Quotes About Interpretation

I see through my eyes; the camera is just a machine to record it for me.

I was literally told for 'The Show Goes On' that I shouldn't rap too deep. I shouldn't be too lyrical. It just needs to be something easy on the eyes. Like a record company telling Picasso that we don't need these abstract interpretations of life, where people have to sit down and look at it and break it down.

Legends are material to be moulded, and not facts to be recorded.

I like the old days when, if I wrote a song and I recorded it, it didn't mean somebody else couldn't record it.

Japanese Breakfast has recorded a beautiful, ethereal reimagining of 'Head Over Heels.'

I've only recorded my own songs. I don't consider myself a great singer, so I wouldn't be comfortable interpreting other people's songs.

It's almost like, it's often the bad recording quality of things which makes them interesting.

A recording of a performance is a recording of a performance. It's not the performance.

When you're recording classic songs, you've got to kind of make them your own, and you can't always worry about what people are going to think.

If I'm recording a song, and it's kind of fuzzed out, but I've got this super candy melody, I feel nothing but freedom that I can just sing over the top, and it will be appreciated. It won't be like, 'What is he doing?'

For me, it's always just about playing the song and recording it and giving it what it needs as a song.

All the Public Enemy albums, I knew what records they were sampling but was like, 'How'd they construct it like this?!'

All of my style came from listening to records.

There have been many times when I thought I was having a logical discussion with a woman, and then I'm left sitting alone, confused, trying to recount how it went down.

Even when he transposes Roald Dahl's 'Fantastic Mr. Fox,' he injects so much of his own personality and his own world that it becomes a Wes Anderson story, and you forget that Roald Dahl is behind the story. That's the proof of great directors to be able to digest and recreate sometimes a classic.

I see the world in rectangles. If I am talking to someone, I find myself analysing their face, working out how to recreate it in bricks.

It bothers me when musicians listen to music from the '60s and try and recreate it. Those people weren't trying to recreate music from the '20s. Why do it?

Initially, it would bother me when filmmakers, script writers, dialogue writers and choreographers tried to recreate a bit of my dad though me.

If I decide to make a coat red in the show, it's not just red, I think: is it communist red? Is it cherry cordial? Is it ruby red? Or is it apple red? Or the big red balloon red?

I definitely associate music with color. For example, my first record has a red cover but it is totally green and blue to me.

Ask yourself why a red carpet is red. It could be any colour.

In the past I have declined to comment on my own work: because, it seems to me, a poem is what it is; because a poem is itself a definition, and to try to redefine it is to be apt to falsify it; and because the author is the person least able to consider his work objectively.

I'm constantly working on these edges of photography, either to employ so much information or reduce information to the point of collapse.

Cliched characters are cliches because they're people being described by people who are on the outside. If you take two sentences from anybody and reduce them to just that, that's what you're going to get.