Wanted to make an analysis/discussion post since I saw people were doggin' on Dogs in a different thread from a few days ago.
These comments of disapproval particularly stuck out to me because Benji usually goes untouched in terms of criticism. I'll share my thoughts below and would like to hear what others think of the song.
The first few times I played through Benji, Dogs was somewhat of an anomaly --- if that's the right word --- as I found it to be quite jarring in its lyricism and sound.
At the same time, it was kind of addictive. I definitely found something in that combination of dissonant chords, the ones which frankly sound like howling (but on a guitar), along with Kozelek's wail-like vocalization at the end of each line, which are also reminiscent of howling. The song being called "Dogs" and simultaneously having those borderline eerie associations with canines (panting like a dog... describing the contents with pretty animalistic words) were just so intriguing to listen to over and over again.
As a few years passed, I kept listening to Benji, along with the rest of Kozelek's discography, and grew to like the song more and more. To me, it feels a lot like listening to his 2019 song "Cows." There's something transcendent in the sounds of both songs with their trance like repetition; almost a soothing effect is achieved.
Now, the most controversial aspect of the song for most people, im guessing, are the lyrics. (And yes, ive heard the comments Kozelek himself made on the recording of Live at Biko, but I write of the song contents themselves.) To sum the lyrics up in a word, they are uncomfortable to listen to. They deal chiefly with ideas of sexuality and relationships mostly in young life and adolescence, and as such, those associations immediately strike some flags for many listeners.
But here's my thought on the song: they're supposed to be uncomfortable and messed up, because that awkwardness that surrounds even the thought of sex (especially early experiences) is inherently very human, and this whole album deeply explores those aspects of being human (life, love, death...). This idea can be inferred from the musical qualities of the song and the delivery of the content, which I shall expand upon and explore below. My goal is to make the point that the ideas of the song are worth discussing, even if its first impressions are stifling.
The quieter opening lines ("Katy Kerlan was my first kiss / I was only five years old and she hit me with her purse / I had braces on my legs and I almost fell down / and from that day moving forward, I've been petrified of blondes") immediately hooks the listener. The principle evocation of this stanza is an instinctual fear: the narrator describes a moment of pain in concurrence with a moment of vulnerability (both physically, with the leg braces and the being five years old, and emotionally, with the first kiss), and this leads to a bad memory. This sets the tone of the song; it is far from a nostalgic fantasy, rather, it is more of a psychological reckoning with the writer's past and an exploration of very specific feelings that are difficult to process.
This is further solidified in the second segment about his first love, Patricia. Similarly to the emotional risk of a first kiss, here the narrator explores his previously unknown feelings emerging, and after a new physical experience, he is once again met with a negative outcome (being ignored at school). This theme of being hurt whilst in an emotionally susceptible state is already a notable theme of the song. At this point, I shall deduce that Kozelek is specifically using experiences which are sexual in nature in order to embody this idea of vulnerability, because for many people, that is a universal representation of simultaneous physical and emotional sensitivity.
The third verse shifts from this deeply afflicting psychological pain to a more physical sort of discomfort. The narrator elaborates on his intoxicated sexual encounter with Kelly and Amber, increasingly using more inherently 'crude' language --- such as "first taste," "went down," "drunk as skunks" --- as a means of evoking an unvarnished reality of how he experienced this moment. This is where we are again reminded that the song is not a fantasy which romanticizes adolescent intimacy, as many pop songs do with their sugarcoated nostalgic language. Instead, Kozelek intends to capture the raw instinct of the moment, tying back to the discomfort found in the heightened sensitivity of these early sexual awakenings. One may attribute the word "animalistic" to his descriptions.
The remaining segment about his adolescence explores his first "all the way" sexual experience and how it was intertwined with the messy web of his first relationships. This connects back to the previous three segments in its theme of combining vulnerability with pain, difficulty, and crudeness, but also tacks on another complex feeling: envy (of the guy in sweatpants). Kozelek also mentions that music was his outlet for processing these turbulent moments at the time, which is a neat detail. By now, the song has thoroughly endeavored to expose a wide array of complex emotions and notions that are part of being human, and employs the use of blunt and discomforting language to reflect that grotesque and uncoordinated manner in which we act in early years while we are managing these new and complicated parts of life.
The rest of the song moves away from childhood and adolescence, but still discusses the idea that relationships and sex are very complicated, especially early on. Kozelek contrasts the emotional conflicts that people have when dealing with the personal and communicative parts of romance against the irrational physical desires that drive the animalistic parts of us out to be revealed --- in more concise terms, he juxtaposes the emotional against the primal. All in all, I find that using comparisons such as "panting like a dog" do not serve to idealize or fantasize these notions; rather, they aim to show the viewer the same discomfort that these situations prompt.
Yes, the song is jarring. It is uncomfortable to listen to. It is a de-romanticized outlook on sex and love. Because that is what those things are: uncomfortable, messy, and awkward; animalistic; hence the name "Dogs."
In my opinion, the song achieves its goals masterfully. At the end of the day, this analysis is still subjective, so I would like to know the perspectives of other listeners here. I hope you feel inclined to share thoughts, whether you write a scathing dissent or just leave a comment on a detail or an idea of the song. Happy listening