It’s not my interpretation it’s literally his words that are sourced above this shouldn’t even be an argument.
-
Writes a song he explicitly states in the above sourced interview that it’s specifically about killing his baby momma.
-
Says don’t take it literally but also that he wanted to do it at the time.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong I’m saying it is exactly what it is and meant exactly what he meant it to mean art or not, but in this case why aren’t you willing to trust the artists word.
Think about it. If the only purpose was a desire to kill the person, why write a song, why not actually do it? The obvious answer is, because he knows that would be wrong, so writing a song about it instead is a way to vent and express emotions.
The topic of the song is literally about killing someone, but that is not why it was made (how could it be, writing a song doesn’t kill someone) and it’s not why people listen. There is more to art than the literal subject matter.
I think what you’re missing is that just because many people don’t threaten those kinda actions doesn’t mean that nobody wants to do it.
No, I get that.
That isn’t however the issue I responded to, all I said is there is no nuance to it that will excuse the behavior. People may feel that way from time to time, not many of us will have written a multi million dollar earning song. He felt so shitty about it he would later write a song specifically saying that he talks about violent shit and no one should take it too much to heart and act a fool in their own life.
So if you’re aware that this is not meant to be taken literally and that enough people relate to that feeling, what are you complaining about? Nobody is trying to excuse murder.
Describing feelings and situations is one way to understand and handle them. For oneself, of course, and for others dealing with similar stuff. That’s why people write diaries, for example. This is one basic function of communication.
Lol wow doubling down on not understanding art and then explaining exactly what you don’t get is peak irony, and frankly simply hilarious.
Waaait guys, folks, hold up easy solution to this dilemma:
Why don’t you give us the lyrics you are referring to. That should clear this all up, right?
A murderous ode to his on-again-off-again relationship, “97 Bonnie and Clyde” brings father and daughter together to dispose of Scott’s dead body in the ocean. For extra authenticity, Eminem brought Hailie to the studio to record a vocal part for the track. “I lied to Kim and told her I was taking Hailie to Chuck E. Cheese that day,” he remembered in Rolling Stone. “But I took her to the studio. When she found out I used our daughter to write a song about killing her, she f—ing blew. We had just got back together for a couple of weeks. Then I played her the song, and she bugged the f— out.”
LYRICS: C’mon Hai-Hai, we going to the beach Grab a couple of toys and let Dada strap you in the car seat Oh, where’s Mama? She’s taking a little nap in the trunk Oh, that smell? Dada must’ve runned over a skunk Now, I know what you’re thinking It’s kind of late to go swimmin’ But you know your Mama, she’s one of those type of women That do crazy things And if she don’t get her way, she’ll throw a fit Don’t play with Dada’s toy knife, honey, let go of it!
Yes, the lyrics are about wanting to kill his wife, and about his feelings at the time.
But neither of those things is wrong. You’re allowed to want to do those things, the important part is what you actually do. Such as writing a song about it instead. The entire point of art, or at least one of them, is to take these strong, raw emotions and do something with them besides the strong, raw thing you truly want to. These violent lyrics don’t mean he believes murder is right or others should murder. If he thought that, he’d probably have murdered his wife, instead of writing a fantasy, a fiction, about it.
Now, we can make an argument that using Hailey in the song is a bit off, sure. That is not, and has never been, your argument however.
