister", "Consul" or even "Mein Furer"; the point is much the same. I know this isn't the song you applied this to, but this is why their lyrics and other songs appeal to me.

--------------------------------------

"There's nothing special about it, save the fact that it rhymes. Nothing poetic in these words. Really it's just pretentious garbage that pretends to be high-minded."

How many artists in the history of music (Balck Sabbath, Led Zepplin, Iron Maiden, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones) haven't used lines purely for the reason for that fact they rhyme? If you could give me some examples of lyrics that are "clever", perhaps I could understand more where you're coming from; however, does the fact that the word rhyme make their songs any less worth listening to?

To call something moronic because it has a different point of view seems, to me, in itself egocentric.

I'll clarify this with my earlier statement:

"(In my opinion) some songs (whoever the artist) should be delved into and they have a deep meaning; others should simply be taken on face value."

This is starting to sound like a debate I don't think either of us can win - perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

I do respect your opinion, and I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just saying there's other points of view. System (perhaps not in the songs I've quoted, but certainly in other songs) raise these other points of view, which I'm willing to absorb and make my own decision on.

I mean no offence, I'm just coming from somewhere else that is different from where you're coming from.