Since OP wrote "
all feedback welcome", I've expanded my earlier comments.
Please note - this
isn't a criticism against the beliefs in the song. I'm not trying to
evaluate your beliefs, or even suggest any belief is right or wrong.
Rather, it's to explain what
I heard in the song, and what
I thought you were trying to say, and if
I thought it was effective.
Those are a lot of assumptions! Choose to use or not use the feedback however you see fit. Since you literally just posted "I like my song as it is", feel free not to respond at all. Please don't respond point by point, because I wrote too much, and life is short!
In "Christmas", the narrator hears the words of John Lennon asking what was done
with his year, and observes that with His
two thousand years, God has stayed silent, failing to listen to the cries of children, or even to the words of His own Son. The narrator suggests that God
"Imagine a world where no child must die", invoking Lennon's "Imagine", although Lennon didn't restrict this dream to only children.
Unlike "Happy Xmas" or "Grown Up Christmas List", which are generic, the narrator uses Christian language like "
My Lord", "
the Christ" and "
two thousand years". All these invoke a
specific, Christian version of God.
I believe this is intentional, as it is a device to target Christians as the audience. As in "
See? I'm speaking your language!"
This assumption may be flawed - the OP may just be presenting some random thoughts - but I generally assume that there's
intent behind lyrical decisions. And then I try to guess what that intent is, even though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
If I take the song
literally, the narrator is rebuking God for failing to care for all children.
If I take the song
metaphorically, the narrator is using God as a proxy to rebuke Christians for failing to care for children.
Although the narrator uses Christian language, there are hints they don't
actually believe in the God they are addressing ("
If you're here..."), so I suspect
metaphor is the intended reading. Using God as a proxy, the narrator appears to address the disparity between Christian
imagery of "
Christ holds [children] close in his arms" with the reality of a people who don't "
care to love [children]".
This mashup with Lennon and Christianity feels - to
my ears - strained. For example:
Good morning, My Lord. It is Christmas,
a chance to start anew it would seem.
This is obviously a reference to "Happy Xmas". But most Christians see the
Lenten season, not Advent and Christmas, as a season for starting again. This line is
clever, but feels out of place.
Under either reading, the narrator holds God to the standards of
Lennon's lyrics. In "Imagine",
John Lennon's describes a world with "
no religion", "
no heaven" and "
no hell", and "
all the people/Livin' life in peace".
I
imagine that the informed listener would be aware of both Lennon's songs
and Scripture. (See what I did there?
).
Although the narrator references "the Christ", he doesn't reference any
teachings of the Christ. Instead, he argues that since the Christ was once "
a child", "
your Son" and "
born in strange lands", God should have empathy for children and so "
listen to their lonely cries".
This is
emotionally compelling, and super-clever. But anyone following the Infancy Narrative a bit further will run into Luke's
Slaughter of the Innocents, and (spoiler alert) the death of the Christ
on a cross, in obedience of his Father. Plus, there's the bit where in the Gospels, the Christ says peace in this world
not happening prior to the End Times. Christians should still
strive for peace, but not be surprised when it doesn't happen.
These are pretty core tennants, so I assume that most Christian listeners are going to be as aware of these things as they are of Lennon's lyrics. Then again, the "
Hare Krishna" lyric didn't stop Christians from singing "My Sweet Lord", so I could be wrong.
I say this not to argue theology - even more pointless than arguing art - but to suggest that this particular narrative is fraught with issues, where your listener goes down some mental rabbit hole and loses the plot. (Case in point, Polkasound and myself).
So What?
Well, I
still think it's a heartfelt song.
And I
also think it's really well constructed. For example, you've introduced the John Lennon elements into the song well to support your theme. You've used a number of strong parallels for your arguments. You've created a strong appeal to emotion in the song. You use the conversation with God as a proxy to argue your case directly to the listener.
These are all solid elements of craft, so kudos to you. (You may rightfully decide this is the only useful thing I wrote).
But - IMHO - the problem is that is uses
God as a framing device, instead of speaking
to the listener. When the narrator says:
Good morning, my Lord. It is Christmas.
Imagine a world where no child must die.
For now, this is still but a dream.
For now, this is still but a dream.
they don't
really think that God is going to make the world ponies and rainbows, do they?
John Lennon just straight up said what he was thinking,
without any narrative device. And I think the song could be equally effective doing just that (apologies for mangling your lyrics):
It's Christmas morning
Please listen to the children's lonely cries
Help to care to love them and
Wipe the tears from their eyes.
Good morning, it is Christmas,
Dead of winter, but forest is green
Imagine a world where no child must die.
For now, this is still but a dream.
Join us, and make this more than a dream.
Sure, it's a
lot less clever.
It gets rid of the whole "
Good morning my Lord" that is used to start off verses, but by the end, I think that just gets in the way.
But again -
it matters what your goal is.
Well,
that was much longer than I intended it to be.
. Hello, everyone ... can't wait to delve in and listen to as many songs as possible.
