Lyrics Talk:I'm Your Boyfriend Now (Demo)
From This Might Be A Wiki
(Redirected from Lyrics Talk:I'm Your Boyfriend Now)
I'd always thought it was "and I know that the restraining order wasn't meant to be" (instead of "hurt"). Maybe I'm the only one. ~ magbatz 17:15, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
- It is "be," Linnell just kinda says "buh." Fixed! -CapitalQ ♫ talk ♪ 17:23, 21 May 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah, his voice on that kinda reminds me of "All Alone" when he sings "behold the mystery, behoold, the mysteryyyyyy"
- I don't see how it sounds like "be" at all. I just listened to it like 15 times over and over. Only thing I hear is "hurt". --Valerie 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry guys, he's definitely saying "Wasn't meant to hurt". That's all I've ever heard, and if you think about it saying "the restraining order wasn't meant to be" doesn't even make any sense in the song. Let's be reasonable here! --Oddjob 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just throw this out here, I hear "be", kind of like the expression "It wasn't meant to be" when you are talking about relationships that don't work out. So it does make sense, if you interpret it as a play on words, which I do. --Jade 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, having the phrase in the re-recording would have solved everything. But it's not, so I am going to make a case for "Be": "Meant to be" is a much more common phrase. A google-fight shows "Meant to be" against "Meant to hurt" as having 24.9 times as many results. It's useless arguing over what we hear, because I am so strongly convinced it sounds like "be," and I'm sure people who hear "hurt" are just as grounded in their opinion. So let's look at which lyric makes more sense (although they both would work).
- The song is one of a deranged and unrealistic narrator who believes that the object of his attention, who in reality does not like him, does want him. So, under this premise, would he make the conclusion that: A) When she got a restraining order against him, it was not her intention to hurt the narrator's feelings; or B) the restraining order she had previously had against him would be called off, in order for them to be together. The latter makes the most sense to me. If she did not mean to hurt the narrator with the act of a restraining order, does that mean that she does not want him restrained from her, and thus wants to be with him? Possibly, but not entirely. If she did not mean to hold the restraining order against him forever, does that mean that she does not want him restrained from her, and thus wants to be with him? Mos def. ~ magbatz 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm jumping in the side of "hurt" here. As mentioned above, the narrator is deranged. He hears voices in his head. It makes much more sense for the woman in question to have filed a restraining order against him due to the crazy, stalking thing. The narrator, in his derangement, accepts that she has done it, but doesn't see it as a sign that she wants him to stay away. Rather, he's thinking, "She did this thing that on the surface seems to hurt me and the chances for our relationship, but I know she didn't really mean it so I'm going to continue anyway."
- The only way to interpret it as "be" would be for the narrator to say the restraining order wasn't meant to exist. The phrase "wasn't meant to be" is associated with feelings of regret. Why would the narrator regret the lack of existence of the restraining order? ~ dogonfire
- It's not that the restraining order was not meant to exist, that does not make an ounce of sense. The narrator hopes that there is hope in the restraining order ending. "Wasn't meant to be" (which, if I may emphasize again, is a phrase that is 25 times—not just twice but 25 times—more common than the alternative) means that there is something currently in place that will probably be coming to a close. In terms of the plot, believing that the restraining order isn't permanent gives the narrator further reason to uphold that he does indeed have a chance with her. (As opposed to my reasons, the other side's argument seems to be that the narrator is deranged and subject to delusion, and thus the line doesn't need to be logical, even when a line that does follow a train of thought is also offered.) Whatever the case, I am leaving both (equally) until it gets settled. ~ magbatz 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)