I've been in the middle of a Pearl Jam obsession for the longest time now. I think some of their songs have probably given me some of the deepest lyrics possible. And the best bit is that all the thoughts come, not in flowery verses, but a very conversational style. Its as if Vedder's penning his life down. Of course, I'm not of the opinion that this is a singular phenomenon. It just happens to be one of the best I have encountered.
So, I was watching this episode of 'Storytellers' with Pearl Jam the other day and something that was shared before 'Alive' (One of my favourite songs) struck me and brought about the importance of the other perspective. So this is the story of 'Alive' as shared by Eddie Vedder himself.
The song begins with,
"Son, she said, have I got a little story for you
What you thought was your daddy was nothin but a...
While you were sittin home alone at age thirteen
Your real daddy was dyin, sorry you didnt see him, but I'm glad we talked..."
This is in fact, as was mentioned, the story of Eddie Vedder. He came to know that his 'father' wasn't really his dad. When he sings "I'm still Alive" later in the song, he means it as a curse. As a question to the reason for his existence. While his father's gone, he's still alive and what can he do about it?
Come to think of it, how many times when we've sung the chorus of this song, we've sung it as a celebration of being alive. We've forgotten the rest of the lyrics and put all our life's force into crying out loud, "I'm still Alive!" and meaning it with every syllable that defines that phrase. Its a funny matter that when the songwriter wrote it, he wrote those words for entirely different, if not diametrically opposite, a purpose altogether.
Comes down to perspective doesn't it? Interpreting any piece of information, come to think of it, is subject to how the perceiver perceives it. On a larger scale, in fact, perspective is what changes the world, for most of whats wrong or right with the world is a matter of perspective.
Religion, in fact, has probably the biggest pieces of poetry there are to be interpreted. And to some level thats probably what causes the problem. A billion possible interpretations and no yardstick to define which one is right or wrong, since the problem at hand is open-ended anyway. What causes the trouble of course, is not the 'right' or 'wrong' interpretation of this piece of poetry (for there is none) but the mutual incompatibility of perspectives.
Otherwise as Vedder said, "When people started singing the chorus as a celebration, the curse was lifted!"
10 comments:
..."What causes the trouble of course, is not the 'right' or 'wrong' interpretation of this piece of poetry (for there is none) but the mutual incompatibility of perspectives."...
Probably a matter of perspective again, but often the cause of a lot of trouble is thinking and believing that the perspectives are mutually incompatible. They are compatible, or atleast not incompatible if you look at the context, the time and place and the need..or if u just think of religion as the means to an end and not an end in itself..
".. as Vedder said, "When people started singing the chorus as a celebration, the curse was lifted!"
Good point there. However, in certain situations where each side is uncompromisingly stuck to its own view, the differences are irreconciliable.
For example if one side sees and wants burqa, the other side jeans, want their perspective enforced,there's no way you'll go around getting both sides happy.
And by the way when Vedder says that the curse got lifted, he didn't really see the perspectives as compatible. He accepted the other perspective. Thats a compromise. Now whether or not a compromise is right or wrong, is a separate matter.
true. accepted.
but if each side refuses to see the other, it doesn't mean there isn't another side. because two parties don't want to reach a compromise doesn't mean a compromise cannot be reached (or rather, could not have been reached)
my point being:different religions by themselves are not irreconcilable. it is the believers/proponents/ppl like u and me who make it seem like it is.we can interpret religion as the greatest unifying force..if we want to.if we choose to.and just because we choose not to, has got not nothing to do with religion per say.
I like the optimism you display, and I'm not being sarcastic here. Neither am I propagating any view really. All I'm saying is this, Person A interprets somethings as Interpretation A and Person B has Interpretation B. All I'm saying is when the bent of mind is a certain way, these two people can have completely irreconciliable interpretations, and I'm making the assumption that both are in fact interpreting in the same context. Now, if one of them, or both for that matter can accommodate each other's views (Not believing it, but tolerating it) is when a compromise can be reached. The point I'm trying to make is, while it is possible to tolerate someone's views (and its great because religious tolerance is great), it is impossible for both of them to hold both views. That is what I mean by being irreconciliable. And what I go on to say of course, is that in most cases if One believes he is right, there is an imposition of view. For example, just because a Muslim is tolerant of a Hindu, he won't become a Pagan polytheist because his religion does not permit it.
So while I'm all for religious tolerance and I promote it with my heart and I'm completely on your side with that, I hope you clearly understand what I'm saying. Thanks for the discussion though!
In fact, as an after-thought, take the fight between the conservative and the liberal?
i promise this is my last comment!
i might seem to be jumping from one point to the next. but is asserting 'correctness' that important? if we can be tolerant-if the two can coexist, isn't that good enough? and speaking of religion specifically, can we deny that the motivation of all religions is the same? so can we not be tolerant of differnt ways of getting to that same end result?
I never spoke about whether WE CAN be tolerant or not. Its more about whether en masse WE ARE tolerant or not! Of course its a great thing to try and be tolerant!
Hey I don't quite think Vedder was compromising when his song was misinterpreted(or reinterpreted should I say)...at a certain level ,he was glad,because when he says,''the curse was lifted'',you just know he wasn't compromsing at all!
PS: Very nice piece of writing though...:)
well what I mean by compromise is that he dropped his view that it was a curse... i.e dropped his interpretation.
Post a Comment