Lyrical Analysis - Justin Bieber's "Pray"

Welcome to Lyrical Analysis, where I say things that are probably going to get me in trouble.

Folks... Bieber made a "Contemporary Christian" song. If you aren't slamming your head against the keyboard yet, perhaps you didn't read that correctly. Bieber made a "Contemporary Christian" song.

At least, that's how it's marketed. But let's list things that are never mentioned in this song.

God
Jesus
The Bible
Christianity in any way
The cross
Any sort of Bible story
Any sort of notable Christians of the past two thousand years
Any sort of "beliefs"
Did I mention GOD AND JESUS?

Yeah. So basically, this song is Bieber saying the word "pray" a lot, and hoping Christian audiences will love it. So on that note, let's dive right in to, "Pray".

"And I Pray..."

...That this song won't suck...

"I just can't sleep tonight/Knowing things ain't right/It's in the papers/It's on the TV/It's everywhere that I go/Children are crying/Soldiers are dying/Some people don't have a home"

Oh great, it's going to be a guilt song. You know what I'm talking about. One of those songs that talks about how bad things are around the world, and how I should be ashamed of myself for lounging around listening to music while some kid in Africa starves to death. I hate those songs.

Now don't get me wrong, it is certainly a very sad world we live in. But I don't need a song to tell me about it, and try to guilt me into doing something.

First of all, guilt is just a scare tactic. Guilting someone into doing something is no better than threatening them. You see, threatening someone forces them to do something because they fear for the immediate consequence of not doing it. If they don't do it, you may beat them up, or cause some other sort of issue for them.

Guilt, however, is invoking the fear of the consequence of inaction. For example, guilt, in this way, is causing someone to fear that some child will starve because they didn't take the action to stop it.

Now, at first you may think that this tactic, while not the most ethical, is at least efficient. It gets things done, at least.

There's a line in the movie Inception (If you haven't seen it yet, why not?), "I think a positive emotional response is more effective than a negative one." This line perfectly sums up the flaw with guilting someone into action. Guilt is a negative emotion. You can't guilt someone into really giving their all. You just can't do it. Inside, although they may be doing good, they won't really be putting their heart into it.

It's not enough to guilt someone into doing something. You have to make them want to do it. And that is a lot harder.

You see, if someone legitimately wants to do good, they will be a force to be reckoned with. They'll be more effective at everything they do, because their heart will be in it. They'll want to do what you want them to do, every bit as much as you want them to do it.

So I don't care who it is, guilt songs are not a good thing. They're a scummy scare tactic.

We're two lines in, and I've already done one full blown rant. I knew this would be a good one to finish Bieber Week with.

"But I know there's sunshine behind that rain/I know there's good times behind that pain/Can you tell me how I could make a change?"

Donate the proceeds of this song to charity. Boom.

Correct me if I'm wrong in the comments, as I said, I don't follow Bieber, but scanning the Wikipedia article on this song, I don't see anything indicating he did.

Edit: Alright, I've since been informed that he does in fact donate large amounts of money to charity quite frequently. Fair enough, like I said, I don't follow Bieber, I wouldn't know.

"I close my eyes and I can see a better day/I close my eyes and pray"

References to God in this song so far: 0
References to praying: 2

"I lose my appetite/Knowing kids starve tonight"

Let me translate this lyric from guilt-song-talk into normal speech.

"IF YOU LIVE IN ANY SORT OF COMFORT YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!"

"Am I a sinner/'Cause half my dinner/Is still here on my plate?"

Bieber would have you believe the answer is yes.

Seriously, this ticks me off. This is basically implying if you have any disposable income, have more food than you can eat, or have any luxury items whatsoever, you're somehow doing something WRONG! Well you know what Bieber, you're marketing this as a "Contemporary Christian" song, tapping into your "beliefs", so I have NO PROBLEM pulling out the scripture on you:

(From John 12, NIV, Verses 1-7)
"Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”"

Did you catch that? If not, perhaps I should give you that same passage in MUSICAL FORM!



