Ok, Michael. I think I hear your point. You want the position of the critic made clear beforehand by the writer setting up his needs prior to the subtexts, so that the writer by stating his/her intentions doesn't establish a defensive discussion on who is right about what and why?

I agree with that to some point, depending on the participants, as one can certainly initiate a defensive discussion by expecting too much of each other. If the whe writer explains the lyric after the fact, without setting the dialogue up properly beforehand, it can seem disrespectful to the critic, making the critic look bad and not displaying any will to consider the suggestions made.

This makes it an etical issue, I guess, if we think of it in relation to writer-critic relationships in our feedback forums here at JPF. So I'd agree that the better the discipline and the dialogical skills of the writer, the better the feedback experience overall.

I'd let it rest there, as I think this is a good point, Michael.

I love your obervation that abstract lyrics are interactive lyrics. I think of it in open and closed terms, like the open lyric is the one where the listeners are to fill the meaning in the blanks, and the closed lyric is the one where the meaning is guided more closely with concrete examples. The open lyric type then is more demanding at first glance, and you can more easy relax and just feel entertained by the closed one.

Allthough things are not all that simple, as the human brain fill in blanks all the time, even with closed type of songs (country is a genre that rely on redundant texts), as we still need to relate the particular text elements to our personal life experience. A little different with functional songs, but this is why you never really know what chatches on, I guess.

If we go into the craft dimension of these issues, the author Sheila Davies has put a lot of thought into her brilliant formula for making songs universal. It is from her brilliant book "The craft of lyric writing" p.102 stating:
You go from the personal to the general to the particular = universal.

Just a must read for everyone interested in these issues, who haven't already read it.

Another issue is how to deploy it in every work, thats hard work! But I guess, attainable. Another discussion is if it desireable, though. I think it is an absolute in country to aim for redundant universal lyrics, in Davies sense, but universal as you point out Michael also could mean abstract. And I guess this goes for a lot of pop/ rock and other genres.

The question is really about taste: music for the heart or music for the mind? :-)