Cheers Neo - btw Mr King is the other half - the one in the pub. I am the Mrs.
'Paw - its those complex relationships between singer song & audience that are fascinating! I am trying SO hard at the moment to understand what it is that makes some performers so watchable and likeable, and the key is in those relationships I'm sure. There are some people who just make you love them as soon as they start to perform, and I would love to bottle that!
Ebbie - the tune may make a difference, but the words don't come across as wistful. Poignant yes, but because it speaks of those intense exhilarating emotional moments. But then I suppose that's part of what this thread is about; the fact that what we see in our own song (ie what we actually mean) is not necessarily what the listener sees (he/she is looking from a different angel & with different references). That is the way in all communication, but because a song is a single complete item of communication that difference of interpretation can be (or seem) more important?
Mole - that anthology must be bizarre. Do you think it would unsettle people because they would have no guidance as to whether they were 'right' to like or dislike the individual poems? I think that might worry me (pathetic though it is to admit). There is a group element to accepting/rejecting art, which again is part of the audience reaction.
McGrath - believe me I had to think hard about which spelling was which!!! - also, I agree about 6 of the best - could be a bit distracting, but its such a yummy phrase that it had to stay.
So the new slant to the question is : should we try to map and manipulate the relationships around a song, or just accept that they are too complex to attempt to control & just go with the flow. Ie - should we be all that concerned about songs that don't go down well, or just enjoy the ones that shine when they happen. Work at it, or trust to magic?

Kris PS - we've sort of drifted off of the navel thing, but I think that's OK. Its OK to let one question lead to another?