For those still not getting it, Jesus was relaxing after all the stress of, y'know, living a perfect earthly existence, when Mary Magdalene anointed him with expensive perfume. Judas Iscariot (the same man who would later betray Jesus) said that Jesus was wrong to enjoy the perfume when there would be poor people starving to death. (The same thing Bieber is saying RIGHT NOW.)

Judas said they should sell the perfume and donate the money to the poor (although in truth he just wanted to take the money for himself). How did Jesus respond? By telling Judas that no matter what, there would always be poor people, and that while it's good to want to help the poor, there's nothing wrong with enjoying what YOU have.

In other words Bieber, no, you are not a sinner because half of your dinner is still on your plate. You may be an idiot for asking, but stupidity is not a sin.

Wow, two full blown rants, and we're only halfway through the song.

"Ooh, I got a vision/To make a difference/And it's starting today"

Great. Tell me what it is, and we'll get started on it. Hello? Bieber? Just tell me this so called plan you have. Nothing? Ok.

"Because I know there's sunshine/Behind that rain/I know there's good times/Behind that pain/Heaven tell me I can make a change"

Did you catch that? He's praying, not to GOD, but to HEAVEN. Because saying the word GOD would be too controversial and might hurt sales from the athiest audience. Screw. This. Song. I haven't heard such a messed up perception of what "prayer" is since that episode of Doctor Who where Amy Pond is praying to Santa.

"I close my eyes/And I can see a better day/I close my eyes and pray"

Ok, I have no idea if Bieber is really a Christian or if he just thought this would be good publicity, that's not my place to judge, but assuming that he is, he may be better off opening his eyes and reading the bible, judging from his previous question. Completely serious here.

"I pray for all the brokenhearted/I pray for all the lives not started"

Oh I'm not touching that line with a fifty foot pole.

"I pray for all the lungs not breathing/I pray for all the lives in need a break(?)"

1. That doesn't rhyme.
2. That REALLY doesn't rhyme.
3. You dropped the word "of".

"Can you give 'em one today?"

Break them off a piece of that Kit-Kat bar. C'mon man.

And then, like so many other crappy Bieber songs, we get a minute and a half of the chorus again. Ugh. Despicable.

What a shameful song! I understand that the world is in a bad shape right now, but writing songs like THIS and telling people the BLATANT LIE that it's immoral to live in comfort when someone else is worse off than you is just shameful. This song, quite simply, sucks. Everything about these lyrics is stupid, and obviously trying nothing but to give everyone listening to it a guilt trip, which irritates me to no end, especially knowing that Bieber probably recorded this song in a studio that's more luxurious than the homes of most of the people listening to this song.

This kind of drivel is exactly the problem with so called Christian music. I like Five Iron Frenzy. I like Relient K. I like a lot of other Christian artists, who certainly do NOT sound like this, and who actually sing about CHRISTIANITY!

And thus concludes Bieber week. That's right folks, I survived. 7 Bieber songs in 7 days. And all of them were terrible.

Due to positive feedback for Bieber week, I've decided to try to turn Lyrical Analysis into a weekly feature here at Wherein I Rant About the World. Not just about Bieber of course, there are LOTS of terrible songwriters out there just begging for me to decimate their lyrics. The Black Eyed Peas, Ke-DollarSign-Ha, 3OH!3, none shall be safe from my wrath.

So tune in next Saturday for the first weekly installment of "Lyrical Analysis"! I'll be covering a song worse than any song Bieber has ever made! Yeah folks, it's possible.

