0
MrGuedes Posted 13 years ago
Song Writing & Lyrics
Only teardrops...
Hello! Not meaning to create discussions which are out of any context English Forums was designed for, I have a question related with the lyrics of the song Only Teardrops, which has recently won the Eurovision.
When I was told Denmark had won the Eurovision, I had to listen to their song. When I did so, I noticed something odd. It seemed to me like she was singing things that semantically would make no sense, for example these two verses that got stuck in my head: "How many times can we break the walls between us? / Only teardrops" (I later discovered it was rules, not walls.)
"Only teardrops" cannot be the answer to that question, nor to any of the 4 questions she makes in the refrain, which also start with "How many times...?" (or can it?...)
Therefore, could anyone, please, explain me what does that mean? The questions could be there alone in the refrain, and we would be supposed to reflect about the answer. But that doesn't happen. She says "Only teardrops" amidst those questions, as though she were answering, but that possibility would make no sense...
What does it mean, then? Thank you in advance!
When I was told Denmark had won the Eurovision, I had to listen to their song. When I did so, I noticed something odd. It seemed to me like she was singing things that semantically would make no sense, for example these two verses that got stuck in my head: "How many times can we break the walls between us? / Only teardrops" (I later discovered it was rules, not walls.)
"Only teardrops" cannot be the answer to that question, nor to any of the 4 questions she makes in the refrain, which also start with "How many times...?" (or can it?...)
Therefore, could anyone, please, explain me what does that mean? The questions could be there alone in the refrain, and we would be supposed to reflect about the answer. But that doesn't happen. She says "Only teardrops" amidst those questions, as though she were answering, but that possibility would make no sense...
What does it mean, then? Thank you in advance!
Top answer
Not knowing the song, I can only guess that "Only teardrops" means I can't answer the question. My only answer is to cry. But that wouldn't be very poetic, would it?
- Not knowing the song, I can only guess that "Only teardrops" means I can't answer the question.
- My only answer is to cry.
- But that wouldn't be very poetic, would it?
- CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
14 Answers
0
Not knowing the song, I can only guess that "Only teardrops" means
I can't answer the question. My only answer is to cry.
But that wouldn't be very poetic, would it?
CJ
I can't answer the question. My only answer is to cry.
But that wouldn't be very poetic, would it?
CJ
00
No, it wouldn't, in my opinion, CalifJim. I really hope I'm missing something very obvious, because I don't want to say the chorus of her song makes no sense without being sure of that. I prefer to say that I'm stupid. However, so far, the evidence seem to be pointing to the fact that it does make no sense... I just guess most of the audience who voted for her didn't care about the words they were
00
0
I agree with CJ's suggested meaning.
I can't answer the question. My only answer is to cry.
But I think it is reasonably poetic.
Clive
I can't answer the question. My only answer is to cry.
But I think it is reasonably poetic.
Clive
00
My point is that, if "Only teardrops" can't be the answer to those questions, it's probably an isolated sentence, having little or nothing to do with the previous questions. But if so, it has to have a verb, something that will indicate the main "action", right? I mean, Only teardrops what?
That verb wouldn't be needed if "Only teardrops" were an answer to the questio
That verb wouldn't be needed if "Only teardrops" were an answer to the questio
00
In poetry and in lyrics, the meaning is not usually explained in simple and complete sentences with perfect grammar.
Perhaps in your native language it is, but not in English.
Clive
Perhaps in your native language it is, but not in English.
Clive
00
OK, Clive. The problem with that is that it's not intuitive, and one cannot understand the meaning of something one is trying to say. It's as if I said "You", and you'd be like "Me what? What did I do?". It's the same problem. You wouldn't know what I was referring to. It could be anything! (that makes sense, obviously)
00
I agree too with Clive and CJ, if we write a more complete sentence, like "because of all the prior, we only are obtaining teardrops" or similar, clearly the text is grammatically better, but musically it must be worst (I'm not a musician, I'm only suppose it), and moreover, the meaning (only teardrops) is easily infered reading the previous text of the lyrics:
- "Eye for an eye, why tea
- "Eye for an eye, why tea
00
But I can think of contexts in which it is fine to say 'You'.
I wouldn't just walk into a room full of strangers and say ''You'.
I wouldn't just walk into a room full of strangers and say ''You'.
00
OK, never mind about that. It's good I have someone agreeing with me, saying it's not grammatically good. But now you see that the problem of not making these lyrics clear is that, sometimes, discussions like this one are what it takes to know what she actually meant. And even now, we can't be sure...
0
Related Questions