With American Idol over until January, I'm going through a little withdrawal. To help get me through it, I've been listening to my Elliott Yamin mp3s. My new favorite is Elliott's finale night duet with Mary J. Blige. The two of them sing U2's "One". And while the performance makes me think Elliott was robbed, it also reminds me of how much I love that song.

While there are a lot of theories about what "One" is really about, the idea I like that best is that at least part of the song is about the band itself. If that's true, then I think these are nearly perfect lyrics:

We're one
but we're not the same
we get to
carry each other

In Bono's hands, the song is like a plea. He's asking that we live up to this ideal of love. In cover versions, however, the meaning of the song changes drastically. Mary J. Blige sings it like it's another "he done me wrong" song. She's defiant. Johnny Cash, on the other hand, sings it with the wisdom of someone who's been around the block a few times. He's had real love and he's not going to worry so much about other people not accepting him. What does he care? He's frickin' Johnny Cash. With "One" the song is in the hands of the singer and that makes me like it even more.

My question is this: is a work of art greater when it's open for interpretation (like "One") or is it greater when an artist creates something that communicates a universal truth? I can arguments for each. Art that makes you wonder what it's really about draws you and makes you think. But art that expresses a singular idea is probably more powerful. I don't know which one I prefer. I think my answer is probably "it depends". I'd love to hear what other people think.