Why "California Gurls" Is More Offensive Than "F*** You"

*This post, due to the nature of the subject, will contain videos with more language and sexual content than I would normally post. I will not post the explicit version of "F*** You, but there will still be mild language in most of the videos. You've been warned.*

Well the grammys were not too long ago now, and at the grammy's there was one specific song that gathered a lot of controversy, namely Cee Lo Green's "F*** You". Not only was the song nominated for several awards, but Gwyeneth Paltrow (who performed the song on Glee several months ago) and Cee Lo Green did a duet of the clean version of the song on stage, featuring muppets, a giant peacock costume, and lots and lots of bright colorful things.



Was it too far too take such an "offensive" song and make it "family friendly" by putting muppets in it? Many people asked. Was it too far to make the song in the first place? Many seem to think so, and Cee Lo has taken a lot of heat for it.

Now, let me just say here, I really really like "F*** You" and "Forget You". In fact, they're my favorite single released last year, bar none. I don't swear, because I acknowledge that a lot of people are. I prefer not to hear people swearing, and I understand why people are upset by hearing swearing which is why I certainly don't think "F*** You" should be played on the radio, but if I hear swearing, I'm not going to freak out. I'm not going to get in an uproar over hearing that a song has the word f*** in it.

Because at the core, "F*** You" is a really really good song. Listen to "Forget You", the clean version of the song. Really listen to what it's saying.



It's honestly a pretty inoffensive song. In fact, it a very good song. The music is catchy and compliments the lyrics extremely well, and the lyrics themselves aren't offensive at all. In fact, they're kind of touching. You really get the history the singer and his girlfriend/boyfriend (depending on who's singing) have, and I think we can all understand how much it would suck to have someone leave you because you didn't have enough money for them.

The lyrics bring out a lot of character, and honestly? You feel really bad, and understand where the singer is coming from, whether you're listening to the explicit, or clean versions of the song. At it's core, it is a really really good song.

And then you have "California Gurls".



Now, let me start off by saying, and I'll probably lose a lot of respect from certain people for this, but I actually really like a lot of Katy Perry songs. "Waking Up In Vegas", and "Hot 'n Cold" are both really good songs, and "Teenage Dream" was probably my second favorite pop single last year (Behind "Forget You"). But this song... Ugh.

For those who don't know, let me give a little background on Katy Perry for you. Born Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, Katy Perry, as she would later be known, started off her career as a christian singer. A rather unsuccessful one at that. Of course, then she realized she could make considerably more money by compromising any values she supposedly once had by releasing the hit pop single "I Kissed A Girl (And I Liked It)"



While I have problems with that song for a WHOLE other set of reasons, that actually did get controversy and it's not what I'm talking about today.

After a string of singles I really really did like, as I said above (Teenage Dream is a great song, and you are WRONG if you say otherwise.) she released the little song "California Gurls".

"California Gurls" is, in my opinion, far more offensive than "F*** You" is, and not because of swearing.

I think the main reason "F*** You" is taking more heat than Katy Perry's musical disaster is that we, as a society, need to learn that there are more offensive things than a bad word. More damaging things. Like I said above, I understand why people are offended by "F*** You". That's why it's not played on the radio, and "Forget You" is. However "California Gurls" is played on the radio.

Why do I find "California Gurls" more offensive? Simple. Yes, "F*** You" has swearing in it. Lots and lots of swearing. "California Gurls", however, is all about sexual innuendo and objectifying women. Which is NOT ok. Let me post a few lines from the song.

"Sun kissed skin so hot we'll lick your popsicle"

"Sex on the beach, we got sand in our stilleto's. We freak in my jeep,"

And of course the entire Snoop Dog rap,

"Toned, tan, fit and ready
Turn it up cause its gettin' heavy
Wild wild west coast
These are the girls I love the most
I mean the ones, I mean like shes the one
Kiss her, touch her, squeeze her buns.

Come on boys, hanging out
All that *** hanging out
Bikinis, tankinis, martinis, no weenies
Just to get in betweeny'
Katy my lady (yeah)
You looking here baby (uh huh)
I'm all up on you
Cause you representing California"

So basically the whole song is just sexual innuendo (most of it painfully stupid innuendo at that), and on occasion just a sexual comment with no pretense of being something else. And yet "F*** You" is considered more upsetting? How?

