Well, Steve, Dick may well be pissing you off with his postings of lyrics, but I'm quite enjoying them. The one you're defending so ardently is doggerel. You defeat your own argument when you suggest that Dick should go and investigate other sources in order to have the words explained to him. When I'm looking at a painting, or listening to a string quartet, or reading a poem, I don't expect to have to go to have it "explained" by somebody else who is, supposedly, a far lesser talent that the artist himself (otherwise he would have written it!). As long as my mind is open, I expect a confrontation with that work of art that is meaningful on some level to me there and then. As I refine my mind and gain experience, I might return to the work later and be enlightened on more levels. But the onus is on the artist to make that initial communication. Good art can edify on many different levels and good art is not created for an in-crowd or for "sophisticated" aficionados. When I say edify, I mean that it should enlighten, not confuse or turn people off. It's about drawing people in to notions that may have been inchoate in their minds, or. Or in their minds at all, but which the artist can untangle. Inane, meaningless ramblings uttered in a tortuous, sinuous voice have a big hill to climb.