The key difference between "F*** You" and "California Gurls" is that "California Gurls" is completely gratuitous. Say what you will about "F*** You" being offensive, you have to admit, Cee Lo gets a lot of emotion into those two words, in either the clean or explicit version. "California Gurls" however, is just sex for the sake of sex.

Speaking of gratuitous sex, let's look at the music videos shall we?

First let's look at the music video for "Forget You". (No I won't post the one for "F*** You". It still has some language in it though, so be prepared.)



This is a GREAT music video. It goes through the life of a young boy (Cee Lo Green) as he constantly tries to get a girl to fall for him, but just like in the song, she's not interested in him because he's not rich enough for her. It's, like the song, touching, interesting, and tells us a lot about the characters within four minutes. It's certainly the best music video I saw released last year. A lot better than "Teenage Dream"'s, at least, my OTHER favorite pop song of the year (Behind this single, for those wondering).

And then we have the video for "California Gurls". (No kidding, this video contains a lot of sexual themes, and a Katy Perry wearing... Well... Very VERY little. If you're going to be offended... Don't watch it.)



Good god. Now, maybe this song wouldn't be THAT offensive without... This... Thing... The song, personally, I dislike because of the blatant sexism in it, but I won't deny it has a catchy chorus and beat. In fact, I know of quite a few parodies that I quite like because of the beat. In fact, if I could ignore the verses, I may even LIKE this song.

But then there's THIS video that's just... WOW. Where do I start? The fact that it's OBVIOUSLY trying to be a LOT hotter than it actually manages to be? The outfits? The nude Katy Perry blocked only by a cloud? The giant cupcakes being worn on the women's chests?



Yes. There's all of that. There's one sexual innuendo after another. And finally... There is this.



What the forget?

Seriously. This video, and this song, are a LOT more offensive, and a LOT more harmful to young people than anything in either "Forget You" or "F*** You". Yes, Cee Lo said a bad word. Katy Perry did THIS.

This is more offensive than hearing the word f***, to me at least. This might even be more offensive than "I Kissed A Girl"! And this, as opposed to "F*** You" is being played on the radio. Sure, they edited out a word or two, but not the offensive bits.

Seriously. This is worse than "F*** You". Get over Cee Lo, and start hating on Katy Perry! And please, not just because she wore a dress that made her look like a girl of questionable morals on Sesame Street.

I Think That Sums It Up Pretty Well

Ahhh Totalbiscuit. You crack me up. You're correct though, of course, that TRH is the stupidest thing I've seen in quite a while.

"But Zul," I hear you asking, "What on earth is wrong with TRH?" Well simple, it's $25. No, not 25 virtual dollars, $25, real life dollars.

For those who don't understand, TRH is part of the recently implemented Blizzard Pet Store, where you pay real life money for pets, and mounts, in World of Warcraft. I like pets, I like mounts, I do not like paying $10 for a pet, and $25 for a mount. That's absurd.

Mounts in WoW allow your character to move faster, and while awesome, and I do have a lot of Mounts in WoW, I find $25 to be a BIT PRICEY for something that is NO BETTER than the ones already in game. The only difference is how it looks.

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with this if the pets were just say, $2.50, or even $5, and the mounts were $5, or heck, $7.50, but $25?! That's insane!

So, surely no one is actually buying this? SURELY no one is paying $25 for a reskin?

The thing has been out for less than 24 hours and the queue to download it is already at 140,000.

I blame Bobby.



You see, about a year and 3/4ths ago, Activision bought Blizzard. About a month later, Wrath of the Lich King was given a release date, and released half finished. ever since then it's been one money grab after another. But it's ok, just keep throwing money at him people, maybe he'll retire after you give him yet ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS.

That was sarcasm. Don't do that. Don't do that at all.